What is a Christian?
Church of the Third Revelation
This clip is from the movie There Will Be Blood, which jumped up into my top five favorite movies shortly after seeing it. I like it for many reasons, one of which is the question that one must inevitably ask, “What is a Christian?” In this scene Eli Sunday, preacher of the Church of the Third Revelation, performs an exorcism. Throughout the movie he uses key words associated with Christianity like Church, revelation, Lord, Jesus. Even the act of exorcising a demon is biblical. Yet we are left with a profound sense of unease when we watch this. Why is that?
The best analogy that I can think of is that of a brain surgeon. Let’s say that you become very sick and are in need of a brain surgeon. I tell you that I am a brain surgeon. Do you let me operate on you outright? Doubtful. What if I start throwing out jargon like “cerebellum,” “corpus collosum,” “neuron,” and “grey matter?” Still unlikely. What would it take for you to trust me with the most important organ in your body? Probably a long track record of successful surgeries, an impressive pedigree of doctors I have studied under, membership to a hospital that has a reputation for progressive health care, etc.
The point is that in the case of a brain surgeon, it takes an awful lot for me to prove to you that I am a competent brain surgeon who has the skill and ability to operate on you and bring you back to health. Why would we assume it to be any different for someone who claims to be a Christian? This begs the question, what must someone confess/do to be considered a Christian? If they claim to be a Christian and begin to praise Vishnu, something is wrong. So that is my question to you: “What is a Christian?”
Posts
well, not to be pedantic, but perhaps “WHAT is a Christian” is the wrong question, for the answer to this question is simply, “a term used in Acts 11:26 as a descriptor of the disciples in Antioch” (it’s not even clear who called them that, they themselves? or non-disciples in the community?)
i think your analogy is somewhat helpful though, and i think i feel your point. claims to be something need some backing, some evidence.
however, following your analogy, i think the answer to WHO is a Christian, becomes based less on a set of “objective” standards or criteria, but more on relationships.
in the case of the surgeon, it really comes down to WHO do i trust? they say something about themselves, i do not trust them yet, so i go to someone else i do trust, those who provide the research you mention (like the people who provide the list of successful surgeries, which, is actually a trust of a lot of people i do not know that they are honest witnesses to some events), trusting the secondary or tertiary evidence of their having been under some people who i do trust (or, who others i trust trust, so therefore i trust them too), etc
this all just gets the person in the door. if this purported surgeon then performs brain surgery on me (successfully!) i would then be able to support his claims to others.
translated to Christians. when i move to a new city and go into a community of believers there, i submit to them my claim to be Christian. they often will seek some kind of transfer of membership from another church (they are seeking to build some trust in my claim by leaning on trust they already have in something/someone else, this other church).
perhaps all this sidesteps your final questions, but i think it takes your analogy where it should go.
your final three questions seem to go in a different direction than the analogy (though perhaps they are in line with your initial video illustration)
To me a Christian is anyone who professes to believe or follow, specifically, the teachings of Jesus as told in the New Testament of the Bible. This person must also accept the ideas of original sin and purification of that sin through belief in the sacrament Jesus offers.
This is a Christian to me. Beyond those merits, a person can bend, waver, and flip in any direction, and I still consider him or her to be a Christian.
“This begs the question, what must someone confess/do to be considered a Christian? If they claim to be a Christian and begin to praise Vishnu, something is wrong. So that is my question to you: “What is a Christian?””
I have seen ‘there will be blood’ - I liked Lewis more in’gangs of New York’ personally - but he was good in that also.
For someome to claim they are a Christian is to do the things Jesus did in my opinion - or at least to live that way with respect to the teachings of Jesus.
This includes a wide variety of teachings but the core being a handful of things: ‘treat other how you want to be treated’ or ‘Love God with all of who you are and love your neighbor as yourself’ - on these ideals hangs the whole intent from the Law and the Prophets.
Beyond that we are getting into commentary on the issue of faith - my respects to Hillel for my borrowing of this sentence.
