Defining our terms

I've been in several conversations recently and have noticed that folks don't generally see the value of assigning real meaning to words. The impetus for this post comes from a recent experience. In our day it is unpopular to call yourself Protestant over and against Roman Catholic. On Facebook, the cool thing is to call yourself "Christian - Other" rather than Protestant. One of the sentiments I've heard goes something like "I just want to get my beliefs from the Bible and not draw a man-made circle for others to be in or out of. We Christians can all come to God through Jesus by faith alone and study the Word for our doctrine." Amen to (part of) that! But we should realize, that is a distinctly Protestant statement. The one who utters that somewhat dismissive phrase, is indebted to the Reformation for its very existence!

Well, I think my desire to write about this comes from my desire to be helpful, so here are some thoughts that may be good to elucidate:
1) As God has spoken in human language, words have meaning.
2) God has glorified Himself by affirming certain meanings and denying others.
3) To be most charitable and helpful to others, we should have accurate definitions of meanings and words, especially in our affirmations and denials about God.
4) In places where the differences between words are actually substantial, to dismiss distinctions is, at best ignorant and, at worst, deceitful.

Now, say I have a friend who grew up as a Roman Catholic but has since come to believe and treasure that he is saved by faith alone in Christ alone. Roman Catholicism has explicitly rejected (with anathemas) the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. If words have meanings, then my friend has ceased to be a Roman Catholic. Despite how much he may enjoy the traditions or want to please his family, he has left the Roman Catholic religion and come over to Protestantism (though the actual affiliation process may differ). The Roman Catholic Church gets to define what it is from the top down. That's the privilege ESPECIALLY of a private institution.

It will not do to merely say, "Well, I'm just a Christian!" or, "I just believe the Bible." As long as hundreds of other groups that believe wildly divergent things claim that name, it will not suffice. I definitely understand the sentiment because of the desire to have what we hope is a pure and unalloyed biblical faith. And nobody believes that they are merely following the traditions of men. It feels like you are conceding ground and authority to admit that you are in line with anybody but the Bible. But it is frequently unhelpful, misleading and even prideful to call yourself by the broadest possible term, as if yours is the pinnacle of such a belief.

I can imagine a conversation that would typify the confusion and general unhelpfulness of this practice:
"So, are you a person of faith?"
"Yes, I'm a Christian."
"Oh, I've run into Christians before. You believe that Jesus appeared to the Native Americans (Mormonism)."
"No, I don't believe that. I'm a Christian."
"But the guys I ran into called themselves Christians as well. They even read the Bible. Is there a difference between you?"
"Yes. I'm a Christian."
"What kind of Christian?"
"Just a regular Christian."

Now, in another culture, the name "Christian" might actually be helpful.

We don't need to refuse naming our belief just because we're afraid of joining a humanly conceived team. It's just helpful and can even be used in the service of evangelism. I've shared the gospel with many Roman Catholics by just asking them if they know the difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholic belief (because the difference IS the gospel). The human mind, as God made it, naturally makes categories. It's not sinful to employ those categories.

Now, I understand the danger in the other ditch: endlessly, joylessly, factiously, ruthlessly, pointlessly splitting hairs. Drawing such clear lines that every person has his place and none can cross anywhere. My point is, rather, that the lines should be absolutely clear where they matter most. Historic Protestants really do believe that the gospel was recovered from a church that obscures it in the Reformation. There's no third way here. I so appreciate Roman Catholics who also get this.

I can also understand folks who don't want to be known right away or to be labeled without qualification. This is a danger when others, either out of hatred or innocent ignorance, will import all kinds of caricatures into your label. As a Calvinist, I understand this well. I've taken a lesson from Tom Ascol. When he's asked, "Are you a Calvinist?" he responds, "What do you mean by Calvinist?"

So, to try and find the safe way between the ditches...the lines to be drawn and words to be defined are for the sake of the precious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The above lines are drawn to distinguish, promote and cherish God's singular glory in sola Scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus and soli Deo gloria. It is crucial for us to divide from those would demure from these things. But those of us who affirm these MUST be united for the gospel.

Man, posts can get really long very easily.