While I wouldn’t say I don’t want to call myself a Christian, I’m probably one of these people. I think new language for what it means to believe in Jesus is important.
Part of it has to do with the association (in many people’s minds) between Christianity and particular political views, or colonialism, or general backwardness. Part of it is a way of differentiating the church from the church-influenced culture. For many, being Christian is simply what you are if you’re not Jewish or Hindu or something.
So the urge to say, “I’m a follower of Jesus” or whatever is a way of maybe getting past pre-conceived notions of what religion even means. Saying “I follow Jesus” rather than “I’m a Christian” may be to some people the difference between hearing “My life is centered around this guy, Jesus” and “I hate gay people and don’t like science”. All communication (labels included) is missional.
Of course, it can also come in the form of a kind of hipster snobbery. (“I follow Jesus, I’m not one of those kinds of Christians that listen to Michael W. Smith and wear corny T-shirts. I wear cool jeans and have a blog!”) Or a refusal to own up to the mistakes of the church. (“You can’t hold us accountable for what those Christian Crusaders did. We’re Christ-followers! Totally different!”)

When we load up the Christian car, Jesus often has to sit in the backseat.
1. Many churches place much more emphasis on Paul than on Christ. Paul doesn’t give us parables with no easy answer, he gives us orders. He’s not afraid to kick ass and take names. We like that. He was a marketing machine. We like that, too.
2. Some place more emphasis on the Bible than on Jesus. Jesus is one and the same with the Holy Spirit, and you don’t have to go too far in the blogosphere to find violent disagreement with the idea that we should search for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Instead, we are commanded to study the written word of God because all we need is there. (You see a lot of churches with “Bible” in their names but not too many with “Jesus.”)
3. The third example, and maybe what people mean most often, would be equating Christianity with (for want of a better term) right-wing or conservative political views. To call yourself a Christian in liberal company runs you the risk of being stereotyped in ways you don’t want to be stereotyped.

Is this a subtle slam on Catholic faith. Seems like it to me.

I think the bottom-line of my view on this is that “Christianity” now has about 2000 years of some pretty ugly baggage with it with plenty of contemporary examples to draw from. Think of Muslims and Islam — the terrorists we see do not represent the true tenets of that religion, and yet so many people jump to a conclusion about Muslims simply based on that.
I think it is possible to be a Christian and have a liberal view on life. It is also possible to have a conservative view on life. Or somewhere in between. but Jjoe said it nicely with the stereotype — right or wrong, when I say I am a Christian, I am immediately pigeonholed by people who do not know me.

Uh oh, everybody, Taylor (#3) has seen through our charade! Of course this is a slam against Catholics. What makes you think Protestants have anything better to do on nice Friday afternoons than sit around and destroy Catholics?

Mike M @ 5,
Foiled again. Those meddling kids.
Is he talking about the picture maybe?

Once again I echo Travis. I’m fine with identifying myself as either; in fact, I’m more used to ‘Christian.’ But the attractiveness, to me, of the ‘follower’ language is that the Christianity I grew up with was primarily ‘a religion for death,’ as a friend of mine has put it. One may or may not be an apprentice of Jesus–intent on becoming what he is and doing what he says–by many popular evangelical definitions of the gospel. In these systems, Christianity’s primary reason for being was the after-life problem, with secondary/optional implications for the shape of this life and our human relations. As the invitations to the kingdom and apprenticeship have begun to get hold within evangelical circles, this selective focus is being called into question. “Follower of Jesus”, I think, is at least partly about this change of emphasis to put the shape/direction of this life on par with the concern for the next.

First time poster here but longtime reader of the blog. Perhaps I am overly sensitive, but as a Catholic I also wondered why the post used a picture of the Vatican. From my experience, it seems that most people my age who used the term “Jesus Follower” use it to distinguish themselves from Evangelical groups and not the Catholic Church.

PLLH (& Taylor),
I suspect the picture was used just as an image of the institutional church. The Vatican is the most obvious and visually identifiable image, but any picture of an old church would do. Or even a megachurch.
I think the “Jesus follower” thing is more prevalent among recovering evangelicals than recovering Catholics

Travis, agreed. Thanks for the clarification.

Sorry for the repetitive posts, but I have one more question. How should we as Christians or Jesus Followers understand the Bible’s description of the Church (universal) as the bride of Christ? Does the term Jesus follow imply a sense of individuality that separates people from other believers?

PLLH, I apologize for any such suggestion. When I thought of “Christianity” I thought of the Vatican and St Peter’s Square. It was not meant to equate Catholicism with institutional Christianity but to find an image that evoked Christianity. I could have used a number of images, including megachurches or Nicea or Wittenburg or Wheaton or Grand Rapids or Canterbury.

