Slice/CRN Discussion: ‘Christian’ vs. ‘Christ-Follower’

Posted by: Chris L
in Commentary, Emergent Church, ODM Responses, Original Articles
29
Mar

Issue: The term ‘Christian’ vs. ‘Christ-Follower’.  Today, the mysterious ‘Editor’ has posted a link to an article which links back to some apprising.org articles on a church which created ‘Mac vs. PC’ parody ads which compared a stereotypical ‘Christian’ with a prototypical ‘Christ-follower’. 

Links to the videos in question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RtfNdg1fQk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYdD-Qc7lbY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRiijctGcAY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIXDLUUn830

CRN/Slice Take: 

Christians, in the world but as aliens of the world – “Christ-Followers”, of the world and represent the world.

So if this is what they want, [removing names of Christians inserted here despite having no relevance to the topic at hand only for the purpose of innuendo] then I say good riddance. Let the world watch them go, their blood be on their own heads…

My Take:

First, I wonder why this has become an issue again.  I blogged on this subject more than three months ago when the videos were already two months old (years ago in internet-time).  It seems to be just a continuation of looking for reasons to be divisive.

As noted previously, I don’t find labels all that useful when they’re used to divide and separate people. 

In the case of these ads, I understand what the filmaker was trying to get across about dress, etc., but I think that these ads failed to hit home for me because BOTH characters were subtly putting the other one down, comparatively.  The underlying criticisms are valid ones, but rather than present them as criticisms, would it not be more helpful and edifying to talk about them from a positive stance (ex. God is not impressed with how you dress for worship, because it is your heart – not your clothes – which He desires).

In the case of CRN/Slice’s outright mockery of those who choose to be called ‘Christ-followers’, I am just thoroughly saddened.  Even if their choice of labels was wrong (and I do not believe it is so),

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (II Peter 3:9)

The thorough nastiness on the part of CRN/Slice is appalling coming from a site which calls itself Christian, but it has become such a regular thing there that I fear I am becoming numb to their spiritually-blind, pharasaical viciousness.

As for the label ‘Christian’ vs. ‘Christ-follower’, I stick by what I wrote previously:

the terms ‘Christian’ and ‘Christ-Follower’ – is there a difference?

First, let’s examine scripture:

Acts 11:26 “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.”

1 Peter 4:16 “However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.

The Acts passage points out where the term ‘Christian’ was first used. Historical record seems to indicate that this was actually a derisive term. Other titles that have been found are ‘believers’ (used by early Christians as a term that did not differentiate between Jew and Gentile followers of Christ) and ‘Followers of the Way’. In neither of the passages does it appear that ‘Christian’ is a mandatory term (in fact, ‘Messianist’ would be a Hebraic equivalent just as acceptable as ‘Christian’, were we being purely legalistic here).

The key in the 1 Peter passage is to not be ashamed to be named as a follower of Christ. The term ‘Christian’ is not the focus, but the suffering in the name of Christ.

So, to choose a parallel name that still identifies one as a follower of Jesus would not be opposed by scripture. However, what is the point?

If the point is to distance yourself from the perceived message of Christ or to escape persecution, I would not see any validity in choosing that seperate label.

However

I see something very appealing about ‘Christ-follower’:

The term ‘Christian’ has become a label that can be applied to a whole slew of things, from music to plummers to internet providers to toilet paper. As Rob Bell commented in Velvet Elvis, ‘Christian is a great noun and a poor adjective.’ When applied to people, it works well. However, when used as an adjective, it gives an endorsement to certain things as being “spiritual” and others as “secular” (a modern gnostic misconception). It also denigrates Christ when ‘Christian’ is added to things that are morally or artistically deficient.

In this light, I find ‘Christ-follower’ appealing. Personally, I would accept either, but ‘Christ-follower’ seems more accurate.

That said, though, if ‘Christ-follower’ comes to take on some sort of fully liberal overtone which views Christ as a misunderstood peacenik, I wouldn’t see much usefulness in it.

