What is a Christian?

[Melchizedek]

Incidentally Peter Enns completely gave up the label inerrancy:

patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/ … -seminary/

I shall definitely read his books.

And I think there are good reasons to give up that label. I really like Peter Enns’ stuff. I follow his blog on Patheos.

[Melchizedek]

I think one of the better definitions I’ve seen of inerrancy is, (from both progressive and “semi-progressive” believers) "The Bible is true in all that it intends

to teach".

But “Christian” was a word first coined not by the church, but by those outside it as an identifying label. These days, it has come to be identified with lots of ideas and attitudes I no longer agree with, so I do not self-identify as a Christian.

I guess I would simply refer to myself as a follower of Christ to be more specific, or to be less specific, as “spiritual but not religious”.

What does it mean to be religious, as opposed to spiritual?

Religion generally connotes following a set of “rules”, whereas a spiritual person is more interested in truth and transformation than dogma.

[Melchizedek]

1 Peter 4:14-16 ESV

If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

Every once in a while this question seems to come up with friends and people I hang out with. It naturally occurs when you are rethinking every belief. When I first came to Christ I didn’t wish to call myself Christian, because I thought the name was beyond tarnished. So many with the name have done terrible things in that name. But one day as I reread Peters first epistle I came across this interesting passage. From what is written above what can we figure being a Christian is about?

1. Suffering for Christ’s sake, out of love for Him, holding to Him through all trials and testing, being willing to suffer insults and reproach for His name. To be a Christian is to bear the name of Christ, and unless you look like Him, living a life of self-denial and cross-bearing, unless you live as a disciple, then you cannot be considered a “Christian”. A Christian is just that a “little Christ”.

2. He is not a murderer, thief, evildoer, or even troublemaker. It is not for these things he suffers insults for, they do not define his identity, Christ does. When insulted he does not insult in return, when persecuted he does not give place for vengeance. Though he may, like his Lord, call the world to repentance, telling them of their evil works, he never repays evil for evil, but overcomes evil with good.

3. The Spirit of glory and God rest upon the Christian. Like his Lord before him, though weak and dependent upon God for life and strength, he is empowered by the Holy Spirit to stand firm in the truth, loving supernaturally without any fear. Though not sparing in words of correction, he is not legalistic like the Pharisees, but filled with the Spirit of the Lord and with power, and His glory.

4. He glorifies God in the name “Christian”, meaning God is not ashamed by his actions or words. The Christians are reflections of Christ, sufferers for His name. Though hated by the world as Christ was, a Christian pleases the heart of the Father, because he does not seek the praise of man, but in everything looks to please God.

So in a nutshell, a Christian is someone known by their actions and words, their life and love, moreso than just their mental assent to a rota of beliefs. Their beliefs are foundational (the disciples believe the words of their Master and Teacher), but as Jesus said “The disciple when fully trained will look like their teacher” Christ is now our teacher through the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit is conforming us to the image of the Son. That is a Christian, someone being made into a “little Christ”, one who will glorify the Father in everything they say and do.

Yes, but I think there’s a difference in being reviled for the name of Christ vs. being reviled for things done in the name of Christ that aren’t Christlike.

[Paidion]

What does it mean to be religious, as opposed to spiritual?

For me it has meant… keeping my faith but loosing my religion. That’s another way of saying I came to the conclusion I didn’t need “church attendance” to validate my faith.

I’m not sure why it has become so popular today to decry religion. People display signs on their cars, “I’m not religious. I just love Jesus!”

I think many people no longer know what “religious” means. James didn’t decry religion per se. He wrote of religion which is worthless and religion which is pure and undefiled before God.

If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1:26,27)

[davo]

I’m not sure why it has become so popular today to decry religion.

I suspect it’s that more and more church-ified folk are realising the facade that has paraded itself as “religion” has been more akin to the righteousness-of-self as opposed to that which James properly refers in that text you quote.

[Dondi]

Religion generally connotes following a set of “rules”, whereas a spiritual person is more interested in truth and transformation than dogma.

I think that is an oversimplification of the term “religion”. It is much more than just observing a “set of rules”. The problem is that religion seems to carry a negative connotation to it, as when people say, “He got religion”, what they really imply is that “He’s off his rocker” or “He went all ‘Jesus’ on us”. Being religious isn’t vogue. However, being spiritual is, apparently.