“This person must also accept the ideas of original sin and purification of that sin through belief in the sacrament Jesus offers.” (Kyle)
I am not sure someone has to accept this as much it is done and finished by Jesus himself. Accepting an idea/theology with which the person has no actual say in (original sin - inherited; atonement - also inherited) doesn’t say much for that theology. To me, the action of being a sinner and being cleansed of that sin are actions done outside the individual (by Adam and by Jesus). Acceptance of those things does what exactly?
I also think the ideas of original sin and atonement do not need to be accepted unless there is a role for the believer to play in that scenario. I personally think there is a role to be played concerning morality and immorality for the believer. Jesus paid a price with his life to offer us a way of living - ‘take up your cross too’ - so that we live lives in a similar fashion…which is based on what he taught us to do. Now whether he paid a price for all of the sin of the world - well then this is a moot conversation.
Societyvs,
“For someone to claim they are a Christian is to do the things Jesus did…‘treat others how you want to be treated’ or ‘Love God with all of who you are and love your neighbor as yourself’
And yet this cant be all it means to be a Christian, because we might see a Buddhist doing all these things too. So why is there even a sect of people who identify themselves or whom others identify as Christians. It must be something more. Steve, I think, points out that it is centered on relationships. Kyle, I think, is pointing out that it is more than saying or doing the right things, it is the combination of saying and doing the right things.
So let me redirect the question slightly in light of the conversation thus far “What relationships, actions, and creeds distinguish someone as a Christian instead of a member of some other faith?”
“And yet this cant be all it means to be a Christian” (mike)
That’s the great and funny part of this sentence - because those are not words that I claim that sum up the Law and Prophets - those are taken directly out of the Christ’s mouth. I tend to believe he was being accurate about those claims on the Law and Prophets - but if you disagree with him - how so and why?
That’s it wrapped up in a nutshell for me - if those words are accurate and true (from Jesus) - then he is explaining his core belief system. Now to be Christ-like or Christian is to also adopt that same ‘way’ - and I tend to think anyone that does that is being a Christian.
The rest of the teachings actually are only commentary surrounding those specific claims (in Matthew at least). Jesus asks us to build a foundation for our faith system - and I choose his core teachings as mine. Now if some buddhist is doing this same thing but never heard of the Christ idea - is he not acting at least Christian in manner?
“So let me redirect the question slightly in light of the conversation thus far “What relationships, actions, and creeds distinguish someone as a Christian instead of a member of some other faith?”” (Mike)
Nothing changes for me since we are guided by God to core teachings already and everything else is still commentary - Love God and love neighbor like myself (which is basically treat others how you want to be treated) is still the core. These ideas should guide our relationships, our actions, and our creeds - developing the type of faith/beliefs Jesus lived by. We will find mercy, peace, justice, equality, love, forgiveness all at the end of those very simple teachings - if they are used as the filter on any conversation.
But it seems to me your question is about being distinguishable - which is nice in concept - but not a reality. Even Jesus’ parables about the seeds and tares in Matthew pionts this out - the wheat and tares grew together (so as to not ruin the crop) - and the seeds fell where they may - but were not picked up and distinguished - only on the basis of committment.
Societyvs,
“I tend to believe he was being accurate about those claims on the Law and Prophets - but if you disagree with him - how so and why?”
Of course I believe that Jesus was accurate in His summing up the Law and the Prophets, but my problem is that you are neglecting entirely the context in which Jesus said this. Whose Prophets and what Law is Jesus referring to? Mohammad? Buddha? The Five Pillars? The Code of Hammurabi? No and No.
You see, when Jesus says to love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, He is presupposing an existing relationship with YHWH. That is why this statement represents the sum of Prophetic teaching in addition to the Law, because the Prophets were constantly calling God’s people back into covenant faithfulness (i.e. relationship). And yes, it does matter what name you call upon, otherwise the description of Elijah’s battle with the prophets of baal makes no sense.
