Christian

I decided to look at the title “Christians” because today the word is thrown about randomly and seems to have no particular meaning. Mormons claim to be Christians, however their belief in “more”^[i] than others, makes them very different to biblical Christians. Even among biblical Christians there is great diversity. The term Christian is defined in many ways, some say they are Christian because they live in a “Christian nation”, some people who go to Church claim to be Christian because they do that. There are “Christian atheists” who believe, “…only the Christian knows that God is dead,”^[ii] The internet tells people to click on a link and become a Christian. Just about every Church believes it has a monopoly on truth and is the real Christian body.

 

The term Christian is the Anglicized version of the Greek word Christianos (Χριστιανούς). The same goes for the designation “Christ” which is from the Greek word Christos (Χριστός). The Greek word Christos means “the anointed one”. Most dictionaries define the term Christian as “a follower of Christ”. That is true in English because the suffix “ian” stands for “belonging to”, therefore a Christian is one who belongs to Christ. In the first century the word from which Christ comes meant anointed. The Hebrew word mâshı̂yach, from which we get the term Messiah, also meant anointed. Luke wrote, “…it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.^[iii] It must be understood that Luke wrote in Greek and the people in Antioch mostly spoke Greek. When people in the first century said the word Christos they were saying anointed, not the English title Christ. The terms Christ and Christian do not do justice to Jesus the anointed one, nor his disciples who recognized Jesus as the Christ, “you are the Anointed One, the Son of the living God.”[iv]

 

We have to realize that the people writing the scriptures did not write in English. “Translators” have changed the meaning of certain words by transliteration of the Greek into English lettering. In the case where there is no English word to use as an accurate translation of a Greek word, transliteration may be suitable. But, adapting a Greek word to English should never be done to mask its actual meaning. The anglicizing of a Greek word which has a specific meaning should not be done. Unfortunately that has been the practice when a word’s true meaning doesn’t fit accepted doctrines. Baptism is an anglicized word, the Greek word meant to dip or immerse. The actual meaning of baptism didn’t fit with the practice of infant baptism or sprinkling. By changing the lettering from Greek to English a new word was introduced with a meaning that permitted existing practices. The Greek word ekklesia was Latinized to ecclesia, and later a completely different word Church was substituted for the Greek word, masking the original meaning. Christ, is an anglicized word, which has lost its meaning. “You are the Anointed One, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied that, “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”[v]

If we look at Peter’s response to Jesus asking the disciples, “…who do you say that I am?”[vi] Peter didn’t just give a name, but, responded saying “You are the Anointed One, the Son of the living God.”^[vii] Peter by divine insight claimed Jesus to be the Anointed of God, the one foretold in scripture.[viii] The title “The Anointed” was reserved for kings and priests appointed by God. Jesus was the promised king of Israel. Peter could have answered the question of Jesus’ identity by giving his name, you are Jesus. That would have been correct, but that was not what Jesus was asking. Jesus previously asked, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”[ix] The Son of Man was Jesus’ self-designation used frequently in the synoptic gospels. The prophet Daniel in a vision saw “One like a Son of Man” who would establish a kingdom and be king.[x] The question Jesus asked had to do with prophecy and the future of the Jewish nation. It had to do with his purpose in coming to earth, the establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth. And, of major concern to all people, it had to do with our eternal redemption, a place in the kingdom of God. By changing the Greek lettering in the English equivalent all that is lost. As purportedly some child responded about Christ, it was Jesus’ surname.

 

The point needs to be made concerning the term Christian similar to what has been said about Christ”. The disciples didn’t invent the term Christians[xi]; that was a term attributed to them by thers.[xii] If people have to announce that they are Christians, maybe they are missing the qualities arly disciples evidenced. What Jesus said of false prophets is true of discipleship, “you ill know them by their fruits.” I do not believe that making the sign of a cross or praying in the end zone after scoring, or, protesting “unchristian” events and laws, are the acts that should draw attention to one’s life. I believe that if our behaviours reflect God’s love and grace we will be seen as followers of Jesus. Peter alone of scripture authors used the term Christian saying, “…if anyone suffers as a Christian,”^[xiii] they should not be ashamed. The Greek word Christianós meant of course a follower or one who belonged to The Anointed One. Disciples were mocked for believing Jesus was the Son of God, or, that he was King of a spiritual kingdom.

