If we had to derive a definition for the word “Christian” simply by observing our mass-media’s depictions, it might read something like this:
“Homophobic, xenophobic, intolerant extremists who hypocritically believe they are the only ones who deserve to go to heaven – and who secretly revel in their belief that anyone who doesn’t think just as they do are on their way to hell.”*
Doesn’t that more-or-less capture the modern spirit? And haven’t you encountered a person claiming the title of “Christian” who seems to fit this description? (We have, regrettably.) There is, of course, nothing “modern” about multitudes harboring a dim view of Christianity: the gospels clearly record that many in Christ’s day greeted His teachings with revulsion. Nor is there anything new about hypocrisy within the ranks of Christianity. But this website does not exist to inform you of the perspectives and limitations of Christianity’s critics or adherents – so let’s start with a clean slate:
Webster’s definition of the word “Christianity” reads:
“The religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Christians.”
In the Bible itself, the Greek word for “Christian” (“Christianos”) is literally translated, “follower of Christ.”
Many religious denominations – and religious people – call themselves “Christian,” or “followers of Christ.” If you spend any length of time talking to these people about their Christian beliefs, however, you’re likely to get a variety of definitions on what it is to be a “Christian.”
Some will tell you that they’re Christian because their parents were, or because they attended a Christian church while growing up. Others will tell you they’re Christian by virtue of their Christ-like good deeds, ongoing church attendance or adherence to various Christian religious traditions. To add to the confusion, numerous denominations – all claiming to “follow Christ” – will seem to “follow” a Christ of differing origins, identity or teachings. As a composite whole, today’s world of “Christianity” certainly doesn’t seem in collective agreement with Webster’s definition of the word . . . that it is “based on the Bible as sacred scripture.”
If we assume Webster’s is wrong – that Christianity is not “based on the Bible–” an obvious problem arises: who, if anyone, should we believe in our quest for the correct definition of Christianity?
Well . . . what if we simply allowed the words of Christ to define the religion named after Him? After all, no matter how disparate the various Christian denominations may be, few seem to have any objection to being called “followers of Christ.” (If they are true “followers of Christ,” isn’t it logical that they would believe His words?) And not even secular agnostic scholars deny that a man named “Jesus Christ” actually existed, was baptized by a man called “John the Baptist,” or was executed by the Romans in Jerusalem. The reliability of the historical record (or “historicity”) of Jesus’ existence seems unequivocal: He was as real a human being as you and I.
So . . . what did He say, and where can we reliably find those words? Shall we allow a priest, a minister, a family member or a pope to decree what He said? Shall we simply decide for ourselves what He said? Call these questions rhetorical if you must, but the truth is . . . many self-proclaimed Christians do allow someone else to tell them what Jesus said, and do fabricate a Christ to suit their own preferences, complete with words, traditions and teachings of their own making. Is it any wonder, then, that there is so much confusion about what Christianity really is?
Can we actually let Jesus speak for himself, more than 2000 years after-the-fact?
By any rigorous standard of historical proof, the answer is an unequivocal “YES:” in our possession, there exist approximately 5,200 ancient manuscripts, written mostly in Greek – with a small amount in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages – comprising the New Testament of the Bible. Within that New Testament are the four gospels – which quote Jesus directly, and copiously. Of those 5,200 manuscripts, roughly 5,000 of them (collectively called the Textus Receptus, or “Received Text”) are essentially in perfect agreement with each other.
In all of world today, no ancient text is better preserved: the next-best – with only 600+ manuscripts in existence – is Homer’s Iliad. In spite of this smaller number of manuscripts, you can enroll in a freshman literature class in many universities today and never once hear the professor question the accuracy of the Iliad text. With more than eight times the number of congruent, New Testament manuscripts in hand, then, isn’t it at least possible that we have an authentic record of Jesus’ words today? And if this is a reasonable possibility – especially given the undisputed impact of Christianity on world history – aren’t His words worthy of closer examination? If we’re to have a clear understanding of what “Christianity” really is, isn’t this the proper place to start?
Let’s do that here.
*Roughly paraphrased, with all due credit to Pastor Andy Stanley.