“your question is about being distinguishable - which is nice in concept - but not a reality”
The whole history of the people of God is about being distinct! You absolutely cannot miss this point! It is foundational, and it stems from the foot of Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:3-6. Does that mean that we look down upon those who are not currently members of the people of God? BY NO MEANS! As Jim recently discussed, we are to be Salt and Light, attracting those who recognize our distinctiveness right back to the source of the distinction. Jesus.
“So let me redirect the question slightly in light of the conversation thus far “What relationships, actions, and creeds distinguish someone as a Christian instead of a member of some other faith?” (Mike)
The great question that will always haunt me.
It is my contention that the experience of Christ is distinct, and that relationship with Him is unique among all other religious endeavors. In Him we move and breathe and have our being, permitted special wisdom and insight, infinite layers of love and grace, patience and gentleness. In silence we encounter the eternal God Who compels us to discover Him more and more, and to distinguish vipassana meditation and Christian contemplation is to grasp, or rather, seek to grasp the essence of the divine face [by this I mean vanishing, being consumed by the majesty and Truth of the mysterious love of God].
It isn’t mine to answer your question because with all integrity I don’t know. When one reads the great Sufi poets and Buddhist mystics, one often arrives with very similar statements about reality, with motifs and images, etc. We are meaning-seeking creatures and I think innately oriented toward the divine. I must admit that it is difficult to fathom who is telling the truth, who is describing an idol, who is deceived, who is misled, who is “right,” etc…and I think too many Christians are too darn quick to do so.
The overarching motif in Christian life must be self-denial (as it is in Buddhism). This must be the theme in relationship, action, and creed. Although as observed when dealing briefly with experience of the divine, we must be careful to pronounce a creed whole without thinking deeply and meditating upon what it is we are stating. Growing up Catholic, I can attest to struggles being spoon-fed a canon of beliefs (which I now embrace quite a bit more!).
Mike, I must say in reading the likes of Thich Nhat Hanh or Abraham Joshua Heschel, it is extremely difficult to distinguish such spiritual giants (only so by their own self-diminishing) from many of the admirable Christians I know or have read. This is largely the troubling thing to me — while the vast majority of Christians I talk to have no problem writing off the other major faiths as perverse and misled (or a chain of good intentions ultimately doomed), I am often confronted with the faces and sincere faith of good friends of mine who are not Christians, but who seek Allah with all their mind and heart. And, as with Hanh and Heschel, it is downright contrary in my heart to imagine these spirits in Hell. So the question lingers and remains as difficult as ever.
Gotta go get some sleep.
much lovins to you.
Michael Tolliver Lives!
-chris
“You see, when Jesus says to love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself, He is presupposing an existing relationship with YHWH” (Mike)
Perhaps - he was in Judaism terrirtory - but if we want to be even more specific - then his quotes are directed at the Judaic community and not Christians. At the time of the sayings - there were no Christians around to hear it first off, and secondly, Jesus was called to his own nation (Jewish people with a faith in YHWH). So yeah, the pre-existing category of people believing in YHWH is obvious (since he went to Jewish people with this faith anyways).
But does that mean all have to have the pre-supposiing belief? Jesus does heal a Centurion’s daughter and helps another Roman guard - and neither of them would’ve had faith in YHWH per se - or at least - that cannot be presupposed since they are called Romans for a reason in the passage.
I might add to Mike’s statement, that, while I agree, perhaps it would be appropriate to say that a relationship is presupposed and/or OFFERED/hinted at/compelled by Jesus’ dictum. I get where you are coming from and wholeheartedly agree though — His words must be understood in the context of relationship. Nieurp.
Chris,
(#7) I appreciate your honesty in wrestling with the issue. It should be something that every Christian wrestles with, or at least takes very seriously. In the conversations I have had with you Chris, I have always been impressed with how you are able to see and honor the truly honorable things in other people and cultures. You truly live out the perspective that Schaeffer preached “All truth is God’s truth.”
Why is all truth God’s truth? Because it isn’t truth unless it belongs to God. This is what Reformed Christians call Common Grace. All people everywhere have been made in the image of God (Gen 1) and are prevented from being as evil as they could be (Gen 8:20-9:17), due to their own rejection of him (Gen 3).
