Letters: A ‘just a Christian’ definition?

In response to the letters of June 14 and June 18, to be “just a Christian” is the most humbling and wonderful relationship there is. It means that one did not question or try to argue the Bible, but that they received the message that all of mankind is separated from the Holy God by both sin nature and sin practice, and are worthy of nothing but eternal separation from God (Romans 5:16-21).

That’s the bad — but true — news, that is not received by the world, who would rather reject the concept of the Creator God and invent a god of their making, one who is not holy and just, and accepts all forms of deviant behavior.

The genuine Christian is one who understands in their heart that it is not a denomination or organization, such as Freemasonry, that strives to “make good men better,” but a relationship made possible through trust only in the death, burial and resurrection of God the Son, that can make a formerly spiritually dead person alive to the one true God.

The most wonderful, motivating event in one’s life is to know that they have been freed from all condemnation forever, as stated in Romans 8:1, and now are free to serve others in humility and thankfulness for what Christ has done in their life.

Sin, or rebellion against God’s will, must be judged, and was at the cross, in our behalf. Whether Old Testament or New, Christians are to proclaim against sin, but love the sinner, as Christ did.

Christians are commanded to judge (show discernment) against sin (John 7:24), even if it is another Christian (1 Corinthians 5:3). Christians know they are sinful beings, saved only by receiving what God has accomplished through God the Son, Jesus Christ in their behalf. And this offer of salvation, reconciliation and new life is made to every person on the Earth (John 3:16).

The sad part is that people will not listen to the simple-but-profound message of salvation from the Bible, and instead choose to invent their own way of making themselves acceptable to God. Good luck with that.

True Christians are ordinary sinful people who have been made new and are called by their heavenly Father to live up to their new position in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). But one must read the Bible and be willing to receive and submit to it. It is the only inerrant, absolute truth that exists.

Ask God to lead you to a Bible-believing person and become their friend.

Tom McLaughlin

Construction coordinator

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by DMJ - 02/07/2012

Nice sermon. However, it only makes sense if you believe that god is real, which many don't. In that context, this whole spiel seems silly and, frankly, a little creepy. I really wish people would keep their religion to themselves. The world would be a lot better.

2) Comment by nimby? - 01/07/2012

RationalOne , according to peoples histories ignored by biblical scholars someone resembling J C walked other parts of the world . on this continent the son who walked with the twelve spent some time among the people . he was not a maker of rules as the bible suggests but was a teacher , philosopher , healer , friend , not something to be frightened of . in his eyes all were equal , no matter what ....

3) Comment by RationalOne - 01/07/2012

Oh, lordy. Here we go again. Tom, a true Christian follows the teachings of the bible. All of them, not just certain parts. If you're a true Christian, you mustn't eat shellfish or anything bloody. Kill your kids for not honoring you. Don't wear clothes with mixed fabric. Kill people for adultery, and that includes divorced people who remarry, according to your pal, JC. Chop off your body parts if they cause you to sin. Hate your family to follow JC. Give up everything to follow JC. And there are many, many more rules. Do you obey all these? And for the folks who continue to think our country was founded as a Christian nation, simply read the Treaty of Tripoli.

4) Comment by krl777 - 01/07/2012

Triple, it's a pleasure to have a civil discussion with somebody who doesn't share my views. That's my best hope for learning something. No doubt we'll clash on something or other in the future, but no matter -- I enjoy the exchange. Best wishes.

5) Comment by Triple - 01/07/2012

krl777,  Civil discourse is all to rare on this media.  Politics and religion can bring out the worst in our fellow posters, anonymousness breeds malice in many, much like rage on our congested road ways.  Anyway, enjoyed our discussion, suspect we will be subject to letters related to SCOTUS and healthcare in the coming days.  We can only hope!   Regards.

