Quibbling Over Terms (Slightly Updated)

Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader can say that now his good minions are going to be pleased. Not only is your Maximum Leader back; but he is arguing with the Minister of Agriculture.

Not a full-blown argument exactly... Just a quibble.

Begin quibble. The term "Christian."

We should begin with the term "Christ." As we all know the English word "Christ" is derived from the Greek word "Christos" which is used in the early versions of the New Testament to denote the Hebrew word "Messias" which in turn means "annointed." In this early sense any prophet in the Jewish tradition could be considered annointed in his work. There was, before the person of Jesus of Nazareth, a growing Jewish belief in the coming of "The Annointed." A single eschatological being who would fulfill all the previous prohecies of Daniel, Isaiah, and others. (Okay, perhaps not fully eschatological, but how often can you work eschatology into a proper sentence?) The followers of Jesus of Nazareth began to refer to their teacher as the Christ. "The Annointed" as it were. Early followers of Jesus called themselves "Chrestus" which means roughly "excellent." (And your Maximum Leader thinks the term is also a clever play on Christos.) They referred to themselves collectively as "Chrestians" or "the excellent ones." Eventually, this collective appellation "Chrestians" became "Christians."

Now, as for the term "Christians" automatically denoting a belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth; the good Minister of Agriculture is on pretty firm ground here. According to the doctrinal tenets of most of the major Christian Churches there is an implicit belief in the Divine nature of Jesus. The Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodist, Presbyterians, and Baptists (among others) all believe in the Divine nature of Jesus. In fact, they all adhere to the concept of the Trinity (One God in three forms, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost/Spirit). So, to be an adherent to one of these religions implies a belief that being "Christian" also implies a belief in the Divine nature of Jesus.

But that is not the end of our story. There are plenty of minor sects which don't care, don't mention, or flat-out deny the Trinitarian impulses of their larger bretheren. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, the United Church of Christ, the Congregationalist Churches, and the Quakers (among others) are all non-Trinitarian churches. They deny the Trinity and in many cases the Divine nature of Jesus as well. Are these people not "Christians?" It might be surprising for them to find out they aren't. Your Maximum Leader, for one, is happy to lump them in with other "Christians."

For the purposes of your Maximum Leader's earlier musings, he was relying upon the commonly-held dictionary definition of "Christian." In this case, a Christian is simply one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

So in one respect, your Maximum Leader answered his rhetorical question of an earlier post already. If you deny the divinity of Jesus, it is hard for you to be a good Episcopalian - at least insofar as doctrine is concerned. But the spirit of your Maximum Leader's question remains. Can you still behave like a good Episcopalian even if you deny certain basic premises of that faith? And your Maximum Leader isn't meaning to single out Episcopalians here, any (broadly-defined) Christian religion will do. It is just that being the "Cake or Death" church the Episcopalians are least likely to kill you for questioning their faith.

Carry on.