A Different Kind of Christian

Anyone who has read very much of my stuff knows that words are important to me. Not just the recent redefinition of "marriage". All kinds of words. Are we saying what we mean and do our words mean what we intend to express? Over and over it seems that words, in their natural shift, are moving so fast that it's becoming increasingly difficult to actually express what we mean to say. So "love" now means mostly sex and perhaps warm affection. A lot of words have been hijacked from their original meaning to an almost exclusively sexual connotation. But beyond that we can't seem to find consensus of meaning. A popular complaint today is "partisan politics" which appears to be a purely Republican issue because they abide by the principles of the Republican party (because apparently when Democrats abide by the principles of their party it isn't "partisan politics"). The other day a reporter asked the president if he was "content" with the plight of four Americans held in Iran since he hadn't acted on their release and he responded angrily that he wasn't "celebrating" their condition. See? I don't see "content" and "celebrating" as synonyms. So the language just gets tougher and tougher. As a wise person once told me, "Communication is tedious at best."

One word that I fear has nearly lost all its generally-understood meaning is "Christian". What does that even mean anymore? First coined in Antioch in Acts 11:26, it was intended to mean "a follower of Jesus Christ". Now? Not so much. There are social Christians, political Christians, religious Christians, spiritual Christians, even geographical Christians. Social Christians are the ones concerned about "social justice" -- the caring for the poor and needy which is a good thing, but when they do it in contradiction to the words of Jesus, it shouldn't be called "Christian". But they do. Geographical Christians are found most obviously in lands where other religions rule. So we read about conflicts in Nigeria, for instance, where the "Muslim north and Christian south" collide. Often political Christians reside in these kinds of places, but they're here in America as well. If you hold a conservative view on politics, you're classified as a "right-wing Christian" regardless of any connection to Christ.

Bob Burnett over at the Huffington Post wrote about the end of the "culture wars" and how "conservative Christians are losing the culture war." Burnett disagrees with the idea, claiming that such people "aren't Christians". Christians, you see, should give up worldly possessions, "nurture stable families" (meaning "same-sex marriages"), and "launch a new war on poverty." That is "Christian".

Is it any wonder that we're having difficulty communicating these days? I can't figure out the connection of "Christian" to "culture wars". To hear Christians suggest "We're losing the culture war" makes no sense to me. What does "Christian" have to do with "the culture"? It's about Christ. It's about the Gospel. It's about a worldview and a way of life. And it is specifically not about culture (John 17:16; John 15:19; 1 John 2:15-17; 1 John 3:13; 1 John 4:4 ... for starters). We aren't here to make this world a better place. We're here to make disciples. Jesus didn't come to make this world a better place; He came to seek and to save the lost. Redeeming the culture is an interesting idea, but it isn't for the purpose of making the culture better.

"So what about you, Stan? You're always complaining about abortion and homosexual sin and marriage. Aren't you fighting a culture war?" I can see how it would look that way. I can see how people would think I'm concerned about America, about society as a society, that I'm trying to make our world what I would consider a better place. I can see that ... but in my case it isn't the case. You see, I believe that mankind, at its core, is sinful. I can't make that better. The problem in this country isn't laws or politics or even the judiciary. It's sin. People need Christ. The reason, then, that I engage in these "culture wars" is not to improve the culture, but to try to keep the problem in view, the problem for which Christians ("followers of Christ") have the answer. If people in general and, God forbid, more specifically those I care most about come to believe that what God says is right or wrong is not, then on what grounds can I tell them, "You need Jesus"? For what? They're doing fine. They're fornicating and committing adultery and stealing and lying and "it's all okay because we've all voted on it and we all agree." Paul warned "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor 6:9-10) We're moving ever toward an answer of "No" to his question. Fornicators, idolaters, homosexuals, thieves, and swindlers are all okay because we've said so. "So," they'll say, "tell me again. Why do I need Jesus?"

In this sense, it is wrong that Christians are losing the culture wars. That's because Christians aren't fighting the culture wars. Christians, defined as "a follower of Christ", have other concerns. Primarily of following Christ and sharing the Gospel, making disciples, teaching them to observe all that is commanded, that kind of thing. And since the primary motive force of that engagement is not the Christian, but the Holy Spirit (John 16:8-11), we can't actually lose that battle. God always accomplishes what He intends. And the saving of American culture is not on that list. Perhaps that makes me a different kind of Christian. So be it.