What Does It Mean To Be a Christian?
A Christian, simply put, is a person who follows Jesus Christ. Luke 9:23 records Jesus stating that "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me." Thus, being a Christian involves repentance, allegiance, and imitation.The gospel is the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is indeed the Lord of the world, and that He is reconciling all things to himself. A Christian is one who recognizes the Kingship of Jesus, and willingly submits to Him (by the work of the Holy Spirit) now, knowing that one day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
I know that I am a Christian because I have acknowledged my sinfulness before God and have repented of it; I have placed my life in submission to King Jesus; and I am committed to extending His kingdom as I am increasingly conformed to His image by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Any thoughts?
posted by DrewDog | 10:10 PM
21 Comments:
Ouch. I don't want to make any comments just yet. I need to go back and read some of the primary documents, and then I will post my response.
The two guys are friends. Maybe he is trying to critique his ideas without smearing him personally in the press.
Colorful fish aside, I think the point I was getting at is that there is a way to interpret NT's words about Borg which dont damn him. I agree that the topic is of central importance, I guess I get frustrated when people deal with important topics by asking "So are you saying that so and so is not a Christian?" Ideas, not people, are grist for our mills. I dont know the context of NT's remarks but I suspect that a similar thing is at play.
PS. You are naive in thinking I read anything "DrewDog" (If that even is his real name) writes.
As DrewDog said, "A Christian, simply put, is a person who follows Jesus Christ." I would consider the patriarchs and the faithful listed in Hebrews 11 to be Christians, though they did not know the name "Jesus Christ" or that he was raised bodily from the dead.
Having read the primary sources, it seems to me that Wright is not trying to make an argument that "everyone who likes Jesus is saved." More likely, he was asked an awkward question, that he attempted to answer graciously. He is not the Judge, and he will not act as the Judge. He'll leave it up to God to separate the wheat from the tares.
But, just in case you're worried that I'm saying we can allow heresy in our churches for the sake of unity; let me emphasize that Wright's major life project is to commend and defend the truth of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. He obviously believes it to be true, and foundational to Christianity.
His point, I think, is simply that he's not going to decide who's in and who's out, but he will stand up and decide what is true and what is not. After all, isn't God the one who saves? If we had to get an "A" on the test, then we would be the ones doing the saving on our merits.
I am referring to the Australian paper.
Regarding the Judge comment, I do believe that he is defining Marcus Borg as a Christian (perhaps as opposed to a buddhist, or hindu, or atheist), but he is not making the determination of where that "puts" Borg. I could be wrong, but I imagine if the reporter had asked if he thought Marcus Borg was "saved," he would have said something like, "I'm not the Judge, so I have no right to answer that question."
What do you think?
Hi, all,
I guess I'm still confused as to the sense of the original question. "Christian" is one of those words that doesn't seem to originate with the Prophets or the Apostles, though Luke reports that it was at Antioch where the term is first applied to ... well, I think it was applied to the sorts of people Drewdog is speaking about.
Fast forward to the modern scene and the term Christian is quite a bit more plastic, stretching to include a lot of people and/or ideas which I do not think Drewdog would necessarily salute as "family." No, Drewdog wasn't trying to stretch the term as far as others might. But, still, if we're going to discuss the difference between "Christian" and "non-Christian," it helps to know what the sense of "Christian" is -- is this a term to name persons and things derivative or dependent on truth about Christ? Or those who early on spread the news about him?
Or, are we asking about the substantial, or necessary difference between someone who winds up in heaven (eventually) and someone who winds up in hell? I took Drewdog to inquire about this sense, but perhaps I misunderstood.
Among American evangelicals, the question "What is a Christiani?" is often a variant of the question "What makes one a Christian?" or "How does one become a Christian?" And this question is often answered by pointing to the embrace and adherence to a set of affirmations about a whole lot of things: the person and work of Jesus Christ, the teaching of the Apostles, the common belief of the Church through the centuries, and so on.
And, from this one can quickly arrive at a spirited debate about faith and works, a debate that got very sharp indeed about 500 years ago.
I was thinking of an answer to Drewdog's question, but think I'll bide my time until I am a bit more confident what it is I'm answering!
BQ
Thanks, BQ; good to see you back at the pub.
My original question was more directly related to the answer I posted, i.e. what is the core ontology of "Christian." In other words, why do I call myself a Christian, and how does that bear itself out in praxis?
I think Aaron introduced a broader/specific question (how's that for postmodern), namely, "How do you tell if someone is part of the invisible church?" If I am misrepresenting this, Aaron, please set me straight.
You may answer either question or both, since this blog is meant to have rabbit trails. I am a bit hesitant about discussions which might conclude that certain individuals are in or out. However, I think that certain ideologies are certainly up for scrutiny--i.e. gnosticism, mormonism, Jesus Seminar, etc.
I also think that it might be fruitful to discuss the implications of a statement such as the one that Wright made to the reporter in Australia, i.e. if x is true, what impact does it have?
And I think that Aaron is wise in bringing up 1 Cor 15. After all, if Christ is not raised, our faith is futile and we are still in our sins!
Cheers.
As long as the relationship of the term "Christian" and belief in the resurrection keeps popping up, I'll pass along this blog and comments for your entertainment. It's at what passes for a conservative (not necessarily orthodox) blog within the Episcopal Church USA environs.
The current sons of the English Reformation (at least within ECUSA) are rightly famous for many beautiful things, but theological precision and rigor are not among them.
or, at least that's how it all strikes me this evening. sigh.
