I’ve recently been listening to Atheists Talk (iTunes link), spurred in that direction by PZMyers, who was interviewed by them recently. And then I stuck around to hear their next show, in which they interviewed two Christians.

While it was interesting to listen to them sputter when unable to answer questions, and relieving that the conversation took place at all, what was most impressive to me was this:

Christian #2: I grew up religious, but not a Christian. I had a, uh, I grew up in a Catholic, uh, you know had a Catholic home.
Atheist: Sir, are you saying Catholics aren’t Christians?
Christian #2: Uh…I’m saying there’s a difference between religion and…I’m not saying Catholics aren’t Christians, I’m just saying that the house I grew up in is, was, uh, we went to, I went to a Catholic school.

He then goes on to explain that, he “just went through the motions” as a child, not really understanding why. So on the one hand, I understand that he is saying that he does not consider his upbringing religious, but what he said was that this upbringing was not Christian.

[Entertaining side note: if you listen to both of their stories about how they became religious, they were both chasing girls.]

Earlier, one of them actually says that his church is a “nondenominational/evangelical church”.

Growing up in a Catholic home/school, I was taught that people who believe in Christ are Christians (hence the name), but that there are many different denominations: Protestant, Catholic, Unitarian, and now I would probably include Mormon (knowing a little more about Mormons now than I did in grade school).

If I were to define “nondenominational”, my first example would probably be “Unitarian”. My dictionary defines “denomination” as “a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian church” and then as “naming or classifying something”. I understand the argument that most people who self define as (nondenominational) Christian are not necessarily part of an autonomous branch, but I would classify them as named or defined. Also? Islam, Buddhism, and Yoga have denominations, too. But the definition for “nondenominational” is “open or accepting to people of any Christian denomination”. And my experience of evangelicals is that the last words anyone would use to describe them are “open or accepting”.

This is a bit of a sensitive subject for me, since I’m going to be attending a (nondenominational/evangelical) Christian school in a few weeks. “Evangelical Christians” always seemed to me to be a grand, homogenous set of people, out to tell me I’m going to hell (for a number of reasons: I’m a fornicator and an abortionist [I used to take birth control, *gasp*!] probably being high on the list). But here are two evangelists who don’t believe in evangelization and Bible literalists who don’t believe in taking (certain parts of) the Bible literally. Perhaps there’s hope for my soul at Pepperdine after all.

But it still seems to me that claiming to be “just Christian” but going no further is like claiming no race, claiming to be “just human”. While it is true, it’s sidestepping the issue in a slippery and deceitful manner.