Does the term 'Christian' mean anything anymore?

It is probably true to say that most of us think we know what the term 'Christian' means. Many of us use this term, believing we understand it and that everyone else understands what we mean by it. However, the term is used in a variety of different ways by various people. When we use the term ourselves, we cannot be sure that others understand it in the same way. So, what does the term 'Christian' actually mean, who does it apply to and how precious can we be about it?


The word 'Christian' or 'Christians' only appears three times in the Bible and is a translation of the Greek word Christianos which simply means 'follower of Christ.' We could argue then that the term 'Christian' can be applied to anybody considered to follow Christ. However, the obvious problem we run into is that there are a wide variety of traditions, beliefs and practices that all consider themselves to be following the teachings of Christ. Moreover, as is common in some circles, we cannot simply say that we follow Christ therefore anybody who disagrees with us is not following Christ and thus cannot be termed 'Christian.' This sort of thinking can only lead to the question 'where do we draw the line?' On this basis, we could not draw it on denominational lines as disagreements exist within denominations. We could not even draw it at one particular church as not all are in complete agreement within individual churches. Therefore, we end up reducing the term to one individual and making it meaningless as a descriptor.


Some have sought to argue that the term should only be applied to those who 'believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31a).' Again, however, we run into the problem that this also contains some ambiguity. Most evangelicals would see belief on Christ as manifest in a 'conversion experience' - a turning away from sin and a seeking forgiveness through the atoning work of Christ. However, other traditions might see this more as a general acceptance of the moral teachings of Jesus. Whilst there are arguments to be made, and a real answer to be known, regarding the nature of belief on Christ, the reality is that - in the same way that people understand the term 'Christian' in different ways - many understand the concept of belief in Christ in different ways too. If we simply say a Christian is one who believes on Christ we still find the same issues arise when we come to consider what is meant by belief 'on Christ.'


We must ultimately recognise that 'Christian' is a descriptive term. We may wish to keep it for particular people and traditions with whom we agree but we are perhaps not at liberty to do that. The term is typically applied to any person who believes that Jesus Christ was the messiah prophecied in the Old Testament, was the son of God and whose life and teachings form the basis of religious belief and practice. This rules out any tradition that merely considers Jesus to be an important prophet as well as those traditions that accept the teachings of Jesus but alongside, equal or lesser to, other prophets. This means that, despite whether we agree with their teachings or not, we must consider Catholics, Anglicans, Non-Conformists, Liberals, Conservatives, Evangelicals, and Fundamentalists, amongst others as traditions belonging under the descriptive umbrella term 'Christian.'


Given the broad spectrum to which the term 'Christian' can be applied, to what extent can we say the term means anything anymore? Evangelicals tend to use the term 'Christian' to apply to those whom they consider to have been 'saved' through belief in Christ. This would be manifest through a conversion experience in which the believer repents of their sin, seeking forgiveness through Christ's atoning work on the cross. For a Liberal, however, the term 'Christian' might be applied to anybody who accepts the moral teachings of Jesus and seeks to apply them, as they see fit, in their own life. For the Catholic, the term 'Christian' can only be applied to those within the Catholic church. The range of beliefs, even amongst these three, is broad and yet if all come under the descriptive umbrella 'Christian' how can we say that the term really carries any meaning?


In reality, the term 'Christian' acts as nothing more than a descriptor of a wide-range of traditions based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. The broad spectrum of beliefs to which the term 'Christian' can be applied ultimately makes the term now meaningless. The different traditions who belong under the umbrella descriptor of 'Christianity' would use the term 'Christian' to infer all sorts of different beliefs and practices that would exclude many who might otherwise be included under the term. Moreover, it is clear that a Non-Conformist, Fundamentalist Evangelical has few beliefs in common with a High-Church, Liberal Anglican. When we apply the term 'Christian' to both these groups we begin to see how useless the term has become in explaining anything of those it is intended to describe.


Perhaps where the term is useful is in describing a general tradition. Although the term 'Christian' is a descriptor that is broad and wide-reaching, its use is perhaps less in describing those who belong under it so much as in establishing those who certainly do not belong. For example, whilst we may struggle to see what certain Christian denominations have in common it is clear that those from the Islamic or Hindu traditions certainly do not fit under the descriptor 'Christian.' The term acts better as a descriptor of those who do not belong than it does of those who do.


Nevertheless, we must conclude that the term 'Christian' has largely lost its meaning. We may, within particular denominations and traditions, use it as a shorthand to describe those who subscribe to our particular beliefs but really this is not the proper use of the term. Given that the term has largely lost its meaning, perhaps we should rethink calling people to 'become Christians.' In reality, we might know what we mean when we say this but it is highly likely that others mean something else.

