by W. Robert Smith, Th.D.
Two young men who had fought side by side in the mud and blood of the Anzio Beachhead and were now enjoying life together on a college campus stopped at my desk one day after a class in logic. “Professor,” one of them said, “we are grateful for what you said today, only we wish you had said it about two weeks ago.”
This must be a rare day, I thought, as I asked, “What was so interesting about what was said today?”
“Well,” he explained, “you were saying how necessary it is to define terms. About two weeks ago we got into a bull session that turned into a hot debate. About three in the morning, when we were getting wild-eyed and desperate, we accidentally discovered that we were using different words to describe the same idea and actually we agreed. If we had thought to define our terms, we wouldn’t have lost that sleep.”
These men illustrate the need for clear definition of terms. How often we use two different words for the same idea or two different ideas for the same word with the result that we never get together! A word is a linguistic sign by which we convey thoughts one to another. However, if we use a symbol and no one has the faintest idea what we are talking about, what good is it? We have to define our terms.
There are two types of definitions. The first is what is known as a resolved or stipulated definition. We agree together that for our purposes a word will have a certain meaning. Let us say, for example, that we want to talk about “gobbledy-gook.” You say, “I don’t know what gobbledy-gook is.” I agree that I don’t know what it is either, but let’s resolve together that gobbledy-gook will refer to a pound of spaghetti, one half pound of rice, five olives, three anchovies, and one teaspoonful of vanilla. You say, “I wouldn’t have the stuff.” I wouldn’t have it either, but that’s not the point. As long as we are talking together, let us agree that gobbledy-gook will refer to spaghetti and rice, olives, anchovies, and vanilla. You say, “All right, we’re agreed.” That is a resolved definition. It is neither true nor false. We have merely agreed together that this linguistic sign which is either a sight pattern written or a sound pattern uttered is going to refer to a particular item.
Another type of definition is what is known as reported definition. A reported definition is true or false. There are two types: the dictionary definition and the contextual definition. A dictionary definition of any topic has been agreed upon by men in a certain technical or specific field, or has been agreed upon by long usage. For example, if I am talking to you about penicillin, I speak of an antibiotic which is useful in the treatment of certain particular diseases caused by bacteria. If I should try to convince you that penicillin referred to spaghetti and rice, olives, anchovies, and vanilla, you would question my knowledge, because I would be diametrically opposed to the truth.
On the other hand is the contextual definition, which comes from a man’s writings. If you want to know, for example, what Mr. Kant means by his Categorical Imperative, you would hardly go to a dictionary. Rather, you would get Mr. Kant's Metaphysics of Morals and read until you discover that his Categorical Imperative means simply that you should so live that your maxim could become universal law. By a maxim Mr. Kant means a subjective principle for an ethical situation. To illustrate, you are rushing to class so you want to short-cut across a lawn. However, there is a “Do not walk on the grass” sign before you. You stop for a moment and say to yourself, “I’m in a hurry; no one is looking; I think I’ll cut across the grass.” According to Mr. Kant, your subjective principle or your maxim is that it is perfectly legitimate for you to walk across the grass. However, before you do that, could you will that everybody walk across the grass there? Of course you could not, because if everybody walked across that grass, there would be no grass left to walk across. That is a Categorical Imperative. I do not have to agree with Mr. Kant, but if I disagree with him, I am not at liberty to call myself a Kantian. That would not be honest.
If I want to know what Mr. Aristotle means by his concept of Intellecti and the actualized becoming potential or the potential becoming actualized, I have to go to Mr. Aristotle’s writings. If I want to know what Mr. Plato means by Idealism, I have to read his dialogues. The contextual definitions I would give for these subjects would be either true or false. Either I would be true to what these men say or I would not be true to their teachings.