Christian:

of or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ:

a Christian charity/organization

the Christian faith

used to describe a person or action that is good, kind, helpful, etc.[xiv]  ​

› of or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: a Christian charity/organizationthe Christian faith› used to describe a person or action that is good, kind, helpful, etc.

This definition of Christian is quite hollow compared the descriptive term of being a follower of The Anointed One, considering what is incumbent in the acknowledgement of Jesus the Son of God. In addition disciples accept the rule of Jesus, he is King and we are his subjects.

 

---

[i] https://www.lds.org/topics/christians?lang=eng

[ii] Altizer, Thomas J. J. The Gospel of Christian Atheism. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966.

[iii] Act 11:26 

[iv] Mat 16:16

[v] Mat 16:17

[vi] Mat 16:15

[vii] Mat 16:16

^[vii] The Complete Word Study Dictionary - Christós; fem. Christe, neut. christón, adj. from chrío (G5548), to anoint.

Χριστός… means "spreadable," "smeared on," "anointed," as noun … "ointment," … Χριστός is never related to persons outside the LXX, the NT, and dependent writings.

Psa 2:2  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD and his anointed. Act 4:27, Heb 5:5, Joh 18:37 

[ix] Mat 16:13

[x] Dan 7:13, 14  "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

[xi] The Complete Word Study Dictionary - Christianós; gen. Christianoú, masc. noun from Christós (G5547), Christ. A name given to the disciples or followers of Christ, first adopted at Antioch. It does not occur in the NT as a name commonly used by Christians themselves (Act_11:26; Act_26:28; 1Pe_4:16). The believers first became known as Christians as an appellation of ridicule.

[xii] Evidence suggests that the term Christian was at the time of Peters writing a reproach. The term first used contemptuously of disciples in Antioch was not adopted by the early disciples. “1 Peter belongs to a time when the mere profession of Christianity was a crime in the eyes of the state…”

[xiii] 1Pe 4:14-16If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you. Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.

[xiv] Cambridge Dictionaries

The Knowledge of Good and Evil

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.^[1]

…from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.^[2]

And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.^[3]

Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.^[4]

Knowledge - daath - concern (1), know (3), knowledge (81), premeditation (2), skill (1), truth (1),^[5]

The knowledge of good and evil:

There are a few things that can be gleaned about the early life of the first man and women in paradise. Whether or not the eternal paradise in which the saved live is the same as that in which Adam and Eve lived, I don’t know, but there will be I’m sure some similarities. It seems to me we have to step outside the boundaries of everyday life to be able to notice some of the features of life in paradise. I believe it is almost impossible to understand events in the garden period by using modern perceptions.

It appears that humans and animals communicated with each other, based on the evidence that Eve showed no surprise that a snake talked to her. Paradise was designed to be eternal, by virtue of the tree of life being in the middle of the garden, and its fruit was available to be eaten. Adam and Eve were man and wife living together in the garden among creatures from the animal kingdom. While living in obedience they were childlike. Adam and Eve lived in innocence. “And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”

Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.^[6]

Satan deceived Eve, telling her that she would not die, and that, “God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Eve “took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked…”

Eating the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden carried as a consequence, “the knowledge of good and evil”. Their eyes were opened; they realized that they were naked. In this setting what does nakedness have to do with good and evil? The act of doing what they were ordered not to do shattered the innocence of their existence. Shame, guilt, or embarrassment were never experienced when living blamelessly. From the moment they ate the fruit Adam and Eve were human in every aspect, just as we are. The spiritual tranquility of the garden collapsed as all things became material. God met with them one last time; only to denounce their actions, and deliver the consequences. What does it mean, “their eyes were opened, and they realized they were naked”? Their nakedness was not a sin, it was exercise of their will in opposition to God’s command. They were accountable for their choice to eat the fruit and for all choices going forward. Their innocence was gone and they were culpable. I don’t think that knowing right and wrong is quite the same as “the knowledge of good and evil”. It occurs to me that we teach children the difference between right and wrong with the hope they will learn to make good choices. I believe teaching children right and wrong is necessary for their development. I do not see that knowing right from wrong has the same consequence as “the knowledge of good and evil”. Teaching children right from wrong is a parental duty, and the consequence for doing wrong is determined by the parents. There is no spiritual consequence for a child’s disobedience. “The knowledge of good and evil” has I believe to do with the cognizance of making a wrong choice, and its spiritual consequence.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.

