A Pentecostal dude and his wife questioned whether or not I was a Christian at a wedding I recently attended in Philadelphia.
After telling him that I was the groom's 9th-grade Bible teacher at a (Reformed Presbyterian) Christian school (that his friend actually attended) and after telling him that I've done some teaching at the seminary level, he looked at me dead in the eye and asked, "so are you a Christian?"
Then his wife chimed in to tell a story of a men they've known who knew the Bible in-and-out but weren't Christians. This guy said that some people just studied the Bible for "religious purposes" and didn't actually believe it. While this is true given the fact that this wedding was held at an old-school, dispensational, arminian church (see I'm ecumenical), I was taken back a little.
Am I a Christian? Am I a what? I wish I could tell you that he was joking. I'm not sure I convinced him. This would be like asking me if I liked teaching, or breathing, or french fries, or something like that.
There are so many mean things I thought about saying to him later because of his church background (which he made a point to tell me) but my only response was, "yes."
Posted by anthony at July 10, 2007 11:56 AM | TrackBackOh come on, tell the rest of the story! There seems to be a lot more to it. I wonder what they consider "proof" considering how casually they passed off your explanation.
I have recently been amazed at how some people define "Christian," in both directions.
Posted by: Brad at July 10, 2007 05:55 PMThose 3 letters ,y-e-s, hold more depth than that couple would probably be able to grasp. It was the perfect answer.
Posted by: t.smith at July 10, 2007 08:22 PMI don't understand why you are so frustrated about this situation. Are you suggesting that people should simply assume that you are a Christian because you have taught at a Christian High School and Seminary?
I have found it somewhat foolish to assume that the person sitting next to me in church is a Christian...even though he is associating himself with a Christian activity.
Posted by: Michael at July 10, 2007 09:53 PMI think t.smith nailed it on the head. I bet these folks, coming from their Pentecostal background, seriously question anything that smells of higher Christian learning, especially that of college level education. They've probably experienced some horrible liberalism somewhere along the line and just connect that with ANY teacher at the Seminary or even High School level, so when you said you teach at such-and-such (Covenant) seminary, the first thing they reacted with in their minds was *LIBERAL!* So, these are some people that most likely think it's all about following Jesus and that doctrine is bad, bad, baaaaad. But you know this already, I'm sure.
And Michael also has a great point. They may have just been honestly curious.
Posted by: Tyler at July 11, 2007 12:34 AMMichael,
Actually, I believe we should assume that the person sitting next to us in church is a Christian, unless we have explicit evidence that he is not yet a Christian, such as if he said, "No, I am not yet a Christian. I am just checking things out."
Worship (in a church that preaches Christ) is not "a Christian activity," it is being a Christian. To whom are most of the letters of the New Testaments addressed? "To the saints..." The Apostles called the whole congregation saints--the equivalent of assuming them to be Christians--even though it is obvious that they simultaneously recognized that, in fact, not everyone in the congregation was a saint. What makes a person a Christian? His testimony? His righteous lifestyle? No, it is his embrace of the covenant promise of God in Christ to make provision for his need of a Savior. Such a person's life may still be rather ugly. Or, a person whose life looks rather pious may not have actually embraced Christ's promise.
The trouble is, this dude didn't even know whether Anthony's life was ugly or pious. Even though those are highly superficial ways to try to determine whether someone is a Christian, he didn't even have those. All he had was Anthony's explicit identification with Christianity. This guy was looking for the criteria in Anthony's life (seemingly a right doctrinal position) that he decided needed to be fulfilled before he would give Anthony the benefit of the doubt of being a Christian. We are not supposed to be suspicious of our brothers and sisters in Christ until they "prove" to us that they meet our standards of Christian commitment.
Posted by: nick at July 11, 2007 12:38 AMI like those type of questions, especially sitting poolside sipping on a Mojito. However you answered him correctly and respectfully. Lastly, I wonder what it meant to him how you answered it. If you were not a believer he would then have assumed... what? The fact that you are does it make him feel safer or happier or what exactly. Lastly maybe he was just curious what your deal was.
BTW, at Acton I wasnt considered a "real" believer by a few Catholic attendees and was even recruited to convert. Interesting my friend :)
"Actually, I believe we should assume that the person sitting next to us in church is a Christian, unless we have explicit evidence that he is not yet a Christian, such as if he said, "No, I am not yet a Christian. I am just checking things out.""
HGonestly, it should be just the opposite. If they are a Christian, the misidentification probably won't bother them in the least. But the flipside of this (as you suggest) could cause a very akward or uncomfortable situation for the non-Christian.
Posted by: Brad at July 12, 2007 08:23 AM"I wonder what they consider "proof" considering how casually they passed off your explanation."
I would guess an immediate desire to speak of your "second blessing" of tongues, or mention of something God "told" you recently, rather than actual actions and life-decisions related to your path of faith. Just a guess.
Posted by: dramaturge at July 12, 2007 01:48 PM