What does it mean to be "Christian?"

[Ryan Scott]

I know we've been working some semantic conversations here, so I guess I'll start another one.

In more and more conversations it seems like the term "Christian" is thrown around with many different meanings and understandings from various perspectives.

Before I engage this further, I'd just like to get some definitions from people.

[Hans Deventer]

It means you follow Christ, you're part of the "people of the way".

[Ian Gentles]

"Christs ones", belonging to him.

[Ryan Scott]

It means you follow Christ, you're part of the "people of the way".


"Christs ones", belonging to him.


So, to both of you, what does that mean? I guess what I'm getting at, is it simply a spiritual or intellectual assent to Christ or is there a component of action involved?

What spurred this question is the idea that if some persons' action is criticized as "un Christian" their salvation or eternal destination is somehow called into question.

Does Christian mean that I believe in Jesus Christ or that I act like Jesus Christ? And what is the difference between the two, if any?

[Paul DeBaufer]

So, to both of you, what does that mean? I guess what I'm getting at, is it simply a spiritual or intellectual assent to Christ or is there a component of action involved?

What spurred this question is the idea that if some persons' action is criticized as "un Christian" their salvation or eternal destination is somehow called into question.

Does Christian mean that I believe in Jesus Christ or that I act like Jesus Christ? And what is the difference between the two, if any?

Interesting questions Ryan.

When I read passages such as Matthew 25 with the sheep and the goats and one group doing what is acceptable and the other not and each spending eternity in different places, and when I consider James I see that we are to act like Christ. but then passages like John 3 and much of the work of Paul suggest that we are to believe. And don't we as protestants say salvation is by grace alone through faith alone? So then, it would seem that Christlikeness is faith in action, or our salvation at work not just in us but through us or in cooperation with us as well.

So I would hazard that to be a Christian means that i believe in the person, life and teaching of Jesus Christ and that through this belief I am in-dwelt with the Holy Spirit who helps me act more like Christ. I don't think it is either or but both, but we need to get them in the right order. Don't we?

[Randy Wise]

So, to both of you, what does that mean? I guess what I'm getting at, is it simply a spiritual or intellectual assent to Christ or is there a component of action involved?

What spurred this question is the idea that if some persons' action is criticized as "un Christian" their salvation or eternal destination is somehow called into question.

Does Christian mean that I believe in Jesus Christ or that I act like Jesus Christ? And what is the difference between the two, if any?

One who "Loves" Jesus by word and deed. 1john touches on this sincere Love and the annointing we have received from the Lord. Jesus also taught those that Love Him obey Him. So "love" in regard to Jesus is a key

Also Romans 8 (we, (those that belong to Christ) have been baptized into the death and resurrection of Jesus by the Spirit.

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

[Marsha Lynn]

I tend to define "Christian" in terms of following the teachings of Jesus Christ. A Marxist studies the teachings of Karl Marx and allows them to change his or her life. A Christian studies the teachings of Jesus Christ and allows them to change his or her life.

Of course, that definition leaves many church people outside the definition because they don't actually study the teachings of Jesus Christ. Rather, they attend gatherings led by those who do such studies and get a second-hand dose of Jesus' teachings. Such people struggle to get a grasp on what it means to be a Christ-follower.

People often use language such as "accepting Christ into one's heart" and "converting" to Christianity. I think describing it in terms of a decision to commit one's life to studying and incorporating into one's life the teachings of Jesus Christ is a more clear description of what takes place.

I don't necessarily see this as the only way to define Christianity, but it's how I respond if asked for a definition. It helps me keep my own goals in life in sight. "I want to know Christ" -- his life and values and instructions and example for living.

Marsha

[Hans Deventer]

So, to both of you, what does that mean? I guess what I'm getting at, is it simply a spiritual or intellectual assent to Christ or is there a component of action involved?

I thought I had avoided any definition that included a mere spiritual assent? Apparently not. How do you see following Christ as a mere spiritual or intellectual assent, without any component of action?


Does Christian mean that I believe in Jesus Christ or that I act like Jesus Christ? And what is the difference between the two, if any?

There is no difference. But since "believe" can way too easily be explained as mere mental assent, I did not use the word.

[Gina Stevenson]

That highly articulate lady has done it again! [thanks, Marsha] ;)

[Ryan Scott]

I thought I had avoided any definition that included a mere spiritual assent? Apparently not. How do you see following Christ as a mere spiritual or intellectual assent, without any component of action?

