Why do many evangelical protestants not describe themselves as "protestants"

[SteveVH]

Flame,

I asked for an explanation of what it is you and Nicole say that the Church fails to promote…Conversion of the Heart.

I asked you to provide me the source, since Nicole said it was in the Cathechism and I asked you to find it since you mention it as well.

There is no agreement or disagreement. I asked a question.

Can you answer this question?

How about if I just give it and then you two can go on to something else?

“Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed…it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace…accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness of heart….Conversion is first of all a work of the grace of God who makes our hearts return to him: “Restore us to thyself, O Lord, that we may be restored!” …It is in discovering the greatness of God’s love that our heart is shaken by the horror and weight of sin and begins to fear offending God by sin and being separated from him. The human heart is converted by looking upon him whom our sins have pierced: Let us fix our eyes on Christ’s blood and understand how precious it is to his Father, for, poured out for our salvation it has brought to the whole world the grace of repentance.” (CCC, 1432).

 

[mark_a]

Evangelicalism is a pan-denominational canopy. It’s not so much a style as a particular way of reading the Bible and a particular understanding what it means to be a Christian. There are many styles that evangelicals utilize.

Thank you for another great explanation, and for your time and thoughtful preparation of your post.

So would it be correct to say that in (for example) a PCA church on Sunday, one person in the pew might be an evangelical while the person sitting beside him may not be?

Or would it be more likely that one (PCA) congregation is evangelical while another PCA congegation across town is not?

 

[AbideWithMe]

1. your comment about knowing the history of Christian thought and ceasing to be protestant is a fine saying of Bl Cardinal Newman - but it hardly qualifies as something that is always the case. many can be quite knowledgeable in history and remain protestant.
2. I see nothing particularly scandalous in Abide’s comment that she wishes not to fight but to concentrate on Christ. Since we too wish to concentrate on Christ, this all seems to the good. Besides…as I understand it, her comment was within the context of explaining how she understands the evangelical’s desire not to be associated with the term “protestant”.

Coptic–The last sentence of James’s third comment is right as far as the meaning of my post. I was responding to the OP as an Evangelical. I was describing, not prescribing. There’s no imperative language in my post telling other people what they should be doing. You wrote that I said “we should…”(paraphrasing me), but I did not in fact make any “we”( all Christians) “should” (imperative/prescriptive) statements. I was merely describing the fellow Evangelicals I know.

James’ second comment touches on why some Evangelicals have learned to agree to disagree and to work together in spite of differences. Certainly, there’s a time to discuss, present evidence, hear evidence from the other side, and try to persuade others to see things the way you do. I happen to really like “Kum Ba Yah”, but I’m not against Christians respectfully arguing over their differences and trying to come to agreement on matters of doctrine. Doctrine is important. We do need to try to agree. But even after all the discussing, arguing, searching, reading and looking at the evidence, people still don’t all come to the same conclusions.

As James has pointed out in his second comment, there are many who are knowledgeable in history and still remain Protestant. There are expert, extremely knowledgeable, moral, godly Church historians who are Orthodox, Catholic, Mainline Protestant and Evangelical. This is part of what I was talking about in my above paragraph.

When Christians still come to different conclusions over the evidence (whether it’s conclusions about how to interpret history or theology), what then? Do we disfellowship each and refuse to work together? Or can we focus what and Who we have in common? It’s not a matter of lazy, fuzzy religious indifference if we work together. It can be an acknowledgement that we’ve tried to come to the same conclusions but don’t find the evidence compelling enough to preclude differing interpretations. The final answer will come on God’s Judgment Day, and only then will we fully know who is right and who is wrong. Meanwhile, we do our best by faith, and focus on the things —love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself—on which no Christian can disagree.

 

[CopticChristian]

How about if I just give it and then you two can go on to something else?

“Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed…it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace…accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness of heart….Conversion is first of all a work of the grace of God who makes our hearts return to him: “Restore us to thyself, O Lord, that we may be restored!” …It is in discovering the greatness of God’s love that our heart is shaken by the horror and weight of sin and begins to fear offending God by sin and being separated from him. The human heart is converted by looking upon him whom our sins have pierced: Let us fix our eyes on Christ’s blood and understand how precious it is to his Father, for, poured out for our salvation it has brought to the whole world the grace of repentance.” (CCC, 1432).

Steve VH,

Hope Colorado is wonderful…look here though, this is found in the section on Penance and Reconciliation…

PART TWO
THE CELEBRATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERY
SECTION TWO
THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER TWO
THE SACRAMENTS OF HEALING

ARTICLE 4
THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE AND RECONCILIATION

and further you see it is interiour penance…

IV. INTERIOR PENANCE

1430 Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.23

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).24

1432 The human heart is heavy and hardened. God must give man a new heart.25 Conversion is first of all a work of the grace of God who makes our hearts return to him: "Restore us to thyself, O LORD, that we may be restored!"26 God gives us the strength to begin anew. It is in discovering the greatness of God’s love that our heart is shaken by the horror and weight of sin and begins to fear offending God by sin and being separated from him. The human heart is converted by looking upon him whom our sins have pierced:27

Let us fix our eyes on Christ’s blood and understand how precious it is to his Father, for, poured out for our salvation it has brought to the whole world the grace of repentance.
1433 Since Easter, the Holy Spirit has proved "the world wrong about sin,"29 i.e., proved that the world has not believed in him whom the Father has sent. But this same Spirit who brings sin to light is also the Consoler who gives the human heart grace for repentance and conversion.30

Now I am looking at the Catechism of the Council of Trent…and it says this…

“Interior penance consists in turning to God sincerely and from the heart, and in hating and detesting our past transgression, with a firm resolution of amendment of lifte, hoping to obtain pardon throught the mystery of God”

Now the Church has been teaching this, it is our responsibility, and if this is what is to be understood via the Catechism then and now…whose fault is it that we do not understand Conversion of the Heart…The Church can’t force you to read what they teach, they teach and expect you to learn or they would not print it for you to read…

The Church asks you to follow the faith, learn the faith, through ongoing Catechesis…

The Bible says repent=change your mind…pretty clear…and Paul says do not be conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…and it is the work of the Holy Spirit…all agree…

So, has the Church failed, by no means, is it possible that we have failed, well I would hope when someone says that the Church has failed to teach something they take the time to tell me when and how that happened…

The Catechism of the Council of Trent and this Catechism teaches it and the Faith is to be learned not spoon fed…Catechesis with the Baltimore Catechism and Archbishop Carrol turned the USA into a country where the predominant religion is Catholic…through Catechesis…has the Church failed…shall it never be…and it is those that espouse this failure should recognize that they are wrong…

We fail the Church…the Church does not fail us…Amen…

Since the Catechism of the USA is available on Audio, and Catechesis means to echo, in early Catechesis, learning was by hearing and repeating…I recommend the Audio Catechism for about $42.00, I have listened well over a dozen times now and it makes a difference, you can listen and echo and get Catechized because if you believe that the Church has failed to teach anything, more likely than not you failed to make the effort to learn…

 

[flameburns623]

Flame,

I asked for an explanation of what it is you and Nicole say that the Church fails to promote…Conversion of the Heart.

I asked you to provide me the source, since Nicole said it was in the Cathechism and I asked you to find it since you mention it as well.

There is no agreement or disagreement. I asked a question.

Can you answer this question?

NICOL says that the Church fails to teach it.

I said that the Church DOES teach it. I even illustrated many ways the Church does this.

Many thanks to Steve who located the reference you requested.

 

[CopticChristian]

NICOL says that the Church fails to teach it.

I said that the Church DOES teach it. I even illustrated many ways the Church does this.

Many thanks to Steve who located the reference you requested.

