UPDATE (1/9/17): After speaking with the same friend, I decided it would be best to update this blog. While my thoughts were clear, I think it’s worthwhile to have additional biblical support for my position. For transparency, I’ll leave all updates in blue font.
While having a conversation with a close brother in Christ, we broached the topic of whether or not Christians should call out, or critique, other, self-proclaimed Christians and identify them as nominal. After all, we had witnessed this happen throughout internet posts and often as it related to Christians in the hip hop industry. It caused us to ask whether or not the “nominal” label is biblical, divisive, or even necessary. After careful consideration, it is my contention that Christians should indeed call out and declare others as “nominal Christians,” but should only do so humbly, where appropriate, and with wisdom and clear evidence to support such a claim.
First, it’s best to define the terms before trying to address this topic. I’ll address the specific question of labeling someone as “nominal” in a moment, but it’s worth noting that this question falls under the larger topic of whether or not Christians should criticize other Christians. That said, “nominal” refers to being a Christian in “name” only. That is, one who bears the name of Christ but doesn’t have the lifestyle to match. For the purpose of this article (blog post), I’m defining Christian as one who believes in, confesses, and conforms to the fundamental tenets of Protestant Christianity, such as the virgin birth; death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; the Trinity; salvation by grace through faith (not works); and salvation through the atoning work of Christ alone.
Next, I’ll provide support for my claim that Christians can and should declare others as nominal when appropriate. Then, I’ll address the questions my friend and I came up with as part of this discussion.
The Argument for Labeling as “Nominal”
Nominal Christianity is not expressly addressed in the Scriptures.1 This is with good reason, as the Scriptures seem more concerned with the Gospel and Christ rather than thoroughly dissecting each opposing heresy. While the Bible doesn’t seem to use these terms, it certainly uses other terms that distance unorthodox views from Christianity.2 One such view could be Nicolaism, which is addressed in Revelation 2. Many, including myself, believe that this doctrine was one of grace abuse whereby proponents would claim to be Christian, but held that more sin only produced more grace in their lives.3 The result would be an appalling doctrine that not only failed to resist sin but actually promoted it. The Nicolaitans received their name from Nicolas, which means “one who conquers people.”4 The early church father, Irenaeus, comments on them saying, “The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the deaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence.”4
There are two noteworthy points we gather from the Nicolaitans. (1) The doctrine of the Nicolaitans is condemned in a message to the church. This shows that they have clearly been identified and called something other than Christian, however, they are not so distant that they fall outside of church association altogether. After all, this doctrine is mentioned amongst two church addresses in Revelation 2. (2) They likely possessed the intellectual assent that Christ died and rose from the dead for their salvation, but their indulgence in pleasure and grace-abusing acts of sin was significant enough for the Lord to distinguish them by their doctrine. In these two ways, the Bible doesn’t refer to them as nominals but calls these people something other than Christian. In doing so, I believe this is clear support for labeling other Christians as nominal.
A second point of biblical support is in order. The first support I noted on the Nicolaitans shows the example of Scripture, but here, I’d like to note the instruction of Scripture. Two verses come to mind. The first is Gal. 5:13 ESV:
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
Here, while Paul encourages believers to be free in Christ, he is sure to warn the church not to use that freedom as an excuse to indulge in sin. Certainly, this pierces the heart of nominal Christianity; many proclaim a Christ as Lord in speech, but oppose Him in action. The biblical context of this verse is one where the Judaizers were falsely preaching circumcision to the church as a NT mandate. So opposed was the apostle to this teaching that called such teachers to essentially “cut off” their masculine parts (v.12). Yikes!
The other, and perhaps most direct, scriptural instruction to call out nominal Christianity (amongst other unbiblical ways) is Eph. 5:11:
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.
This verse contains a clear imperative to not only abstain from the “works of darkness,” but also to expose them. This exposure is the crux of my argument from this verse. Paul says that the works of darkness are to be exposed. While this is undoubtedly a call to transparency as opposed to hiding, it also seems to require a calling out of sinful practices. And does it get more heinous, more offensive to the Almighty, than to claim allegiance to the resurrected Lord while willfully and rebelliously living in sin (see Rom. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:19)? How can a Christian obey this Scripture while refusing to call out sin and nominal Christianity when there’s clear evidence to support such a label? Beyond this notion, Paul tells us why he calls for exposure of these actions in vv. 12-14. That is, exposing the darkness is essentially casting light on it and things become visible in light. Paul wants believers to clearly see truth! It is my belief that part (I emphasize part) of the reason the nominal Christianity seems to be confusing is due to the fact that there’s a varying message from the church, and not everyone who claims to be the church is actually a part of it.
