ABSTRACT: Many self-professed Christians define the term "Christian" as someone who accepts the doctrine of the Trinity, a sensible definition based on mainstream Christian beliefs, while others (especially those outside the mainstream) prefer the more inclusive definition of one who believes Jesus is the Son of God who came to Earth as the promised Messiah to save humanity from their sins. Such definitions require one to believe in Christian metaphysics while disregarding axiology, despite the fact that the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament focus almost exclusively on the latter. I propose a definition of "Christian" based on acceptance of the values taught in Matthew chapters 5 through 7 as more in keeping with the true message of Christ.

The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, if New Testament accounts of his life are to be believed, are primarily ethical in nature. After his death, his followers and their converts created a more complete philosophy and eventually hijacked the term to refer to followers of their own particular metaphysical interpretation of Christianity. In fact, this is taken so far that in Latin America the term "cristiano" is used by evangelicals to explicitly exclude Catholics, members of the oldest surviving Christian faith¹. This fervent animosity is ironic from a faith centered around one who taught men to "Love [their] enemies"². The sad result is that the term "Christian" can be, and frequently is, applied to those who believe in the godhood of Jesus while at the same time rejecting his teachings.

A definition of "Christianity" that would bring more respect to the term would be centered primarily in the teachings of Jesus and only secondarily in the teachings about him. This would ironically have the potential to include some atheists and agnostics under the umbrella of Christianity while excluding most self-proclaimed Christians. Irony notwithstanding, the definition would be appropriate considering it centers particularly in the teachings of the one whose given surname it utilizes. I would particularly propose that "Christian" be defined to refer to someone who accepts the ethical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as expounded in Matthew chapters 5 through 7, arguably a thorough summary of his philosophy and the most transcendental ethical teachings of all time, and "Christianity" should be defined as the whole of those who accept those ethical teachings.

Admittedly this definition will be controversial, since it doesn't require belief in the central doctrine of mainstream contemporary Christianity: that one must accept Christ in order to be saved. Yet that doctrine was not taught by Jesus, but his followers³. Jesus, on the other hand, taught that "if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you"⁴. Likewise those that don't forgive won't be forgiven. No exception is made for the one who vocally accepted Christ as his personal savior. Where popular exegesis of apostolic works contradicts the plain teachings of Christ, I, for one, would consider it wise to allow the words of the latter to take precedence, seeing as the former originates with mere followers of our eponymous leader. Furthermore: "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" and "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God" indicate that the zealous believer who puts Paul's teachings above those of Jesus may be in for an unpleasant surprise at judgment day while another kind soul who didn't believe the former's insistence that there would be a judgement may find himself in much better fortunes.

The practical result of this redefinition would be that we accept as our Christian brethren any who put forth a good faith effort to follow the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, regardless of their belief or lack of belief in other, secondary aspects of Christianity such as the divinity of Christ or his role as savior of mankind. We may regard those secondary aspects as a source of our faith, but we are forced acknowledge that the fundamental principles of Christianity must be those taught by Jesus himself. This additionally means that we must reject the efforts of modern day scribes and pharisees to limit the term "Christian" to believers in the secondary aspects, particularly in light of the fact that the vast majority of them do not deserve to bear the title in the first place⁵.

This definition also draws attention to the fact that our first priority must be to follow the ethical teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. This would quickly propel Christianity into a much more respectable light, as it leaves no room for animosity towards Muslims, atheists, or any other group. Indeed contemporary self-professed Christians give no shortage of lip service to the term agape⁶, but are loath to confess that its practical application is precisely the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount.

The appropriate meaning of "Christian" then is one who follows Christ. And to follow Christ we must first base our lives around his teachings, including (I would say particularly) the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew chapters 5 through 7. We can believe whatever else we want about Christ, but it is only secondary to the heart of the matter. It may be extremely unpleasant to have to loosen slightly our grasp on the doctrine of the atonement, the trinity or godhead, or any other of our pet beliefs, but if we are to believe the man who actually went up on the cross, it's not a necessary prerequisite to inheriting the kingdom of heaven. As for me, I don't believe Jesus was a liar, and so from now on I will use the term "Christian" in the context it should have had all along.

Footnotes

1. See "Percepciones de Católicos y Evangélicos" in Masferrer Kan, Elio, ed. "Sectas o Iglesias: Viejas o nuevas religiones" Plaza y Valdés Editores, 2000, p.219 for a description of the relationship between Catholics and Evangelicals in Mexico. A quick Google search for "Cristianos y Católicos" will bring up many examples of the former term being used explicitly to exclude the latter, including at the time of this writing "Diferencia entre Cristianos y Católicos? - Yahoo! Respuestas" <http://espanol.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100718060838AAbciG1> and "¿Son Cristianos Los Catolicos?" <http://www.chick.com/es/reading/tracts/0506/0506_01.asp>.

2. Matthew 5:44. Citations from the King James version of the Holy Bible.

3. Romans 10:9 is probably the most oft-repeated exposition of this doctrine, published in countless tracts spread around at countless events and non-events. The point, however, is that the Epistle to the Romans was written by Paul, not by Jesus. Whether or not Paul was inspired by God in his writings, it still makes sense to hold the teachings that purportedly came directly out of Jesus' mouth as the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and accept Paul's teachings at best as an exposition of secondary aspects of Christian faith.

4. Matthew 6:14.

5. The teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters 5 through 7, are incredibly strict, thus excluding the vast majority of professed "Christians" from the title if we use them as a definition.

6. I find it particularly comical that the domain name agape.com at the time of this writing quotes from the New Testament, yet focuses entirely on making money, much of it through arguably dishonest means (such as multi-level marketing). In their own words, "our mission is to honor God, develop people, pursue excellence and generate profits." Never mind "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth" and "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon" (Matthew 6:19 and 6:24 respectively).