Flame,

So if the Church does teach it, and we know that Conversion of the heart is the process whereby your change your inner self…and all of this is a work of God, knowing and understanding what was said…knowing that priests expect you to have an internal conversion, and that work is the work of the Holy Spirit, and knowing that you are responsible to study and know this via the Catechism…

when you go to mass, having been converted, do you need to hear about what has been accomplished or is it possible the homily can be on other issues such as being Charitable for those that have been worked on by the Spirit and seeing who is responsible by veneration of Scripture and Eucharist…

you tell me…

 

[flameburns623]

Flame,

So if the Church does teach it, and we know that Conversion of the heart is the process whereby your change your inner self…and all of this is a work of God, knowing and understanding what was said…knowing that priests expect you to have an internal conversion, and that work is the work of the Holy Spirit, and knowing that you are responsible to study and know this via the Catechism…

when you go to mass, having been converted, do you need to hear about what has been accomplished or is it possible the homily can be on other issues such as being Charitable for those that have been worked on by the Spirit and seeing who is responsible by veneration of Scripture and Eucharist…

you tell me…

Coptic: If I am apprehending your question, and I have no confidence I am so doing, I think the premise is mistaken.

Conversion is a lifelong process, even for those who are fairly consistent in their Christian walk.

Many experience Christianity as a series of peaks, and valleys, and plateaus, as successes and growth spurts, punctuated repeatedly by failures and by times of neglectfulness or inattention.

Many consecrate themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus thinking of this as a commitment to a deeper, fuller prayer life. Or to the Scapular, or whatever. Any of these could represent a period wherein one experiences’conversion of heart’.

But many find, even if they do succeed in achieving that deeper prayer life–that they then need to consecrate their relationships to others to God as well. To be kinder, less sharp tongued, less of a gossip.

If they make some progress in that area, they may find they need to overcome issues regarding some sort of lust or gluttony or consecrate their finances to God more perfectly or whatever.

Each of these represents, in many lives, a renewed conversion of heart.

The Church, as I pointed out to Nicol earlier, does a good job of providing means to achieve such a lifelong process.

What I felt Nicol misses in the RCC is that our leaders are virtually to a man miserable public speakers by contrast with Evangelical pastors. I empathise with Nicol if that is the lack they sense in the Church. But I’ve come to feel this is one of those “can’t have everything” facts of life.

I’d rather have the priesthood and the sacraments than a Billy Graham revival every Sunday.

 

[joe370]

Many of my evangelical protestant friends never refer to themselves as protestants. Most of them were members of Campus Crusade, and even this organization didn’t really refer to itself as protestant, only Christian. I even had one of my best friends ask me “what’s a protestant” (no joke, she never heard of the term which surprised me)

So why do evangelical denominations use only Christian when referring to themselves.Do they want to misinform people that they are the only true christians. Do they have a lot of disregard for their protestant history? Or do they just feel they’ve moved beyond the whole Catholic protestant thing, even if they still are protestant? Anyone who can tell me please help

I doubt that there is one answer to fit all…It is a rather subjective issue, therefore not everyone will provide the same answer, I would think. Many will probably insist that they are not protesting anything; just living their faith to the best of their ability. Those folks are non-Catholics. Then there are those “Christians” who make it a point to attack the Catholic Church, and they would deserve the following moniker: Protestant or anti-Catholic.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic: If I am apprehending your question, and I have no confidence I am so doing, I think the premise is mistaken.

Conversion is a lifelong process, even for those who are fairly consistent in their Christian walk.

Many experience Christianity as a series of peaks, and valleys, and plateaus, as successes and growth spurts, punctuated repeatedly by failures and by times of neglectfulness or inattention.

Many consecrate themselves to the Sacred Heart of Jesus thinking of this as a commitment to a deeper, fuller prayer life. Or to the Scapular, or whatever. Any of these could represent a period wherein one experiences’conversion of heart’.

But many find, even if they do succeed in achieving that deeper prayer life–that they then need to consecrate their relationships to others to God as well. To be kinder, less sharp tongued, less of a gossip.

If they make some progress in that area, they may find they need to overcome issues regarding some sort of lust or gluttony or consecrate their finances to God more perfectly or whatever.

Each of these represents, in many lives, a renewed conversion of heart.

