What Does the Word "Christian" Mean?

Nowhere in the four canonical gospels are the disciples of Jesus called “Christians.” As “disciples” they were learning the Jesus-way of life and thought. As “apostles” they were sent out to practice the Jesus-way of life and thought in relation to others. But they were not called “Christians” by Jesus, or by anyone else, and certainly not by themselves.

Acts 11:26 - By that time the groups of believers in Jesus, scattered throughout the Mediterranean world, were talking about him as “the Anointed” (Gk. Christos), the one ordained of God to save the world. Outsiders coined the adjective, christianoi, probably with derogatory undertones, to match the outspoken confession of the followers of Jesus. The writer of Acts affirms (1) that the term was used first at Antioch, and implies (2) that the term was applied to the disciples by persons other than themselves. 

Acts 26:28 - “Christian” clearly comes from the mouth of an outsider, an accuser with political power in Judea. His question is more a sarcastic taunt than a sincere inquiry. Notice that Paul’s reply does not repeat the name “Christian” from Agrippa’s mouth. Paul, the ridiculed and accused believer in Jesus, is in chains. At the time of writing Acts, “Christian” was not a title attached to people in polite society, people like Agrippa. It was more a term of shame than honor. In Paul’s case in the narrative of Acts, the shame of chains.

1 Pet 4:16 - when people were labeled “Christian” for believing in Jesus as the Anointed of God in the socio-political context of First Peter, the label was not a badge of honor, but of disgrace. There was no conventional Christos to save believers from their suffering. Yet they continued to confess Jesus as the Messiah. Their accusers thus employed the derisive “Christian” label to degrade and persecute them. But the suffering believers in the context of First Peter are encouraged to bear the name, ironically, to glorify God.

            - excerpt from V. George Shillington, Jesus and Paul Before Christianity: Their World and Work in Retrospect, 2011

When God Was Obvious

Why doesn’t God intervene more? Why doesn’t he directly feed the hungry, heal all the sick and stop all wars? If God really exists, at the very least why doesn’t he make himself more obvious? People who ask such questions often assume that if God ever did spectacularly reveal himself, all doubts would vanish. Everyone would line up to believe in him.
 
Astonishing Reactions
 
Exodus tells of a time when God made himself perfectly obvious. The plagues on Egypt revealed his mighty power. An enormous miracle at the Red Sea provided sensational deliverance. A recurring miracle supplied food for the Israelites every morning. And, if questions about God’s existence arose, doubters needed only to look to the ever-present glory cloud or pillar of fire. It must have been hard to be an atheist in those days.
Yet every instance of God’s faithfulness seemed to summon up astonishing human unfaithfulness. The same Israelites who had watched God crush a pharaoh quaked at the first sign of Egyptian chariots. Three days after a miraculous escape across the Red Sea they were grumbling to Moses and God about water supplies.
 
A month or so later, when hunger pangs began to gnaw at them, they bitterly complained, “If only we had died by the LORD’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death” (Exodus 16:3). God responded with a provision of manna (that would continue for 40 years) and quail, but the Israelites were soon grousing about the water supplies again.
 
The Great Rebellion
 
Exodus 32 shows the Israelites at their worst. People who had eaten manna for breakfast, who had just solemnly agreed to keep every word of the covenant, who were at that moment standing beside a mountain stormy with the Lord’s presence—those very people proceeded to melt down their gold jewelry and flagrantly flout the first commandment. “Stiff-necked,” God called the Israelites as he burned in anger against them. Only Moses’ eloquent appeal saved their lives.
 
The history of the Israelites should nail a coffin lid on the notion that impressive displays of God’s power will guarantee faith (Jesus would later say, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead,” [Luke 16:31].) People who had everyday proof of God demonstrated only one thing: the monotonous consistency of human nature.
 
