What Does It Mean to Be a "Christian"?

Does Elton Trueblood's definition of "a Christian" ring true for you?

A Christian is a person who confesses that, amidst the manifold and confusing voices heard in the world, there is one Voice which supremely wins his full assent, uniting all his powers, intellectual and emotional, into a single pattern of self-giving. That Voice is Jesus Christ. A Christian not only believes that He was; he believes in Him with all his heart and strength and mind. Christ appears to the Christian as the one stable point or fulcrum in all the relativities of history (The Company of the Committed, 23).

You Can't Tell a Book by Its Cover

We have a number of sayings that largely mean the same thing: “You can’t judge a book by its cover.” “Things aren’t always as they seem to be.” “Appearances can be deceiving.” They all came to mind this week.

On Monday Paul and I decided to hike the waterfalls along the Gorge’s scenic highway. That’s how I found myself driving east on I-84 while listening to “Death Cab for Cutie” tunes. Perhaps you’ve never heard of them. I hadn’t until a few years ago when my wife and I were enjoying a couple of days in Seattle. They were playing at a theater adjacent to our hotel, but we couldn’t tell if “Death Cab for Cutie” was the name of a weird play, a rock band, or something else completely unfamiliar to us. Once I learned they were a group, I assumed they were a punk or grunge band, in other words, a group in which I would have no interest. As it turns out, though, they are an alternative “indie” band, and I like many of their songs. You can’t judge a book by its cover or a band by its name.

It was a beautiful day for hiking and taking pictures, but just before we got to Bridal Veil Falls, some emergency vehicles passed us. We eventually talked to a couple of the EMTs and learned that an 18-year old hiker was killed when he fell 150 feet from near the Angels Rest trail. No one seemed to know whether he had slipped or whether a gust of wind might have knocked him off balance. What was certain was that he ventured too close to the cliff’s edge. But it's understandable. Enjoying the glorious day, he must have felt safe in the company of his friends, and I’m sure he felt he wasn’t taking any unnecessary risks, but things aren’t always as they seem.

I can't get that young man and his family out of my mind, but, in truth, isn’t that the way life is? We can be teetering on the edge of disaster without even knowing it. When my sister-in-law turned forty, she was in great physical condition. Or at least she thought so—we all thought so—until she was diagnosed with a life-threatening form of colon cancer. How could she feel that good and be that ill? Appearances can be deceiving, can’t they?

That’s one of the problems I have with “do-it-yourself” religion. It’s too easy to get things wrong when we’re just relying on our personal thoughts and feelings. I hear people say that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you’re sincere, but an 18-year old hiker sincerely believed that he was in no danger until it was too late. Personally, I need a Guide who can let me know if I’m wandering too far from the trail. I need Someone to challenge me when I too quickly make up my mind, when I judge a band by its name rather than its music. Or when I confuse my feelings with life's realities.

And that’s what I love about Jesus. He reminds me that I can’t judge a book by its cover, that things aren’t always as they seem to be, and that appearances can be deceiving. He constantly challenges my blind spots and prejudices and summons me to follow Him in a life of purpose and beauty. After all, didn’t he say, “I came that you might have life and have it in abundance”?

Still Thinking About "Ideal" Families

In my two previous posts about "families" (May 26 and June 3), I explored some of our ideas about "ideal" families -- traditional families -- and how Jesus' explicit teaching (Mt. 12:46-50; Lk. 14:26) challenges many of our assumptions.

I am convinced that much of what we think about families has come from our culture. I grew up with sitcoms like "Father Knows Best," "The Donna Reed Show," and "Ozzie and Harriet." This is what families were supposed to look like -- white, suburban, and intact (a mom and a dad plus two and a half kids and a family dog). This was the ideal I saw on television, and this was the ideal that was reinforced at church. However, I think evangelical Christians basically "baptized" this cultural ideal by referencing some biblical prooftexts to support what we assumed.

One example of this is evident in our perspective on adoption. Basically, adoption was seen as "Plan B" for a Christian family. In other words, Plan A -- "God's ideal"-- was for a husband and a wife to conceive and become parents to their own biological child(ren). However, if for some reason they were unable to do this, then it was okay for them to adopt (Plan B). And, until recently, it was understood that these parents should only adopt children of their own race. So, according to this viewpoint, adoption was not "ideal," even though it was "acceptable" in certain situations.

But that was a cultural, not a biblical, ideal. The ideal for marriages is found in Genesis 2:24. Jesus quoted it as did the Apostle Paul. It says: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (NIV). Think about it: marriage is itself a form of adoption! A man and a woman leave their biological families and form a new family that is not based on bloodties.

And what does the genealogy that begins Matthew's gospel imply? "An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah..." For 15 verses fathers and sons are listed, and so we expect the climax to read "and Joseph the father of Jesus." But instead the pattern abruptly changes to: "And Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born." The implication is obvious. Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. The genealogy explains how Jesus, who had no human father, could be considered the "son of David." Here's how: Joseph claimed Jesus as his own, named him, and "grafted" him into the lineage of David.

Jesus is the fulfillment of God's promise when God adopted David as his son (2 Sam. 7:14). Do you see how Jesus' birth and teachings challenge our notions of an "ideal family"? The Apostle Paul also writes about how we are "adopted" into God's family (Rom. 8:23, for instance). Here is what Diana Garland has written about this:

Indeed, the adoption of Jesus by Joseph points to the good news that Jesus will develop later in his teachings (Mt. 12:46-50): from this point forward, no one must be without family because wombs are barren, marriages are broken or never formed, or loved ones die. The human experiences of conception, birth, and marriage are transformed by the in-breaking Spirit of God, reforming family . . . .The adoptive family has become the ideal, the model, the witness that there are no limits to God's ability to create goodness, not even the limits of biology. Even families formed by biological links, when transformed by this good news, become adoptive families, choosing and covenanting with one another by giving themselves to following Christ" (Family Ministry, 307, 320).

What do you think God's "ideal" family looks like?

"Ideal" Families

Most of our ideas and ideals about "family" start with the notion of "biological kinship." Typically our ideal includes a father and a mother and a child or children.

This "traditional" type of family has many strengths. Although we now widely accept "blended" families, studies have shown that the #1 cause of child poverty is parental separation and/or divorce. Also, step-parents are much more likely to abuse children who are not biologically related to them than they will their own children. In fact, studies show that children from traditional families are much more likely to succeed in a number of key areas than those who are being raised by a single parent or who are a part of a blended family.

This is why I am concerned about re-definitions of family -- not because I want to force couples to stay in loveless marriages or because I want to impose my standards on others or because I think people shouldn't have a second shot at happiness. Simply put, I believe we have made a great number of changes (no-fault divorce, for example) in a relatively short period of time without considering the effect of those changes on children in particular and society in general. And, when the results have not turned out the way we hoped, we have turned a blind eye and looked for other scapegoats -- "if the public schools were doing a better job" or "if the government offered more assistance," etc.

I'm not saying any of this to judge single parents or blended families. They need our understanding and support. What I am saying is that we would be wise to slow down and study the changes we already have made and see if they are actually working to our benefit. If they are, okay; but if they're not, then what steps can we take to correct them?

The alternative is to continue down the road of redefining family and then hope for the best. Is that really the best we can do?