The Church, as I pointed out to Nicol earlier, does a good job of providing means to achieve such a lifelong process.

What I felt Nicol misses in the RCC is that our leaders are virtually to a man miserable public speakers by contrast with Evangelical pastors. I empathise with Nicol if that is the lack they sense in the Church. But I’ve come to feel this is one of those “can’t have everything” facts of life.

I’d rather have the priesthood and the sacraments than a Billy Graham revival every Sunday.

Flame,

We agree. Conversion is a work of the Holy Spirit with our consent. To assent and relinquish our will to God’s will is a necessary component and that happens in time.

In considering the Catechism…

Profession of Faith…we have to know what it is we believe, we study
Sacramental Life, we have to live what we believe and avail ourselves to the Grace through the Sacramental Life,
Life in Christ, we model Christ, use the tools and gifts given, human virtue by our effort are improved and perfected by the Grace of God through the Cardinal Virtues that work with the Theologic virtues and the Gifts of the Spirit to produce Fruits of the Spirit…so that we always strive to be Holy, with help, as God is Holy

and

We constantly ask for help, pray without ceasing…

St. Paul was the

least of the Apostles
least of the Saints
Greatest of sinners

as he manifested his lifelong conversion…and said, as I and the Church say…it is a work of God in you…has the Church failed…no, we fail…but we get up again and again and again…

What value is there in great preaching without Sacramental Grace…without Life in Christ…it is a gong and clanging symbol…caucophany of nothing…

 

[SteveVH]

Steve VH,

Hope Colorado is wonderful…look here though, this is found in the section on Penance and Reconciliation…

and further you see it is interiour penance…

Now I am looking at the Catechism of the Council of Trent…and it says this…

Now the Church has been teaching this, it is our responsibility, and if this is what is to be understood via the Catechism then and now…whose fault is it that we do not understand Conversion of the Heart…The Church can’t force you to read what they teach, they teach and expect you to learn or they would not print it for you to read…

The Church asks you to follow the faith, learn the faith, through ongoing Catechesis…

The Bible says repent=change your mind…pretty clear…and Paul says do not be conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind…and it is the work of the Holy Spirit…all agree…

So, has the Church failed, by no means, is it possible that we have failed, well I would hope when someone says that the Church has failed to teach something they take the time to tell me when and how that happened…

The Catechism of the Council of Trent and this Catechism teaches it and the Faith is to be learned not spoon fed…Catechesis with the Baltimore Catechism and Archbishop Carrol turned the USA into a country where the predominant religion is Catholic…through Catechesis…has the Church failed…shall it never be…and it is those that espouse this failure should recognize that they are wrong…

We fail the Church…the Church does not fail us…Amen…

Since the Catechism of the USA is available on Audio, and Catechesis means to echo, in early Catechesis, learning was by hearing and repeating…I recommend the Audio Catechism for about $42.00, I have listened well over a dozen times now and it makes a difference, you can listen and echo and get Catechized because if you believe that the Church has failed to teach anything, more likely than not you failed to make the effort to learn…

Okay. Just trying to help out.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Thank you for another great explanation, and for your time and thoughtful preparation of your post.

So would it be correct to say that in (for example) a PCA church on Sunday, one person in the pew might be an evangelical while the person sitting beside him may not be?

Or would it be more likely that one (PCA) congregation is evangelical while another PCA congegation across town is not?

That’s a good question. Until Itwin sees your post, I’ll throw in my two cents. I’ve come across both scenarios, but I think it’s most common in Mainline churches which do contain evangelicals to find it’s the whole congregation which is evangelical.

 

[JRKH]

James,

Your lack of surety caused me to point out a few things…

you said this…

jmcrae said this…

Abide said this…

I said this…

Abide said this…

I clarified what Abide posted as this…

You agreed with this and then Abide posted this…

You then discussed use of colors, bolding, and your dislike for same

as well as posting this…

You then stated this…

So, what I see is that there was misunderstanding in my understanding of what I said, an attempt by someone to infer what they think I said and then a belief that I misunderstood Abide and your lack of surety.