Is it really so difficult for the ‘fighting fundies’ to be encouraging to their ‘emerging’ brothers in Christ?  Is it really so difficult for those brothers who are ‘emerging’ to seek God without feeling the need to harp about Christians from previous generations?

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 29th, 2007 at 9:19 am and is filed under Commentary, Emergent Church, ODM Responses, Original Articles. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

 

+/- Collapse/Expand All

22 Comments(+Add)

1   Neil    
March 29th, 2007 at 11:42 am

Chris L.,

Here’s what I noticed from Ken’s blog – he lists his favorite whipping boys, then posts the videos. Absent is the fact that the videos are from a different ministry.

I suppose from Ken’s perspective, the fact that neither the church that produced these videos nor his whipping boys are neo-fundamentalists means they are all part of the big apostasy – so leading people to think the former is connected to the latter is acceptable.

Neil

2   another nathan    http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com
March 29th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

First off, quick question:

Is the issue for CRN/Apprising

A. the terms themselves (christian vs. christ-follower)?

OR

B. the actual belief that wearing a suit to church, etc. is a first order doctrinal issue?

OR

C. all of the above?

If A., that is just more of the same nit-picking, waste of time, “vain babbling” as the dying world goes to hell. More of the steamy pile.

If B., that is disconcerting in its idolatry of a particular era’s particular sub-culture.

If C., that’s a mess we’ll never be able to wade through.

Secondly, IMO, There’s nothing wrong with wanting to where a suit to church, read ethics manuals, etc. There is something wrong when you enshrine your suit wearing as moral imperative vs. personal preference.

I think that attitude of enshrinement is what is getting harped on…it’s something that probably hasn’t just been observed, but experienced. You might not like someone wearing jeans and a t-shirt to church, you might think it is wrong, but it’s not an attack against you, or God really, and you don’t have the right to take it personally. I mean, if God is so at risk as to be threatened by a pair of jeans…c’mon.

If you really believe it is wrong, why not come around the “wayward one” and get into their life, build a relationship, mentor them and work on it. It’s not like they need to leave off dirty, immoral jean wearing like they would a porn addiction. It’s not like Jesus had to die for my “sinful” choice of attire.

A little perspective please.

Certain groups don’t get to complain about reactions when they make a “christian life” out of poking a finger in people’s eye. If people are so concerned with the truth, then let’s own the fact that a lot of churches are responsible for “making the peripheral essential and the essential, peripheral”. (I heard Alistair Begg say that about evangelicals. No liberal, he.)

It’s disengenuous to claim “persecution” or “rebellion” when someone says, “Ouch! You’re a jerk!” because you came out of nowhere, with no context of credibility, relationship, etc. and started smacking people around. That’s some historical fact about the way many churches/christians have comported themselves.

Those videos are funny. They don’t attack anyone by name. They don’t call people instruments of Satan, etc. They don’t imply that unbending “traditionalists” are not “of the Faith”. (All things CRN/Apprising, et. al. do)

They do highlight a real problem with our witness in the culture. If we’re so concerned with truth, I don’t understand why we can’t accept that about ourselves. I dont’ see people knocking down the doors of these churches to come know Jesus. Being a mega-church isn’t a sign of genuine faith. Neither is obscurity and a “resistance remnant” mentality.

I’m done.

3   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 29th, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Mat 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

——————————————————————————–

Mat 8:22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

——————————————————————————–

Mat 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

——————————————————————————–

Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

——————————————————————————–

Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.

——————————————————————————–

Mar 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the [son] of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

——————————————————————————–

Mar 8:34 And when he had called the people [unto him] with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

——————————————————————————–

Mar 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

——————————————————————————–

Luk 5:27 And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me.

——————————————————————————–

Luk 9:23 And he said to [them] all, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

——————————————————————————–

Luk 9:59 And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

——————————————————————————–

Luk 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

——————————————————————————–

Jhn 1:43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

——————————————————————————–

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

——————————————————————————–

Jhn 12:26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will [my] Father honour.

