Semantics - Christian, Follower of Jesus. This new cool "members only" movement to be "Followers of Jesus" and not "Christian" is so hip, so cool, so now! Do it, because our old term "Christian" does not represent us anymore. PLEASE. Figure out what Christian means in the Greek. It was a badge of dishonor that we took as honor, like Peter asking to be crucified upside down because he was not worthy of the death Christ suffered. In 20-50 years cool beat-nik Post-Whatevers are going to want to say "Follower of Jesus" has so many bad connotations, lets use a new term. Brilliant.
The semantics you are using makes communication very difficult if not impossible to follow. You say that athiests in China are following Jesus. The very definition of the word athiest is someone who does not believe in God.
Unless you are trying to seperate Jesus from the Godhood? Words have to have meanings that others can understand to communicate. Please don't try to be edgy just for the sake of edginess. Your point that the label Christian shouldn't stand in the way of leading people to Jesus is valid. But your premise that someone can be a Agnostic, Buddhist, Atheist and still a follower of Jesus is contradictory to what those terms mean.
Tim,
With all due respect, I do not think you have debunked any myths here. What you have done is created straw man arguments and introduced a term which is popular now (e.g. "Christ Follower" or "Follower of Jesus"). I agree with Sean's conclusion that all this is is "semantics". Granted, I appreciate the thought put forth to help us reach those who are not yet saved, but Christ and the Biblical way of life transcends any and all cultures(agreeing with you here). But, I think Christianity is a culture in and of itself and speaks volumes of the Biblical way of life. Just because Jesus did not use the term "christian" does not invalidate that it is in fact a culture unto itself; you may even consider it as some identify as a "kingdom culture".
If you prefer to call yourself a "follower of Jesus", or "Christ Follower", or a person of "The Way" etc etc etc., then that is your preference. But, this illogical inference that christian/christianity culture and Jesus as something not related to culture I find troubling.
You have got to be kidding!?! What a garbage article. 1John5:11-12. Those who have the Son of God ARE Christians. Why does that need to be so hard? This is so typical of the emergent movement. No thanks.
A great article! Thanks for such a great post.
Can anyone say UNIVERSALISM??? I am all for re-thinking what passes for Christianity in our culture, but this is going a little too far. Jesus said that we must DENY ourselves to follow Him. I'm pretty sure that denying of self includes false religions or complete lack of belief in God. I think we need to draw a line between being relevant and being a flat out heretic and this article is on the heretical side of the line.
Tim, I want to thank you for this article, and also address some of the comments here. It is a shame that you've garnered such a violent reaction. Yes, it is semantics - but semantics is everything! It has to do with what words mean. Meanings change. (Do any of you say you are feeling 'gay' to describe light hearted joy? Why not? You used to be able to. Ahh... semantics!)
Holding on to the word christian may be significant for you in a Western culture where the word carries some positive meanings. But when you use it, for example, in a predominantly Muslim culture like parts of Indonesia, people hear 'white imperialist crusading Dutch oppressor' or something to that affect. They don't hear 'forgiven people who desire to show the love of God to the world'. To ask them to become 'Christian' is counter-productive. When I told a man who asked if I was Muslim, that in fact I was 'a follower of Isa (Jesus) the Messiah' he was quite content with that. Had I said I was a Christian, the outcome may have been less than cordial.
Please put aside your initial cynicism to what Tim has written and listen carefully. He has not suggested giving up on being loyal to Jesus, loving God, or recognizing the trinity. He is suggesting that we don't set up cultural barriers to people seeing Jesus. If we were to take some of your comments to heart we ought not be called Christians anyway, but 'Kristoi' or some kind of greek equivalent, because that is what they would have been called.
Jesus' message was not about signing up to a religion or church. It was about recognizing that his kingdom was coming and had come, and that we owe him our allegiance. That has remained true whatever you call yourself.
Bravo, Tim...!
You know what you believe and why ... walk in the Light you've been given, and don't be discouraged by those who don't yet have that Light. They will. I sometimes wonder if Christians will be the last of those to see the reality of what Jesus has done, and what we now have in this covenant ...
