Is there such a thing? A neighbour, in the course of a disacreement about car parking of all things, said I was taking an 'uncchristian attitude. But I haVe never claimed to be a 'good' Christian.
As an outsider looking in, it appears that there are as many different forms of Christianity as there are people.
I'm not sure what the phrase means or if it really means anything. But if it means something like "that person doesn't live according to the main doctrines of Christianity" then that appears to be a contradiction in terms when there are many different understandings of what that would be.
But it seems to me more likely to be a putdown which isn't capable of being refuted and the person really just means "you've done something to offend me" and has used a religious gloss because it sounds more intimidating.
Also it seems increasingly common to see bullies claiming that other people are bullying them when they are being unreasonable.
Which is something about social media and the relative ages of the people involved, it seems. I'm not often around young people, but older people often lack the self-awareness and maturity to admit they are wrong about something and instead pollute the local environment with their efforts to claim the upper hand with the person they disagree with (their age, social standing, how loudly they can speak etc).
My mother (b 1919) used 'Christian' of any kind or virtuous person, even if they were evidently Muslim or Sikh. She herself was 'not a Christian' in the view of the woman next door (who, of course, was). My mother forebore to argue, merely remarking on one occasion that she didn't want to go to heaven. Why ever not! Sure, there'd be none of my neighbours there...
Who would describe themselves as a Good Christian? Our TV screens show such a depressing parade of bigots claiming they are "standing up for Christian values" that it beggars belief.
Me? I never describe myself as Christian, I'm simply a churchgoer.
Car parking is an extremely common cause of friction for churches. If my non-church contacts ever mention church, I would say that a good 50%+ of the interactions I've had over the past 20 years have been complaints about churchgoers parking their cars on Sunday mornings often with the rider "that isn't very Christian is it"....
We are human beings and are fallible. I know that sounds cliche but it is still true.
My thoughts are being good and being a Christian are two separate things. You can behave in a good moral fashion without being a Christian. Christianity is less about what you do and more about your relationship with God. We don’t get saved by what we do but that salvation should reflect in what we do.
The church being a very middle class group has taken on certain values from that middle class.
Being nice is not the same as being good. Sometimes to be good you have to not be nice.
The comment, "You are not a good Christian," sounds to me like a put down. The implication is that the speaker is holier than you. As a believer, I think my comeback would be, "I may not be a good Christian, but I am forgiven." Another possibility would be, "Sorry you are having a bad day." Really hard to say unless I am in the situation, but I do know I would not let that put down stand on its own.
The comment, "You are not a good Christian," sounds to me like a put down. The implication is that the speaker is holier than you.
It's totally a put down. If the speaker is a Christian, it could imply that they think they're holier. If they aren't, to me it says they think the person they're talking to is a hypocrite. I have no problem saying JD Vance isn't a good Christian.
As a believer, I think my comeback would be, "I may not be a good Christian, but I am forgiven."
As a non-believer, my response would be, "Forgiven, but going right on doing whatever the hell you want. Must be nice!"
Another possibility would be, "Sorry you are having a bad day."
I've had people say that to me in response to things I've said in anger -- I felt that it was condescending and dismissive of what I thought were legitimate complaints.
Who would describe themselves as a Good Christian? Our TV screens show such a depressing parade of bigots claiming they are "standing up for Christian values" that it beggars belief.
Me? I never describe myself as Christian, I'm simply a churchgoer.
I am not currently a church goer but on the census form I indicated Christian.
The comment, "You are not a good Christian," sounds to me like a put down. The implication is that the speaker is holier than you. As a believer, I think my comeback would be, "I may not be a good Christian, but I am forgiven." Another possibility would be, "Sorry you are having a bad day." Really hard to say unless I am in the situation, but I do know I would not let that put down stand on its own.
All responses which are likely to piss people off.
For the reasons @Ruth states and a lot more besides.
Sometimes it's best not to defend oneself or to riposte at all. Who was it who said something about turning the other cheek?
You may very well be forgiven but do not presume, one of the thieves was damned, do not despair, one of the thieves was saved.
As a Lutheran you'll know the story about Martin Luther when he felt the Devil was getting at him. His only plea was, 'I am baptised!'
That might be an appropriate thing to say to the Devil but to one's neighbour in a parking dispute it's going to sound a bit arch.