——————————————————————————–

Jhn 13:36 Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.

——————————————————————————–

Jhn 21:19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

——————————————————————————–

1Pe 4:16 Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Now the interesting part is that the word “Christian” in the Greek means “Christ follower”…

So where’s the beef?

It seems that the terms are interchangeable… yet “Christian” has a bit of a tarnish view by many… for the exact reason that is represented in the videos….

So, I am a Christ Follower… and if Ken is claiming to be a “Christian” which definition is he using…. the Bible’s which makes him a “Christ follower” also? Or the world’s?… meaning a self righteous condemning judgmental religious person.

I seem to think it is sadly obvious.

Blessings,
iggy

4   Neil    
March 29th, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Another nathan,

“Attitude of enshrinement” – I like the phrase. It’s kinda what I was eluding to in my missiological posts. The wall the watchers tend to sit on (not always, but often) is not a wall that divides truth from error, but a wall that divides the Good News of Jesus Christ from a new generation that desperately needs to hear.

Neil

5   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com
March 29th, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Chris L, I really respect the way you phrased your issue with the videos that “BOTH characters were subtly putting the other one down”. When I watched those videos the first time, after I finished laughing, I thought about the message that they send. And it started to bother me.

Whoever created those videos set up outlandish sterotypes of fundamentalists and then smugly lampooned them. It comes off as arrogant and snarky. While it is wrong to set up bumperstickers and suit-wearing as requirements, it is just as wrong to look down on Christians who express their love and respect for God by dressing up for church.

Somewhere in his missive, Pastor Ken has a point about the arrogance the collective next generation of Christians have. At times we sound like teenagers trashing our parents behind their backs.

Two things from PK’s article I have questions about (to PK): First, if such a large number of people in this country call themselves Christians, aren’t we be more to true to the verses about being aliens and seperate by calling ourselves Christ-followers?

Second, why didn’t the warning in 1 John 2:19 pertain to those who started the reformation? The way Ken uses this verse it implies that any Christian who leaves a group they disagree with exposes themselves as a non-Christian.

6   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 29th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

Deborah,
Here’s the thing. There is definitely problems on both sides of the generational thing. We were told there would be by Solomon, I believe. The danger is I get so angry at the fightin’ fudies that I forget the bigger picture.

7   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com
March 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pm

I asked an emerging friend if the evanglical church had any positive qualities or results and his sarcastically answered “none”.

Joe, I really understand the frustration, especially when you have been at business end of a fundie’s wrath. I get very angry, but I also find that I mellow as I age. Generally, I try to remember that the current direction the church is going is as much of a direct result of where it has been as the fundamentalist movement was a result of what went before.

Also, it isn’t simply a generational thing. A good friend of mine has become more conservative as she ages while I have become more liberal.

I have also had to (am still learning) understand there isn’t much difference between someone who believes that all alcohol is bad and someone who believes that we have to dress up for church. For some reason they need that security and those who don’t follow their logic are a threat. I pity whatever it is in their life that holds them under the law and remind myself that I hold myself under the law in other areas.

But I can really understand getting worked up over it – I have and still do.

8   Neil    
March 29th, 2007 at 2:13 pm

In his book Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, D. A. Carson makes the same point. He expresses concern that “the almost universal condemnation of modernism and Christianity under modernism…is ethically ungrateful.” Just as we can sometimes “pile on” when ti comes to our reactions against the neo-fundamentalists – some emerging church types tend to forget (or belittle) the immediately generations that delivered the faith to them.

Neil

9   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Deborah,
I would agree with everything you wrote. What’s funny, is I have so mellowed with age. I actually grew up a “fighten fundie”

10   Neil    
March 29th, 2007 at 2:22 pm

I want to make the comparison very carefully, but I find the emerging friend who found no positive qualities in the evangelical church to have about the same credibility as the neo-fundamentalists themselves.

