Beacon dictionary of theology

the promise of the Messianic Kingdom is clear in the Davidic covenant, in the expectation of the prophets, in the ejaculation of Nathaniel, in the care with which our Lord guarded Himself from the impetuous crowd, and in the ironic superscription on the cross. He was thought of as a king, declared a King, and expected to return in regal power and splendor (Samuel J. Mikolaski, Basic Christian Doctrines, 150).

It was not until after His resurrection that Christ openly declared His divine sovereignty over the entire universe when He said, "All authority [exousia] has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matt. 28:18, NASB). Thus through His resurrection victory Christ rose to universal Lordship over all creation for all eternity. That Christ is Lord over all became the burden of the Early Church's witness to the entire world of mankind. In the Book of Acts alone the Lordship of Christ is declared no less than 110 times. And

CHRIST IN YOU—CHRISTIAN

103

finally, Christ declared His Lordship over man's last and greatest enemies, death and hades (Rev. 1:17-18; cf. Heb. 10:13).

See estates of christ incarnation, messiah.

For Further Reading: Jukes, The Names of God in Holy
Scripture; Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament,
1:10-11; Henry, ed., Basic Christian Doctrines, 145-51;
Kittel, 9:527-80. CHARLES W. CARTER

CHRIST IN YOU. It is "Christ in you," Paul writes (Col. 1:27), which is "the hope of glory" (cf. Rom. 8:10; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 3:17). Whereas the phrase "in Christ" is far more frequent, we are reminded that the relationship conveyed by "in Christ" is dependent on the presence, power, and control of Christ in us. One term speaks of position and privilege, while the counterpart, "Christ in us," speaks of power and validity. It is through Christ in us that we can do "all things" (Phil. 4:13). Christ's reign within must ever be seen not only as the counterpart of but the essential condition for being in Christ.

The references to the indwelling of Christ are few, doubtless because the ministry of inwardness is ascribed primarily to the Holy Spirit (e.g., Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 3:16; 5:18). Christ indwells us in the person of the Holy Spirit, as He promised (John 14—16). Nowhere is this vanguard role of the Spirit in effecting our salvation, in relation to the Father and the Son, more precisely stated than in Eph. 2:21-22: "In him [Christ] the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him [Christ] you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit" (Niv).

See in christ.

For Further Reading: GMS, 452 ff; WMNT, 4:280.

Richard S. Taylor

CHRISTIAN. This familiar name may have arisen from the common Latin practice of identifying followers of sages and political leaders by adding the ending iani to the name of the leader. For example, some religious leaders in Judea who supported the political policies of the ruling family, were called Herodianoi (Mark 12:13). Probably no more specific identification of the Christians prevailed in the early years of the movement than that they were "disciples of Jesus of Nazareth" or, as Acts states, followers of "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9, rsv).

The title "Christian" occurs only three times in the NT (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16, rsv). The first instance reads: "The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (in Syria). Herod Agrippa II employs the title in his response to Paul's testimony (Acts 26:28). And in the third usage the apostle Peter, in a passage dealing with the proper response to persecution, writes: "Yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God."

Was this a self-chosen name by the Christians in Antioch? Essentially, two views prevail. (1) E. J. Bickerman translates chrematisai in Acts 11:26 not as "were called" but "styled themselves," thereby recommending the idea that the Antiochene Church created the name. (2) On the other hand, it is the opinion of other scholars that "Christian" had a pagan origin, that is to say, it was given to the followers of Christ in derision. Willingale notes, in support, that elsewhere the name is so employed by non-Christians, i.e., Agrippa and Tacitus (Ann. 15. 44). Also, the reference in 1 Pet. 4:16 may not have been used by the writer in a felicitous sense but simply as a recognition of the fact that being a disciple of Christ carried the possibility of persecution from those who express their hatred by use of the name. One should not overread these fragmentary statements, however. It might well be that in the first purely Gentile church in Antioch, where separation from the Jewish community perhaps came more rapidly than in other cities, a name for the sect was needed and was developed most naturally in the manner suggested above in item (1). The love of the Christian converts for Christ would certainly incline them to use His name for their identification. As the Jews wished to be called "the Sons of Torah," so the Christians would be inclined to accept the public reference to them as Christianoi, disciples or followers of Christ.

The distinctive element in this new religion was that it was centered in the Person, Christ, and this fact would suggest the type of name by which the disciples were finally identified. By the second century the name "Christian" was firmly established and was being used by Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, and even by Pliny, the pagan Roman governor, in other areas of the Mediterranean world.

"Christian" carries several shades of meaning: (1) fervent commitment to Christ as Savior and Lord; (2) formal identification with the Christian Church; (3) acceptance of the general religious principles of the Christian community. To be "Christian" includes a faith relationship to Christ as Lord and a continuing identification with the Church, the common Body of Christ.

