Definition of the word "Christian"

General Information

There are at least two very different ideas of what a "Christian" is. Before proceeding very far in studying Christianity, it is necessary to understand the situation. This presentation will attempt to clarify the waters.

First, any word has no "meaning" unless it has been somehow "defined". Consider the word "dog". We all have a general idea of what that word means. Even though a housecat generally resembles a small dog, very few people would try to call that animal a "dog". Just the fact that there are four legs, a tail, paws, a face with eyes, nose and mouth, ears, fur, etc, does NOT make an animal a dog! When the word dog was first defined, it could have been defined to include all such animals, and in that case they would all now be called "dogs". But someone defined a different word for that (quadruped).

There are animals that seem to very closely resemble dogs, such as wolves. But the definition of the word dog is specific enough to exclude such animals, even though they are sometimes mistaken for each other.

A similar situation exists regarding the word "Christian" Very early followers of Jesus did not actually have any "name" for themselves and an opponent was apparently the first person to use the word "Christian" to refer to them. The name stuck, and around the Fourth Century, a strict definition was given to the word. The definition was needed then because many groups with very different beliefs were all referring to themselves as Christians. The definition settled on was basically the contents of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. Neither of these two Creeds is actually from the Bible's text, but they are each considered to be closely based on it, which is the basis for their credibility. In this discussion, we will refer to this as the NARROW definition.

A common attitude among the modern public is that anyone who "believes in" Jesus is a Christian. That certainly sounds nice! Let's refer to that from now on as the BROAD definition of the word. It is not actually supported in a strict sense, but it is so widely believed that it must be considered.

Before we proceed very far here, please realize that this subject is such as to not be able to please everyone! What we might call "conservative, or traditional" Christians insist on using ONLY what we are calling the NARROW definition, and they therefore exclude very large numbers of people who consider themselves Christians! Those people who would be excluded are also pretty "intense" about what the term Christian means, and they always insist that it includes their Church or group, some of which even have the word Christian in their titles! They are implicitly assuming a BROAD definition of the word Christian.

Given this environment, we will attempt to proceed!

During the first three hundred years after Jesus' Death, it was initially understood that this BROAD definition was the truth. But there is a built-in problem in such a broad definition. During those centuries, literally HUNDREDS of different groups decided that they alone truly knew the "correct" way to be a Christian, and they were all different. Each little town had its own unique version of what they thought Christianity was.

BELIEVE
Religious
Information
Source
web-site

Our List of 1,000 Religious Subjects

E-mail

Imagine that each town in America had its own idea of what the color "red" is. In some towns, it might be very rigidly defined, but in others, they may have decided that everything that is not "green" is "red". Do you realize what a mess that would be? Traffic signals? Attempts at communication would be mostly confusion!

And, in early Christianity, it was. For this reason, a large number of the world's leading Christian scholars got together in Nicaea in 325 AD. For better or for worse, they decided on a very sharply defined definition of Christianity, that was meant to be used world-wide. Their "Nicene Creed" lists a variety of very specific concepts that a "Christian" must necessarily believe in. We are calling this the NARROW definition here.

For a moment, let's jump forward to today. If this NARROW definition is used, a LOT of people who think they are "Christians" are NOT! Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) do not qualify, for several reasons. Unitarians do not because they do not believe in the Trinity. MANY other groups would be excluded if the NARROW definition is used. If, instead, the BROAD definition is used, then they all are very definitely "Christians"!

Confused??!

THAT'S the problem! The two common definitions are rather different from each other. It becomes EXTREMELY important to know WHICH of the two definitions is being used. Without that, people begin to argue and fight.

As it turns out, the BROAD definition is rather difficult to define precisely. Does a person who believes that a person named Jesus lived a couple thousand years ago, qualify as a "Christian"? What if he/she believes that Jesus was a really GOOD man? Is it necessary to believe that He Died on the Cross? Or that His Death represented a direct Atonement to "pay off" Original Sin? Do you see the problem in using the BROAD definition for any "scholarly" use?

This situation is why, universally, ALL Christian scholars use the NARROW definition when discussing Christianity.

Doctrine has very little to do with it. We accept the concept "red" because the majority of society has chosen to describe certain things as being that color. When I approach an intersection and the top light is lit, I don't think "the blue light is lit" or "the gzrwkkg light is lit". In compliance with a very broadly held (NARROW) definition of the concept red, I think that the red light is lit, and I drive accordingly. It has absolutely nothing to do with the understanding of the temperature of a filament in a light bulb, or a filter, or electricity, or anything. Whatever "red" actually IS is irrelevant. The WORD "red" has no meaning whatever except due to a generalized agreement as to a definition. THAT is essentially what EVERY definition actually is. The WORD "Christian" is the same. The BROAD definition is an extremely ill-defined interpretation of that word. Scholars, by necessity, choose to use the much more precisely defined (NARROW) understanding of the word. Whatever we happen to think about or see regarding the traffic light doesn't change it's actual essence. We could choose to call it blue, but it is still what it is, and it is unchanged. It's intrinsic essence is unchanged, no matter what you call it.

One could call some group of Christians "Buddhists" or "tax collectors", because the name does not change who they are or what they believe. It would just make your conversations with anyone else very difficult. It is irrelevant if a person PRIVATELY chooses to use a loose definition for the word in question. But problems would certainly occur when trying to communicate with someone from a different background. A group of Mormons talking can confidently refer to themselves as Christians (BROAD) and they all agree on that! But should they say those same things to a non-Mormon, who happens to understand the NARROW definition, that person might violently disagree! Same sentences, but the listeners take them VERY differently!

