Who gets to define the term "Christian"?

[fishwax]

Poll question: Who gets to define the term "Christian"?

Some individuals and institutions claim that being a Christian simply means accepting Christ as your personal savior. Others claim that isn't necessary.

Some individuals and institutions claim that Christian salvation requires eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus. Others claim that isn't necessary.

Some individuals and institutions claim that you have to follow the instructions of Christ to be a Christian. Others claim that being a Christian requires only faith.

Some people are frustrated that american Christianity has been "hijacked" by the likes of bush, robertson, and falwell, and so make the claim that these people "aren't real Christians."

Some people assert that the catholic church condemns millions of well-meaning followers to eternal damnation with their false teachings and idol worship, making the claim that catholics "aren't real Christians."

Some people are frustrated that many criticisms of the cultural impact of Christianity are dismissed by the claim that "those people aren't real Christians."

The There’s only one requirement to being a Christian thread (though I don't think it was intended as a theological treatise) got me thinking about this. Plenty of discussions and plenty of arguments--hell, plenty of wars--have started over the subject of the specific membership requirements to the "christian" "club."

But what I’m more interested in is what people think about who gets to control and distribute the metaphorical membership cards. Who gets to decide whether someone really is a Christian? Who hands out the credentials? I mean this as a sociological question rather than a theological one. I'm not offering christian as a good or bad term, and I’m interested in the opinions of believers, skeptics, and all shades in between.


(on edit: trimmed wording of choices 4 and 6 to fit)

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Who gets to define what a true American is? Or a liberal?

Or a conservative? Or an artist? Or a hack? Or an environmentalist? Or a vegetarian? Or a parent? Or an engineer? Accountant? Historian? Scientist?

No ones gets to define it; yet everyone gets to define it.

That's the conundrum.

[BringEmOn]

2. In the end, God gets to decide.

[fishwax]

3. assuming there is a God and assuming God is interested :)

Of course, there are Christians who believe that election is predetermined--according to that doctrine God won't have to wait until the end and has already decided. :)

[liberal N proud]

4. Excellent point - but to expand on that thought

One can only be defined as a Christian by their sole and by example. If you have to advertise with a fish on your car or a Jesus Saves t-shirt then maybe your Christianity is not where it should be.
I don't have to prove to the rest of the world whether I am a Christian or not, God will determine that and that is the only power that I need to worry about. Not Pat Robertson or any other fanatic who may or may not challenge my faith or lack there of.

[Bill McBlueState]

5. it's like any other religion

The secular definition of a Christian or a Hindu has to be "one who claims to be a Christian" or "one who claims to be a Hindu." To restrict it any more than that requires taking a side in a theological debate, which those outside the religion can't be expected to do.

[fishwax]

6. I voted for Choice 6, even though I think it's poorly worded.

(I think it's poorly worded even though I wrote it :))

A meaningful definition of Christianity is impossible outside the scope of an individual or an institution; therefore, if one calls oneself a Christian, we must accept that for the purposes of debate

I think Bill McBlueState better captured what I meant by that: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1703147#1703431

[Bill McBlueState]

7. thanks!

I actually voted for the first option. Now that I can read all of the sixth option (thanks for the edit!), #6 is a more precise description of my point of view, but I think 1 and 6 are very similar.

[fishwax]

9. They are very similar ... I think the subtle difference I intended was

that the first simply accepts people at their word that they are a christian, while the sixth allows one the position of "bush isn't a christian," without claiming that "therefore christianity can't be criticized through bush."

I guess it is a fairly fine nuance, but I often see threads on religion here where people present criticisms of christianity as an institution through the actions of prominent christians, only to be met with "x isn't a real christian, so it doesn't count." Myself, I figure anybody can call themselves a christian under whatever terms they feel comfortable with. Likewise, I figure anyone can personally excommunicate anyone else (like bush) based on their personal definition. But a secular debate, as you say, must accept people at their word or else require a theological discussion.

[BeTheChange]

8. A verse

Galatians 3

24Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian and teacher to lead us until Christ came. So now, through faith in Christ, we are made right with God. 25But now that faith in Christ has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian. 26So you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have been made like him. 28There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians--you are one in Christ Jesus. 29And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and now all the promises God gave to him belong to you.

[fishwax]

11. So are you saying that everyone is a christian?

Or just that all Galatians are Christians? ;) Only kidding.

But in all serious, Paul was writing to a body of believers. So are you saying that all of us are christians (which is actually a choice I considered putting in the poll, though I hadn't thought specifically of this verse) or that all those who profess faith in the divinity of christ are christians? (I suppose the latter would imply Choice #2 ...)

[BeTheChange]

13. You and Kierkegaard will have to duke that one out...

"Kierkegaard's life culminated with his attack (1854) on the Danish state church, which he saw as an embodiment of Christendom. In Christendom, Christianity is abolished by being made into a triviality. Nobody can become a Christian because it is assumed that everybody is a Christian. Being a Christian has been reduced to being a 'nice person' who conforms to the established human order. Kierkegaard saw his task as that of 'reintroducing Christianity into Christendom' by helping his contemporaries see that being a Christian requires a radical, courageous decision to follow Christ." (Great Leaders of the Christian Church, pg. 328).



