Am I A Christian?

Am I a Christian?

I’ve been thinking about that question for more than twenty-five years.

The first time I seriously wrestled with it was as a graduate student when I became involved in a conflict between members of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) over what it meant to be Christian.

That conversation, which eventually became a mediation project, changed how I viewed myself, the term Christian, and the larger ongoing debate about what it means to be Christian.

It’s a story I think is deeply relevant because of a a newly released list of recognized faiths from the Department of Defense (DOD). The list stirred controversy among some Latter-day Saints because while The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remained on the roster of recognized faith traditions, it was not included among twenty faith groups — Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Catholic, Church of Christ, Church of God, Church of the Nazarene, Episcopal/Anglican, Evangelical, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Lutheran, Methodist, Non Denominational, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Quaker, Reformed, Scientist, Seventh Day Adventist as well as a category for “Other” — identified as Christian.

The omission prompted responses from Utah Senators John Curtis and Mike Lee, both members of the LDS faith.

Senator John Curtis@SenJohnCurtis

Latter-day Saints are among the most patriotic, service-oriented individuals in our country. They are also unequivocally Christian—just look at who is in the name of the Church. It is unacceptable for a government entity to characterize a faith in a manner that contradicts the

Sean Parnell @SeanParnellASW

The Office of the Secretary of War is announcing a significant change to the Department’s categorization of religious affiliation. In a long overdue move, we reduced the list from over 200 unmanageable categories to 31. With this move, we are returning to the original intent of https://t.co/eho537O08J

3:08 PM · Jun 6, 2026 · 630K Views

1.61K Replies · 195 Reposts · 1.87K Likes

Mike Lee@BasedMikeLee

Can anyone tell me why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was left out of the list of Christian churches?

2:50 PM · Jun 6, 2026 · 6.02M Views

9.09K Replies · 433 Reposts · 4.46K Likes

The Salt Lake Tribune asked the DOD and the LDS Church for comment. The DOD referred them to the statement from spokesperson Sean Parnell. The LDS Church pointed to the FAQ portion of its website. It reads: “Latter-day Saints believe God sent his son, Jesus Christ, to save all mankind from death and their individual sins. Jesus Christ is central to the lives of church members.”

No one knows exactly why the Church was excluded from the Christian list. Some have suggested the name was too long. Others have speculated that it reflects theological judgments or bias from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a devout Evangelical Christian.

[Update: The DOD revised the list again on June 8th, dropping the name “Christian” from 19 other faiths.]

The reaction revealed something important. Religious identity is one of the most meaningful ways people define themselves. It often transcends political, ethnic, and even family identities.

When people feel their identities are not being taken seriously, it creates what conflict scholar Oscar Nudler calls a worldview conflict that “. . . imply alternative, competing ways of meeting the need for meaning and, therefore, they may be perceived as putting in danger our own way, a way on which all the rest of what we are depends.”

And in this case, the DOD tapped into a conflict that is as old as Christianity itself.

The debate over whether Latter-day Saints should be considered Christian is simply the latest chapter in a very old story.

Christians have been debating who counts as a Christian almost from the beginning. Early believers argued about whether Gentile converts had to follow Jewish law. In the fourth century, Arius’s teachings about the nature of Christ led to the Council of Nicaea and the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed helped establish the doctrine of the Trinity by affirming that Jesus Christ is fully divine and of the same substance as the Father, laying the foundation for the later understanding of one God in three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Later disputes over the Trinity, baptism, priesthood authority, papal leadership, salvation, and race divided Christians into competing traditions, each claiming to represent authentic Christianity.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have often been excluded from some Christian definitions, particularly by evangelical and traditional Protestant groups.

Critics typically point to differences in theology, including the Latter-day Saint understanding of the Godhead as three distinct beings rather than the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, belief in continuing revelation through modern prophets, additional scripture such as the Book of Mormon, and teachings about priesthood authority and restoration. Because of these differences, some Christians argue that Latter-day Saints fall outside the boundaries established by historic Christian creeds such as the Nicene Creed.

For many Latter-day Saints, however, the answer seems obvious. They believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Savior, and Redeemer of the world. They worship Him, pray in His name, and strive to follow His teachings.

So who gets to decide?

The whole controversy stirs up memories of one of my very first research projects in grad school.

In the late 1990s, members from the Southern Baptist Convention and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sought greater dialogue amid growing tensions between their faith communities.

One notable meeting brought together SBC leader Mark Coppinger and BYU Dean of Religion Robert Millet. While Millet hoped such conversations would reduce stereotypes and encourage mutual understanding, Coppinger openly acknowledged that both sides hoped the other would eventually embrace their own religious convictions.

“All parties concerned hoped that those on the other side would see the light and convert. We make no bones about it. We are not pluralist or relativists. We don’t think just any sincere view of the Bible is valuable and life-giving. We would like to see Robert Millet become an evangelical Christian. He knows this’”

Despite those efforts, tensions remained high.

The SBC had become increasingly active in evangelistic campaigns directed toward groups it viewed as outside orthodox Christianity, including Latter-day Saints. An SBC-produced video, The Mormon Puzzle, portrayed Mormonism as a faith requiring conversion and was distributed as part of a large-scale “Save the Mormons” witnessing campaign at the SBC’s annual convention in Salt Lake City.

At the heart of the conflict was a simple question: What does the word Christian mean?

LDS members felt hurt that Southern Baptists often described their faith as a cult or as non-Christian.

Southern Baptists felt hurt that young LDS missionaries were telling their congregants that they did not belong to the true Church of Jesus Christ, that their baptisms lacked divine authority, and that they should leave their churches and join the LDS faith.

