What Is A Christian?
A Christian is someone who has asked Jesus to forgive them and lead them.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
posted by Tom Arthur at 4:15 PM
Monday, June 26, 2006
Contributors
- Comments record: 77, Duke Theology
- ...followed by... 54, Baptism Again
- ...then... 30, More Questions on Baptism
- Further Thoughts on "Mission"
- Tale of a Great Blessing
- Tony's Original Email
- Continuing off of Tom's 10:35 comment
- The Socratic Formerly Known as Derek
- Visioning and the Gospel
- East T-Mor bringin it
- This is how you blog on this
- If you wonder why Harnack ignored the french
- J Dub's responses
Previous Posts
27 Comments:
These language problems have really got you going king. To define Christian is a dangerous enterprise. Even now, your definition places it into a singularity that ignores the Church, the Trinity, the Christ in Jesus, &c, all that baggage in the stuffy old steeple that I call Christianity.
It is also an attempt of reductionism, which is by far the most dangerous thing.
I echo Wilson's concern. I'd add to his list of baggage in the steeple two essentials: Creation and Eschaton. The first identifies us in relation to God and the second identifies the source of our hope. Without the centering in time that these together give, "following Jesus" can easily be reduced to a New Age embrace of the Golden Rule.
Actually, this post has nothing to do with our other langauge debates. Its just a question I've had in my mind since we read our good ole friend Adolf.
I'm not sure I'm being reductionistic and I'm not sure that my definition doesn't imply the church (how we learn to let Jesus lead), the Trinity (why we would ask Jesus to forgive us, and how we need the Spirit for the power to follow), the Christ in Jesus (why he is capable of forgiving us), creation (how we got into the place of needing a forgiver), and the eschaton (where Jesus is leading us to).
If I'm being reductionistic its in an attempt to be able to succiently answer that question when someone asks it to me. What will I say in response in such a way that outlines all the other things you mentioned as part of it yet not bore someone with a long drawn out dissertation?
So someone else give it a stab. It has to be succient and it has to be langague that someone who doens't know a lick of theology will understand.
I recently read a Hauerwas quote in which, as I recall, he defined a Christian in terms of participation in a community of faith that practiced non-violence, or something like that. The community is a big part of it. I believe the non-violence element encapsulates the eschatological hope, because one can only be non-violent in his terms if one trusts in the ultimate justice promised at the eschaton. I think it's worth considering, as long as we keep Wilson's warning in the foreground. I'll look it up and post.
What if there isn't a succinct answer? I have never been that great of an evangelist so I guess it's easy for me to say that. That may be a cop out, but I think the definition is so fluid that it turns into Schleiermacher or Harnack addressing their liberal friends, or Luther addressing Rome, or fundis nowadays addressing evangelicals, or catholics addressing non-catholics; very few definitions in history seem to be concerned with the ignorant (I don’t mean that pejoratively), they are aimed more at distinctions between those who disagree.
So are we left with the Reformation irony that Steinmetz pointed out to us: the Bible is so clear and anyone can understand its message (and oh, by the way, here's 500 pages of creedal affirmation to make sure you got it)?
I don't buy that a description of Christianity can't be succient. I do buy that a description should leave one with more questions at the end (thus, avoiding reductionism).
Also, I think that we are in a context where defining "Christian" is essential in the same way that the early church found itself having to define who Christology or who the Trinit was. Others are out there doing it, so the Church must respond lest another more inadequate (all are inadequate) description become the norm.
A Christian is someone who lives into the reality summarized in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. How's that?
I think non-regal tom is moving in a good direction, but King, the Book of Concord was an attempt to succinctly define Christianity.
But we are not "the Church," we are only divinity school students. We do not have the authority to define Christian in any meaningful way so all that is left is distinguishing our Christianity from others' with whom we disagree. And leaving room for questions doesn't avoid reductionism, your still reducing it to a pithy phrase that only manages to be informative because of what it leaves out.
