What needs to change is how we live, as you said.
No I don’t think that there is a difference between the two labels. I would use them interchangeably.
The insistence on a “name change” bothers me – because the desire seems to be to create a distance between “us” and “them”. Isn’t the intent to establish the idea that we (who ever we are) are the true “Christ Followers” while they (who ever they happen to be) were faulty, errant, and perhaps even deceitful, “Christ Followers?”
But this is wrong – it is this church that gave birth to most of us. This is part of the great tradition in which we stand. We are much better off thinking of ourselves not as something new, but as the continuation of a long tradition of those trying to follow Christ as Christians. No generation or group has done so perfectly.
The Church, the power of the Spirit, and the grace of God are bigger than this. And derision – in name calling by omission – isn’t changing how we live, it is repeated the errors of the ages.

First, I have a tangential question. I’ve heard the bit about Christian being an insult before. It surprised me the first time I heard because I don’t know where that comes from and it’s not evident to me. It’s a normal construction of a word used to describe followers. ‘Christ’, of course, wasn’t a name or a familiar word in Greek or Latin, but the construction and application of the word doesn’t appear unusual. Acts just notes that the followers were first called Christians in Antioch and doesn’t indicate that it was an insult. Nor have I ever run across any ancient Christian writing that indicates it was an insult. Though born a couple of centuries later, it’s notable that St. John Chrysostom was born in Antioch. If there were any oral tradition of the term being used originally as an insult, it seems that he would have known it. Yet in his homily on that part of Acts, he says:
“Verily this is the reason why it was there they were appointed to be called Christians, because Paul there spent so long time! ‘And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the Church, and taught much people. And the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.’ No small matter of praise to that city! This is enough to make it a match for all, that for so long a time it had the benefit of that mouth, it first, and before all others: wherefore also it was there in the first place that men were accounted worthy of that name.”
So far, this has more the feel of an urban legend to me that perhaps sprang up somewhere in the evangelical branch of Christianity. (At least, that’s the only place I’ve ever encountered it.) Or is there a source or sources that I’ve never found? Mostly I’m just curious. It really surprised me the first time I heard someone say it was intended as an insult, so I’ve tried to source the claim and failed. Any additional information would be appreciated.
On the topic of the post, the negative connotations were my sole perception and understanding for a significant part of my adult life. My formation was pluralistic but not negative toward Christianity and I experienced a lot of different flavors. However, my experiences with Christians tended toward the less than positive side, including being asked to leave a service from the pulpit after I became a teen parent. So ‘Christian’ was definitely an insult in my mind through my late teens and my twenties. Even now, having strangely become ‘Christian’ and trying to learn what that means for a decade and a half, I have to admit I remain ambivalent about the label. I use it because it fits as well as any other label and is appropriately descriptive, but I’ll probably never feel completely comfortable with it.

I think there may be a subtle difference in the terms, but I’m not sure if the wider marketplace is aware of the distinction – I think it’s a bit of an ‘in-house’ thing. There term “Christian” is more of a political term. It’s the box one ticks on a census form. It has connotations/associations with “western christian history” and the political and historical instututions that go along with this in popular culture.
The term “follower of Christ” seems to be more of a spirituo-religious term. It’s more palatable to a post-modern pluralist sensibility. It isn’t so heavily connected to the historical position of the church as a political entity. It also smacks a little bit of anti-institutionalism.
I thinks it’s a bit like the difference between ‘conservationist’ and ‘environmentalist’.
Now whether or not the terms REALLY do mean different things in practice is another matter. But I do think there is a scemantic variance between the two.

I agree wit Phil in the idea of creating a separation from a faith with a “western Christian history” and an emerging (I know this word opens up a can of worms) community. I would add that the attempt is not a separation from a “western historical Christianity” but rather a “western americanized modern Christianity.”
The problem is not with Christianity. The problem is what we have done with Christianity.
The evolution of Christianity in an American context which is in need of disassociation from its recent past.
I buy into the “follower of Christ” terminology because that is what we are. The title “Christian” should not be automatic. It is a title which is earned by living a life that so closely images the life of Christ and the heart of God.
To borrow from Scott’s entry, “St. John Chrysostom, “…men were accounted worthy of that name…” Until someone outside of our community recognizes that our lives are worthy of receiving the title, we go by what we are…”followers of Christ.”

JPulido,
Just to add some clarification, I would suggest that the “western modern Christianity” need not have the word “americanised” in it. I think many of the same association with “Christians” exist here in Europe as do for those of you in the USA. Here in Europe we certainly have our share of ‘historical baggage’ to deal with when it comes to the institutionalisation or christian organisations – particularly with respect to the churches’ historical ties to governments. I think the use of the term “follower of christ” is as apt an attempt to distance one’s self from that history here in Europe as it is in the States.

Personally, I think the term “Follower of Christ” misses the point of the Gospel. For me, it signifies a detachment between Christ and His “followers”, but for the apostle Paul and others the key to the Christian life was not to merely follow Christ but to be in Christ and to have Christ in you.
Perhaps this is extremely pedantic of me, but I do think using the word “follower” is inadequate when it comes to identifying one who is “in Christ”. Is the term “Christian” adequate? Perhaps not, but I think what it literally means (“mini-Christ”) is slightly more faithful to the hope we have – not the hope of forever following Christ, but the hope of being re-created in His image because of His work within us.
Perhaps we should go by the snappy title, “One in the process of being conformed to the image of Christ”. Just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it?