I find that what you wrote is absolutely biblical -- even as I recognize that it is contrary to our traditions... even today they nullify the word of God.
Thank you for your courage to share...!
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily swallow all that we taste." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What about the other sub-myth: that his name is/was Jesus? There is no letter "J" or "j" sound in any classical language. The Iesus Christos already had a name: Yahshua bar Yusef, which actually translates into English as Joshua Josephson. Josh Josephson, the One Who Had Scented Olive Oil Poured Over His Head... don't look for it in any hymn books or contemporary Praise & Worship songs soon...
Jesus (gee-zus or Pentacostal cheese-us-uh) is a contrived English word not related at all to his real earthly, spiritual, or holy names.
This is an intelligent and perceptive article. "Christianity"is encrusted with two thousand years of baggage. People hardly think of Jesus when discussing Christianity, they think of churches and statements of belief, of rituals and tradions. Jesus is not necessarily connected to any of these. It is staggering to think that Jesus only instituted two rites - baptism and the Lord's Supper. Both were performed with simplicity and were connected to a relationship with him, not an institution, organisation or culture. The real difficulty for us is to give up the monopoly on Jesus. He accepts all who follow him.
Of late, I am no longer comforable saying that I am a Christian. It's not that I don't follow Jesus, but that the label has so many problems, as you described in this article.
It's not an easy thing to discuss, because the very nature of semantics colors everything we say to each other.
Your thoughts are many of mine. Question to you: how are you approaching people with the distinct claims Jesus made about Himself: "No man comes to the Father except through Me..." type of statements? I find myself freely speaking of Jesus in my life, but I'm not pushing on others in what I've known as "evangelism." In my mind, I'm either deceived or okay, but this is where I've ended up... "He who seeks finds...God would not that anyone should perish...God loves all mankind," thus, I've decided not to insist that people ask Jesus to be their Savior, but to trust that He knows each heart and will do what He will do? So folks, does this sound like I've gone down a wayward path? I honestly would like feedback.
This is a terrific article, Tim! Thank you. And many blessings to you!
Pamela, your thought are very insightful. Remember God is no respeter of persons. He does not love the the good christian folks in the bible belt any more than the people of the nations where the name of God or more specificlly Jesus must not be spoken. Today I went to see the movie Religulous. 10 years ago I would not have been able to handle this movie but Bill Moyer ask some very important questions. Once, like many of the groups represented in this movie, I thought my group had a monopoly on our Lord Jesus.
Over time I have come to realize that Jesus is going to be All-in-all or the biblical narritive cannot be true. Who does all include ? Who does all leave out?
Warmly, Craigo
Tim, I have been aware of your work for a while now, and want to say thank you. I have lived every aspect of what you describe. All believers need to wean themselves from church culture at sometime and move into God dependancy. I spend a lot of time lately challenging christians to consider how many "Joppa" moments they have passed up because they told God (like Peter) "I don't go there" It takes balls to challenge status quo, but historically, culturally, spiritually, Peter was saying to God "I know my boundaries" but God was saying to him "Trust me son, I am drawing some new lines for you" This led to the meeting at Cornelius' house where the holy spirit fell on the gentiles. So what was unclean became clean. Too many christians are comfortable in church culture, and don't want to be "dirtied" by hanging out with people in everyday life. The article by "Shok" describes it all to a T. I am from Hawaii, and have planted a church that meets under a tree overlooking the ocean. We go into the building when it rains. We started this work 9 years ago. Staying focused on serving community allows us to to be an "appendage" of God. He has instructed us to Infiltrate, Saturate, marinate, community because eventually some will gravitate to Jesus because he is "irresistable"...........Aloha........Kahu Dave- Ka 'Ohana o ke Aloha (Family of Grace)
I feel like people misunderstood part of what Tim was saying.
He wasn't promoting Universalism. What he was saying was that there were spiritual movements AMONG those groups. I take that to mean that, while these people have barriers to identifying as Christians, they are beginning to follow Jesus.
