There is indeed a difference in practice.

Being a Christian means you're "saved" and so you've got the get-out-of-hell-free card. Faith, not works means that no action is required other than maybe a sinner's prayer and getting wet.

Following Jesus is another thing entirely.

My brother, methinks you paint with too broad a brush. For some who eschew the word "Christian," it has nothing at all to do with a failure to own the church, but with the relative lack of meaning the word possesses, in American culture, at least. To many in my community, "Christian" can mean one or more of any number of things:
a person who is not Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu
a theist
good person
right-wing
Republican
white middle-classed American
church-goer
used-to-be-a-churchgoer
judgmental, narrow-minded bigot
a born-again believer,
and more.
But a Christ-follower is a far more specific, and in my community, at least, far more helpful term.

I take exception to the idea that Christ is only because of his Jewish roots and his Christian era. Just as God is God, with or without me, so is Christ (and the Holy Spirit, for that matter). If I completely left the movement, Christ would still be himself.

Having said that, I'm a Christian, with or without those who say they aren't.

Good thoughts! If "Christian" has lost it's meaning, why should we have any confidence that "Christ-follower" won't be a worn-out, empty phrase in a few years. And then what will we do... find another name for ourselves?

I think that the same spirit that causes some to embrace the designation Christ-follower is what we need to redeem the name Christian from its captivity: a spirit of humility and love for both our unsaved friends and our save "enemies."

in my experience and observations, it's people who are offended at the "christ-follower" moniker that also still try to deride any idea of connection to historical faillings of the Church....

in my experience and observations, it's been people who choose the term "Christ-follower" who have taken seriously the effects of those failings on the witness/credibility of the Church.

and they get smacked down for it...told they "hate the Church"...etc...

"...why should we have any confidence that "Christ-follower" won't be a worn-out, empty phrase in a few years"?

In my opinion it already has been worn-out and it too is an empty phrase. Christ-follower strikes me as a reactionary term that is now trendy. It seems this term too has lost its way.

A lot of this does come down to experience. For Bob, Christian means "white, upper- middle class, Republican, bigotted, church-goer (or used to be one), etc."

But Christ-follower is not a lot more helpful. It means, in my experience, a person who is (or consider himself) young, still low enough in the middle class that he feels poor, and importantly, a person who thinks Barack Obama is awesome.

Christians and Christ-followers can both love Jesus... but we should note that Christ-follower is (to quote Bob) "specific" and "more helful" not only in theological matters, but often in terms of politics and social location.

Christian is a word to embrace not because it binds me to fundamentalists (ugh), but because it binds us to hundreds of millions of poor people throughout the world, to illegal immigrants in our cities, and to folks who today (as in the past) are dying for their identification with Christ and Christ's body.

Sorry - I stopped reading when Jason wrote that Lisa Miller is an excellent journalist. What? The same Lisa Miller who writes opinion pieces in Newsweek?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet." - Shakespeare

"...thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of the knowledge of him. For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing." - 2 Corinthians 2:14-15

A good word--"The much more costly way to disassociate from those who have done ill in Christ’s name is to set about loving as fanatically as they hated."

TJ,

You really stopped reading because you disagreed? Gosh.

Steve

Basically, calling yourself a "Christ follower" means not only are you a Christian, you’re also a smug jerk about it.

In general, anyone who describes their relationship with Jesus in terms like this are essentially talking about what they ideally are. Not what they actually are. What they actually are still needs work. That’s true of all of us. But the first step towards being who we need to be involves humility, not claiming special titles.

Loved this. Loved the "love the head but not the body" observation. I've felt the same "who do you think you're fooling with this grammatical switcheroo?" There can be fake or misleading Christ followers just like fake or misleading Christians.

Just wait for some to pop up and let's have another rebranding party. Arthur Blessit and Calvary Chapels came out of the Jesus Movement, but so did "The Way" and The Alamo Foundation who were clearly heretical. Because of those heretical branches and mainstream acceptance of the good, everyone talks of the Jesus Movement in the past tense ("I came out of the Jesus Movement in the OC.")