So, I will formulate thoughts for you to see what it is I was saying and my concerns with the entire notion, not at all misunderstanding what the words said, however noting my understanding as I see them…

Ok…

This is all beyond my ability to follow or keep straight. So I am bowing out.

Enjoy your conversation with others.

Peace
James

 

[Kirovsakya]

Kirovsakya,

No, this is incorrect. Latins and Orthodox schismed. It is uncharitable as a Catechumen in Orthodoxy to propagate false teaching and label schism as you have.

The Orthodox see Latins as heretics in some quarters and the anathemas have been lifted by the leaders as I recall…so you are out of sych here…

Are you trying to separate yourself into you have the only truth and no one else does, because the Latins seem to say that Orthodox profess Catholic teachings…

What is your purpose in proposing this?

I make no proposal here, only summarize history. In Orthodoxy, catechumens learn, they do not teach. In charity, I did not use the words schism, heretic, or anathema.

The Bishop of Rome instructed priests to distribute the Eucharist to Orthodox Christians in Roman Catholic churches worldwide. Orthodox Christians remain prohibited from receiving the Eucharist from any clergyman professing non-orthodox beliefs.

My purpose? Just to point out that the terms orthodox, catholic, protestant, christian, evangelical, are thrown about so carelessly that their meanings have been degraded. Thank you for adding schism, heretic and anathema to the list.

Sakya.

 

[ltwin]

Thank you for another great explanation, and for your time and thoughtful preparation of your post.

So would it be correct to say that in (for example) a PCA church on Sunday, one person in the pew might be an evangelical while the person sitting beside him may not be?

Well, anything is possible. It’s possible that someone sitting in a PCA church isn’t even Presbyterian.

If you are asking about membership though, since the PCA is a Reformed evangelical body, then anyone professing to adhere to what the PCA believed would be adhering to a form of evangelicalism.

Or would it be more likely that one (PCA) congregation is evangelical while another PCA congegation across town is not?

No. I mean it could happen, but if it there was a non-evangelical PCA congregation, it would probably mean that that congregation was making a big departure from what the PCA stands for.

You have to understand that the PCA was formed from a realignment of Presbyterianism in the US. You had on one level a reaction against the encroachment of liberalism within the Presbyterian mainline and on the other level you had all the regional splits of mainline Presbyterianism left over from the Civil War. So, having formed as an evangelical pushback against the liberal mainline, it would be highly unlikely that the PCA would not be evangelical in any meaningful sense.

Not only is the PCA evangelical in character. It is, in fact, a card carrying evangelical denomination by virtue of its membership in the National Association of Evangelicals.

Now mainline Presbyterianism (the Presbyterian Church USA) is a different story. It’s overwhelmingly liberal, but it was originally evangelical. So, there are still pockets of evangelicalism left in the the PCUSA. Plus the mainlines tend to be tolerant of any belief as long as it doesn’t threaten their liberal shibboleths.

Evangelical denominations are different in this way from mainline Protestants. Where the mainline is widely tolerant of many different beliefs (including heresy at times), evangelical churches tend to insist on conformity to essential Christian doctrine as this is understood by evangelicals.

 

[Izdaari]

I am a former Evangelical who broke with it over its cultural conservatism and socially conservative politics, which I could no longer in good conscience support or even condone. Now I’m a member of two mainline/liberal denominations, Episcopal (TEC) and Lutheran (ELCA).

My church has both affiliations and describes itself as emergent Anglo-Catholic. I personally identify more with the “open evangelical” stream of Anglicanism exemplified by N.T. Wright, but I’m happy with my parish.

I don’t particularly concern myself with identifying as Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox because I think each of those three traditions has some things more right than the other two, and none of them has all of it right. In the end, we are all Christians together, trying to follow our Lord Jesus in the best way we know how.