Bible translations

In looking at bible translations, Bill Mounce has written an extremely helpful post which can be accessed here. I think it is true to say that many people pontificate about specific bible translations without really having any qualification to do so. Without a fluency in Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek we, all of us, are reliant upon the efforts of those who are able to translate. We may have translations which we prefer for reasons of accessibility or fluency but we must be very careful before pronouncing judgment upon 'lesser' translations if we ourselves are not able to translate the originals.


Reading Bill Mounce's post I think points 2 and 3 are particularly pertinent. I would also endorse his comment that 'I am not convinced that non-academic celebrities should be making pronouncements on translation theory.' In reality, I think this point could extend to all academics and non-academic who are not well versed in translation theory and are not capable of reading the original texts for themselves. Most importantly, however, is his final comment:

Life is too short, and hell is too hot, to not communicate the gospel to our subculture in language they can understand, whatever be that subculture.

The role of communion

Were this being written from a Brethren perspective the title of this post might refer to 'the Breaking of Bread', were it Anglican it might be 'Eucharist' and were it certain reformed churches it may be 'the Lord's Supper.' Although, between denominations, the words we use may differ and the means by which we receive the emblems varies the function and purpose of Communion remains the same. This post will refer to the taking of bread and wine as 'Communion.'


It is possible to cite three main reasons why we take Communion. Firstly, it exists for the believer to remember Christ's death and give thanks for purchasing their salvation (see Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor. 11:26). Secondly, it exists for believers to show their unity in Christ with one another (see 1 Cor. 10:16-17; 1 John 1:3; 1 John 1:7). Thirdly, it exists to let us look forward to Christ's return and the day he will call us to be with Him (see Matt. 26:29; Luke 22:18; Mark 14:25; 1 Cor. 11:26).


With these things in mind, and starting from a point upon which the vast majority would agree, we must firstly state that Communion is only for believers. Clearly, only believers can give thanks that Christ has purchased their salvation, only believers can claim to be one with other believers in Christ and only believers can look forward to the coming parousia. On this basis, some argue that the only requirement for taking Communion is to be a believer. However, others stipulate that one should be a member of a local congregation and, by extension, baptised before they can participate. Whilst I by no means take umbrage with those who suggest salvation is the only requirement for participation in Communion it would be my contention that the latter is the correct position for two principle reasons.


Firstly, one central purpose of Communion is to show our unity with other believers in Christ. If we are not willing to publicly join in membership with a local body of believers, how far can we say that we are truly united with them? If we reject fellowship with our fellow believers through joining a local church then we cannot expect to show our unity in Christ by taking Communion. Secondly, Paul states that

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself (1 Cor. 11:27-29).

From this, we must determine that those who are in rebellion to God and harbour unrepentant sin should not take the emblems. This clearly rules out the non-believer, however, this may extend to some believers as well.


Peter is quoted very clearly in Acts 2:38 saying "repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (ESV)." Jesus also commanded the disciples to "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you (Matt 28:19-20a)." The apostle John notes 'By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:2-3).' When we consider all these verses together we must assert that those who refuse to be baptised are going against a clear scriptural command. Furthermore, by refusing to be baptised thereby not keeping a clear command, John suggests that this represents a lack of love for God and, by extension, fellow believers. If we shun the public statement of unity in Christ through baptism how can we legitimately show unity by taking Communion? 


As a result, one who will not become baptised or join in fellowship with a local church cannot be said to be unified with their fellow believers. They are openly rejecting scriptural commands and, as John notes, the sign of love for our fellow believers is that we love God and keep his commands. If we do not keep his command to be baptised we are not keeping his commands. If we will not publicly declare our unity through baptism or membership how can we claim unity with fellow believers? In reality, if we continue in rebellion against God we cannot be thankful for his forgiveness and we cannot participate in an act of unity as we are not truly united. On this basis, it is possible to argue that communion should only extend to baptised believers who are joined in fellowship to a congregation.


I would also contend that, given who it is for and the importance attached to it, Communion warrants its own service. Firstly, it seems a shame when Communion is relegated to a 10 minute tag-on at the end of a Sunday service. If we really believe that Communion is important should we not devote more time to it and make it the central focus of its own service? Secondly, given who Communion is for, the difficulties in stating the church's position on Communion and refusing the emblems to the ineligible are made much more problematic during normal Sunday services. Were the Communion given a service of its own the potential for ineligible people wishing to partake would be lessened and the ability to withold the emblems from those within the congregation (but not eligible to take part) need not become a major point of contention or awkwardness and need not draw the focus away from the centrality of Christ.


Above all else, Communion exists for believers to thank Christ for his atoning work on the cross, to show unity with fellow believers and to look forward to Christ's return. These issues are central and should provide the basis for all that happens in a Communion service.