And that's how I view this; as the Christ follower movement. It will produce some Chuck Smith/CC people and orgs with impact, changing lives. And it will produce some heretical "I only believe in the red letters of the Bible" junk. Both will be branches in our family tree. Some will remain and some will be pruned and burned. Time will tell and I entrust that job to the one who judges justly.

Multiple sons and daughters from the same family can change their last names all they want to disassociate from the less desirable people or deeds in their family tree. But strangely enough, rebranding is only required by our Savior once (2 Cor 5:17) and anything beyond that is possibly just marketing and image management, not following Christ.

As a Christian, I refer to call myself a "believer." I think Christian is kind of a made-up word anyway.

"More power to the people looking for alternative biblical descriptions of Christians. We can all use those—they awaken our imagination to fresh evocations of our faith. But the choice of one such term need not—can not—excise another."

Okay, I will give my position on this subject a second thought and consider your argument.
I just think the term Christian has been sullied to the point of unsalvagability in the U.S. and the world, but I will concede that the core is still the same...Y'shua.
/sigh
I will give it thought.

This is not in any way a new discussion. I grew up within the Plymouth Brethren family of churches and was not in any way encouraged or even allowed to call myself a Christian. I was a believer. Christian was the term used for those who were culturally associated with Christendom but not necessarily followers of
Jesus. That was a judgmental position unfortunately and one I have moved away from. I am still very reluctant to use the word Christian. I prefer to have a conversation about my beliefs and worldview rather than wear a label.

Sometimes we get to hung up or technical about a name. That is usually becaue we have seen the name misused or abused. It doesn't matter what you are called as much as it matters what you do.

If you are really a Christ Follower, then you will want to be Getting To Know Jesus. This is a Bible study of every event in the life of Christ from the four Gospels. A Christ-follower looks at Jesus as Lord, Savior and role model. Getting To Know Jesus is a tool to help you become a real Christ follower!

your heading is really thought full that Not a Christian, But a Christ-Follower?We all people looks the chistian not as christian but christ means god's follower.

I think it might have been more helpful to undertake a serious examination of the reasons why so many people feel the need to eschew the name "Christian." What are their perceptions, experiences and rationales? Are they perhaps valid? If so, to what extent? And what can we do about the root causes? Self-examination is almost always more transformative than blaming some "other." And I think it's probably more biblical, too. There is after all that annoying scripture about examining planks and splinters in the eyes...

Someone once asked the question, "If you were put on trial for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" If you are a Christian then you are a Jesus follower and you won't have to tell anybody, they will just know and the title won't matter.

Seems "christians" have a love for this world and it's things ;-(

The Messiah testified: “If the world hates you know that it hated Me before it hated you.” (John 5:18) “The world cannot hate you; but the world hates Me, because I testify that the works of this world are evil.” (John 7:7)” Truly, Truly, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone: but if it die it brings forth much fruit. He that loves his life in this world shall lose it; and he that hates his life in this world shall have it unto Life Eternal.” (John 12:24-25) “If you were of the world, the world would love it’s own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hates you". (John 15:19) and “The Messiah gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of GOD, Our Father.”(Gal 1:4)

The Apostle John testified, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world will pass away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of GOD will abide for ever.” (I John 2:15-17)

The Apostle James testified, “Where do wars and fighting among you come from? Do they not come of your lusts that war in your members? You lust, and have not: you kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: you fight and war yet you have not, because you ask not. You ask, and receive not, because you ask amiss, that you may consume it upon your lusts. You adulterers and adulteresses, don’t you know the friendship of this world is enmity with GOD? Therefore, whoever will be a friend of the world is the enemy of GOD.” (James 4:1-4)

And The Apostle John testified, "The WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one." (1John 5:19)

Question is, "Why is it that the multitudes believe that a certain portion of this world is not "under the control of the evil one""?

Discernment has taught me that the multitudes compare one portion of this "evil world" to another, "which is not wise", and then that portion which is the lesser evil in their own mind, becomes their version of good ;-(

Sadly, seems it's a game people play, the "gevid" game, and all who play are losers ;-(

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light, and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa 5:20)

So it is that the multitudes love this evil world, it's things, and their own life in and of it ;-(

And "the few" who follow The Messiah "on the narrow way"?

