Among believers with "progressive" views on
theology and social issues, there seems to be a growing trend involving the
eschewing of the label "Christian" in favor of
"Christ-follower" or another similar title. This, of course, is old news, but it
continues to be relevant as the zeitgeist gallops along at a rapid pace,
carrying many Christian youth along with it who have become drawn to modernized
forms of the faith that they perceive as more tolerant or reasonable. The fact of the matter is that some believers
- and they are a minority, but a vocal one - do not want to call themselves
Christians anymore. The term
"Christian," they claim, carries far too much baggage for them to
apply it to themselves, for nonbelievers associate the word
"Christian" not with following Christ but with the negative qualities
of evangelicalism: homophobia, science-denial, judgment, fear, and the like. These people simply do not think that the
word "Christian," as it is understood by the world today, applies to
them anymore.
This
seems reasonable at first; while some of us probably do not agree with this
assessment of the faults of evangelicalism, it's hard to deny that many have
come to view Christianity as synonymous with American evangelicalism, and it
makes complete sense that non-evangelical believers would not want that to be
perceived as their identity. After all,
there is no command in Scripture detailing what believers must call themselves,
whether "Christian," "Jesus Follower," "Jesus
Freak," or any other name; what matters is faith, through which we grasp
the promise of salvation and become a part of God's family.
But I
would push back against this notion somewhat.
Of course Scripture gives no command that "all believers in Christ
must term themselves 'Christians,'" but words and names matter, both
because of their literal meaning and because of their meaning in a cultural
context.
I would
argue that the label "Jesus follower" is by nature individualistic,
and demeans the value of the church. Think about it. If someone calls himself a Jesus-follower,
the literal meaning of that name is that he - the individual - is following
Jesus. Certainly, most who claim this
title would insist that one cannot follow Jesus in a vacuum. However, the problem persists all the
same. You can speak of
"Jesus-followers" in the plural, or of "a community of
Jesus-followers," but the term cannot convey the wholeness of the church
in the same way that "Christian" can.
A Christian is not merely one of many Christians but a part of
Christianity, of Christendom, of the whole Church, which, despite its various
denominational indicators, has gone by the name of "Christian" for
centuries.
The real
problem is not that calling oneself a Jesus-follower instead of a Christian (I
of course have no problem with using both terms) divorces one from other
believers - for one can have fellowship with other Jesus-followers - but that
it divorces one from the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church; from the
body of Christ with all its diseases and pains, from Christendom in all its
glory and all its agony. Certainly, all
Christians are Jesus-followers, but it means little to be a Jesus-follower if
one is not also a Christian, a member for better or for worse of the
everlasting Bride of Christ. Is the
Church full of hypocrisy, of heterodoxy, of harm? Yes indeed, but she is Christ's, and Christ
has redeemed her and will perfect her.
Is the Church a whore? Yes
indeed, but she has been wed by the Lord, who loves her not because she is pure
but loves her and purifies her because she is His. And if the Church is His, then we must be of
the Church to also be His, as Cyprian writes, "he cannot have God for His
Father who does not have the Church for his mother," and Augustine, "the
Church is a whore, but she is my mother."
Many people,
unfortunately, do not realize that American evangelicalism is but one part of
the Church. But the solution to that
problem is not to eschew the label "Christian" and thus separate
ourselves from the Church, but to educate the public about Christianity and
thus open their eyes to its fullness.
Certainly, the Church has done much worthy of shame. But Christ has taken her shame away.
If we
are honest with ourselves, we all will realize that we should be ashamed to
call ourselves Christians, but not because of what the Church has done; rather,
because of what we have done. When we
truly look inside of ourselves, we see that we do not deserve to be called
Christians; we are "sick with self-love" and full of pride,
covetousness, and self-righteousness. Our thoughts, words, and deeds are far from
the example Christ has set for us. But
Jesus has died to redeem us from our sins.
He has washed away our guilt in the blood of His cross, and takes away
our shame, that we might be His, and live with Him eternally. Therefore, let us boldly call ourselves by
His name and the name of the Church, knowing that, both individually and
communally, we are redeemed, justified, and washed clean of all our sin by
Christ, and let us proclaim this truth to the world, that all may know that
Christians and Christendom are not defined by how righteous they are but by the
righteousness of Christ that covers them.
