“Christian” vs. “Follower of Jesus”
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Tue, March 10, 2009
- Viewed 130
- (20) comments so far
The Newsweek piece continues:
Christian definitions used not to matter so much. People used to be Methodists or Lutherans, Episcopalians or Baptists. Each denomination had its own culture, its ownjokes. A Congregationalist friend once defined himself to me this way: “We’re the ones who fold up the chairs after church to make room for the basketball court.” Outsiders could—and did—make assumptions about their neighbors’ personal habits and politics based on denomination. The United Church of Christ was left-wing. The Southern Baptists leaned to the right. Methodists, Episcopalians and Lutherans fell somewhere in between.
Then, in the 1980s, as nondenominational churches became the fastest-growing segment of American Christianity, a number of Christians cast off their labels. But with this freedom came a challenge: what should this new generation call itself? Initially, some chose “born again,” but after Jimmy Carter and Jerry Falwell, the media always used the term with derision. “Evangelical” eventually came into fashion, but that had disadvantages, too. What kind of evangelical? A conservative evangelical, allied with the powerful religious right? Did that mean fundamentalist? A progressive evangelical? Over the past several years, as evangelicals strained to define themselves and the media strained to comply, Christians fell into narrower and narrower niches—until at last the niches were as narrow as the denominations once were.
Younger evangelicals, meanwhile, preferred to call themselves simply “Christian,” as in “My parents are Lutheran, but I’m a Christian.”
Now, as the Christian world continues to refine its identity, another label is gaining currency: “follower of Jesus.”
You can read more here at Newsweek; or read more of my interview with Dave Gibbons here…
What do you think? Do you still use the word “Christian” or do you agree with Dave that it really does mean totally different things to different people?
An interesting article was just posted over at Newsweek magazine on the changing meanings and connotations of the word "Christian". I found this particularly interesting given my recent interview with Dave Gibbons. Here's what Dave said:
"When I relate globally I usually say I’m a Christ follower rather than a Christian. There are elements within our cultural Christianity that is not at the heart of who Jesus is. As you travel, you begin to understand that the problem isn’t Jesus as much as it is the things we’ve added to Jesus and the gospel...
Now for part of the Newsweek article:
Ward Brehm doesn't call himself a Christian. "I just call myself a follower of Jesus," says Brehm, a Minneapolis businessman and former chairman of the U.S.-Africa Development Foundation. "It's a huge difference."
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Sapna on Sat, April 04, 2009
Studying the origin and spread of religion can be very interesting. It is especially applicable when the fundamental principles seem to have a deep rooted origin. Books based of the well known religions woven into literature makes an informative read. I would like to share some good books based on Religion.
The Churches in International Affairs: Reports 1987-1990
Living with the Animals: The Community of God’s Creatures
My Bible Study Notes
Bible Stories for Tiny Tots
Stories about Jesus for Little Ones
Brass on Sun, May 03, 2009
Unfortunately a lot of people who are not Christian have adopted the name.
I’ve adopted an insult someone hurled at me.
Christer.
Cretien on Sun, May 03, 2009
We should declare the full deity of who we worship. I for one believe in the “Only Begotten Son of God”. It is important, if we only say “Jesus” or “Jesus Christ our Lord”
Never the less, look here for a time line unto the end. http://www.theelects.org
anti-supernaturalist on Sun, May 03, 2009
** Things xians won’t tell you (because they can’t)
Xianity wouldn’t have survived without its secular benefits and imperial patronage (313 CE).
The very earliest xians (50 CE) certainly received benefits in the-here-and-now for their faith: group solidarity, decent burial of the dead, and ideological support, especially nurturing anti-intellectualism, antisemitism, and class hatred. (1Cor1:19-28)
Doubtless, xianity still has something to offer as it has for 2,000 years. — But psychological comfort, communal warmth, common political action, pathways for employment, and opportunities for hysterical acting out—preaching, “testifying”, conversion experiences—are irrelevant to the truth of any claim made first by Paul or later writers of Jesus legends, whether accepted into xian orthodoxy or not.
Members of any sect within islam, xianity, judaism, or zoroastrianism (the big-4 monotheisms) can cite their myths, cultic practices, endlessly circular magical texts and commentaries (“theologies”) to equal effect.
Citing scripture in defense of itself is totally illogical. The monotheists’ magical texts are neither self-guaranteeing nor divinely inspired. They are fictional recruiting propaganda.
What uplifts me, what comforts me, what I’m willing to die for . . . is no evidence whatsoever that my belief is true or false.
Such reasoning exemplifies ignoratio elenchi — lack of any logical connection between statements about anyone’s psychological states and any religious claim.
To directly attack an entrenched institution has value as a way of dislodging culturally conditioned believers. When the cultural costs of membership exceed its perceived benefits—the previously faithful will vote with their deserting feet.
The de-deification of culture (including the sciences) is our task for the next 100 years.
anti-supernaturalist
Brass on Sun, May 03, 2009
Rather than debating anti-supernaturalist statements, I will instead simply say that the history of the people of God has always been one of following where the Spirit leads.
Throughout the history of the people of God, He has always called His people to “Come out”, of whatever they were in, especially when that institution has been overrun by the non-believers who want the benefits that go with following Him.
Out of Egypt, out of the established jewish faith, out of catholicism.
God calls today, to come out of the mainstream churches. At the very least the ones who have forsaken Him. The ones whose members attend merely for the respect it brings them. The ones who have removed the cross lest they offend someone.
I am very heartened by the home church movement. A return to believers fellowshipping with believers.
Socio-cultural-economic alleged benefits aside.
Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2
Post a Comment