Eve went through a mental process of selection, weighing the evidence provided by Satan against what she knew God had said. Her action was not the random act of child, it was willful. The consequence of her act, the result of going against God’s order, opened the experience of worldliness, resulting in separation from God. Adam and Eve, no longer innocent were banished from the garden. Cut off from the tree of life, they were mortal. Spiritually disconnected from God, they needed redemption.

Children after the onset of puberty transitions from the state of innocence, in which they lived and in which they were not responsible for their actions, to being fully accountable to God. I believe this principle arises out of the events in the garden, and based on the initial response of Adam and Eve toward their nakedness. Once their “eyes were opened”, they recognized their nakedness. Which I believe suggests that children reaching a similar awareness become accountable to God.

When you disrobe without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them, then will you see the son of the living one, and you will not be afraid.^[7]

I do not believe The Sayings of Thomas are inspired unless a saying is an exact copy of the biblical original. But it is interesting that as far back as the fourth century being unashamed of nakedness is associated with childlikeness.

---

[1] Gen 3:1-7 

[2] Gen 2:17 

[3] Gen 2:25 

[4] 1Jn 2:15, 16

[5] New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance

[6] Mat 18:3, 4

[7] The Sayings of Thomas, saying 37

Dissecting the Difference

If I can cause people to think about the value of spirituality, and not settle for being emotionally stirred, something important will have been accomplished.

I have long wondered if the joy that comes when singing hymns in a group is spiritual or emotional. Similarly the delight listening as a singer reaches the climax of a beautiful aria, is it emotional or spiritual? In the past, I have denied the spirituality of hymn singing, because I experience the same feeling listening to Puccini’s arias.

Spiritual leads to the equanimity of individuals and the tranquility of the mind. On the other hand, emotional feeling leads to the agitation of the mind and the disturbance caused in mental balance. Since emotional is all about being worldly it affects the other individuals as well. On the other hand, since spirituality is unworldly in nature it is experienced by the individual without affected the others.[1]

Can music itself be a medium to spiritual serenity? According to the definition above, since music affects others, it is emotional. For instance, I find listening to “Musetta's Waltz” very moving, even though I know the lyrics are about Musetta’s deception of an old paramour. For hymn singing to be spiritual I believe the words and sentiment of the hymn would have to meaningful.

Emotions provide a much better gateway to the spiritual dimension of our lives than beliefs. Awe and wonder are emotions particularly associated with spiritual experiences. Calm, joy, and contentment are among other emotions that typify mature spirituality.[2]

While some of what Culliford says is true, I do not agree with his first proposal that, “Emotions provide a much better gateway to the spiritual dimension of our lives than beliefs.” It is the application of that position that leads to confused Christians. People who begin their religious walk with emotional fervor, may, when the novelty wears off, reject everything to do with Christ. Belief is foundational to discipleship. “And without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would approach him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”[3] A stern warning is given to those who would act on impulse, only to give up when the initial excitement fades. “…it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, since on their own they are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt.”[4] Emotions can be fickle and are always fleeting, true commitment to Christ can only be based on belief.

The hallmark virtue of the spiritually mature is humility. With true humility a person sees his own place in relation to God and gives God the credit due His glory as they recognize any virtues within themselves or any accomplishments they have achieved.[5]

Observing those men and women I considered spiritually mature, I have to agree with the quote. The trademark of the people I have known who fit this definition, is humility. I was intrigued reading one author who connected emotional and spiritual maturity to the two great commandments. In summery she wrote, emotional maturity is loving one’s neighbour, and spiritual maturity is one’s relationship with God. The spiritual and emotional are two different states of mind, the spirit is otherworldly and emotions are natural.