Neil

11   deborah    http://smallcorner.typepad.com
March 29th, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Neil, I completely agree with your assesment of my friend (although I do believe his answer was intentionally snarky). It is shame that we can’t the two extremes on the spectrum to be quiet for a little while, we might see some progress.

Joe, while I was not a “fighten fundie”, I was a junior calvinist, then spent 13 years in fundamentalist churches before ending up at a more middle of the road church. I have to come to the conclusion that while legaistic Christians who say they have all the rules figured out think that they are the more mature ones, often legalism is a cover for immaturity in their faith. There is an irony there, and I know that I am more rigid in the areas of my faith where I am least confident or comfortable (I’m not sure I phrased that well).

One of my greatest frustrations is my ability to find the tidbit of legitimate criticism in PK’s articles, or at least the basis for some concern.

12   Matt    
March 29th, 2007 at 2:56 pm

The below is from Faces of Flint. It’s an article about an open air evangelist in Turkey. Talk about changing the message for a culture. No cross symbol??? Imagine a fundie church without a cross symbol. Sounds like they are taking the Cross out of Christianity. :) What’s next, Chris P announcing he’s a Christ Follower?

“Mickey used the cross symbol in the sketch, which often reminds people here of the Crusades, so we’ve dropped that. We also assign a person to take down the sketchboard immediately afterwards, since if someone starts getting really angry, we need to be able to pack up and leave quickly!”

http://www.faceslikeflint.com/?p=88

13   Neil    
March 29th, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Deborah- intentionally snarky, that’s why my comparison was “careful.”

Neil

14   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm

Maybe one reason that the two-way snarking (”you’re all apostates going to hell” from the fundies and sarcastic dismissal from emerging solks) is both puzzling and frustrating to me is because I am part of a church that has folks from both ends of the spectrum under the same roof.

We have a 8:00 service with hymns and piano/organ accompaniment in a chapel (capacity 500) with windows, pews, etc., the folks in attendance are generally of the older generation with a smattering of younger folks. When communion and offering trays are passed, only men serve. Everyone tends to be dressed up, and our senior minister has his suit jacket on. Everything pretty much follows tradition.

The 8:30 and 10:00 services are held in our worship center (capacity 1200) with a choir and orchestra (alternating weeks), worship team singers, etc. with a blend of hymns and choruses. The dress is a bit more casual (the preaching minister sometimes has his jacket removed, particularly when its warmer), and elements of multimedia are sometimes added in. The order of the service varies, and both men and women serve communion and pass the offering.

The modern service, at 11:30 (where I play keyboards) is also in the worship center, and has primarily modern worship music (Crowder, Tomlin, Brewster, Passion) with a 5- or 6-piece rock band, lower lighting with lighting and video effects, and a bit more volume. The dress is very casual both onstage (we all pretty much wear jeans, and while I’m playing the keyboards, I slip my shoes off to get better control of the pedals, so I’m barefoot) and in the congregation. There is more use of multimedia, and the order of service is like the contemporary service.

The sermon for all 4 services is identical, though there may be some multimedia elements added in for the later services, and the message is not watered down, is expositional, but is also relevant to how to live as a Christian.

What is amazing is how people with such varying tastes consistently work together as a community of believers – both in small groups (>70% of the members attend regular small groups, a very high number compared to most churches of similar size) and on community service projects.

I would not say that everything is perfect – it can’t be – but I have not seen the types of petty bickering often found with such diversity in background and preference, and I’ve seen also not seen the nastiness between generations/traditions that I see between ‘fighting (neo)fundies’ like Slice 2.0 and ‘emerging’ leaners.
_______________

As for the term ‘Christian’ vs. ‘Christ-follower’, I have no personal preference in day-to-day use, but I do find that ‘Christ-follower’ has an advantage in that it can only be used to describe a person, and cannot be used as an adjective (which is often the downfall of ‘Christian’ as a term, where it is used to descibe things other than people).

15   another nathan    http://www.perlaetus.blogspot.com
March 29th, 2007 at 3:33 pm

It cuts both ways, of course.
But you have to remember, the power structures of churches have, for years, been in the service of reinforcing ham-handed and hurtful attitudes/practices.