Claiming the creeds as defining is the right direction (I think) because it comes from a place when the Church had authority to speak to the world in a far different way than we do now. But even then, it doesn't mention baptism. For me, when I think of Christian it relates to the great commission and that is the language of discipleship and baptism.
I'd like to emphasize that my suggested definition sees the creeds as pointing beyond themselves to a greater reality, and it is that reality into which one must live in order to be a Christian. A "definition" of this sort is more of a guide, pointing the inquirer in the right direction for deepening his or her understanding of Christian life and belief. Put another way, it must have "hooks" in it that draw the inquirer into the inexhaustible richness of that reality. It is a portal. My "definition" sends people to the creeds, the creeds send people to...pretty much everywhere, eventually. Baptism, discipleship, creation, eschatology, Christology, Trinity...living into the reality summarized by the creeds implies all of that. Just "asking Jesus into your heart" (to pick on a common definition) doesn't (or, if it does, getting there requires a circuitous route).
Tom M.,
I'd say that your defintion generally fits my criterion. It is succient but its a bit of a stretch to suggest that you don't have to know much about theology to understand it. Certainly the creeds are in basic language, and I like the idea of pointing people to the creeds. But I'd like the defintion to say something itself directly, rather than just indirectly. Can you summarize the creeds in some way while still making reference to them?
Wilson, I'm gathering that you still haven't bought into this whole venture yet. So here's my question to you: how will structure a new member class? How many sessions and how long is each one? What are the sessions called? What is a summary of the content of each session?
Tom A.
What I would like for a new member class would be a class before you become a member that lasts a long time before a person would become a member.
I can understand how unpragmatic that might be, but it would be what I would strive for. Something to make membership an actual property rather than a name on a role.
But I feel the question is overly pragmatic, and you're right, I still haven't bought into this whole venture yet. I do have a great suspician of anything that's purely practical, but this aimed more at William James and Richard Rorty than at anything else. It is just hard for me to get those fellows out of my head when we think of answering questions in the moment that are supposed to be suffificient for the moment but insufficient as time passes.
And I don't want to say it's impossible, it's just that my 'hermeneutic of suspician' (which I hate) is strongest on this issue.
Wilson,
At some point you're going to have to organize a new members class, assuming you're going to be a pastor. I'm not saying that you have to have the entire thing figured out, but give the content a try (I originally wrote "give it a stab" then realized you probably wouldn't apprecaite that metaphor). Better try here together than later on by yourself in a theologically vacuous church. So it will have to be finite (though you can certainly strongly imply that membership learning goes on for a lifetime...). But what would the content be like? What would your topics be?
Tony,
I like the inclusion of the Holy Spirit. So here's a (synthetic) conglomoration of our various suggestions thus far for the sake of further discussion:
A Christian is one who lives into the reality of the Apostles & Nicean Creeds by asking Jesus to forgive them and lead them in such a way that the Holy Spirit transforms them.
I'm wondering about replacing the Apostles and Nicean Creed with something like "historic truths of the Church".
More thoughts?
Tom
Like I said, I would like to have an extended pre-membership course, probably in a basic catechetical method of the apostles creed and the Lord's prayer (I don't like the ten commandments), and then, given my methodist context, look at a few of the 44 sermons and the book of discipline. My parents used to teach a new member class and I didn't like it at all so I have thought about it a lot.
But I think your pragmatic look at the issue unjustly skips over my reductionism critique which I still think is valid, but I guess that's just me.
And by taking out the creeds from your definition, how is that not watering down the faith?
When were the creeds formulated? I think Nicea was somewhere in the 4th century. Were those who came before Nicea guilty of watering down the faith? I think the Apostle's Creed is earlier than that, though if I remember correctly, no one really knows when that was formed. But I think generally the NT is considered earlier than the Apostles Creed. So again, were those who were before the Apostles Creed guilty of watering down the faith by not making reference to it. I think I'd look at the creeds as a further and later explanation of the faith, not necessarily part of what needs to be in its original introduction but things extremely helpful as other questions start to come up.
As per reductionism, what exactly is reductionism?
