What is the non-negotiable element of being a "Christian?"

[Selwynn]

I admit that I did post this same topic on the Religion and Theology Boards - but I'm not sure how much cross-over there is between the two boards, so I want to repost here:

I address this post primarily to other people who label themselves "Christian" rather than those of other faiths or no faiths. Not to exclude you, but because I am particularly interested in the response from this one group.

It a simple question really: what are the things a person must do or be to be properly called a "Christian?" In other words, what is the essential definition of being a "Christian?" There is a lot of freedom and diversity in Christian tradition. A lot of people who call themselves Christian have some very different beliefs from one another. But in order for the term to have any meaning at all, it must have some agreed upon definition.

What is it?

The Dogmatic School
Explanation as to my motives in asking: as I see it there as very loosely speaking two schools of thought on the answer to this question. The first school which I will call the "dogmatic absolute" school, answers that ultimate there is one more more core doctrinal assertions/statements of belief that must be held in order to be appropriately called a Christian.

For example, some might say that while there may be a lot of disagreement on various points of theology, one must believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God in order to appropriately be called a Christian. So the divinity of Christ becomes a "deal-breaker" by some people's definition of Christianity: you must accept that doctrine or your can't really call yourself a Christian.

Now naturally, there are many who believe you must affirm all kinds of doctrinal positions to call yourself a Christian -- immaculate conception, original sin, trinitarian doctrine. Are any of you familiar with the Nicene Creed? There are many who would say that the definition of being a "Christian" is affirming by faith one's believe in those creedal confessions. If you don't hold those basic doctrines, you cannot be appropriately called a "Christian."

So that's one perspective. Note that many atheists define Christianity in this way, which is why so many consider Christianity so authoritarian. Is this the right perspective?

The Relational School
There is another school of thought on the question of defining what it means to call oneself a "Christian." This would be the "relational" school of thought. This school answers that we have in the words written about and attributed to Jesus our answer for what the non-negotiable definition of "Christ-like" belief actually is, when Jesus says that the greatest command is to "love the lord your god with all your heart, soul mind and strength. And the second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commands hangs all the law and the prophets."

According to the gospel writers, Jesus himself says that the entire point of all the law and all the prophets hinges on the simple command to love god with your whole heart and love others with your whole heart. In other words, the greatest point and purpose in Jesus' mind was healthy, responsible, joyful relationships with ourselves, God and those around us.

The relational school would argue that, insofar as a person looks at the written stories of Jesus and sees them as often instructional and inspiring to ones life, insofar as a person has a deeply held desire to emulate those characteristics of compassion and empathy, and insofar as a person accepts that the ultimate highest aim of living should be the striving to live in healthy right relationship with God and neighbor (the love with all heart, soul, mind and strength) - then one is appropriately called a "Christian" - one who follows after the teachings of Jesus.

Notice that there is no mention of adherence to any particularly doctrinal creed. The issue of Jesus' divinity is not relevant to a definition of Christianity to this school. Nor is the issue of biblical literalism, immaculate conception, trinitarian doctrine, resurrection, etc. etc. For the relational school, discussions on these subjects may be valuable, but to define being a "Christian" simply has have the "right" answer on any of these things fundamentally misses the point. Being a "Christian" means patterning ones life after what Jesus stated as the two greatest commands, and seeing the written accounts of Jesus' life and teachings as often informative and valuable for daily living.

So I ask you: which school is right?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I suspect most in this forum fall under the relational heading

------------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

[Zuni]

2. Believing in Christ as the saviour

and doing your best to help others.

[Selwynn]

3. What does "saviour" mean? I'm being serious, not disingenuous -

What I really mean is, what exactly is salvation?

Many traditionally speak of forgiveness of sins for the purpose of being made "acceptable" for entrance into enternal life in heaven with God.