I'm one of those stupid pomo-emergent types that can't hardly bear to call myself a Christian anymore. There's just a lot of baggage there. Are there some that call themselves "Jesus-followers" because of fashion? Sure. But not NEARLY as many as there are people who identify as 'Christian' because of fashion.
Everyone's a Christian where I live. I just don't know many Jesus-followers.
I have addressed this very issue of late in my Sunday School class at my somewhat traditional Southern Baptist church. I pointed out some occupations that Jesus used as analogies (fishermen, shepherd, sowers, etc.) We agreed that the connotations "others" have with the label Christian often prohibits interaction. It hurts more than helps in most cases in trying to relate to those that have no linguistic or semantic equipment to process what we offer in the way of the good news of salvation and the great news of the Kingdom at hand (terms I can use casually here, for instance, but would be of little value outside this forum or the aforementioned Sunday School class). We are working through how to re-frame what we call ourselves, even trying to use our called occupations as a reference point. What we are discovering is that we are coming up with some individual references that are more accurate descriptions of who we are in our blessed Lord Jesus. How do we collectively refer to that? We don't know yet...bu the class itself is called Off the Grid. We'll just see where we can go form here.
One thing that we need to be reminded of is that God, the Father, instituted the act of Salvation. Paul wrote that salvation is a gift from God. John the Baptist proclaimed Christ as the "Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world." On top of those two references, look at how many times Christ told people to pray to, believe in, love and worship God, the Father. Christ had every right in all of eternity to proclaim Himself as "The Way, The Truth, and The Life", as without His obedience to His Father unto death, nobody anywhere would be able to be spiritually alive. However, right after Christ said "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life", He let people know the "Prime Directive" by stating that we must come to the Father. So, really, it's not about being Christian, but about believing in God, the Father. In that light, try re-evaluating John 3:16. The "Him", along with the "He" & "His" are referring to God, the Father.
Does Christianity own Jesus? That's a peculiar way of putting it. Does Buddhism own Buddha? Does Islam own Muhammad? Does Hinduism own Vishnu? Does Judaism own Moses? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Regardless, do I as a Christian feel put-off because I "don't get to share" in their revered the way they do, or that they're more "eastern" (implied "better") than "western" (implied "worse")? Not really (tho' I often think how cool it'd be to visit Mecca, but alas). Does Tim suggest following Muhammad, Vishnu, and Buddha in order to bring forth a less-exclusive Christianity? What about those that sneered in Acts 17:32 at what Paul said in the earlier Acts verses Tim quoted? Was this a culturally exclusive, wall-building claim? One certainly sees present-day Muslims and Jews sneering at the notion of Jesus being raised from the dead. So what's an inclusivist to do?
Other thoughts ---
If the term "Christian" has been so negatively defined in our day, why not believe it (or any term) can also be *postively* RE-defined for the future as well? Forget "Christian"....what about "American" or "westerner" or "white"? Don't these terms have negative baggage in certain cultures as well? So what alternative terms are there to *these* obstructing labels?
I've gone back and forth on whether to call myself "Christian", "Christ-follower", etc., dodging whatever inconveniences such labels may carry, and have gotten frustrated. Right now, I've gone back (tho' not w/o a little resistance) to referring to myself as a Christian again....and if someone were to think negatively of me because of that, then I receive it as a challenge to behave, communicate, and relate in a way that would change what that person may think of as "Christian". That to be a Christian IS about following Jesus and loving others in His name.
What brought me to this point? I guess I find it paradoxical that any negative baggage loaded on the term "Christian" (even for reasons that occurred centuries ago, like the Crusades or the Inquisition) is deemed justified, while similar negative baggage loaded on the terms "Muslim" or "Jew" (even for events and conflicts occurring over the past decade) is considered cringe-inducing, anti-Semitic/Islamophobic prejudice. This, in spite of the fact that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists have had historical and present-day problems with each other, independent of Christians....yet we'll never see any of these groups suggesting they re-label themselves as "followers of Muhammad, Moses, Vishnu, Siddhartha, or Bertrand Russell" in order to break down the walls "old" labels may create between each other, regardless of how much semantics may mean in these cases.
