"Born-Again" Part Two: Connotations and Apathy

As for the 75% claiming to be "Christian", but not "born again" Christians, I believe this is a much more serious problem than is being given credence. If I asked you if you are a "born-again-Christian", you may not go by that term by your own descriptions, but you would immediately understand what I am asking, and your mind would surely be thinking "born above" instead, and you would answer in the affirmative yet with an explanation of why you don't use the term "born again".

I would immediately understand what you are saying because I am from a conservative evangelical background as are you. The term does not carry with it the kind of baggage as it would outside conservative evangelicalism. However, if I believed you were a moderate or liberal or I simply did not know I would answer quite differently.

Really, it is a term used predominately by Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Pentecostal branches of Protestant Christianity. Those outside these more conservative Christian traditions of Protestantism do not use the term. Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopalians – not to mention the largest Christian group in the country, the Roman Catholics do not use the term.

Remember: while most American Presidents have identified themselves as Christians, Jimmy Carter was the first to publicly identify himself as such. In 1976, this was a big deal. Even now, no other President has done so. Even George W. Bush does not use to the term “born-again”. Indeed, while President Bush is well-known for publicly affirming himself as a believer, various members of his staff have said that the President considers the phrase “born-again” a big, “no-no”. Basically, he and his staff do not identify him as such. Why? Probably because of the connotation that it brings. Of course, President Bush comes from the Episcopal tradition and was married into the Methodist tradition.

For the majority of Christians in America, the designator “born-again” refers not to having received faith in Christ from God, but is a label that refers to non-Catholic conservative Christians (often regarded as fundamentalistic and or Pentecostals, i.e., “whoopee-churches”) greatly associated with or identical with the Religious Right.

An example would be the following:

“Do you take the Bible literally?” That depends. I take some passages literally and others figuratively depending on the passage, its characteristics and its context. Too often saying you take the Bible “literally” equates one with fundamentalism and other groups which damage the texts of the Bible.

Here is a better example: “Are you a Fundamentalist?” Well, I would never in a million years identify myself as fundamentalist, but I do believe in fundamentals to the Faith. There are many Christians (moderates and even liberals!) who also believe in fundamentals to the Christian Faith but would rather be shot than identify themselves as fundamentalists. Why? The term “fundamental” took on a negative connotation during the 20th century.

The term “Evangelical” is another such term. In America it means different things to different groups. For most non-Christians it can mean either “fundamentalist” or “conservative non-Catholic”. In Europe, the term is used among Lutherans who are overwhelmingly LIBERAL.

A secular example would be the question, “Are you an environmentalist?” Well, I believe in the preservation and proper use of nature but I would not use that label because it can associate me with groups that are environmentally intolerant and believe in apocalyptic global-warming scenarios. I’d rather call myself a conservationist and be done with it.

Here is one more Christian example: “Are you a ‘Creationist?’” For me this is a loaded and choppy term. While I certainly believe that God created everything and everything that came into being because of him and that the design of the universe shows the intelligence of a Creator, I nevertheless have absolutely no problem with the theory of biological evolution as it is popularly known. This agreement with evolutionary theory has never conflicted with my faith or my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. However, my answer to this question would depend on who is asking. One answer or another might be considered dishonest or deceitful by some.

Ultimately, an answer plus and explanation is preferable, but one seldom has that luxury in a poll. Polls are often like giving testimony in court: “Answer the question: yes or no.” “Yes, but let me explain.” “Nope.”

So Christians not calling themselves “born-again” is not an indication of spiritual apathy anymore than not calling one’s self a fundamentalist means that one does not believe in fundamentals of the faith or that one claiming to not take the Bible literally means that they do not believe that the Bible contains historical events and true miracles.


