Similarly, there is an electrified third rail in discussions about Christian unity.  Being the naïve/pompous/foolish person that I am, I will now climb down onto the subway tracks, bend over, reach out, and grab this third rail with both hands.

What is this third rail? It is the centuries-old split between Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church.

What I writing comes largely from personal experience. I was born into a Catholic family, baptized as an infant, and lived as a semi-devout Catholic for 18 years. As a college freshman I was evangelized by zealous Christians from a ministry that is technically non-denominational but clearly evangelical Protestant. In my newly found faith, I reacted against Catholicism and began to view it as an aberrant expression of pure, biblically sound Christianity. Over the years, as I grew into a position of ministry leadership, I carefully avoided discussing faith-related issues with family members who are still practicing Catholics. I never really questioned whether my anti-Catholic stance was justified, and it is only recently, the last five years or so, that my thinking has begun to change. Please understand that I have no inclination to return to the Catholic church. God has called and brought me to another place.  But as I have read, thought and prayed about these things, my views on many issues relevant to the Protestant/Catholic divide have been shifting considerably.

The ministry in which I serve has no official position on Catholicism, and over the years I have heard individual members express a variety of opinions. The founder of my ministry spoke publicly with admiration of the late Pope John Paul II. Recently, someone in my ministry (another former Catholic) exclaimed to me, “Catholics are Christians too!” Others have characterized the Catholic church as a cult and portrayed Catholics as enemies of the gospel.  But on most occasions when Catholicism is mentioned in conversation (which doesn’t happen very often), the usual response is a brief, unnatural silence, followed by an awkward attempt to change the subject.   During that pregnant pause, the words that I imagine, the words that I sense are being thought but not spoken, are polite, cautious, and negative.

When an evangelical expresses a negative view of Catholicism, what does he really mean?  That term, Catholicism, can mean so many different things in different contexts that to even speak of it as one thing, a single entity, that can be grasped and summarized and assessed as good, mediocre, or bad is almost absurd.  It is like trying to render a summary judgment about mathematics or China or health care.  But in many cases, the evangelical expressing the negative opinion is probably thinking more specifically along these lines.

“Catholics teach a false gospel of salvation by works.” There is a kernel of truth in that statement, but the kernel is rather small. If you begin to do any serious, evenhanded reading of modern discussions on this subject, you will see that it represents a gross oversimplification and caricature of Catholic soteriology. Catholics and Protestants do speak of salvation and justification using very different terms and concepts. But there is huge variation among Protestants as well (e.g., Calvinism versus Arminianism), and there are vast areas of consensus across these traditions. Thoughtful Catholics and Protestants should agree that we are saved neither by works nor by faith but by Jesus Christ. Faithful Catholics and Protestants should agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God and believe Romans 1:17, “The righteous will live by faith,” along with James 2:20, “Faith without deeds is useless.”  Aren’t there plenty of Protestants who talk about justification “by grace alone, through faith alone” but are, in fact, teaching and practicing all kinds of legalism?  Focusing on “what we must do” more than “what God has done” is the standard fallback position that all Christians, regardless of our denominations, are inclined to slip into whenever we lose sight of the living Savior. If I had a dollar for every time I heard an evangelical say that Catholics teach “salvation by works,” I would be a rich man. And I am quite sure that, in the vast majority of those occasions, the person voicing that opinion could not accurately describe what the RCC actually teaches about salvation today. Instructive and healthy criticism requires knowledge and understanding of the position being criticized.

“Catholics don’t have a personal relationship with God.”  Before saying this, please get to know at least one sincere and devout Catholic. Pick up a book by Henri Nouwen. Or read one of the pieces on this blog written by Natalie Plumb. Enough said.

