"A Christian in the truest sense of the word."
by
Tom Neven
on Sep 25, 2007 at 8:49 AM
I was recently reading a series of tributes written by teens for their youth pastors. One girl described all the great things her youth leader was doing and finished the accolade by saying, "He's a Christian in the truest sense of the word."
And that gave me pause.
Based on all the admittedly praiseworthy actions of this pastor, the girl judged him to be a Christian of some higher order, apparently more "Christian" than others who don't do these things.
But can one be "more" Christian or "less" Christian? Isn't being a Christian kind of like being pregnant: either you are or you aren't?
This girl's statement, well-intended though it might be, highlights a disturbing trend I've seen among young people -- and not-so-young people -- in our churches today. The judgment that one is a Christian is based increasingly on a person's actions and not on his beliefs. In fact, I heard another well-meaning woman describe a certain magazine as "secular Christian." She meant that it featured clean-cut images and wholesome content, which made it "Christian," but nothing explicitly religious, which made it secular. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.
To be sure, Christians are expected to behave in certain ways, but does behaving in those certain ways make one a Christian? More important, if a person fails to live up to those certain behaviors, does that somehow make him not a Christian? Or a "lesser" Christian, not a Christian "in the truest sense of the word"?
Unfortunately, trend is nothing new. In his preface to Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis decried the watering down of the word's meaning and the tendency to define Christian by certain behavior:
The word gentleman originally meant something recognizable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone a "gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not a "gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman. ... But then came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-"Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behavior? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? ... When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object; it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. ... As a result, gentleman is now a useless word.
I'm afraid Christian is also in danger of becoming a useless word-first and foremost among those who claim the name. Remember, the name Christian was first given at Antioch Acts 11:26 to "the disciples," those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. It said nothing about the way they behaved.
One is a Christian because of a professed belief and trust in Christ's redeeming work on the Cross. In this biblical sense of the word, it is no contradiction to say Joe is a Christian and a sinner. Indeed, if anyone would be honest with himself, he would know it true of himself.
The New Testament does not sacrifice behavior for belief. We are called in Scripture to live godly lives, but first we must believe (John 1:12; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9). Christ-like living is a fruit of salvation, not the cause. We mix up the two at our peril.
1. Krissie had the following to say on Sep 25 at 10:20 AM:
I agree Christ-like living is a fruit of salvation, and not the cause. At the same time, there are verses that support the concept of being known as a Christian by our behaviors. (John 13:35; James 2:14-26) I don't know that this girl was saying that his behavior makes him more or less Christian, but perhaps that his beliefs are so real to him, that it affects his behavior on a very noticeable, and influential level. Being a Christian starts with belief, but if we really believe than it will affect our behavior. And by that behavior others will define us as Christian.
2. Patricia had the following to say on Sep 25 at 10:42 AM:
I'm curious to see why you see your definition of "Christian" as biblical. I see the description of some people as being more Christian as a confusion of justification and santification. I agree that some people aren't "better" or "more" Christians in the sense of being part of the new covenant. However, some people certain are more mature Christians. Maybe that's what the girl meant...
3. nikki had the following to say on Sep 25 at 11:09 AM:
I agree with this post. For what it's worth, I hate how the word "christian" has become more of an adjective or descriptor of a thing, instead of a person. Think about it: we have christian music, christian art, christian stores, christian magazines, a christian country, christian movies, christian everything. It's as though our identity as the church has been over-applied to everything bearing our stamp of approval. (Maybe it's our own ironic fault for trying to create our own "christian" version of popular culture: in trying to separate ourselves from the world in trivial matters, we end up making our actual identity as a church less meaningful. But that's another topic.)
Another reason we've lost the meaning in "christian" might be because the term has been so politicized that it means something not unlike "Western." (Apparently there can even be a "Christian nation" which is what we like to claim over our own United States.) We like it to mean wholesome, safe, family-friendly, nice, and [other things that usually make me want to puke]. In this usage, something could most certainly be "more christian" than another. If that's what "christian" means, then of course you can have a christian record label or a christian movie or a christian nation. The word itself has actually come to mean something that it didn't before. I don't like it. But I think it's mostly the church's fault.
4. Mike Theemling had the following to say on Sep 25 at 12:07 PM:
The Bible says we "all are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26-29). And Jesus Himself said that one's father is either God or the Devil (John 8:42-44). So someone either is a Christian or he is not. That is correct teaching.
However, the Bible DOES say that there is differentiation among Christians in how we live the Christian life. For example in 1 Corinthians Paul writes:
"If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames." (1 Cor 3:12-15)
So a "Christian in the truest sense of the word" simply means that someone is not being a pretender or acting like an unbeliever; rather someone who is displaying the fruits of the Spirit or does works in accordinace to his faith as commented previously. But of course it is clear that we are saved through faith, not through works.
As to whether this label of "truest Christian...", "model Christian", ad infinitum is appropriate, I tend to agree that this is not terminology we should use on a regular basis. For one, it gives the impression to those not familiar with Christianity that such things as God's love ARE conditional on our actions which is not the case. Also, it tends to assign weights to certain attributes and actions, whether good or bad, and the Bible lacks such a point system.
Finally, the term 'Christian' is already pretty much feckless in this society anyway. It often brings up inaccurate and negative stereotypes and almost always speaks nothing of the heart; rather only speaks of external actions and/or words. But if you were to ask me what term would be preferred to call ourselves, I am at a lost. "Fundamentalist (Christian)" seems even worse. "Believer" can be too inclusive. "Born again Christian/Believer" might be better. "Disciple of Christ"? Any other suggestions?
5. Fred had the following to say on Sep 25 at 7:17 PM:
Following on from what Patricia said I think it would be acceptable to further define Christians as 'mature' and 'immature' based to some degree on their actions. But then again there is always the danger of not knowing the heart of the person.
6. Sheridan had the following to say on Sep 25 at 7:46 PM:
Given that the word 'Christian' has the word Christ in it, i believe the best way to define anything to do with christianity (people, programs, or beliefs) is to ask 'Does this person/area proudly bare the name of Christ? Is it obvious that Christ is first in this persons life?
I believe we take the term 'Christian' way to lightly today.
Even some people at my work tell me that even though they are athiest, they still have christian ethics! Is that truely possible? I dont believe so. You cannot take Christ out of Christianity.
7. Leah had the following to say on Sep 25 at 7:51 PM:
I guess it depends what the person means when they say "Christian". If they're talking about being a Christian, then yes, you either are or you aren't. But (whether it's right or wrong), people these days are beginning to use "Christian" as an adjective too. You can act Christianly. One person can act more Christianly than another. I realise the girl said "he's a Christian in the truest sense of the word", but perhaps what she was thinking was that "he's Christian/ he acts Christian in the truest sense of the word"? Either way, her words aside, I think I understand the point she's getting at.
And I think it's true. I'm thinking of two specific people in my life, who, to the best of my knowledge, are both Christians. Now, I'm not trying to base salvation on works here, I'm simply describing the fruit of each person's life. The first one rarely attends church, lives with her boyfriend (and another housemate, although her and her bf are not sleeping together), gets tipsy and swears. The other is an avid children's ministry leader, is heavily involved in the christian group at uni, has probably never touched alcohol in her life and is dedicated to her church. Now, keep in mind, this example is not to say one is a better Christian, or to say salvation is based on works. I'm merely pointing out that you can say, in the adjective sense of the word, that the second girl is more "Christian(ly)" than the other- she acts more Christian, doesn't she? You can't deny that. That's probably what the girl in the post was talking about, I'm guessing.