When asked what kind of Christian you are, most people would name a denomination. Or, at least that’s the way it was. “Catholic,” “Orthodox,” “Lutheran,” “Presbyterian,” “Baptist,” etc. That’s not the kind of answer sought here. I’m going back to a very strong custom among especially conservative, evangelical Christians in the US when I was growing up.
My parents were Pentecostals. My father was a Pentecostal pastor for 53 years. He pastored only two churches during that time. Many of my relatives were Pentecostal missionaries, denominational leaders, evangelists. Many of my relatives who were not Pentecostal were: Christian Reformed or Church of God (Anderson, Indiana). Large family reunions were interesting because they often included theological debates.
But everyone I knew in this hothouse Christian world shared this way of identifying people who claimed to be Christian: False Christian, Nominal Christian, Carnal Christian, Real Christian. Everyone we knew who claimed to be Christian fell into one of these categories.
Now, let me be clear so as to set aside some objections right away. We saw this as a spectrum and not as a set of absolute categories. Picture a spectrum-line. This one did not have vertical lines dissecting it. It had shades between the sectors. Some people who claimed to be Christian were identified as “well, sort of, you know…” or “moving in the direction of being.”
So, now, what the categories meant and, I would say, still mean. “False Christian” was someone who claimed to be Christian but most certainly was not. Some of us then and now would not judge their salvation; we were judging their commitment to the Way of Jesus Christ—as we understood it. A false Christian was someone who claimed to be a Christian but just couldn’t really be—given what they believed and/or how they lived.
”Nominal Christian” was someone who claimed to be Christian and mostly believed the right things but didn’t show any real commitment to the Way of Jesus Christ. They lacked any evidence of being a committed follower of Jesus Christ. “Nominal Christian” meant “in name only” or “in name mostly” but not quite there.
False Christians abounded in what we considered “cults” and liberal churches. Nominal Christians abounded in “mainline churches.” But there were also some merely nominal Christians among us, mostly spouses of real Christians who came with their spouses on special Sundays.
”Carnal Christians” were people we identified as truly Christian but whose lifestyles “pushed the envelope” of what we considered acceptable for followers of Jesus Christ in this broken, sinful world. They drank alcoholic beverages, sometimes got drunk, smoked tobacco, watched bad movies or frequently attended movies in theaters, had lots of non-Christian friends they didn’t seem interested in getting converted, etc., etc. Our churches included many carnal Christians; they just couldn’t teach or serve as deacons or elders. They were considered “saved” but just barely.
”Real Christians” were us, of course. Well, by “us” we meant those of us committed to living the Way of Jesus Christ and who believed the right things. We didn’t consider anyone, ourselves included, perfect, but we believed real Christians studied the Bible, had “daily devotions,” a prayer life, talked about Jesus as if they knew him as a personal friend, had a “testimony” of conversion, attended church joyfully, didn’t dance, go to movies, drink or smoke.
Now, to keep this from getting too long, let me ask whether you think this general way of categorizing people who claim to be Christian still has any validity and proper use? Strip away the legalism of the church of my upbringing. Are there still, among people who claim to be “Christian,” false Christians, nominal Christians, carnal Christians, and real Christians? I’m not asking if anyone can absolutely and in an authoritative way SAY who belongs in which category but whether the categories have some validity?
I’ll finish with a story. I used to belong to a mostly Christian theological society. Members had to have a doctoral degree in theology or a cognate discipline. They had to have published at least one book in theology. We met at various colleges, universities, seminaries around a major metropolitan area in the Midwest. The members represented many denominations. A few people of the Jewish faith attended but I don’t recall any ever serving as an officer. It was historically a group of Christian theologians. We met to read our own scholarly papers to each other and engage in discussions about them. Everyone was cordial even in strong disagreements.
As I attended and even served as president of the society I found myself falling back in my own mind on those categories named and described above. Which theologians were false Christians, nominal Christians, carnal Christians, real Christians? One theologian claimed to be Christian but was Unitarian. I thought of him as a false Christian. I had many one-on-one conversations with him. Another theologian was a Lutheran who showed real signs of embracing the orthodox, historic faith, but he drank heavily to the point of getting drunk at meetings. (Some were held in institutions that served alcoholic drinks. I saw this theologian get drunk during the afternoon break. He confronted a Catholic theologian and called him names and swore at him.) Another theologian was evangelical but widely believed to be sexually promiscuous. Later that suspicion was confirmed. Possibly a carnal Christian? Was he in the grip of a sexual addiction? Anyway, that’s how I tended to view him. Finally, there was Donald Bloesch, a theologian I considered a real Christian.
*Note: If you choose to comment, keep it relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.*
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In