I've also noticed how much I'm expected as an American Christian Westerner (I'm not white, so I don't have to "worry" about THAT label :-) to overlook any negative baggage in the terms "Muslim", "Jew", "Hindu", "Buddhist", "atheist", "white", "black", etc. in order to value the individual behind the label. This, we agree, is the right and noble thing to do. So why not believe that non-Western non-Christians *also* have the ability to do the same noble and right thing by valuing the individual behind the label "Christian"? Or are we so patronizingly arrogant to think non-Western non-Christians are so backwards and unable to do this right and noble thing that we Christians need to "help" them along (or fool them, perhaps?) by simplistically cloaking ourselves with a different, more palatable label?
Also, part of being a Christian is having the courage and humility to admit guilt, is it not? But this whole "Christian" re-labeling movement almost seems a not-so-subtle attempt to sidestep the guilt and embarrassment associated with Christian missteps by adopting a disassociated, hence unblemished category safe from outside accusation (i.e. "see, we're not like the "Christians" who do all those messed-up things, 'cause we're really "Christ-followers"). That seems a lot easier than working towards the kind of difficult reconciliation Donald Miller mentioned doing at Reed College in his book "Blue Like Jazz".
I think the luxury of this kind of article/thinking would only be found in the West. There are countries that DO legally discriminate based on one's religion, determining what benefits their citizens do and do not get because of it, or at least necessitate including it on official documents. Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and more than a few Muslim countries come to mind. "Christ-follower" would probably not be a term legally recognized by any of them. "Christian" is, however. There, semantics mean nothing....legal identification and categorization is everything.
Also, having lived in China, I don't think the millions of dedicated Christians in China would ever refer to themselves as "atheists" or "agnostics" anymore.....or is that a culturally prejudiced anachronism of a less-open, Mao-led China from decades ago? This China depiction seemed a reckless attempt to make a point.
I guess I'm willing to live with the baggage of the label "Christian", as long as I'm willing to work for change in what people might think of the word....cleansing its whitewashed tomb, if you will. Others can choose other labels if they want. The fact remains, "Christian" is simply a more familiar, convenient term to the world, even if it may be stained or misunderstood. I think it's a little naive to think that by simply re-labeling oneself, the world will "get" Christianity (or Christ-following-anity or whatever). Calling oneself a Christ-follower doesn't guarantee walls still won't go up. And I've found it just confuses or prolongs the inevitable in conversations, when after explaining to people what I mean by the new label, having them say at the end, "Oh, you mean you're a Christian!". :-P It feels a little like re-painting that whitewashed tomb a shinier shade of gold, instead of doing the much-harder work of cleaning it out.
Why does any of you care what perception people have of your walk of faith. No one comes to the Father unless they are called no matter how many mistake laden attempts by Christians to live the walk or witness. We are facilitators; we help but we do not save anyone. More times than not we hinder. God knows who is who and will judge us all accordingly. Jesus knows who is who, "I know my sheep and they know my voice". Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. He said so. Try walking the narrow path instead of the 'wide gate that leads to destruction'. All are called but not all will answer! I am a Christian because I have professed my faith that Jesus knew the only way to the Father and laid down His life to deal with our separation from God...SIN! Proud to say that I am a Christian. Although I try not to make it a tool of some agenda. We are mostly all wrong and Jesus was right. I will write a book about this one day. Jesus said we would be hated. Paul said to consider it great to be in such a low place. As for me or anyone owning Jesus or God for that matter, He owns us!
I won't get into the semantics argument. The truth is your theology stinks. You say, "If the Creator-God were to ever take on flesh and become man, God would look like Jesus."
Guess what, God did take on flesh and his name was Jesus. Remember, Immanuel and all that.
Your understanding of the Word is lacking, and why your article was published as it was is beyond me.
If all you wanted to say is that the term Christian is misunderstood today and sometimes it can cause problems, then say that.
If you want to say that the church is a stupid idea, then say that. You would be wrong and unbliblical, but you would be understood.
Frankly, I don't know what your rant was against or for.
