The Huge Difference Between a Christian and a Christ-Follower
I’ll be honest right up front — I didn’t burn $325, er um, I mean 72 minutes to listen to the podcast that readers are encouraged to consume on the blog post that I wish to address. Having said that, I do have to completely agree with the author on the title, so much so that I named this entry the same thing. Problem is, I kinda doubt that how I see the difference and how the author sees the difference are the same. I could probably confirm this if I was willing to waste over an hour of my life, but I’ll just express how I see the difference.
For what it’s worth, the term “Christian” appears 3 times in Scripture (at least that’s all in the New King Jimmy):
Acts 11:26 — And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 26:28 — Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”
1 Peter 4:16 — Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.
The term means simply “little Christ”. And so, used properly, it’s a good term, and I would readily identify myself as a Christian.
History tells us that the term, as it originated in Antioch, was actually used as a term of derision. Even if this is true, Peter’s use of the word shows that he considered it a badge of honor (see also Genesis 50:20).
While I can’t say this definitively, I would imagine that the author of that other post is big on literalism. So, what does “Christ-follower” literally mean? I’m thinking something like “follower of Christ”. Seems like following Christ would be a pretty good thing — Matthew 10:38" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=10&verse=38&version=50&context=verse" target="_blank">at Matt 16:24" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&verse=24&version=50&context=verse" target="_blank">least Matthew 19:21" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&verse=21&version=50&context=verse" target="_blank">Jesus Mark 8:34" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=8&verse=34&version=50&context=verse" target="_blank">seemed Mark 10:21" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=10&verse=21&version=50&context=verse" target="_blank">to Luke 9:23" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=9&verse=23&version=50&context=verse" target="_blank">think Luke 18:22" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=18&verse=22&version=50&context=verse" target="_blank">that John 10:27" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=10&verse=27&version=50&context=verse" target="_blank">was John 12:26" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=12&verse=26&version=50&context=verse" target="_blank">the John 21:22" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=21&verse=22&version=50&context=verse" target="_blank">case. And so, used properly, it’s a good term, and I would readily identify myself as a Christ-follower.
OK, now let’s look at how our society views the two terms. The last time that the term “Christian” meant anything meaningful in Western society, Warren G Harding was president. To most non-believers (ya know, those people we’re supposed to be trying to reach), “Christian” means “not Jewish, Muslim, or Bill Maher”. The term has become little more than a label, and has no active sense to it.
On the other hand, “Christ-follower” has a very active sense to it — the Christ-follower is following Christ. It very much identifies the person with a very specific Person, and strikes me as a very good example of living Romans 1:16" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:16;&version=50;" target="_blank">Romans 1:16.
Now, are there those who have misused the term “Christ-follower”, perhaps to associate it with beliefs that aren’t Biblical, or to affiliate it with a political cause? Probably. And perhaps these are the people with whom the author has a beef.
Are there those who have misused the term “Christian”, perhaps to associate it with beliefs that aren’t Biblical, or to affiliate it with a political cause? 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt, no way you can deny it, definitely.
So if we must abandon the term “Christ-follower” because of misuse, then we must abandon the term “Christian” also. Yet the author clings to the latter while deriding the former.
Can someone explain how exactly that works?
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
33 Comments(+Add)
Brendt – this is another sterling example of manufacturing something out of nothing, and actually making the Christian faith into a game of word parsing that swallows a camel and strains at gnat-like verbiage. These “arguments” are spiritually empty and miss the point completely.
No one is saved by works, only faith. But to construct that debate around how people describe their faith is simply to create a battle where their is none. I find that many legitimate points are sometimes raised by men like Chris R., but the method and tone with which they raise them, as well as these non-issues, obscure any thoughtful addressing of these same issues.
BTW – There is more New Testament support for being a “Christ Follower” than there is for being a “watchman/watchwomen”.
James said it best – Labels without works are dead. I will show you my label by my works. See how (Abraham) label worked with his works, and by works was his label made perfect?
I am proud to call myself a:
Bible believing, Jesus following, inerrancy espousing, bodily resurrection, 6 day creation, abortion hating, gay rejecting, men pastors, and gospel preaching Christian.
How silly, how dumb, how self righteous, how counter productive, and what a diversion and distraction from the One who we should be following. Once you allow yourself to become entrenched in an unquestioned perspective including a growing list of compromising enemies of the faith, you enjoy the freedom to be intellectually dishonest and spiritually ungracious.