"Un-christian" in a car argument sounds a bit... well, I'd probably drop the car argument right there and start interrogating exactly what the person meant by it. Because at least where I live, it hasn't been a synonym for "bad" plain and simple for what, 50 years at least? Unless the guy came through a time machine.
Of course, people generally get MORE frustrated by that sort of interrogation rather than less, so maybe don't follow my example.
I don't like the term "good Christian" at all, because of what Jesus said in Luke 18:19:
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."
Jesus (being God) is very carefully not denying that he himself is good, but he IS pulling the guy up pretty sharply for throwing around honorifics like "Good Teacher" without ever stopping to think what he's implying by that. And "good Christian" sounds to me much the same sort of thing--a claim that nobody could possibly meet if they took it at all seriously--and I think Jesus means us to.
There are those who try to be good and fail, and those who do not care about being good - Mafia bosses with their own priests come to mind, if the Commissario Montalbano books are true to life in that respect.
Having been an archer, my perspective is that sin is missing the mark, and that you should at least try to hit the mark.
There are those who try to be good and fail, and those who do not care about being good - Mafia bosses with their own priests come to mind, if the Commissario Montalbano books are true to life in that respect.
Having been an archer, my perspective is that sin is missing the mark, and that you should at least try to hit the mark.
Indeed, and Greek scholars will correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's the sense of it in the NT.
A 'falling short' or 'missing the mark' is the Big O understanding of it and I'm pretty sure that's small o too.
"Un-christian" in a car argument sounds a bit... well, I'd probably drop the car argument right there and start interrogating exactly what the person meant by it. Because at least where I live, it hasn't been a synonym for "bad" plain and simple for what, 50 years at least? Unless the guy came through a time machine.
Of course, people generally get MORE frustrated by that sort of interrogation rather than less, so maybe don't follow my example.
I don't like the term "good Christian" at all, because of what Jesus said in Luke 18:19:
And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone."
Jesus (being God) is very carefully not denying that he himself is good, but he IS pulling the guy up pretty sharply for throwing around honorifics like "Good Teacher" without ever stopping to think what he's implying by that. And "good Christian" sounds to me much the same sort of thing--a claim that nobody could possibly meet if they took it at all seriously--and I think Jesus means us to.
So forget the game of being good
And your self-righteous pain
'Cause the only good inside your heart
Is the good that Jesus brings
And when the world begins to see you change
Don't expect them to applaud
Just keep your eyes on Him and tell yourself
"I've become the work of God"
I have trouble when I do something that is considered good, and people want to make me into a good or great or wonderful person. I tend to say, "Well, I was just trying to do what I thought was right." Sometimes that makes it worse (I've had people say that that proves I'm some kind of saint, gaah). Even in my post-Christian incarnation, I don't want to take on the mantle of being a good person (being a good Christian is of course no longer an option).
I've learned some things about right and wrong behavior, some from Christianity and some from other sources, and I try to put them into effect. That's all. Honestly I think that's all any of us do.
"Christian" means so many things, and I prefer, following C S Lewis, a more easily verified one, which basically is: Anyone who professes belief in the tenets of the Christian Faith, as defined by the Ecumenical Creeds. Such a person might be a total bastard.
This is better than trying a judgmental definition where you have no way of knowing, such as: anyone who is a living part of the Church of Christ, and on the way to Heaven.
And I agree that defining who is, or is not, a Good Christian is problematic. But at the level of beliefs and practices, I think we have a right to exercise judgement. Some widely held beliefs are totally out of line with the Gospel, others are not that bad but a bit silly.
So promoters of what I would hold to be Really Bad Ideas (like the Word of Faith movement, or Christian Nationalism) would be classed by me as False Teachers, which is not that far from Bad Christian. The McSaint Murray McShane said of Edward Irving that "he trembles at the thought that He is going to a Saviour whom he so much loved but so much wronged". That could be true of many.
We have a Difficult Relative who frequently tells us that we are not Good Christians.
One example was the time she asked if she could come to church with us, but turned up in a Viz T-shirt with BOLLOCKS printed across it. We said that she was not going to church with us dressed like that. Cue Difficult Relative saying that we were not Good Christians because we were judging by outward appearance.
"Christian" means so many things, and I prefer, following C S Lewis, a more easily verified one, which basically is: Anyone who professes belief in the tenets of the Christian Faith, as defined by the Ecumenical Creeds. Such a person might be a total bastard.
This is better than trying a judgmental definition where you have no way of knowing, such as: anyone who is a living part of the Church of Christ, and on the way to Heaven.