However some speak of salvation and pay more addition to its root - salve. They see salvation as have a lot more to do with the healing restoration in this life of brokenness and the hope found through recognition of the nature of God's loving character and acceptance of their lives. They see this "salve-ing" as the mending and healing of their hurt, sorry and despair and the restoration of health and courage to love themselves, love one another and love this newly discovered God and his amazing character and faithfulness. In this view, whehter or not enternal life follows this life is really only of secondary concern and not really the chief point of "salve-ation."

[Zuni]

4. When I say Saviour

I mean He died on the cross so that all of mankinds sin could be forgiven through Him

[Cheswick2.0]

5. I don't necessarily agree with you two categories

I would say the second is more correct. I know some people who are Quaker who do not believe in the divinity of Christ but are very faithful to his teachings. How can I say they are not Christians?

[boomboom]

7. Well, all I know is

If you believe the new testament definition of heaven or eternal life with God, then you also have to believe that salvation, or entry into this eternal life is through Jesus Christ. Not JUST living a Christ-like life (or striving to), but believing Christ is Lord. The new testament has to be taken as a whole (just as the entire bible is a complete book). You can't pick and choose which particular scripture you believe. Not if you're basing your belief on scripture overall.

[Cheswick2.0]

11. You go to a fundamentalist church don't you?

There are many musts and have to's in your post. I don't agree with everything you say. Am I a Christian?

[yvr girl]

21. I would be more in the first camp

I think the Nicene or Apostle's Creed kind of sum up the core beliefs. I think there is a difference in someone who looks at Christ as the Son of God, both man and God, who died for our sins and rose again thereby making salvation possible to all and someone who looks at Jesus as more of a philosopher who said things that make sense.

There's a lot of things I'm not dogmatic about. I can disagree with someone's theology on a secondary point and leave it at that. They might be right, I might be right, neither of us might be right. It doesn't matter in the long run.

I think being a Christian must not only change your beliefs but your actions too. Look at it this way. You can call yourself a Democrat, hold democratic beliefs but if you don't actually take the step of voting for them are you really a Democrat?

[Selwynn]

9. Can you explain your disagreement?

[Cheswick2.0]

12. It is not a major disagreement......perhaps just incidental

I think there are people who mix certain elements of both categories.

[Selwynn]

15. Oh absoluitely - I'm sure that's true. :)

[pelagius]

6. I'm in the "relational" camp...

...but enjoy the study of theologies. My passion is intellectual history and, if you don't study Christian thought, you miss out on most of the West's intellectual development, including the ideas that were the foundation of the secular Englightment.

But I study theology to find out what kind of heretic I am! There is almost nothing that can easily stated about the Holy Trinity, for example, that isn't considered heresy in somebody's theology!

[elshiva]

8. I put Christ-like behaviour over belief in Christ as Saviour

as means of salvation. Salvation is wholeness and healing, it's being in right relation with creation like Jesus.

[pelagius]

10. It's an old discussion...

...faith vs. works and I think it's a false dichotomy.

("Works" is the standard theological term and I will use it here, but it could be just as easily translated as "behavior" or "deeds" or "acts". Also, scripture quotations are from the King James Version of the Bible.)

In order to contrast with what he viewed as the corrupt "salvation through works" practice of the medieval Catholic Church, Martin Luther emphasized that "sola fide, sola gratia" (only faith, only grace) could lead to salvation. John Calvin took it even further and asserted there was nothing, not one thing, a human could do to effect his or her own salvation, since that would limit God's grace and power.

I see these responses as rooted in reaction to a set of specific historical circumstances. To prove their point, the Reformers had to take a somewhat narrow view of Scripture and Christian tradition.

The book of James, for example, says that "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?" (James 2:14). Luther wanted to throw the book of James out of the canon because it contained too many troublesome passages such as this, including the famous "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26)

But, in my view, that passage sums up the very essence of the Christian walk -- that faith inevitably results in works and if those works are not present it is likely that faith is absent also.

So, no, works do not lead to salvation, but works are the result of true faith and salvation. Even attitudes count as demonstrable proofs of inner faith and change. As Paul put it:

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." (Galatians 5:22-23a)

So when I hear glib things like "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" my bullshit meter starts redlining. That seems to me to indicate an smug reliance on what the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer famously called "cheap grace". The results of true Christian faith are an earnest desire and a practiced discipline to become more Christlike in thought, word, and deed.

