Who is a Christian?


It seems that we are all eager to put up our fences, marking who is in and who is out. With a new President about to take office, there are those who wish to challenge his own confession of faith. From their vantage point, Barack Obama isn't a Christian because he has made statements that don't accord with their definition of a Christian. For some, the defining code of belief is the Nicene Creed, for others its the Westminster Confession, or the confession printed on their church bulletin. For many, this definition can get rather narrow. Their list of essentials growing longer by the day.

Over at American Creation, a blog that debates questions of the religious nature of American origins, this conversation is ongoing, and many definitions have been offered.

For my part I'd like to throw in this definition that was written nearly two centuries ago -- published on September 7, 1809. The author of this statement was Thomas Campbell, father of Alexander, and one of the co-founders of the Movement that spawned my denomination. Reflecting the ethos of the day, along with his own studies of John Locke and the Scottish Common Sense philosophical tradition, Campbell issued his Declaration and Address. This document was designed to lay out a play for Christian unity on the American Frontier, which at the time was the Pennsylvania/Ohio border.

I offer up this definition, the first of thirteen propositions that defined a path toward Christian unity.

PROP. 1. That the Church of Christ upon earth is essentially, intentionally, and constitutionally one; consisting of all those in every place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures, and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and of none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians.


Note the foundation -- faith in Christ and obedience to him in light of the Scriptures. It is a combination of confession and behaviors. The creed is brief and could be seen as relatively open. Note to that this confession is set in the context of the church, which Campbell believed was one not only in "invisible" sense, but in a very tangible sense.

So, who is a Christian? How should we make the judgment? Who is empowered to make such a decision?

Comments

Anonymous said…
Why does your question matter to universalists?

I think asking who is a Christian is a very important question, but then I'm not a universalist.
Larry Morris said…
Interesting staement. It is both open and closed. The statement "all things according to scripture" is used by many to exclude those who don't act and believe such as themselves.

Scripture itself can be used to support a simple faith declaration or a radical life of devotion and obedience. While Jesus came to bring good news and hope to all, scripture also says that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone.

A simple creed is only as good as the "laws" that are used to support or enforce it. Look at the 10 Commandmanets. Simple, and could actually be condensed to 2 if we wanted, yet were constantly expanded to cover all of the bases by the religious sects to bring clarity.

Many groups have taken this to extremes in either direction. Either to easy and liberal...Al paths lead to Heaven... or so hard that no one except the super "disciple" can make it.

The truth lies some where in between, and ultimately, only God knows. We will stand before Him one day accountable for our lives, what we have done with it, and what message we have passed on to others about Jesus. Is he truly God or just another wise teacher?

By defination, a Christian is a follower of Jesus. A better question might be "Who is Jesus"?
Anonymous said…
Larry,
I think you make good points, but I may disagree with you on the Law. The Law has been abused by the church as a way to "fix" people or mold them into our view of what a Christian should look like. The Law is really a mirror to show us how far short we fall before God. Jesus comes and says.. I am the way to cross this gap to be reconciled with God.

I am in the camp that you have to have Jesus to be reconciled. But I would agree with your definition.. a Christian is someone who has laid their life down for Jesus.

Bob, the one key part of Mr. Campbell's definition is an obedience to God in all things according to the Scripture. Those who don't believe Obama is a Christian believe his view vary from Scripture. Not sure how I feel on all of this stuff.. if Obama gave his life to Christ, then he is sealed with Holy Spirit. Can we judge the fruit of his life.. absolutely. I wish he went to church instead of the gym.. but thats just me.

Chuck
Chad McDaniel said…
had this conversation with some youth pastors last week. we were all discussing our interactions with youth workers from other denominations and we began talking about challenges of doing ministry together in light of theological differences. my question: "where do the differences end? which differences break the relationship and which ones can we work through?"

great questions here. my thought's are close to what you have described: faith in Christ and obedience to his teachings as defined in Scripture.

however, i wonder....there are things Christ doesn't teach about in Scripture, but others have teachings, so what do we do with these issues?
Anonymous said…
I noticed how similar this statement is to our understanding of what St.Paul was talking about with "justification by faith" and how that relates to God's faithfulness in light of the Hebrew scriptures.
Robert Cornwall said…
Thanks for the conversation -- especially welcome to Larry who is an old friend from elementary school!

On the question of what to make of things Jesus didn't teach on, Campbell was of the view that we should assign this to the area of opinion or non-essentials.

He drew upon the much older motto:

In essentials unity,
In non-essentials liberty,
In all things charity.

His list of essentials was rather small.
Anonymous said…
Bob,

Interesting history on your quote. I found this on the internet:

John XXIII's first encyclical, Ad Petri cathedram of 1959. I cannot find the Latin text on-line, but the English translation is available, whence this quotation, its paragraph 72:

From Pope John the XXIII in an encyclical issued in 1959:

"But the common saying, expressed in various ways and attributed to various authors, must be recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity."

This indicates two things - that the Vatican's own staff of scholars cannot determine who first made the statement or just how long ago it was written, and, more importantly, that The Roman Catholic Church approves of the thesis.

That of course begs the question as to exactly what is essential?!? Moreover, it promotes the truth, that whatever our disagreement on essentials, we should always engage each other in an atmosphere of brotherly love and sincere affection.

John
Robert Cornwall said…
The motto, which has been a favorite of Disciples, is usually attributed to the 17th century Lutheran Theologian Rupert Meldinius. Of course Disciples aren't the only ones who make use of it -- as you can see from John's note.
Anonymous said…
Can't remember the phrase.. but it was something like "Love Jesus with all your heart, but otherwise do whatever you want". A spin off of Paul's.. everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Or to even quote my pastor from this week.. once we are saved by Jesus, death is paid for.. after that.. life is full of adventures.. where we struggle with different sins and issues..but nothing can kill us, b/c that debt was paid by Jesus. Even death itself is the final adventure.

-Chuck

Popular Posts