Spiritual maturity is expressed through wisdom and compassionate action in the world. Spiritual intelligence is necessary for discernment in making spiritual choices that contribute to psychological well-being and overall healthy human development.[6]

I find that Christian concepts of spirit and emotion are quite diverse and often contradictory. There are two prevalent positions concerning spirituality. One, being spiritual is following in the wake of God’s Spirit. The second is, our own spirit controls and directs our lives. These definitions are complimentary not opposites. There is however a subtle, but necessary difference that needs to be explored. To guide our thinking scripture provides direction.

Live by the spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the spirit, and what the spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. But if you are led by the spirit, you are not subject to the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. By contrast, the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit.[7]

This is not an exact quote from the NRSV, as I have changed the capitalization of “Spirit” to “spirit” in all but one of its occurrences. In this passage the spirit refers to our personal spirit, and the Spirit refers to God’s Spirit. Paul contrasts two dimensions of man that are at war with each other. The distinction Paul made was between flesh and spirit, both elements exist within humans. They are two separate driving forces. In the sixteenth century a priest wrote along similar lines;

Even so, the more closely a thing grows attracted to one extreme, the farther removed and withdrawn it becomes from the other; and, when it comes to rest perfectly in the one, it will also have withdrawn itself perfectly from the other. Wherefore there is a commonly quoted spiritual adage which says: Gustato spiritu, desipit omni caro. Which signifies: After the taste and sweetness of the spirit have been experienced, everything carnal is insipid. That is: No profit or enjoyment is afforded by all the ways of the flesh, wherein is included all communication of sense with the spiritual. And this is clear: for, if it is spirit, it has no more to do with sense; and, if sense can comprehend it, it is no longer pure spirit. For, the more can be known of it by natural apprehension and sense, the less it has of spirit and of the supernatural, as has been explained above.[8]

It is here that the difference between being spiritual or emotional is most difficult to understand. From a secular source one definition is: “Spiritual = ability to understand right from wrong. Emotional = ability to feel what you and others are experiencing.”[9] Emotions are strongly if not exclusively connected to worldly experience. Spirituality is tied to our connection with God.

Spiritual and Emotional are two types of mental behavioral changes in man that show some differences between them. Emotions are nothing but feelings related to worldly life. On the other hand, spiritual are feelings related to unearthly or unworldly life.[10]

From the definitions, mostly secular, it appears that spirituality is not confined to Christianity, and yet not denied to the Christian religion. Everyone is made up of “spirit and soul and body.”[11] Paul identifies the competition within us as the conflict for dominance by our spirit, or, our body. In other words there is conflict between our spirit and our humanity. That being spiritual is not confined to Christianity can be demonstrated by observing that, very bad people can sometimes do very good things. A life directed by the spirit manifests, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.”[12] All people share the dichotomy of wills, the desire to serve, and the desire for self-gratification. I believe that is why Paul concluded his discussion on the topic saying, “let us also be guided by the Spirit.” And, in another letter Paul stated, “The Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God…”[13] The Spirit of God aids our spirit.

If emotion is related to the world, which is the here and now, it has nothing to do with spirituality. Then the good feeling attained when singing hymns is a false façade. The conclusion of the quotation from the “Ascent of Mount Carmel” suggests the same, “…if it is spirit, it has no more to do with sense; and, if sense can comprehend it, it is no longer pure spirit. For, the more can be known of it by natural apprehension and sense, the less it has of spirit and of the supernatural…” When studying the difference between spirit and emotion, a question presents itself; can emotionally charged rhetoric bring about spiritual change? A principle of teaching has in the past been, that for a premise to be believed, both stages of consciousness must be convinced, intellectual and emotional. The element left out of that equation is spiritual. I would venture a guess that preaching has leant mostly toward being emotional. Parishioners are not prepared to endure long intellectual theses. And, an emotional story is far more entertaining, though maybe, considerably less instructive. A spiritual discourse doesn’t have to be boring, nor does the message of God require a lot of human embellishment. “…faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.”[14] Specifically in that scripture, that would be the narrative or catalogue of Jesus and teaching. Talking to someone about Jesus is spiritual communication, relating scriptural accounts in your own words is communicating the gospel.  Paul tells us that, the sword of the Spirit, is the word of God.[15] The message about God and Jesus in everyday language is powerful. Talking about experience as disciples of Jesus is spiritual communication.

