Who is a Christian?

First Called Christians

Acts 11:19-26 provides the first account of the label “Christian” ever used

The word “Christian,” i.e., Χριστιανός, is only used three times: here, Acts 26:28; and 1 Peter 4:16

Popular myth: “Christian” is a derogatory term

In fact, passage is ambiguous!

The Greek could suggest either that others labeled the early Jesus followers as “Christian” or even that the early Church started calling themselves “Christian.”

Could have been labeled for many reasons: labeled by Jews, by Romans, or by themselves

Term itself is Latin, and just means “Christ-partisans” or “those associated with Christ.”

Establishing the Question

This term “Christian,” however, is at the heart of a question I’ve been wrestling with since my time in Centerville

Question recognized retroactively

Brought about largely due to split in UMC

The Question: “What is a Christian?”

Obviously difficult. In 2001, World Christian Encyclopedia counted 33,830 Christian denominations world-wide. There are undoubtedly more than that today.

What gets included in those numbers though? What is the metric? How do you point to something and say, “Yes, that’s Christianity!”

Common metric used in polls/modern journalism and research is self-identification

This, however, is untenable as a proper definition

“A Christian is someone who thinks they’re a Christian,” simply won’t do

Some have suggested we leave it at “A Christian is someone who follows Jesus.”

This also won’t do, since many non-Christians follow Jesus, and since different groups have very different ideas of who and what Jesus is.

Muslims accept Jesus as great prophet and even as Messiah.

Many Hindus worship Jesus right alongside their other Gods.

Some Buddhists accept Jesus as a Buddha

Yet none of these are Christian!

Likewise, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons both claim to be Christian groups, yet reject the divinity of Christ and the Trinity.

What about Sergei Torop and the Church of the Last Testament? They claim to follow “Jesus,” but is it really accurate to say they’re Christian?

Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda claimed to be Jesus reincarnate as well as the Antichrist. He gained thousands of followers in his cult Creciendo en Gracia. Are they really Christians? They follow a “Jesus,” after all.

So the question is necessary: Which Jesus do you follow? Simply put “someone who follows Jesus,” is not specific enough, and therefore not adequate, as a definition of “Christian.”

It is no surprise that even the meaning of the label “Christian” is as confused as it is. Satan, after all, is the father of lies. He seeks to destroy the truth. God, however, is not the author of confusion. We are called to truth, and so we must think carefully and consider: what is a Christian?

A Historical-Intellectual Answer

Fortunately, while it may not satisfy the agendas of certain journalists or cultural leaders, a proper definition of “Christian” is not hard to find.

Any cursory analysis of scripture and the early Church will easily find a right definition.

Firstly, Christians are those who believe certain truth statements.

These are outlined in the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds

The Creeds have been a prerequisite for baptism (and thus Church membership) for as far back as we have historical evidence. One simply could not be accepted as “Christian” apart from this confession of faith.

Creeds as inspired

Thus we have a set of very specific truth claims anyone who wishes to be properly called “Christian” must assent to:

God as Creator

The Trinity

The Incarnation, i.e., the divine and human natures of Christ

Jesus’s sacrificial atonement for us

The power of Jesus to forgive sins

The testimony of scripture to God’s saving work through Christ

The presence of the Holy Spirit with the Church

The proper place of worship and ritual (e.g. baptism) in the Christian life

In some ways, this is similar to saying “A Christian is a follower of Jesus.”

It is, however, more specific. Not just any man we name “Jesus” will do. The Jesus Christians follow is specifically the son of God, the Messiah of Israel, God become flesh, of one being with the father, eternal, Lord of Lords and King of Kings

Yet knowledge is not the only prerequisite. While not written down in credal form, a set of practices has also united Christians since our beginning

The set of rituals known as baptism and eucharist

Corporate Worship

Prayer

Reading or listening to the set of writings we call the Bible.

So a Christian must believe at least the essential things laid out in our creeds, and must practice at least the basics of worship, prayer, baptism, and eucharist.j

A person who does not worship his Lord is no Christian, a person who does not pray is no Christian, a person who does not seek wisdom from scripture is no Christian, and a person who refuses baptism or the Lord’s supper is no Christian.

Thus there is no such thing as a Christian who does not gather with other Christians

This idea is rooted in Western individualism (specifically, American individualism).

There is no “me, myself, and the Bible,” however, because the Bible itself calls us to be a body, a church, and a people.

These criteria sufficiently clarify what we mean by “Christian.” They give us easily identifiable outward marks. They are both Biblical and Historical.

This definition may upset some, because it excludes many who might wish to call themselves “Christian,” such as Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses, Unitarians, and Oneness Pentecostals, as well as those who are “just spiritual” or “don’t like organized religion.”

Yet this is what definitions, by nature, do. They mark out what is and is not included under a certain label. To fail to exclude some would simply mean the term “Christian” is vapid and meaningless.

