Christianization

In modern times, there have been numerous accusations that Christians want to Christianize the world.  However, the popular concept of Christianization is extremely distorted.  Proper evangelism is dramatically different from this, being both founded on analogy of universal experience with basic Christian theology (i.e., parables) and backed up by the evangelist’s personal sanctification.

The primary problem with this concept is probably the tendency of cross-cultural evangelists to promote their own cultural taste alongside the Gospel.  Culture and authentic Christianity, while always mixed in practice and often confused, are not the same thing.  If any part of a Christian’s culture obstructs evangelism, it is to be adapted – at least for a specific situation.  This is of course a very difficult skill, and adaptation may mean that a different person represents Christ to a certain group.

The record of wars in the Old Testament has often been used to justify atrocities, including the Crusades, the Inquisition and, with less involvement (maybe even none) from church officials, the Holocaust.  Modern Christians, myself included, have a deep loathing for any mention of these events.  It is therefore comforting, in a very biased way, that God’s war is now for souls and against sin rather than for Israel’s purity and against sinful ethnicities.

I want to make one final point which will reinforce both of the others.  Like the medical profession, Christianity has seen its share of malpractice.  But unlike physicians, Christians are often supposed guilty by association for what their fellows have done.  Yet several verses in Scripture confer a sense of duty which is similar to but greater than that of the Hippocratic Oath.  So I must ask anyone who wishes to blame modern Christians for historical atrocities, what is your rationale for doing so?

So in short, I refuse to apply the term “Christianization” to legitimate evangelism because it has been so tainted by historical usage.  For an explanation of what legitimate evangelism is, see Evangelism.

What is a Christian?

A random internet person recently asked this question, adding that his own definition was “a kind and just person.”  I can understand where he’s coming from, given that, for example, “America is a Christian nation.”  “Christian” is a very old word and, for nearly two millenniums, it has also been a very popular word in some section of the world or another.

Over time, the popular understanding of a word, especially a popular word, can change drastically because people gradually ascribe to it new meanings slightly different (in the speaker’s mind) from the one(s) previously known.  Thus “happy” (fortunate) became “happy” (glad) and “gay” (glad) became “gay” (homosexual).  This happens everywhere in every language to the degree that the language is used liberally.  It’s a reason we have trouble reading ancient text supposedly authored in our current language; indeed, it’s one of the reasons we have so many languages.

So, back to the question:  What is a Christian?  In my opinion, there’s no good reason to abandon the original meaning of the word.  The word is first recorded in Acts 11:25-26, where it means “follower of the Christ.”  “Christ” is a Greek translation of the Jewish “Messiah,” which implies the Jewish concept of God.

To consider someone a Christian, I require that they (earnestly desire to) agree with Jesus on every point.  And the New Testament canon is the most reliable account of Jesus and His contemporary followers. Although there may still be a bit of subjectivity, it’s mostly objective; I cannot see a secular humanist, Moslem, or any other person whom I would consider “lost,” except of course members of ‘Christianish’ cults, claiming the label given those bounds.  And in the case of such cultists, I believe they’re on very shaky ground to say the least.