User:Blue Hoopy Frood/Essays/Christianity

Senses

In my experience, there are at least six senses of the term Christian in common use. As with other analogous terms such as Muslim, the senses are often confused in media and public discourse, fueling miscommunication and distrust.

1. Ethnic

This sense is found in statements like: “My parents were Christians, so I am a Christian.” “I am of European descent and not a Jew or a Muslim; therefore I am a Christian.” “Lebanon is 40% Christian, 54% Muslim, and 5.5% Druze.” In this sense, saying “I am a Christian” is no more or less significant than saying “I have dark skin” or “I have blue eyes”. It is simply a fact of birth. Ethnic Christians are not substantially different from those of any other ethnicity. Most of them try to be decent people; try to raise responsible children; and want to leave their children and grandchildren a favorable legacy.

2. Cultural

Cultural Christians are usually ethnic Christians who were raised in one or another Christian tradition. They typically “go to church” at least a couple of times a year. Depending on their tradition, they may attend mass and confession; abstain from alcohol, cigarettes, and Sunday sports; sing traditional hymns; or sing emotional choruses with raised hands. Cultural Christianity can grant a sense of identity, but can also lead to a feeling of empty tradition; or, worse, an “us vs. them” mentality. (To be clear, I see nothing inherently wrong in any of these traditions. I just think traditions are an unsatisfying end in themselves.)

3. Political

Political Christians intentionally incite “us vs. them” conflict, manipulating ethnic and cultural Christians for selfish political ends. They wave their Bibles in front of TV cameras, and try to instill in their followers a sense of arrogant superiority, persecution anxiety, or both. The Bible refers to such people as “false teachers” and describes them, e.g.: “They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.” (1Tim 6:4-5 NIV) The Bible warns not to have anything to do with such people. Unfortunately, since these are the sorts of so-called Christians who gravitate to the spotlight, they are the image many people associate with the terms Christian or evangelical (another term with multiple understandings). When Christians go to war with each other or with outsiders, either literally or figuratively, they are acting as political Christians in the worst sense. (I refer in particular to war whose motivation is Christian identity. Many Biblical Christians believe that there are times when it is appropriate for a nation to go to war, typically when it is the only way to save oppressed people from aggressors. Likewise, it is not necessarily wrong for Christians to be involved in politics, as long as they seek the good of others rather than selfish gain.)

4. Mystic

A mystic Christian, as I am using the term, believes that God is a subjective experience, rather than an objective entity with a character and a will. Thus, no one can tell someone else that their view of God is wrong; in this sense, so-called beliefs about God are effectively opinions. A mystic Christian tends to consider themselves spiritual (whatever that means), and to believe in a Jesus who looks a lot like them: kind of fluffy and cuddly, accepting everyone just as they are, without imposing any moral demands (other than tolerance). If they believe in heaven, they most likely think everyone is headed there eventually, although some have further to go than others. If they were to associate with a different crowd, they might just as easily become Buddhist, Hindu, or Baháʼí, with no discernible change in how they believe or act.

5. Biblical

Biblical Christians have chosen by faith to commit their lives and souls in submission to Jesus as revealed in the Bible. They believe that the authority of the Bible trumps their personal preferences and opinions; that the purpose of life is to love God, love their fellow human beings, and share the good news (“gospel”) of Jesus Christ with others. Naturally, they often fail. However, believing that Christ has forgiven them through his sacrifice (hence the “gospel”), they seek to foster a community where they encourage each other to stay on track and grow in their faith; and forgive, restore, and encourage one another when they fail. This is the intended meaning of evangelical for most people who identify as such. Note that Biblical Christians might be found in a variety of Christian traditions.