And I agree that defining who is, or is not, a Good Christian is problematic. But at the level of beliefs and practices, I think we have a right to exercise judgement. Some widely held beliefs are totally out of line with the Gospel, others are not that bad but a bit silly.
So promoters of what I would hold to be Really Bad Ideas (like the Word of Faith movement, or Christian Nationalism) would be classed by me as False Teachers, which is not that far from Bad Christian. The McSaint Murray McShane said of Edward Irving that "he trembles at the thought that He is going to a Saviour whom he so much loved but so much wronged". That could be true of many.
Agreed! I would even add that there are various religious groups that some Christians call non-Christian but that I would regard as heretical Christians. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses hold extremely heretical doctrine, but their devotion is aimed at Jesus of Nazareth, not Buddha or Ganesh.
"Christian" means so many things, and I prefer, following C S Lewis, a more easily verified one, which basically is: Anyone who professes belief in the tenets of the Christian Faith, as defined by the Ecumenical Creeds. Such a person might be a total bastard.
This is better than trying a judgmental definition where you have no way of knowing, such as: anyone who is a living part of the Church of Christ, and on the way to Heaven.
And I agree that defining who is, or is not, a Good Christian is problematic. But at the level of beliefs and practices, I think we have a right to exercise judgement. Some widely held beliefs are totally out of line with the Gospel, others are not that bad but a bit silly.
So promoters of what I would hold to be Really Bad Ideas (like the Word of Faith movement, or Christian Nationalism) would be classed by me as False Teachers, which is not that far from Bad Christian. The McSaint Murray McShane said of Edward Irving that "he trembles at the thought that He is going to a Saviour whom he so much loved but so much wronged". That could be true of many.
Agreed! I would even add that there are various religious groups that some Christians call non-Christian but that I would regard as heretical Christians. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses hold extremely heretical doctrine, but their devotion is aimed at Jesus of Nazareth, not Buddha or Ganesh.
I'm not so sure with Mormons - surely if you consider them Christians you should consider Muslims Christian too. They both acknowledge Jesus but deny who he was, and revere a later prophet whose scripture they consider superior to the New Testament (and in both cases consider their scripture to have been divinely revealed to their prophet).
I'm not so sure with Mormons - surely if you consider them Christians you should consider Muslims Christian too. They both acknowledge Jesus but deny who he was, and revere a later prophet whose scripture they consider superior to the New Testament (and in both cases consider their scripture to have been divinely revealed to their prophet).
Mormons do share the OT and NT with Christians. I get the impression that from.a sociological standpoint the majority of Mormons these days behave and worship similarly to conservative Protestant groups.
On the other hand, the Mormon doctrine of God is completely out there from a Christian standpoint. There's a fantasy author, Brandon Sanderson, who has a multi-volume fantasy meta-epic the backstory of which is that God's personality has fragmented, and the Dark Lords of some of the worlds in his multiverse are God's negative personality traits. That makes no sense to Christians or Muslims, but it's perfectly comprehensible in Mormon theology.
I'm not so sure with Mormons - surely if you consider them Christians you should consider Muslims Christian too. They both acknowledge Jesus but deny who he was, and revere a later prophet whose scripture they consider superior to the New Testament (and in both cases consider their scripture to have been divinely revealed to their prophet).
Mormons do share the OT and NT with Christians. I get the impression that from.a sociological standpoint the majority of Mormons these days behave and worship similarly to conservative Protestant groups.
Which says a lot more about how much Mormonism and conservative protestantism have been inculturated in the US than it does about whether either are Christian.
One of John Le Carre's stories has someone being asked to be a decent human being (IIRC). It would seem to be an understandable concept, regardless of belief system. Would a good Christian be any different?
"Christian" means so many things, and I prefer, following C S Lewis, a more easily verified one, which basically is: Anyone who professes belief in the tenets of the Christian Faith, as defined by the Ecumenical Creeds. Such a person might be a total bastard.
This is better than trying a judgmental definition where you have no way of knowing, such as: anyone who is a living part of the Church of Christ, and on the way to Heaven.
And I agree that defining who is, or is not, a Good Christian is problematic. But at the level of beliefs and practices, I think we have a right to exercise judgement. Some widely held beliefs are totally out of line with the Gospel, others are not that bad but a bit silly.
