What I mean by "Christian"

A commenter on my blog suggested that, in the interest of honesty (which I'm all for), I should not use the word "Christian" or "Christianity" as I have thus far, since, in his opinion, too many different philosophies with almost no common ground all bear the label "Christian".

I am sensitive to this problem. On the other hand, the suggestion that I should say that this blog is about my personal beliefs and philosophy is overly narrow. Obviously, since I'm the author, my beliefs will come through, but I hope to fairly represent alternative points of view, including several on which I have no solid opinion. So the topic is in one sense broader than my personal beliefs. In another sense, it's narrower, since I won't be talking (on this blog) about my views on programming practices. The topic of this blog really is Christian apologetics, but then, once again, there's the problem of how the word is used.

Well, at the end of the day, I don't feel too bad using the term in the way I do, since several encyclopedias define Christian beliefs in a way that is compatible with my usage. Nevertheless, I can do better. In this post, I will try to shed a little more light on how I am likely to be using this word. There will still be unfortunate vagueness and ambiguity, but I will try to minimize it going forward. Questions about what I mean in a particular case are always welcome. This post is not the final say on the subject, just the first step in clarifying myself.

One sense in which I use the word "Christian" is to refer to all those who have saving faith in Jesus Christ (whether they know Him by that name or not--who fits this description is not for me to decide, but God, I simply affirm that the description is valid for some set of people). Whether or not you believe in salvation doesn't matter, I do, and this may sometimes be how I use the word. In one way, this use is very unfortunate, since it is somewhat odd to speak of people in the Old Testament who possessed saving faith as "Christians". Of course, a pretty widely held Christian doctrine is that these people had faith that looked forward to Christ, the messiah, and that was the faith that saved them. This weirdness is somewhat mitigated by the fact that none of these people are alive on earth today, so I won't be referring to them when I'm talking about people living in the world today. Anyway, for a variety of reasons, this usage is problematic. I can and will also use the term "believer" similarly at times. I don't know that that's much better. If anyone can suggest a better, succinct term, I'm open. Otherwise, I'll just try to be clear when I'm using the word in this sense. Fortunately, for purposes of this blog, I don't think this use will come up as much as the next.

A more important sense of the word "Christian", for purposes of this blog, will refer to Christian beliefs. In general, when I say "Christian beliefs" I'll usually mean "orthodox Christian beliefs" (little "o"). By "orthodox Christian beliefs", I mean at least the beliefs expressed by the Nicene Creed. Most other major creeds are similar--I choose the Nicene Creed because of it's official acceptance by nearly all Protestant denominations, the Catholic church, the Anglican church, nearly all (if not all) variants of the Orthodox church, and so on. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that, for example, the Apostle's Creed is as widely acceptable, but the Orthodox church does not officially recognize it, so I'll stick with the Nicene Creed. If I find a need to expand my definition, I'll make sure to do so loudly.

I will also tend to assume that most of these Nicene Christians believe the teachings of Jesus to be true and right (I don't know how they could affirm the Nicene Creed without believing that), and accept a largely overlapping Scriptural canon. I understand that, despite this, there are a wide range of interpretations even of the common parts of the canon, and, insomuch as these interpretations are in line with the Nicene Creed, I will consider the differences to be under the wide umbrella of Christianity.

I understand this little post does not resolve all potential vagueness about the word Christian. That would be hard to do in a single post. This is just the first step in what will be a continuing battle for clarity with sufficient expressiveness. Going forward, please continue to let me know if I am being overly vague. I promise it is not intentional, and I will correct it when I possible.

The cardinal sin of philosophy

The cardinal sin of philosophy is dishonesty. The severity of the transgression is proportional to the degree to which one is conscious of dishonesty.

At present, I still feel like I'm forming the general tone and conventions of this blog. Today, I'm establishing the central ethic of this blog. Dishonesty will not be tolerated. I will seek out dishonesty related to the issues covered by this blog wherever I can find it, and call those responsible to account. I invite readers of this blog to hold me to the same standard. The only appropriate response to public dishonesty is public repentance, and that is what will be expected.