See christianity, disciple.

For Further Reading: Bickerman, Harvard Theological Review, 42 (1949), 109 ff; "Christian," IDB, A-D; "Christian," ISBE, rev. ed., vol. 1. WILLARD H. TAYLOR

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION. Christian education is the activity of the church in fulfilling the teaching function of the Great Commission. Its task is the transmission and inculcation of the teachings of Jesus, and, by extension, the apostolic interpretation of His person and saving work. Lawrence C. Little defines it as "the process through which the church seeks to enable persons to understand, accept, and exemplify the Christian faith and way of life" (Foundations for a Philosophy of Christian Education, 193).

During the 19 th century, with its crosscurrents of science, theology, and the humanities, Horace Bushnell, sometimes called "The Father of Christian Education," initiated humanistic concepts by opening basic theological questions as to how man, as a product of the physical world, is related to God, its Creator. He perceived the growth and development of man from natural being to spiritual being as accomplished through personal nurture within the Christian community and an unfolding consciousness of relation to God. This concept tended to obviate the necessity of a crisis experience of conversion. Most writers during the past 50 years in the field of liberal Christian education have been Pelagian in their view of human nature, discounting the biblical concept of original sin and man's inability to do good aside from saving grace (Rom. 1:18 ff; 3:10-18, 21).

A century of scientific and philosophic ferment has subjected almost every inherited concept and assumed value to scrutiny and challenge. During much of the century, evangelical Christians have been in search for a biblical philosophy of education. For several decades prior to 1940, students of religious education were indoctrinated with a theological liberalism that had a philosophic rather than a biblical basis. The influence of John Dewey and progressive education impacted on Christian education. Educators such as George A. Coe and Harrison Elliott devoted their energies to the support of religious education within the context of theological liberalism. Sanner and Harper state, "As a proponent of the liberalist viewpoint, Harrison Elliott had raised the question in 1940, 'Can religious education be Christian?' and had replied in the affirmative" (Exploring Christian Education, 95).

A call for reexamination of liberal Christian nurture was made in 1948 by H. Shelton Smith in Faith and Nurture. He held that Christian nurture should find its basis in the biblical and historical roots of the Christian Church rather than in secular positions. Sanner and Harper conclude: "The watershed issue, separating the discredited liberal religious education from the emerging Christian education was, and continues to be, the extent to which the biblical, historical, and theological roots of the Christian faith are allowed to nourish the educational ministry of the church" (95 ff).

Secular philosophical theories have seriously impacted on Christian education during the past century. Some of these are: (1) Naturalism, which finds the ultimate explanation of reality, knowledge, and value in the material world; (2) Idealism, which finds these explanations in mind, or ideas; (3) Personalism, which holds that ultimate reality and ultimate values must be personal to be real; (4) Pragmatism, an empirical viewpoint that holds that the way to test truth of ideas is to see how they work out in practical experiences; and (5) Existentialism, which places importance on the present, "the existential moment." By contrast, education which is truly Christian bases its philosophy of life in the biblical interpretation of the universe and an adequate understanding of the nature of God, the world, man, sin, and salvation.

Christian education, in contrast with secular education, is basically spiritual. Within evangelical Christianity the understanding of Christian education has too often been equated simply with organization and methodology, rather than with an intellectual and spiritual integration of the total ministry of the church. Christian education may be guided in the right direction by seeking to devote itself to the total task of the Christian movement in the world, based on a deepening understanding of spiritual communication and the radical nature of the Christian faith.

In seeking to establish a set of objectives within a Wesleyan frame of reference, Sanner and Harper define Christian education as one of the essential ministries of the church (ec-clesia), by means of which the fellowship (koinonia) of believers seeks: (1) to prepare all learners to receive the power of the gospel in conversion and entire sanctification; (2) to inspire and lead them to experience personal growth in the Christian graces and in the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus; and (3) to assist them in preparing for and finding a place of productive service in the Body of Christ and in the world outside the Church (19).

See teach (teaching, teacher), discipling, development.

CHRISTIAN ETHICS—CHRISTIAN HOLINESS

105

For Further Reading: Byrne, A Christian Approach to
Education; Eavey, History of Christian Education; LeBar,
Education That Is Christian; Little, Foundations for a Phi-
losophy of Christian Education; Rood, Understanding
Christian Education; Sanner and Harper, Exploring Chris-
tian Education. NORMAN N. BONNER

CHRISTIAN ETHICS. This is a specialized branch of general ethics and shares with it the major concern of determining what is good and right. It may be divided into two major aspects, the exegetical and the philosophical, the division not being entirely precise, since there are areas of overlap between the two. The former of these concerns itself in a major way with the ethical content of biblical revelation; the latter, while usually not neglecting the written revelation, calls upon the more speculative resources which philosophical endeavor provides.

