Xavier Pacheco

2/2/2010 5:38:58 PM #

Good response.  That was something like what I was trying to express.  John Piper said once in session where Mark Dever was moderating something very close to this: "Words are not so important but Definitions of words are very important."

scott d. andersen

2/2/2010 5:54:02 PM #

I agree with the quote that words are not as important as the definition of those words.  I recently invited someone to Christianity Explored at V7PC who I knew was not a believer in Jesus Christ, follower of Jesus, or Christian.  He declined my invitation with the explanation that he was a "Christian Buddhist"--now THAT's a definitive oxymoron if you ask me.

Joyce Bruns

2/2/2010 8:24:48 PM #

Good words here. I would offer that not all "meaning" is created equally. There are two meanings to "meaning." First, as the author of my words I have the right to define them as I choose (meaning implied). Of course, if we want to be understood, I must speak in the lingua franca of those around me (meaning inferred). Nevertheless, at the end of the day, I mean what I say and say what I mean. For instance, I consider myself a Calvinist but mean something specific by it that your average Presbyterian may not necessarily hear. And so, I must carefully unpack my meaning so as to be understood.

DeYoung is correct that terms are elastic and carry far too much baggage at times. But, every effective communicator will know their audience and seek to speak in ways that convey authorial intent.

Paul

2/2/2010 10:55:49 PM #

Words only have meaning in context. That context is social, not personal. People can imagine themselves to be using the "best" or "correct" definition of a word, but unless they inform others of what exactly that unique definition is, they are thinking one thing but conveying another. The term "Christian" is one of those words that has a zillion parallel definitions in society. I'd suggest caution in limiting yourself to just one of those unless you intend on explaining your specific meaning every time you use the word. To me, the word means someone who believes that Jesus died for their sins, period. Christianity is an entirely different word yet, and entails a whole bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ or the Bible.

As a non-believer who was a fervent believer decades ago, I only bring this up because I was passing through and found this topic interesting. It seems that sometimes Christians are totally oblivious to what they are conveying, because they use meanings among themselves that are different than what the rest of the world expects, and then when they converse with non-Christians they often forget that their secret inside meanings are not the ones used by others. I think both sides would be better served by accurate communication.

I've read about atheists who call themselves followers of Jesus Christ because they believe in the ethical and moral principles of pacificism, peace and kindness usually attributed to Jesus. Are they Christians? I'd say not, but some would say so. Who am I to say they are wrong?

John M. Jacobson

2/3/2010 3:14:35 AM #

I call those who call themselves Christians, but never feel a call "checkbox Christians". They identify as Christians as something they do, or have done, rather than a relationship with the God who created them.  But I do have a problem with the idea that someone that does not attend a certain denomination not being a Christian. By denomination, I do not mean those mentioned in the next paragraph, but groups that believe in a personal God who redeemed man through the death of Christ, so there is a doctrine issue.

While I agree that the Mormon or Watchtower doctrine is not Christian in nature, I have met adherents of each whom I believe understood the nature of the relationship. More so with casual Mormons than Jehovah's Witnesses. The only warning here is don't judge the individual. But I don't see a problem with approaching them on doctrine and steering them away, if handled in a loving manner, as you can get trapped in very bad theology.

I attend a church where a great many of the members seem to believe all Catholics go to Hell and are glad they are no longer in a church that is "condemning". We often get so caught up in the color of the curtains, we miss the message.

Great article.

Peace and Grace,
Greg

Gregory A. Beamer

5/3/2010 12:28:07 AM #

*Just to preface this, I'm directing my little rant at 'people in general', not 'you' personally:

So I think there needs to be less demonzing of ppl who "call themselves Christians but don't practice it or act in the same way that I do."  Because heaven forbid if a non-Christian gets "confused" by how someone else acts, and gets the "wrong idea" about Christianity, because the non-Christian didn't come to *YOU* first.  "They call themselves a Christian, but then did or said XYZ!!!"  

Dude....let people call themselves what they want.  You're doing more harm than good by being judgmental and demonizing.  You don't see other religions doing this, for example someone is still allowed to call themselves Jewish if they don't keep kosher, etc, (I won't wear you down with examples).  

I think I can count on one hand the times people have asked what religion I am.  People...don't care that much how you label yourself.  They DO care if you help them out when their car won't start.  They care if you help out poor people or not.  (I'm tempted to offer an opinion on which political party tends to help "the least of these" the most, rather than helping the top 1%, but I will just stay with my main point).  

Seriously, I think this is a self-created problem by Christians.  It's almost better if we just drop ALL labels, and SOLELY just act in accordance with our beliefs.  

A quote from the movie Nick and Nora....
Norah: "There's this part of Judaism that I like. Tikun Olam. It said that the world is broken into pieces and everyone has to find them and put them back together."
Nick: "Maybe we don't have to find it. Maybe we are the pieces."

LLS