They have "set their affections on things above", Heavenly things.......

They are "In, yet not of this world" indeed and Truth.......

Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this evil world....... francis

I believe being called a "Christian" is a reminder to me of the price Christ paid for my salvation. I could follow Him without calling myself a Christian, but just being a follower does not carry the deep meaning of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which has been my resource since I became a Christian. If we are "one" with Christ, it is a greater reality than just following Him. I want the full benefit and the full responsibility of that oneness.

Thom
http://thom-signsofastruggle.blogspot.com/

I'm grateful to Out of Ur for posting this, and to these respondents for commenting. One commenter I want to respond to in particular: Sarah, you will note I praise Lisa Miller as a journalist, not as an opinion-writer. I wish I could say I'm surprised that you would stop reading and then take the time to post a comment to denounce my ability to judge good journalists rather than engage my point here, but alas, I'm not surprised--the chance to deliver a zinger on a blog comment is entirely too tempting.

There is, indeed, a deep crisis about the Christian identity without a general acknowledgement of the manner of Christ's standing self-revelation in his perfect and diacritical death on the cross!

Interesting article. I'm one of those 900 on Facebook (Twitter too) with the moniker "Christ follower" rather than Christian. I had no idea it was making waves.

I'm a Christian, absolutely. I attend and serve in my local church, I profess Jesus Christ as my savior. But I like the term Christ follower (especially in social media settings) because I think it more clearly states exactly what a Christian should be. I follow Christ. I am a Christ follower. Semantics really. And I never try to distance myself from other Christ followers that prefer the more traditional name.

A Christian is someone who has Christ in his heart and follows Him. I don't think they are mutually exclusive. A Christian, by default, follows Christ because of who we are in Him.

Great post - thanks for publishing this. I agree with one of the commenters: when we get tired of being Christ-followers, then we can be Christians again. Or maybe "lovers of the son of Jehovah." Or "Jesus geeks." Or "disciples of the second person of the Trinity."

Did Christ say your are all to be called Christians? please let me see it in the red parts.

Should that He call us humble for we will be saved.

Did Christ say your are all to be called Christians? please let me see it in the red parts.

Should that He call us humble for we will be saved.

My friends gain a hearing among followers of Mohammod as followers of Jesus one of the other Islamic prophets. They don't wear a cross, they don't serve pork, women dress modestly, men don't wear short pants. They avoid those things that could cause offence that they might win some.

Acts 11
The Church in Antioch
25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

christian - a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination
christian - following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ

I wore a brown wool blazer through 4 years of high school. The breast pocket had a patch that said I was a "Christ Bearer" in Latin. Wearing that jacket never made me a Christian or a follower of Christ it just showed I was a student of the school. It took me until I was 50yrs old to understand what it meant to become a Son of God and be adopted into His family. I live in a family of adopted children of God and I thank my Savior each day for His love and obedience to the Father.

When Jesus was walking around on the earth, his name wasn't "Jesus", but rather, "Joshua" (or Yeshua in the Aramaic/Hebrew). The word "Jesus" has no particular meaning, whereas "Joshua" means "Salvation of God".

Accordingly, He was the Anointed One, or Messiah (again, in Aramaic/Hebrew). As the early church moved west, the hard "J" was adopted onto Jesus' name. Also the Greeks had there own version of Messiah, which thus became "Christ". From this, of course, came the term "Christian", with all the Greek/Western thinking/flavoring thereof.

A side note here: Hercules was called the christ by the Greeks long before it was applied to Jesus; as translations go, I guess they thought it was a good fit.

Maybe the so-called "Christ Followers" should rethink what they call themselves and try "Messiah Followers" or "Anointed One Followers". While we are at it, maybe "Christians" should become "Messiahians". Naaa.

We westerners rarely think about the meaning behind names, and change them at will. (Shakespeare: "A rose by any other name smells as sweet".) But to the Semite, the name carried the essence of the item or person, and the essence of the item or person was reflected in the name. We ignore all that, and that is a sad commentary.

