"Christ-follower" vs. Christian

Yeah, it's silly. I chafe at the "being a Christ-follower is cool" motif. That was big when I was a teenager too (though we just used the word "Christian"). I didn't buy it then and I don't now. I don't see Jesus as being one bit concerned with coolness or lack thereof -- he's too busy thinking about the problems of others. Plus, mocking one's fellow Christians is pretty explicitly not what Christians should be about. If the world will recognize us by our love for one another, this ad doesn't meet that test.

More generally, I prefer not to let the extremists redefine Christian every more narrowly. It's not only the secular left that resorts to that over-used and condescending term, "so-called Christian". I've heard various varieties of fundamentalists use it to disparage other Christians who don't share their every view. For them, "so-called Christians" might include anyone who questions young-Earth Creationism and/or literal Biblical inerrancy in general, most Cathlolics, and a variety of other categories. So while it *is* a dumb campaign, some Christians have encouraged fragmentation of the Body by being the just the kind of rigid, legalistic, "bumper sticker" Christians that this add mocks.

Their other videos are pretty bad as well.

Yeah, it's a funny ad -- good comic acting. This is a strange comment, though: "But then again, the Faith once delivered to the saints Itself is not really marketable in the first place." What were Paul and the other apostles doing, if not "marketing" the faith? We're specifically told in the NT that they tailored their pitch to different audiences (preaching "philosophically" to the philosophers of Athens, for instance). And historically, Christianity has been second to none at adapting itself to the varied peoples it's trying to reach, sucking up pagan deities and festivals and "re-branding" them -- even the Lord's own birthday falls on the day it does because that was the popular "birth" day of one of the pagan gods of ancient Rome.

Maybe the guy just narrowly means that you shouldn't change the name from "Christian" to "Christ-follower." The problem with that is that "Christian" wasn't originally the term for the faithful; according to Acts, it got attached to them in Antioch. What they might have been called originally is disputed, but it may have been "Natsarim," possibly meaning "branch," as in "Branch Davidians." At any rate, the first apostles themselves were apparently Christ-followers, not "Christians" so labeled, and it's hard to see how you can criticize a modern church for following their example.

You ought to read THE FAMILY by Jeff Sharlet for an interesting take on the whole Christian VS Christ issue

"What they might have been called originally is disputed, but it may have been "Natsarim," possibly meaning "branch," as in "Branch Davidians." "

In Hebrew, Christians are called 'notsrim' which means 'Nazarenes', The name of Nazareth itself may be derived from the word 'netser' (shoot/ sprout/ branch).

Forgive the shameless self-promotion, but I once wrote a guest post for Scot McKnight's blog about this very same subject: http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/04/friday-is-for-friends-travis-m.html.

To me, it doesn't matter what we call ourselves. It's about how we live our lives.

As everyone but the Nestorians are all going to Hell anyone it is pretty academic.

Sorry...my prior post was sent before completion.

I think you're missing the point. Jesus again and again calls His followers to real inward change which manifests itself in loving our neighbors and spreading gospel, as opposed the outward displays of religiousity practiced by the scribes and Pharisees.

These guys are trying to contrast people whose religion is nothing more than empty symbols (i.e. relgious t-shirts, attending the right church, putting on a front of perfection) with those who take real action (i.e. giving to the needy, comforting the sick, fighting for the oppressed, proclaiming the gospel). By using the term "Christ-follower" they are emphasizing the proactive nature of faith. If anything, they are saying we should be more bold and open about our faith, not less.

Sorry, that should have been "lift up."

Real Christ-followers never need to label themselves. It's evident from their actions. I find when people feel the need to loudly and constantly proclaim themselves "Christian", it usually means they're a spiritually immature and self-righteous person who fancies themselves as God's special prosecutor on Earth.

P.S. And the world sees and knows really that today "Christians" are basically indistinguishable from the anyone else, when they aren't actually almost worse. So I like the idea of making a new distinction in terminology.

"...even the Lord's own birthday falls on the day it does because that was the popular "birth" day of one of the pagan gods of ancient Rome."

Technically, it's the Feast Day of the birth of Jesus, not his birthday. But I quibble.

I think the clip is lame, but almost profound. If it had said, "Not JUST Christian, but a Christ Follower" I would be fine with it. But the "Christian No More" is too much.

It seems to me to go hand in hand with the ersatz superiority demonstrated by those who are so enlightened as to be "spiritual but not religious". You know, "You a silly Christian. Ha! I AM are CHRIST FOLLOWER!"

Well good for you buddy. You have your Christ Spirituality but not the religion.

All living things have some type of soul, some type of spirit. A cabbage has a spirit as long as it is alive.