I believe dishonesty accounts for most of the distrust and misinformation related to the issues I plan to cover in this blog. I have seen dishonest statements made by atheists, christians, and everything in-between and to either side. Dishonesty comes in several forms. Some of the most common are:

- Quotes taken out of context.
- Outdated quotes, where new discoveries may be relevant.
- Intentionally leaving out known information that hurts your argument or claim.
- Using information once commonly believed, but now known to be false (assuming you know of and agree with the current consensus).
- Pretending to be an expert on things you are not.
- Ascribing beliefs or motives to people that you either know they don't have or don't know that they do have. In the second case, it might be OK to say "I think A believes P".

I believe that, whatever your goal, dishonesty is a foul means. Over time, I believe dishonesty has created far more animosity and closed more doors than it has made converts. I also believe that it makes the most hardened anti-converts, who, having been lied to, will no longer entertain anything that sounds like what came out of the liars' mouths. Dishonesty turns the fertile landscape of rational discussion into a choked, twisted wasteland.

An apologist's creed

I believe that:
- I know very little,
- I am wrong about many of the things I believe,
- God is not harmed by my being wrong,
- I do not have an answer for every question about my beliefs,
- I do not need to have an answer for every question to be justified in holding my beliefs,
- Some of those who disagree with me are smarter than I am,
- Some of those who disagree with me are more intellectually honest than I am,
- It is inappropriate to use a person's alleged motives to attack his argument,
- Winning arguments is fruitless, winning people is supreme,
- I must treat those who disagree with me the way I wish for them to treat me,
- In order to win anyone, I must demonstrate my respect by taking time to understand them and why they believe what they do,
- If my respect is absent or feigned, it will show, and it is because of my arrogance, and it is my problem,
- It is more important that people be impressed by my humility and honesty than by my intelligence or the force of my arguments.

The purpose of apologetics

Apologetics is the act of presenting the rational defense or basis of the Christian faith (or sometimes, some specific version of the Christian faith). That's what it is. However, why we should bother with it is another question. To answer that question, it is necessary to look at the things we value.

As Christians, we believe:

1. that in every person is an eternal soul. We believe that the soul persists after the death of the body, and, at some point, enters some kind of afterlife (Christians differ on the exact chronology and available states) based on the person's relationship with God.

2. in doing good to and seeking good for those we love, our neighbors, and our enemies.

3. that God loves truth and so should we.

I feel pretty good that the first two points are very near the center among Christian beliefs, since they relate to the two greatest commandments, love God and love your neighbor. The third is certainly important. I don't know that it ranks third in overall importance, but it is of particular relevance to Christian apologetics. Given the very high importance of these beliefs, it seems clear to me that the primary purpose of apologetics, then, should be evangelistic. Related to the items above, I believe the aims of apologetics should be the following, in order of importance:

1. To bring people into a right relationship with God

2. To love people, and do good for people

3. To discover truth, and convince people of the truth

Each, I think, is important by itself. I think it is better for a person to believe more truth rather than less whether or not they come into a right relationship with God. However, given a choice, I would rather work to bring them into a right relationship with God than convince them of some truth (of course, to a degree, they are interconnected). Similarly, in our own lives, we should be more concerned about things that could damage our relationship with God than about whether everything we believe is true.

Now, all this is a bit circular of course. Arguably I have ordered my purposes in a manner prescribed by Christianity before I have established any arguments that Christianity is true. And if I haven't established that Christianity is at least probably true, one might argue that my highest priority should be to prove or falsify this claim.

However, the idea that we should base our actions or priorities on true beliefs is, itself, a value that must be, at the beginning, assumed without evidence, and will be just as circular. Fortunately, I believe that neither is visciously circular. We are, after all, talking about priorities, not reasons for belief, so to assume a working set of priorities does not create a cycle of reasons. To defend my adoption of these priorities, I appeal to existentialism: I find myself already a Christian with certain beliefs, and no reason not to act on them. Without further examination, it is no more rational to not act on my beliefs than to act on them. In fact, it is arguable that it is worse to not act since, assuming I am a rational person, my beliefs should have a better probability of being true than random chance, and, assuming I am not a rational person, the entire enterprise is doomed to failure no matter what, in which case it doesn't matter what priorities I choose. See also Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, chapter 4.