So promoters of what I would hold to be Really Bad Ideas (like the Word of Faith movement, or Christian Nationalism) would be classed by me as False Teachers, which is not that far from Bad Christian. The McSaint Murray McShane said of Edward Irving that "he trembles at the thought that He is going to a Saviour whom he so much loved but so much wronged". That could be true of many.
Agreed! I would even add that there are various religious groups that some Christians call non-Christian but that I would regard as heretical Christians. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses hold extremely heretical doctrine, but their devotion is aimed at Jesus of Nazareth, not Buddha or Ganesh.
I'm not so sure with Mormons - surely if you consider them Christians you should consider Muslims Christian too. They both acknowledge Jesus but deny who he was, and revere a later prophet whose scripture they consider superior to the New Testament (and in both cases consider their scripture to have been divinely revealed to their prophet).
Yes, but Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God—their notion of how divinity works is very far off (in certain ways I’d say Christianity is closer to Islam where the eternal, transcendent, creator of everything, etc. nature of God is concerned), what with the Doctrine of Eternal Progression and the like, but they do regard Jesus as much more than a prophet, and as their object of worship. Again, I’d say that Mormonism is a very heretical take on Christianity, no question. As for Islam, while they do revere Jesus as a prophet, I don’t think they’re Christian—if you asked them if they worship Jesus they’d say no.
Mormons also think Jesus is the Archangel Michael, don't they? Perhaps a better comparison might be those Hindus who consider Jesus to be an avatar. I think the line between heretical Christianity and a completely different religion is not that clear, and Mormonism is pretty close to that line.
I find it amazing that the discussion here is about assent to ( certain tenets of) a belief system being the characteristic of a good Christian.
I think the point at issue is that "Good Christian" is two propositions - you have to be a Christian at all before you can be considered a good Christian.
I don't think the classification of human belief systems into different religions is meaningful until one makes the purpose of the classification clear. Is one doing sociology, talking about whether to recognise each other's orders, or so on? The answers may be different in each case and equally right.
I find it amazing that the discussion here is about assent to ( certain tenets of) a belief system being the characteristic of a good Christian.
I think the point at issue is that "Good Christian" is two propositions - you have to be a Christian at all before you can be considered a good Christian.
Some branches of Christianity consider other branches not to be Christian. So we have conflicting "authorities" competing for the title.
My very favourite was the view of a former (Anglican) Dean of Sydney Diocese who labelled the RCC as “ subchristian”.
He is long gone ( along with his avowed aim “ to have a bible in every house in Sydney” and meanwhile the rest of us ( subchristians, ex-christans and never-christians) await the outcome of the conclave.
I regarded Pope Francis, MLK Jnr, and Desmond Tutu as being good Christians mostly on the basis of them simply being good.
The principles behind the Matthew 25 passage are sufficient IMHO
‘
31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”
I regarded Pope Francis, MLK Jnr, and Desmond Tutu as being good Christians mostly on the basis of them simply being good.
The principles behind the Matthew 25 passage are sufficient IMHO
‘
31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”
Yes, but Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God . . . .
Yes, but not in a way any different from how Mormons believe everyone is a literal son or daughter of God. Jesus is simply the first child of Heavenly Father (and Heavenly Mother) who, as the eldest, took on a particular role.
I think the point at issue is that "Good Christian" is two propositions - you have to be a Christian at all before you can be considered a good Christian.
Maybe. But in a case like the one giving rise to the OP, where “good Christian” or “unchristian” is intended as a put-down, any doctrinal distinctions involved in “what makes one ‘Christian?’” are irrelevant, I think.
Noting that one definition of “Christian” as an adjective is “treating other people in a kind or generous way,” I think “Christian” as used in the OP means nothing more than “nice person,” or at most “person we can expect to be nice because they go to church.”
There has been a conflation of the relative goodness of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and the outward lives of the people claiming to abide by and/or represent them. Some of this always smacks of being good at Christianity rather than a perceived moral acceptability or admiration or ethical uprightness, but it's pretty easy to read what the Bible documents as Jesus' teaching, and observe how Christians live. Yes-yes, translations and interpretations and all of the qualifying standards and exceptions notwithstanding, it's also easy for observers to evaluate the 'goodness' of the Christianity being presented, as well as make value judgments about the people presenting them.
I had a very unpleasant encounter with one of Our Place's neighbours some years ago. The church is in the middle of a sort of square of narrow streets, with little terraced houses, and the people living nearby would like nothing more than to see the church closed and demolished, so that they would have more room (as they fondly suppose) to park their cars.