1.) I think many are suspicious of a systematic construct, that is blanketed over the Bible (and paraded as the Bible’s message itself), that creates a system that can, at times, actually feel contrary to the teachings and actions of Jesus himself.
2.) I think some merely avoid the “Christianity” label because its been claimed by a conservative, Republican movement, that many feel – again, is in violation of the very teachings and actions of Jesus.
The bottom line, I think, is that by claiming to be “a follower of Jesus” one can make a fresh impression on someone – without feeling like “associative baggage” is getting in the way from the get-go.

I don’t think that there’s any denying that, for some, the word “Christianity” has been associated with certainly attitudes (both political AND religious) that some want to distance themselves from. Indeed, many of those attitudes are actually rather non-Christian (or, perhaps, un-Christian is more accurate?), and I don’t blame them for wanting to distance themselves from the label, although like the similarly-tainted “evangelical,” I’d rather try to redeem the label (which has much good to it, too) instead of lose it altogether.
I do fear that there’s a subset of these “followers of Jesus” that don’t just stop there, though, and indeed feel that they can “go it alone” in terms of their faith, choosing not just to avoid the connotations of being connected with believers with whom they have strong differences, but choosing to avoid being connected with fellow believers entirely. This, I fear, is a growing problem, and is simply not consistent with truly following Jesus.

I think William P. Young (The Shack) has a fine reply when people ask if he is a Christian. “Tell me what you believe a Christian is, and I’ll tell you if I’m one of those.” It respectfully avoids confusion and misrepresentation.

Modern Reformation (March/Apr 2009) ran a thought provoking article on the “Imitation of Christ”, in which Michael Horton gives great food for thought that ties into this distinction raised between “Christianity” and “Jesus Follower”. The following distinct emphases are presented:
-Christ’s example over his unique and sufficient achievement
-The inner experience and piety of believers over the external work and Word of Christ
-Our moral transformation over the Spirit’s application of redemption
-Private soul formation over the public ministry of the means of grace
The article then goes on to discuss the distinct difference of the above emphases when their priorities are reversed: Christ’s sufficient achievement over his example; Christ’s work and Word over and above inner experience; and on and on.
On one hand, the difference between “follower of Christ” and “Christian” is semantic, but it seems we would also agree that words/titles create preceptions that point to reality lived out. In the end, i’m really not sure which of the two titles are more accurate a description of God’s covenant people. BTW, weren’t early converts to Christianity called “Followers on the Way”? How would that description fly today?

Travis (9): is there a 12-Step program for that?
Also, could that picture have been taken in Salt Lake City? South Barrington?
When people labels themselves as Christians, it’s sometimes to back-up what they WON’T do as in “As a Christian girl, I don’t do that” or “Christian businessmen don’t do that…”

People call themselves Followers of Jesus because they are afraid to express their beliefs in Public–particularly as antithetical to a denomination or Church. So they say Im a follower of Jesus–this is the easy way. To be a Christian means taking up your Cross everyday and loving your brother–even when you disagree with his political views, his theology, his doctrines, his worship, his Church etc.
Im a Christian looking to Christ to humble me,love me.

Personally I am not a fan of the new fad of identifying ourselves as “Followers of Jesus”. Not because we are not, which we are, but it seems like we are handing over a centuries old identifier that goes back to Antioch to those who have high-jacked the term for their social, political and religious agenda’s. I think instead of calling ourselves “Followers of Jesus” we should show the world that Christianity is about truly following Jesus. We should reclaim the family name and not reject it because of its checkered past. Nevertheless, if it helps you reach people with the love of Jesus – by all means call yourself whatever conveys the message.

re; MDBach. Haven’t read the article by Horton but if I am reading your comment correctly, it seems that he is creating a false dichotomy and perhaps insinuates that those who stress “Christ’s example” ignore his “unique and sufficient achievement.” Is it really one or the other. Yes, semantics are important and what we call something affects what we think about it (think fertilizer, manure, cow dung).
From my impression, people who use Jesus follower over Christian do so for two reasons. One has been noted numerous times above: the desire to distance self from negative connotations of the term Christian. The second is to emphasize that it is not simply about beliefs but action. OK, third reason: it’s the hip thing to do.
It seems to me that whatever term we pick will be insufficient in some way as each term places its emphasis on something different. Isn’t that part of the reason that we see so many metaphors and images for the church (people of God) in Scripture.
Maybe I will just call myself a JesusfollowingChristianchildofGod-saintmemberofthebodyofChristdiscipleservantofGodmemberoftheroyalpriesthoodbrotherinChrist whowasboughtwithaprice.

