Christians, Christians and more Christians

"For the Hellenistic approach, a true Christian is one who is one inwardly, period, stop. And this is true. But I also want to say that we have inward Christians and outward Christians, faithful Christians and adulterous Christians, temporary Christians and Christians forever, slaves and sons, wheat and tares, sons of Hagar and sons of Sarah, washed pigs and washed lambs, fruitless branches and fruitful branches, Christians who die in the wilderness and Christians who die in Canaan, and so on." - Douglas Wilson

I've been lurking on Wilson's blog for the better part of a year now and while I don't agree with everything he says, there are a great number of golden nuggets to be collected from many of his posts. In the Reformed community we tend to take this Hellenistic approach to define what it means to be a Christian. We often say, "Either you are, or you aren't" and, as Wilson says, this is true. But it is not the whole picture. Our definition of "Christian" is far too narrow and no where near dynamic enough for the interpretive paradigm of 'Covenant Family'. What I want to do here is to try and expand our understanding of the descriptive range of "Christian." First, we need to define what, exactly, qualifies one to be called a Christian. Then we need to decide whether or not it's possible to be a Christian and not be saved. Finally, we will look at the characteristics that distinguish and give rise to our traditionally simple inward/outward view.

So, what must one do in order to be considered a Christian? Peter sums it up quite nicely in his sermon preached to the crowd that gathered around the noise of Pentecost (Acts 2). He said, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (v. 38) Seems easy enough; if you've repented and you've been baptized, then you're a Christian, right? Well, advocates of believer's baptism would agree here but Peter doesn't stop there: "The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for all whom the Lord our God will call" (v. 39). Peter is using the very common language from the Old Covenant (see Gen. 12:1-3, 17:1-9). From this we can see that not only those who repent and are baptized are Christian, but also their children; indeed, for "all whom the Lord" calls. The "promise" in verse 39 is not dependent upon every single individual in the family of the believer repenting and being baptized. This is the primary mistake of believer's baptism advocates. To be considered a Christian, then, one need but (a) repent and be baptized or (b) be a child of one who has repented and been baptized. Thus, a Christian is not necessarily one who has faith in Jesus. In this most generic sense it is possible to be a Christian and not even be aware of the fact. The implications here are astounding, especially given a high view of the physical Church and its role as spiritual mentor and disciplinarian. I don't want to delve deeply here, though, as this will be a long enough post already.

Having set out what qualifies one as a Christian, we can turn and easily answer the next question: is it possible to be a Christian and not be saved. If we define "Christian" in the narrow sense of "God's elected" then the answer is a resounding "No!", God is faithful to those who are His, those whom He has given to Jesus in order to be raised into His likeness. We have gotten complacent in defining "Christian" in only this manner and ignoring the bigger picture painted by all of Scripture. Again, it's not that this definition isn't true, it's that it isn't robust or as full as it could be. Hence Wilson's desire to have not only Christians who are saved, but those who aren't saved (as with Israel in the Old Testament), those who are fruitful branches and those who aren't, etc. Such a definition enables us to broaden our perspective and can help keep our judgmental natures in check. For example, just because a so-called "Christian" (and we would use quotation marks to describe them this way) isn't producing fruit now doesn't mean he shouldn't be considered, and treated, as a brother in Christ. The Father is the one who prunes the branches. This, however, does not free us from the task of accountability and making sure, to the extent that we (i.e. the Church) can, that those who wear the moniker of Christian (especially in the generic sense) are living in an appropriate manner.

How did we come about adopting the inward/outward model as our primary definition? For one, I think it's the easiest on our theology. There's no trying to figure out who is and who isn't as a matter of orthopraxy because, ultimately, this definition leaves it up to God. You are a Christian inwardly and saved (which means you are also one outwardly) or you are a Christian outwardly and are in need of reconciliation/salvation; black and white. The only judgment we make in this instance is whether or not we believe their outward behavior is a genuine reflection of an inward reality. None of this "son of Sarah or son of Hagar" mumbo jumbo. Where we come into error with this definition is when we make it the epitomic arbiter of how we understand the term "Christian." I say let "Christian" be as nuanced as the people it describes.