However one cuts it, there is but ONE church, ONE Savior, and ONE path to eternal life. And the world will know we are ___________ (- - fill in the blank) by our love.

GK>

What is the difference? Christian is a follower of Christ. 'Christian' is a Biblical term where for the first time in Antioch they had been called Christians. The writer is playing with words or ashamed of being called Christian. Christian is to be identified with Christ. What is wrong with that? How can a person could be called Christian with being a follower of Christ. I know there are many call themselves Christian but not follow Christ. The prime enemy of these self acclaimed 'Christians' is ignorance about whom they follow. I don't think we need to change our title 'Christian' which is an honorable title with politically correct title.

"Christian" is a made-up word? Made up by the fine folks of Antioch, most likely to mock the followers of Christ who had fled north after Stephen was stoned. Yep, better ditch the name people have died to wear thru the ages and were mocked by as they followed the Savior. It's just another way to say, "No, no! I'm not like THOSE wrong people! I'm a RIGHT person, see! I'm not a conservative/pro-lifer/homeschooler/stay at home mom/promise keeper dude/etc. I'm a Jesus guy! WO0t!" If like the Brethren you eschew a worldly label, so be it, but for crying out loud... Jesus-follower? Itsounds like you're following a band around.

I must say that some of those who have commented are quite judgmental of others and their intentions. Noone but God knows my intentions or what is in my heart. I would appreciate not having people tell me what my intentions are when they don't even know me. I do not prefer to say I am a Christian because there are too many people, some of whom I know personally that call themselves a Christian simply because they were born in America or because their parents or grandparents may have been Christian. The definition of Christian has been lost in this world for quite some time. To many the word Christian does not define someone who believes in and follows Christ teachings. I prefer to call myself a Christ Follower or Believer because that is what I am. I follow Christ by not judging others and by showing love to others no matter how they treat me. Call it what you want, and I will do the same.

I have found myself lately, saying I am a "believer", as in a believer of Jesus Christ not only being the Son of God but the final sacrifice for all sin. I have heard Bill O'Reilly, a Catholic, say he is a Christian but not sure if Jesus as the Son of God. So how can he say he is a Christian?

Many people use the term "Christian' today, as meaning anything other than a cult, or a group who does not believe that Jesus was the Son of God. But it is not enough to believe this --even Satan believes Jesus is the Son of God but we wouldn't consider him to be a Christian in any sense of he word --even if he wasn't a spirit (sometimes using the form of man or animal).

To say we are a Christian because we belong to a denomination just doesn't apply to those who are born again Christians or believers. It is an individual decision that must be made by each person, regardless of what church they attend, what denomination their parents were or what belief they adhere to.

Because of this, especially when I am witnessing to unbelievers who are tired of hearing those who say they are a Christian but there is no outward sign of this being true, I will say I am a believer. A born again believer because Jesus died for my sins, was resurrected and is coming back very soon to 'catch me in the air' to be with Him forever.

In Christ,
Cheri

Unfortunately the best shafts my family has received have been from "Good Christians". Personally I have met only two people that one might consider "Christians". The vast majority are what my children refer to as "Hippa-Christians". Do I detest and loath Christians?
No I am honest and don't hide behind the doors of an edifice built for them to hide behind with their sins. I do believe in Jesus it's a shame most 'Hippa-Christians don't.

Semantics yes. Words are important and different expressions can encourage others to think. There are many who call themselves Christian who truly are not (such as those who call themselves Christian based on the premise that they were baptised as children, but have never put their trust in Jesus). So, why wouldn't you want to differentiate between one who calls themselves Christian and isn't and one whose passion is Jesus. It is not arrogant. It is fact. It is clarification. If the word Christian has lost its salt, then by all means use a saltier (clearer) word! Why is that a problem? What I heard being said was that it is like saying we should just call ourselves human because calling ourselves Christian is arrogant in its differentiation from the 'common human'. There is nothing wrong with clarifying your identity to one who asks. Clarity is helpful and thought-provoking. If someboady asked who I am I might be less inclined to identify myself as a 'Christian' because of the ones who defiled the name. . .

