A True Scotsman: The Boundaries of Evangelicalism

(click on image for larger version)

It is interesting that in his 1927 lecture "Why I Am Not A Christian", Bertrand Russell felt that he must first define what he meant by the term "Christian" before he could proceed to argue the grounds for not being one. (Link Here)  Even in his day the onslaught of liberalism within the Christian camp had so dramatically obscured the term that common use failed to distinguish the sheep from the goats.

Russell did not do a very good job in his definition, in my opinion.  He opened the definition to include any who believed in God, immortality and that Jesus was, at least, the best and wisest of men.  This last is far removed from orthodoxy and thus Russell's definition is not nearly precise enough.  However, in his day, the definition and the exclusiveness which it had, weak though it was, seemed reasonable enough to his audience.  There was no particular resistance to the idea that one can deny the legitimacy of a label to a person or group who adopt it.  Russell was in effect holding forth that some who called themselves Christians, were, in fact, not.

It is interesting to consider though, what reaction would follow today.  In our time, labels are generally considered so meaningless that a person is free to choose whatever label they wish to attach to themselves and bear it with pride even if there is very little commonality between their own position and that of others who also bear it.

Within the so-called "Evangelical" camp, this idea is rampant.  Today, the term Evangelical Christian generally is extended to those denominations who are not part of the main-line (liberal) protestant churches or who are not Roman or Orthodox Catholics.  Those churches which are non-denominational are usually included within the umbrella.  Furthermore, as the so-called Emerging Church movement gains speed, there are those who call themselves Christian, are generally considered "Evangelical" and yet reject the doctrinal epistemology underlying the traditional Protestant formulations.

Now, some of this apparent chaos, is more a tempest-in-a-teapot situation than others.  Quite a bit of the discussion within the "Christian"  camp has to do with secondary doctrines and the relative importance that is assigned to them  as well as their implications.  This type of discussion should not obscure the fundamental unity within Evangelicalism that is present.  I believe the overwhelming majority of Christians would in fact be able to state, for example, that the Apostle's Creed plus a few other propositions, constitute a minimum definition of what "ought" to be the boundaries of "true" Christianity.  Yet, it seems nearly impossible to get Christians to actually apply this criterion to others who call themselves Christians and yet, do not hold to even this minimal statement of faith.

Christians have lost sight of the fact that every once in a while we have to do some house cleaning.  As Madison avenue so clearly understands, that if you don't fight for a copyrighted symbol, there comes a point when it has been adopted into such common use that you no longer have the right to claim it exclusively.  Christians may have lost that right even to their own name, but perhaps not.  There might still be opportunity to do the self-policing that Revelation 2:14-16 (et al) clearly requires.  Obedience to what we believe demands that some such effort be undertaken.

The "true Scotsman" fallacy is often thrown at Christians because of this problem.  The "true Scotsman" fallacy occurs when someone declares that such and such a person is not a "true Scotsman" (substitute what ever label you want) because no "true Scotsman" would do such a thing.  Now the keys to this fallacy is this:  (1) that there is such a thing as a "true Scotsman", & (2) that the thing which is said to be something they would never do is irrelevant to the definition of what a "true Scotsman" actually is.

The "true Scotsman" fallacy is not present if what ever is spoken of is indeed something that no true Scotsman would do.  It might be argued for example that no "true Scotsman" would, in the absence of extenuating circumstances such as the threat of torture, claim that he was not a Scotsman, or one who had never been to Scotland and had no ancestors from there.  In other words no one can be a "true Scotsman" who denies that he is one, or who has no traceable linkage to the nation.  The point is arguable but is an example of how one would have to go about determining whether or not the "true Scotsman" fallacy is in fact present.

As far as Christianity is concerned, it is absolutely essential to any who claim to be a Christian, that they have a clear idea of what it means.  Thus the "true Christian" distinction comes into play.  That there is such a thing as a "true Christian" is, in fact, an essential doctrine of Christianity,(one of those that is in addition to the Apostles' Creed) for it is this term which distinguishes those who bear the external label and are not from those who bear the external label and are.  Jesus speaks of this in Matt. 7:21-23 when he says, of many who did things in His name, that He never knew  them.   The question then becomes, how does one recognize a "true Christian" from one who is not.  At it's root, the eternally elect status of any individual is known to God alone but one can in fact determine from Scripture, how a person may be accepted as a true Christian in distinction to others, even if it is only a provisional view of their eternal status.

For example - blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is called the unforgivable sin by Jesus Himself.  Though there is and must be a large debate about what this means and how it is recognized, yet, a person could not be considered a true Christian if such blasphemy was present (regardless of how we define it).  Whatever definition we recognize as being what Jesus meant, whenever it is present it separates a person from the fold of "true Christians."   It is an area where Christians ought to get their act together and distinguish themselves from those who in fact blaspheme regularly and yet call themselves Christians.  It is my contention that within Evangelicalism there is a fair consensus that saying that Jesus was possessed of a demon and that thereby He was able to do the works that He did is infact an example of such blasphemy and would distinguish a person from "true Christians."  Today, the attacks on Jesus which seek to strip from Him the elements of Deity, to reduce Him to a mere man, and deny the Spirit in Him should clearly demarcate such people from the Christian camp.  (I distinguish between criticizing Jesus as a man, which He said was allowed, and criticizing Him as God, which is not).

