I have enrolled in "The History of Christianity" at a college here in
St. Louis. The teacher of the class is what I consider to be
closed-minded and bigotted on the subject of what the definition of
Christianity is.  His definition is tied directly to that of the
Trinity and the Catholic church's definition of it and belief in
Jesus Christ is not sufficient to call one's self a Christian.

While his saying it doesn't make it so,  I nevertheless feel insulted
(or am I just neurotic? :^) ). I would like to be able to respond to
him with some sense of literacy while maintaining an amiable
student-teacher relationship.

So, is there common definition of what Christianity is?  As the
previous discussion of the Trinity did not lend itself to an exchange
of flames, I am hopeful that this will also not produce major
flames.

Regards,
--
Larry Autry
Silicon Graphics, St. Louis
autry@sgi.com 



[Often we get into discussions about who is Christian.  Unfortunately
there are a number of possible definitions.  Starting from the 
broadest, commonly used definitions are:

  a historical definition
  people who accept Christ as Lord and savior
  a broad doctrinal definition
  narrow doctrinal definitions

1) By a historical definition I mean the sort of definition a secular
historian would likely use.  This would include any group that
developed out of the Christian church, and continues within the same
broad culture.  E.g. some Unitarians would fail just about any
doctrinal test you could come up with.  Yet it's clear that that group
developed from Christianity, and people from very different
backgrounds (e.g. Hindus) would likely see them as part of
Christianity.  This is not a definition most Christians like, but it's
relevant in some political and ethnic contexts.

2) Accepting Christ as Lord and savior is a test used by many
Christian groups for membership, e.g. the Southern Baptists and
Presbyterian Church (USA).  I would qualify it by saying that what
most people have in mind is an exclusive commitment to Christ, so that
someone who accepted Christ as one of many gods would not fit.  It's
an attempt to formulate a criterion that is religious but is not based
on technical doctrine.  By this definition, groups such as Arians
would be viewed as heretical Christians, but still Christians.  In the
modern context this would include Mormons, JW's, and "oneness
Pentecostals".  They would be viewed as heretical Christians, but
still Christian.  In practice I believe just about everyone who falls
into this category would accept the Apostle's Creed.

3) The next level is an attempt to give a broad doctrinal definition,
which includes all of the major strands of Christianity, but excludes
groups that are felt to be outside "historic Christianity."  This is
of course a slippery enterprise, since Catholics could argue that
Protestants are outside historic Christianity, etc.  But I think the
most commonly accepted definition would be based on something like the
Nicene Creed and the Formula of Chalcedon.  The attempt is to
characterize doctrines that all major strands of Christianity agree
are key.  Obviously this is to some extent a matter of judgement.  A
Mormon will regard the LDS church as a major strand, and thus will not
want to include anything that contradicts their beliefs.  But I think
this definition would have fairly broad acceptance.

4) Finally, some people use definitions that I would say are limited
to a specific Christian tradition.  E.g. some evangelicals only
consider someone Christian if he has had an evangelical-style
conversion experience, and some I've even heard of groups that limit
it to their specific church.

I think you can find contexts where each of these definitions is used.
A lot is going to depend upon the purpose you're using it for.  If
you're using it descriptively, e.g. in history or anthropology, you'll
probably use definition 1 or 2.  If you're using it normatively, i.e.
to say what you believe the Christian message is, you'll probably use
a definition like 3 or even 4.