"Christ-follower" suggests a decision that I made, not a faith I was born into, and that I have an active relationship with Christ and His teachings. It doesn't say that I am perfect, far from it. It says that I will follow Him and as we walk, I will stumble. He will pick me up and I will follow Him again. But I'll never be ashamed of being called a Christian either.
Frankly, it doesn't matter what we call ourselves if our lives don't demonstrate Jesus.

A Christian is a Christ follower in the sense that is is obedient to the Lord's commadnments. Though we are saved by grace, works are an expression of our faith in Jesus Christ. There are true conversions and false confessions. Claiming to be a Christian means that one is following after Christ. The terms "Christian" and "Christ follower" are inseparable.

Someone stated, "As a Christian, I refer to call myself a "believer." I think Christian is kind of a made-up word anyway." Satan believes, too, and that makes him a believer. The word "Christian" was a made-up word to identify Christ followers.

Someone stated, "Being a Christian means you're "saved" and so you've got the get-out-of-hell-free card. Faith, not works means that no action is required other than maybe a sinner's prayer and getting wet." This statement is one that reflects the mentality of the "Once Saved, Always Saved" doctrine.

The word christian was orginally a term associated with the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. For it was in Antioch where they were first called christians. It was not a term of self proclamation then nor do I think it is to be used in that context now. I have no desire to call myself a christian, that is for others to say.

I appreciate the argument that is trying to be made in this article, but I whole-heartedly disagree. Here's a couple reasons why:

1) You write - "This is especially important to reassert when we are tempted to say we’re with the head, but not the other parts of the body..."

Unfortunately, Paul did not see things this way at all. In fact, he seemed to have no problem at all dismissing some self-proclaimed Jesus followers all-together as not part of the body.

2) Saying, "I am not a Christian, I am a Jesus follower" is not akin to saying "I’m not a baseball player, I’m a second baseman.”

Definitions can most definitely be subjective.

What if one said, "I am not a musician, but I play the guitar". This statement wouldn't make much sense coming from Eddie Van Halen, but what if someone said it who simply picked up a guitar and strummed, not knowing how to create any chords and strum a particular rhythm, but knew exactly how a guitar is played (by those with more knowledge, experience, and practice).

Nonetheless, one could totally make an honest attempt to follow Jesus but not fully participate in the larger system of beliefs that Christians have acquired. In fact, Jesus' disciples and others within first century Judaism who followed the teachings of Jesus would not have considered themselves Christian, but rather that it was a derogatory name given to them from their adversaries.

I agree with you when you say - "Those who disagree are still members of this family. They can’t disown me anymore than I can them." Christians have historically and consistently drawn lines between "us" and "them".
But who gets to decide who is part of the family and who isn't? Would you have considered Gnostics, Montanists, or Valentinians to be in this family?

On a larger scale, some Christians "disown" people of other religions quite frequently, but aren't they all part of the larger family of "world religions".

Sorry - I forgot to post my URL -

www.thisisamess.blogspot.com

I see the word "Christ-follower," as many prior comments have said, as being about following Jesus Christ (a deliberate action). Yet, this term, too, can become meaningless (if used to mean anything less than Jesus being Son of God, savior, forgiver and leader).

This is not the same as wanting to call myself a "second baseman" instead of a "baseball player." That's because the term "Christian" has such varied meanings outside the walls of the church. Unlike the term "baseball player" which has a very specific meaning to all involved, "Christian" may not communicate what you think it does to your hearers.

In practice, I use both terms. But, either way, it seems to me that a single term will never accurately and fully describe the genuine article! How do we live, regardless of what we call ourselves?

Doesn't "Christian" mean "one who is like Christ?" It was a moniker placed on the early believers by the world.

Now, how many in the world have even the foggiest idea of Jesus' true nature?

If you were to get your ideas of Christ's nature by observing so-called Christians in media, you might assume that Jesus could have had a day job as a used-car salesman and that everything he held near and dear could be solved with donations of sufficient funds.