In a final note, I want to be clear than one should be very careful when labeling someone a nominal Christian. Why? The apostle Paul described Mark as unhelpful but then described him as profitable (Acts 15:37-39; 2 Tim 4:11). The apostle also addressed Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1 Tim. 1:19-21. He does so in a way that views the two as real Christians who had been turned over to Satan as a disciplinary means for sin (blasphemy), in hopes of bringing about their ultimate good. Okay, you may be saying, “So what’s the point, Van?” The point is that brothers who err can be addressed, but not permanently marked in such a way as to assert they are not Christian at all.
A Brief Word on “Not Labeling”
As stated earlier, I’m one who is okay with labeling so long as it is nuanced. The basis and labeling must be biblical, accurate, substantiated, and done with the proper motives. To be clear, proper motives would be similar to the early church and include maintaining gospel purity, avoiding false associations, and to making clear distinctions of false Christianity. The main Scriptures I hear that call for Christians to not label are usually misapplied and/or misinterpreted. Here are the key verses as I know them:
Mark 9:38-40
John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us.
John 13:34-35
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
The first would not apply because Jesus clearly holds that this person is actually in good standing with Him. This person casting out demons is for the same things, he’s just not in the same group. This differs from nominal Christianity as I have defined it. Someone who is making a distinction of themselves from other Christians simply because they don’t believe tongues exist today or because they belong to a different denomination would be wrong and I’m not supporting such divides. So, using the first Scripture to support not labeling other Christians is an overstatement of the intention of the text.
The second is some variation, or combination, of Scripture and a cultural maxim on love. “Love one another” is one simple citation I often hear. This concept is simply misapplied and overused in today’s culture. It is undeniable that today’s postmodern (and perhaps you could call it post-Christian) society seeks not to offend. Criticism of anything the culture deems as good is intolerable. While we should be able to perhaps accept and even defend ourselves against criticism, often people who make critical analysis are shunned. Christians are supposed to love one another, but never at the expense of truth or allegiance to Christ. Again, with proper motives and right information, labeling some as a nominal Christian is not unloving—it’s quite the opposite.
At this point, I’ll address the questions surrounding this topic and offer a few concluding thoughts.
Does it matter?
It’s always tough to address whether or not a given topic matters. On one hand, of course it matters. Christians have been called out of darkness and have experienced a spiritual mind renewal (1 Pet. 2:9 & Rom 12:1). On the other hand, labeling Christians as nominal or not isn’t a matter of heaven and hell. Thus, when someone asks, “Does it matter?” I think they’re really asking to what degree does it matter. Since this is a sin issue, I contend that it matters as much as for an individual to know whether or not a particular behavior is sinful, like tattoos, body piercings, gambling, or alcohol consumption. Like those matters, the answer of whether or not calling out Christians is right or wrong isn’t overtly stated in the Scriptures. There’s no “thou shalt not criticize other Christians” to make this topic easily discernable. However, although it’s not explicit, I do believe the Scriptures can provide clarity as we examine them.
Are we separating ourselves?
The short answer to this question is “Yes.” Christians are indeed separating themselves, but if done in a biblical fashion, as discussed earlier, then it’ll be with the right motives and will actually benefit the body of Christ. Both believers and unbelievers need to be able to identify authentic Christianity. The believer needs to know, as not to make false associations. We need not lock arm-in-arm with one as a brother when God would identify him as an enemy (Col. 1:21). Conversely, the unbeliever should know where to go in the event the Lord calls them to repentance, and they need to grow in Christian sanctification.
The reason I hold this view is because nominal Christianity is actually not Christianity at all. The Bible makes no such distinction; Christians are followers of Christ in accordance with the Bible—there are no lesser types Christians. Much like the light switch in a bedroom, it is either on or off, there’s no in between. Furthermore, with the many warnings against false teachers, it would seem that those who profess Christ but don’t actually know him, are creating a damning situation for themselves and risk leading others to damnation promoting their falsehood.