So instead of the body of Christ benefiting from people who graciously and gently engage their spiritual family in the hope of being used of God to be a directional blessing to Christ’s body, these people have constructed imaginary battles and identify themselves as “truth warriors” in this supposed battle. I guess the reason many do not desire to be “Christ Followers” may be because in the end it leads to the humiliation and self denial of the cross and not the accolades of the comment section.
Doctrinal espousement is infinitely more manageable than dying to ourselves.
In South Africa we are still fortunate enough to have the “Christian” label without the bad stuff conected to it, though it has started to change…
The “Christ-follower” label is just another tactic by the emergent/seeker-sensitive/purpose-driven groups to distance themselves from traditional terms that may be offensive to target groups, i.e. “20 to 30 somethings.”
Same thing goes for “Minister of Christian Arts” versus “Music Minister.” All a marketing name game.
As Rick alluded to, calling yourself something and BEING something are two different things. My dad once said: “Just because a cat has her kittens in an oven doesn’t make them biscuits.”
Pusscuits? Kittcuits?
Is it fair to say that the world labeled us Christians in the beginning and not something that Christ or the apostles ordained? So yes, arguing just to be arguing to me.
When you mash together emergent and purpose-driven you lose credibility. Perhaps if you read the people you disagree with that would change.
Using the term Christ-follower is an attempt to differentiate between American culture that calls itself Christian and those who are following after Christ. I know I try to avoid using the same terms to describe myself that Fred Phelps and David Duke do.
Wouldn’t it be odd if we were called ‘troublemakers’ or ‘problems’ or ‘turning the world upside downers’ or ‘lion fodder’ or ‘the way’ or ‘heretics’ or ‘Israel of God’ or, well, you get the idea.
Does it really matter what we are called?
When it’s all said and done, God will call us by name: “…only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” I think I prefer to be called jerry.
Keith, you do kind of look reactionary when you lump all those groups together. I don’t know a single emergent who likes seeker sensitive or PD.
Bo: I have read PDL and PDC in their entirety. My opinion didn’t change. Why do you think you know me better than myself? I have also read works by authors in the other “camps” mentioned. My “mashing” those groups together just made the comment shorter. My experience is that they all use some type of method to attract their “focus groups.” It’s all about doing church so it doesn’t look like church, whether it be emerging, seeker, or whatever.
Jerry: (you didn’t ask me but…) It must matter a lot to some people because they go to so much trouble to change or come up with different labels.
Joe: You’re right. See my comment above to Bo. Just trying to keep the word count to a minimum.
Clarification: “It’s all about doing church so it doesn’t look like TRADITIONAL church…”
Please do tell…what is a “traditional” church?
50 years ago, 150 years ago, 500 years ago?
American, Europe, Asia, Africa?
Reformed, Anglican, CoC, Pentecostal?
It must matter to some people because they hang on so tightly to terms.
Chris: Yes.
Chris: “It must matter to some people because they hang on so tightly to terms.” I know what you mean…our former MUSIC MINISTER changed his title to MINISTER OF CHRISTIAN ARTS. He would have charged hell with a squirt gun to keep that title!
I’ve tried to not use either version. Because I have experienced the negative on both sides.
I loved this line the best, Brendt:
“
I see it that way too. At the same time I come to realize that if I meet a “Christ Follower”, that somehow after the exchange I going end up with a bruise or at least a few red marks on my body because, and this has been my experience, I’m somehow not doing enough. Not trying to say that is necessarily the norm, it’s just been my experience.
I’ve also come to shy away from using “born again” for a lot of the same reasons.
If someone asks if I’m a “Christian“, the first thing is say, why do you ask? I’ve started lately to do the same with the “Christ Follower”.
Mebbe it’s just the old hippie in me, not liking labels…….but somehow after saying hippie, I’ve labeled myself…..ya can’t win!!
Isaiah 43:
1But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob,
he who formed you, O Israel:
“Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name, you are mine.
A careful reading of the scriptures cited in this post, in their literary context as well as the rest of th NT writings, reveal the fact that we were never told to call ourselves by any name other than the Body of Christ, the saints or the church.
He calls us “His”
Keith is correct. This is merely another attempt to innundate the internet with b”anal”isms.