I am embarrassed to be associated with some people show call themselves Christians. Am I qualified to judge whether they really know Christ? Absolutely not.

But I see in Christianity a beautiful, cogent, wonderful truth that provides the answers to mans' deepest questions, longings and needs.

I also see Christianity cheapened and co-opted so often by so many that I want to have a way to distinguish myself from those that would do that. If the term "Christ Follower" does that, then I'm all for it. I have my doubts, though, that a name change will make much difference.

Does anyone think it might be possible to reclaim the term "Christian"? Here in Spain it has such negative connotations. I think it would be worth a major effort. Peter spoke of suffering as a Christian. If a lot of followers of Jesus were to agree on what it really means to be a Christian it would help people understand.

This is no different from how Protestants began saying that they were "evangelicals" and then "Christians" (implying, of course, that Catholics and Orthodox were not). So, I'm glad that you're now getting a taste of your own medicine. How does it feel? It's cool to be a Christ follower! It is not cool to be a Christian or evangelical! haha

Feels fine Johann, apparently I hit a cord, despite your mockery (how Christ-follower-like of you).
I remember asking a missionary in Guatemala what to call myself with Guatemalans. He said "You might want to say 'evangelico.' If you say 'Christian' there's a scripted response in this culture, 'Si, gracias a Dios.' So you might want to specify." He saw a place for using another description, not because the other one was wrong, bad or incorrect, but because in that setting it didn't say enough. I have no objection to this position, but one that says 'I'm not a Christian' seems daft on biblical, theological, linguistic and logical grounds.

Jason and others,

I liked the article a lot, and believed it merited some further elaboration. This is a very important discussion, IMO. You can read my follow-up article here: http://theincarnate.blogspot.com/2009/11/christians-or-christ-followers.html.

Blessings,

Matt

Wow, I'm surprised and a bit disappointed at how angry some of these voices sound. Most of the folks we are talking about are trying to be faithful. How about some of that "we are all members of one body" support and encouraging conversation?

Jason, I have to say, I wish you had quoted someone holding the perspective you critique. What is your source material on these ideas? Most of the folks I know who are seeking new descriptions of themselves and their faith journeys / doubt journeys aren't smug about church and don't hate it. Some of them have been deeply wounded by "Christians," churches, clergy, damaging theologies etc. It sounds like you've written them off without engaging in conversation about their motives.

I have recently described myself as "trying to be a disciple." It is an expression of being a work in progress -- G-d isn't finished with me -- I fail often. Folks I know who are seeking different appellations for their spiritual experience in relation to Jesus are doing so bc they want to know Jesus better, want to make a difference in the world for G-d's sake, and are taking the movement of the Spirit seriously.

Let us not wound one another further, but listen more attentively that we might be drawn closer to one another and closer to G-d. (Thanks Dorotheus)

Reading the Scriptures I have quite a lot of difficulty with people calling themselves Christians. In Acts 11 people were called Christians by others, because of the radical lifestyle they lived. I recently had the privilege of taking the funeral of a lady in my church who was called ‘a Christian’ by those who knew her ('Jesus-followers' and 'not-yet-Jesus-followers' alike). She had a faith in Jesus and everyone saw it. They saw Jesus in her; they decided that she was a Christian. But as a church leader, my job is helping people discover the Jesus life, so that others find out what a Christian really is, not a label or tag but a life lived out for Jesus!

As I see it, the most groundless and useless system of belief that has unnecessarily divided Christians is that which is known as dispensationalism which, during its unfortunate existence since 1830, has constantly been riddled with many forms of dishonesty including changing of early documents, phony doctorates, rampant plagiarism, etc. etc.! Just Google or Yahoo "The Unoriginal John Darby," "Edward Irving is Unnerving," "Pretrib Hypocrisy," "Pretrib Rapture Diehards," "Thieves' Marketing," "Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Pretrib Rapture - Hidden Facts," "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," "Wily Jeffrey," "Humbug Huebner," and (catch your breath) "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty." Michael

Jesus Christ died the perfect and diacritical (or transfigurative) death on the cross, not for Christian manipulation but to make possible firsthand and personal knowledge of God for universal consumption (Jer. 31: 31-34; John 1:51; 2:19-22; 3: 1-21; 4: 21-26; 5: 36-39; 7: 37-39; 8: 21-28; 10: 17-18, 37-38; 11: 25-26; 12: 20-36; 14-17; 19: 30-37).

