Abandoning The Language

^{Acts 11:19-26 [ESV] "19} Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. ²⁰ But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. ²¹ And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord. ²² The report of this came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. ²³ When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose, ²⁴ for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord. ²⁵ So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, ²⁶ and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians."

From www.dictionary.com:

Chris⋅tian

–adjective

1.	of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2.	of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

3.	of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4.	exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5.	decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

6.	human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

–noun

7.	a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.

8.	a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.

9.	a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.

10.	the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

11.	a male given name.

---

Origin:
1250–1300; < class="ital-inline">Chrīstiānus < class="ital-inline">Chrīstiānós, equiv. to Chrīst(ós) Christ + -iānos < class="ital-inline">-iānus -ian; r. ME, OE cristen < class="luna-Img" src="http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png" alt="" border="0">

*****************************
It seems to me that pretty much everywhere we look today we are likely to see Christians flat out running from that name. First they started running from specific denomination names, not wanting to be called Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist or any other, saying that it's really that we believe the Bible that matters and not what we call our Church. OK, there is some truth to that, we don't want to be divided by the name on the building, but on the other hand, denominations are supposed to be a sort of shorthand to help you see at a glance what general positions a certain fellowship holds on a multitude of issues, and as such, aren't a bad thing, as long as denominational identity is not taken too far, which I understand was often the case.

Next we saw people not wanting to be called Protestant, because we believe the Bible, and don't want to make it sound like we're against something, or that we're embracing something new instead of Historic Christianity as taught by the Apostles and Early Church Fathers and Christ Himself, and of course the Bible in general. Again, there is some truth in this, but also again, there is nothing harmful in identifying with Protestantism, which was born out of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's. By accepting the title of Protestant you are saying that whenever Doctrine and Teaching of any Church moves away from Biblical Truth you will stand up and say, "NO!" You will take a stand for what is right and present the Bible as the Authority, no matter what human reason has to say about it. By calling oneself a Protestant, or even Reformed (although that carries a much more specific meaning) one is not saying that they affirm every word or teaching uttered by Martin Luther or John Calvin, or any of the other Reformers, but rather that one will stand up for the Bible, and uphold it as the Authority. That is the true spirit of the Reformation, a turning away from fallible human reason and a return to, and embracing of, Biblical Authority. (And I'm not addressing here the pure poppycock that Baptists are not Protestant, but rather members of some Church begun by John The Baptist and is somehow separate from the rest of Christianity. If you've been taught this, just know that it's pure nonsense with no Historical accuracy whatsoever.)

This brings me to my main point, the rampant tendency today to abandon the word "Christian" to define oneself before the world and the culture. All over the place today you will find Christians refusing to use that word. Most often they call themselves "Followers of Christ." Now, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with saying that you are a follower of Christ, I am one myself. Being a follower of Jesus Christ is a good thing, and all true Christians are followers of Christ, just as all true followers of Christ are Christians. So I do not object to calling oneself a "Follower of Christ" but I do object to abandoning the word "Christian." Saying that one is a Christian carries a lot more meaning with it, and I'm not talking about baggage, which is the reason why so many wish to abandon it today. To simply say that one is a Follower of Christ is a weaker statement in many regards. You could easily infer from the phrase "follower of Christ" that a person looks at Jesus and generally likes what they see, and wants to go along down that path. By this could simply mean living a good moral life, or feeding the hungry, or helping the poor and impoverished. None of these are bad things, but if you stop there then they are not enough. To use the phrase "follower of Christ" in such a manner is not deceptive. It is incomplete, but not deceptive on it's face, because in a general sense, that could be the full meaning of the phrase.

However, the word Christian is different. Now I understand that some people use it in the same way that I just described "follower of Christ" but just because it is used that way does not make it actually mean the same thing. Calling oneself a Christian fully identifies oneself with Christ. It says, "I am striving to be more like Christ, in all that it entails, and in all that He is. I am willing to not only follow Him, but to suffer with Him, and place Him at the very center of my very identity." To use the term "Christian" in the same way as I described "follower of Christ" in the last paragraph would be deceptive on it's face. If you simply follow Christ, in some indefinite or undetermined way, you could simply fall away when the going gets tough, so someone who is simply a "follower of Christ" could cease to be a "follower of Christ" without actually having to say (if they are being honest) that they never followed Him at all. On the other hand, if you are a Christian, in truth, you are taking the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ as the central piece of your very own identity, and would be willing to suffer, or even die, rather than to give that up. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, because a true and real follower of Christ will do the same, as I said before, in the truest meanings, these two things are the same, but they do not seem the same, and I guess therein lies my problem.

Some of the reasons given for abandoning the word "Christian" are that many people throughout history have called themselves Christians while doing terrible and horrible things, but if we replace "Christian" with "Christ Follower" or "Follower of Christ" do you think people will not take on that title and still do the same terrible things? The word Christian is not sullied because true Christians have done these terrible acts, but because the name Christian has too often been claimed by those who had no right or allegiance to it. So how would you defend the phrase "follower of Christ" so that the same thing doesn't happen to it? You can't. Besides, many times horrendous acts have been committed simply in the name of Christ, without ever using the term "Christian." Should we abandon the name of Christ? Certainly NOT!!! And yet, refusing to call ourselves Christians would be a step in that direction.

I would actually encourage Christians to use both, thinking carefully about when either would be most appropriate. I'll close with an excellent example of this from Matthew Henry (1662-1714) in his Concise Commentary: "Act 11:25-30 Hitherto the followers of Christ were called disciples, that is, learners, scholars; but from that time they were called Christians. The proper meaning of this name is, a follower of Christ; it denotes one who, from serious thought, embraces the religion of Christ, believes his promises, and makes it his chief care to shape his life by Christ's precepts and example. Hence it is plain that multitudes take the name of Christian to whom it does not rightly belong. But the name without the reality will only add to our guilt. While the bare profession will bestow neither profit nor delight, the possession of it will give both the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Grant, Lord, that Christians may forget other names and distinctions, and love one another as the followers of Christ ought to do. True Christians will feel for their brethren under afflictions. Thus will fruit be brought forth to the praise and glory of God. If all mankind were true Christians, how cheerfully would they help one another! The whole earth would be like one large family, every member of which would strive to be dutiful and kind."