With reference to content, Christian ethics is frequently divided into two phases, Christian Personal Ethics and Christian Social Ethics. The first of these is usually adopted as a point of departure for ethical study and will so be used here. In both cases the major concern is, not human morality in general, but the content of ethical truth in Christianity, both historic and contemporary. The sources for Christian ethics are the following: the two Testaments, taken especially in relation to the total revelation of Christianity's redemptive message; the historic development of ethical thought, beginning with apostolic times, continuing in the cumulative ethical insights of the Fathers and of the medieval thinkers; and finally, the funded ethical wisdom of the Christian Church since the Protestant Reformation.

Christian ethics assumes that there is a valid and binding relationship between God and men, and usually accords this precedence over the relationships of persons to others persons. In practice, as well as from the biblical perspective, the two are hemispheres of one sphere. Both Testaments assume that there are overarching principles which govern men and women in the entire grid of their interpersonal behavior, including their attitudes and behavior toward God himself.

The Bible as a whole abounds in statements detailing the obligations of the creature to the Creator, and assumes rather than argues the validity of His requirements. The formulation of God's ethical demands upon human beings found a special focus in the giving of the Law at Sinai. The Decalogue (Exod. 20:3-17) was bestowed in close and intimate relation to the miracle of the Exodus, and assumes a relation of covenant between Jehovah and the Israelitish people. And as distinguished from the ceremonial and strictly political legislation of the Pentateuch, the Ten Commandments represent basic moral legislation.

It follows that the requirements of the Decalogue devolved in a special manner upon the Jewish people, but their underlying premise is that God is holy and righteous, and as Creator He has a right to lay His demands upon all persons everywhere. The fact that the mandates of the Ten Words are found, at least in part, in the codes of nations and people outside the Jewish tradition suggests that their content commends itself to the sensitive moral dispositions of persons outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. This suggests that they are of universal application, so that God implicitly demands of the pagan world the same type of ethical behavior that He explicitly requires of His chosen People.

Christian ethics assumes the validity of the Decalogue, this assumption being inferred both from the holiness of God, and as well from the intimate connections between Judaism and the Christian evangel. We are persuaded that the NT writers were supernaturally guided in reaching the conclusion that the Ten Commandments are binding upon the Christian person. The underlying elements of covenant were thus brought to bear upon the Christian life. Chief among these were: that God's demands were right and just; that God is everywhere seeking a response from His creatures; that Jesus Christ came to fulfill the law, not by merely keeping it himself, but by revealing the love which must underlie behavior which is truly ethical, and by providing the dynamic by which the Christian person can live ethically.

Our Lord's statements both simplify the requirements of the Decalogue (by reducing all the commandments to two, namely total love to God and sacrificial love for the neighbor) and inter-nalize many of its requirements. This latter tendency appears most evidently in the Sermon on the Mount, in which the locus of visible sins was placed within the realm of the intention of the inner life.

See ethics. decalogue, morality, righteousness.

For Further Reading: Monroe, An Introduction to
Christian Ethics; "Ethical Relativism," "Interpersonal Re-
lations," "New Testament Ethics," and "Personal Ethics,"
Baker's DCE; Henry, Christian Personal Ethics; "Ethics,"
"Ethics of Jesus," ZPEB. HAROLD B. KUHN

CHRISTIAN HOLINESS. See holiness.


CHRISTIAN HUMANISM. Christian humanism attempts to bridge the gap between Christ and human culture. This view can be called "humanism" because of its positive approach to man and his culture, including academics, aesthetics, and human relationships. It is "Christian" in that all is brought under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Appreciation of the arts and sciences is appreciation of God's handiwork in creation, whether the artist or scientist is pagan or Christian. To the Christian, all truth is God's truth, regardless of its source. Even unregenerate minds provide insight into truth which reveals God's glory. Divine revelation can be understood only within the context of human culture. Therefore, the Christian must understand human culture in order to make sense of God's truth. Such scriptures as Exod. 31:2-5; Psalms 14, 139; 1 Corinthians 13; Phil. 4:8; Col. 2:3; and Jas. 1:17 are used to emphasize the importance of human culture.

Erasmus of Rotterdam, Thomas More, John Henry Newman, and Thomas Aquinas represent a broad form of Christian humanism which drew upon classical Greek learning in their interpretation of Christianity. Philipp Melanchthon, John Calvin, Abraham Kuyper, C. S. Lewis, and H. Richard Niebuhr represent a humanism closer to the Reformed tradition. Christian humanism differs from secular humanism in that it subordinates the human to Christ.