“Catholics practice idolatry because they worship Mary and pray to saints, statues and paintings.”  Really, there is very little truth to this. Catholic tradition holds elaborate and complex views of Mary (e.g., her so-called Immaculate Conception) and her relationship to Jesus that most Protestants find problematic.  Prayer to saints is part of their understanding of the doctrine ”communion of saints” expressed in the Apostles’ Creed, a doctrine which Protestants largely ignore.  But Catholics do not worship Mary or the saints. They accept the Ten Commandments and understand that worship is reserved for God alone.

“Catholics blindly follow the Pope.” I agree, to an extent. Catholic teachings about St. Peter and papal succession are extrabiblical and hard for Protestants (and plenty of Catholics as well) to swallow. Before casting stones, however, it would be wise to heed the words of the great evangelical preacher Dr. John Stott, who said about evangelicals, “There are too many gurus and too many autocrats who lay down the law in the local church in defiance of the teaching of Jesus… There are too many who behave as though they believe, not in the priesthood of all believers, but in the papacy of all pastors.”

“Catholics have wrong views about the sacraments. They practice infant baptism, which is unbiblical and invalid. And they superstitiously think that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, which no sensible Protestant would ever believe.”  Anyone who says this reveals ignorance of church history and Protestantism. Every major leader of the Protestant Reformation including Luther, Calvin and  Zwingli, upheld and practiced paedobaptism. Luther and Calvin believed and taught the “real presence” of Christ in Communion, albeit in different ways. The vast majority of Protestant churches today will accept a baptism practiced in any church, including Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as valid as long as the baptism is Trinitarian, “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19.

“The Reformation happened for good reasons, and we shouldn’t go back.” I agree. The Protestant Reformation was a reaction against severe doctrinal problems and abuses in the medieval church. Catholics do not want to return to those problematic medieval beliefs and practices either. What happened in the 16^th century is unchangeable, and it no longer accurately frames the doctrinal, cultural and practical issues that separate Protestants and Catholics today.

Please do not call me an apologist for the Roman Catholic church. If you have actually paid attention to my words, you will know that there are some Catholic positions that I do not agree with and many more that I simply do not understand. But I also do not agree with or understand many things that are taught and practiced in various Protestant churches either. And there are plenty things about my own church that I do not like.  Church membership, denominational positions and historical events from centuries past do not control and define the character or faith of real flesh-and-blood people today. God cares about people, all of them, far more than he cares about institutions and labels.

Back when I was a young teenager, I stumbled across a column published in a conservative Catholic newspaper that my mother used to read. It was about hymns that were being sung at Catholic Mass. The author objected to How Great Thou Art because that hymn was written by a Protestant and was therefore suspect and impure. Even at that young age, I found his statement so appalling that I remember it to this day.  But just a few years later, I began to think and speak of Catholicism and Catholics in precisely the same way. Having strong Protestant convictions is fine. But do those convictions require me to scrupulously avoid all things that vaguely appear to be Catholic because there are Catholics who presently do them?

Through interacting with today’s college students (the so-called postmoderns), I have been deeply impressed by their relational maturity.  They love to engage in thoughtful, evenhanded, openminded, give-and-take discussion.  They are not afraid to touch the third rail.  They long to break down barriers and find common ground with people who are different from them. They instinctively understand that unity does not require uniformity. And they have no interest in perpetuating theological divisions, culture wars and us-versus-them mentalities of generations past.  Do you want to impress young people, gain their respect and open their hearts to Christ? Then demonstrate a healthy spirit of criticism toward yourself and your own tradition. Reach out and communicate in a loving, Christlike way with those who are different from you. Show them that you are open to learning and revising your own opinions as God shows you new things. Do you want to offend young people and close their hearts? Then promote caricature, stereotype, and ignorance by continually praising your own group, church or culture while glibly criticizing those on the outside. And then brace yourself for others to treat you likewise. What goes around, comes around.