6) Comment by krl777 - 01/07/2012

Triple, I am not a believer in any religion, but I appreciate the questions and problems they address. The view of Jesus which I sketched is one held by many believers, that is, people who believe there is a God and that Jesus Christ is His son. But it is also a viable view for people like me who think there was a historical person, Jesus, represented through four different perspectives in the Gospels, who said things along the lines of what is attributed to him there, even if we have no belief regarding the theological context. I think that you picked up on the fact that I was not writing with the personal commitment of a believer, which is why my remarks seemed to you to be something more like historical commentary. In fact, though, I was representing the views of believers I know. Many full-fledged believing Christians believe that Jesus Christ (as he is to them) did not intend to found anything like an empire, but rather, to push the reset button on the relationship of Jews to their God, in order to get away from the corrupt establishment of religion in their day. Many modern Christians view this as a template for their own belief, that glory comes through the practice of their own faith, not through participation in a religious empire, and for them, this is part of the vital core of their ongoing faith, and not by any means a mere historical or philosophical concern. As a nonbeliever, I can appreciate the themes enunciated by the historical Jesus, including the Golden Rule and the articulation of a spiritual relationship which does not need social acceptance or institutionalized establishment, and their antecedents in Judaism and their counterparts in other religions. You are right that, for me, that is purely an intellectual concern, not one of personal belief and commitment. As for what I believe, or don’t, suffice it to say that the standard monotheistic God is far too anthropomorphic for my taste. But I have no problem with those who do believe in such, except when they insist that I share their belief, or denounce me for not sharing it.

7) Comment by Triple - 01/07/2012

Krl777,  I appreciate your posting and time for constructing the same.  I will not insult you with bible verses to refute some of your thoughts related to Jesus and his message for mankind.  I do agree with your sources that His message "to live, first and foremost, as human beings in direct relation to God" was relevant then and continues to be relevant for many Christians today.  Christ being God's emissary to achieve this relationship.  Your text conveys to me an underlying message, that a relationship with Christ was appropriate in history, but no longer applicable in our time.  That one should read the teachings of Christ as a lesson in philosophy, to gain wisdom, just as one would study the writings of any number of philosophers, beyond those studies, Christ offers nothing to the modern man.   My focus during this discussion has been on the individual, and not on the atrocities committed by religious organizations and yes it is for every man to decide.  Finally, I was hoping for an answer from your perspective, your decision, not a collection of thoughts from others, not an intellectual explanation, but rather a spiritual perspective, Jesus offered life everlasting, it is indeed a mystery and only by faith can we believe.  Thanks again,   Triple

8) Comment by krl777 - 01/07/2012

Triple, I can't answer for your interpretation of your own religion. But I can say that plenty of Christians I know and read, Catholic and Protestant, do not think that Jesus meant to found an empire in demanding the devotion of his followers. They think that Jesus invited his followers to reject the secular empire of Rome and the ecclesiastical empire of the Pharisees, and to live, first and foremost, as human beings in direct relation to God. For them, the idea of embodying the message of Jesus in any empire, whether the later Christian Rome, or the Roman Catholic Church, or a modern Christian Republic of America (akin to the Islamic Republic of Iran) is a travesty. For them, the "king" and "kingdom" talk is metaphorical, the only way Jesus could get his message across to contemporaries whose first and primary touchstone for awe and devotion was earthly power. But that is for Christians to decide. Did Jesus intend to found an earthly movement which would spread itself across the world, wrapping itself in the riches and power of states, with armies of missionaries spreading the Word (and sometimes literal armies with swords and guns, as in the Crusades, or in 19th century China where missionaries operated courtesy of gunboats)? Or did Jesus employ a host of superficially conflicting metaphors, at one moment talking of the kingdom of God, and at others talking of humility and serving the poor, in order to nudge his followers into grasping a radical and difficult idea -- that glory could come through self-abnegation rather than through self-promotion and self-aggrandizement? The latter idea, though always radical and difficult, is the major theme of many world religions. Jesus did preach, but it's clear that he had contempt for the institutionalized religion of his time. That makes it rather unlikely that he meant to found another of them.

