What is the non-negotiable element of being a "Christian?" [View All]

[Selwynn]

I admit that I did post this same topic on the Religion and Theology Boards - but I'm not sure how much cross-over there is between the two boards, so I want to repost here:

I address this post primarily to other people who label themselves "Christian" rather than those of other faiths or no faiths. Not to exclude you, but because I am particularly interested in the response from this one group.

It a simple question really: what are the things a person must do or be to be properly called a "Christian?" In other words, what is the essential definition of being a "Christian?" There is a lot of freedom and diversity in Christian tradition. A lot of people who call themselves Christian have some very different beliefs from one another. But in order for the term to have any meaning at all, it must have some agreed upon definition.

What is it?

The Dogmatic School
Explanation as to my motives in asking: as I see it there as very loosely speaking two schools of thought on the answer to this question. The first school which I will call the "dogmatic absolute" school, answers that ultimate there is one more more core doctrinal assertions/statements of belief that must be held in order to be appropriately called a Christian.

For example, some might say that while there may be a lot of disagreement on various points of theology, one must believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God in order to appropriately be called a Christian. So the divinity of Christ becomes a "deal-breaker" by some people's definition of Christianity: you must accept that doctrine or your can't really call yourself a Christian.

Now naturally, there are many who believe you must affirm all kinds of doctrinal positions to call yourself a Christian -- immaculate conception, original sin, trinitarian doctrine. Are any of you familiar with the Nicene Creed? There are many who would say that the definition of being a "Christian" is affirming by faith one's believe in those creedal confessions. If you don't hold those basic doctrines, you cannot be appropriately called a "Christian."

So that's one perspective. Note that many atheists define Christianity in this way, which is why so many consider Christianity so authoritarian. Is this the right perspective?

The Relational School
There is another school of thought on the question of defining what it means to call oneself a "Christian." This would be the "relational" school of thought. This school answers that we have in the words written about and attributed to Jesus our answer for what the non-negotiable definition of "Christ-like" belief actually is, when Jesus says that the greatest command is to "love the lord your god with all your heart, soul mind and strength. And the second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commands hangs all the law and the prophets."

According to the gospel writers, Jesus himself says that the entire point of all the law and all the prophets hinges on the simple command to love god with your whole heart and love others with your whole heart. In other words, the greatest point and purpose in Jesus' mind was healthy, responsible, joyful relationships with ourselves, God and those around us.

The relational school would argue that, insofar as a person looks at the written stories of Jesus and sees them as often instructional and inspiring to ones life, insofar as a person has a deeply held desire to emulate those characteristics of compassion and empathy, and insofar as a person accepts that the ultimate highest aim of living should be the striving to live in healthy right relationship with God and neighbor (the love with all heart, soul, mind and strength) - then one is appropriately called a "Christian" - one who follows after the teachings of Jesus.

Notice that there is no mention of adherence to any particularly doctrinal creed. The issue of Jesus' divinity is not relevant to a definition of Christianity to this school. Nor is the issue of biblical literalism, immaculate conception, trinitarian doctrine, resurrection, etc. etc. For the relational school, discussions on these subjects may be valuable, but to define being a "Christian" simply has have the "right" answer on any of these things fundamentally misses the point. Being a "Christian" means patterning ones life after what Jesus stated as the two greatest commands, and seeing the written accounts of Jesus' life and teachings as often informative and valuable for daily living.

So I ask you: which school is right?