Offenders For A Word Falls Short

[Akboy]

I’ve been involved in quite a few debates about the definition of ‘Christian.’ Many people said Offenders for a Word was a great book that addressed many of my questions. So I read it. The book does help clarify some issues, but it also seems to miss a lot of key points. I strongly believe the book falls short of addressing the philosophical, logistical and etymological issues involved in the debate surrounding the definition and limits of the term ‘Christian.’

To be clear, I’m not here to say ‘Mormons aren’t Christians.’ I’m simply saying the term is too narrow and exclusive to apply to all ‘Christian’ faiths. So I will highlight four themes from the book I have a problem with. Page numbers are from the 1992 edition.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Etymology

For a book about debates over the term ‘Christian,’ Offenders gives surprisingly little attention or respect to the etymology of the term. There’s only one short paragraph on it on 188-189. Here’s part of it.

We have seen that the oldest and probably the original meaning of Christianoi was nothing more complicated than “Christ’s people” . . .

There’s over 700 footnotes in the book, yet this doesn’t have one. Every etymology online source I can find lists Christianos(same greek word with a different ending) as meaning “follower of Christ” or “slave of Christ.” Why isn’t it enough to just use that definition? Yes, that definition is the one I would go with.

Most of the book seems to ignore the etymology.

In order to determine the semantic range of a given term, to understand its meaning, compilers of dictionaries do not engage in solitary meditations in their studies. They do not ponder the etymology of the term and then decide what it ought to mean. (bold emphasis added) p. 16

That’s precisely why you should NOT rely on the “social nature” of the word. Ignoring the etymology opens the door to countless misinterpretations and misleading definitions. Any serious Biblical scholar should dismiss any definition which ignores etymology. Isn’t exegesis a priority in Bible study? How can you have a proper exegetical understanding of the term “Christian” without giving priority to the etymology rather than modern definitions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Popular definitions

I don’t understand how the LDS church can have narrow, specific definitions for many doctrines, yet insist on using popular, broad definitions for ‘Christian.’ The authors dismiss any creed, position or belief that “exclude one denomination or other that is universally recognized as Christian. (p. 50)”

Why is it so important for something to be universally accepted? The LDS church embraces many doctrines which are certainly not universally accepted. So why can’t we embrace a definition of ‘Christian’ that isn’t universal? This is faith, not a democracy.

It may, of course, not bother some anti-Mormons to call Catholics non-Christians (although it most certainly will disturb most ordinary users of the word). p. 141-142

So what? Why is this an issue? We are called to truthfully and faithfully tell others about the gospel. We shouldn’t handicap that by worrying about what might offend someone.

But then the authors complicate their point with this line:

Truth is not established by opinion polls, and not even by surveying “experts.” p. 175

Then why do they spend so much time focusing on popular opinions and experts through history? And that isn’t the only inconsistency in the book.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inconsistent definitions

When I started reading the book, I was straining to find their definition for ‘Christian.’ It would have been much easier to read if they just made their position clear early on and used the rest of the book to support that point. But it felt like they kept moving the goal posts and ended up with a shallow, nearly meaningless definition. Here’s the first one I thought was a definition.

What made a person a Christian in the first century, and what makes a person a Christian today, is, simply, a commitment to Jesus Christ. p. 27

I actually like that definition. It certainly fits the etymology of ‘Christian,’ “a follower of Christ.” But then the goal is moved later in the book.

Probably the best way to deal with the question of who is and who is not Christian is simply to believe what people say when they claim to be Christians.

p. 185

In point of fact, the Mormons are Christians precisely because they sincerely say they are. No other criterion is needed—for the Latter-day Saints or for anyone else.

p. 191

So which is it? Do you simply need to believe you’re a Christian to be one? Or do you need some actual commitment to Christ?

I had some extensive religious discussions with a co-worker of mine who had a complicated history with Christians. I think she considered herself a Christian and she certainly followed some of Christ’s teachings, but some childhood emotional trauma made it hard for her to really commit. She admitted she trusted her own judgment over Christ’s. I’ve also had a brief discussion with a guy who called himself a Christian following Christ’s teachings. Be he was also an atheist because he said making Jesus a deity made His teachings less accessible. Can they be Christians without a commitment?