In 1 Corinthians 12:12, Paul wrote: “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body.” A human eyeball and a human pancreas look very different. If you encountered these things separately, could you tell whether or not they came from the same body?  I doubt it. But with a very detailed chemical analysis, you could conclude that they share the same DNA. These two parts, and many, many more, are necessary for one body to function. It makes no sense for an eyeball to criticize a pancreas, telling it to behave more like an eyeball. Yet Christians do this to one another all the time. When we observe differences, our gut reaction is to turn these differences into moral or doctrinal issues and try to determine which way is “correct.” But in a healthy body, the “correct” way is for the eyeball and pancreas to remain as they are, retaining their distinctive functions and appearances, while remaining attached to the same body and working in cooperation.

In an organizational sense, the Church has been fractured many times over. Two obvious examples are the Great Schism between East and West in the 11^th century and the Protestant Reformation of the 16^th century. The issues that led to these schisms were real and substantial, and it would be wrong to trivialize them.  Indeed, given the historical circumstances, these schisms may have been unavoidable. Good has come out of them, as our God always seems to know how to create something good even in the midst of tragedy. But each schism has also produced long-lasting bitter fruit. Churches and denominations have continued to split over differences which look foolish and trivial to those on the outside.  John M. Frame, a theologian and professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, wrote an illuminating article in which he identified twenty-one doctrinal issues that led to controversy and division in the Reformed community over an eighty-year period. He asked: “Was it right to devote so much of the church’s time and effort to these theological battles? Did the disputants follow biblical standards for resolution of these issues?” In most cases, the answer is no.

Given the present realities, it is unrealistic and probably undesirable for churches to seek organizational unity on any grand scale. Doctrinal unity, except on basic core issues of faith, is also problematic and unnecessary. Denominations have well developed confessions, bodies of thought and cultural traditions that deserve to be respected. God has worked through those traditions and they continue to inform and balance one another. It seems to me that no matter what you think of the centuries-old battle between Calvinism and Arminianism – the doctrine of human free will versus divine sovereignty and predestination – it is always going to be important to hear what Christians from other traditions have to say, because we must always keep challenging ourselves and one another in healthy ways. But we do need to be seeking a real, visible unity across traditions that is evident in how we think of, speak of, and act toward one another. A unity based not on doctrinal or cultural conformity but rooted in love and a common recognition of the Spirit of  the living Christ in one another.

In Your Church is Too Small, John points out that Christians who instigate division often see themselves as the ones who are standing up and fighting for Truth with a capital “T.” Of course, the Body needs members who understand the value of Truth. There are plenty of them around. But where are the members who are willing to stand up and fight for Unity with a capital “U”?  (It sounds like an oxymoron: to fight for unity.) Many of us have convinced ourselves that divisions are not such a bad thing. But when Christians divide, it is no laughing matter, and the consequences can be far greater than we realize. Divisions impact churches, families and individuals at a very deep and personal level. Divisions cause real pain, lead to real sin, dishonor Christ’s name and greatly devalue the witness of the whole Church.

In today’s postmodern culture, what is the greatest impediment to faith? It is the universal nature of the claims of Jesus Christ. We teach that Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to God except through him. To young people raised in a pluralistic society, this is already very hard to accept. When a nonbeliever encounters a Christian who makes these universal claims and yet displays prejudicial and critical attitudes toward Christians outside his own narrow denomination or group, what does he think? He sees the contradiction right away.  The message he hears: “Following Jesus just as my particular group does is the universal Way to God.” In this day and age, that message has no credibility whatsoever.

Before going on, I need to clarify what the title of John’s book means. It does not refer to the size of a church as measured by the number of congregants. It refers to one’s conception of what the Church — the Body of Christ — actually is. This book is a call for Christians to give up their sectarian tendencies, to stop looking with suspicion on believers from churches other than their own, to stop saying that “those guys cannot possibly be real Christians because they don’t believe XXX or do YYY,” and to practice Christlike charity in light of Jesus’ prayer for the unity of believers in John 17:20-21:

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

I will not try to review John’s book here. It would be difficult for me to do so honestly, because over the last year John has become a personal friend of mine. In my biased opinion, Your Church is Too Small is well written, honest insightful, engaging, challenging, etc.  But even if it were not, I would still urge you to read it because I believe the message of this book is vitally important to the spiritual health of all Christians and Christian churches today. I have read a lot of books over the past year — some great, some pretty good, and some mediocre. In the evangelical world, there seems to be an endless supply of gifted, charismatic leaders/speakers/authors promoting ideas that promise to be the next great trend  that will revitalize churches and ministries. Most of these ideas fizzle out in a very short time.