Because of the way BELIEVE is structured, we chose to nearly universally use the "scholarly" (NARROW) definitions of as many terms as is possible, and that included the word "Christian". The many hundreds of authors (all scholars) of the many works included in BELIEVE certainly always use that NARROW definition, because it is so sharply defined.

Some visitors to BELIEVE tear into us for using the NARROW definition, especially if they attend a Church that is considered excluded by that NARROW definition. They generally immediately attack us, claiming that we are "promoting a specific doctrine" or "intentionally excluding or denigrating some group or Church (usually theirs!)". That is NOT the case. Anyone who carefully looks at BELIEVE quickly sees that BELIEVE is structured to support and encourage ANY valid effort at Worshipping the Lord. At NO point does anything in BELIEVE try to cause any Christian (any flavor) to "give up" even the slightest aspect of their Faith, as long as they are Devout in Worshipping Our Lord.

We certainly have no intention of trying to make any Christians adopt some different way of Worshipping Jesus, if they already have a method they feel is appropriate.

At this point, we might as well bring up an entirely NEW definition of "Christian"! Our approach, in ALL religious matters, is to try to imagine how Jesus would deal with these various situations. We DO NOT think that He would be all legalistic and be finding reasons for excluding individuals or Churches. We don't even think that He would be tremendously concerned regarding the details of the procedures of various Churches. Where Catholic and Orthodox Churches require Seven Sacraments, virtually all Protestant Churches require Two.

We don't think that He would find fault in EITHER group! HOWEVER! We think He would look at the HEART of each individual member of a Congregation. If that person was Devout at Worshipping Him, then we believe that He would be Pleased!

Notice that this definition is NOT Denomination-specific or Church-specific. Whether that Devout Christian attended a Catholic Church or a Pentecostal Church or a Mormon Church or any other Church that attempted to Teach Christianity, that Devout Congregagation member would definitely Please Jesus and therefore be a Christian by our (new) definition. The person sitting right next to him/her, who attends that Church for OTHER reasons, and who is NOT Devout, would not necessarily Please Jesus and therefore would not be a Christian by this (new) definition.

You might note that this (new) definition is entirely individual. Only that person (and Jesus) would be able to determine whether or not he/she was actually a Christian. Because of this, our (new) definition is entirely useless for scholarly purposes!

In my personal view, most "official" Christian Churches have a LOT of "non-Christians" attending every week as Congregation members. And, even though I am a Protestant Pastor, I am tempted to think that the impressive Devotion of many Mormon Church members might mean that they have "more actual Christians by percentage" than nearly any Protestant Church. Rather amazing, since the Mormon Church is "officially" NOT Christian (by the NARROW definition)!

This is a truly odd circumstance! A LOT of very Devout Christians attending a non-Christian Church. This isn't an intentional conclusion! It is arrived at by attempting to imagine how Jesus would evaluate individual 'Congregation members' (VERY Pleased!) and 'Church' (mis-directed in several ways and possibly worthy of His censure).

As it happens, this same situation would have applied to the Branch Davidians a few years back. David Koresh was clearly sin-filled and extremely mis-directed, particularly in selfish ways. But the several dozen followers who died in that fire had chosen to follow him because he had convinced them that he WAS Jesus! In following the publicity of that tragedy, it was very clear that many of the followers were extremely Devout Christians. Most people say that it is tragic that they chose to follow a wrong Path, and they are all now in Hell! I personally believe that most or all of them are now in Heaven with Jesus, but Koresh is definitely not there! Again, an example of a non-Christian "Church" having very Devout Christian followers. My assumption here is that each person would be judged on personal Devotion to the Lord, even if he/she had been Taught some incorrect things.

None of us will ever know, while we are still here. But it just seems that Jesus, being infinitely Compassionate, seeing those Devout followers of His outside the Gates of Heaven, would have some procedure such that they weren't turned away, just for having chosen to follow a psychotic or mis-informed leader.

One can go on and on as to how one disagrees about any particular definition, but it would be irrelevant. But if ANY statement is meant to be a foundation of further knowledge, we (and a scientific approach in general) insist that basic things be defined as accurately and precisely as possible. That requires that BELIEVE consistently use the NARROW definition of ALL the important words and concepts of our Faith.

Nicaea just happens to be a previously agreed to basis for a definition. It is actually irrelevant whether ANY of the statements agreed to in Nicaea were even true or not! Even if they all eventually turn out to be erroneous, the strict (NARROW) definition of the word "Christian" is defined based on those statements. IF it should be that there really IS no Trinity (and I wrote an essay that even somewhat suggests that possibility), belief and acceptance of the concept of the Trinity IS one of the "conditions" of the definition of "Christian".

BELIEVE tries very hard to NOT have any "soapbox"! The fact that it is necessary to consistently use the most precisely defined (NARROW) definition has nothing to do with dogma or doctrine. The paragraphs above should emphasize that WE do not necessarily agree with the NARROW definition, but find it necessary to use it because of its precision of definition.

I suggest defining an entirely separate term "Believer in Christ" and imbue it with the BROAD definition. No problem there. Then, many individuals and groups that are automatically "excluded" by the "strict" (NARROW) definition of the word "Christian" would be included by the new term. The alternative would be to convince the entire world community to alter the NARROW definition of "Christian". That may or may not be appropriate (depending on one's attitude), but it seems impossible, because 1700 years of fairly consistent usage has ingrained the current Nicaean definition with the term. Given that the (NARROW) word "Christian" has its various definitional aspects (all Nicaean), whether one likes it or not, it figures to remain as it is.

Pastor Carl Johnson
A Christ Walk Church
Editor, BELIEVE Religious Information Source web-site

The individual articles presented here were generally first published in the early 1980s. This subject presentation was first placed on the Internet in December 1997.

Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html