I was about to start strimming and mowing the grass outside the church one weekday morning, when a man came up to me in a most aggressive manner, accusing me of breaking a window in the side of his airport/ferry taxi with a stone thrown up by the strimmer - which I had not yet started to use...
I denied all knowledge (the window might have been keyed), only to be told that *All you f***ing Christians are f***ing hypocrites!*.
I made a noise like a hoop, and rolled off, as he looked as though he was about to physically assault me...
His blanket condemnation of all Christians seemed a bit OTT.
Yup seen a bit of this line of talk on this very vessel
Where?
I can't say I've noticed any Shipmates questioning the authenticity of other Shipmates' Christianity for many, many years.
We may have different views and practices but I don't remember any Shipmate questioning my Christian credentials, for instance, just because I don't agree with them on particular issues.
Nor would I question the authenticity of any professed Christian's faith here irrespective of whether they were RC, Orthodox or Protestant.
As far as the OP goes, all of us who profess the Christian faith in whatever form are 'bad' Christians.
It's all work in progress.
Besides, Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on good behaviour - or bad behaviour come to that.
The example of the Recabites in the OT and the parable of the Good Samaritan in the NT should be enough to indicate that 'outsiders' are just as - if not more - likely to demonstrate decent behaviour than those of us who consider ourselves to be 'inside' the fold or who fixate on doctrinal niceties.
Before your time, GG, about 2002. A Mormon who got such a hard time about the authenticity of his Christianity by some that he stopped posting. And a few others also thankfully departed.
When I hear or overhear "christian" being used in the way suggested in the OP, it usually seems to refer to a traditional, moral standard. In this sense, a "good christian" is someone whose behaviour is seen to conform to this standard.
Whether the user of the phrase themself conforms to the standard is another matter. Some of the examples on this thread indicate that it can be used by people who don't adhere to this standard, to criticise those who do. But it also seems to be used by some people in the sense of "we", of people who (they imagine) are trying to live according to the same standard as they are.
The inclusive, "we", is as broad a grouping as there are self-definitions of what it means to be "christian" (more as an adjective than a noun). And it's a standard that often comes with a significant cultural component - when used in England, for example, referencing a cloud of ideals which incorporate a traditionalised notion of English Church (and maybe overlapping with the even hazier idea of traditional British values).
To illustrate the breadth of definitions, viewing oneself as a "good christian" wouldn't, in itself, be incompatible with support for any of the majority of political parties (aside from those espousing explicitly non-christian ideologies).
Before your time, GG, about 2002. A Mormon who got such a hard time about the authenticity of his Christianity by some that he stopped posting. And a few others also thankfully departed.
Ok. I can't remember when I joined but I'm sure I was around in 2002.
I must admit, whilst I wouldn't question the authenticity of a Mormon's personal faith I would certainly question Mormonism's compatibility with traditional creedal Christianity in its Orthodox, RC and Protestant forms.
That isn't to sit in judgement on their 'final destination' as it were.
The Good Samaritan was an 'outsider' of course whilst the insiders 'passed by on the other side.'
Mother Maria of Paris famously said that when she appeared before the judgement seat of Christ she'd not be asked how many church services she'd attended or how many prostrations she'd made but whether she'd fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc etc - 'and that is all I shall be asked.'
That doesn't mean, of course that those of us who profess the Christian faith shouldn't attend church or make 'prostrations' or whatever pious practices there might be within our respective churches and traditions.
But it does mean that those certainly aren't the 'be all and end all' nor does it mean that Matthew 25 type actions are 'invalid' unless they are accompanied by Christian faith.
But surely there is another both/and thing going on here?
Comments
I'm not sure what the phrase means or if it really means anything. But if it means something like "that person doesn't live according to the main doctrines of Christianity" then that appears to be a contradiction in terms when there are many different understandings of what that would be.
But it seems to me more likely to be a putdown which isn't capable of being refuted and the person really just means "you've done something to offend me" and has used a religious gloss because it sounds more intimidating.
Which is something about social media and the relative ages of the people involved, it seems. I'm not often around young people, but older people often lack the self-awareness and maturity to admit they are wrong about something and instead pollute the local environment with their efforts to claim the upper hand with the person they disagree with (their age, social standing, how loudly they can speak etc).
Me? I never describe myself as Christian, I'm simply a churchgoer.
