A Controversial Theory

What if we defined Christianity or our evidence of being Christian as these three things: not watching television, not eating sugar, and not using the internet. The reason for these three “don’ts” would be that clearly each of these can harm, damage or impair a person, and are not appropriate in excess. A true Christian would not even partake in something that can be destructive like that.

I wonder what the reaction would be to my putting that forward as a theory. People would probably argue that these things are not harmful is done in moderation, and while one might be able to make a Biblical argument against them by extension, they are certainly not forbidden activities.

The real reason that we would argue against this definition of proof of Christianity is cultural. There is no cultural stigma against TV, sugar and the internet. However, there is a cultural stigma against smoking, drinking and coarseness.

How often is our Christianity defined by smoking, drinking and how nice we are?

My point is not that we should all go out and start smoking, drinking and cussing. My point is that when we define what it means to be a Christian by anything other than strict Biblical evidences we do two things. First, we limit the appeal of the gospel because of the false requirements on the Christian. Second, we create false Christians who think they are saved because they meet the false requirements.