It’s worth noting that Scripture does contain a parable for wheat and tares (a similar-looking but not quite wheat). In that parable, Jesus said to let them grow together. Yet, as I’ve already address, those same Scriptures demonstrate the Lord making a distinction between the church and the Nicolaitans.
Are we making ourselves higher than other Christians?
Again, the aforementioned concept of nominal Christianity is foreign to Scripture. There is no Christian other than a biblical one. This is not to say that there aren’t Christians who differ in their ethical/biblical standards (sin) due to spiritual blindness, poor teaching/understanding of Scripture, or outright rebellion. I suspect this is the major category error that generates such debate about labeling as nominal or not. Remember when I mentioned motive as a nuance of this labeling? If our actions lack grace and we’re motivated by an intrinsic need to build ourselves at the expense of others, then we are wrong and sinning in such labeling. This is more reason why believers should examine themselves and not be so quick to label or rant in the comment sections of websites/social media sites. Christians are not higher than others. Even a weaker Christians brother is still a brother. We must strive not to convey a pompous attitude in our efforts to identify harmful practices or doctrines of other, self-proclaimed Christians.
Concluding Thoughts
In the end, this matter should not cause us to lose friends and certainly not abandon brothers in Christ. Yet, if one sees the big picture and the biblical need—not simply the personal craving to criticize—then calling out nominal Christians is not simply an option but a responsibility. Additionally, just as it is damaging to fail in calling out those who are nominal Christians, it can be equally damaging to call out one as a nominal Christian when they’re not. That’s why this criticism can’t be a whimsical statement based on rumors. Support for the criticism should be documented, and it should demonstrate a full, clear, scriptural picture of nominal Christianity before ascribing such a label. Otherwise, we risk personal sin and slander of a brother. In spite of all the possible pitfalls, Christians have a responsibility to clearly communicate erroneous living and doctrines that are incompatible with the faith, just as we see in the Scriptures with the early church. Doing so and calling for repentance is not only an appropriate response, it’s the biblical one. Moreover, human beings need to make sense of the world. We do this through labels and categories. Liberal, Conservative, Evangelical, Calvinist, Arminian, private school, public school, etc. are all labels that are necessary for us to make distinctions between the thing and the different thing. So, until we all come to the perfect unity of the faith, I say, “Be wise. Be gracious. Be thoughtful. Be accurate. But be willing to label nominals as such. We must proclaim the truthfulness of the faith–the gospel. For that is what saves in this life; nothing else will.”
-Van
1. Though not Scripture, it seems the writings of certain histories of the early church do address nominal Christianity. Thus, I must be clear that this debate is not new. At that time, Christians who were unwilling to risk life for the sake of Christ could be labeled as nominal. Additionally, those holding to pagan practices could receive the same label. There’s too much scattered information for me to review for the purpose of this blog, but you may survey www.ccel.org for more information.
2. Due to the dire nature of the early Christianity and the apostles unwavering demand for gospel purity, they made divisions far more easily than we do in modern society. Those who departed from the faith or the apostle’s doctrine–even slightly–would be deemed heretics and never considered Christians at all.
3. I chose to cite the Nicolaitans as an example because they are expressly mentioned in Scripture. However, it would have been just as easy to highlight Gnosticism here. Though not mentioned by name in Scripture, this heresy was so prevalent that it took on many forms and is hard to pinpoint. Nevertheless, the early Christian undoubted battled gnostic ways. With the basic belief revolving around some “special knowledge” (from the Greek word, gnosis), Gnostics would believe all or part of the following: that Jesus didn’t have a physical body, that he didn’t actually die on the cross, and that all physical matter was evil. Finally, 2 Tim 2:16-19, dealing with Hymenaeus and Philetus, and 1 John 2:18-19 dealing with apostasy, provide further example of the Apostle making clear distinction of Christians from those who make false professions.
4. John MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson), 1996. To be fair, some of the early church fathers speak well of Nicolas, however, I’ve seen no writing that speak well of the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. They are repeatedly condemned just as they are in Scripture.
5. Justin Martyr, Philip Schaff, ed., The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library), 922, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.pdf accessed Jan 2, 2017.