Religion, good or bad, is an attempt to apply rational behavior in accordance with Divine Revalation.

To claim spirituality without religion is to claim little more than to be a cabbage.

But of course no one REALLY does that, despite what they may say. Everyone does something in accordance with their thinking on spirituality; and that is their religion.

It's just that by ignoring most everything they can regarding necessary consequents of, and subsequent behavior, they get a twofer:

1) They don't have to make as many difficult decisions based on spiritual/religious understanding.

2) They get to poo-poo as myopic Pharisees all those silly Christians who are actually trying to struggle with living life in accordance with the Gospels.

Actually there's a third. They get to lump all those from item 2 above in with all those overly judgemental legalistic Christians (who really are a problem).

I'm rather an outsider here, but there is a certain type of Christian practice that appeals to me and that I do respect, and that is the type practiced by the widow in the "Widow's Mite" parable.

To my outsider's eyes, it seems to me that some people who call themselves "Christian" do so more out of a sense of social standing and even arrogance. And this seems to be the type of person this video is gently poking fun at. In an earlier age, they'd be the ones at the front of Temple theatrically thanking God for their perfect, blameless life.

The best Christians I have known have tended to be very inward looking, the type that prays alone in a darkened room where no-one else can see or hear and seeks to amend their own faults before engaging in reforming the rest of the world.

That doesn't mean they don't spread the faith. On the contrary, by their actions they inspire others to look at their faith all the time, probably without even knowing they are an inspiration.

Of course then someone in a car covered in bumper stickers and draped in WWJD merchandise comes up and starts hectoring people and ruins the experience.

That's my impression in any case, for what it's worth.

The “Christ-follower” vs. “Christian” debate reminds me of the old story about the chicken, the pig and their different views about the creation of a plate of ham and eggs.

The chicken (“Christ-follower”) is "involved". The pig (“Christian”) is COMMITTED.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

I give it 2 thumbs up. I've met too many people like the guy on the left. Will this approach be around in 5 years? Maybe not.. too many people invested in the bumper sticker approach.

Make that: the idea that any of them had to DO with the name of a town was an early misunderstanding.

In fact, one view holds that "Nazoreans" is a better rendering of the term than "Nazarenes." Also it seems from the NT that the first proto-Christian movement might have been known as "The Way." (However, we're rapidly reaching the point where my information on this is no better than Wikipedia's.)

michael
August 20, 2009 8:46 AM
I give it 2 thumbs up. I've met too many people like the guy on the left. Will this approach be around in 5 years? Maybe not.. too many people invested in the bumper sticker approach.

****

Well yeah, there are too many like the guy on the left, and I don't much care for them (understatement there), but that doesn't mean that people like me must choose to be like the guy on the right.

The video presents a false dichotomy between the strawman on the left and the guy on the right.

There are choices in between.

Inn all actuality, names do not mean a thing , but actions do.
I find myself confused over why anyone would want to call themselves a CHRIST FOLLOWER, Judas was a Christ follower, the many who left Jesus after he made the statement " to be part of me you must eat of my flesh and drink of my blood" were also Christ Followers.

So when Jesus made the statement that the terriers will grow up with the wheat, it will be very hard to tell the difference unless of coarse their works of faith show the difference,and in that account the name dose not mean a thing.

you might also want to look at those Jesus were speaking about when he made the statement after the Olivette discourse "many will say to me that day LORD, LORD didn't we do miracles, healing etc. in your name???...he then make the statement DEPART I NEVER KNEW YOU,,,,,THESE were also Christ followers.

But it is that being sons and daughters when the holy spirit comes into our lives and plants the seed of faith, that sets us apart, from being just a Christ follower.

When one recognizes that he or she is a guilty sinner and repents and calls upon the LORD for salvation , then is where the difference lays, and when the conversion takes place they must not forget the first step they take on this earth afterwards, will be on enemy territory.....and they will be walking on it for the rest of their lives. being called CHRIST LIKE, OR IMATIATORS OF CHRIST, such as CHRISTIANS....is fine with me, many have died holding that name so dearly..and so will I.

It might be a humorous parody of a popular commercial, but reading all these comments there is a main thing people missed... in the original Greek "Christ-Follower" is synonymous with "Christian." The term "Christian" was actually a derogatory term, subject of ridicule, branded by those who mocked Christ. Furthermore, perhaps our culture has degraded names to something akin to a telephone number or email address, but name (and it's meaning) does matter! Yes, action matters too, but the bottom line is this: Do we do good because it is a manifestation of Christ within us or do we do good because we are trying to gain acceptance in God's sight?

As for me, being a Christian carries a burden of living a life that is worthy to be called a Christ-Follower.