I guess I see a difference between me saying “I follow Christ” and labeling myself as either a “follower of Christ” or a “Christian.” One states my intent of action; the other is descriptive. As long as my action matches my intent, I’m being honest. IMHO, we should leave the describing for others to do. In Acts, doesn’t it say the disciples were “called Christian” – I always thought that meant a description applied by others. I only hope someone else might apply that to my life.

Personally, I think the term “Follower of Christ” misses the point of the Gospel. For me, it signifies a detachment between Christ and His “followers”, but for the apostle Paul and others the key to the Christian life was not to merely follow Christ but to be in Christ and to have Christ in you. (Dec @ #6)
I agree. Another “detachment” that bothers me is the group in Kansas City calling itself Friends Of The Bridegroom. I like Mike Bickle’s writings and I like the premise of the IHOP (International House of Prayer) but FOTB is not, on the face of it, the same thing as being part of the Bride of Christ. Is it?
Am I straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel here? Somebody here, help straighten me out….

RJS said it best,”What needs to change is how we live.” I agree that the religious right has made it easy to mock Christians. What I hear almost every week from our UU pulpit (a group you might think would be among the mockers) is that putting down Christians or any group based on a stereotype is not only uncharitable and unJesus-like, but part of the problem, not the solution.
I find the phrase “follower of Christ” nuanced toward the more active as compared to the slightly more passive phrase, Christian. Maybe that’s because I call myself a “follower of Jesus” and pray for common ground rather than common belief. I find the truth claims of Christianity and other religions too immodest, resulting in divisiveness, lack of charity, and often much worse: house arrest, burnings at the stake, jihad, inquisitions, war. My understanding of Jesus’ teachings places the emphasis on love, not belief. What would Jesus do and say of all these doctrinal disputes and biblical interpretations that separate, condemn, and forestall the Kingdom of God on earth?
Doug

In my opinion, we should be more concerned with the adjectives that correspond to the nouns. What does it say about us Christian followers of Christ (straight from the department of redundancy department)when “dork” or “hip” is used as descriptive terms for Believers? Both terms are straight from our arrogant culture. Maybe Jesus is embarassed by both.

I’ve been pondering something related to this for a while. I’m not going to deny that some have over-attached Christianity to a certain political persuasion, but is that really what has made the term Christian unpopular?
Could it be that our society can’t tolerate people who tell them that they can’t believe whatever they want or do whatever they want — that they don’t want to hear that they shouldn’t sleep with whomever they please or drink themselves into a drunken stupor or that abortion is a moral, not personal, choice?
The question is, do they object to the politics of the “religious right” or the exclusivity and morality that are fundamental to Christianity?
If it’s the former, a name change might be worthwhile. If it’s the latter, the only thing that will change their attitudes toward Christians — whatever we’re calling ourselves this week — will be if we drop our “offensive” notions.

I think one of the problems with seeking to abandon the term “Christian” lies precisely in the attempt to separate ourselves from the terrible things done by “Christians”, as if they were not part of our story, and is if we did not have within ourselves, the potential to do similar or even worse things. For myself a healthier approach would be to accept the shame and guilt of many things which Christians have done and recognise that if we do not focus on Christ’s example, we will go down a similar path

I agree with Daniel, and then some. Forgoing the term “Christian” can be an attempt to distance one’s self in people’s perception of being associated with “the Church”, either because of historical baggage or modern uncoolness. But somehow this strikes me as unfaithful to Christ himself – sort of a whitewashing the tombs of the prophets sort of thing rather than taking the sins of our fathers upon ourselves.
Mark, I don’t get the impression that Jesus embarrasses easily. His sense of shame seems terribly underdeveloped. I daresay, rather than feeling awkward in their presence and wanting to slip away, he’s more likely to stoop down and wash the feet of these hip, dorky, Christian followers of Christ. Heck, he might even be willing to hang naked on a cross in front of a crowd (in front of his own Mama, no less) screaming “my God my God why have you forsaken me” for those sorts of people.

I just wrote a similar post a couple weeks back called “Whatchyamacallit”. I noted that I had stopped calling myself Christian and chose the label “Jesus Follower” a couple years back to differentiate myself from the mainstream crowd of Christians. I was bummed to find that “Jesus Follower” is now the new mainstream word!
So, I too am tempted to give up this seemingly futile religious name-game. Yet, Jesus himself may have started this name-game in the first place when, amidst numerous rumors surrounding his true religious identity, he asked his disciples quite pointedly: ?Who do you say that I am?? Since Jesus has now commissioned us to go out on his behalf, as his Body, should we not be prepared to offer a careful, well thought out answer when others corner us and ask, ?Who do you say that you are??
But Jesus wasn’t really concerned with “names” then either. He was concerned that his disciples had come to see his true messianic, divine identity from all the things he had taught and all the powerful works he had performed. Still, the disciples would only begin truly wrestling with the real Jesus some days later when Jesus revealed his true identity as he went to the cross and died.
So, let’s show the world who we are as we boldly take up our own crosses, deny ourselves and follow our Crucified and Risen Lord!
Peace!

