Franklin Graham, Jr. scandalized the talking heads on “Morning Joe”
earlier this week when he appeared on the program and suggested that
President Obama might not be a “Christian” (see video below). I
appreciate Rev. Graham and his bold commitment to Christ, but I think
there was much in what he said that was muddled and inconsistent and
that probably did very little to win folks over to his position. I for
one wish that the conversation had gone differently.
Having said that, one item that needed to be clarified was exactly
what is meant by the term “Christian.” It was very clear that Graham and
his interlocutors were operating on two totally different views of what
it means to be a Christian. For Graham, being Christian is synonymous
with being born again and with all that the new birth entails. For the
“Morning Joe” crew, being a Christian is simply about being personally
affiliated with a church or a group that professes to be Christian. The
former is a normative definition while the latter is a sociological one. Which definition is right? The normative or the sociological?
In terms of common usage, the term “Christian” can have both
meanings. When someone says that Prince Charles is a Christian prince,
they are using the sociological sense. They are not trying to say that
he has been born again and professes the true faith. On the contrary,
everyone knows that quite the opposite is true. Charles’ Christian
affiliation is one that he was born into. It is a historical connection
more than a personal conviction. There are many people who would claim
to be “Christian” in this sociological sense. Continue at Denny Burk
No comments:
Post a Comment