What is a Christian

[Guest]

Another story has it that he explored Christianity, but when he went to a Christian church in South Africa he was barred, since he was "colored." The usher used a less flattering term. That incident supposedly cemented his decision never to become a Christian.

Does the label matter? You tell me. Could I become a Mormon by embracing the gospel, getting baptized, sending my tithe to HQ, but determining never to frequent the doorstep of a Ward, because I was offended by some LDS members I'd encountered?

Not frequenting the doorstep of a ward is not a label - it's an action. So, it doesn't follow in the logic I presented.

But, let's follow that action... if the people inside that ward are the ones responsible for mass killing the people you are fighting for, then yes, I wouldn't expect you to step inside. You're still going to be a Mormon in my opinion.

[prisonchaplain]

Not frequenting the doorstep of a ward is not a label - it's an action. So, it doesn't follow in the logic I presented.

But it does follow Ghandi's decision. He not only rejected a label, but the people of that label.

But, let's follow that action... if the people inside that ward are the ones responsible for mass killing the people you are fighting for, then yes, I wouldn't expect you to step inside. You're still going to be a Mormon in my opinion.

But in Ghandi's case--and many people, actually--he doesn't limit his withdrawal to that ward. These folk encounter a few badies and determine that the whole movement is hypocritical. They claim to love God, but won't be bothered with his people.

It's a bit of a tangent, but I sometimes get concerned with independent and non-denominational religious leaders who seem to promote a similar spirit. I just read a fellow the other day who wrote, "Now what I am about to say would get me kicked out of most churches, but . . . " For him, this was almost a badge of honor. "What do they know, anyway?" It's immature at best, and prideful and unloving at worst.

I won't judge Ghandi himself. But, imho, the "noble pagan," is largely a myth. We tend to think of the other as perhaps morally better, because we don't know them up close, like we do our own. Romans 3:10, 23 are still true 2000 years later...there's none righteous, not one...all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory.

[Guest]

But it does follow Ghandi's decision. He not only rejected a label, but the people of that label.

But in Ghandi's case--and many people, actually--he doesn't limit his withdrawal to that ward. These folk encounter a few badies and determine that the whole movement is hypocritical. They claim to love God, but won't be bothered with his people.

It's a bit of a tangent, but I sometimes get concerned with independent and non-denominational religious leaders who seem to promote a similar spirit. I just read a fellow the other day who wrote, "Now what I am about to say would get me kicked out of most churches, but . . . " For him, this was almost a badge of honor. "What do they know, anyway?" It's immature at best, and prideful and unloving at worst.

I won't judge Ghandi himself. But, imho, the "noble pagan," is largely a myth. We tend to think of the other as perhaps morally better, because we don't know them up close, like we do our own. Romans 3:10, 23 are still true 2000 years later...there's none righteous, not one...all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory.

The problem with our debate (if I may call it that) is that we keep on getting mixed-up with our wanting to be hypothetical. Gandhi was never a Christian - he never underwent conversion - therefore, he does not have a testimony of the Christian church and does not feel required to put on the name of Christ! It is not that he rejects Christians, he just doesn't think being called a Christian amounts to much if your actions do not show you are. And I have to agree with that coming from his point of view! If we were going to talk about him hypothetically having undergone conversion, we will have to then hypothetically deduce that he gained a testimony of the church and as such will hypothetically embrace the name of Christ to the exclusion of any others. Do you see what I'm saying here?

I will have to call you out on Ghandi "not being bothered" by Christian people! That is so not true of the man. I don't know why you think that the non-denominational leaders you spoke of in your example showed the same spirit as Gandhi. If Gandhi was Christian then I would agree with you! But he was NOT! But, even then, he had complete love for EVERYBODY - any and all from all walks of life, from all religions, even from the saints to the tyrants! So much so that I have to shake my head on the impracticality of his charity! From a famous Gandhi quote:

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

Think of it, even Hitler he doesn't deem worthy of killing!

I look at Gandhi and I find him a lot more Christ-like than religious Christian leaders like Reverend Wright or Jessie Jackson.

Okay, here's a question for you PC... do you think Reverend Wright is a Christian?

