Posted by Jason on: 03.16.2009 /
The Friendly Atheist forums have had a recent discussion about the spectrum of Christianity or what it means to be a Christian. There are atheists with a wide variety of opinions including ex-Christians but there are also some Christians who comment. There is a great deal of disagreement on what a Christian is. They range from my own view that the only thing that is needed to be a Christian is that a person calls themselves a Christian to much stricter views that include belief in the following;
- The Trinity.
- That Jesus came to be sacrificed for our sins, and accepting Him into your heart saved you.
- The Bible as the inerrant, “God-breathed” word.
- The existence of God and divinity of Jesus.
- The existence of Heaven/afterlife with God.
- Prayer as a means to communicate with God (at least one-way communication).
- The resurrection and virgin birth and other miracles from the Bible as well.
- The duty to evangelize, as instructed by Jesus before he went back to heaven.
- Particular Christian beliefs as the only way to be saved from damnation.
- Belief that God has a plan for everything and everyone.
- Belief that being a Christian is generally a prerequisite for being a good person, or for being trustworthy.
- Belief that pastors hold a certain amount of authority as counselors and generally wise people.
Not being a Christian and not having been raised in the Christian tradition I have no way to tell what a Christian is beyond their own claims to that identity. A Christian can even reject everything that is supernatural from the bible as Thomas Jefferson did and still identify as a Christian. Is Christianity then a philosophy of living? Could an atheist who follows this philosophy be a Christian if they chose to adopt this label?
Comment by: Stephan
1Jason, all interesting questions. I would certainly say someone could call himself a Christian without claiming all of the beliefs you list above (I know I do).
For instance, I do not believe the Bible is “inerrant”. I believe it contains factual errors and human interpretations of what God was trying to say. It was, I believe, “inspired” by God, but not “dictated” by God. I certainly don’t believe people need to “ask Jesus into their hearts.” That’s an un-Biblical invention of the modern church. I also don’t believe that God has a specific plan for everyone. I liken it to a healthy parent-child relationship. You want your children to do well and to do the right thing, but you don’t necessarily have a career picked out, and apartment lined up and a future spouse selected. You allow them to make those choices, but you hope their choices line up with the principles you have taught them. I could go on, but you get my point.
As far as being a Christian without belief, I think there is some precedent for it. In Matthew 23 Jesus tells the parable of the two sons. A father asks two sons to go work in the vineyard. The first one says yes, but then does nothing. The second says no, but then goes and does the work. Jesus agrees that the second son did his father’s will.
It would certainly lead one to believe that what one does (actions) is more important that what one says (beliefs). The relationship between faith and action is one of those mysteries that I will be asking about when I get to heaven.
Comment by: Stephan
2Another point - I recently read about two different definitions of a Christian.
One is a “bounded set”. You’re either in or out. This would require some list of beliefs or behaviors. I believe this is necessary for the purpose of doing Church. You want people in leadership of a Christian institution who you know fit a certain definition.
The other is a “centered set”. Christ is the center, and your relationship is defined by how close you are to the center and in what direction you are moving (toward, away, on a tangent).
I find the first definition necessary when dealing with institutions, but I prefer the latter when dealing with individuals.
Comment by: Pseudonym
3This is no different to asking who is a “conservative”, or what is “tall”, or what is a “species”, or what is “life”.
We impose ontologies on the world to assist in making sense of it, but these ontologies are only models. Light isn’t a “wave” or a “particle”, it just is what it is. And similarly, a person isn’t a “Christian” or a “non-Christian”, they just are what they are.
Comment by: Mike O
4Most of the things you listed would, I think, be generally true of Christians. But believing/doing them is not what makes you a Christian.
I believe that to become a Christian, all you have to do is make Jesus Christ your savior. To some extent, I suppose you would eventually come to a point where you believe some/most of the things you listed, but only as a result of your faith, not the cause of it.
The thief on the cross likely understood nothing, yet Jesus welcomed him into paradise. With that said, however, I believe that as your relationship with Jesus grows stronger, Christians would tend to accept the things you listed above as generally true.