AFF
My thoughts are being good and being a Christian are two separate things. You can behave in a good moral fashion without being a Christian. Christianity is less about what you do and more about your relationship with God. We don’t get saved by what we do but that salvation should reflect in what we do.
The church being a very middle class group has taken on certain values from that middle class.
Being nice is not the same as being good. Sometimes to be good you have to not be nice.
As a non-believer, my response would be, "Forgiven, but going right on doing whatever the hell you want. Must be nice!"
I've had people say that to me in response to things I've said in anger -- I felt that it was condescending and dismissive of what I thought were legitimate complaints.
I am not currently a church goer but on the census form I indicated Christian.
All responses which are likely to piss people off.
For the reasons @Ruth states and a lot more besides.
Sometimes it's best not to defend oneself or to riposte at all. Who was it who said something about turning the other cheek?
You may very well be forgiven but do not presume, one of the thieves was damned, do not despair, one of the thieves was saved.
As a Lutheran you'll know the story about Martin Luther when he felt the Devil was getting at him. His only plea was, 'I am baptised!'
That might be an appropriate thing to say to the Devil but to one's neighbour in a parking dispute it's going to sound a bit arch.
Of course, people generally get MORE frustrated by that sort of interrogation rather than less, so maybe don't follow my example.
I don't like the term "good Christian" at all, because of what Jesus said in Luke 18:19:
Jesus (being God) is very carefully not denying that he himself is good, but he IS pulling the guy up pretty sharply for throwing around honorifics like "Good Teacher" without ever stopping to think what he's implying by that. And "good Christian" sounds to me much the same sort of thing--a claim that nobody could possibly meet if they took it at all seriously--and I think Jesus means us to.
Having been an archer, my perspective is that sin is missing the mark, and that you should at least try to hit the mark.
This is the correct approach! At least in this situation.
Indeed, and Greek scholars will correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's the sense of it in the NT.
A 'falling short' or 'missing the mark' is the Big O understanding of it and I'm pretty sure that's small o too.
Amen to all!
So the best person is the last one to call themselves good.
Attitudes, habits, and patterns of behavior are another can of worms, I think.
https://genius.com/Amy-grant-i-have-decided-lyrics
I've learned some things about right and wrong behavior, some from Christianity and some from other sources, and I try to put them into effect. That's all. Honestly I think that's all any of us do.
This is better than trying a judgmental definition where you have no way of knowing, such as: anyone who is a living part of the Church of Christ, and on the way to Heaven.
And I agree that defining who is, or is not, a Good Christian is problematic. But at the level of beliefs and practices, I think we have a right to exercise judgement. Some widely held beliefs are totally out of line with the Gospel, others are not that bad but a bit silly.
So promoters of what I would hold to be Really Bad Ideas (like the Word of Faith movement, or Christian Nationalism) would be classed by me as False Teachers, which is not that far from Bad Christian. The McSaint Murray McShane said of Edward Irving that "he trembles at the thought that He is going to a Saviour whom he so much loved but so much wronged". That could be true of many.
One example was the time she asked if she could come to church with us, but turned up in a Viz T-shirt with BOLLOCKS printed across it. We said that she was not going to church with us dressed like that. Cue Difficult Relative saying that we were not Good Christians because we were judging by outward appearance.
Agreed! I would even add that there are various religious groups that some Christians call non-Christian but that I would regard as heretical Christians. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses hold extremely heretical doctrine, but their devotion is aimed at Jesus of Nazareth, not Buddha or Ganesh.
I'm not so sure with Mormons - surely if you consider them Christians you should consider Muslims Christian too. They both acknowledge Jesus but deny who he was, and revere a later prophet whose scripture they consider superior to the New Testament (and in both cases consider their scripture to have been divinely revealed to their prophet).
On the other hand, the Mormon doctrine of God is completely out there from a Christian standpoint. There's a fantasy author, Brandon Sanderson, who has a multi-volume fantasy meta-epic the backstory of which is that God's personality has fragmented, and the Dark Lords of some of the worlds in his multiverse are God's negative personality traits. That makes no sense to Christians or Muslims, but it's perfectly comprehensible in Mormon theology.
Which says a lot more about how much Mormonism and conservative protestantism have been inculturated in the US than it does about whether either are Christian.