While dialogue was the key, a number of people I interviewed couldn’t get past the definitions the other side were using to define what it means to be Christian.

A month into the research, I had a career changing conversation with several of the participants in the dialogue. Both sides were hurting and baffled by the other. Coppinger was right, they were both trying to convert the other side to their point of view.

After hearing the same narrative for over a month, I decided to try a new rhetorical tool I had learned in my transformative mediation class. It’s simple. But it can be game changing.

When people say, “You’ve lost my trust,” ask them what trust means.

When they say, “You don’t love me,” ask them what love looks like.

Instead of debating the term, you ask them to define it.

I asked the Southern Baptist participants what the word Christian meant to them.

Their definition included several key elements: belief in the Trinity, the full divinity and humanity of Christ, salvation through faith in Christ alone, and the Bible as God’s final authoritative revelation.

I then asked the LDS participants the same question.

Their definition was different: a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Savior and Redeemer of the world, strives to follow His teachings, and enters into a covenant relationship with Him through faith, repentance, and baptism.

For a non-Christian this may feel like the same answer. But to Christians they are significantly different. Everyone in the room understood that.

Then I asked the Southern Baptist group a question:

“Under your definition, are members of the LDS Church Christian?”

The answer came quickly. “No.”

There was visible pain on the faces of several LDS participants. I asked them to wait. Then I asked a second question.

“Under the LDS definition, are Latter-day Saints Christian?”

There was a long pause. Several participants huddled together. Finally, one of them responded:

“Under their definition, yes.”

Several LDS participants wept.

Then I turned to the LDS participants.

“Under your definition, are Southern Baptists Christian?”

“Absolutely,” they replied without hesitation.

Then came the final question.

“Under the Southern Baptist definition, are Latter-day Saints Christian?”

The room became quiet. There were more tears. Eventually, the answer came.

“No.”

Far from creating more conflict, the definitions created greater understanding. They realized they didn’t need to surrender their theology or change someone else’s beliefs. Both groups had found a way to have their identities validated. They had found common ground. The rest of the conversations I witnessed, which were only a small fraction of what would become a much longer and fruitful relationship, went much better.

I spent the next month wrestling with the conflict for a paper I had to write. I want to share with you the last few paragraphs from a young, wannabe mediator, who had his first taste of trying to help people navigate their worldview conflicts.

“The idea of religious intractability holds little water in the wake of overwhelming evidence of massive accommodation and change by members of the LDS and the SBC church. Apparent opposites are often complementary.

When dealt with sensitively, and in a way that preserves and respects the need for meaning among the individual participants, the existence of complex religious beliefs, far from being a hindrance to resolution, may be the vehicle and catalyst to obtain lasting conflict transformation. It is, in essence, an example of the theory of conflict causation implying the method for resolution—a creation of new worlds of cooperative understanding, mutual respect and meaning that preserve and strengthen the fragile identity of faith cloaked in the symbols and metaphors of the past.

Within the labyrinth of religious metaphor, history and meaning lie the seeds of peace, harmony and human fulfillment and the fruits to war, violence and desecration. Whereas the dangerous fruits have often been recognized, it may be time for the field of conflict resolution to focus on how to nurture the seeds into something more beautiful and substantively transformative.”

For years I wrestled with what I had witnessed.

Was the answer simply that everyone gets to define the word however they choose?

Perhaps.

But over time I found myself returning to a different question: How did Jesus define his followers?

The closest Jesus comes to defining what it means to be one of His disciples comes in John 13:34–35:

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Here is the only passage I know of where Jesus explicitly tells us how he’ll define his followers.

The criteria are both incredibly simple and incredibly difficult: Love one another the way Jesus loved you.

Love. That’s it.

The Greek word for love that Jesus uses is agape. In Martin Luther King’s masterpiece, Strength to Love, he notes that the Greeks had three di!erent words for what the English language calls “love.” Eros referred to romantic love. Philia referred to affection between friends. Agape was something different. King writes that agape is:

“… understanding and creative, [the] redemptive goodwill for all men. An overflowing love that seeks nothing in return, agape is the love of God operating in the human heart.”

It is love that extends to everyone, regardless of culture, belief, or borders.

Of course over time, after Jesus’s death, his followers came up with their own definitions. Some of those definitions have endured for centuries. Many continue to shape how Christians understand themselves today. I respect that.

I know that for many Christians, when they look at me, their answer will be, “No. Chad’s not a Christian.”

I don’t meet their definition.

I also know there are Latter-day Saints who might question whether I fully meet theirs.

I’ve found peace in that.

Our lives become filled with endless angst and destructive conflict when we insist that our definitions of ourselves must be adopted by everyone else. The lenses that come from our culture, our language, our religion and our experience are just too powerful. They shape the way we see the world and the words we use to describe it.

But when I ask myself whether I am a Christian, I return to the definition Jesus gave. Love one another as I have loved you.

I fail at that standard regularly.

But it remains the standard I aspire to. It is where I find meaning and truth in Christianity.

And by that definition, I have plenty of work to do before worrying about how anyone else defines Christianity—or me.

September 12: A Day For Us Conference in Provo, UtahI’ll be a Keynote Speaker at A Day for Us: A One-Day Conference with Tools for Couples, Parents, and Partners.

A Day For Us is a practical, skills-based conference for Utah couples designed to help life partners and co-parents strengthen their relationship in the middle of real life. Grounded in mental health expertise and relational science, this is not just inspiration — it’s tools you can use immediately.

I’d love to see you there!