But John’s book is different. His central thesis is an idea that is truly big, a teaching so important it was expressed in the most ancient creeds:  the doctrine of “one holy, catholic, apostolic church.” For the last millennium and especially the last century, this doctrine has been wantonly neglected, violated and even opposed by vast portions of the Christian world. The opposite of this teaching, sectarianism, has been encoded into the DNA of countless believers, congregations and denominations, to the detriment of the gospel and Christian witness. In a future article, I will try to explain why I believe this message is so vital. For now, I would like to explain a few things about who John is and how he came to write this book.

I have been following John’s writings for several years now, especially his daily blog. There is a handful of Christian blogs that I read regularly.  For example, I follow Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed, which has interesting articles and plenty of lively discussion. By comparison, John’s blog seems to have an audience that is smaller, quieter, and more diverse.  His articles have encouraged, informed and challenged me at a very deep level. John also writes a weekly article that is longer, more scholarly, and geared toward people who serve in church leadership.

Perhaps the main reason why I am attracted to John’s material is that, although he has strong opinions on all sorts of theological and political issues,  he is also one of the most openminded persons I have ever met. He never stops learning, growing and challenging himself, and his personal spiritual journey is laid bare in his writings. And his spiritual journey is a fascinating one.

John was raised as a conservative Southern Baptist but gradually migrated toward Reformed theology and is now an ordained minister in the Reformed Church. When he transferred to Wheaton College in 1969, he was amazed and shocked by the malaise and spiritual deadness he found on that campus, particularly among the student body. He enlisted several friends to pray for spiritual revival, and the then-president of Wheaton, the late Dr. Hudson Armerding, joined their 24-7 prayer chain. On a snowy Thursday night in February, 1970, God began to answer their prayers. During a sparsely attended evening service at Edman Chapel, the Holy Spirit visited those who were there. Students from all over campus and people from suburban Chicago began to pour into the chapel, confessing their sin and crying out to God in prayer throughout the night. This visitation by the Holy Spirit, which many have characterized as a mini-revival, had a lasting impact on the Wheaton campus and bore lifelong spiritual fruit in the lives of those involved. Dr. Amerding later called the 1970 Wheaton revival the highlight of his presidency and credited John as the student who was instrumental in bringing it about.

John remained in Wheaton, Illinois and pastored a small church there for nearly two decades, but left his pastorate in 1992 to spearhead an organization called Reformation and Revival Ministries. That ministry, which was devoted to equipping church leaders to foster spiritual revival, grew repidly, and soon John was besieged with invitations to speak and write. He worked closely with R.C. Sproul and the late Dr. James Boice to found the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (ACE) in 1994, and could be described as a rising star in Reformed Christianity.

It was about that time, however, that God began to call John to a different path. In his own words, from Your Church is Too Small, this is what happened:

It was an ordinary Sunday morning worship service. We were reciting the words of the Apostles’ Creed, words I had said hundreds of times before. I knew the words. I believed them. But I had never been particularly moved by them. They were just words recited in a service.

But on this Sunday things unfolded very differently. As I said the words “I believe in the holy catholic church” from the Apostles’ Creed, something stopped me. At that moment, the Holy Spirit spoke to my heart: “Do you really believe these words? If you believe them, then why don’t you act like it?” The conviction was powerful and true. I was so shaken that I had to sit down. I wept. Questions flooded my mind. I knew God had spoken. But I had no idea how it was about to change my life.

