I am convinced that Christians need new definitions. Read the below paragraph…
The world has lost its sense of sin and immorality is rampant. Now, more than ever before, Christians are being charged to call the world to repent, to bring the Gospel to the unbelievers and the lost, and to spread the kingdom of God. If Christians remain silent through sins of omission, the unbelieving world will lose out on the reward of eternal life and run the risk of plunging into hell. God is calling all believers to go to war against the ways of the world, because the end is near. He will judge each of us based on what we have done, or what we have failed to do. Remember that Jesus came to save the world. For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whoever would believe would not perish but have everlasting life; but whoever would not believe, condemnation.
Here is the weird thing to me. If I read this very paragraph out loud at a local church, I am pretty sure that most Christians would have a completely different idea as to what it means than what my intention or meaning is. We need new definitions.
Here is the tragic thing to me. If I read this very paragraph out loud to a group of people who don’t profess the Christian faith, I am also pretty sure that they would have a completely different idea as to what it means than what my intention or meaning is. We need new definitions.
In all sincere honesty, I truly believe that the above paragraph, if read out loud to Christians of the 1st century, would be interpreted completely differently than the way many Christians would understand it or apply it today. To start, reread the paragraph, and then slowly go down the list below:
How do you define:
-World
-Sin
-Immorality
-Christians
-Repent
-Gospel
-Unbelievers
-Lost
-Kingdom of God
-Sins of omission
-Reward of eternal life
-Hell
-Believers going to war
-The ways of the world
-The end is near
-He will judge us on what we have done or failed to do
-Jesus
-Save the world
-Loved the world
-Believe
-Condemnation
Lately, I’ve been telling people that I feel called to reach out to the lost. I think that they think that my understanding of “lost” is “non-Christian.” But that is not what I mean by the lost. I mean human beings, created in God’s image, suffering and battling with despair, depression, brokenness, suffering, darkness… in this regard, “the lost” just as easily can refer to many Christians as well as many who are not professed Christians.
Mother Teresa was onced asked about her thoughts on Ghandi, and she said, “He is the greatest Christian I know.” Ghandi was a professed Hindu, not a Christian. Hmmm… what does that mean? Mother Teresa was considered by many professed Christians to be a living saint when she walked this earth, serving the poorest of the poor. A saint is typically said to be someone who imitates Christ and is sustained by the grace of God. So what does it mean when an imitator of Christ, sustained by God’s grace, names a Hindu as the greatest Christian she knows? What does that mean about how she defined the term “Christian”?
A lot of people say they refuse to believe in the concept of hell. And yet, I’ve seen, experienced, and lived through hell inside the locked doors of a detention facility. I’ve known people who have traveled to other parts of the world and seen hell in person, through witnessing children die slow and painful deaths due to hunger. Hell is very real, but how one defines “hell” is the question. I’ve also seen heaven in person, through witnessing someone help clean up the garbage surrounding a homeless person and then eating lunch with him. A lot of people speak of heaven and hell only as future destinations and concepts. But Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven was already among us, and challenged his hearers to pursue eternal life, insisting time and again through parables, teachings, and miracles, that eternal life was not just something that awaited you when you die, but begins here and now, today, this very moment. How do you define “heaven,” “hell,” “eternal life”? How did Jesus define them?
In the early generations of the Christian movement, to proclaim “Jesus is Lord” was a direct knock against Roman powers and government, which claimed “Caesar is Lord.” It was an outward way for Christians to say they followed the way of Jesus, not the ways and methods of Caesar and government power. Terms like “Pax Christi,” the Peace of Christ, were political terms used to directly contradict “Pax Romana,” the Peace of Rome, which claimed that peace came through the sword and might of Roman power. Christians insisted that the Peace of Christ came through service, love, and self-sacrifice. Today, we are often told that America is the last great hope of the world, and that peace and freedom are not free, which is why we must go to war to ensure peace and freedom, both here and abroad. “Pax Americana”? What do you mean when you say Jesus is your Lord? To Christians of the 1st century, it was essentially the same as proclaiming, “Jesus is President, and we will follow his way, not the ways and methods of worldly power and government.” Worldly power claims that peace is guaranteed through violence, and that money makes the world go round. The Christian movement, from its inception, believed that peace was guaranteed through love, forgiveness, and reconciliation, and that God identifies himself with the suffering, the homeless, the forgotten, and the impoverished. How do you define “Lord”? How do you define “world”? How do you define “freedom”? How do you define “peace”? How did persecuted Christians of the 1st century define them? How do Christians in America define them today? Where is the kingdom of God found today? Where is the kingdom of Caesar found?
We need new definitions.
The purpose of this article is not to give new dogmatic definitions, but hopefully to challenge some deep interior questions in our hearts. I know that the temptation will arise to jump to conclusions and assumptions about what I’ve written and what I’m trying to get at; but in all honesty, any definitive conclusions or premature assumptions that are thought of will be nothing more than speculation. I have intentionally worded this in a certain way and fashion. Read what I’ve written and do your best to not read into it anything that is not there. Simply take what I’ve written for what it is and question yourself as to how you define these terms. Resist the urge to question whether or not I’m trying to lean to a “conservative” side or a “liberal side”, and just ask yourself how you define the terms. Because I am now convinced that we need new definitions.