I don't disagree with your answer, but "following Christ" and "being people of the Way" is still subject to judgment. It's the old debate about legalism - people who believe in Jesus and adhere to an arbitrary checklist can claim their following Christ.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is more to be expected and how we might explain that to people. Being people of "the Way" is a good start, but again, that reeks of "membership" in something.

[Hans Deventer]

It's the old debate about legalism - people who believe in Jesus and adhere to an arbitrary checklist can claim their following Christ.

They can? Not in my book, and if I read Matthew 25, not in the Lord's book either.


I'm just trying to figure out if there is more to be expected and how we might explain that to people. Being people of "the Way" is a good start, but again, that reeks of "membership" in something.

How would you want to avoid that?

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."

[Ryan Scott]

They can? Not in my book, and if I read Matthew 25, not in the Lord's book either.



How would you want to avoid that?

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."

These comments are exactly the points on which I am struggling. We see people all over the place who are claiming to be Christian for one reason or another without any understanding of the gospel - sometimes with an understanding directly contrary to the gospel. It's amazing the damage one irresponsible preacher can do.

At the same time, we have a society in which "membership" can usually be purchased or attained easily without requirements of follow up. I have a piece of paper at home that says I'm a member, so I must be.

I know the real answer to this is that we have no control over what other people define as being Christian. I guess I'm just looking to make a few other people uncomfortable so I have some company.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I don't disagree with your answer, but "following Christ" and "being people of the Way" is still subject to judgment. It's the old debate about legalism - people who believe in Jesus and adhere to an arbitrary checklist can claim their following Christ.

I'm just trying to figure out if there is more to be expected and how we might explain that to people. Being people of "the Way" is a good start, but again, that reeks of "membership" in something.

I think that in my mind if one is "adhering to an arbitrary checklist" are not following Christ because as followers of the Way we do flowing from the heart. Our deeds become our desire and is not some requirement we are fulfilling. I have seen people get involved in homeless ministry, but it soon became apparent that for some it was jewelry that they wore so as to appear to be doing Christian deeds. like Jesus tells about the religious of His day who would wear their phylacteries out in public for show. So, I do not think we can approach ministry or life at all as a checklist--what we do must flow from a Holy Spirit filled heart. I am reminded of Matthew 7:21-23

21 ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?” 23Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.”

I think in context of the Sermon on the Mount we find that it is a matter of the state of the heart and obedience in the heart.

[Randy Wise]

I'm just trying to figure out if there is more to be expected and how we might explain that to people.

See Pauls attempt in Acts 26 though Agrippa thought Pauls great learning had warped his mind:)

Randy

[James Diggs]

I don't disagree with your answer, but "following Christ" and "being people of the Way" is still subject to judgment.

Maybe that's exactly why being a "Christian" from a religious perspective is not the point.


These comments are exactly the points on which I am struggling. We see people all over the place who are claiming to be Christian for one reason or another without any understanding of the gospel - sometimes with an understanding directly contrary to the gospel. It's amazing the damage one irresponsible preacher can do.

At the same time, we have a society in which "membership" can usually be purchased or attained easily without requirements of follow up. I have a piece of paper at home that says I'm a member, so I must be.

I hear you. I don't think the gospel is about "membership" into a religion, no doubt there are plenty of "Christians" who have missed the point.

Still- it is a good starting point to say Christians should be "followers of Jesus", "Christ ones" and "people of the Way" even though we must continually sort out what that actually means. Living a life continually trying to work all this out might be part of what it means to follow Jesus to begin with.

Philippians 2:12b-13 "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."

[Cynthia Prentice]

Maybe that's exactly why being a "Christian" from a religious perspective is not the point.



I hear you. I don't think the gospel is about "membership" into a religion, no doubt there are plenty of "Christians" who have missed the point.

Still- it is a good starting point to say Christians should be "followers of Jesus", "Christ ones" and "people of the Way" even though we must continually sort out what that actually means. Living a life continually trying to work all this out might be part of what it means to follow Jesus to begin with.

Philippians 2:12b-13 "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."

Hi James,

I like your comment...it is very Eastern-thinking...stating truth in terms of two contrasting viewpoints...leaving them in "tension" with one another...and accepting them as paradox. I've heard this described as reading the text with "both hands" (think Tevya in Fiddler on the Roof).

"On the one hand the gospel is not about membership. On the other hand it is a good starting point to say Christians should be followers of Jesus."

Lois Tverberg uses the topic of free will to illustrate the "two hands" approach used by ancient rabbis. Here is an excerpt from her article, "Thinking Biblically Takes Both Hands."