 

[Porknpie]

as by hearing and repeating…I recommend the Audio Catechism for about $42.00,** I have listened well over a dozen times now** and it makes a difference, you can listen and echo and get Catechized because if you believe that the Church has failed to teach anything, more likely than not you failed to make the effort to learn…

I’m losing ground on Coptic. I need a longer commute. I also find myself hitting rewind to hear parts over again. So I suppose when I finish the first time, I will have listened to it twice.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, anything is possible. It’s possible that someone sitting in a PCA church isn’t even Presbyterian.

If you are asking about membership though, since the PCA is a Reformed evangelical body, then anyone professing to adhere to what the PCA believed would be adhering to a form of evangelicalism.

No. I mean it could happen, but if it there was a non-evangelical PCA congregation, it would probably mean that that congregation was making a big departure from what the PCA stands for.

You have to understand that the PCA was formed from a realignment of Presbyterianism in the US. You had on one level a reaction against the encroachment of liberalism within the Presbyterian mainline and on the other level you had all the regional splits of mainline Presbyterianism left over from the Civil War. So, having formed as an evangelical pushback against the liberal mainline, it would be highly unlikely that the PCA would not be evangelical in any meaningful sense.

Not only is the PCA evangelical in character. It is, in fact, a card carrying evangelical denomination by virtue of its membership in the National Association of Evangelicals.

Now mainline Presbyterianism (the Presbyterian Church USA) is a different story. It’s overwhelmingly liberal, but it was originally evangelical. So, there are still pockets of evangelicalism left in the the PCUSA. Plus the mainlines tend to be tolerant of any belief as long as it doesn’t threaten their liberal shibboleths.

Evangelical denominations are different in this way from mainline Protestants. Where the mainline is widely tolerant of many different beliefs (including heresy at times), evangelical churches tend to insist on conformity to essential Christian doctrine as this is understood by evangelicals.

Itwin,

This is all very interesting and relevant to something. I am more interested in your Protestant perspective.

You found something worth repeating, suggesting that you believe this to be important as a constant reminder for you and others…so help me understand this…

As you think and feel, so you believe, speak and act…this is fact…

You have in your mind thoughts that are imagined or experienced/retrieved through memory…these elements are what cause you to express to the world what it is you think and feel by your speech and actions…there is nothing else we can do…

In other words in our heads…Thinking/Feeling

In the World Speech/Behavior is an indication of the aforementioned…

So with that in mind…

To be something you must profess something, you must live someway, look to be something and of course consider you need help to do it…this is how I see Christianity and I can profess that in more formal terms however…

Stop acting like a Christian and just be one . . .

Acting is behaving…to behave you have to have thoughts, feeling and beliefs…so to say Stop Acting like a Christian makes no sense to me…

To be something means what to you, when considered in contradistinciton to understanding what you think and feel and believe so that as you Speak and act you are acting as you think/feel and believe.

In this context…

How do you think someone just becomes a Christian…from start to finish to complete your paradigm of “being one”

Give me your Protestant perspective…

 

[ltwin]

In this context…

How do you think someone just becomes a Christian…from start to finish to complete your paradigm of “being one”

Give me your Protestant perspective…

“Stop acting like a Christian and just be one” is a catchy phrase that I like because it catches the tension between what people commonly reduce Christianity to and what Christianity actually is. What people reduce it to is acting in our own power to be worthy of the name Christian. We often try in our own power to make ourselves holy, and we can sometimes work hard to craft an image of ourselves as holy, perfect, and just happy Christians. We do this in spite of what we actually are, which is a broken human mess that does not have it all together. If it wasn’t for God’s grace, we would be nothing.

We can be honest about our brokenness and failings and sins. We don’t have to hide who we are under a mask of happy Christianity. We can be honest about the fact that we are sinners and we do have struggles and temptations and fears. We can be vulnerable; we should be vulnerable because it is when we are weak that Christ can be strong for us. In being vulnerable and open, we do two things: 1) eliminate the hypocrisy that so many of the un-churched have come to associate with Christianity and 2) we remove the mask of our own carefully crafted Christian image and people we know actually see the glory of Christ in earthen vessels.