The offenders would pay for their acts by wandering 40 years in a desolate wilderness while a new, untainted generation grew up to replace them. But a pattern was beginning to emerge: If the Israelites failed God in the shadow of Mount Sinai, how would they possibly withstand the seduction of new cultures in the promised land? The next generation, too, would fail God, as would all their descendants. The old covenant, as Paul would so convincingly argue in the book of Galatians, succeeded mainly by proving undeniably the need for a new one.
Life Questions
 

- from NIV Student Bible

《诗篇》

《诗篇》流露的情感是这么的多姿多彩，它的格式自然也变化多端，各有其心境与风味。

其中有宣召诗，呼召听众同来赞美上帝，邀请我们“向耶和华歌唱”。这种诗歌常用于敬拜前的宣召。诗的内容告诉我们为何要赞美上帝：赞美上帝的创造，上帝在历史上大能的作为，上帝赐给敬拜者的好处。这种诗歌通常以欢呼结束，在上帝面前有着不可言喻的喜乐。

第二种是感恩诗。开始也是赞美，然后回顾过去一段悲痛之情(受伤的情感或已痊愈，或正在医治中)。这些诗有属个人的，也有整体的。结语通常是“耶和华垂听了我”、“将我从祸坑中救出来”，或其他类似的话。诗末所表达的是一种胜过痛苦忧伤的喜乐。

第三种是向上帝求救的哀歌，为数不少。诗人一开始就呼求上帝，将惶恐不安的问题一股脑儿地向上帝倾诉。然后他向上帝恳求具体的帮助，甚至还列出为何上帝应介入的原因。在确信上帝会垂听并应允后，诗人以许愿结束祷告；这许愿大部分是保证要更加感谢赞美上帝，更加热切地为他活。这类诗歌有些是私人性的(呼求疾病得治、沉冤得雪)，有些是整体性的(求上帝保守国家免受敌人侵害或战败)。后者结束时，通常会再次申明上帝必如往常一样会保护他的百姓。总的来说，哀歌或乞求的诗歌约占《诗篇》三分之一以上。

第四种是信心的凯歌，虽然强敌当前，困难重重，似乎上帝不再眷顾，但敬拜者仍然信心坚固，他安息于上帝里面，全然信靠。这些诗歌虽有哀叹，但诗人内心的平安却使他胜过眼前的困境。

第五种是记念诗，缅怀上帝在过去(特别是出埃及时)所施行的大能。回顾建国之时所蒙的恩，诗人很自然地涌出赞美。这些诗歌记满了上帝大能的作为，并邀听者：要向他唱诗歌颂，谈论他一切奇妙的作为。(诗105:2) 叙述上帝的作为就是赞美他，因为这些诗具体说明上帝是怎样恩待他的百姓。《诗篇》136篇，每一节后面都有句赞美的话：“他的慈爱永远长存。”

第六种是朝圣诗，是以色列人庆祝特定宗教节日时所咏唱的诗歌。上帝吩咐摩西，以色列男人每年必须上圣殿三次：逾越节、五旬节、住棚节，这三次都是为欢庆上帝以往的美善和赐福。朝圣旅程的高潮之一就是惊见圣城的那一刻：“万军之耶和华啊，你的居所何等可爱！”(诗84:1)不论在旅途上或在圣城内，朝圣者都在唱赞美感恩的歌。

第七种是智慧诗，指点听者分辨愚昧邪恶与智慧敬虔之路。《诗篇》第1篇就开宗明义教导我们，要明智地活在上帝面前的重要功课：不从恶人的计谋，不站罪人的道路，不坐亵慢人的座位这人便为有福。

- 侯士庭，《转化生命的友谊》, 遨游旧约（下）

Praying Hands

阿尔布雷特·丢勒的名画《祷告的手》，其背后蕴含着两个好朋友的故事。

据说1490年有两位新进的艺术家，他们是好朋友，其中一位是丢勒，另一位是耐斯坦。当时两人的生活相当穷困，为了成为艺术家，必须充分利用时间干活维生。然而工作的辛苦和忙碌，影响了他们的艺术训练。

