'Christian'

I just bought C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity.' I've only made it to the end of the first chapter, and already, I'm loving it. Expect many more blogs with quotes from this book and on the topics it discusses.
On this, the first of such blogs, I want to post on the topic of the word Christian.

From Lewis' preface:

Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed-against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: 'Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?' or 'May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?' Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every available quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot , without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentlemen originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone 'a gentleman' you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not 'a gentleman' you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-'Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in the sense Edward if far more truly a gentleman than John?' They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the s ame thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man 'a gentleman' in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is 'a gentleman' becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object. (A 'nice' meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentlean is now a uselss word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of CHrist. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As or the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refind sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they wil mean that they think of him a good man. But that way of using the word wll be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accpeted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we an all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian that to say he is not a Christian.

As my good friend Mark would say, "How good's that?"

I've had a debate or two on this topic, usually where the other person in the discussion is the "objector" that Lewis references. Words need to really mean something. In our culture of political correctness and the need of not merely tolerating and accepting other beliefs and point of views, but embracing and trying to somehow adopt them into our own while still maintaining just a shred of the original(s), we have stumbled upon a great predicament. How does one actually communicate what he is trying to say without saying all that he is not trying to say? In order to properly expalin or describe things, we are coming to a place of having to explain ourselves to the 'n'th degree. Things that could have easily been said in a few sentences now require entire paragraphs with prefaces and conclusions so as to be clear and polite and "charitable, spiritual, sensitive." I sometimes find this frustrating, and actually have a mixed stance on the issue. I'm one who wants everyone to feel acknowledged, heard, and understood. Part of doing that is speaking in a way that works for everyone and is clear and precise about what you are and aren't intending to communicate. While I believe in doing this, I've found I only need to because so many people don't think about the communicator's intentions, but of the words themselves alone.
This being said, I think it's up to each of us to examine what it means to us. What it means between you and God. You can use whatever term(s) you like to describe yourself and your faith to yourself, but let's keep the use of words accurate and proper, as Lewis implores.
Specifically on the point of the word Christian, this excerpt of preface has helped to give me some peace and sense on the use of it. I hope that you benefit from reading it here, and reading my thoughts on it.