Of all the things you listed, I do think you need to believe that Jesus was the son of God (the existance of God and the divinity of Jesus). And I personally believe that Jesus Christ is the only one that can save us from damnation. Although I’ll admit that I’m a bit confused as to what “damnation” really is, or if I’m even right. But that’s where I’m at with it today. I find it hard to believe that God would *eternally* punish people for only one lifetime of disbelief. Then again, “how God works and why” are beyond me - so I don’t really know - but that is an accepted mainline teaching.
The only thing you listed that doesn’t seem like a mainline teaching is the 2nd to last one - that being a Christian is a prerequisite to being a good person. I’ve never heard that before. I would hope it would make you a *better* person than you were, but it’s certainly possible to be a good person without being a Christian.
Comment by: Jason
5Stephan, the “bounded set” and “centred set” ideas are very helpful. Thanks.
Pseudonym, ontologies are useful tools for categorising what we know of others and for appreciating the relationships that they have with others. A man may be a father, a President and a Christian for example but these are categories that describe him rather than a full understanding of what he is. I don’t find it helpful to dismiss these labels as irrelevant when we can learn something from them. Of course, we should appreciate that they are limited descriptions and only represent aspects of that which we try to describe.
Mike, I’m not sure I understand the distinction you make between faith and belief. Clearly they are closely related and I would use the words interchangeably. I do not see how you can have faith in Jesus without belief in Jesus as a god in human form. I can see how a person could follow the philosophy expressed by Jesus without belief in his divinity but this isn’t belief in him, is it?
Of course. Just as it is possible to be a bad person while being a Christian. I do not believe that a person’s religion has much to say about their moral character. I would hope that people might use their faith as a starting point for moral development and not the end point of it.
Comment by: Mike O
6I wasn’t trying to make a distinction, but I see faith is belief that sticks even when the going gets tough. For example, let’s say you want to start a business venture … it’s one thing to believe you can do it, and another to actually start. Starting takes faith.
maybe Belief is where you start, and faith comes when you start adding some history/track record to it. I’ve been a Christian for a long long time, so my “beliefs” are more sure than when I started. Now it’s faith. I don’t know, I’ve never tried to put it into words before.
Another element is trust. You can believe someone, but if you don’t trust them, you won’t have faith in them. I see faith and trust as very similar.
I was thinking about that very thing on the way to work this morning after I wrote my 1st post … if you don’t believe Jesus is God, why would a person want to call themself a Christian? Why not muslim or buddhist or some other religion where they don’t believe the major tenet?
Comment by: Chris C
7The list Jason produces is about beliefs, it doesn’t say what a Christian is. I consider a Christian is someone who has chosen to follow Jesus, has accepted Him as their saviour and is working towards Him being Lord of all parts of their life.
Such people usually have a set of basic beliefs, which I’ve posted before on these topics, but here they are again for anyone who’s interested. Something like this would be at the middle of Stephan’s centred set Church. All Christian traditions would have these basics, but some would add other doctrines which were important to their tradition. Whether people practice what they claim to believe, only they and God can know.
‘The only true God is the creator and sustainer of everything material (space, time and matter). Humankind is created in His image and we are meant to have a close relationship with our Father, but broke that bond by deliberately choosing to be disobedient: to go our own way and ignore God’s way.
Jesus is an expression of God on earth as testified to by what He taught, claimed and did. He offers, through His death and bodily resurrection, the free gifts of forgiveness, a renewed life and a restoration of our eternal relationship with God to all who will turn from their self-focus (sin, if you prefer), follow Jesus and seek to make Him Lord of their lives.
Further, Jesus commands, and through the Holy Spirit empowers, Christians (the Church) to love God and each other and to spread the Gospel (the Good News) by sacrificially being salt and light wherever we are. This begins to bring the Kingdom of God to earth and the restoration of Creation. This will be completed by Jesus’ return when there will be a resurrection of the dead and a judgement of all who have ever lived.’
Comment by: Chris C
8Sorry Mike, I now see I’ve said more or less what you’d already posted.
Comment by: Mike O
9I find it interesting to see Christians with different perspectives, personalities and even opinions answer this question. While Stephen, Chris C and I will agree on many doctrinal issues, we would likely disagree on certain others. But it isn’t our position on issues that makes us Christians - it’s our common center point that unites us. We all three seek to follow Jesus Christ and live our lives as followers of his. And that desire plays out uniquely in each of our lives.