“Neither calling ourselves Christians or calling ourselves Jesus followers means anything. The only thing that counts is faith expressing expressing itself in love” (aka new creation).
Gal 5:6; Gal 6:15
I love it when Paul speaks in parables!

For me, identifying as a Follower of The Tao of Jesus (Tao means ‘way’, and Jesus said “I am The Way”), rather than as a Christian, is an attempt to head off at the pass cultural, historic and doctrinal assumptions that people will make about me when they become aware of my religious identity.
I spent a number of years trying to be a light in the darkness of a particular subculture in Boston. It was an unmitigated disaster. The primary reason for this, is that this subculture is pretty antithetical to cultural, historic Christianity. So, when I first injected myself into “the scene” and people became aware that I was “a Christian” they immediately formed a very rich, deep, complex, three dimensional model of who I was, and almost all of it was negative. This meant that everything I said was interpreted through a filter of suspicion, contempt, cynicism and with an active eye towards trying to catch me in a hypocrisy. Since I am human, the exhausting act of having to endlessly clarify and re-articulate myself would eventually fail, I’d misspeak, an inconsistency would emerge, and I’d be branded a hypocrite (“just like all Christians, you’re a hypocrite”). Lather, rinse, repeat.
So now I don’t say I’m a Christian. I’m still an active Roman Catholic. I still have to answer for the heinous failings of the institutional church. But saying “I am a follower of The Tao of Jesus” raises questions instead of paves the way for assumptions. So I find it useful as a way of creating conversation. I’m sure as it becomes more popular to identify as a follower of Jesus, this will eventually cease to be effective.

Mich @ 18, “People call themselves Followers of Jesus because they are afraid to express their beliefs in Public”
That’s an unfair accusation. Saying “I follow Jesus” in public is not a safe or normal thing to do many places. If people were really afraid to express their beliefs, they wouldn’t express any at all.

I agree with those who observe that there is a lot of historical and cultural baggage connected with the word “Christian.” I like the stress that “follower of Jesus” gives: we are following a person, not a doctrinal statement; Jesus called us to a “way of life”, not a set of religious ideas. The early Christians talked and wrote about “the Way” not “the Beliefs.”

I like to be really retro. Like a couple of other posters above, I tell people that I follow The Way.

I think this is part of the individualistic focus of much of modern Christianity (or Jesus Following, I guess), particularly protestants. The problem with using the Following Jesus term to me is that it further ignores the church (not the Catholic church or any other particular institution). The good news is about the appearance of the Kingdom of God on Earth. The Kingdom is embodied in God’s redeemed people, the church. I think the idea that we can follow Jesus on our own is a recipe for failure.

My experience has been that the use of labels like “follower of Jesus” or “following of the way of Jesus” has been linked to a focus on discipleship, living out Jesus’ teachings, and following his example.
This focus is good especially after being so focused on right belief and theology.
But I think there is a risk of losing being in relationship/in union with Jesus as a part following Him and becoming his disciple. Many of my friends who would describe themselves as “followers of Jesus” would see Jesus as just a teacher or guru or model or perhaps even Messiah but not God become flesh, or Saviour because of the cross and resurrection.
I think we need both: faith and practice, relationship with Christ and living it out. And if those are there then maybe labels don’t matter that much.

Carl(20)Of course I cannot speak for Mr Horton, however as I read the article I do not see him creating a dichotomy where someone emphasizes one point and ignores the other, or places the other point at odds (ie: “Christ’s example” vs. “Christ’s sufficient achievement”). Rather, as I understand the article in question, it comes down to priorities, where one prioritizes one emphasis over the other (ie: “Christ’s example” >/

(28) Should have ended by saying:
(ie: “Christ’s example” > or

#28&29
The post wouldn’t let me use both a “greater than” or “less than” symbol. The point I was trying to make is one of prioritizing (rather than ignoring) one point over the other.

I recently desribed myself as a Jesus-follower only to be more specific about myself. Christian is rather general, but to say Jesus-follower is more specific. I personally have no problem identifying myself as a Christian, I jus wanted to be specific about my devotion. But really, no one word or phrase is perfect because I’m sure there are some that would identify with Jesus that do not hold to orthodoxy. So at the end of the day, what matters is how you live and the state of your heart.