[elshiva]

14. Agreed.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Throughout all the various brands of Christianity...

there is only one thing that is common to almost of of them-- that salvation is somehow through Christ.

I say "somehow," because no one agrees on just how this salvation thing works, but "salvation" is central to Christianity. Probably the only thing. Belief that salvation is through Christ is required to be a member of the National Council of Churches, although many churches choose not to belong, and others have not been allowed in because they have no such doctrine.

Most of the arguments between the churches are trivial-- transsubstantiation during Communion, apostolic succession, the divinity of Christ... Even the concepts of heaven and hell aren't fully spelled out in scripture and depend on church tradition to explain them. The only thing that is spelled out in the New Testament is that salvation comes through Christ, and even that isn't properly understood by anyone, or at least not agreed on. Some say that grace is given to all by God and we simply have to accept it. Others say that grace is something we must strive for and achieve.

And no one agrees on just what "salvation" is. The most common tradition is that we have some sort of dual nature, and the evil part of us must be overtaken somehow by the good part. And that's where Christ comes in. But, nobody really understands or explains just how this happens. Or why it should happen. Nope, hardly any agreement at all in the details, just in the concept.

So, are Christian Scientists, Universalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, Mormons, and other such groups pretty far out of the mainstream of traditional beliefs really Christians?

Could be. If they are Christocentric in the structure of their overall beleifs. Just because most Christians believe in the salvation thing doesn't mean everyone actualy has to.

Speaking as a Quaker, the Early Quakers, such as George Fox, were highly Christocentric and accepted many of the traditions, but refused to inscribe them as doctrines. Eventually, many Quakers got to a point where the lack of doctrine meant that even atheists were welcome. Most of us, however, remain mystical Christians where we simply don't bother with things that are not demonstrable or knowable, but we wait upon and worship a God we don't define and only partially see. Christ is important perhaps as a visible demonstration of God to some, but more importantly as a guide and teacher. We leave it up to the individual to make all these decisions.

[AlabamaYankee]

16. I like your term, "Mystical Christian"

In my mind, being Christian means relying on Grace, rather than adherence to a set of laws, for salvation - eternal life in the presence of God. It must be my orthodox Lutheran upbringing, since I also feel that good works are a natural and joyous response to the fact of salvation, rather than a requirement for it. I also see the myriad doctrines, rites and theologies as human attempts to understand the phenomenon of God; none can be absolutely correct since God is completely other - mystery. Their purpose should be to help a person grow in faithful response, rather than limit or control that response.

[BlackVelvet04]

17. I think the NT is pretty specific

about what constitutes a Christian......"that whosoever believes in HIM should not perish but have everlasting life."

It's pretty simple to me. I accept that I cannot live by the law, and thank God I don't have to. By GRACE I am saved through FAITH. Faith in Christ as having paid the price, fulfilled the law by living it perfectly and declaring "it is finished." The job is done and I only have to appropriate the fulfillment of the law by believing that Christ paid in full.

[Cuban_Liberal]

18. I'm mostly of the relational school.

While a belief in the Holy Trinity is essential as a 'base', I believe that actually living one's life in accordance with the traditional seven Corporeal Acts of Mercy are what actually make one a Christian.

[mzmolly]

19. The Relational School is "right" of course!

I fall into the "Relational category" as do most Liberal Christians.

:hi:

More about Liberal Chrisianity here:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2961/liberal.htm

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8028_1.html

[bmbmd]

20. John the Apostle claimed to have been

"the apostle whom Jesus loved", and certainly knew him better than you and I. I tend to give weight to the words of this man, recorded in IJohn4:7-8 "Beloved, let us love one another. For love is of God and he who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love" In the old camp song, we used to sing "They'll know we are Christians by our love". So, put me down as relational: man to God, man to man.