Balance of power is a key factor. Those hurt or under the thumb of the dominate get a lot of latitude in my book when it comes to understanding where they are coming from.

Just my nickel

16   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
March 29th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Interestingly the one that is most “engaging culture” is the “judgmental” one.

Now I agree that both are childish…that even the “Christ-follower” seems a bit sarcastic… yet this is BASED ON A POPULAR COMMERCIAL

The issue is do we imitate the world… using it’s trappings, (bumper stickers, Jpods, and on and on) or do we be genuine followers of Christ?

It is not about being cool, how we dress… for none of that matters… it is about worshiping in Spirit and in Truth…

I must point out that the “Christ follower” is not judgmental… he is annoyed! He says, “That’s cool” or “I do that also”, yet then states, “I don’t feel like I have to wear my heart on my sleeve as it were”… then he is mocked… by the other.

It seems that the “Christian” is more concerned with outward appearances and if someone does not look or act or whatever as he does he is then looked down as lesser.

To me this was sad but funny. I think that someone who is superficial would take it as offensive. Putting a bumper sticker on your car does not make one more “Christian”..

I think the better term of contrast would have been Churchianity vs Christ Follower… but it would not have been as poignant.

Blessings,
iggy

17   Marsha    http://warningchurchandfamily.blogspot.com/
March 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pm

God will judge those who mock the righteous. Remember the little children who taunted Elisha.

18   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 29th, 2007 at 7:17 pm

Marsha,

To this point, I’m not aware of anyone who writes for this site who has mocked anyone.

However, Ken Silva is a self-described ‘mocker’ of Erwin McManus and other righteous brothers and sisters in Christ, so perhaps it is he you are talking to?

Just wondering…

19   Joe Martino    http://joemartino.name
March 29th, 2007 at 7:29 pm

Wow! Have you been to her BLOG? I’m pretty sure she’s not talking to Ken.

20   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
March 29th, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Yes, Joe, I have. Not much there but a plug for Slice 2.0, but Ken is the only one who fits the criteria she’s listed above for mockery.

While I pity Ken, I do not mock him.

21   Neil    
March 31st, 2007 at 10:36 am

Chris,

As for the term ‘Christian’ vs. ‘Christ-follower’, I have no personal preference in day-to-day use, but I do find that ‘Christ-follower’ has an advantage in that it can only be used to describe a person, and cannot be used as an adjective (which is often the downfall of ‘Christian’ as a term, where it is used to descibe things other than people).

…at the risk of being accused of joining the amen chorus -this grammatical observation is brilliant.

Neil

22   Neil    
March 31st, 2007 at 10:45 am

Marsha,

I can only speak for my own attitude, of course. But I have tried to refrain from mocking those with whom I disagree (not that the others who post here do mock – I’m just speaking strictly on my own motivations). I have repeatedly referred to Ken (for e.g.) as a brother in Christ just to be absolutely clear that I am not questioning his salvation.

I think him a neo-fundamentalists who strains at gnats… and who, even if he has a valid point his delivery is so vitriolic as to render the point moot…

It’s his anger, attitude, and exegesis I address. I may apply labels (e.g. neo-fundamentalists), I not call him names (e.g. “foolish” “pseudo-Christian” “reformation hater” – used by Ken).

Neil

2 Trackbacks/Pings

  1. CRN.Info and Analysis    Mar 30 2007 / 2am:

    [...] Marsha on Slice/CRN Discussion: ‘Christian’ vs. ‘Christ-Follower’ [...]

  2. CRN.Info and Analysis    May 08 2007 / 11am:

    [...] Last year, a church put together some videos comparing stereotypical “Christians” and “Christ-Followers” using the Mac/PC ad meme.  We’ve blogged on this particular topic, as well, so I don’t want to re-tread the old ground.  However, it looks like there are now some more of these videos which have been produced. [...]

Back to top