I dont really relate to the third definition of a Christian; funkydereks definition; Shelby Spongs definition. I know people have every right to use to the definition when talking about themselves, and if it feels right for them thats OK with me. I know Shelby Spong calls himself a Christian. But...I consider him to be a basic unbeliever like myself. He actually has more in common with me than a Fundamentalist. I'm just really not comfortable with the so-called third definition of a Christian.
I've read a little of Shelby Spong's work, and I'm inclined to agree with you. His ideas are interesting and even useful, but I can't relate to his definition of God, or (for the most part) of Christ. I can't recall which book of his I read; I think was "Why Christianity Must Change or Die," or something to that effect. In any case, I remember thinking, "He sounds like an atheist." But he sounds like an atheist who has a better grasp of Christ's most important teachings than most people who call themselves Christians do. After all, Christ himself ephasized love as the greatest virtue for his followers to have, not some specific doctrine.
But what Funkyderek said is a bit less radical, and I think he's right. I fit into that space somewhere: I don't take everything in the Bible literally (and I don't think that it was ever meant to be read that way, given all the trouble that literal interpretation has caused), but I do strive to be like Christ, and I do believe in something vastly greater than myself.
But why do non-fundamentlist definitions of Christianity bother you? Is there any specific reason?
~Rochelle.