When Western-thinkers find a paradox in the Bible, they often are tempted to resolve the conflict by rejecting one side for the other. For instance, the question of whether humans have free will or whether our actions are predestined has divided Christians for centuries. Some reject free will entirely, as if humans are only puppets in God's hands. Others reject the idea that God is in control, imagining that God is wringing his hands in heaven, hoping that in the end everything will come out OK. Many churches have divided over these issues.

In contrast, the rabbinic answer was simply, "God foresees everything, yet man has free will."2 Their observation was that passages in Scripture actually support both points of view! Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and yet God hardened his heart. (Ex 7:3, 13; 8:15) God foresaw that it would take 400 years for the Canaanites to become so evil that he would evict them from their land (Gen 16:15). But he also offered the choice to the Israelites to take on his covenant or not. (Dt 30:19) Amazingly, the rabbis simply embrace the two ideas in tension with each other rather than needing to seek resolution. By doing so, they are actually being true to the text by not ignoring passages that don't fit their theology. They see that God alone can understand some things.

2 Rabbi Akiva, (who lived between about 50-135 AD) Mishnah, Avot 3:16.

Blessings to you James,

Cynthia

[Todd Erickson]

"Christian" means whatever you want it to mean...even if that definition is incredibly offensive and hurtful. It's a personal word, and a cultural one, and in the only place it's found in the bible, Peter says "this isn't who we are, it's just how they're labeling us, but we'll certainly make use of it while it's here". I place no particular weight or value in it, and find it's use these days to be broad and permissive, and generally graceless. But then, that's from my perspective.

[Steve Reece]

I think it means to follow Christ in the best way one knows how. I've had discussion with LDS members who were more Wesleyan in their thinking than many Nazarene's that I know. If someone claims to be a Christian, I accept them as a Christian. Will some of them turn out to not be Christians? Sure, but how can I possibly know is and is not. That is not for me to decide. So I offer anyone claiming the name of Christian the same grace that I ask from God: to be accepted by Him as a Christian.

[Marsha Lynn]

I have been working my way through Bryan Stone's Evangelism after Christendom. The section I read this morning includes this line: "Christian salvation is our being made a part of a people and incorporated into the practices, politics, and economics of that people." I thought of this thread and realized that most (but not all as I wrote initially) of our responses thus far have dealt with "Christian" as the label for an individual without requiring any sort of involvement in the body of believers.

I wonder how much community a person must embrace to be "part of a people." Is there such a thing as a "just Jesus and me on our own little ministry team" Christian? Being outside the church fellowship for whatever reason doesn't stop a person from doing ministry to the world on their own but does it cost that person so much in fellowship and mutual support that they are no longer a Christian by the definition above? How many people does it take to constitute a Christian community? Can my husband, children, and I form our own little community without need of the organized church? If not, how many others must we invite into our fellowship before we become "a people"? If we are truly showing the love of Christ to others will we inevitably be drawn into community with those responding to that love? Does it indicate a lack of true commitment to Christ's command to love one another if that doesn't happen? I would be reluctant to say so, but I can't dismiss the question without at least considering the issue.

Marsha

[Dale Cozby]

The term "Christian" is as vague from its true meaning as the word "love". In spite of it being misused, usurped and maligned, it still holds meaning just like the word love.

Simply, Christian means to follow the teachings of Christ. In the beginning of being a follower than means a mental accent to believe the words of Christ and repent(turn to a new way of thinking) forgive others their trespasses, turn the other cheek when struck, love your neighbor as yourself, to love each other as Christ showed his love to His disciples, to seek forgiveness when you wrong another person, and to trust in God and Christ for the grace to cover all your wrongs. So a Christian lives in the world by a different drum beat. He hears a beat set by the master. That drum beat often draws people who listen to it together into groups we call the church.

Now eternal salvation or eternal life are not the same thing as being a Christian, for we know that many will be saved that have never heard the name of Christ nor read the words in red. So rightly said, while all true Christians have assurance of salvation as they believe and live out the gospel, so do others who by faith trust in God and live by the beat of the same drum the Spirit taps out. But they, becoming a law unto themselves, do what the law requires. A law they have not seen in a formal system or religion. They, by the power of God's Holy Spirit, achieve what some would be "in name only Christians" fail to do, trust and obey what the Spirit tells them, like Noah and Abraham etc...

[Billie Goodson]

I have been working my way through Bryan Stone's Evangelism after Christendom. The section I read this morning includes this line: "Christian salvation is our being made a part of a people and incorporated into the practices, politics, and economics of that people." I thought of this thread and realized that all of our responses thus far have dealt with "Christian" as the label for an individual without requiring any sort of involvement in the body of believers.