John began to doubt that the ACE could effectively bring about the kind of national spiritual renewal that he longed and prayed for because that organization, by its unwavering commitment to Calvinist theology, had excluded the vast majority of Christians in the United States. He began to openly speak to ACE leaders about catholicity and suggested that the organization reach out to Methodists, other Wesleyan churches, Pentecostals and mainline Protestatant denominations. That suggestion was not well received. John resigned from his leadership position in ACE and began to take his own ministry in a new direction. He started to develop deep friendships with Christians from a wide variety of Protestant circles and even from Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. 

After a few years, Reformation and Revival Ministries was given a new name: ACT3, which stands for Advancing the Christian Tradition in the Third Millennium.  Through ACT3, John has been promoting his vision for missional ecumenism. Unlike the flawed and ineffective ecumenical movements of the mid-20th century, which jettisoned truth and attempted to reduce Christian doctrine to the lowest common denominator, John sought to live and promote relational unity among believers across denominational boundaries.  Instead of glossing over or minimizing doctrinal differences, John engages leaders to openly discuss these differences in non-adversarial ways, so that they can relate to one another from a standpoint of understanding rather than ignorance and caricature. This approach can be seen in two recent books that John has edited, Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper and Understanding Four Views on Baptism. John does not counsel Christians from any tradition to sacrifice any of their deeply held beliefs, distinct theologies or styles of ministry, nor does he envision everybody coming together to form one universal mega-church. He does look forward to a day when believers from different traditions will recognize that diversity in the Body of Christ is the scriptural and historical norm and that membership in the Body is not determined by doctrinal purity but by relationship to the living Christ. And he encourages Christians to put aside fear and suspicion and work together wherever they can to serve the greater cause of God’s kingdom.

When John took his ministry in this new direction, he paid a heavy personal price. Most of his closest friends stood by him, but many donors and supporters of his ministry dropped by the wayside and revenues decreased by more than 50%. He has received a great deal of criticism by Christians who perceive him as having compromised truth. While John is a strong defender of orthodoxy, upholds the tenets of Reformed theology and maintains his good standing as a minister of the Reformed Church, he opposes sectarian tendencies in his own denomination and wherever else he finds them. Some of his fiercest opposition comes from evangelical Protestants who maintain strong anti-Catholic positions and characterize the Roman Catholic Church as preaching a false gospel. This is a price he is willing to pay. Other Christian leaders who have taken similar stands have also paid a price. For example, after Chuck Colson joined Bill Bright and other leaders to signed the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document in the mid-1990’s, revenues to Prison Fellowship dropped by about $2.5 million per year. But it opened new doors for Mr. Colson to minister in Latin America and he has no regrets.

Last month, I attended a weekend forum sponsored by ACT 3, the ministry of my friend John Armstrong.  The forum was led by Peter Enns, who spoke on topic Reading the Old Testament as Jesus Did.

Enns is the author of a popular but controversial book Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (2005, Baker Academic).  In this book he addresses the difficult question of what Christians mean when they claim that the Bible, a book whose words were written by men, is also the inspired word of God.  Enns presents an incarnational model that upholds divine inspiration while acknowledging the contextual and cultural influences of the human writers.

Throughout the forum, Enns suggested that we approach the Old Testament as the writers of the New Testament did.  How did Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and Peter handle the OT?  Not very well, if they are judged by standards of modern evangelical scholarship.  Suppose one of these NT authors was enrolled in a modern seminary that holds to the inerrancy of Scripture. And suppose he applied verses from the OT to Jesus  in the manner found throughout the NT.  What kind of grade would he receive?  He would fail.

Yet that same seminary would consider the NT author to be inspired by God. 

At the very least, this should make us wonder whether our methods for approaching the Scripture are reasonable.

Here is a simple example.  Matthew 2:14-15 describes how Joseph took Mary and the baby Jesus and fled to Egypt to protect them from King Herod.