Comment by: Seren
10Chris C:
I’ve been thinking about this description of life, the universe, and everything, and the discussions that i’ve been reading about compelling evidence, what is it, who decides what is/not compelling, &c.
And i don’t know if it’s just me being wishy washy, or anti-rational, but my response to your post, Chris, is not that there is no compelling evidence for what you’ve said, but that this isn’t a compelling story. If that’s the way things are then, well, i’m disappointed.
Comment by: Chris C
11What is it in the way things are that you find disappointing Seren?
Comment by: Doreen
12I tend to agree with Mike O that one needs to have accepted Christ as one’s savior to be a Christian. (Some might even say “Personal lord and savior” but talk to me about the lord paradigm sometime, lol.) I certainly don’t agree that any of the other posted beliefs are necessary, oh me of low Christology.
Comment by: Seren
13Hi Chris, that’s a very good question, and i’m going to take a while to think about it.
- seren
Comment by: Chris C
14Hi Seren
Look forward to your response. If you don’t have time to post it before this board closes you can email me on info@elmspring.co.uk
Yours in Him
Chris
Comment by: Seren
15After mulling over this for several days I’ve decided to put my thoughts to page (screen).
Disclaimer: when I use the word “story” here, I don’t use it to mean “something made up.” More simply, just something with a beginning and a middle, and perhaps an end.
I feel discomfort when I read Chris’ story of how things are. Is that because of the content of his story? Or because he is suggesting that this story is somehow more important than any other?
Assuming he is right, that Chris has nailed it and he has described the way things are… it seems to me that, in considering life, the universe, and everything (to steal a pithy title) a several million mega-pixel image has been taken and printed like a shot from a mobile telephone.
When I consider the earth, teeming with life and history – human and more than human – I find it hard to pick out the more over the less significant.
There’s the word, significance. I think significance is always a subjective measure. When I read some astronomical description of the universe that talks about our insignificant planet in a minor galaxy, it strikes me as ridiculous. Insignificant to whom?
It’s not that I don’t believe in an objective reality. Of course there is a world with which I engage, which engages me. It’s just that there can be no such things as objective significance. Objects don’t, can’t, value things. Something is only valuable, significant, because it is valuable and significant to someone, some subject.
So there is objective reality, but no objective experience. Our reality is always experienced, thus our truths are subjective. Our descriptions of reality are our stories, and each story it what it is. Important to the person telling it, living it, remembering it.
Whenever I’m cornered by someone telling me they have a story that is important to everyone, I’m polite until I can get away. But I can’t take the story seriously.
Their own story? That’s an entirely different matter.
Comment by: Chris C
16Thanks for your post Seren. In responding I’ll try and operate within your framework, but forgive me if I haven’t quite ‘nailed’ where you’re coming from. You say you find it difficult to pick out the more over the less significant. But then say that something is valuable/significant because it engages with or impacts a person. Surely that’s right and means that you can pick out what’s significant. I agree it’s subjective, but does that matter. Something can be a subjective/personal experience, but still have universal value. Individually we appreciate the colours green and red in different ways (subjectively), but they have universal value in warning of danger or not. We might even personally/subjectively have difficulty with accepting/liking something, although it’s actually of benefit/significance to everyone in the long term: “Eat your greens or you won’t get any sweets/candy” my mother, and possibly yours, on frequent occasions, although now, for me, many years ago.
So it is with God. Yes, me and Jesus is my personal story and subjective. But, a journey with Jesus is available to everyone and although it will be individual and unique it has a universal significance and meaning, which is the same for everyone, however we experience or outwork that personally. For example: it brings us all closer to God and each other; with Jesus we are more effective and satisfied at doing what we do. And that’s important here and now, because one of the calls God puts on our lives is to work with Him (not independent of Him, because on our own we’re not up to it) at restoring creation; even if that’s tree hugging. If you’re willing to enter into it I can assure you that this journey is compelling, rewarding and challenging.
So the Jesus story is significant to the individual, but also significant to everyone, just like greens or the colour green, but much more important.
Many thanks for our conversations. If you wish we could continue with emails: the address on my previous post will reach me.
Yours in Him
Chris