My view is that response to God originates in the spirit, with conviction by the Holy Spirit; the (free) will responds according to the nature of the respondent. I have long believed that "faith" should not be understood in terms of what one believes, but as synonymous with "trust"; and that means trust in a Person. Subscribing to doctrine is a consequence of faith; it is because we trust that we accept what we are told. Thus when people focus on doctrine as the substance of faith, they are merely repeating the error of the Pharisees.

In the church I was raised in, having the wrong belief about certain things meant you were going to Hell. I now think this is diabolical. Christianity is not, or, in my opinion, should not be, primarily, a religion of the head; it should be a religion of the heart. Matt. 22:34-40. The question eventually arises, what do you do when those things are in conflict? What do you do when your understanding of what you have been told conflicts with the response of the heart?

In the church I was raised in, the answer would be to turn away from the response of the heart and stick to the written word -- which, in actuality, means one's understanding of the written word; and therein lies the answer. Prov. 3:5-8.

I realized not long ago that my belief in Jesus is based on my love of Him, not the other way around.

If you follow this line of thinking, you eventually realize that the things we believe about Jesus are doctrines, too; and then you have to ask yourself, what is the essence of the good news? (I prefer "good news," because I think "gospel" has been co-opted by modern-day Pharisaism.) I am thinking about that currently.

Against these thoughts, apparently, is Romans 10, esp. vv. 9-10. These seem to say that there is such a thing as essential doctrine. How can this be?

I don't think it can. Either Paul is wrong, or what he is saying here is misunderstood. The question is, Why is this true? Maybe the reconciliation lies in understanding why this is true; and I have an inkling, a possible answer to this question. At the moment, it's just a hazy suggestion, so I am reluctant to explore it here.

Have you ever wondered why Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness? Unless you believe in a legal framework -- and I think many do, though I do not -- there is something profound here. The whole notion of "counted as" presupposes a legal framework; but I don't see how this can be. I think it's because faith is superior to obedience. The true relationship between faith and works is shown in James 2:18. In the church I grew up in, they looked at the "requirements" for salvation as faith + works, which I think shows a lack of understanding. If you understand that faith is trust, in a Person, and that both accepting what one is told and following through with actions are merely the consequences of that trust, then, I think, you have it.

Paul himself did not know what would happen to those who had not heard the gospel. Rom. 2:14-16. And I find Rom. 1:19-21 profoundly relevant in this context; I think this passage clearly states that it is possible to respond to God appropriately even when you are completely ignorant of Judeo-Christian tradition. And, because, it seems to me, proper response to God is not merely obedience, but necessarily involves relationship, this means that one can be in relationship with God although in a state of doctrinal ignorance -- even about Jesus.

This is why I distinguish between teachings about God and God, Himself. Because God is known primarily spiritually, and the rational component is necessarily imperfect, the real question, to me, is whether or not God is known, not what one believes about Him.

In the church I was raised in, this kind of thinking was anathema. If you couldn't rely on doctrine, how could you know you were saved? Which assumes, of course, that salvation depends on what one believes, rather than in a spiritual relationship with God.

I must confess, I find it impossible to reconcile traditional Christian teaching with knowing God. That doesn't mean that I believe Christians do not know God! I know that's false; there are Christians whose degree of intimacy with God far outpaces mine. That doesn't mean, however, that what they believe is necessarily right.

Paul says, "For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power." 1 Cor. 4:20. This is one of my guiding principles. Another is what Jesus taught about good trees and bad trees: it is impossible for a bad tree to produce good fruit. So, if I find the fruit of the Spirit in a place where traditional Christian teaching says it shouldn't be, I go with the experience rather than tradition. The Pharisees of Jesus’ day opted for tradition rather than experience.

I have had the awesome privilege of encountering God outside the Judeo-Christian framework. There are many things I could say about this; but the one that’s relevant here is this: I never understood what would make someone suddenly abandon their lives, drop everything, and follow someone. I suspect there are many Christians in the same boat, which is why they focus on obedience rather than faith — not out of wickedness, but out of ignorance. I learned what it meant to have this experience somewhere else.

Sorry this is so long. I hope it hasn't tried your patience!