Jesus WAS concerned with names! he, like all Jews at that time, understood that names had power. he changed Simon’s name to Peter. he called himself The Son of Man. he was killed for being mis-labeled The King of the Jews instead of The Messiah. he called Lazerus by name from the tomb.
human beings are label oriented. to try to repress or fight this is both futile and counter productive.
i am so sick of everything that thinking, affluent, educated Gen X’ers and Gen Y’ers do getting labeled as “hip” or “hipster”.
guys in heavy black glasses, faux-hawks, wearing argyle and drinking lattes IS NOT HIPSTER.
go to Williamsburg in Brooklyn. you will find guys in girl’s pencil jeans, Journey t-shirts and mesh-back hats, with girl’s hairstyles who weigh 75% of what they should, who are ironic about EVERYTHING. THOSE are hipsters. they have nothing to do with Christianity.
i do not self identify as a Follower of The Way (tao) of Jesus to be hip. i do not do it to strike a pose, or to play a name game. i do it because most Christians are horrible people. they hate everyone. they don’t spread love and peace. they spread anger and war. if i identify with those people, the world will ignore what i have to say.
Christianity isn’t an insult. Christians have made the term insulting, not just to themselves, but to G-d. most Christians are G-d’s worst public relations nightmare. we turn people off to G-d, not turn them on.
i REFUSE to continue to be directly associated with people who spread hate and violence, not because i want to pose as cool and hip or better than they are, but because if i associate with them, no one in the world will ever listen to the Good News that i know, because they will think the Good News i know will turn them into one of those hate spewing, right wing, war mongering people.
i realize this lumps a lot of wonderful people in with the bad. but they bring this on themselves for tolerating bad fruit within their congregations. we spend too much time chastising each other for bad doctrine and theology and not enough time chastising each other for bad fruit which poisons The Body and makes us mute to a world that needs to hear the gospel.

jhimm @ #15: he was killed for being mis-labeled The King of the Jews instead of The Messiah.
What? Where did you get that idea? He was killed because when Pilate, representing the Romans, said “Whom will you that I release unto you?” the Jews said, “Barabbas”.
Among other reasons….
It wasn’t about labelling.

jhimm,
You illustrate my point better than I could. Lord, I thank thee that I am not like those Christians…

It seems to me that considerations such as this – whether to call ourselves followers of Christ or christians – is about how to sell ourselves to the outside world. And I’m not in selling myself or the gospel. As you said, what matters is how we live and others seeing our Christ devotion in that. So labels don’t matter. btw, I call muyself a christian.

But the key part here about selling ourselves to the outside world is about who we are willing to associate with. Are we willing to be associated with “the Church”? Or must our hands be free from her dirt so that we may not build on other men’s foundations? My own opinion is that we need to be willing to bear the reproach (at times the just reproach) that the world heaps against the Church of Christ.

I’ve called myself a follower of Jesus for many years, long before I read “The Jesus Creed” and before the WWJD period. I always thought that Jesus saw Judaism as tribal, too inclusive, with it’s people unwisely claiming to be God’s chosen people. For me Jesus’ transformational characteristic (and the most cogent reason to think him the son of God) was his insight (knowledge?) that God loved all his children and that all were pure. Jesus demonstarated this time and time again. Jesus taught that God’s love was universal, inclusive, and based on the “Jesus creed.” Ironically, Jesus becomes the centerpiece of a religion that is exclusive and based on (the orthodox interpretation) purity of belief. Brother Chris B who always gives an honest, conservative orthoodox opinion here, uses that very word, exclusive… post #11.
Brother Daniel #12 humbly says we must “accept the shame and guilt,”
for the many horrible things done by Christians. Daniel, my understanding of Jesus’ teachings is that stigmatization and even demonization come with the territory; horrible things often result when religion is tribal with emphasis on exclusivity and purity. Jesus’ parable of the good Samaratan, like so many others, illustate the dehumanizing effects that exclusive, tribal religion effects in contrast with the inclusive love of God that Jesus proclaimed and modeled. The world, like Christianity itself, can be torn into a thousand pieces by emphasizing purity of belief and can be united by emphsazing the Jesus creed.
Doug

I admit I cringe at what some of the ultra conservatives who’ve made it into the media, do. But being a christian is about relationships and ppl see what I do and that’s what it’s about.

I can understand and appreciate jhimm (#15) desire to refuse to “continue to be directly associated with people who spread hate and violence”. In a sense so do I, but how far do we push it, should I refuse to be called British because of my countries association with colonial violence, the slave trade and terrible wars? Should I reject my surname, due to dubious ancestry?
In reply to Doug Allen (#20), I might cautiously suggest that, albeit unintentionally, rejecting the term Christian is a form of cutting oneself of not only from Christians in history, but also millions of people across the world, many themselves victims of the absurd things done in the name of Christ, who choose to use this term and may in itself be an exclusive and tribalistic gesture.