(11)
Semantics - Christian, Follower of Jesus. This new cool "members only" movement to be "Followers of Jesus" and not "Christian" is so hip, so cool, so now! Do it, because our old term "Christian" does not represent us anymore. PLEASE. Figure out what Christian means in the Greek. It was a badge of dishonor that we took as honor, like Peter asking to be crucified upside down because he was not worthy of the death Christ suffered. In 20-50 years cool beat-nik Post-Whatevers are going to want to say "Follower of Jesus" has so many bad connotations, lets use a new term. Brilliant. Posted by Sean | Posted at 10/31/2008 4:14 PM
The semantics you are using makes communication very difficult if not impossible to follow. You say that athiests in China are following Jesus. The very definition of the word athiest is someone who does not believe in God.
Unless you are trying to seperate Jesus from the Godhood? Words have to have meanings that others can understand to communicate. Please don't try to be edgy just for the sake of edginess. Your point that the label Christian shouldn't stand in the way of leading people to Jesus is valid. But your premise that someone can be a Agnostic, Buddhist, Atheist and still a follower of Jesus is contradictory to what those terms mean.
Posted by Dennis | Posted at 10/31/2008 5:27 PMTim,
With all due respect, I do not think you have debunked any myths here. What you have done is created straw man arguments and introduced a term which is popular now (e.g. "Christ Follower" or "Follower of Jesus"). I agree with Sean's conclusion that all this is is "semantics". Granted, I appreciate the thought put forth to help us reach those who are not yet saved, but Christ and the Biblical way of life transcends any and all cultures(agreeing with you here). But, I think Christianity is a culture in and of itself and speaks volumes of the Biblical way of life. Just because Jesus did not use the term "christian" does not invalidate that it is in fact a culture unto itself; you may even consider it as some identify as a "kingdom culture".
If you prefer to call yourself a "follower of Jesus", or "Christ Follower", or a person of "The Way" etc etc etc., then that is your preference. But, this illogical inference that christian/christianity culture and Jesus as something not related to culture I find troubling.
Posted by hYlAnDeR | Posted at 10/31/2008 5:30 PMYou have got to be kidding!?! What a garbage article. 1John5:11-12. Those who have the Son of God ARE Christians. Why does that need to be so hard? This is so typical of the emergent movement. No thanks. Posted by Mark McLaughlin | Posted at 10/31/2008 5:30 PM
A great article! Thanks for such a great post. Posted by Gaston | Posted at 10/31/2008 5:34 PM
Can anyone say UNIVERSALISM??? I am all for re-thinking what passes for Christianity in our culture, but this is going a little too far. Jesus said that we must DENY ourselves to follow Him. I'm pretty sure that denying of self includes false religions or complete lack of belief in God. I think we need to draw a line between being relevant and being a flat out heretic and this article is on the heretical side of the line. Posted by Troy Hamby | Posted at 10/31/2008 6:56 PM
Tim, I want to thank you for this article, and also address some of the comments here. It is a shame that you've garnered such a violent reaction. Yes, it is semantics - but semantics is everything! It has to do with what words mean. Meanings change. (Do any of you say you are feeling 'gay' to describe light hearted joy? Why not? You used to be able to. Ahh... semantics!)
Holding on to the word christian may be significant for you in a Western culture where the word carries some positive meanings. But when you use it, for example, in a predominantly Muslim culture like parts of Indonesia, people hear 'white imperialist crusading Dutch oppressor' or something to that affect. They don't hear 'forgiven people who desire to show the love of God to the world'. To ask them to become 'Christian' is counter-productive. When I told a man who asked if I was Muslim, that in fact I was 'a follower of Isa (Jesus) the Messiah' he was quite content with that. Had I said I was a Christian, the outcome may have been less than cordial.
Please put aside your initial cynicism to what Tim has written and listen carefully. He has not suggested giving up on being loyal to Jesus, loving God, or recognizing the trinity. He is suggesting that we don't set up cultural barriers to people seeing Jesus. If we were to take some of your comments to heart we ought not be called Christians anyway, but 'Kristoi' or some kind of greek equivalent, because that is what they would have been called.