But then the authors completely contradict themselves when they promote a definition that “clearly excludes movements such as Islam and Manichaeism, which, while viewing Jesus as a prophet, regard him as neither unique nor preeminent—and whose adherents do not in any case aspire to be known as Christians. (p. 185)”

Why do they exclude whole movements? Isn’t is possible a Muslim could sincerely believe they are following Christ’s teachings, and are therefore a Christian? Life of Pi is a best selling novel with a main character who worships every week at a Hindu temple, Catholic church and Islamic mosque. Under the author’s definition, why wouldn’t Pi be a Christian?

The authors make it very clear the Bible doesn’t define ‘Christian.’ But is it really that unreasonable to infer a definition? As they say, the followers of Jesus were first called “disciples. (p. 38)”

What did the earliest followers of Jesus understand by “discipleship”? Rengstorf sees three—largely behavioral—elements in their view: (1) commitment to the person of Jesus; (2) obedience to Jesus; and (3) obligation to suffer with Jesus. “Then said Jesus to those Jews who believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed” (John 8:31) p. 39

Yet on the same page as that quote, they say there are “few if any guidelines . . . on who is, and is not, Christian.”

I don’t get it. They link ‘disciple’ with ‘Christian’ historically, but not logistically. If Christian = disciple and disciple = Rengstorf’s guidelines, then wouldn’t Christian = Rengstorf’s guidelines? If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

The same goes for the etymology definition. The Bible doesn’t say what a Christian is, but there are plenty of passages that talk about what it means to follow Christ. Since ‘Christian’ literally means ‘follower of Christ,’ then A = C.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rights and duties of a Christian

The authors seem more interested in strawman arguments and political correctness than the rights and duties of a Christian.

Consider a few analogies: If Fred the economist claims that his theory is the only full adequate or true theory of business cycles, is he thereby claiming that there are no other such theories? Hardly. p. 169-170

They make multiple analogies suggesting their critics are claiming Mormons don’t have any faith in Christ at all. If there are critics saying that, then they are wrong. Regardless, it’s a strawman argument.

Anyone who seriously looks at the LDS church will see it’s full of sincerely and devoutly faithful people. But the critics are saying that faith is not accurate. They’re saying the LDS gospel is not actually following Christ. That’s why they like Paul’s rebuke in Galatians 1.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Paul isn’t warning them of people without faith or without a gospel. His warning is about any gospel different than the one the church already had. The authors briefly deal with this passage on page 152, but not in nearly enough depth.

If my neighbor is LDS, then they believe in, and probably preach, a gospel different than my own. So according to my faith, my neighbor would be accursed. Yet I’m still supposed to call him a Christian? Why? What good does it do? When he’s feeling the full wrath of the curse, will he really care about who considered him a Christian and who didn’t? My belief and my conscience dictate I make it very clear I believe my neighbor’s gospel is wrong and not following Christ. It doesn’t do anyone any good if I support a nearly meaningless definition of ‘Christian.’

Gal 1

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

When they insist on using a universal definition of ‘Christian,’ are they trying to please men or God? How does it please God to call someone a Christian if they’re not following Christ or His gospel?

So how are we to determine who is Christian and who is not? It is not altogether clear that we have any responsibility, or any right, to make such a determination. p. 184

We have a right to firm faith in our beliefs. So don’t we have a right to be intellectually and philosophically consistent? Where does the Bible say political correctness is more important than being consistent in our faith?

We believe being a Christian means following Christ. And we believe following Christ means A and B. Yet LDS believe following Christ means X and Y. We can’t both be following Christ. So how can we have faith that we’re following Christ and say LDS are also following Christ? Either we’re honest and consistent about what we believe or we lie to people of other faiths. Seriously, what are we supposed to do?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

As I said before, the etymology of ‘Christian’ has a great definition, ‘a follower of Christ.’ Of course, that doesn’t exclude Mormons from being Christian. But it does show the term is narrow. The definition isn’t ‘someone who believes they’re following Christ’ or ‘anyone who claims to follow Christ.’ Protestants, Catholics and Mormons can’t all be following Christ, so they can’t all be Christians.

[ERayR]

As I said before, the etymology of ‘Christian’ has a great definition, ‘a follower of Christ.’ Of course, that doesn’t exclude Mormons from being Christian. But it does show the term is narrow. The definition isn’t ‘someone who believes they’re following Christ’ or ‘anyone who claims to follow Christ.’ Protestants, Catholics and Mormons can’t all be following Christ, so they can’t all be Christians.

