Quote:

I define the essentials as thus: 1. Jesus is God; 2. Jesus died for my (the world’s) sins; 3. Jesus is alive. Simple. To me, these beliefs are necessary for one to consider themselves Christians. This obviously eliminates Jehovah’s Witnesses from the list. I recognize that JW’s consider themselves to be Christians, but IMHO they are another religion that makes a claim that simply isn’t true.

I disagree somewhat.

Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior – in the first century Jewish context, none of these are anthropological terms used to define Jesus’ divinity. So we should tread carefully when condemning Jehovah’s Witnesses as outside the boundries of Christianity, because they believe that Jesus is the risen Messiah.

When it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, I am more lenient than most Christians, because the subject is somewhat ambiguous in the Bible and did not seem to be a huge concern for the first century Christians.

Obviously monotheism was and still is a huge concern, polytheism is to be rejected, and there is a good case to be made that the Trinity is a very good explanation for the Christology that emerges in the New Testament, but ultimately we must let God be God, and not constantly try to put him in a box. If one affirms that there is one God, YHWH, and that Jesus is the Messiah, but is uncomfortable with Trinitarianism for reasons based in an interpretation of the Bible or history, or simply uninterested in trying to make theological sense of the presence or absence of Jesus’ divinity and its relationship with the Father, I do not believe he should be condemned as unchristian and cut off from the common goal all denominations share (or should share).

I believe it is essential for one to believe in the gospel: Jesus, descended from the house of David, died for the sins of his people (by extension, if you like, the whole world) and on the third day rose from the dead in accordance with the Scriptures, and is therefore the Messiah, Lord of the whole world; Jehovah’s Witnesses, to the best of my knowledge, agree with all of this.

You said, moreover, believing “Jesus is alive” is essential. But in what sense? Marcus Borg, for example, believes Jesus is alive as a spiritual reality, but denies the bodily resurrection. I believe the bodily resurrection of Jesus is absolutely essential to the Christian faith.

Also, one of my main concerns in my original post was not just theological doctrine, but stylistic practice (usually dictated by a particular theology). For example, much of the phenomena (e.g. speaking in tongues, falling over “in the Spirit”, and fantastical claims that go against reason and the boundaries of Scripture and history) that occur within charismatic churches make me feel uncomfortable, and conflict with my theological and ethnical worldview and spiritual preference. So most of the disagreements I have have less to do with doctrine in and of itself than how doctrine influences practice. In other words, for example, it is hard for me to worship as one body with most Pentecostals and charismatics because I prefer to worship in a different way, and disagree with the theological bases for some of the forms of worship they employ. How can I reconcile my personal preference with the wider calling to be one body?