[Seminarysnoozer]

I would like to point out that defining "christian" has little to do with the gospel, because the label "christian" is something of this world. It is a label made by man. At judgment God will not ask if other people called you "christian" or not. Maybe He will ask if you had a testimony of Christ and His resurrection but He certainly won't require a person to have the label "christian." And it seems to me it the label came about from people outside the religion. ... kind of like the label "Mormon" and then it stuck. ... thats why it is hard to understand, its a label created by man, so the definition changes.

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess, it's clear you admire Ghandi, and indeed, there is much to respect. As the link I provided stated--he's probably the most influential non-Christian religious leader in history. So, if our hypothetical has led to my seeming to disrespect the real Ghandi, such was unintentional. It seems our discussion has become driven by my emphasis upon the need for Christians to love the community of Christ, and your desire to defend a truly great person.

Is Rev. Wright a Christian? The reality is between him and God, but if I had to hazzard a guess, I'd say yes--one who deeply loves his community, feels the wounds inflicted upon it, and who, in his righteous indignation, proves deeply flawed in his unwillingness (thus far) to consistently engage with love those outside his ideological, political and ethnic communities. I hesitate here, because, as a white Christian, with mellower rhetoric, am I often guilty of the same, through my choices of where I go and don't go, where I send my children to school, where we choose to go to church, etc.?

Yes, Ghandi compares favorably with Rev. Wright, in many ways. But, if he tasted of the gospel (heard, understood), and rejected it, and if Wright accepted it, will you be angry with God if he rewards Wright more substantially?

Consider it this way, what might Wright have become, and what wickedness and hatred might he have brought, had he not embraced Christ? Further, what good might Ghandi have done for the Kingdom of God, if he had embraced Christ? For all the political good Ghandi did, only God knows what spiritual blessings he may have squandered.

And again, I've no interest in judging Ghandi's soul. Rather, I emphasize that we are all sinners, and that failure to embrace Christ, especially if we've had powerful opportunity, is a far more serious wrong than most care to consider.

[Traveler]

I do not think this question is really a "trick" question. Jesus said that his sheep are known by their fruits. As I see it - the only way to know if a person is a Christian (converted to Christ) is by their fruits. If someone says, "I am a Christian and such and such a person is not a Christian". Are they being truthfull if the other person or persons has more Christian fruits than they do?

The Traveler

[Guest]

Anatess, it's clear you admire Ghandi, and indeed, there is much to respect. As the link I provided stated--he's probably the most influential non-Christian religious leader in history. So, if our hypothetical has led to my seeming to disrespect the real Ghandi, such was unintentional. It seems our discussion has become driven by my emphasis upon the need for Christians to love the community of Christ, and your desire to defend a truly great person.

Is Rev. Wright a Christian? The reality is between him and God, but if I had to hazzard a guess, I'd say yes--one who deeply loves his community, feels the wounds inflicted upon it, and who, in his righteous indignation, proves deeply flawed in his unwillingness (thus far) to consistently engage with love those outside his ideological, political and ethnic communities. I hesitate here, because, as a white Christian, with mellower rhetoric, am I often guilty of the same, through my choices of where I go and don't go, where I send my children to school, where we choose to go to church, etc.?

Yes, Ghandi compares favorably with Rev. Wright, in many ways. But, if he tasted of the gospel (heard, understood), and rejected it, and if Wright accepted it, will you be angry with God if he rewards Wright more substantially?

Consider it this way, what might Wright have become, and what wickedness and hatred might he have brought, had he not embraced Christ? Further, what good might Ghandi have done for the Kingdom of God, if he had embraced Christ? For all the political good Ghandi did, only God knows what spiritual blessings he may have squandered.

And again, I've no interest in judging Ghandi's soul. Rather, I emphasize that we are all sinners, and that failure to embrace Christ, especially if we've had powerful opportunity, is a far more serious wrong than most care to consider.

PC, I think this resolves it completely. Because, for Rev. Wright to still maintain the label Christian in your thinking it follows that it's okay to reject Christians that Rev. Wright didn't feel were Christians and still maintain Christianity. Same as our hypothetical Ghandi who rejected Christians who he didn't feel were Christians.