Why? I don't know of any thing that says a follower of Christ must have all the right answers. I very well believe that Protestants, Catholics and Mormons can all be following Christ.They may disagree on doctrine but as long as they preach of Christ and center their hopes in Christ and treat others in a Christ like manner they are certainly worshiping Christ.

[Zakuska]

<snip>

If my neighbor is LDS, then they believe in, and probably preach, a gospel different than my own. So according to my faith, my neighbor would be accursed. Yet I’m still supposed to call him a Christian? Why? What good does it do? When he’s feeling the full wrath of the curse, will he really care about who considered him a Christian and who didn’t? My belief and my conscience dictate I make it very clear I believe my neighbor’s gospel is wrong and not following Christ. It doesn’t do anyone any good if I support a nearly meaningless definition of ‘Christian.’

Who's to say that the Gospel you have espoused is the true Gospel, espoused by the Apostles and it is you who is accursed?

[Zakuska]

Why? I don't know of any thing that says a follower of Christ must have all the right answers. I very well believe that Protestants, Catholics and Mormons can all be following Christ.They may disagree on doctrine but as long as they preach of Christ and center their hopes in Christ and treat others in a Christ like manner they are certainly worshiping Christ.

Tell me about it...! How often do we see "Christians" even Peter the great getting things wrong and others having to correct them (ie Paul)

Galatians 2:11

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

So I guess Peter wasn't a Christian but Paul was?

Na... the only thing I see as a qualification for a Christian in the chapter...

Gal 2

10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion

As I said before, the etymology of ‘Christian’ has a great definition, ‘a follower of Christ.’ Of course, that doesn’t exclude Mormons from being Christian. But it does show the term is narrow. The definition isn’t ‘someone who believes they’re following Christ’ or ‘anyone who claims to follow Christ.’ Protestants, Catholics and Mormons can’t all be following Christ, so they can’t all be Christians.

Baloney.

Words draw their meaning from context. Since you mentioned "philosophy" I would like to know who's philosophy of language you are relying on.

Language is a living thing. It changes constantly. If it didn't the Spanish, Romanians, Portuguese, Italians and French would still be speaking Classical Latin.

Oh wait, I mean Greek

No wait, I mean Indoeuropean.

No wait I mean.....

Besides, quite frankly I don't care if they want to kick us out of the "Christian" club. After all, they worship a different god invented by Plato and Aristotle.

Edited July 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Akboy]

Why? I don't know of any thing that says a follower of Christ must have all the right answers. I very well believe that Protestants, Catholics and Mormons can all be following Christ.They may disagree on doctrine but as long as they preach of Christ and center their hopes in Christ and treat others in a Christ like manner they are certainly worshiping Christ.

I'm not talking about obscure doctrines like predestination or eschatology. I'm talking about basic, foundational beliefs, what the gospel is and how someone follows Christ. If two people believe in completely different gospels, how can they both be following Christ?

Who's to say that the Gospel you have espoused is the true Gospel, espoused by the Apostles and it is you who is accursed?

Yes, that's my point. If the LDS gospel is the true, biblical gospel that follows Christ, then I would have a false gospel and I wouldn't be a Christian. I'm not here to say who is right and who is wrong. I'm talking about having a logically consistent approach to the issue of defining 'Christian.'

[Akboy]

Baloney.

Words draw their meaning from context. Since you mentioned "philosophy" I would like to know who's philosophy of language you are relying on.

Language is a living thing. It changes constantly. If it didn't the Spanish, Romanians, Portuguese, Italians and French would still be speaking Classical Latin.

Yes, but don't we have to use the right context? If we're examining verses that were written over 2000 years ago in a different language, why would we put so much attention on the modern context in our language? Shouldn't we give a much higher priority to the original language as it was used when the words were written? Edited July 30, 2012 by Akboy

[Avatar4321]

Why? I don't know of any thing that says a follower of Christ must have all the right answers. I very well believe that Protestants, Catholics and Mormons can all be following Christ.They may disagree on doctrine but as long as they preach of Christ and center their hopes in Christ and treat others in a Christ like manner they are certainly worshiping Christ.

i agree. I dont see how they aren't all following Christ.