There are fans of Jesus and there are followers of Jesus. A fan likes Him as long He doesn’t ask for much, followers love Him and do what He says. Fans and followers can both call themselves “Christians” or “Christ-Followers.” Its not what you call yourself, its what you do (for Him)

The first time I heard the term “Christ follower” in my church, my ears perked up. It does put a rather different bent to what it means to be a believer. It’s difficult to clearly differentiate ourselves from cultural Christianity. I think it’s good to sometimes say the same thing in a different way. It may actually cause people to give it a few seconds of thought.

I go with just Christian, but more and more people I know go with Christ Follower.
A few years ago, I remember seeing a Mac vs. PC parody about Christ Follower vs. Christian? I found it on YouTube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RtfNdg1fQk
I doubt that this represents the views of everyone who calls themselves a Christ Follower, but it’s one perspective.

MDBach(28, 29) Thanks for clarifying on the Horton article. I perhaps read too much into it and was perhaps prejudiced in my reading, expecting a dichotomy to be presented. So, if I understand correctly he simply says someone who calls themselves a Jesus follower will emphasize Christ’s example while the one calling themselves Christian will emphasize (or give priority to) Christ’s unique and sufficient atonement? Most of that seems fair … it frequently seems as if the emphasis has come about in reaction to a perceived imbalance. And unfortunately our corrections often swing too far the other way.

Carl (35) Hopefully i’ve done justice in clarifying part of Michael Horton’s article, but it would certainly be best for you to read his entire article titled “Following Jesus: What’s Wrong and Right About the Imitation of Christ”. You can google it, or find it on the Modern Reformation website.

I’ve thought about whether or not I would comment on this question. I finally decided I would. Suffice it to say in this context that as an adult before my conversion (around thirtyish) I wasn’t simply non-Christian, but had a pretty negative view of Christianity in general. I also am uncomfortable with labels and categories. I would say that I’m still not particularly comfortable identifying myself with the label ‘Christian’. I’m even more distinctly uncomfortable most of the time applying the subcategory ‘Baptist’ to myself, though it’s the only one that really fits at all.
However, it seems to me that this discussion often misses a few ideas. First, I’m not sure the important thing is what we call ourselves. We were first called Christians at Antioch by those who saw the way we lived, the way we cared for all who needed it, the way we followed the way of love, of life, of Jesus, and recognized that we were not simply a sect among the Jews, but something different. That was the label applied to distinguish us and it’s as good as any other. Moreover, it’s the one by which we are collectively known, for good or ill, around the world.
Perhaps more importantly, it seems to me (as many comments here have indicated) that the decision to use a different label is based on a desire to disassociate from others who use the old label. It’s a statement that I’m sorta in that group, but really different. I have a different name. And I don’t think we really get the choice of acting that way. The metaphors and pictures in the Holy Scriptures are all ones of familial bonds and closer. Family. Body. Building. Bride. If you choose to follow Jesus of Nazareth, that’s what you’re joining.
In some ways, it’s like our ‘families of origin’. By and large, we don’t get to simply decide to carve out that part of identity and replace it with whatever we desire. Where there have been patterns and histories of destructive behavior, we can decide to make a break from that past and redeem our behavior and whatever of our present and future family we can. But you don’t stop being a part of that family or carrying the label or name of that family.
How much closer a bond is a body? If part is sick, I may want to make it well. But we tend to consider it an extreme last measure to ‘disassociate’ from body parts that are diseased or injured. And there’s a limit to how much of that you can do before the body dies.
So it is with becoming Christian. It means you are joining a family, past and present, with both its good parts and its bad. You’re making its whole story part of your story. You are joining all other Christians past and present in koinonia, which is perhaps best translated into english as ‘communion’. If anything, it’s even closer than a family since all of us from the first day to the present are ‘one body’.
So while I don’t think it much matters what label or name is applied to us, I think it does reveal a deeper problem when some want to identify themselves by different names and with different labels.

I find the advantage in using a description less known to people. Everyone knows what a Christian is. Though they’re often wrong. Some people have never heard “follower of Jesus” so maybe they’ll investigate a little.

I feel that using the term Christian for me is an association with a large group of people, a great heritage. Sometimes I want to associate myself with that tradition, and other times I definitely do not. Referring to myself as a Christ-follower seems to be a more potent reminded of what I should be doing with my life.
In Christendom, I think that it is easy to call oneself a Christian, to mentally assent to the ideas and doctrines of what is “orthodox Christianity” without daring to do anything with their lives. In fact, salvation has become almost synonymous with this act (as it seems to do in a fairly regular cycle in Christian history). I prefer to think of faith-life, salvation and life coming from an active response to the story of Jesus, to taking it as one’s own and walking in the Jesus Way.
So in those two ways, I see fairly distinct differences.