Many evangelicals are suspicious of human reason and culture. Martin Luther saw Christ and human culture as a paradox. According to this view, the Fall left man so deeply affected that his thinking and his work are contaminated with pride and rebellion. The pagan mind, lacking biblical revelation, has little to offer Christianity. The unregenerate world is dominated by "the prince of the power of the air" who rules the children of disobedience. The world is far gone and ripe for destruction, and the Christian's duty is not to preserve or enrich it, but to call the Church out of the world to establish a redeemed society with a distinctly Christian culture.

Study of God's handiwork through science does not pose so serious a problem for those who hold this view as does the study of the arts, "the handiwork of man." Scriptures cited in support of this view are Lev. 20:22-26; Deut. 6:3-15; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 John 2:15-17.

See humanism, culture, life, separation, world (worldliness).

For Further Reading: Blamires, The Christian Mind; Kilby, Christianity and Aesthetics; LaHaye, The Battle for the Mind; Mollenkott, Adamant and Stone Chips; Niebuhr, Christ and Culture; Ramm, The Christian College in the Twentieth Century; Taylor, A Return to Christian Cul-
ture. G. R. French

CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. Christian perfection is full salvation from sin and the completeness of the Christian life. It refers to the perfect act of God in entire sanctification by which the heart is cleansed from all sin and to the life of perfect (or unmixed) love of those who live and walk in the Spirit.

There are mainly two words in the NT that are rendered "perfect" in English. The less common one is artios (15 times as katartizo, or variant), which refers to complete equipment for effective function (cf. 2 Tim. 3:17). These abilities and skills for service do not immediately and necessarily follow the fullness of grace and love. The more common word for "perfect" is teleios, which indicates the completeness and fullness of the moral nature as renewed in the image of God (Matt. 5:48). This perfection is not so much a human achievement or skill as it is a work of God's grace in the human heart. It has to do with motive and attitude. Its expression is love.

Christian perfection is not absolute perfection. Only God is absolute, unrelated, and underived in His perfection. It is not the perfection of angels. Man was not created for that order of beings. It is not the perfection of Adam as originally created. There are permanent consequences of the Fall. It is not humanly achieved freedom from fault or weakness. It is evangelical perfection, disclosed by the gospel that promises full salvation through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Christian perfection must be distinguished from philosophic perfectionism. NT writers know nothing of an absolute perfection—a point beyond which there can be no further development (Wynkoop, A Theology of Love, 273 ff). But there is a completeness of Christian commitment and love that is unmixed and without exception. Neither moral nor civil law allows voluntary deviation. One murder proves a person a murderer. One robbery classifies one as a thief. One sin can make a sinner. But Christian perfection is a pure heart, dedicated to God.

There is a perfection of maturity; this takes time. There is a perfection of youth; this requires strength. There is a perfection of childhood, dependent on relationship (1 John 2:12-14). From the standpoint of completeness, Christian perfection is a fullness of love—not of years or skills. It is, then, compatible with various stages of development. In the common use of the term, there can be a perfect baby as well as a perfect adult. Each is suited to his purpose or place in
CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM

107

life. That is the essence of perfection. One can be what God intended a Christian to be—loving God and man fully.

Christian perfection is purity of heart. It is not necessarily maturity. It is a term of quality, not of quantity. It admits of growth and increase. Indeed, the fruits of holiness grow best in a heart that is pure and free. It is sin, not purity, that prevents progress, growth, fruit, and maturity. There is no perfection, in this life at least, that does not admit of and demand improvement. The pure in heart see God (Matt. 5:8). As they continue to see, they continue to be transformed into the image of the One they see (2 Cor. 3:18). This program of perpetual improvement is the hallmark of true children of God, culminating in "resurrection perfection" (1 John 3:1-3). The act of God by which one is made pure is instantaneous (Acts 15:8-9). The grace of God and the human response by which one becomes mature is gradual and progressive.

Christian perfection is equated with perfect love. To the question "What is Christian perfection?" John Wesley answered, "The loving God with all the heart, mind, soul, and strength" (Works, 11:394). This, in essence, is holy living, "as he which hath called you is holy" (1 Pet. 1:15). As Wesley says, "Not that they have already attained all that they shall attain, either are already in this sense perfect. But they daily 'go on from strength to strength; beholding' now, 'as in a glass, the glory of the Lord, they are changed into the same image from glory to glory, by the Spirit of the Lord'" (ibid., 379).

To avoid misunderstanding and false hopes, Wesley explained carefully what Christian perfection is not. He summarizes from his sermon on "Christian Perfection" as follows: