Who Counts as a Christian?

The eleventh chapter of Acts records an important moment in Christian history:

"And in Antioch the disciples were first called 'Christians'." - Acts 11:26

To be a "Christian" means you are a member of Jesus' flock, a disciple of the Lord, and a member of the New Covenant in Christ.   Inversely, if someone tells you you’re NOT a Christian, you are being told that you’re none of those things.  So it's kind of a big deal.

I thought of that a few days ago I saw this video where some guy (with amazing hair) interviewed a Catholic nun.  He opened the talk by saying a survey of his audience revealed 84% of them considered Catholics to be Christians.  Of course, this means 16% either said “no” ... or weren't sure.

I could go on about the sad (and ironic) phenomenon of people thinking Catholics aren't Christians, but not today.  Today I wanted to ask a different question:

Who counts as a Christian anyway?  

And perhaps just as importantly:

Who decides?

More than Just a "Nice Chap":

There is a tendency to think of the word "Christian" as being a description of moral character.  So, for instance, let's suppose someone says Mormons are not Christians.  One common response is:

"Have you even met any Mormons?  They are the kindest, most charitable people ever!  They are far more Christian than you!!"

It might be true that Mormons are the most virtuous people on the planet.  But nonetheless, we cannot reduce the word "Christian" to mean "Nice chap."

Suppose you found a Muslim and a Hindu who were just as morally upright as the stereotypical Mormon.  Would that mean the Muslim and the Hindu are Christians too?  Obviously not.  Why?  Because Muslims and Hindus don't believe....  something.

That "something" is the real substance of what we're getting at.  Being a "Christian" is not inherently about being a moral exemplar.  It requires subscribing to some kind of belief.

But which beliefs?



Criteria, Criteria:

So I've seen a number of different beliefs floated as the requisite criteria for being a "Christian":

• Belief in the Nicene formulation of the Trinity.
• Belief in the divinity and humanity of Jesus. 
• Belief in the inspiration of the Bible.
• Belief in the atoning death of Jesus.
• Belief in some form of the doctrine of “Sola Fide”.
• Belief in the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura”.
• Being Baptized.
• The ability to "speak in tongues."
• Not being a Catholic.

Some of these criteria make more sense than others.  The problem, however, is what happens when any individual tries to pick which ones form the dividing line.  What gives any single person the right to define who is and isn’t a Christian?

I have been on various Christian message boards where a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon comes in and is promptly told he isn't a Christian.  Then the following interaction occurs:

The bottom line is this:  Even if you could prove that 99% of Christians have historically believed ‘X’, what is the guarantee that ‘X’ is a necessary condition for being a Christian?  Heck, what is the guarantee that ‘X’ is even true?

And lastly, how does one assert that ‘X’ is the cutoff point with any authority greater than his own personal opinion?



Take it to The....

In the 18th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, Jesus gave us a flowchart for conflict resolution.  He said:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone.  But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you.  If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.  And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector.  Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven.” – Matthew 18:15-18

Let's think about that last step for a moment.

Suppose a Dude A -  (a member of the CoC ) – said Dude B - (an ELCA Lutheran) – is not a Christian.  They try to sort it out among themselves... to no avail.  Then they bring in a few more people... no good.

Now what? To which “church” do they go for a final decision?  The CoC or the ECLA? Or maybe they should consult the Southern Baptist Convention for a neutral party?

The point is these two guys do not have the means to live out Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18.  They are missing something crucial to the carrying out the last step.

So what would you need?  First, you need a single, visible Church body to which all the faithful can present their cases. Second, that same Church body must have the authority from Jesus to make binding decisions on all Christians.  Anything less could be dismissed as mere opinion-making.

In fact, you see this exact situation playing out through Acts 15.  First some people come to Antioch saying, "Unless you keep the law of Moses you aren't a Christian." They try to figure it out locally, but cannot.  So they kick it up a level.  The Apostles, Peter, and other elders get together in Jerusalem and make a decision.  And they send it out with the startlingly bold words, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…”  [Acts 15:28]

That is what it took to resolve the issue then.  That’s what it takes today.  But is this resource available to us today?  Where would we find a worldwide ecclesial body which received authority from direct continuity with the Apostles and Peter?

What does the Catholic Church Say?

So it is ironic that the only group capable of laying out the boundaries of who counts as a “Christian” … is the same group which is regarded by many as not being real Christians.

What does the Catholic Church say regarding this question?  In the Vatican II document on ecumenism, the Council stated:

"All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church."  - Unitatis Redintegratio, 3

What would that entail?  First, it means a person must believe in the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and in the forgiveness of sins.  Then the person must be Baptized using water and in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

That would rule out people like the Mormons, who - despite possessing angelic virtue  - have a theology which (to put it mildly) does not fit into the mold of historic Christian teaching.  There was a special statement from the Vatican concerning their case. [LINK]

I also turned up a useful document from the Diocese of Baltimore which gives out a determination on a number of different religious bodies.  [LINK]  It isn’t an official thing from the very top, but it does bare out what I said above.  To repeat, the criteria are:

• Belief in the Trinity
• Belief in the Divinity of Jesus
• Belief in some form of the atonement.
• Water Baptism using the Matthew 28 formula.

In my opinion, that is a rather inclusive list.  You can open up the local Christian  phone book and include pretty much everyone therein.  The only meaningful exclusions would be Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons.  To all else we would say, “We are brothers/sister in Christ.”

... and that is even true of those Christians who would reply, “No we are not.”