So yes, it is not for us to judge these things, but for the sake of discussion.

This really ties very well into the salvation/works discussions that has been going around here lately. In my opinion - and this is just my opinion based on my limited understanding and without knowing the hearts of these men, completely without judgement but just by observation - I submit that Ghandi has the better chance for salvation by his works - in his quest for peace - than Rev. Wright is by his works - in his call for hate. Ghandi has the chance to accept Christ beyond the veil.

Just my 2 cents.

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, that can be a dangerous game. There are Christians who are unwise, prone to anger, and who wrestle mightily against their former sins and demons. AND, there are some non-believers who are witty, compassionate, and all-around decent. Christ makes us better than we were. So to that latter unbeliever, I'd suggest a great culpability for how much greater s/he could have been with Christ, and yet the world will never be blessed by that greatness, due to a stubborn rebellion, masked by an attractive persona.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, I think this resolves it completely. Because, for Rev. Wright to still maintain the label Christian in your thinking it follows that it's okay to reject Christians that Rev. Wright didn't feel were Christians and still maintain Christianity. Same as our hypothetical Ghandi who rejected Christians who he didn't feel were Christians.

OK? No. But, perhaps not damnable.

So yes, it is not for us to judge these things, but for the sake of discussion.

This really ties very well into the salvation/works discussions that has been going around here lately. In my opinion - and this is just my opinion based on my limited understanding and without knowing the hearts of these men, completely without judgement but just by observation - I submit that Ghandi has the better chance for salvation by his works - in his quest for peace - than Rev. Wright is by his works - in his call for hate. Ghandi has the chance to accept Christ beyond the veil.

Just my 2 cents.

Based on the LDS Plan of Salvation, you may well be right. However, on the more rigid heaven/hell with Christ as the only way, Ghandi must have at some point acknowledged Christ at the heart-level, or his works will not suffice. As for Wright, his rhetoric is probably a lot more bluster than true hatred. Nevertheless, I'd agree that Jesus is probably none too pleased with it.

[Traveler]

Traveler, that can be a dangerous game. There are Christians who are unwise, prone to anger, and who wrestle mightily against their former sins and demons. AND, there are some non-believers who are witty, compassionate, and all-around decent. Christ makes us better than we were. So to that latter unbeliever, I'd suggest a great culpability for how much greater s/he could have been with Christ, and yet the world will never be blessed by that greatness, due to a stubborn rebellion, masked by an attractive persona.

Interesting response - However, I see no danger in following the teachings and example of Christ. BTW - perhaps the best example of "non-believers" at the time of Jesus were the Samaritans and yet Jesus presented the good Samaritan as the best possible example of his kind of Christian – even greater than the most accepted of such in his day and perhaps our day – mainly a priest and a Levite.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler, I'll happily praise the Christ-like actions of non-believers, and I'll criticize the unchristlike ones of Christian leaders. Why do you suppose it was that few criticized the imprisonment of Bakker, and why my church quietly but definitely went through the church procedures that led to Swaggart's resignation of his ordination? We have rehabilitation programs for the willing, but we'll not stand for leaders who intentionally defy God's standards.

What I found dangerous was stepping into Heavenly Father's domain, and actually judging the souls. Ghandi's good because committed Christlike deeds, Wright's out because of his fiery rhetoric. I'll leave that to God. Further, while Jesus praised the Good Samaritan and urged his followers to do as he did, his focus was indeed on teaching good behavior, not on how to evaluate the ultimate spiritual condition of a soul. I'm skeptical that we need to even be in that business.

[Guest]

Traveler, I'll happily praise the Christ-like actions of non-believers, and I'll criticize the unchristlike ones of Christian leaders. Why do you suppose it was that few criticized the imprisonment of Bakker, and why my church quietly but definitely went through the church procedures that led to Swaggart's resignation of his ordination? We have rehabilitation programs for the willing, but we'll not stand for leaders who intentionally defy God's standards.

What I found dangerous was stepping into Heavenly Father's domain, and actually judging the souls. Ghandi's good because committed Christlike deeds, Wright's out because of his fiery rhetoric. I'll leave that to God. Further, while Jesus praised the Good Samaritan and urged his followers to do as he did, his focus was indeed on teaching good behavior, not on how to evaluate the ultimate spiritual condition of a soul. I'm skeptical that we need to even be in that business.

