<blockquote>And how does any of this help me in determining who is a "christian"?</blockquote>

I'm really confused; you seem to think that there is <i>one definition</i> of 'Christian' to rule them all, <i>one concept</i> which best matches use of the word in all contexts. But I cannot actually believe you think this. (Hence the confusion.) It's like this: there are <i>N</i> variables and <i>M</i> equations, with <i>M</i> &gt;&gt;&gt; <i>N</i>. It is <i>possible</i> that there are solutions, but let us suppose there are not. Then, the only way I can give you values for the <i>N</i> variables is for you to pick out a sufficiently small subset of the <i>M</i> equations. So, which subset do you choose for me to attempt a definition of 'Christian'?

Following, I will necessarily be giving you <u>an</u> interpretation of what I think 'Christian' ought to mean, an interpretation which would be a natural kind, of which many generalizations could be made. I would build off of Jacques Ellul in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Subversion-Christianity-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0802800491">The Subversion of Christianity</a>:

<blockquote>If we tried to abolish the word <i>Christianity</i>, what would we have to say? First, the revelation and work of God accomplished in Jesus Christ, second, the being of the church as the body of Christ, and third, the faith and life of Christians in truth and love. Since we cannot keep repeating this long triple formula, we shall now use X to denote these three aspects. (11)</blockquote>

These are still highly interpretable terms, so (matching numbers to Ellul's):

(1) I would emphasize fearless self-giving as absolutely critical to Jesus' identity, using <a href="http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/mt20.20-28+Jn13.1-20/">Mt 20:20–28 and Jn 13:1–20</a> as supporting evidence, not to mention Gethsemane. (By 'fearless', I mean fear does not distort actions, not that the emotion is not felt.) As a negative example, The Thinker recently impugned the idea of loving your enemies; <a href="http://randalrauser.com/2014/09/does-religion-make-conflict-worse/#comment-1593419800">I argued against him</a>, making that which he thinks to be crazy, to be a cornerstone of Christianity. (Jesus is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks.) Christianity builds communities based on love, not fear—this rules out any social contract theory which depends most heavily on man's instinct for <i>self</i>-preservation.

(3) The Greek word in the NT rendered 'faith' is best re-rendered as 'trust', something that Emil Brunner discovered to also be the case with the German <i>Glaube</i> (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Encounter-New-Divine-Human/dp/B00BIQRWFG/">Truth as Encounter</a>, 104). Brunner envisions <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4102&t=NASB"><i>pistis</i></a> as the <i>trusting response</i> to communication from God. God makes a promise, we trust it, and therefore act a certain way (obey). This foundation gives one the confidence and security to freely <i>agape</i>, without being ruled by the worries that reign in such action under the paradigm of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest">enlightened self-interest</a>. Faith has a critical future-oriented component which promises that the world can be radically better than it is, if only we will <i>trust</i>. While having some foundation in what already <i>exists</i>, it makes strong claims about what can be <i>created</i> and how, which makes the only full method of testing 'obedience-in-trust', to steal a term from Brunner.

(2) I would emphasize that individuals are composed of three aspects: (i) communication from God; (ii) communication from other humans; (iii) their own uniqueness. This is a flavor of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism">social constructionism</a>, or the "social construction of the self". It makes out dialogue to be the most important aspect of what it means to be an individual, a person. It means a person is built up of what Alistair McFayden calls "sedimentation" in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Call-Personhood-Christian-Individual-Relationships/dp/0521384710/">The Call to Personhood: A Christian Theory of the Individual in Social Relationships</a>. What makes me <i>me</i> is actually that I have parts of you, my wife, and others inside me; after you and I dialogue I come away <i>changed</i>. At least, that happens with true relationships, where self-giving occurs. If one person is merely treating the other as an object, this doesn't happen—there is no 'entanglement', as it were (mutual self-giving).

(2) continued. Both (1) and (3) contribute to a version of community that is radically different from the kind of individualism that so-dominates modern thought; MacIntyre sees this version as the reason that the language of morality is so fractured in contemporary philosophical and political discourse (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue">After Virtue</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Whose-Justice-Rationality-Alasdair-MacIntyre/dp/0268019444">Whose Justice? Which Rationality?</a>). The more resources I must spend on self-protection, amassing enough power to prevent others from taking advantage of me, the weaker, shallower, and fewer my possible relationships with other human beings. After all, their strongest desires may differ from mine. If, however, we are all attempting to be conformed to [the same interpretation of] Jesus, each in our [semi-]unique ways, that danger is ameliorated. You and I can self-monitor, such that neither of us is growing at the other's expense, at least for prolonged periods of time. You and I would know that our growth will stagnate and turn cancerous if we don't interact and grow in healthy community.

———

You and I have laid the foundation for discussing the above, by talking about what a true (English) relationship is, plus by talking about how to have deep and meaningful unity and diversity coexist without either eating up the other—or at least the difficulty thereof. If I were to pick the single most important factor, it would be the <i>inversion of the [social] power dynamic</i>. A few bits from Ellul:

<blockquote>X is subversive in every respect, and Christianitty has become conservative and antisubversive. X is subversive relative to every kind of power. (13)</blockquote>

<blockquote>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;And what about another concept that seems to be essential in the life of Jesus Christ, that of weakness, which is linked with anti politics? What can be more the opposite of what we are? <b>Is not the spirit of power at the heart of all our actions?</b> I concede that it may not exist among some so-called primitive people in tribes that know no violence and seek no domination. But these are such an exception that we certainly cannot take them as a natural example of what humanity is in general—if there is such a thing as "humanity in general." (164–165)</blockquote>

<blockquote>One might truly say that the desire to dominate, to crush, to use others, is a general one and admits of hardly any exceptions. (166)</blockquote>

Do you use your power [which can be used to dominate] to gain more power [to dominate]? Or do you use your power to enhance other people? Of course one can do some of each, but there will generally be an overriding theme, a stable trend of doing one more and the other less. This may not be a sufficient condition for being a Christian, but being on the right side I claim is a necessary condition for being a Christian. Returning to something I mentioned earlier, the Christian use of power establishes an utterly different kind of <i>charity</i> than could otherwise exist. The homeless guy you helped out might rise to a position of power over you, and might begrudge you his time while being homeless, despite whatever it is you might have done for him. Do you want to risk this?

———

If the above didn't help at all, I suggest we give this a rest for a while. I'll probably find ways to say the above better and more succinctly in the next few months, and I'll bet this issue will resurface with us, as has happened in the past. Please note that the above was an incredible work of synthesis; the closest I have ever seen to it comes from Ellul, to whom I was only introduced May of <i>this year</i>. I believe most strongly that I have discovered true problems: the fear/trust dynamic and the unity/diversity dynamic. Whether or not Christianity has anything to contribute to these is another matter, only truly testable by <i>action</i>.