What is wrong with churches in America? Udo Middelmann, President of the Francis A. Schaeffer Foundation, addresses this question by first examining the strong roots Christianity had in the soil of colonial culture and the impact of preaching and church outreach in that society. Rather than building on this stable foundation, the church in recent years has sought to become more attractive by watering down its message and by incorporating entertainment in place of God-honoring worship. This has resulted in culture shaping the church; whereas formerly, the church shaped culture.

  Being a European, Middelmann realizes what churches have given up to a greater degree than do many Americans. He points out the theological emptiness that has marked the European church scene for years. He thought America would be different. Upon examining churches in various regions, he realized that here also ecclesiastical bodies have forsaken a Biblical worldview and life view in order to become more culturally relevant. Basic definitions of sin, repentance, and faith have been abandoned. In so doing, these churches have failed to see that what they have given up is the very sustenance that makes them attractive to the spiritually hungry and thirsty.[16]

The last sentence is very important; what Churches have “given up is the very sustenance that makes them attractive to the spiritually hungry and thirsty.” What is not said is of equal importance; Churches have played to emotional whims in an effort to stem the tide of people leaving. But, by doing so have intensified the problem. “Perhaps more than anything else, what people want out of a church is a community of people who are experiencing God together.”[17] My interpretation of Packard’s statement is, people are seeking spiritual community.

“…we too readily equate spirituality with feelings and emotional states. We feel spiritual when our emotions are high, when in fact those emotional feelings may have little to do with hearts that are attuned to God and lives that truly reflect the path of our Savior. Emotions are an important part of life, but a desired emotional state is never the sign of true faith or spiritual maturity.”[18]

Individuals and Churches need to seriously evaluate what is important. Hopefully, spiritualty will trump emotions, so that believers can be encouraged in spiritual community. A very difficult and stressful decision faces the Church. Unfortunately in many cases a minister, pastor, or whatever the leader is called; that guy –is judged by the number of people in the pews. When I first bought my own vehicles, it was noted that I had thirteen cars in just a few years. Wiser, older now, I have kept a vehicle for more than sixteen years –I bought a vehicle of quality. Just in case you wonder what that has to do with either spirit or emotion, let me tell you; it has to do with quality. Many Church leaders look at attendance as the key figure for assessing success, when they should be looking at the quality of spiritual life people in their care enjoy. If the lure used to bring people into a Church is emotional, the turnover of members will be as frequent as my cars when I thought I couldn’t afford quality. Church leaders have to be more concerned about the spiritual maturity of people, than providing entertainment.

Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.[19]

I don’t hear Jesus offering improved emotional excitement. He offers his way of life as more rewarding, than a frustrating struggle for material fulfillment. I’m not sure I can fully delineate between spirit and emotion, but I can conclude that being spiritual is more than being happy. I expect a Church to support my spirit, not to entertain me. NetFlix is entertaining, a Church should offer more than that.

---

[1] Difference Between Spiritual and Emotional. July 11, 2011 by Aron

[2] Spirituality and Emotions, by Larry Culliford, Psychology Today, September 17, 2012

[3] Heb 11:6 

[4] Heb 6:4-6

[5] October 22, 2014, Allison Ricciardi,   

[6] http://jhp.sagepub.com What is Spiritual Intelligence? Frances Vaughan

[7] Gal 5:16-25

[8] Ascent of Mount Carmel, St. John of the Cross. Book Two, Chapter 17, no. 5.

[9] https://www.quora.com -Matt Maier

[10] Difference Between Spiritual and Emotional. July 11, 2011 by Aron

[11] 1Th 5:23

[12] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

[13] Rom 8:16 

[14] Rom 10:17 

[15] Eph 6:17 

[16] http://chalcedon.edu

[17] Josh Packard, Church Refugees, chapter 2.

[18] Spirituality and Emotions, by Dennis P. Hollinger, Ph.D.  C.S. Lewis institute

[19] Mat 11:28-30