Marsha

Something struck me the other day (and no, it was not my wife) that this comment resonates with. I was thinking about something that I had heard somewhere and it had to do with why a Christian should be part of a fellowship and it dovetailed in with how some people say that truths are communicated to them. The issue that was stuck in my mind was someone who has a testimony such that they take a verse, completely devoid of any context and then say that this verse was spoken to them by God into their life.

This seems to go to another thread on here about verses being taken out of context. What struck me was how we should consider Matthew 18:20 "For where two or more are gathered together in My Name, I am there in the midst of them." There are some situations I am familiar with where people have claimed a bible verse as a personal message from God that then seems to not bear out -- say they believe that God has anointed their business with Jeremiah 29:11 "For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future" and then their business fails. They then believe that God has at the least misled them. This causes all kinds of difficulties.

This makes me come back to the idea of a people and our lives as a part of a people and how that seems to be more of the idea of Christ. I just wonder, he never really seemed to speak to a single apostle, but usually it seems he dealt with groups. Yet, we want to so internalize and segment our Christian walk to be so personal rather than relational. This seems to contradict the popular idea of religion we get from society that it is a deeply personal and private thing that should not be brought into the public square.

[Ryan Scott]

I think it means to follow Christ in the best way one knows how. I've had discussion with LDS members who were more Wesleyan in their thinking than many Nazarene's that I know. If someone claims to be a Christian, I accept them as a Christian. Will some of them turn out to not be Christians? Sure, but how can I possibly know is and is not. That is not for me to decide. So I offer anyone claiming the name of Christian the same grace that I ask from God: to be accepted by Him as a Christian.

I agree. This question for me came in a conversation I had with someone where I questioned a specific action. I said it didn't seem like something Christ would do and thus not "Christian." The response was "I do that and I'm a Christian, so it must be a Christian act."

His working definition was that because he'd repented and believe Jesus was God that he was a Christian - beyond that, his actions reflected his belief.

I don't think it's a complex problem - we all generally tend to agree on the thread. I was just curious as to the sorts of responses I'd get to the question.

[Shea Zellweger]

Simply, Christian means to follow the teachings of Christ. In the beginning of being a follower than means a mental accent to believe the words of Christ and repent(turn to a new way of thinking) forgive others their trespasses, turn the other cheek when struck, love your neighbor as yourself, to love each other as Christ showed his love to His disciples, to seek forgiveness when you wrong another person, and to trust in God and Christ for the grace to cover all your wrongs. So a Christian lives in the world by a different drum beat. He hears a beat set by the master. That drum beat often draws people who listen to it together into groups we call the church.

But Dale... none of that is a mental assent, it's true repentance. A mental assent says "I recognize the truth/accuracy of this," but does not result in a changed life. Many addicts know that their behavior is bad for them, and thereby offer mental assent to the need to escape the addiction, but never go beyond that. Likewise, if we simply acknowledge our addiction to sin (mental assent) without ever even attempting to change, or be changed, then we haven't even begun to repent, so how can we be considered Christian?

[Hans Deventer]

I agree. This question for me came in a conversation I had with someone where I questioned a specific action. I said it didn't seem like something Christ would do and thus not "Christian." The response was "I do that and I'm a Christian, so it must be a Christian act."

I'd like to see him/her try that one before the throne of God. There might be some disagreement there.

[Dale Cozby]

But Dale... none of that is a mental assent, it's true repentance. A mental assent says "I recognize the truth/accuracy of this," but does not result in a changed life. Many addicts know that their behavior is bad for them, and thereby offer mental assent to the need to escape the addiction, but never go beyond that. Likewise, if we simply acknowledge our addiction to sin (mental assent) without ever even attempting to change, or be changed, then we haven't even begun to repent, so how can we be considered Christian? I think our 21st century understanding is far removed from what people called belief back then. To believe something would always result in a change. One would respond to what they believe to be true. If someone told me my house was on fire, if I believed them, I would take immediate and direct action to save it, or I would decide it was too far gone and do nothing. Both responses are in fact a response to a belief held as true.

The problem is what we are making a mental accent to: imputed or imparted holiness?

If someone thinks in imparted holiness, that belief in will and must result in changed desires, and lives, they will respond to His call by changing their ways.
If someone thinks that imputed holiness is belief in Jesus, it only results in an accent to grace but not repentance. They need not respond outwardly only inwardly to what God is doing, apart from what they are doing. This is the problem with "imputed" theology. it requires no change, no evidence to exist.
The mental accent(belief) of grace without repentance, is the result of the latter.

So some people believe being a Christian is the accent to imputed and some imparted....I choose the latter.