Subject: Ex-Christian? No Such Thing!
I come across folks who claim to be ex-Christians. There is no such thing. Once a Christian, always a Christian. Yes, a Christian can become a prodigal and even think that he or she is now an atheist. Nevertheless, they will return eventually.
Whether such a claim is true or not will turn largely on how we define "Christian." Is being a Christian dependent upon having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? That's poor definition of Christianity, but it is one used by many evangelicals, especially those most likely to make a claim like the above. Unfortunately, it is possible to end a personal relationship that you develop with someone, so under that definition being an ex-Christian is possible.
Is being a Christian a matter of mentally accepting a particular creed? That conception of Christianity has been very common through history, but it is possible to mentally reject a creed and, therefore, stop being a Christian. What if we define Christianity as membership in a church or other Christian community? Well, that can also be ended and lead to a person being an ex-Christian. There doesn't seem to be any definition of "Christian" that would prevent a person from being an ex-Christian.
Then there are those who thought they were Christians. These are the sorry folks who have been misguided into believing that they are Christians. After years of a sad "pretend" life, they may walk away claiming that they are ex-Christians. They were "never" Christians in the first place.
There is some debate over whether certain people are "real" Christians or not. Unfortunately, such a debate invariably hinges upon accepting some form of a No True Scotsman fallacy. Absolutely anyone could probably be described as a "pretend" Christian given some definition of "Christian." But why accept the definition which excludes the person in question rather than their definition, one which probably does include to them?
Some definitions of Christianity are very exclusive while others are very inclusive. Personally, I see no reason to assume that the exclusive ones are correct and thereby exclude large numbers of people who profess to be Christians and, by all appearances, have as much justification to the "Christian" label as anyone else.
As I see it, my son will always be my son whether he loves me or strays away. Even if he "disowns" me as his dad, he still remains my son. Once a son, always a son. In short, he can never become my ex-son.
I really don't see how the analogy to a son is supposed to work. A person can be a son in two ways: biological or social. A biological son can't stop being a son because you can't change biology. A social son can't stop being a son (after a certain point) because it's based upon a particular type of relationship that existed in the past and you can't change the past. Thus, if a person can't stop being a "son" it's because of som facet of reality (biology, past) which is unalterable.
Now, where is the similarity to being a Christian? I'm unable to identify any definitions of Christianity which are based upon some unalterable characteristic. The closest that might come to this would be a strong Calvinist notion of "election," whereby a person is saved before they are born and there is nothing they can do to keep from being saved. Arguably, that person will be a Christian because God wills it and there is nothing they can do to stop it - not become an atheist, not convert to Islam, nothing. However, this author does not seem to be arguing for such a Calvinism and, besides, this sort of "elect" person probably wouldn't claim to be an ex-Christian in the first place.
Note: This message originally appeared in the Agnosticism / Atheism forum. Read the whole thread. More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
No comments:
Post a Comment