The confusion for many is between Common Grace and Special Revelation. To say that “All truth is God’s truth” doesnt mean that when someone claims to know the truth, they actually do. It must be weighed against what God says is true. If they line up, then yes in fact, they spoke the truth. On the other hand, this fact does not speak to their knowledge of the special revelation God has given through his people. Does that make sense?
Societyvs,
“Perhaps - he was in Judaism terrirtory - but if we want to be even more specific - then his quotes are directed at the Judaic community and not Christians.”
That is like saying The Empire Strikes Back has nothing to do with A New Hope.
“But does that mean all have to have the pre-supposiing belief? Jesus does heal a Centurion’s daughter and helps another Roman guard - and neither of them would’ve had faith in YHWH per se - or at least - that cannot be presupposed since they are called Romans for a reason in the passage.”
This is a brilliant question, and really begins to dive into the context issue that I have been talking about. You are correct in your assumptions about the Gentiles that approach Jesus. However, the impact of their part in the story is that their belief in Jesus is to be viewed as the same thing as belief in YHWH. In other words, being in relationship with Jesus is the same thing as being in relationship with YHWH (Matt 11:27, Luke 10:22, John 10:27-30)
Mike,
It means a lot to me to read this coming from you. It is a sincere struggle, and something I do not have many companions in — but paradoxically enough, it is my need to honestly engage all major faiths in order that I might fervently declare my allegiance to Christ. Somedays I am there, and others I am in something of an abyss…Nevertheless, I deeply appreciate your words.
In addition, the distinction between Common Grace and Special Revelation gets right to the meat of the argument, I think. It will do me well to get some Reformed theology soon (I apologize if my rendition is a caricature…as I’ve mentioned before, unfortunately most of the radio play I hear is…disheartening.)
I don’t necessarily think that I am obsessed with apologetics, but in a way my obsession with other faiths is absolutely a form of it. While I am hesitant to make any serious claims about interfaith dialogue and debate yet (aside from a few obvious points of contention; the need for Qur’anic criticism and Buddhist-Jewish-Christian commonalities in the “self” and understandings of Jesus as Messiah), it is my unyielding cause that in Christ is Truth unmatched, and to engage in Who He is from any perspective is a fascinating and utterly compelling journey. Anything we can do to usher this in (not synthetically) will benefit the Kingdom and broaden its horizons.
The distinction you’ve made between Common Grace and Special Revelation certainly makes sense. I’m sure there is much more to write out for another time, but I would affirm what you’ve written thus far completely. L. Ron Hubbard has the best of intentions in his Dianetics, but unfortunately his monumental claims to truth (scientifically, metaphysically, etc..) are, sadly enough, not going to save the world (yet).
I hope we’re not taking this discourse too far from the original question…but: Invariably one might ask, ‘Okay, Mr. Christian, is all truth outside of the context of Jesus then a lie?’ to which the apologist in me would probably say something rather troubling, which is, ‘I’m confident that all truth is God’s truth, and thus all truth must, at some level be within the context of Christ, Who is the Truth.’ Eh?
Thomas Merton, my spiritual mentor/great uncle, wrote, “The one end that includes all the others is the love of God.” I like that.
Let’s chat about this more. I don’t have anything else to write.
luffins in muffins,
christopher ben robert
“However, the impact of their part in the story is that their belief in Jesus is to be viewed as the same thing as belief in YHWH. In other words, being in relationship with Jesus is the same thing as being in relationship with YHWH” (Mike)
How so? I think we would have to review the stories to make this claim…which none of them you quoted from.
As for believing in Jesus and believing in God - I actually do not argue that point - that seems to be a relationship blessed of God (anointed of God). But that does not make Jesus God…makes him God’s representative.
It’s comparable to someone believing in my family’s good name - but that good name does not make me and my son the same person. It just means we both are included in the goodness of it…yet it may very well have been the father who made the name the son now benefits in.