In his column ("Faith lies behind Quad chalking," April 18), Derek Radney defended the chalking of the Quad as a witness to his faith. Though I do not share his perspective, I respect his faith nonetheless. My concern comes from Radney's attempts to define for the Wake Forest community what Christianity is. Radney wrote, "The basis of Christianity is that we as humans are all sinners, and the only way we can have a relationship with God is by accepting forgiveness given by the sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins É To be a Christian is to acknowledge Jesus as the way, the truth and the life and that no one comes to God except through Him." While this is one interpretation of Christianity and the relationship of God and creation, it certainly does not exhaust the breadth and variety of theological ideas found within the boundaries of Christianity.

I write for two purposes. First, I feel that Radney and others who would so narrowly draw a line of demarcation in the rich theological sand of Christianity deserve to hear the voice of those within the established Christian community who do not necessarily identify with their well-defined beliefs. Secondly, many of my friends, and I am sure many others on this campus, have heard Christianity defined this way all their lives. Radney's article, and the chalking incident it supports, continues to defend this view of God and humanity that fails to speak to the concerns and experience of many of God's people. To this audience I hope to convey a sense of nurturing openness and questioning that I have found in the religious community on campus.

What many people both within and outside the Christian community do not realize is that Christology, the search to understand the nature and work of Christ, is not a static process. Throughout the history of Christianity, believers have debated what exactly they believe about Jesus. In fact, the "substitutionary" theory stating that Jesus died for us to forgive our debt of sin, which most people accept as doctrinal Christian belief, originated in the 12th century in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury. Though this notion has theological roots in the early church, it was one of many and did not truly receive official support until over a millennium after the death of Jesus.

My purpose is not to suggest that this idea is wrong, but merely incomplete, ignoring alternative images of Jesus, God and humanity within Christianity. Alternate examples include the belief that Christ's work lies not in his death, but in his life. Christ was a friend to the poor, the outcast and the people who culture and religion called dirty and separated from the rest of society. A close reading of the gospels, especially Luke, can reveal a Christ who proclaims the Kingdom of God not as some otherworldly salvation, but as a call to reform the world in which we live. This image of Jesus seeks to restore community and dignity to the image of God, not to drown us in guilt for making him die. Christ may be understood not as he who saves, but as he who can teach us how to save ourselves through wisdom and compassion. Even this is but one interpretation of many, and my goal is not to propose it as "the Truth," but to offer it as an example of the many voices that come out of the Christian tradition.

Additionally, what I think most offends people, causing some to view Christians as exclusive or intolerant, is the declaration taken from the Gospel of John that Christ is the only way or truth. While this declaration of exclusivity is definitely the loudest voice in Christianity, it certainly does not reflect a consensus by any stretch of the imagination.

Many lay Christians, as well as innumerable ministers and Christian theologians, have opened their hearts to the truth to be found in Buddhism, Judaism, Islam and other faith traditions. In fact, entering into truly open dialogue with these traditions can enrich our own. We should admit the possibility that others in the world might know things about life that we have not yet learned.

To my friends in the Christian community I offer simply that the issue of defining our faith is not a simple one. Again, I am not arguing that Radney's position is wrong. I am simply acknowledging that there are many voices within the Christian community itself, including ministers, scholars and lay persons, whose beliefs may differ from his definition.

If we are to remain a strong community, accepting and loving all our sisters and brothers with respect and compassion, we must be open to the varying ways in which we all experience the divine. Disagreement does not necessarily mean that someone is wrong. If we proclaim God to be the ultimate transcendent reality, then we must not limit the possibilities of spiritual expression and understanding too quickly.

I respect Radney's faith statements and appreciate the sense of love and dedication with which he presents his ideas. However, as someone who has struggled with the theology of mainstream Christianity, I know how frightening declarations like Radney's can be for those who feel ostracized by a seemingly exclusive and condemning faith community. However, I hope to assure you that his words and definitions do not reflect the singular nature of the Campus Ministry groups on campus.