If so, Christianity is reduced to nothing but enmity to the cause and cross of Christ in spite of all claims to the contrary!

When we face God He will not ask us how did everyone else live up to what He called them to do. He will only ask you how you lived. You will be judged by your life, not by the way others lived. i don't choose by what i see from others. i choose by what God says. He did not tell me to follow Mr. Jones, He said follow my son Jesus who is the Christ.
Let us not take a name and define it by how some live. Do you not buy a certain car because you saw a person that owned one be reckless?

The Christ Follower movement is anti Western Civilized Christianity. It's a battle cry, not a label.

For myself, I am sick to death of people who come along with a Masters in Theology, or from some big Seminary with their elitist paperwork (like Pharisees in Jesus time) suggesting my ministry is less because I have no earthly "credentials". Well, neither did Jesus. His were spiritual, and he was constantly challenged by the educated ones because of it. "In who's authority..." In today's vernacular, "Which degree do you have?" It's the same mindless picture and the unsaved are very put off by the elitism of it all. They don't know it, but they WANT Jesus, perhaps partially because he WASN'T an elitist...

Faith is not a Sunday club, it's a lifetime commitment. Most Sunday Scenarios cheapen the sacrifice Jesus and his disciples made.

The Greek word christianos – meaning “follower of Christ” – comes from christos – meaning “anointed one.”

Evidently, the Christ wasn’t bothered by the idea of His disciples identifying themselves as His “followers,” given His statements such as these:

Matthew 4:19 - “Come, follow me,’ Jesus said, ‘and I will make you fishers of men.’”

Matthew 8:22 - “But Jesus told him, ‘Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead.’”

Matthew 9:9 - “As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. ‘Follow me,’ he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.”

Matthew 10:38 - “‘. . . and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.’”

Matthew 16:24 - “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.’”

Matthew 19:21- “Jesus answered, ‘If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.’”

John 1:43 - “The next day Jesus decided to leave for Galilee. Finding Philip, he said to him, ‘Follow me.’”

John 8:12 - “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’”

John 10:27 - “‘My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.’”

John 12:26 - “‘Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.’”

John 21:17-22 - “The third time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ He said, ‘Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.’

Jesus said, ‘Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.’ Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, ‘Follow me!’

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is going to betray you?’) When Peter saw him, he asked, ‘Lord, what about him?’

Jesus answered, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.’”

I am one of the crowd that doesn't like to refer to himself as a Christian, but as a follower of Christ. As such I would like to make a couple of observations about this article.

The author is not arguing for or against using the word Christian, as such. He is arguing against the reasons that one might give for not using the term Christian:

1. To distance themselves from being associated with "distasteful" people within the Christian faith.
2. To disassociate themselves from the "bad press" Christianity has gotten over the last couple thousand years (yes, much of it earned).

While I agree with him that these are not good reasons for not referring to oneself as "Christian", these are not my reasons. Rather, I feel that the term Christian has become diluted, such that the very meaning of the word has become lost in the minds of many people.

People such as the author, Jason Byassee, wrongly assume that the term Christian means the same to everyone else as it does to him. This is a mistake in my mind.

You know the term "Christians" was first used in a derogatory sense. People were criticizing the movement. So, if the immediate followers of Christ referred to themselves as "the Way," then wouldn't "Christian" be the off-shoot of "the Way?"

And really, no one but God knows who all is in the body of Christ. It doesn't matter what you call it. The funny thing is "Christ" is just a translation of "the anointed one" and Jesus just translates as Joshua. His name is not significant (oh gasp!). It's his story that is salvation. If otherwise then he could be claimed by some culture. Then people who don't get to hear the name "Jesus" couldn't be saved.