9) Comment by krl777 - 01/07/2012

The practice of being fair, discerning what people actually say and evaluating it on its actual merits, is sometimes labelled 'critical thinking'. Interestingly, the Texas Republican Party 2012 platform, in a section titled, “Educating our Children,” has the following as one of its planks: [begin quote] "We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." [end quote] (We have to abide the turgid prose. I think some of this is an unfocused broadside against the public education curriculum.) Granted, this could be read as stating that they oppose not all teaching of critical thinking skills, but only teaching which “[has] the purpose of challenging the child’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.” So maybe they’re not opposed to all teaching of critical thinking skills? Well, but wait. In practice, little if any teaching of critical thinking skills is actually designed to undermine parental authority, yet ANY teaching of critical thinking skills could have that consequence. I have witnessed more than one child of hippies read William F. Buckley Jr. and become a conservative Republican as a result. So that part of the plank’s charge either targets next to nothing, or it targets essentially all teaching of critical thinking. What about the part that opposes teaching critical thinking skills for “challenging the student’s fixed beliefs”? Much teaching of critical thinking is designed to do that. But why is that bad? If a child has a fixed belief acquired from parents, teachers or peers – that Communism is good and Capitalism bad, or that the universe is 6000 years old, or that Islam is superior to all other religions, or that Caucasians are more intelligent than other races, or that all technology is bad, or that childhood vaccination is an evil government plot, or that childhood vaccination is necessary to maintain public health, or whatever – and critical thinking challenges it, the unsound ideas among those listed above (whichever you think those are) are more likely to be weeded out, and the sound ones are more likely to be able to stand up to the child’s further exposure to the world. The only way the Texas Republican Party could think that this is a bad thing is if they think that their favored ideas cannot stand up to critical scrutiny, or they want children to remain in protective ideological bubbles where they never encounter any challenges to their fixed beliefs. That is appropriate for the madrassa; it certainly should not be a goal of American public education. And I hope it would not be the goal of education for any American citizen. I think it is very bad for the country if students emerge into the world encased in protective ideological bubbles, unable to confront the ideological storms that lie in wait.

10) Comment by krl777 - 01/07/2012

jdk944 has said something very important and revealing in accusing me of rambling on "philosphically with what is becoming an Elitist attitude." This was said by way of dismissing my attempts to sort out what each of us is actually saying, and to be clear how our respective positions actually relate to one another. There was nothing philosophical or elitist about it -- it was about exercising fairness and courtesy in public discussion. It isn't elitist to clearly understand, and correctly characterize, somebody's position before responding to it. To do otherwise, by attributing a weak or ridiculous position to another person just so you can easily attack it, is not just personally discourteous, it is a degradation of public discourse, akin to throwing your trash on the side of the road.

11) Comment by Triple - 01/07/2012

krl777, the message of Jesus is imperial, he wants devotion from his followers.  The new testament is not vague in its message to followers, IMO, Tom himself can be humble while delivering a strong message.  @Chem, you are correct, almost to a man, the founders were deist, and they bickered daily, but they were unified in the concept of freedom from state sponsored religion. The Puritans that escaped religious persecution, hypocritically became new world persecutors.  Religious zealots have indeed spilled innocent blood through the centuries.  The individuals pursuit of spiritual knowledge, all of us want to know what can't be known, is curious to me.  All have a sense of self, an awareness that is beyond consciousness, for lack of a better description - a soul.  My question, at death,  does the soul continue or does it die with the physical? I cannot provide substance to prove my position, that the soul continues, it is faith based, if that makes me gullible, I will own it, but don't feel sorry for me, I live most days (unless on the golf course) with joy and peace.

12) Comment by krl777 - 01/07/2012

We have to be patient with jdk944. I didn't compare Catholic priests who abuse kids with the violence perpetrated by (some) Islamists against Christians. I compared jdk's reasoning that because some Islamic fundamentalists commit violence, therefore we can equate Islamic fundamentalists with violent Islamists, to a hypothetical -- and equally flawed -- reasoning that because some Catholic priests molest children, therefore we can equate Catholic priests with child molesters. jdk, to the extent that I am enamored with human reasoning, it is because it can save us from blatantly misconstruing what other people say, causing us to miss the point and accuse them of saying idiotic things they haven't said. It is a courtesy you should learn.