But, I fail to see why there needs to be a dichotomy between religion and spirituality. Why can’t there be both? I used to snark over formal liturgy, because it seems to me like rote observances over and over (And naturally, we ought to be careful not to fall into ritual habits that become mundane and vain). But I’d speak as an outsider to those things. Yet I’ve met people involved in things like the Mass who insist on telling me that it is a very spiritual, almost mystical thing for them to come to the Lord’s Table, even week after week. Who am I to argue?

For my own church, which is Baptist, our services are loosely formal, but the Pastor is not rigid about it. Sometimes the whole service consists of testimonies from members of the congregation on what God is doing in their lives. Or sometimes we have missionaries tell some amazing stories how God has provided for them and worked in people’s lives in the field in which they work. There is something about being in the house of the Lord with others who love and serve the Lord together. Something you just won’t get by being a stand-alone spiritual person. I know, I’ve tried that. Christianity wasn’t designed to be solitudinal.

[lotharson]

It is very tricky to define what a religion is, it might very well turn out to be several phenomena instead of just one.

The self-serving definitions of militant atheists (belief in the supernatural) is really wanting in that it fails to capture many elements of what people understand under that word.

[Melchizedek]

Religion generally connotes following a set of “rules”, whereas a spiritual person is more interested in truth and transformation than dogma.

I think that is an oversimplification of the term “religion”. It is much more than just observing a “set of rules”. The problem is that religion seems to carry a negative connotation to it, as when people say, “He got religion”, what they really imply is that “He’s off his rocker” or “He went all ‘Jesus’ on us”. Being religious isn’t vogue. However, being spiritual is, apparently.

But, I fail to see why there needs to be a dichotomy between religion and spirituality. Why can’t there be both? I used to snark over formal liturgy, because it seems to me like rote observances over and over (And naturally, we ought to be careful not to fall into ritual habits that become mundane and vain). But I’d speak as an outsider to those things. Yet I’ve met people involved in things like the Mass who insist on telling me that it is a very spiritual, almost mystical thing for them to come to the Lord’s Table, even week after week. Who am I to argue?

For my own church, which is Baptist, our services are loosely formal, but the Pastor is not rigid about it. Sometimes the whole service consists of testimonies from members of the congregation on what God is doing in their lives. Or sometimes we have missionaries tell some amazing stories how God has provided for them and worked in people’s lives in the field in which they work. There is something about being in the house of the Lord with others who love and serve the Lord together. Something you just won’t get by being a stand-alone spiritual person. I know, I’ve tried that. Christianity wasn’t designed to be solitudinal.

I actually think you’re right about this, Dondi. I agree that that is (partly) an oversimplification of what religion is; it is unfortunately not an oversimplification of what religion often becomes. I also think that there does not need to be a dichotomy between religion and spirituality in theory, but again; the practice is often quite different. For me, making the distinction is about my approach not being confused by a term that for many has become a poisoned well. Mention religion, and the defenses of people will often go up automatically. It’s really just a practical consideration and distinction rather than an actual definition. It’s sort of similar to how the word “gay” is used now vs. what it used to mean. These days, the term is assumed to refer to homosexuality, even though that’s not its original meaning.

[Paidion]

It’s sort of similar to how the word “gay” is used now vs. what it used to mean. These days, the term is assumed to refer to homosexuality, even though that’s not its original meaning.

I refuse to use the word as a substitute adjective for “homosexual”. The word still means “happy” and “joyful” as it always has. I have have no inclinations toward homosexuality; yet I am often gay.

[Melchizedek]

It’s sort of similar to how the word “gay” is used now vs. what it used to mean. These days, the term is assumed to refer to homosexuality, even though that’s not its original meaning.

I refuse to use the word as a substitute adjective for “homosexual”. The word still means “happy” and “joyful” as it always has. I have have no inclinations toward homosexuality; yet I am often gay.

And that is perfectly right and acceptable. My only point is that, unless you qualify that statement, people will automatically assume something about your meaning (regardless of the assumption being correct or not) based on the current word usage/ understanding.