I’m not sure if this is an actual idiom, but Eddie Izzard used it once, so I’ll blame him.

Anyway, Mollie at GetReligion opened a question in this post, but left no forum for discussing it, so here it is:

Whether they admit it or not, many Americans adopt a view similar to that held by Dobson: Christianity is mainly about behavior and feelings. Christians of all stripes — as well as folks who don’t define themselves as religious — tend to judge Christians’ fidelity to their faith (and adherents of other religions) by their actions. Many of them incorporate personal testimonies into the equation as a means of speaking to behavioral change or a change of feelings. I bet that many readers are nodding their head and saying, “And wha’s the big deal about this?”

Well, this view is extremely different from that held by other believers, myself included. In my church body we don’t really speak of personal behaviors or statements — as Dobson seems to have done — to determine someone’s religious status. Instead we point to whether they’ve been baptized.

Now I’m aware that this is a very contentious issue and ours is not the place to debate which view is correct. And I’m fully aware I’m giving short shrift to the theological issues. I just think it’s interesting to see the two views so succinctly highlighted in a mainstream media article.

Well, for any GetReligion readers that happen by, or anyone else, for that matter, this is the place to debate the issue. I know that there are a number of more important things to be debated within Christian theology and practice, but this one has piqued my interest for the moment.

The first thing that seems odd to me is that when questioned, Fred Thompson’s spokesperson said he “is indeed a Christian. He was baptized into the Church of Christ.” I was baptized into the CofC myself, and I know that — for the most part — the movement believes just as Dobson does. In fact if you ask a member, he’ll probably quote James 2:14-26, which boils down to verse 18: “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.”

I think that baptism is an inadequate determinant of faith, because it points to one moment in time. It’s one decision that could have been made in any state of mind; it could have been the result of coercion, confusion, fear, or any number of factors other than belief.

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

Romans 2:25-27

I believe that you can substitute baptism for circumcision. This doesn’t downplay the importance of baptism. But if there’s no life change after baptism, it’s clear that it was just a meaningless dunk. And if there’s life change before baptism, as with the believers at Cornelius’ house, the Bible points to that as the moment.  But notice that Peter still has everyone baptized: “‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.’ So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Anyway, it seems to me that the Bible points to more than baptism or a conversion experience as the evidence of true Christian faith. What do you think?