I wonder if we would get somewhere in this discussion if we stopped thinking about how to "define" what a Christian is and started thinking about how to "articulate" it. The latter seems much more open-ended.
Socratic King is right: In many circumstances, we must pick and choose what we want to say. (What we choose to say will often be influenced by audience, maturity, time considerations, etc.) Membership class can't drag on indefinitely. Yet we must insist that the articulation we have provided is not exhaustive. It may delineate boundaries (i.e., I don't think that someone who doesn't live into the reality summarized in the creeds is a Christian), but it does not adequately describe the richness of all that is encompassed within those boundaries. It is only an entryway into the inexhaustible richness of the Christian life. If we can get that message across to people we're talking to, I think we've gone a long way towards starting them on a lifelong journey.
I like the distinction Tom M. makes between defining and articulating what a Christian is. I also the Prince's suggestion that a big chunk of articulating in in the living. I espcially liked the idea that the definition is pneumatic. So I'd suggest we've got various setting that we must be prepared to articulate what a Christian is:
1. When someone asks us off the cuff and we have almost no time for an extended discussion.
2. When someone comes to church and hears on of our sermons (about a 20 minute articulation)
3. When someone comes to a membership class over an extended period of time (for my previous church is was three three hour sessions).
4. When someone joins the church and begins learning for a lifetime what it means to be a Christian.
So I'm particularly interested in the first two. The one minute articulation and the sermon-length articulation. Right now we've been focusing on #1. Here's my new articulation (hopefully one that is pneumatically powered by my lifestyle):
A Christian is someone who by God's grace lives into the reality of the Trinity by asking Jesus to forgive them and lead them by the power of the Holy Spirit, each and every day.
And yes, Phil, I believe someone mentally handicapped could be a Chrsitian based on that articulation.
Tom,
I still have to challenge your articulation on one point. Perhaps its is implied there, but I don't see anything that speaks about the necessity of performing one's role in God's drama within a community of faith. It seems you leave open the possibility of being a Christian behind an individualistic fortress. I think you need to consider that being a Christian means participation in the body of Christ - participation in a community of faith.
I would like to jump back and address the king. I said taking out the creeds and putting in historical truth is watering down because it takes out the particular reality of Christianity.
And I still think in even in catechetical, even in evangelistic means, articulation (and if someone asked me "what is the articulation of Christianity?" I would fall over laughing, though I am sympathetic to the distinction) of situation one usually turns into propositional reductionism. By that I mean, (unless it is heavily qualified, which destroys the succinct articulation) it presents Christianity as a proposition to affirm, and at that a reduced kernel like our good friend Adolf. A 'historic truth" underlying everything else.
And Prince, I think witness is another word we need to reclaim as church. More from how it has turned in the popular mind (I heard this on Fresh Air) into a propositional action instead of an incarnational action.
OK, here's my take five:
What is a Christian?
I am a Christian. I, by God's grace, live into the reality of the Trinity by asking Jesus to forgive me and lead me by the power of the Holy Spirit, each and every day within the community of faith we call the church. And that's just the beginning.
Wilson, I still think you'll have to answer this question at some point in your ministry (hopefully many points) in a moment where you won't have a ton of time to do so. And it would be better to be prepared beforehand (with a quick "breath prayer" asking the help of the Holy Spirit in the moment) than try to stumble through it off the cuff.
But your attempt to articulate before that situation eliminates that situation from being real. Being prepared to answer is different from formulating an answer ahead of time. I feel that I am prepared to answer that question to someone who asks, but not for a hypothetical excercise.
Ok, I finally found that Hauerwas quote. It's from "The Peaceable Kingdom." St. Stan says: "We are 'in Christ' insofar as we are part of that community pledged to be faithful to [Jesus'] life as the initiator of the kingdom of peace."
The context of this quote is one in which Hauerwas has made clear that his allusion to Jesus' life includes his teachings and actions, his crucifixion, and his resurrection.
Personally, I think that if we are to lead to Christ those in our individualistic culture, we must put a greater emphasis on participation in a community of faith pledged to Christ. That is a bit different than the way you have worded it.