[ERayR]

I'm not talking about obscure doctrines like predestination or eschatology. I'm talking about basic, foundational beliefs, what the gospel is and how someone follows Christ. If two people believe in completely different gospels, how can they both be following Christ?

Yes, that's my point. If the LDS gospel is the true, biblical gospel that follows Christ, then I would have a false gospel and I wouldn't be a Christian. I'm not here to say who is right and who is wrong. I'm talking about having a logically consistent approach to the issue of defining 'Christian.'

You in your efforts to be exclusive are hatching up problems that need not be there. What do you consider basic foundational beliefs? To me basic foundational beliefs are a belief in the divinity if Christ and a belief in the atonement and a desire to emulate his example..

[Avatar4321]

Yes, that's my point. If the LDS gospel is the true, biblical gospel that follows Christ, then I would have a false gospel and I wouldn't be a Christian. I'm not here to say who is right and who is wrong. I'm talking about having a logically consistent approach to the issue of defining 'Christian.'

So you don't think God's grace is sufficient to cover those who may geniunely have given themselves over to Christ despite being misinformed about certain matters of doctrines and facts about the gospel?

Ive never heard anyone actually claim that.

[Akboy]

i agree. I dont see how they aren't all following Christ.

What do Mormons teach about what it means to follow Christ? What do the Protestants and Catholics teach about it? Do they really all teach the same thing on that issue?

And what about other faiths? Muslims believe they follow at least some of Christ's teachings. If a Muslim says he's a Christian, is he?

[wenglund]

Maybe I'm not nit-picky enough, but I don't see a meaningful difference between "Christ's people" and "followers of Christ".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Avatar4321]

What do Mormons teach about what it means to follow Christ? What do the Protestants and Catholics teach about it? Do they really all teach the same thing on that issue?

And what about other faiths? Muslims believe they follow at least some of Christ's teachings. If a Muslim says he's a Christian, is he?

We are to offer to Him a broken heart and a contrite spirit and enter into a covenant with Him to follow Him, to stand as a witness of Him, and to always Remember Him.

On what planet would a Muslim ever claim to be a christian?

[ERayR]

What do Mormons teach about what it means to follow Christ? What do the Protestants and Catholics teach about it? Do they really all teach the same thing on that issue?

And what about other faiths? Muslims believe they follow at least some of Christ's teachings. If a Muslim says he's a Christian, is he?

Now you are bordering on the ridiculous. Muslims do not claim to be Christians. If they convert to some form of Christianity they are Christians. You are fixating on the difference in doctrine and not the basics. I thought you were talking about the basics. Back to the basics: To me basic foundational beliefs are a belief in the divinity if Christ and a belief in the atonement and a desire to emulate his example..How you do it can be debated but it can never detract from ones basic Christianity. It just make you different.

[Akboy]

You in your efforts to be exclusive are hatching up problems that need not be there. What do you consider basic foundational beliefs? To me basic foundational beliefs are a belief in the divinity if Christ and a belief in the atonement and a desire to emulate his example..

Yet that's not what Offenders for a Word says. According to the authors, if someone says they're a Christian, then they are. I can think of multiple examples of people who say they're a Christian but don't believe in divinity or atonement.

So you don't think God's grace is sufficient to cover those who may geniunely have given themselves over to Christ despite being misinformed about certain matters of doctrines and facts about the gospel?

Ive never heard anyone actually claim that.

That depends on what you mean by 'geniunely giving yourself to Christ.' According to some groups, if you're relying on your own works for anything, then you haven't really given yourself to Christ. They don't believe you can give yourself to Christ when you're still relying on your own strength. Edited July 30, 2012 by Akboy

[Avatar4321]

That depends on what you mean by 'geniunely giving yourself to Christ.' According to some groups, if you're relying on your own works for anything, then you haven't really given yourself to Christ. They don't believe you can give yourself to Christ when you're still relying on your own strength.

Then isn't it wonderful that our faith in Christ is judged by Christ and not by "Some groups" or extremely biased individuals who want to claim exclusive rights to Christ and limit who is and isnt a Christian based on mental gymnastics that have no basis in any sort of logic whatsoever? I'm very glad that we have a Father in Heaven who extends His grace to those whom He knows are sincerely following Christ?

[Akboy]

We are to offer to Him a broken heart and a contrite spirit and enter into a covenant with Him to follow Him, to stand as a witness of Him, and to always Remember Him.