13) Comment by nimby? - 30/06/2012

the catholics , methodists , lutherans , jesuits , baptist , pentecosts , etc . which denomination is the most christian ?

14) Comment by chem - 30/06/2012

This country was not established on "christian" beliefs. The Founding Fathers were a mix, some being non-religious and others being deists. It is the propaganda of the religious right in this country to make it seem as though the Founders were "christians." You tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth.

15) Comment by jdk944 - 30/06/2012

@chem - well then, give us your explanation of this country's founding principles, supported and promoted by our Founding Fathers and thousands of great men and women since, who did so based on Christianity? They did a fine job of it so excuse me why I ignore your opinion, while I state facts!! They did an awesome job as "gullible" people, using your words.

16) Comment by jdk944 - 30/06/2012

krl777, you are a little to enamored with your human reasoning. Comparing Catholics Priests who abuse kids with the violence perpetuated by Islamists against Christians is like comparing night and day. The former is deviant behavior regardless of one's religion, the latter is done so BECAUSE Christians are Infidels and must be eliminated. Your decision to "compare" shows your lack of understanding of this fundamental point!! No matter how you try to ramble on philosphically with what is becoming an Elitist attitude, your lack of understanding the difference is staggering!!

17) Comment by chem - 30/06/2012

I really feel sorry for the gullible people out there that buy in to this religious claptrap. I too feel that Mr. McLaughlin is being condescending to those who don't believe as he does. As far as Islamic fundamentalist go, how are they any different from Christian fundamentalists? The fundamentalists in this country are not called the American Taliban for nothing. If they had their way, this country would be a theocracy and would be run just as Iran, Afghanistan, and other Muslim theocracies are run. I do not believe in any god, goddess, or other such superstitious nonsense. The bible was, and is, concocted to prey on the fears of gullible people so that they can be controlled and the "church" can become rich. It was written by man, transposed into different languages by man, and edited by man. The bible is so full of contradictions that it is a wonder that anyone can take it seriously. The human race would certainly be much better without religion. Just look at the atrocities that have been, and are still being done in the name of some religion.

18) Comment by krl777 - 30/06/2012

When I compare McLaughlin to other religious fundamentalists and mention Islamic fundamentalists for specificity, jdk944 thinks I am comparing McLaughlin to violent Muslim fundamentalists, because some Muslim fundamentalists are, in fact, violent. By that reasoning, if I compare somebody to a Catholic priest (say, because they help the poor), then I am comparing them to abusive priests, because it's a fact that some Catholic priests ARE abusive. It's disappointing that jdk944 cannot see the flaw in that reasoning. When you invoke a true fact in drawing a false, conceptually flawed, equivalence, the truth of the fact does not redeem the false equivalence. Thinking 101. And jdk, you are not a bigot for stating the fact that some Islamic fundamentalists are violent. The bigotry was in your automatic substitution of "violent Islamic fundamentalists" for a term in a comparison where I had mentioned only "Islamic fundamentalists." This showed that you equate Islamic fundamentalists with violent Islamic fundamentalists. That is bigotry. Can I spell it out any more clearly?

19) Comment by krl777 - 30/06/2012

Tom McLaughlin's letter is not a humble declaration of his own faith. A good part of the letter is arrogant denunciation of those who don't share it. Who are those "who would rather reject the concept of the Creator God and invent a god of their making" if not believers of other religions, or believers in other versions of Christianity than McLaughlin's own? Let's see if McLaughlin's supporters can see the point if we turn the tables. Suppose I interpret the New Testament as asserting that God despises all who behave like Pharisees and institutionalize religion, and include in my "humble declaration of faith" the observation that those who embrace organized Christianity are idolaters who "create a God of their making," one who accepts deviant idolatrous behavior. My 'humble" declaration of faith is a barely concealed indictment of those who don't share my belief. That's what McLaughlin did, but with the roles reversed. It's an aggressive bit of religious imperialism -- nothing humble about it at all.