BQ
Aaron, no worries. I think it is good that an alarm should sound at the idea of Christianity being something that doesn't necessarily have at its non-negotiable center the bodily resurrection of King Jesus. As well I believe that the Apostle Paul would shudder to think that any Christ-follower would deny this truth. This was exactly his point in writing what he did in 1 Corinthians.
I hope you haven't taken my comments as a comprimise in the essential doctrines of the Church. Indeed, no resurrection= no hope, no point, might as well stay in bed.
I was only trying to give Wright the benefit of the doubt (and I may be proved a fool for doing so), partly because I have often been denied this charity when I have said something which can be interpreted in more than one way. Does this make sense?
Thanks for your keen mind, and strong defense of the Christian faith. I wish I were as smart as you.
Cheers
Just so that we avoid all strawmen, it is important to realize that Marcus Borg DOES believe in a resurrection. He thinks Jesus is alive today, he simply misunderstands the term "bodily", probably getting confused about Paul's use of "spiritual body" later in the chapter. I think he is wrong. I am just worried about constructing a strawman, labelling him and dismissing him as "one of those Jesus Seminar wackjobs" instead of actually trying to understand what his position is. There are more arguable positions than risen Christ and non-risen Christ. Ask Borg where he fits and he will put himself in the risen Christ category I should suspect.
The Christ we follow is the risen Christ.
Abraham looked forward to the day of Christ, and Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Did he know he was following a resurrected Christ? Or is Christianity more than belief in this doctrine?
What's up guys, interesting discussion. Isn't belief in the bodily resurrection a necessary (essential?) component of what it means to be a Christian? Wouldn't denial of the bodily resurrection be considered heresy among the orthodox? Romans 10:9-10 "If we confess with our mouths that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD you will be saved." I can appreciate the graciousness of Wright's response to Borg in public, but, like Aaron, I hope that he takes time to address his friend's error in private.
Hey, Jeff! Good to see you in these parts. Although I'm going to have to tell your seminary profs that you were in a pub during the school year!
I hope to post on this again soon, so as to clear up any possible misunderstandings. But for now, rest assured that no one is saying that you don't have to believe that GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD. The question for Marcus Borg and others (NOT me) is what does it mean to be raised from the dead? I have heard even baptist preachers reject the idea of a physical body, arguing that it was a spiritual body, because everybody knows that spriritual=good, and physical=bad. I acknowledge that gnosticism is a heresy, and yet we find ourselves in a sticky situation in the modern evangelical church, in that many if not most evangelicals today hold very gnostic beliefs without even knowing it. So now what?
This still needs some fleshing out, so please don't jump to conclusions!
And stop by often.
Cheers
Drew, thanks for the welcome. Better to keep my involvement in the pub on the DL - some profs might gladly join me and others would vote for expulsion.
I appreciate your thoughts, and like you, I have heard Baptist preachers (and C&MA, and Presbyterian, and Evangelical Free, and just about every other group) say a whole of host of things that cause my theological hairs to stand on end. I acknowledge that Borg holds to a resurrection, but I contend that his interpretation of the resurrection is fundamentally wrong and undercuts a right understanding of Christology and Christus Victor.
I think the "so now what?" is that we not be ashamed (and I am in no way implying that you are) about the truth of the scriptures in all areas of life. Where there is gnosticism it must be uprooted and exposed as error. This is done through faithful preaching as you describe on your blog, shepherding, discipleship, and truth.
jm
Agreed, Jeff. My only point with the "so now what," was that people want to ask the question, "So does that mean that 'so-and-so' is not a Christian?" And where does that leave us?
My answer is yours: Stop separating the wheat and the tares; and let's uproot and expose heresy for what it is, and proclaim the truth loudly and clearly.
Thanks, Aaron.
I must admit, personally, that I have not read much of Borg personally, only excerpts. I'll grant that you have, and have given an unbiased summary of his views of Jesus and the resurrection.
It sounds like you have some of his works, so I'd love to borrow them some time if you don't mind.
At any rate, I'm sure I have pretty much summed up both my view of orthodoxy, and of my defense of Wright's comments (basically, that we're not sure what he meant in this interview, so we should give him the benefit of the doubt).
So hopefully everyone here knows that I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; that He is at the right hand of God the Father, and that He will come again to bring to consummation the new creation which was inaugurated on Easter Sunday almost 2,000 years ago.
Amen?
Cool. I'll talk to you tomorrow night about the books. Mmm, Englander...
And by the way, Jeff, I was not trying to pick on Baptist preachers in my response to you; I was just trying to take an example from a denomination which everyone would agree is orthodox. Thanks for adding all the others into the mix; I agree completely.
Things we agree on:
- Bodily resurrection important
- Borg wrong
Point of Contentions:
- the effect of honest error or ignorance on ones position before God.
What is frustrating is that in this case most people have assumed that Marcus Borg is in a state of dishonest error...that he is intentionally attempting to dismantle what he knows to be the truth and therefore he deserves to be isolated, condemned, and shouted down.
I have been told I am not a Christian because I believe in everything from an old earth and to an old scotch. The effect of these anathemas has not been to change my mind but to end the dialogue.
Let’s treat people...including the Marcus Borgs of the world...how we wish to be treated. Be gracious. Hear the man out. Understand his position. Eat the meat…Spit out the bones. Avoid judgments on his eternal destiny.
Read Wright's comments again. I think that is all he is doing.
Amen, anonymous. I hope that your point of contention is not with me (shocking, coming from a calvinist, eh? Well, an honest calvinist would endorse the fact that God is the one who saves).
Post a Comment
<< Home