Scotty: You run into a similar situation with Christian Church (Restoration Movement) versus Baptist Church. The term “saved” was rarely hear at the CC I attended; people were “baptized,” thus they were “saved.”
oops
Forgot to add “sons of God” to the list.
1 John 3:1
Actually, to correct an assumption, the first shot in this little debate was fired by a purpose driven church, just google ‘i’m a christ follower’ in videos and you will see the shots that are taken at the traditional characature of american christianity.
There is a lot of baggage to the term Christian nowadays. In the middle east, it is like a faction or political party (Christian or Muslim) In America, we are seen around the world as a Christian nation, and our actions have given that term very negative connotations. That being said, I am a Christ follower (disciple) because I am a Christian (little Christ or of Christ or in Christ) because I have been born again (John 3:3)
I am not much for labels
Oooooo … what an evil idea. Trying to distance oneself from the traditions of men. And when traditional church was working so well, too. Why, in another couple years, there won’t be a single unbeliever in the entire world!!
See also, “well, he started it”
But seriously, you avoid my point entirely. Who cares who fired the first shot in the “debate”? The term (or at least, it’s actual meaning) was not first coined by some PDC. It was coined 2000 years ago. The author holds in derision a concept presented by the One that he
followsians.So? Are you saying that since the Bible never says to do something we cannot do it? Are you saying that the Bible prescribes how believers MUST refer to themselves?
I listened to the first couple minutes – ya know, he sounds really really nice… you would never think he harbors such anger and judgmentalism… until I got to the part where he says Willowcreek is a “cross-less” Christianity because he could not find a cross anywhere in their building.
I donna know… when you get to the point of trashing people because they want to distance themselves from a term that carries a lot of baggage… I suppse if you fill the actions of others with all sorts of motivations and meanings you make up yourself… well…
“Why, in another couple years, there won’t be a single unbeliever in the entire world!!”
Not if you’re a “calvinist.” (Just keeping up the trendof threads that tend to jump from one topic to another.)
Chris P,
So this site is worth spending time at now?
Are you double-minded?
Who am I kidding? Of course you are.
Not if you’re a “calvinist.”
FWIW, I am. I was being ever so slightly facetious anyway.
(Just keeping up the trendof threads that tend to jump from one topic to another.)
And the trend of threads to avoid the actual point.
Keith,
ummm…actually, as far as this whole “focus group” thing goes, etc.
How do you account for the simple fact that all the traction the “emergents” get in mainline congregations–even orthodox and traditional ones–they aren’t bucking for cosmetic changes around titles?
One of the founding key figures in the original group of friends that started the organization emergent village is a “Minister to Youth” at a thriving, traditional and theologically conservative episcopal parish here in my town. Sounds like “traditional” nomenclature to me…it works for the culture of that parish.
I see a lot of folk like that in the conversation…
On the flip-side, what’s wrong with changing titles if they aren’t deemed useful anymore?
Could it be that your music minister wants to intentionally expand the content of his/her role to be wider and more expansive than just “music”? Could it be that the title is meant to help communicate that, not only to the minister, but to the congregation?
Maybe, maybe not…but I just don’t see why it should be a problem either way.
OK,
I am breaking my rule today…
But…
THis is such a stupid argument… It is like arguing over if JEsus was “The Christ” versus “The Messiah”
In the cultural context of witnessing to Jews, one should not use “Christ” as it is offensive to them, yet they relate to “Messiah”. So we need be painfully aware of the culture we are bringing Christ JEsus the Messiah to…
Anyone that read Johnathan Edwards “Life of David Brainard” would see and realize this was what DB did with the native Americans he witnesses to…
iggy
Now back to lurking mode… and I will not engage in any discussion here.
Scotty, I’m glad somebody caught the Maher reference.
iggy, sorry to make you stumble.
“Maybe, maybe not…but I just don’t see why it should be a problem either way.” And I didn’t allow it to become a problem…we left that congregation.
Actually, the music minister hadn’t even considered the title change until he went to a “conference” and thought it sounded better. Had nothing to do with his desire to communicate anything to the congregation…except maybe some confusion.
I put this stuff on the same level as “housewife” versus “domestic engineer.” Call it whatever you want, but you’re probably still going to be changing diapers, wiping runny noses and doing a load of dishes this afternoon. Not very glamorouse anyway you slice it.
Correction to #32: glamorous Sorry, hit the “submit” button a little too quickly.