20) Comment by jdk944 - 30/06/2012

krl777, so I exhibit bigotry but you don't?? Again, a disappointing choice of words on your part. My stating a fact of persecutions occurring to Christians in foreign lands, by Radical Islamics, some of which ARE Islamic Fundamentalists, IS NOT bigotry, it is reality!! You need to re-evaluate your understanding of what you talk about. Christianity is based in love and acceptance, nothing can be further from those charactistics to Islam!! If two hundred plus years of that in this country do not prove that to you, then nothing will!!

21) Comment by Triple - 30/06/2012

Might a man give an accurate account of his relationship with Christ and not be demonized for his effort?  Tom has provided a heart felt explanation of the Christian walk.  He has endorsed no denomination, no church and provides the good news of salvation through Christ.  Everyman has the free will to reject or accept the gift of salvation.  He has concisely presented the essence of Christian faith, the realization that all men fall short of God's glory and only by accepting Christ can intercession exist between man and God.   By faith we walk with Christ, no works, no church, no moral fortitude will bring about salvation.  It is a simple message, but a powerful gift.  All are free to reject the gift and seek spiritual fulfillment else where.  I suggest meditation on your  spirituality and eternity, if you believe the spirit dies with the flesh, then reject Christ, if you believe the spirit lives on consider Christ.  Either way Tom's testimony is provided with humility, the courage of his conviction is admirable, he stands on solid ground.

22) Comment by nimby? - 30/06/2012

"But one must read the Bible and be willing to receive and submit to it. It is the only inerrant, absolute truth that exists" , fact or opinion ? many of my beliefs coincide with that of christians , yet they'd rather not acknowledge my religion . sorry I am not lost . keep christ in your heart , if I wanna know I'll ask ....

23) Comment by krl777 - 30/06/2012

@jdk944 - I compared Mr. McLaughlin's oversharing to the effrontery of Islamic fundamentalists who would tell us that we should all follow Islam and worship Allah. Most such Islamic fundamentalists are not out murdering and maiming Christians, so the comparison is fair. You exhibit bigotry in conflating Islamic fundamentalists, most of whom are peaceful (even if obnoxious), with violent Islamists. That would be like someone conflating all Catholic priests with ones who sexually abuse children.

24) Comment by Whatnow - 30/06/2012

Thank you Mr. McLaughlin, wonderful letter.

25) Comment by jdk944 - 30/06/2012

Lovemykids, your statement reflects verses from the Old Testament. I would encourage you to understand the difference/purpose between it and the New Testament. krl777, it's disappointing that you would compare Christianity, which Mr. Laughlin discusses, and which has served this country well, since that is what the US was founded on and Islamist Fundamentalists. I'm sure those Christians that are being persecuted - that means maimed, raped and killed, in Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Nepal, etc. would strongly disagree with you!!

26) Comment by Scrooge - 30/06/2012

Must have been an oversight, Mr. Tom forgot to mention the necessity of legislation for carrying guns in church which the La. Legislature in its Godly wisdom rightfully approved, what better way to demonstrate God's love? However, if damnation has been avoided and a promise of paradise received, why be so afraid in church that it is necessary for the faithful to carry guns in to the house of God? As Mr. Tom says, people "choose to invent their own way of making themselves acceptable to God. Good luck with that."

27) Comment by lovemykids - 30/06/2012

If Tom's religion gives him peace, good for him. I hope he doesn't eat shellfish, I would hate for his lack of following the bible to get him into hell.

28) Comment by Chucky - 30/06/2012

Ok, That was enough sharing for the rest of the year. Do not need to hear from all 1,000+ other religions and what they believe. May the Goddess bless you. So mote it be.

29) Comment by Elderly Man - 30/06/2012

This sort of babble discourages serious apprehension of religion. This letter is utter nonsense.

30) Comment by Bighug - 30/06/2012

You are correct, krl777. If one put blanks where books or gods are mentioned in the letter, it could be filled in to argue for any religion.

31) Comment by krl777 - 30/06/2012

So sad that people will not embrace MY religion. It is the one and only true religion. Go argue this with an Islamic fundamentalist. You deserve one another's company.