definition of christianity 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 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 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 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 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 or if you re using it normatively i e to say what you believe the christian message is you ll probably use a definition like or even clh