The subject of the post is What is a Christian. And we put Ghandi as a case study. I don't think we were judging his salvation. Am I wrong? I thought we were discussing if Ghandi's works made him a Christian (hence saved) juxtaposed with Rev. Wright (or some such) who said they're converted but does not show it by his works. I really thought the intent of this thread was a case study discussion of salvation/works...

I submitted that Ghandi was never converted, therefore, unless he accepted the atonement of Christ beyond the veil, he is not Christian, regardless of all his good works and regardless that he said he's not converted. But, at the same time I also submitted that he is in a better boat, in my opinion (no, no, I'm not judging - this is for the sake of salvation/works discussion!) than Rev. Wright who says he's converted but does un-Christlike behavior - rhetoric or otherwise.

In Summary:

1.) no conversion, has works = not christian

2.) has conversion, doesn't show in his works = not christian

3.) has conversion, has works = christian (conversion can happen beyond the veil)

But then, I might not fully understand what it means to be Christian...

Traveler, am I talking something completely different than your intention in the OP?

Edited October 12, 2009 by anatess

[StallionMcBeastly]

I do not think the parables of Jesus indicate what I think you are saying. Especially along the lines of being hot or cold - that the luke warm he would spit out.

So let me ask you directly - Do you think Ganhdi was a Christian? Do you accept him as a Christian?

The Traveler

I believe you are a Christian if you believe in Christ and desire to follow him.

[Justice]

I do not think this question is really a "trick" question. Jesus said that his sheep are known by their fruits. As I see it - the only way to know if a person is a Christian (converted to Christ) is by their fruits. If someone says, "I am a Christian and such and such a person is not a Christian". Are they being truthfull if the other person or persons has more Christian fruits than they do?

The trick for many is that they refuse to believe that you have to do anything to become Christian. They worry so much about having to claim to have done something, or worked some work, because they (rightfully so) want to give God all the praise and glory for their salvation.

The problem is that if you don't have to do anything to become Christian, then there is no difference between those who accept Christ and those who don't. Many get around this by saying it is purely, or solely the Spirit of God working in them. Again, the problem with this is that that would mean the Spirit would be able to work in all men the same, if the man is responsible for nothing.

Making it even more difficult is that there are scriptures that seem to substantiate both views.

The answer is simple. It's all in how you understand the words. Since we know we can't pick and choose which scriptures we want to beleive, we must make all scriptures agree in perfect harmony. So, what happens is people interpret words to substantiate their view.

In fact, there is a way you can interpret good works as the light we are to hold up AND give God 100% credit and glory for your salvation. All you have to do is realize that:

1. Salvation is not acheivable by man alone. No matter what a man does; no matter how many good works he does, he has sinned and falls short of the glory of God.

2. Jesus Christ atoned for sin. This atonement brings all back into the presence of God to be judged, so in that regard it saves all men. However, how long you stay there is up to you and how you treated your fellow man based on your love for Christ. If you desire sin you will be put in a place where you can have your heart's desire. If you desire the good things of God and are willing to give up the things of the world, then you will remain in His presence. In this regard, it brings salvation to all who strive to live Christ's teaches, and who repent.

3. The grace Christ offers is an enabling power to and for man so that he can accomplish good works, works that get better and better; even better than he is capable of performing by himself. This grace does not magically remove the desire for sin from a man, but it can purge it from the man as he yokes himself with Christ and strives to live a Christ-like life.

In short, it is possible for a man to become holy. But, not on his own. Only with God's help can a man purge the desire for sin from his psyche. Even still, even is a man is able, with God's help, to purge desires for sin, it does not good if he is still held accountable for the sins he committed. This is what we need Christ for. Without Christ, our efforts are vain.

Yes, it's much easier to sit back and believe God is handling it all. It's much easier than holding yourself responsible for what you do. As a man stives to overcome sin, he grows closer to God. Again, if God could bring a man to Him, with nothing from the man, then He could and would give salvation to all men.

So, it's OK, just say it... something is required from the man... some work.