Yes, but HOW do we follow him?

[mfbukowski]

Yes, but don't we have to use the right context? If we're examining verses that were written over 2000 years ago in a different language, why would we put so much attention on the modern context in our language? Shouldn't we give a much higher priority to the original language as it was used when the words were written?

No, the context is the modern one. Do we live 2k years ago?

Do we speak Aramaic? Do we speak ancient Greek? Even if I grant your premise we would have to be speaking those same languages, AS SPOKEN THEN WITH NO CHANGES to even approximate "the same context".

And yet how does one talk about the internet in ancient Aramaic?? Cars? Moon Landings? Television? Radio? Do you understand that those very concepts are not available in those languages? That those things literally DO NOT EXIST in those languages or people who spoke them??

Come on!

In my opinion the suggestion is absurd. Even if we all went back magically in a time machine, we could not use those languages today because they would no longer be "those languages".

One would have to destroy those languages to "update" them.

Can't do it.

[wenglund]

What do Mormons teach about what it means to follow Christ?

We teach that determining who is or isn't following Christ, is between the individual and Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Akboy]

Then isn't it wonderful that our faith in Christ is judged by Christ and not by "Some groups" or extremely biased individuals who want to claim exclusive rights to Christ and limit who is and isnt a Christian based on mental gymnastics that have no basis in any sort of logic whatsoever? I'm very glad that we have a Father in Heaven who extends His grace to those whom He knows are sincerely following Christ?

We have the right to have a specific belief about what it means to follow Christ. So don't we have a right to point out when we see other groups with different beliefs? If our beliefs are correct, then those other groups wouldn't really be following Christ. So why would we call them Christian?

[Akboy]

No, the context is the modern one. Do we live 2k years ago?

Isn't exegesis important? Shouldn't we try to figure out what the authors actually meant when they wrote the words?

[mfbukowski]

Yes, but HOW do we follow him?

"Follow" is a modern English word.

Does it have the same meaning? Does "believe" have the same meaning? How are you absolutely certain of that? Were you there listening to the Aramaic?

How do you know exactly what he said since it wasn't written down until years later? Can you see the problems here? (I suspect not)

[ERayR]

Yet that's not what Offenders for a Word says. According to the authors, if someone says they're a Christian, then they are. I can think of multiple examples of people who say they're a Christian but don't believe in divinity or atonement.

That depends on what you mean by 'geniunely giving yourself to Christ.' According to some groups, if you're relying on your own works for anything, then you haven't really given yourself to Christ. They don't believe you can give yourself to Christ when you're still relying on your own strength.

I have not read Offenders for a Word. Quite frankly I don't care whether you think I am a Christian or not. Neither do I care whether you think my worship habits are orthodox. I do however doubt that either Dan Peterson or Stephen Ricks would classify someone who does not believe in the divinity and atonement of Christ as Christian. Those who self identify as Christians and do not believe in the divinity or atonement of Christ may do so if they want. It certainly does not detract from my Christianity and it gives me an opportunity to dialog with them and them a chance to repent.

Again we can argue the semantics of doctrine till the cows come home but as long as they are sincerely reverencing Christ, or maybe even not so sincerely, I will never question their Christianity.

Articles of Faith #11

• We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
  

[ERayR]

Yes, but HOW do we follow him?

And how is that your concern or anybody elses but his.

[mfbukowski]

Yet that's not what Offenders for a Word says. According to the authors, if someone says they're a Christian, then they are. I can think of multiple examples of people who say they're a Christian but don't believe in divinity or atonement.

That depends on what you mean by 'geniunely giving yourself to Christ.' According to some groups, if you're relying on your own works for anything, then you haven't really given yourself to Christ. They don't believe you can give yourself to Christ when you're still relying on your own strength.

That means that doctrinal differences are inserted in the very language!! This is absurd! You define yourself as a "Christian" by defining all the words involved the way you want!

Is the word "Belief" included in YOUR definition of "works"?

Does the sentence "I believe in you" in modern English mean the same as "I believe in Christ"? Does it mean the same as "I believe in tithing"? How about "I believe in Barak Obama's economic policy?"

How about "I believe that's Jones' dog?"

All the same meaning?

What was the "original" definition of these terms?

If you want to base your thesis on semantics, I will be glad to show you that it cuts both ways

Edited July 30, 2012 by mfbukowski