The phrase for me came from the title of a book, Stop Acting Like A Christian, Just Be One, by Christine Caine, a pastor at Hillsong Church. The book description says:

Many of us make great efforts to ACT like a “Christian,” but how many of us actually realize what it means to BE one? Too many times we see faith as an external behavior modification program. If we just stop [fill in the blank], then we’ll be good Christians. Instead, we need to see faith and our witness to those around us stemming from an internal heart transformation, living from the inside out and not the outside in. In Stop Acting Like a Christian, Just Be One, Christine Caine shows how allowing God to change us from the core of our being gives us freedom to stop trying to ACT like a Christian and to just actively BE a Christian. Learn how allowing the Holy Spirit to do His work in us gives us the power to BE witnesses, not to do witnessing. This empowering book will make readers laugh and challenge them about what truly Being a Christian is all about.

 

[CopticChristian]

" What people reduce it to is acting in our own power to be worthy of the name Christian. We often try in our own power to make ourselves holy, and we can sometimes work hard to craft an image of ourselves as holy, perfect, and just happy Christians.
We can be honest about the fact that we are sinners and we do have struggles and temptations and fears.
The phrase for me came from the title of a book, Stop Acting Like A Christian, Just Be One, by Christine Caine, a pastor at Hillsong Church. The book description says:

Itwin,

Thank you for your response. I have posted thoughts that will be relevant, so I repeat them here…

**As you think and feel, so you believe, speak and act…this is fact…

You have in your mind thoughts that are imagined or experienced/retrieved through memory…these elements are what cause you to express to the world what it is you think and feel by your speech and actions…there is nothing else we can do…

In other words in our heads…Thinking/Feeling

In the World Speech/Behavior is an indication of the aforementioned…

So with that in mind…

To be something you must profess something, you must live someway, look to be something and of course consider you need help to do it…this is how I see Christianity and I can profess that in more formal terms however…**

Stop acting like a Christian and just be one" is a catchy phrase that I like because it catches the tension between what people commonly reduce Christianity to and what Christianity actually is.

I was unaware of tension. I will take you at your word. What is poignant is that you state that there is a dichotomy…

What People Reduce Christianity to be…

You spend lots of time on this…

and

What Christianity actually is…

What is it Christianity actually is?

You then say this…

We do this in spite of what we actually are, which is a broken human mess that does not have it all together. If it wasn’t for God’s grace, we would be nothing.

You depart from what something actually is to what we are…

You then say

We can be vulnerable; we should be vulnerable because it is when we are weak that Christ can be strong for us. In being vulnerable and open,

How is it you find Christ? Where is Christ that you see as strong when you are weak? Is it reading a book? Is it in prayer? Is it imagined? Tell me.

You then say

we do two things: 1) eliminate the hypocrisy that so many of the un-churched have come to associate with Christianity and

What does it mean to be churched? What does it mean to be unchurched. Who is the we? Is it all of Christianity?

You then say…

1. we remove the mask of our own carefully crafted Christian image and people we know actually see the glory of Christ in earthen vessels.

I have never heard of anything like this. Are you of the belief that people portray themselves to be something that they are not? If so, how does one portray themselves, if at all? Are you of the belief that people see something based on what is done by themselves and something else seen by others? How is it possible to look across the street and know what that person/earthen vessel is made of without speaking to them?

I do not understand this.

We can be honest about our brokenness and failings and sins. We don’t have to hide who we are under a mask of happy Christianity.

Are you of the belief that people are happy and not truly happy? How do you know this when you meet someone? How is this discerned?

Concerning your source…your pastor

Too many times we see faith as an external behavior modification program.

What is faith as it is described here? How do you believe you get this faith? How is it that faith is being understood by you as you reference this book.

I suppose that this person is saying, if I stop fornicating, committing adultery, etc…then…

If we just stop [fill in the blank], then we’ll be good Christians.

So let me ask you a few questions?

You were Catholic at one time, correct?

Do you believe that there is any point in making deliberate acts toward this purpose in our humanity or to make an effort to be do things in moderation, attempt to discern good, attempt on our own to do well to our neighbor or attempt in our humanity to be moderate in pleasure or is it just a waste of time?

