I just stumbled across this piece on the Acton Institute site, which called my attention to the fuss kicked up by NPR over what the adjective “Christian” means. I find myself in agreement with the catholicity of Rev. Robert Sirico’s response–the part not quoted by the NPR blogger:
Christianity is and always has been a religion that “receives” its faith rather than one that “invents” it. Hence, a basic definition of “Who are the Christians?” begins with an adherence, doctrinally, to the ancient Creeds of the Church, beginning with the Apostles Creed (believed to have been of apostolic origin, the Apostles having in turn received their mandate from Christ Himself) and continuing on to the faith articulated at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Chalcedon, Orange, Hippo and Quicunque Vult (aka, The Athanasian Creed), all of which were formative for the belief of Christians. The traditions that would agree with this ecumenical Trinitarian confession (most Catholics, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, et al.) have historically recognized that whatever other doctrinal differences may separate them, this is the meaning they share when they use the term “Christian.”
The contemporary noise is generated by those who object to the allegedly exclusive use of the adjective by theologically (and often politically) conservative Christians. Perhaps some of them do indeed mean to exclude those with whom they (politically) disagree as “un-Christian.” But I’d give them the benefit of the doubt, just as I’d give those with whom I politically disagree the benefit of the doubt. We’re all sinners and and, as such, all too often think and act in “un-Christian” ways. We ought indeed to remember that the mansion has many rooms.
That most emphatically doesn’t mean that we should erase the capacious line drawn by Rev. Sirico. Unitarian, for example, isn’t Christian. You can’t deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and call yourself a Christian. So I’m happy in an ecumenical spirit to join hands with all those who affirm the traditional creeds (without serious mental reservations and subjectivizing interpretations that strain credulity).
Stated another way, some portion of the NPR dispute seems to be between those who unapologetically (as it were) call themselves Christians and those who for a variety of reasons don’t want to proclaim it quite as loudly. In some cases, subjectivism has crept in. In other cases, there’s perhaps a misunderstanding of what is meant by toleration. In others, the apparent authority of science has made it hard to affirm in any sort of honest or authentic way the traditional creeds.
Surely the word shouldn’t be a merely political bone of contention.
April 9th, 2012 | 11:16 am
I meet Unitarians who think of themselves as Christians, as in followers of Christ: Mormons, too. Do we deny them?
April 9th, 2012 | 11:28 am
It seems to me there are two somewhat common (and commonly confused) usages of the term “Christian”.
One use is the to describe as Christian any Christ cult (cult here refers to the anthropological term describing a religious as a cult). In this usage any cult or religious group which identifies Jesus Christ as an important figure as Christian, i.e. a Christ cult. In this instance Unitarians, Mormons, as well as Catholics are Christian.
The second used within the Nicene affirming Christ cults, the term Christian is used as both as shorthand for “Nicene affirming Christ cults” and as a way to highlight the common ground between these sects. This definition (as noted) excludes Unitarians, Mormons and others.
Outsiders (non-Nicene Christians) are often annoyed at the Nicene practice of using the second term more often than the first. The reasons for this annoyance seem to vary widely, but as noted politics seems to be one of them.
April 9th, 2012 | 11:42 am
Kate,
Deny them what?
Love? (no)
Do we judge them? (no … Christ will do that on the last day, it is not our place.)
Do we think they are correct theologically? (no … hence we …Deny them communion.)
April 9th, 2012 | 11:48 am
@Kate, I don’t think it’s so much a matter of “denial” but coherence. How to find a definition that makes sense is the problem. Being “inclusive” tends to make “Christian” somewhat meaningless, a mere Humpty Dumpty word . Consider Mark’s dual use set if it helps.
April 9th, 2012 | 1:48 pm
How about using the terms “creedal Christian” and “noncreedal Christian?” This terminology would accurately describe the differences between us.
When my evangelical friends use the term “Christian,” they mean fundamentalist protestant. They exclude Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, their adherence to the creeds notwithstanding.
As Mormon, I can says that we do explicitly reject the 4th century creeds. On the other hand, it is not accurate to say that we regard Christ as merely “an important figure.” He is the center of our life and worship.
April 9th, 2012 | 2:02 pm
Is there not a more basic point about the (mis)use of the term “Christian” as an adjective? Applied to the culture (novels, music, books, etc.) the adjective often means “made by a ‘Christian,’ or containing superficially Christian or thematically “unobjectionable” content.
Which is the “Christian” movie: “The Shawshank Redemption” or “Left Behind: The Movie?”
And what on earth are the “Christian Yellow Pages” but a ploy to gain (a part ) of the whole world at the expense of one’s soul?
April 9th, 2012 | 2:04 pm
Dear George,
“As Mormon, I can says that we do explicitly reject the 4th century creeds.”
Please reconsider. I assume that you view the New Testament as authoritative. The same men who assembled the Nicene Creed are the ones who, at an ever latter date, assembled the Canon.