面对困境的无奈，他俩抽签决定一人去谋生赚钱，支持另一人到艺术学校进修。丢勒中签，得以随名师习艺，耐斯坦只好更加辛苦地挑起养活两人的担子。

日后丢勒达成梦想，成为相当有名气的艺术家，这时他已有能力支持耐斯坦去进修学画。然而，令丢勒大为震惊的是，他发现耐斯坦在吃重的工作下已使双手扭曲变形。耐斯坦不可能成为艺术家了，他为了信守和朋友之间的约定，牺牲了自己的艺术前途。

有一天，丢勒看见耐斯坦合起双手，屈膝跪下祷告，扭曲的双手象征着爱的祭献给上帝，丢勒将眼前所看到那象征祷告意义的一幕，立刻画成素描。自此以后，那幅象征代祷意义的杰作，不断提醒我们：祷告与友谊彼此相属。然而，更美的是，听我们祷告的那位，他的双手也曾为我们被刺穿。

——侯士庭，《转化生命的友谊》，18-19。

To believe in Jesus

 Note on “believing” in the Fourth Gospel The noun “belief” (πίστις) and the verb “believe” (πιστεύω) are each used (by a strange coincidence) 243 times in the NT. Neither word occurs in 2 John or 3 John, while Col, Phlm, 2 Pet and Rev use only the noun. These two terms represent the appropriate human relationship to God and Christ, and they point to the essence of Christianity and its most distinctive feature in comparison with Greek and Jewish thought.
 
John never uses πίστις in the Four Gospel, although it is found once in 1 John (5: 4) and four times in Revelation (2: 13, 19; 13: 10; 14: 12). His preference for πιστεύω over πίστις illustrates his preference for verbs over nouns. The verb “believe” (πιστεύω) is very common in the Four Gospel (98 uses), so it is not surprising this Gospel has been called “the Gospel of Belief.” Sometimes the verb refers to facts (“ believe that,” “be convinced that/ of,” 9: 18; 11: 26b; 16: 27; 20: 31a) and sometimes things (4: 50), but often it is a person who is believed (πιστεύω with dative) where “believe” means “give intellectual credence to (the testimony of)” (4: 21; 6: 30) or “entrust oneself to” (5: 24, 38; 8: 31).
 
But John has a characteristic idiom, “believe in” (πιστεύω with the prep. εἰς; only 9 of the 45 NT uses are outside the Four Gospel and 1 John), used only of a divine object of faith (surprisingly, of God only in 12: 44c; 14: 1a, but usually of Christ), never of a human object of faith. It is in Christ that God meets the individual in salvation so there are not two competing objects of human faith. 
 
This distinctive prepositional phrase “believe in” depicts the total committal of one’s total self to the person of Christ as Messiah and Lord, something more than an intellectual acceptance of the message of the gospel and a recognition of the truth about Christ, although these aspects are involved. For John, belief involves not only recognition and acceptance of the truth but also adherence and allegiance to Jesus as the Truth (14: 6).

 To believe in Jesus is
to come to him (5: 40; 6: 35, 37, 44– 45, 65; 7: 37),
to receive him (1: 12),
to drink the water he offers (4: 13– 14),
to follow him (8: 12), 
to love him (14: 5, 21, 23; 16: 27).
 

---  Murray J. Harris, John, B&H Publishing.

What is the Gospel?

We need a more biblical understanding of the gospel. I suspect if I were to ask you what the gospel is, a number of you would say it's forgiveness of sins. Or, if you're in the divinity school, you'd say justification by faith alone. Thank God, forgiveness of sins is one very important part of the gospel. I never want to stand before our holy God on any basis other than the fact that Jesus died on the cross for my sins. But if the gospel is no more than forgiveness of sins, then you and I can accept Jesus Christ, get our one-way ticket to heaven, and go on being exactly the same racist, environmentally unconcerned, unjust people we've always been.
 