6. Eternal

Particularly in evangelical circles, some maintain that the only meaningful definition of Christian is an objective, supernatural one; where a Christian is one who has been reconciled with God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and will be spending eternity in heaven. Calvinists add that such people were chosen by God before the beginning of time, and neither they nor non-Christians have any choice in the matter. The downside of the eternal interpretation (Calvinist or otherwise) is that only God can know for sure who is a Christian.
Paradoxically, evangelicals also emphasize assurance of salvation; i.e., confidence that your eternal soul is secure, thus freeing you to be motivated in your behavior by gratitude and love rather than by fear and shame. There is strong Biblical support for this view, e.g., “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom 8:1-2 NIV) However, since it is impossible to evaluate an eternal view scientifically (which, you may recall, does not make it false), believing it requires a level of faith that does not come easily to those prone to skepticism.

Most evangelicals would probably conflate the last two senses. I differentiate them in acknowledgement that one can choose to live by faith as a Biblical Christian, without ever experiencing complete confidence in the eternal reality behind it.

A “Real” Christian

As a linguist, I would argue that all of the above senses are “real”, in that they all occur in natural discourse, and are all applicable in some settings. Quarrels about definitions are a waste of energy; although it is important to understand what sense the speaker has in mind.

That does not mean the senses are interchangeable; quite the opposite. When people who self-identify as Biblical Christians refer to “real” Christians, they generally mean real Biblical Christians, i.e., people striving to live according to the model of Christianity presented in the Bible. The reference may come out in disparagement of one of the other senses defined above. Or it may come out in discussion of historical atrocities committed by so-called Christians.

For it cannot be denied that such exist. The Crusades and the Inquisition are perhaps the two most commonly cited, along with slavery, burning of witches and heretics, and various other forms of bigotry and persecution. Those who claim (as I do) that Biblical Christians make the world a better place need to account for such events. We do so by claiming that such actions are not consistent with Biblical Christianity, but rather relate to one of the other senses of Christian defined above (generally the political one).

The first time I can recall making such a distinction, I was accused of a “No true Scotsman” argument. (I had to look up what that meant.) But there is a crucial difference. In the “No true Scotsman” argument, the putative Scotsman has no standard beyond himself for what constitutes a true Scotsman, and so he uses himself as the standard. Biblical Christianity has an external standard.

The Bible teaches such things as, “[L]ove your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” (Mt 5:44 NIV) “‘Love your neighbor as yourself,” (Mt 22:39 NIV) and, “Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.” (1Jn 4:20 NIV) By this and countless other such passages, we can see that “real” Biblical Christianity requires love. If someone is not practicing love, then they are not practicing true (Biblical) Christianity.

I can say with confidence that the Crusades, Inquisition, and so on were not expressions of love; and hence not expressions of Biblical Christianity. I can have less confidence whether the perpetrators of such acts were otherwise professing Biblical Christians; and no confidence at all whether they were eternal (type 6) Christians. In the end, I can only judge acts, not people.

My faith

I self-identify as an evangelical (Biblical) Christian, in that I have committed my life and soul to strive to live in submission to Christ, according to Biblical principles (which, it is worth repeating, entails acknowledging that I often fail). Am I a Christian in light of eternal reality? God only knows. I envy those who possess the calm assurance of faith that I find so elusive.

I sometimes wonder if I ought more properly describe myself as an agnostic, given my persistent doubt and uncertainty. However, I choose by faith to call myself a Christian, largely because nothing about being an agnostic drives one to strive to become a better person and make a positive difference in the world.

I try to distance myself from cultural Christianity, or at least be aware of the distinctions between my own Western culture and Christianity as established in the Bible. I hold nothing but loathing for those who politicise Christianity, turning what ought to be a gospel of love into an instrument of hate, and so bringing shame on the name of Christ. I realize I ought to forgive (but not tolerate) such people, but so far that degree of grace eludes me.

Incidentally, I hold no such loathing for non-Christians, most of whom are decent, ordinary people; and with some of whom I have deep personal connections. Indeed, even for those orthodox secularists who wage war and spread hatred in the name of their beliefs, I feel more pity than hatred; although I certainly don’t like it when they come after me or those I love.

Does my chosen faith preclude me from rational scientific inquiry? Don’t be absurd. c.f. Background