So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Matthew is referring to Hosea 11:1:

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

When we examine this passage from Hosea, we are faced with two undeniable facts.  First, that passage is not prophetic.  Hosea is writing about the past sins of his people, not making predictions about future events.  Second, that passage is about Israel, not about a coming Messiah.  To use that verse as Matthew did is to ignore Hosea’s original intent and to apparemtly take it out of context.  This is exactly what seminarians are taught not to do.  Poor Matthew flunks out.

But poor Matthew isn’t stupid.  He knows the OT very well, even better than we do, and, from the earliest days his writings were considered authoritative.   So how do we reconcile these facts?  To do so, we need to understand that the NT is not simply a continuation of the OT.  The NT is truly “New.” The NT presents a radical reinterpretation of Israel’s history in light of the death and resurrection of Christ, which were not on the OT writers’ radar screen. (Yes, the death of Jesus is foreshadowed in the OT, but the OT authors didn’t realize it.  And we search the OT in vain to find any clear description of the resurrection.)  The death and resurrection of the Messiah were God’s best-kept secrets, truly startling and revolutionary.

So what is Matthew really saying?  By applying Hosea 11:1 to Jesus, he appears to be saying that Jesus Christ is the new Israel.   Some passages in the OT (for example, Exodus 4:22) portray Israel as God’s firstborn son.  Matthew takes this privileged position of Israel and applies it now to Jesus.  The juxtaposition of Israel and Jesus is found in other places in the NT as well (Gal 3:16). So Matthew knows what he is doing.  He is not simply looking at Hosea 11:1 and asking, “What is the contextual meaning of this verse?”  He is scanning across the panorama of OT history and reinterpreting it in light of God’s new revelation of his kingdom.

In discussing how the NT writers approached the OT, Enns suggests that we look to the Talmud.  The Talmud is a rabbinical discussion of Jewish law and history that was written shortly after the NT.  Talmudic scholars also took verses out of immediate context.  They were, in a sense, trying to accomplish the same thing that the NT writers had done.  They were reinterpreting the history of Israel in light of the terrible recent events, including the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.  They were trying to understand whether the Jews were still God’s chosen people, whether God still had a plan for them, and what that plan might be.  But because they had rejected the resurrection of Christ, they ended up with a very different perspective.

For scholars who want to address the difficult questions that modern people are posing about the Bible, conservative doctrines of scriptural inerrancy are a virtual minefield.  Enns frequently ventures into this minefield.  He acknowledges that the Bible was not written as a modern history book.  The order of presentation is not necessarily chronological. Events are described multiple times from different points of view, and the details in various accounts do not always agree.  One of the best known examples is when Jesus drove moneychangers out of the temple.  Matthew, Mark and Luke place this event during Passion week, just after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem.  But John places it at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, just after the wedding at Cana (Jn 2:12-22).  Some have tried to resolve this dilemma by supposing that Jesus cleansed the temple twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and once at the end.  Enns does not support that view.  He believes that the literary forms used by the NT authors did not presume that every detail of every story would be a precise, factual record as might be obtained if the events had been captured by a video camera.  Small discrepancies were an acceptable part of oral history and did not cast doubt on the truthfulness of the story or the spiritual messages it was intended to convey.  For his willingness to voice these opinions, Dr. Enns has been sharply criticized by some former students and colleagues at Westminster Theological Seminary.  I am not familiar with the specific charges and issues of this controversy, so I will not say anything more about it.  I will say, however, that after listening to this man lecture for approximately six hours, I was impressed by his thoughtfulness and sincerity, his deep respect for the Scripture, and his refreshingly winsome approach to the Bible.

The forum was attended by approximately thirty Christian leaders from a wide variety of denominational backgrounds.  About one-third of the time was devoted to discussion among Dr. Enns and members of the audience.  Despite varied backgrounds, we were kindred spirits and learned a great deal from one another.  One lesson that emerged again and again was this:  Much of the Bible remains a mystery to us.  The Bible is a rather messy book, and we don’t need to be embarassed by its messiness. God could have given us a book of rules and doctrines with apparently perfect internal and external consistency.  But he didn’t.  He gave us a sprawling narrative written by real people over long periods of history.  History is filled with difficulties, and these show up everywhere on the pages of Scripture.  Yet we also believe the Bible to be God’s word, written exactly as he wanted it to be. 