Jesus' message was not about signing up to a religion or church. It was about recognizing that his kingdom was coming and had come, and that we owe him our allegiance. That has remained true whatever you call yourself.
Posted by Steve Johnston | Posted at 10/31/2008 7:42 PMBravo, Tim...!
You know what you believe and why ... walk in the Light you've been given, and don't be discouraged by those who don't yet have that Light. They will. I sometimes wonder if Christians will be the last of those to see the reality of what Jesus has done, and what we now have in this covenant ...
I find that what you wrote is absolutely biblical -- even as I recognize that it is contrary to our traditions... even today they nullify the word of God.
Thank you for your courage to share...!
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily swallow all that we taste." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Dena Brehm | Posted at 10/31/2008 11:12 PMWhat about the other sub-myth: that his name is/was Jesus? There is no letter "J" or "j" sound in any classical language. The Iesus Christos already had a name: Yahshua bar Yusef, which actually translates into English as Joshua Josephson. Josh Josephson, the One Who Had Scented Olive Oil Poured Over His Head... don't look for it in any hymn books or contemporary Praise & Worship songs soon...
Jesus (gee-zus or Pentacostal cheese-us-uh) is a contrived English word not related at all to his real earthly, spiritual, or holy names.
Posted by dsjulian | Posted at 10/31/2008 11:46 PMThis is an intelligent and perceptive article. "Christianity"is encrusted with two thousand years of baggage. People hardly think of Jesus when discussing Christianity, they think of churches and statements of belief, of rituals and tradions. Jesus is not necessarily connected to any of these. It is staggering to think that Jesus only instituted two rites - baptism and the Lord's Supper. Both were performed with simplicity and were connected to a relationship with him, not an institution, organisation or culture. The real difficulty for us is to give up the monopoly on Jesus. He accepts all who follow him. Posted by remac | Posted at 11/01/2008 2:26 AM
Of late, I am no longer comforable saying that I am a Christian. It's not that I don't follow Jesus, but that the label has so many problems, as you described in this article.
It's not an easy thing to discuss, because the very nature of semantics colors everything we say to each other.
Posted by tammy | Posted at 11/01/2008 8:02 AMYour thoughts are many of mine. Question to you: how are you approaching people with the distinct claims Jesus made about Himself: "No man comes to the Father except through Me..." type of statements? I find myself freely speaking of Jesus in my life, but I'm not pushing on others in what I've known as "evangelism." In my mind, I'm either deceived or okay, but this is where I've ended up... "He who seeks finds...God would not that anyone should perish...God loves all mankind," thus, I've decided not to insist that people ask Jesus to be their Savior, but to trust that He knows each heart and will do what He will do? So folks, does this sound like I've gone down a wayward path? I honestly would like feedback. Posted by pamela | Posted at 11/01/2008 5:05 PM
This is a terrific article, Tim! Thank you. And many blessings to you! Posted by Julie | Posted at 11/01/2008 7:17 PM
Pamela, your thought are very insightful. Remember God is no respeter of persons. He does not love the the good christian folks in the bible belt any more than the people of the nations where the name of God or more specificlly Jesus must not be spoken. Today I went to see the movie Religulous. 10 years ago I would not have been able to handle this movie but Bill Moyer ask some very important questions. Once, like many of the groups represented in this movie, I thought my group had a monopoly on our Lord Jesus.
Over time I have come to realize that Jesus is going to be All-in-all or the biblical narritive cannot be true. Who does all include ? Who does all leave out?
