Christian = pengikut ajaran Jesus Christus; yang sudah dibaptis.
Jadi kalau pakai definisi di atas, Jesus Christus sendiri bukan Christian ?
God, juga bukan Christian, karena bukan  pengikut suatu ajaan ?
Apa kata bisschop Tutu tentang hal ini ?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/god-is-not-a-christian_b_869947..html
God Is Not a Christian
[image: headshot] <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/desmond-tutu>
By Desmond Tutu <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/desmond-tutu>

   9.6k
   -
   
<https://facebook.com/share.php?u=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/god-is-not-a-christian_b_869947.html>
   -
   
<https://twitter.com/share?text=God+Is+Not+A+Christian&url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/god-is-not-a-christian_b_869947.html&via=HuffPostRelig&hashtags=>
   -
   
<https://www.huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/god-is-not-a-christian_b_869947.html#>
   -
   
<?subject=God%20Is%20Not%20A%20Christian&body=Article:%20https://www..huffingtonpost.com/desmond-tutu/god-is-not-a-christian_b_869947.html>
   2.7k

*The following is excerpted from the Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s new book,
‘God Is Not A Christian: And Other Provocations
<http://www.harpercollins.com/books/God-Not-Christian/?isbn=9780061874628>.’*

*This talk also comes from a forum in Britain, where Tutu addressed leaders
of different faiths during a mission to the city of Birmingham in 1989.*

They tell the story of a drunk who crossed the street and accosted a
pedestrian, asking him, “I shay, which ish the other shide of the shtreet?”
The pedestrian, somewhat nonplussed, replied, “That side, of course!” The
drunk said, “Shtrange. When I wash on that shide, they shaid it wash thish
shide.” Where the other side of the street is depends on where we are. Our
perspective differs with our context, the things that have helped to form
us; and religion is one of the most potent of these formative influences,
helping to determine how and what we apprehend of reality and how we
operate in our own specific context.

My first point seems overwhelmingly simple: that the accidents of birth and
geography determine to a very large extent to what faith we belong. The
chances are very great that if you were born in Pakistan you are a Muslim,
or a Hindu if you happened to be born in India, or a Shintoist if it is
Japan, and a Christian if you were born in Italy. I don’t know what
significant fact can be drawn from this — perhaps that we should not
succumb too easily to the temptation to exclusiveness and dogmatic claims
to a monopoly of the truth of our particular faith. You could so easily
have been an adherent of the faith that you are now denigrating, but for
the fact that you were born here rather than there.

My second point is this: not to insult the adherents of other faiths by
suggesting, as sometimes has happened, that for instance when you are a
Christian the adherents of other faiths are really Christians without
knowing it. We must acknowledge them for who they are in all their
integrity, with their conscientiously held beliefs; we must welcome them
and respect them as who they are and walk reverently on what is their holy
ground, taking off our shoes, metaphorically and literally. We must hold to
our particular and peculiar beliefs tenaciously, not pretending that all
religions are the same, for they are patently not the same. We must be
ready to learn from one another, not claiming that we alone possess all
truth and that somehow we have a corner on God.

We should in humility and joyfulness acknowledge that the supernatural and
divine reality we all worship in some form or other transcends all our
particular categories of thought and imagining, and that because the divine
— however named, however apprehended or conceived — is infinite and we are
forever finite, we shall never comprehend the divine completely. So we
should seek to share all insights we can and be ready to learn, for
instance, from the techniques of the spiritual life that are available in
religions other than our own. It is interesting that most religions have a
transcendent reference point, a *mysterium tremendum*, that comes to be
known by deigning to reveal itself, himself, herself, to humanity; that the
transcendent reality is compassionate and concerned; that human beings are
creatures of this supreme, supra mundane reality in some way, with a high
destiny that hopes for an everlasting life lived in close association with
the divine, either as absorbed without distinction between creature and
creator, between the divine and human, or in a wonderful intimacy which
still retains the distinctions between these two orders of reality.

When we read the classics of the various religions in matters of prayer,
meditation, and mysticism, we find substantial convergence, and that is
something to rejoice at. We have enough that conspires to separate us; let
us celebrate that which unites us, that which we share in common.

Surely it is good to know that God (in the Christian tradition) created us
all (not just Christians) in his image, thus investing us all with infinite
worth, and that it was with all humankind that God entered into a covenant
relationship, depicted in the covenant with Noah when God promised he would
not destroy his creation again with water. Surely we can rejoice that the
eternal word, the Logos of God, enlightens everyone — not just Christians,
but everyone who comes into the world; that what we call the Spirit of God
is not a Christian preserve, for the Spirit of God existed long before
there were Christians, inspiring and nurturing women and men in the ways of
holiness, bringing them to fruition, bringing to fruition what was best in
all. We do scant justice and honor to our God if we want, for instance, to
deny that Mahatma Gandhi was a truly great soul, a holy man who walked
closely with God. Our God would be too small if he was not also the God of
Gandhi: if God is one, as we believe, then he is the only God of all his
people, whether they acknowledge him as such or not. God does not need us
to protect him. Many of us perhaps need to have our notion of God deepened
and expanded. It is often said, half in jest, that God created man in his
own image and man has returned the compliment, saddling God with his own
narrow prejudices and exclusivity, foibles and temperamental quirks. God
remains God, whether God has worshippers or not.

This mission in Birmingham to which I have been invited is a Christian
celebration, and we will make our claims for Christ as unique and as the
Savior of the world, hoping that we will live out our beliefs in such a way
that they help to commend our faith effectively. Our conduct far too often
contradicts our profession, however. We are supposed to proclaim the God of
love, but we have been guilty as Christians of sowing hatred and suspicion;
we commend the one whom we call the Prince of Peace, and yet as Christians
we have fought more wars than we care to remember. We have claimed to be a
fellowship of compassion and caring and sharing, but as Christians we often
sanctify sociopolitical systems that belie this, where the rich grow ever
richer and the poor grow ever poorer, where we seem to sanctify a furious
competitiveness, ruthless as can only be appropriate to the jungle.
[image: headshot] <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/desmond-tutu>

Kirim email ke