This is too detailed a topic to discuss other than by illustration.  The point is this.  There is and must be a distinction between "true Christians" and those who are not.  We cannot allow the wider community of believers & non-believers to set the standard.  The Community of  Christians themselves must set the standard and enforce it.  This will require a fairly extended apologetic before the eyes of the world  directed toward all three camps - true Christians, falsely professing Christians, & those who make no claim to being Christian.  Further it means that Christians must be passionate in their convictions and vigorously deny the legitimacy of the label to those whose positions clearly violate Christ's own and His disciples' teaching.  It is a battle to be resumed, not commenced, because it is the same fight that in the last century lead to the publication of "The Fundamentals" (link here), that in previous centuries produced the great Confessions of Faith, and which in the future will require other formulations. 

If we are not willing to do this then there is little hope that the actions that Jesus threatens in Rev. 2 & 3 can be avoided.

Comments

[Chris Bradley]

I think, as you know, that I have had the "no true Scotsman" fallacy dropped on me any one of a number of times. Y'know, I post something angry about Fred Phelps and people say, "Oh, he's not a true Christian." And then they quote some part of the Bible that says that behavior like Phelp's is bad, but on Phelp's website he has lots of quotations that support his position.

Or are you not talking about people like Fred "God hates fags" Phelps? Because, as far as I can tell, he doesn't blaspheme in the Holy Spirit's name, believes in the Apostle's Creed and things of that nature.

I think that if you base what a "true Christian" is on statements of faith, you're going to run into the same problem you're having, now. (Because, after all, what defines a Christian now is a statement of faith.) It is my feeling if you want to create a "true Christian" movement, it would have to be based on deeds, not faith.

I also think that'd be impossible. The worst you could do, after all, is kick someone out of your church -- and then they'd just go start their own, calling themselves Christians and denouncing the people who threw them out of the other church. I think we've all seen this happen. ;)

[Gadfly]

Christians have just as much right to be idiots as non-Christians.

I hold no common cause with Fred & their methods. I also don't hold with bombing abortion clinics. However there is a difference between the two. Fred & his crew, as far as I know, have not resorted to violence. As long as they do so, strictly speaking, a case can be made that they are not absolutely out of theological bounds to be called Christian.

Romans 9 tells us that "Jacob have I loved, Esau I have hated." Theologically there is a case for God hating all unrepentant sinners - those who do evil and call it good most of all, something that Fred & his crew may be failing to note.

Fred & crew are guilty of myopia. God hates unrepentant homosexuals in the same way he hates unrepentant liars and unrepentant adulterers, and unrepentant gossips. The standards are pretty high.

So, all I am saying is that I pretty much ignore folks like Fred on both sides of the picket lines. I ignored the Homosexual pickets in San Francisco when they made the news a couple of weeks back.

Like I said - there are enough idiots on both side of the argument to go around. The only hope we have is for people of principle to speak fairly and respectfully about the issues. I happen to think it is possible.

[Chris Bradley]

OK, then, where does the line get drawn? I mean, I'm actually not particularly worried about Christians who are, say, murderers or arsonists. The law will take care of them, after all. So, I'm wondering -- if Phelps and his crew don't quality as people falsely proclaiming Christianity -- what does qualify? Is it only when a Christian descends into violence that it is clear they're preaching falsely?

And what violence counts? Does proclaiming war count? Or the execution of criminals? Does a state have the power to transform violence into acceptable by Christianity?

[Gadfly]

Re; o, I'm wondering -- if Phelps and his crew don't quality as people falsely proclaiming Christianity -- what does qualify? Is it only when a Christian descends into violence that it is clear they're preaching falsely?

Two main headings distinguish a Christian from a Non-Christian: orthodox profession of faith & a life style consistent with that profession.

Under the latter heading - the major feature is not sinlessness but repentance which leads to change. The so-called thief on the cross (probably a murderer or terrorist) was accepted by Christ into His Kingdom, not because he was sinless but because he repented.

Christianity is about God's grace to unworthy sinners. It is not about earning our way into heaven by doing good things and avoiding evil things. When rightly explained, as Paul says, the natural question arises - Should I sin more that grace may abound more? The answer is no but it is not a trivial question.

With regard to your primary point though... when a person dons the Christian label and professes to follow Christ, then the major distinguishing characteristic ought to be humility in the face of their own sin. This is where folks like Phelps, IMO, fall short.

I believe homosexual practices are sinful and therefore to be repented of by those who are inclined in that direction. We do not differentiate between those who need to repent of that sin and those who need to repent of adultery, pornography, pedophilia, spouse abuse, or any of a thousand other egregious behaviors.

A person can be a Christian and yet justly be punished for behavior inconsistent with that Christianity. A man who kills in a fit of passion and in true remorse repents of that sin may very well be sentenced to death and yet remain a Christian.

So, long answer - the point that distinguishes "true" Christians from those who are not is a humility before their own sin. Sometimes pride takes a while to break and if it is significant enough can lead to excommunication - whatever the sin that prompted it.