Now, then, the point is this: if I should ask you this question, “How do you define Christianity?” what kind of definition would you use? Is Christianity a resolved definition? Can you say this is what you think Christianity ought to mean? You are not at liberty to stipulate that any more than I am at liberty to stipulate what Mr. Kant’s Categorical Imperative is. Would you find the definition in the dictionary? No, a dictionary definition of Christianity would not be adequate. A contextual definition would be your answer. If you are an honest individual, you would go to the writings of the New Testament and distill out of the context what Christianity is. You would not have to believe it, but if you want to know what it is, you ought to study it in its context. However, if you disagree with it, you are not at liberty to call yourself a Christian. That would not be honest.
What do you find when you study Christianity in its context? In the first place, Christianity refers to a body of historical facts. It deals with the person of Jesus Christ: His birth, His earthly ministry, His crucifixion, His resurrection, His promised return, and His ascension to glory.
The second thing to which Christianity refers to is not merely a body of historical facts but the interpretation of them. What is the meaning of the facts of Jesus Christ’s life on earth? Jesus said that He came into the world to die. If someone said to you, “The greatest thing that you could do, old man, would be to die,” you probably would be insulted. Yet, Jesus said that the greatest thing He came into the world to do was to die. Do you remember when the Greeks said, “Sir, we would see Jesus,” and the disciples relayed their request to Him? Jesus cried out, “Father save me from this hour.” What hour? Seeing Greeks? No, He was talking about the hour of His agony and death. Then He added, “But for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify Thy name” (John12:20-28). “The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). “The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28).
What about the person of Jesus Christ? He said that He came from Heaven (John 3:13). He was not mere human being; He was the eternal God in our midst (John 14:9-11). I do not have to believe that, but I cannot disbelieve that and call myself a Christian.
After a meeting at Iowa University at which Canon Green of England had talked about the person of Jesus Christ, a group of students got into a college bull session. One young man asked, “Sir, you believe that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God, don't you?”
“Yes,” Canon Green replied, “I do believe that with all my heart and soul.”
“Well,” said the young man, “I don’t believe it.”
“You don’t have to believe it.”
“But,” the student continued, “I want you to know that I’m a Christian.”
“Oh, no,” said the canon, “you are not a Christian. You don’t have to believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, but, you see, Christianity is what God did for the world when He became incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ to die and be risen again for our sins. Now, then, if you don't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ, you are not compelled to, but don’t call yourself Christian. That’s dishonest.”
At that moment a clergyman stood up in the back of the room. He was indignant. “Sir, I am insulted. You are trying to shove something down my throat that I don’t believe. I say that Jesus was a man like anybody else - a great man and a great teacher. But I profess to be a Christian and I’m a Christian minister. I am indignant that you should say that I’m not a Christian because I don’t believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.”
Said the canon, “I’m not trying to shove anything down your throat. If you want to believe that the moon is a chunk of cheddar cheese and a satellite of the earth, that’s your privilege. I’m not trying to say that you shouldn’t or should. I am saying that in all honesty, if you disbelieve the deity of Jesus Christ, you are not a Christian in the New Testament sense of the word.”
Christianity deals with the interpretation of facts. We find
these basic interpretations in the New Testament and the great Creeds of
Christendom. Whether you have the Apostolic Creed: “I believe in God the Father
Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, our
Lord, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered
under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, the third day He arose
from the dead, He ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God the
Father Almighty from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead; I
believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting,”
or the Nicene Creed, whether it happens to be the Augsburg Confession of the
Lutheran church or the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican church, whether it
happens to be the Westminster Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian church,
or the Heidelburg Catechism of the Reformed church, or the Constitution of the
Wesleyan churches or the Baptists, these are all attempts of honest men, guided
by the Spirit of God, to discern contextually what Christianity is all about. Do
they disagree in the minutia? Oh, yes, they differ as to the form of the
sacraments, or the ecclesiastical qualities, or minute interpretations, but if
you survey all the great Creeds of Christendom, you will find that they agree
on the basic facts which are contained in the New Testament: Jesus Christ is
the eternal Son of God, salvation is not a matter of achievement but of belief;
before man can come into the presence of Holy God, he has to be purified and
cleansed, which can be done only through the imparted righteousness of Jesus
Christ in the life of the believer.
(Continued on August 26.)
Comments