Yes, but Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God—their notion of how divinity works is very far off (in certain ways I’d say Christianity is closer to Islam where the eternal, transcendent, creator of everything, etc. nature of God is concerned), what with the Doctrine of Eternal Progression and the like, but they do regard Jesus as much more than a prophet, and as their object of worship. Again, I’d say that Mormonism is a very heretical take on Christianity, no question. As for Islam, while they do revere Jesus as a prophet, I don’t think they’re Christian—if you asked them if they worship Jesus they’d say no.
I think the point at issue is that "Good Christian" is two propositions - you have to be a Christian at all before you can be considered a good Christian.
Some branches of Christianity consider other branches not to be Christian. So we have conflicting "authorities" competing for the title.
He is long gone ( along with his avowed aim “ to have a bible in every house in Sydney” and meanwhile the rest of us ( subchristians, ex-christans and never-christians) await the outcome of the conclave.
The principles behind the Matthew 25 passage are sufficient IMHO
‘
Indeed.
No, that’s Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Maybe. But in a case like the one giving rise to the OP, where “good Christian” or “unchristian” is intended as a put-down, any doctrinal distinctions involved in “what makes one ‘Christian?’” are irrelevant, I think.
Noting that one definition of “Christian” as an adjective is “treating other people in a kind or generous way,” I think “Christian” as used in the OP means nothing more than “nice person,” or at most “person we can expect to be nice because they go to church.”
I was about to start strimming and mowing the grass outside the church one weekday morning, when a man came up to me in a most aggressive manner, accusing me of breaking a window in the side of his airport/ferry taxi with a stone thrown up by the strimmer - which I had not yet started to use...
I denied all knowledge (the window might have been keyed), only to be told that *All you f***ing Christians are f***ing hypocrites!*.
I made a noise like a hoop, and rolled off, as he looked as though he was about to physically assault me...
His blanket condemnation of all Christians seemed a bit OTT.
Where?
I can't say I've noticed any Shipmates questioning the authenticity of other Shipmates' Christianity for many, many years.
We may have different views and practices but I don't remember any Shipmate questioning my Christian credentials, for instance, just because I don't agree with them on particular issues.
Nor would I question the authenticity of any professed Christian's faith here irrespective of whether they were RC, Orthodox or Protestant.
As far as the OP goes, all of us who profess the Christian faith in whatever form are 'bad' Christians.
It's all work in progress.
Besides, Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on good behaviour - or bad behaviour come to that.
The example of the Recabites in the OT and the parable of the Good Samaritan in the NT should be enough to indicate that 'outsiders' are just as - if not more - likely to demonstrate decent behaviour than those of us who consider ourselves to be 'inside' the fold or who fixate on doctrinal niceties.
That seems to be the message of Matthew 25.
Whether the user of the phrase themself conforms to the standard is another matter. Some of the examples on this thread indicate that it can be used by people who don't adhere to this standard, to criticise those who do. But it also seems to be used by some people in the sense of "we", of people who (they imagine) are trying to live according to the same standard as they are.
The inclusive, "we", is as broad a grouping as there are self-definitions of what it means to be "christian" (more as an adjective than a noun). And it's a standard that often comes with a significant cultural component - when used in England, for example, referencing a cloud of ideals which incorporate a traditionalised notion of English Church (and maybe overlapping with the even hazier idea of traditional British values).
To illustrate the breadth of definitions, viewing oneself as a "good christian" wouldn't, in itself, be incompatible with support for any of the majority of political parties (aside from those espousing explicitly non-christian ideologies).
Ok. I can't remember when I joined but I'm sure I was around in 2002.
I must admit, whilst I wouldn't question the authenticity of a Mormon's personal faith I would certainly question Mormonism's compatibility with traditional creedal Christianity in its Orthodox, RC and Protestant forms.
That isn't to sit in judgement on their 'final destination' as it were.
The Good Samaritan was an 'outsider' of course whilst the insiders 'passed by on the other side.'
Mother Maria of Paris famously said that when she appeared before the judgement seat of Christ she'd not be asked how many church services she'd attended or how many prostrations she'd made but whether she'd fed the hungry, clothed the naked, etc etc - 'and that is all I shall be asked.'
That doesn't mean, of course that those of us who profess the Christian faith shouldn't attend church or make 'prostrations' or whatever pious practices there might be within our respective churches and traditions.
But it does mean that those certainly aren't the 'be all and end all' nor does it mean that Matthew 25 type actions are 'invalid' unless they are accompanied by Christian faith.
But surely there is another both/and thing going on here?
Or is that too trite and predictable?
Don’t recall your presence in 2002 but that is beside the point.