April 9th, 2012 | 6:50 pm
Pastor Spomer,
In the case of the New Testament, the Councils merely placed their stamp pf approval on an anthology of inspired writings from the apostolic era, a collection that was already widely circulated and accepted. The authority of the New Testament rests on the credibility of the writers of the original books. Many of those writers were eye-witnessnes to the events they describe. It does not derive its authority from the councils.
The creeds are another matter. In their case, the councils composed something entirely new, although I am sure they believed that they were summarizing and clarifying the accepted teachings of the Church in their time.
April 10th, 2012 | 3:34 am
The problem with a doctrinal definition of “Christian,” such as “those who believe the three Catholic creeds” or “those who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord,” is that, if anyone objects that one’s chosen formula is too inclusive/exclusive, it is difficult to discover grounds on which to refute him.
Now, it is perfectly possible to avoid the question-begging assumption of defining Christians by examining their tenets, or the Church by its teaching. After all, the Edict of Thessalonica [Cunctos Populos] of 380, which stands in pride of place at the beginning of the Codex of Justinian, did so very neatly. Christians were those in visible communion with “the Pontiff Damasus and “Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.”
This definition of Christians in terms of membership of a cultic community would appear to accord better with the historical use of the term and with the self-understanding of the overwhelming majority of Christians, past and present.
April 10th, 2012 | 6:23 am
Mormonism does not subscribe to the Three Ecumenical Creeds of the ancient Church. Mormons emphatically refuse to do so and bringing up those Creeds will draw acidic scathing remarks from more than a few Mormons. This speaks volumes to orthodox Christians. Mormons may believe “Jesus as the only begotten son of God, who was crucified to pay the penalty for all of mankind’s sins, and they believe that the only way to eternal salvation is to accept Jesus’s sacrifice on their behalf”, but what they mean by those statements is very different from what historic Christianity proclaims. Thus, I would never allow a Mormon to preach in my parish for the same reason I would not allow a Muslim: unbelief.
Mormons obviously disagree and resent these assertions. Fair enough. That is their perfect right. I am a Lutheran and plenty of Baptists don’t think Lutherans are Christians either. Welcome to the world as we know it.
April 10th, 2012 | 11:47 am
Fundamentally, Jesus Himself gave us ‘the answer’ to this issue. He simply asked two questions:
Who do people say that I am?
Who do YOU say that I am?
Jesus Himself distinguished His disciples from ‘the people’ (the rest of the world). This is the faith of Christians, that Jesus is Messiah (Christ)-Savior, and Son of the Living God.
Jesus also said that ‘by this all ‘men’ will know you are my disciples: by our love for one another (as He loved us) and by our unity.
“Christian” has two meanings. One, greatly represented here in conversation concerning the ‘faith of Christians’ [the most fundamental faith in Christ of ‘historic Christianity’, as people put it: faith
The other meaning of “Christian” is in action:love. Even those Christians who believe that faith alone justifies recognize the need of Christians to love one another.
Many who are confess the faith of ‘historic Christianity’ (the Creeds) daily attempt to put the teachings of the Lord into action in their lives (charity). In this sense they are ‘real Christians’ in both meanings.
However, there are those who belong to ‘historic Christianity’ who for whatever reason have not really wrestled with their ‘faith’ and its implications and just ‘say the words’ and ‘go through the motions’ (we all have met them; some of us might recognize ourselves as belonging to this group). Then the connection of ‘faith’ and ‘love’ is tentative if it exists at all.
These “Christians” certainly belong to the first meaning of Christian but not the second.
I believe it is important to maintain the two senses of ‘being Christian’
There would be those who believe in One God (Here I am thinking of Jews and Moslems) who can and do exibit (more often than we realize or give them credit) living the way Jesus taught
April 11th, 2012 | 1:20 pm
It would be more precise to say that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accept the portions of the traditional creeds which affirm the identity of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind, which can be seen by a simple examination of the Mormons’ thirteen Articles of Faith, which are found in the Pearl of Great Price, available at lds.org. As the Creeds do, Mormons affirm that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are three distinct persons.
Where Mormons diverge is in the insistence of the creeds that these three persons who are all God are of “one substance” (whatever that substance is) and the even later assertions that God (presumably all three persons) are without body, parts or passions. Mormons view this assertion concerning the lack of a body to be at odds with the New Testament witness of the physical resurrection of Christ. The assertion that God lacks “passions” also appears to be at odds with the many testimonies in the New Testament that God and Christ love us and will forgive us, and most pointedly in the detailed testimony of the very real nature of the suffering of Christ on the day of his death.
The writings of various Protestant theologians who support the theology of the Open God propose that the Trinity is a social unity in which the Father and Son experience real love for one another, and are perfectly unified in that love. They also suggest that the assertion of a passionless God who does not really “feel” the emotion of love for mankind has deprived Christians of much of the comfort that the gospel should provide.
Mormons in fact believe in just such a social Trinity, and take literally the words of Christ when he says that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The Latter-day Saints believe they are just as entitled to bear the name “Christian” as the first century saints who never saw a creed, but simply believed the testimony of the apostles.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact