Over on the Unreasonable Faith blog there is a short and provocative article about Christians, what they have in common, and whether or not it's possible (or desirable) to define Christianity. 'VorJack,' the author of the post, starts off with John Spong,talking about Christian doctrine. Spong says he is willing to let go any belief he finds "unacceptable," to the point of being empty-handed. Using the metaphor of a card game, VorJack asks whether Spong is "still playing the same game" as other Christians. "And if you're no longer playing the same game, why are you still at the table?"

On the flip side, VorJack poses a couple more interesting questions, i.e.: Who has the right to define Christianity, even if they could? Is there any single biblical passage, creedal statement, or traditional belief that all Christians agree on? "To sever yourself from 2,000 years of Christian thought takes brass," he says, "and I respect that. But to do so and still say you're engaged with the tradition seems almost delusional."

What do you think? Is it possible perhaps to define Christianity negatively? (for example: There is no form of Christianity that holds Mohammed as its central figure and prophet) Also, does saying you are a Christian make it so? The Klu Klux Klan comes to mind as an example of dubiously-labeled Christians.

Take a look at the full article here.