However, I think the point of the article is that most people are claiming to be Christians WITHOUT understanding of what being a Christian means. They aren't thinking "no I'm not born again, I'm born above" or anything similar to it. They are thinking, "I'm a pretty decent person", or "I'm not as bad as the guy down the street", or "I go to church", or "my parents were Christains and took me to church", or "I believe in God", etc, etc, etc, ....ad nauseum. The problem is, most people have no idea what it means to be a Christian, yet they understand that being a Christian SUPPOSEDLY means you're a good person, so they equate the two. But it's their own standard of goodness that they judge by, not God's. THAT is the issue I believe the article is pointing out. The church as a whole has dropped the ball on telling folks what the bible actually says about being a Christian, and being considered "good" in God's eyes, and so people think they're ok in God's sight because of any of the above reasons, and they'll die and go to hell because the church didn't do its job. "Christian" has become a watered-down term for "halfway-decent-and somewhat religious-human being", instead of someone who claims Christ as their Savior and Lord.

I think you might be reading more into the statement than is actually there. It’s always important not to allow our understanding of a term and another’s misunderstanding of a term askew our interpretation of reality. Like you, I am always quite careful of the terminology I use both for myself and for others. I do so because I know how precarious language can be. For example (and this might be helpful to anyone else who might read my other articles):

I use the term “Christian” to refer to anyone who identifies his or herself as a follower of Jesus whether they are truly “saved” or not. For me it is a general term which applies to the Christian religion and all those who are in Christendom.

I use the term “Believer” to refer to anyone who is an actual believer of God in Christ who follows him as Lord and Savior. While all Believers are Christians, not all Christians are Believers.

My reason for making such a distinction is based on what you yourself have said. “Christian” has been “watered-down term” and it has been since at least the time of Soren Kierkegaard (though, as we might all admit, probably from much earlier). Kierkegaard noted that people in Denmark (and elsewhere in Christendom) went to church and called themselves Christians simply because they were born into the “Christian tradition”. These people did not know what it meant to be truly Christian. They did not know how impossible it is to live like a Christian. It was Kierkegaard who articulated the position about the subjective nature of the Christian Faith. Subjective in that the Faith is something that is a personal experience that affects the person directly as a subject. This contrasted with what Kierkegaard saw as the objective nature of the 19th century Protestant church which neither preferred nor encouraged such a personal experience. For many, the practice of the Faith was an objective experience that occurred apart from the personal encounter of the individual believer. Such a believer could go to church each week, listen to a sermon, assent to the facts of the Faith and then go about his business without any affect upon his being. This was faith as intellectual assent to objective facts and not faith as personal experience and relationship with subjective truths.

So I do agree with you about the failings of the Western Church in this area. However, I see the problem not with the specific notion that a person who says, "I'm a pretty decent person", and goes along his or her merry way, though I think this might be a result of the greater problem.

I argue that the reason for “watered-down” Christianity is the Protestant and particularly the evangelical tendency to equate “faith” or “belief” with the mental assent to intellectual facts. This tendency causes two results: 1) the individual Christian thinks that all he has to do is agree to the facts taught by the Church and, as you stated, be a good person, and 2) the individual Christian equates genuineness of faith with accuracy of belief. With regards to the latter, this is not always the case. A person can have some messed up theology but still be a person of deep personal faith in his or her relationship with God in Christ. The reverse is also true: a person can have very accurate theology but be spiritually bankrupt.

Remember also that many Christian groups, particularly those amongst Fundamentalist and Pentecostal traditions claim that those who have not had such an intense conversion experience are not true Christian believers. There is a version of this tendency among moderate and liberal Christians as well. Yet even Kierkegaard who was vicious in his attack upon apathetic Christendom did not believe that such apathy kept one from being in a saving relationship with God. I agree with him on this point. Such spiritual apathy keeps one a “baby Christian” without the sort of fruit that is expected but still a believing Christian. At most, this sort of apathy can cause one to fall away from faith in God but this is not necessarily the case.


This must be corrected. That's our job as preachers of the Word of God.

And that’s what we shall do.

Thanks for the great comments.