"The misfortune of Christendom is that it has encouraged people in the notion that by knowing the facts about Christ's life eighteen hundred years ago, they have faith. By degrees, as knowledge about Christ became accepted as faith, so all the pith and vigor went out of Christianity; the tension of the paradox of faith was slackened; one became a Christian without noticing it; the offense of Christianity was ignored. One took possession of Christian doctrine, turned it about and inspected it, while the meaning of Jesus Christ himself was lost. Becoming a Christian was as simple as thrusting a foot into a stocking. And in this way Christianity became paganism. On Sunday clergymen in the pulpit talk a lot of twaddle about Christianity's glorious and priceless truths, and the sweet consolation which it offers. But it is only too evident that the Jesus Christ to whom they refer is merely an historical figure, not a living reality."--Kierkegaard


Im definately not saying we are all Christians, even those that say they are. I'm also not going to define it by professing faith in the divinity. Those are convienent words for a life that is anything but.


Perhaps this is a better, more succint verse.
Romans 8:9 "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."

Being a Christian goes beyond Bibles or churches, labels and word. It is an invitation that you make with the Creator to dwell in you. To be a part of you.. not apart from you and it effects every aspect of your being. That is what being a Christian is.

[fishwax]

14. I've no beef with Kierkegaard

At least, none that I know of :)

You offer thoughtful comments on the meaning of Christian; this poll, though, is not about the membership requirements as about who controls the membership cards. You've said that saying you are a christian is not enough, so it seems to me that you're in the category of Choice #2: I get to define the term--if one calls oneself a Christian, I reserve the right to revoke that label, based on my own understanding of the term.

Thanks for the quotes from Kierkegaard though--I haven't read much K, and I did find the quotes interesting. :hi:

[LWolf]

10. Other:

Those that strive to "become" the christ they follow; to actually live the principles he tried to teach, get to define themselves as christians.

That, of course, has nothing to do with those who attend services or thump on bibles, or obediently obey corrupt church leadership. It's what they do with their lives 24/7 that counts.

Since you asked my opinion. ;)

[fishwax]

12. That opinion seems to imply choice #2 rather than other ...

I don't have a problem with that as a definition of christianity, but if you accept that as a definition of christianity for others, then you are basically reserving the right to revoke/deny the label that another might apply to himself, based on your own definition of the term.

[LWolf]

15. Okay, I give!

I admit that I had to read your post above twice, and go back to read # 2 again, before I really "got" what you were saying.

That led me to these thoughts:

Perhaps there are many definitions of christian. The definition I prefer is one who follows, or lives, like christ. Just because I prefer that definition, it doesn't make it the only one.

Another definition might be anyone who belongs to a church that uses the term "christian" to describe themselves, whether or not their practices bear any relationship to christ's teachings.

Another definition might be "those people who believe in a system of punishments and rewards, with rewards given to those on the "ONLY" true path, and punishments handed out to the rest of the suckers in the world.

Another might be "MY WAY OR HELL" practitioners.

Another definition might be "a group of enablers who think that as long as they say the words and do the rituals, they can dishonor themselves and others without consequence."

There are probably many more. How are we supposed to tell which one another poster is using? If there are really that many definitions of "christian," no wonder there are misunderstandings, offense, and miscommunications when the term comes into the conversation!

[fishwax]

19. it does get confusing with all those definitions

personally, as someone who was raised catholic and went to school with a gaggle of batpists who considered me not a real christian (because i was catholic), I've always been slightly mistrustful of anyone who uses the "he's not a real christian" line (including progressive christians who use it about bush, et al.).

Perhaps there are many definitions of christian.

indeed. and (alas) i've known plenty of people fitting all of the ones you mention :) Fortunately, I've met many who meet your earlier definition as well :)

[DanCa]

16. I think a person actions pretty much sums it up

Whats the part in the bible about deeds and not words?

[TahitiNut]

17. Other.

I think that as soon as a person feels obliged to claim themselves a "Christian" ... they aren't. End of story.

Thus, any claim to a "defining authority" is itself specious.

:shrug:

"By their acts shall ye know them" so absolutely no label or word is needed. None.

[fishwax]

20. now that's an interesting response

i wish I could say that i thought to put it on the original poll, but, alas, i didn't think of it.

[DanCa]

18. Apparently it was the conservatives in my familys church

They refused to confirm me when I refused to take pictures of women, with a digital camera, entering abortion clinics. They were going to put up these pictures on the internet along with their names and numbers in an attempt to shame them. When I said no all hell broke loose.

[fishwax]

21. that sucks

it seems to me that many churches (denominations as well as individual churches) do think they have some sort of exclusive trademark on the word. If you don't fall in line, they'll gladly banish you to outer darkness.

Props to you for sticking up for what you believe in, though :toast:

[JackDragna]

22. It should be a combination of religious and secular...

..both religious and secular scholars who decide the basic qualifications. If someone thinks worshipping a dog squeaky toy makes them Christian, it doesn't. :) It's not an individual thing.

[NMMNG]

23. If a person states that they are a Christian then they are

But I (or anybody else) can judge how well their behavior reflects Christian principles. IMO Fundies are very poor examples of Christianity.

[rucky]

24. It means so many contradictory things that it no longer means anything.

sad but true.