Defining the Word "Christain"


After reading the comments on the last article, one might be tempted to ask: Is there a clear, universally accepted definition of the word "Christian," or is it somewhat vague to fit most people who profess some belief in Jesus? My understanding was that the term Christian was reserved for those churches that confessed the truth of God according to the historic and universal creeds. Thus, Christian meant one who believed in God as triune, three persons, one Godhead. It also meant one who believed in Jesus as fully God and fully man (the Two Natures of Christ.) Using this definition any number of different churches are included, even if they do not formally subscribe to the three ecumenical creeds (Apostles', Nicene, Athanasian.) However, historically within the mainline Christian denominations, certain religious organizations have not been included, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and Christian Scientists , some of the most popular of the American-born groups, even though they have similar vocabulary and may claim fidelity to the Bible.

However, in common usage, the term “Christian” is defined very broadly, and in many cases would include organizations that otherwise would deny basic beliefs of the historic faith such as those referenced above. Consulting a dictionary is little help. Dictionaries reflect common usage, not historic usage (aside from etymological background, which also is of little help in this case.) The answer to the question at the beginning therefore is no, there is no clear, universally accepted definition of Christian, and yes, the usual use of the term is quite vague and is used to include people who have some belief in Jesus. The dilemma is similar to our national use of the word “God.” We say “In God We Trust.” We make a pledge claiming to support “one nation under God.” But which God? Don’t all religions ultimately believe in the same God? Some believe this. But it makes no sense. How can you have mutually exclusive definitions of a divine being and say that it refers to the same being? Or for that matter, how can you reconcile those who believe in multiple gods with one that is monotheistic? So it is with the word Christian. We have mutually exclusive groups all claiming the same term, and with that comes a predictable watering down of the definition.

Thus, when I refer to myself as a Christian and a member of a Christian Church I have no idea how people ultimately understand me. To many it is simply a way of saying that I don't belong to any of the other major world religions such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. But considering the broad definition of Christian, such a differentiation means little in terms of my theological understanding of God, the Bible 0r the truths contained within that sacred text.

Members of the LDS church may wish to refer to themselves as Christian, and based on general usage they will have many who will not object (especially those who do not understand the significant theological differences between Mormons and mainline Christian churches.) Yet since they are, by their own definition, a renewal movement that understands current mainline expressions of Christianity in error and themselves as the true Christian Church on earth, we have to at least admit that some defining of terms is needed if we are to communicate effectively. For now I am going to use the term as it was once understood, basing my identity as Christian from the historic universal creeds that long defined the boundaries of what was orthodox (another potentially confusing term!) regarding who God is and how He has chosen to redeem the world. If a potential convert could not confess his faith in the words of the Apostles' Creed, he could not be baptized and received into the Christian Church. This has been the practice in the church for at least 1,900 years. If others wish to introduce more novel interpretations, so be it. But history must judge.

Comments

Lug Nutmegger said…
One simple correction to your otherwise fine post; you write that Mormons are "by their own definition, a renewal movement that understands current mainline expressions of Christianity in error and themselves as the true Christian Church on earth." The LDS faith actually uses the term "restoration" not renewal.

Splitting hairs probably but a nuanced difference nonetheless.
November 20, 2007 at 10:12:00 AM PST
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Firefighter's Cross

Image
[Note: A similar article to this will be shared with my department at their next meeting. During this Lenten season when we are meditating on the significance and meaning of the Passion of our Lord and the Cross at Golgotha, it seemed like one way to offer a witness to the department that captured their interest and yet was not too heavy.] [Editorial Note: In response to a recent comment on this article I have made some changes to the original version of this article especially in regard to references to the so-called St. Florian's Cross. For any confusion the previous unreferenced information may have caused I apologize. I hope that the changes are satisfactory.] THE STORY OF THE MALTESE CROSS In many ways the familiar symbol to the right requires no explanation. It is the universal insignia of firefighting nationwide. Yet the precise origins of this symbol are less clear. The most popular explanation proposes its beginning in the far distant past of medieval Crusaders fi...
Read more

Historical Roots of the Warham Guild Hood

Image
In doing just a little checking on the internet, it's interesting to see how the Warham Guild hood, which I have as part of my STM degree attire, is actually a throwback to the Medieval hood. One article notes "the work of the Warham Guild in its imaginative renderings of medieval hoods" (reference is from here ). Again, here is my hood: The Medieval hood, which was originally a very practical outer garment to cover a person's head and shoulders, protecting both from the elements, bears striking resemblance to this revived form: This hood was also a part of the garb of monks in that era. The Medieval hood, in some cases, also had what is known as a "liripipe," a long tail hanging from the back of a hood. You can see the modern stylized version of this on my own hood. From an article on "Academic hood development" we read that "By 1463 the favourite dress of doctors was the hood with round bell-shaped cape, and the lir...
Read more

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Image
According to a recent documentary, for all the talk about academic freedom in the world of the large American university system, it would seem that it extends only as far as the system defines it - especially with regards to the subject of origins and science. Noted speechwriter Ben Stein stars as host of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Dr. Angus Menuge, professor of philosophy at CUW, highlights the film in an article included in the Concordia University - Wisconsin magazine Concordian , including some seemingly revealing details about the expulsion of talented scientists who apparently were ‘expelled‘ from their positions for mentioning the theory of Intelligent Design: “In the current climate, even when academicians have a relevant doctorate and a track-record of peer-reviewed publication, their careers suffer if they argue that the scientific evidence points to an intelligent source involved in the creation of the world. In 1992, Dean Kenyon, a biology professor at ...
Read more