Jesus tells us that the gospel is more than that. Have you ever gone through the Gospels and noticed how Jesus defines the gospel, the good news? Mark 1:14-15 says, and it's a summary of Jesus' whole preaching:
 
After John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying [in other words, here's the definition of the gospel], "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news."
 
Virtually every time Jesus defines the gospel, he defines it as the good news of the kingdom. What on earth does he mean?
 
Remember what the prophets had said? They looked ahead to a time in the future, beyond the injustice and disobedience of the people of Israel, and they said, "Some time in the future, the Messiah will come. The messianic order will break in, and God will bring a new right relationship with himself. Our sins will be forgiven and the law will be written on our hearts, and there will be a new right relationship with neighbors. There will be transformation vertically and horizontally, and there will be shalom, justice, and wholeness in society."
 
Then, Jesus comes along and claims to be the Messiah, and says that the messianic kingdom the prophets had predicted was breaking into the present, in his own person and word. He meant the two things the prophets had talked about. He meant a vertical thing. He meant that we get into his kingdom not by good works, not by any kind of works righteousness. We get into his kingdom by sheer grace, because God loves even sinners, and eagerly wants them to change.
 
But there's more to this good news of the kingdom than that, because Jesus goes on to call a circle of disciples, a new community. He wasn't an isolated, individualistic prophet. He formed a new society, and this new society began to live differently, to live his kingdom ways. They began to challenge society at all the points that society was wrong, and they cared about the whole person, not just the soul.
 
So what is the gospel then? It's not just forgiveness of sins, although thank God, it includes that. I am still a sinner, and I want to trust in the cross, but it's more than that. It's the fantastic news that the messianic kingdom has broken into history. Now, in the power of the Holy Spirit, you and I can begin to live differently. And in that new community, all of the brokenness, the social, the economic, the ethnic and the emotional brokenness of this old world is being overcome in Jesus' new community. Matthew 9:35 summarizes this: "Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and curing every disease and every sickness."
 
Teaching, preaching, and healing. That's what Jesus was about. That's what I'm pleading for. He cared about the whole person. Jesus never thought that all you needed was a good life here on earth, and then everything would be fine. In fact, he said that it's better to lose the whole world than lose your relationship with God and Christ. But he never drew the conclusion that we Christians sometimes do. Sometimes Christians today say, "Well, that means that we should spend most of our time on evangelism, and if we've got a little bit of time left over we can care about the poor, and so on." Jesus never drew that conclusion.
 

--- Ronald J. Sider, “The Whole Gospel for The Whole Person” 

in A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions, 2010.

 

Have You No Shame (2)

The vocabulary for honor and shame is difficult for Westerners to keep straight, not least because though we still use the terms honor and shame, we use them differently.
 
First, shame is not negative in honor/shame cultures; shaming is. Technically, in these cultures, shame is a good thing: it indicates that you and your community know the proper way to behave. You have a sense of shame; if you didn’t, you would have no shame. You would be shameless. This is different from being shamed. When an older American asks, “Have you no shame?” they mean, “Don’t you know the proper thing to do?” When one is censured for not having a sense of shame, for being shameless, then one is shamed.
 
We know that all this can be confusing. But remember that languages tend not to have words for ideas that are not considered important. Since honor/shame isn’t important in English, we are lacking in the words we need. Make no mistake, though: shame is important. It was why the Jewish officials killed Jesus. They didn’t kill him for going around preaching “love one another” or for healing the sick or for performing miracles. They killed him because he had taken their honor—a limited resource.
 
Actually, the Spirit uses both inner conviction (a sense of guilt) and external conviction (a sense of shame). While the ancient world and most of the non-Western world contain honor/shame cultures and the West is made up of innocence/guilt cultures, God can work effectively in both.

- E. Richards & Brandon J O'Brien, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: 

Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, 2012.