We are certainly called to love such people. However, insofar as they may insist on being called “Christian,” we must insist they are simply wrong.

These criteria likewise include a great many people, traditions, Churches, who do not always see eye to eye and who are, at the best of times, terribly uncomfortable being grouped together.

This still means that not only Methodists, but also Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinists and Arminians, Pentecostals, Non-denominational churches, and even Roman Catholics are all still rightly called “Christian.”

Whatever our differences, we still worship the same Lord, affirm the same essential truths, and participate in the same ancient ways together.

Jesus, afterall, called a very hodge-podge and ill-fitting group of people together and, despite their very serious differences, they were all still known as disciples and later, as Acts tells us, as Christians.

One Question Raises another

This Historical is sufficient intellectually. I am, at least, entirely satisfied with it. Yet, it leaves us with more questions that need to be addressed.

Firstly, while we are agreed upon the essentials, how might we agree on other matters of belief? And how important is it that we do?

For example, the disagreement over predestination and freewill has split many churches. How important is this doctrine really? Must we agree on it?

Or consider the ordination of women. How important is our belief on this doctrine?

What about the ordination and marriage of LGBTQ+? There are many who affirm the trinity and creeds, who were baptized, worship, and take communion, and yet still affirm LGBTQ+ marriage and ordination. They are, at least intellectually, “Christian.” But how serious is this disagreement.

On this latter point, we see that even those who meet the necessary criteria of being called “Christian” might still disagree about very serious matters that, according to Paul at least, may even jeopardize our salvation. How, then, can we distinguish between beliefs that make a difference and those that do not?

This is a very prescient reminder to us that, even if we do meet the criteria to be called “Christian,” this does not necessarily mean we are those whom Christ will call his own when he returns! To be “Christian” is not the same as “to be saved!”

Thus, while an understanding of the basics of Christianity is necessary, it is not sufficient.

Jesus himself warns that “weeds grow among the wheat.” Not all who are Christians outwardly are in fact Christians inwardly.

Likewise, James warns us that even the demons believe in God, but mere belief or even participation in ritual is not sufficient for salvation.

One can affirm the creeds, be baptized, receive communion, and worship every Sunday, yet still be a child of Satan!

“What” and “Who”

Now this is the dilemma about which I have contemplated the most. That those rightly called Christian are not always those rightly called “child of God,” or to whom Christ says, “well done, my good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your master.”

The fact remains, as Wesley says, that we may have the “form of religion without the power.”

So what is that makes the difference? What, aside from right belief, is necessary? And how might we discern the important doctrines from the unimportant? Most would agree that a if one is wrong about how exactly predestination and freewill works, or how exactly God’s grace is metaphysically transmitted in the sacraments, they may still be saved. Yet if one is wrong about whether homosexuality or some other thing is a sin or not, this could seriously endanger their salvation (one way or the other, in fact!)

I believe the key lies in the answer to another question. Not what is a Christian, but who is a Christian?

Scripture, as it turns out, is just as interested in this second question.

While faith, truth, and right belief are important, Paul tells us, καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω προφητείαν καὶ εἰδῶ τὰ μυστήρια πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν ὥστε ὄρη μεθιστάναι, ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω, οὐθέν εἰμι.

Likewise, Jesus and Paul report that the sum of the law is this: “Love God and love your neighbor.”

Thus, right belief and even right religious practice devoid of love is insufficient.

Even faith, apart from love, is not enough! (Though I suspect Paul would agree with me in saying that anything we call “faith” which does not involve a love for God is hardly any faith at all.)

Love necessarily entails emotion

A word of caution is necessary here, however: Love is also not enough alone. Truth still matters. And blind, foolish love can be as harmful and damaging as hatred. We must know who it is we love, as well as how best to love them.

This is why Paul says again,  [αγάπη] οὐ χαίρει ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ, συγχαίρει δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ

So, how do we know which doctrines are most important, and which are ones we can agree to disagree on?

The foundational doctrines (e.g., on the nature of Christ and the Trinity, in the creeds) make clear who it is we love.

Others more or less deal with how we might best love one another. The question of freewill and predestination may remain unimportant, so long as we love one another and love God. Sexual immorality of all sorts, however, is more serious insofar as all sexual immorality necessarily corrupts, distorts, and destroys love.

But all of this has far more meaningful implications than the determination of what Christians should or should not believe. Right belief is important. Right practice is important. But, if scripture’s teaching on love is to be taken seriously, we must also admit that right being is important.

This must always be at the fore of our minds. Christ did not call us merely to believe, or even merely to do, but to be someone. Renewed, transformed, remade into the image of Christ. For all our right belief, which is necessary, and all our right worship and religious practice, which is also good and right and proper, if these things do not move us inwardly, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to be as Christ, to embody holy love, then what good is it to take the name “Christian?”

The definition of a Christian I have given provides outward marks of identity. God, however, remains more deeply concerned with the inner marks, the mark of love.