Also, all the language about the Trinity strikes me as overly abstract and suggestive of an understanding of faith as the acceptance of propositions as true. I don't think I would use it, myself. I believe it is implicit in Jesus' teachings, since Jesus taught about the Holy Spirit and the Father. Why make something more abstract than Jesus made it? Our story includes the promise and reality of the Holy Spirit. Not some abstraction called the Trinity. I agree with Hauerwas and Wells that it is performance that matters and not affirmations. Faith is action and not mere assent. This coheres with Derek's push for language about "witness."
If I were to teach a class as you suggest, I believe my teaching must be skewed toward acting out the kerygma, rather than describing it. Disciples are actors in God's story whose actions are consistent with Jesus' life and oriented towards the fulfillment of resurrection promises. So the teaching must be aimed at habits and not ideas. I would focus on getting converts to adopt our story as their story and to locate themselves in it. Isn't the task really to indoctrinate converts into a drama that stores/inculcates a heritage and values (a new identity!) and not just to teach facts about what Christians believe? I think this distinction is important. In our privacy worshipping, self-referential culture, I believe it is far too easy for converts to slip into a modernistic gnosticism or a Harnackian rationalism (which then tends towards legalism)if we simply describe our principles and teach things "about" Jesus.
Steve,
I like your thoughts on definitions. I would agree. I think one thing that this string of blog has shown me is that one "definition" or "articulation" that gets the entire job done is probably impossible. But there are a number that will get someone pointed in the right direction.
Wilson,
So will you not prepare for sermons each Sunday fearing that it won't be "real" if you prepare? I asked the question, so why isn't this a "real" situation? I suspect I could learn a lot from you if I am ever in a situation to hear you try to answer this question for someone else who is not a Christian and is inquiring. I already have in this blog.
Craig,
I have appreciated your emphasis on community. I'm not sure I like St. Stan's defintion though. Something about it rubs me the wrong way. Its maybe the same thing that Sarah mentions in the other discussion about Episcopalians thinking that they only need to show up to church 3 our of 4 times a month and take communion occasionally. I realize that's not what St. Stan is suggesting or implying, but it's the pitfall in that direction. I'd like to balance out both the personal and the communal.
So what do people think about this:
What is a Christian? I am a Christian.
Tom
King, as I prepare for sermons each week (which I preach every week in my field ed) I prepare it for my congregation specifically, for the people I know and for the needs I have felt. But preaching I find fundamentally different then articulating what a Christian is, a question not answered by the Westminster, the Luther Shorter, or the Catholic catechism (not that they are necessarily authoritative, it is just a representation of how denominations have historically looked at that particular issue).
Wilson,
I think it has come to the time where we say the proverbial: we agree to disagree. But before we end this conversation here are my reflections on where I have come through it and how I have changed because of it:
1. A definition of Christian is a sticky business. I was not expecting it to be so.
2. My original definition was insufficient as a definition.
3. My original definition may be sufficient to begin the conversation.
4. The role of community in defining a Christian is not something I had previously considered (though it was a significant value, obviously).
5. I can see potential reductionistic pitfalls I had not seen before, but am still not convinced it is a venture not worth trying, or even necessary.
So I am left with Wesley's mandate to have unity in essentials, liberty in non-essentials, and charity in all things. Certainly defining Christian is a not nearly as essential as being a Christian. In the words of Justice Stewart, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."
Relating the definition of a christian to pornography is a classic stroke that makes you worthy of the crown. I humbly admit defeat.
Prince,
You just made major points for bringing the total # of comments on this topic to 30! I think that is now the official record.
Blog Master,
Can you somehow put on the home page the reigning number of comments on a topic?
P.S. this comments makes 31.
P.S.S. What is a Christian? Someone who's neighbor says they're a Christian.
Your most wise and benevolent highness,
In the interest of advancing said record and in keeping with my Wesleyan insistence in this thread that it is performance and not words that matter, I urge the amendment of your last to: Someone whose neighbor experiences the Christ through him/her.
Post a Comment
<< Home