(and scotty, the whole article is against people using other names than Christian. That's the whole point of the article.)

As someone who prefers the term christ follower I can tell you I prefer not because I'm trying to disown other christians and the church. I prefer it because the mission of a christ follower is far more specific. When you live under the title of christian as long as you go to church every week, volunteer, read your bible, and pray you will be saved. A christ follower know diffrent. A christ followers knows that you can do all these things and still go to hell. A christ followers does all those things because they want to know God. They do things to get closer to him and because they know it'll make him happy and no other reason. I once called myself a christian and during that period in my life I can safely say that I didn't know God until God finally got my attention.

Two stories, with observations:
I seem to recall a story - true or not, I don't know - that indicated that when the State of Israel was being established in the late 1940s as a "homeland for the Jews," there was discussion over how the country could know who was a Jew and who wasn't. Was it a matter of religious identification? religious practice? orthodox or conservative or reformed or reconstructionist adherence? ethnic heritage? through the father? mother? Finally, as I recall - again, true or not true, I don't know - they decided that if someone came and asked to be a citizen, claiming that he or she was a Jew, the country would welcome them to full citizenship simply on their own account, however they defined what it was for them to be a Jew.

"Christian" is a term like this. Though each of us - and every non-Christian - may have an idea of what a "true Christian" is, when it comes right down to it, each of us becomes definitive within ourselves of what "Christian" means; and we hope that we as well as others bear that name with the dignity appropriate to its namesake.

Some time ago - perhaps when the new United Methodist Hymnal was being discussed before its 1989 publication - a recommendation appeared online that the hymn tune "Kaiserhymne" (entitled "Austria" in the United Methodist hymnal because it had been used as the Austrian national anthem) composed by Franz Joseph Haydn be omitted from the hymnal because it was used by Nazi Germany to assert German superiority over all other nations ("Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles"). I responded to the suggestion by indicating that just because a venerable hymn tune such as that had been coopted for less than worthy purposes, that should not be cause for the rejection of the tune itself, but instead, if we were to use it in praise of the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, we could, in a sense, "redeem" the tune and cause people to relate it to the praiseworthy sentiments sung to the tune rather than those of long-past nationalistic fervor and destruction. The tune is currently used in the UM Hymnal to support the text by John Newton, "Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken" (UMH 731).

Surely, we can similarly redeem the name "Christian" from its misrepresentation by others, though we must always beware that, in our hubris, we are not besmirching it in yet another way other than the one we are criticizing.

I think that this whole argument is exactly the type of thing God hates. Why in the world is this whole thing being argued, if someone calls themselves a Christian or a Christ-Follower aren't we all on the same path together if we believe in Christ? Christians or Christ followers arguing about what to call themselves is ironically not Christ Like...

A Christian is a Christ-Follower, well according to scripture anyways.

"Christianity joins us to a body of believers" ??? Really? I thought accepting Christ and his sacrifice on the cross is what joined me to a body of believers. It's called the ecclesia. And it is not neatly packaged in one congregation or denomination. It's called the Kingdom of God. And yes, once I've been added to the universal body I should become united with a group of fellow believers. But I am not a Christian. I am a disciple of Christ. You may call it semantics, but words are powerful. I also agree that all who have been saved are members of the same body. I just don't think we should call ourselves Christians anymore ... never should have in the first place. It's like the term "Methodist." It was originally used by those who criticized the methods of spiritual discipline that John Wesley encouraged others to follow. Over time, those who were derisively called "methodists" just accepted the name. Early critics of "those of the Way" called them "cristianos," or "little Christs." Over time, they just accepted the term (maybe as a way of disarming their critics). And I think it IS important to disassociate ourselves from the unholy Crusades, other wars of religion, or any evil thing done in the name of Jesus. I don't want my identity wrapped up in that ungodly mess. Why? Because those things were not of Christ. If we are to have any impact on the world today, we must emphasize the disconnect between those who strive to follow the teachings of Jesus and those who slap His name on their personal crusades. I am not a Christian. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ and a part of the Family of God. Words matter.