Definition of a Christian

This is not one of the promised three sentiment posts; it is an interjection. For better or for worse, I am one of those who is plagued with a curiosity about the definitions of things, and last night, I was playing with “Christian.” This is what came to me:

To be a Christian is to be in communion with the God who revealed Himself through the Bible in the context of the Church striving toward personal and universal salvation.

The biggest hole in it is an explanation of what “personal and universal salvation” is. I’m working on it. For now, the former may be thought of as holiness, while the latter may be thought of as the kingdom of God (or something along those lines).

I have elaborated on this post here and offer a different look at the subject here. The former link leads you to a close explication of this wording. The latter link leads you to my ultimate thoughts about the project generally.

Sentiments: the Introduction

Allow me to assume that it is true that we can have right and wrong sentiments about things. CS Lewis does a very good job of arguing for this in his book The Abolition of Man, and since any chance of my doing better is in the category of the miraculous, I will rather only refer you to him. If you have not yet read The Abolition of Man, do. You could hardly spend a better couple of hours.

So, assuming that our sentiments (by sentiment I mean something like emotional reaction or interaction to/with something) can be right or wrong, my question is whether or not our sentiments can be right or wrong about all things or merely about some things?

Lewis’ primary example in his section on the sentiments, which I will borrow, is one that he borrowed from Coleridge. It recounts how that famous poet overheard two tourists describing the waterfall they were visiting. One called it “pretty” and the other called it “sublime.” Coleridge pronounced the former in error and the latter in the right.

I bring this up only because it seems like his pronouncement is one that is easy to agree with as it refers to something as obviously magnificent as a waterfall. When more obviously mundane objects come into question, however, the subject gets a little more difficult. Is it true of an apple as well as a waterfall that one may call it one thing or another and be right in the one case and wrong in the other?

It Occurred to Me…

Most of our thoughts “occur to us” rather than being constructed by us. That is to say, we do not generally have an active role in the formulation of the epiphanies, theories, postulates, and ponderings that show up in our minds. At least, I don’t. Yet, if we do not construct some of our thoughts, then from whence cometh they? I can think of three possible answers:

1. It’s possible to say that their construction goes on subconsciously.

2. It’s also possible to say that thoughts are given to us.

3. And it’s a yet further possibility to say that thoughts are things in themselves that our minds somehow perceive, like our eyes do with color.

And there may be however many more explanations as well. Even with just these, I don’t know how to pick between the three. At the very least, the realization that even my thoughts are not my own (I can hardy call the subconscious me) should lead me to greater humility, but what more can I say?