Today’s young Christians – the next generation of spiritual leaders – are not afraid to ask the tough questions that some of their immediate predecessors have been dodging.  Too often, my generation haa responded to tough questions with pat answers, disapproving glances and exhortations to “just believe.”  Yes, God wants us to believe.  And he also wants us to be brutally honest.  He gave us a Bible that is brutally honest.  He respected us enough to give us a messy book, trusting that we have the maturity to handle it as creatures of reason and good sense.  For that, we should be thankful.

Christians of different denominations read different Bibles.  The collection of texts known as the Bible has changed over time.  The earliest Christians had the Old Testament, some letters from the apostles and oral tradition. A list of 22 books of the New Testament appeared in the Muratorian Canon around AD 180. In AD 365, Athanasius of Alexandria listed 27 books. A Latin edition of the Bible called the Vulgate appeared in AD 383 and became the standard for the Western world. In addition to the 66 books found in the current Protestant Bible, the Vulgate also had the so-called deuterocanonical books and apocrypha. Some differences persist today. For instance, the Ethiopian “narrow” canon includes 81 books.

When Christians say that the Bible is the Word of God, which Bible do they mean? Which books do they include? And in which languages? Hebrew? Greek?  English?  For example, it is well known that in the final chapter of the gospel of John, in which Jesus repeatedly asks Peter, “Do you love me?” there are multiple Greek words used for love. This subtle wordplay is absent from English translations.  So how precisely is the Word of God conveyed?

And what about the earliest Christians who did not have the Bible? Were they non-Bible-believing? Were they any less Christian than the believers of today?  Or were they more Christian than modern believers, because they participated in composing and compiling the Bible?  Recognizing the necessity of a biblical canon, they identified the four gospels that we now accept and separated them from the apocrypha. Although they did not have our Bible, they seem to have been guided by the Word of God. Where was this Word found?   In oral tradition?  If so, is this tradition still available today?

My purpose in raising these questions is not to diminish the Bible’s credibility. I am only pointing out that, when someone claims to believe in the Bible, issues of truth and authority are not automatically resolved.  Saying “I believe” is not always enough; sometimes this must be made more precise. Instead of dodging these difficult questions, we ought to be willing to face them and, in doing so, admit that our best answers might not be completely satisfactory.

The Bible is understood differently within different traditions and cultures. In some Protestant traditions, for example, it is believed that Joseph, Mary’s husband, was a young man. Some Catholics believe that Joseph was an older man and that Mary was his second wife. This latter view reconciles the Catholic tradition of Mary’s perpetual virginity with the existence of Jesus’ brothers who are named in Matthew 13:55.

Some Christians may think that Jesus is unknown to Muslims. But the Koran describes more miracles performed by Jesus than the New Testament does. Before attempting to “enlighten” Muslims with our Christian interpretations of Scripture, perhaps it would be useful to first learn something about what they believe.

Tragically, the question “Which tradition is the best one?” has provoked arguments and religious wars.  Coming back to our simple example, one may ask: Which Christian is correct?  The one who believes in young Joseph, or the one who believes in old Joseph?

It seems to me that, regardless of what one believes about Joseph, the one who is correct is the one who takes up his cross and follows Jesus (Matthew 16:24).  It is important to study the Bible.  It is even more important to obey its teachings.  Biblical knowledge does not change a person’s soul until it is actually put into practice.  In Matthew 19:21, Jesus said to a rich young man: “… go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”  I know exactly what Jesus said. Yet for some strange reason, I am in no great hurry to start doing it.

What is a Bible-believing Christian?  In my humble opinion, it is one who actually obeys the Bible and one who actively follows Christ.