 

[ltwin]

To be something you must profess something, you must live someway, look to be something and of course consider you need help to do it…this is how I see Christianity and I can profess that in more formal terms however…

We will be known by our fruit, and true faith will be accompanied by parallel action. But what we do does not define our Christian life. What defines us as Christians is what Christ has done for us.

I’m sure you’ll agree that people can do a lot of good and can display very good outward behavior all while being inwardly animated by wrong motives. Think Matthew 7:15, “They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

I was unaware of tension. I will take you at your word.

Well, perhaps this is something you personally do not struggle with. I wish I could say the same.

What is poignant is that you state that there is a dichotomy…

What People Reduce Christianity to be…

You spend lots of time on this…

and

What Christianity actually is…

What is it Christianity actually is?

I think most simply to be a Christian is to be an imitator of Christ. But this imitation cannot be something outward that we put on and take off as we please. It has to begin with an inward transformation.

How is it you find Christ? Where is Christ that you see as strong when you are weak? Is it reading a book? Is it in prayer? Is it imagined? Tell me.

If we can avoid sin out of our own strength, then how does that glorify Christ. For example, many people struggle with over consuming alcohol. I, however, have never even drunk alcohol and have no desire to drink let alone get drunk. Does that make me holier and more spiritual because I have never been tempted to intoxication? No of course not, because I can resist through my own will power. Someone is much more Christlike who is strongly tempted to excess, but resists such temptation by the power of Christ within them.

What does it mean to be churched? What does it mean to be unchurched. Who is the we? Is it all of Christianity?

By churched, I mean practicing Christians. By unchurched, I mean lapsed Christians or people who have never been Christian. When I say we, I am speaking about all of the Christian world, because I see hypocrisy as a major problem that all churches face.

I have never heard of anything like this. Are you of the belief that people portray themselves to be something that they are not? If so, how does one portray themselves, if at all? Are you of the belief that people see something based on what is done by themselves and something else seen by others? How is it possible to look across the street and know what that person/earthen vessel is made of without speaking to them?

I do not understand this.

I know that I personally have at times treated my Christianity as a piece of clothing, to put on when its convenient and to take it off when its not. There have been times in my life when I was far from God and content to be so, but I was able to conduct myself in such a away that no one close to me ever doubted the sincerity of my professed devotion to Christ. They were certainly seeing me act like a Christian, but they were not seeing Christ in me.

Are you of the belief that people are happy and not truly happy? How do you know this when you meet someone? How is this discerned?

Again, personally, its easy to pretend to be a happy Christian than to have everyone know what you’re really like.

What is faith as it is described here? How do you believe you get this faith? How is it that faith is being understood by you as you reference this book.

I suppose that this person is saying, if I stop fornicating, committing adultery, etc…then…

So let me ask you a few questions?

You were Catholic at one time, correct?

Nope. Pentecostal all my life. I did attend a Catholic cousin’s wedding once when I was little.

Do you believe that there is any point in making deliberate acts toward this purpose in our humanity or to make an effort to be do things in moderation, attempt to discern good, attempt on our own to do well to our neighbor or attempt in our humanity to be moderate in pleasure or is it just a waste of time?

I think I will quote from Caine’s book, since it is the inspiration behind the phrase:

The crucial component that we need to understand is that imitating Christ begins with developing a strong spiritual core. If we simply try to imitate Christ’s external behavior-being kind, compassionate and merciful without strengthening our spiritual core-then we risk missing out on the very process that makes us Christlike. Invariably, we end up acting like a Christian sometimes, but not truly being a Christian at all times.

Think about Jesus: His actions stemmed from who He was. The doing part flowed naturally from Jesus being authentically Jesus. This being stemmed from His spiritual core. In other words, Jesus did not try to act like anything He was not. Therefore, if we are to be imitators of Christ, we need to stop trying to act like Christians (external actions) and instead focus on being a Christian at our core (internal transformation). When this becomes our focus, we will discover that it’s not difficult to act like a Christian, because we simply will be one. Period.