14/05/2023 12:33
It was a question this morning (James at Hebron – what was the question?) in conjunction with a question that had been asked in a court in Oxfordshire (A clerical case in which it was asked whether the defendant thought that the plaintiff was a Christian, upon which the answer thereto the judgement depended) a few years ago that made me think about it. Examination questions that require essays in reply may often be phrased in this way: What? Why?
The What? asks the candidate to express a simple fact or form an opinion; the Why? follows up to ask the candidate to explain or support what may otherwise have been a single sentence or one word answer. Take the question: Was William the Conqueror a vandal/Vandal? May be answered with a yes or a no. But if in the examination the question is followed up with Explain why you/others say so? requires an essay which will rely upon a variety of sources (or perhaps only one source which has already compiled many other sources if this is a first level examination). It is quite ambiguous however, as the Why? may be asking about William’s own pedigree, his internal thoughts and motivations, his general behaviour or particular un-premeditated, though arguably provoked, actions after he arrived in England. The student who remarks that he was not and could not have been a Vandal on the basis of a close examination of his pedigree would not receive many marks if the examiner were actually looking for an assessment of particular actions that he took after he had arrived in England.
In the light of the knowledge of the ambiguity that there may be in the question let me now place it, not to be answered but to consider the ambiguity: Are you a Christian? Why?
It is a simple Yes or No answer followed up by an explanation. For what though is the explanation required? It seems that, as for William, there may be four possible aspects to the examination of the answer to the first part of the question: pedigree, internal thoughts and motivations, general behaviour or particular acts.
Surprisingly perhaps you may think, the New Testament does not offer us much help in our consideration of the ‘correct’ answer to the question. Only on four occasions is the word used and on each occasion it refers not to what those who were called Christians called themselves but is a name give to them by those who were not what the people whom they called Christian were. It was a them and us word; rather like the Greeks and the Barbarians, the Jews and the Gentiles, we have the hoi polloi and the Christians. They were people who were ‘different’, as the English called the people across the Western border, and I presume those who were on the other side of the border called the English.
A brief examination of these four uses will confirm that. The first is obvious enough: The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch1 around AD40. These people called themselves disciples, but the indication in the text is that the outside world called them Christians. Christian (χριστιανους) is a form of the word christ (χριστος). It should however be understood to be a pejorative term which later was accepted as a title of honour, as we shall see in the third instance.
The second use is found in the mouth of a king around AD57: Then Agrippa said to Paul, You almost persuade me to become a Christian2. The use of the word appears to have spread from Antioch. Here King Agrippa II uses it still in a disparaging way. Perhaps we should notice that Paul did not reply using that same word.
The third use is in Peter’s first letter, written around AD63: Let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters, yet if [as] a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.3 The word is used in a list of other descriptions, perhaps none of which a man would wish to apply to himself – no, some other form of the description would be found. There is a hint here that just as Christ himself was mocked, suffered and blasphemed those who are his followers should also not be ashamed of such treatment. It is as if Peter is saying: They mistreated him, whom they called him King of the Jews insultingly, do not be surprised that they call you Christians and mistreat you. For Peter although the term was intended to insult, there was some honour in being insulted in this way. It was evidence that the conduct of the individual’s life provided that demonstrated that the individual was a disciple. Some of you may have heard, others may only have heard about it: If you were arrested for being a Christian, would there be sufficient evidence to convict you? Coco could call himself a world-class, superstar, premier league footballer, but there would be a considerable drought of evidence to prove it. There are however some who do not need to call themselves that, the men who line the terraces at Old Trafford will apply the description quickly enough to those to whom it belongs for whom there is no want of evidence.
In some of our English translations you will find other instances of the use of the word Christian, but each of those is an interpretation using a modern understanding of the word rather than its original meaning, as the Welsh, when using English happily call themselves Welsh, and the English no longer understand the word welsh to hold anymore any of its other meanings when used in reference to them, though they do in the context of trade unions.
So, the foundation having been laid, shall we now build the edifice which is the reply to the question? One may perhaps be glad this the question is not for less than twenty marks for then we would only have thirty-six minutes to have written it up. I hope however that it shall not have taken you that long to read it.
Over the years the use of the word has changed. When it was first used anyone who had been asked that question: Are you a Christian? The answer must have been ‘Ask them; it is not a word I use of myself, and though you may think you insult me by it, if you wish to use if of me, I shall receive it as an honour. For my Lord, who was insulted, treated badly and handed over to Rome be crucified, told us that just as they treated him they would treat his disciples.’
Ask the question today and what will people say?
‘My parents were, and so were my grand-parents, therefore I must be.’ But John tells us that it was to those who were born of the Spirit, not of the flesh or the will of man, to whom he gave the right to become children of God, and disciples4.
‘I was born and live in a Christian nation, so I must be.’ But Jesus, replying to Pilate, said: My kingdom is not of this world5. A nation may claim to be Christian, but Jesus before Pilate declared all such claims to be invalid.
‘I keep the Ten Commandments and all of the Law.’ But to the young man who claimed to have kept all of the commandments from his youth, Jesus said: One thing you lack. Go and sell all your goods and give to the poor6. We may keep, or think we do, his law, but he shall find us out, and we know ourselves, do we not?, that our hearts are far from pure.
‘I love my neighbour, Did not Jesus say that that was the second commandment?’ Yes, he did. The first is to love the Lord your God, and the One who is the Lord our God tells us: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you7.
So, are you a Christian? Let others decide. As for you, press on for as Paul has reminded us: Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus8.
It is not your pedigree; it is not your patrimony; it is not your profession; it is not your proficiency9. It is your relationship with Jesus Christ that matters.