Warmly, Craigo
Posted by craigo | Posted at 11/01/2008 8:36 PMTim, I have been aware of your work for a while now, and want to say thank you. I have lived every aspect of what you describe. All believers need to wean themselves from church culture at sometime and move into God dependancy. I spend a lot of time lately challenging christians to consider how many "Joppa" moments they have passed up because they told God (like Peter) "I don't go there" It takes balls to challenge status quo, but historically, culturally, spiritually, Peter was saying to God "I know my boundaries" but God was saying to him "Trust me son, I am drawing some new lines for you" This led to the meeting at Cornelius' house where the holy spirit fell on the gentiles. So what was unclean became clean. Too many christians are comfortable in church culture, and don't want to be "dirtied" by hanging out with people in everyday life. The article by "Shok" describes it all to a T. I am from Hawaii, and have planted a church that meets under a tree overlooking the ocean. We go into the building when it rains. We started this work 9 years ago. Staying focused on serving community allows us to to be an "appendage" of God. He has instructed us to Infiltrate, Saturate, marinate, community because eventually some will gravitate to Jesus because he is "irresistable"...........Aloha........Kahu Dave- Ka 'Ohana o ke Aloha (Family of Grace) Posted by Dave | Posted at 11/02/2008 12:09 PM
I feel like people misunderstood part of what Tim was saying.
He wasn't promoting Universalism. What he was saying was that there were spiritual movements AMONG those groups. I take that to mean that, while these people have barriers to identifying as Christians, they are beginning to follow Jesus.
I'm one of those stupid pomo-emergent types that can't hardly bear to call myself a Christian anymore. There's just a lot of baggage there. Are there some that call themselves "Jesus-followers" because of fashion? Sure. But not NEARLY as many as there are people who identify as 'Christian' because of fashion.
Everyone's a Christian where I live. I just don't know many Jesus-followers.
Posted by Joey Aszterbaum | Posted at 11/02/2008 7:33 PMI have addressed this very issue of late in my Sunday School class at my somewhat traditional Southern Baptist church. I pointed out some occupations that Jesus used as analogies (fishermen, shepherd, sowers, etc.) We agreed that the connotations "others" have with the label Christian often prohibits interaction. It hurts more than helps in most cases in trying to relate to those that have no linguistic or semantic equipment to process what we offer in the way of the good news of salvation and the great news of the Kingdom at hand (terms I can use casually here, for instance, but would be of little value outside this forum or the aforementioned Sunday School class). We are working through how to re-frame what we call ourselves, even trying to use our called occupations as a reference point. What we are discovering is that we are coming up with some individual references that are more accurate descriptions of who we are in our blessed Lord Jesus. How do we collectively refer to that? We don't know yet...bu the class itself is called Off the Grid. We'll just see where we can go form here. Posted by Darrell | Posted at 11/03/2008 7:15 AM
One thing that we need to be reminded of is that God, the Father, instituted the act of Salvation. Paul wrote that salvation is a gift from God. John the Baptist proclaimed Christ as the "Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world." On top of those two references, look at how many times Christ told people to pray to, believe in, love and worship God, the Father. Christ had every right in all of eternity to proclaim Himself as "The Way, The Truth, and The Life", as without His obedience to His Father unto death, nobody anywhere would be able to be spiritually alive. However, right after Christ said "I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life", He let people know the "Prime Directive" by stating that we must come to the Father. So, really, it's not about being Christian, but about believing in God, the Father. In that light, try re-evaluating John 3:16. The "Him", along with the "He" & "His" are referring to God, the Father. Posted by Gunnar | Posted at 11/03/2008 11:47 AM
Does Christianity own Jesus? That's a peculiar way of putting it. Does Buddhism own Buddha? Does Islam own Muhammad? Does Hinduism own Vishnu? Does Judaism own Moses? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Regardless, do I as a Christian feel put-off because I "don't get to share" in their revered the way they do, or that they're more "eastern" (implied "better") than "western" (implied "worse")? Not really (tho' I often think how cool it'd be to visit Mecca, but alas). Does Tim suggest following Muhammad, Vishnu, and Buddha in order to bring forth a less-exclusive Christianity? What about those that sneered in Acts 17:32 at what Paul said in the earlier Acts verses Tim quoted? Was this a culturally exclusive, wall-building claim? One certainly sees present-day Muslims and Jews sneering at the notion of Jesus being raised from the dead. So what's an inclusivist to do? Posted by saM | Posted at 11/03/2008 2:46 PM
Other thoughts ---
If the term "Christian" has been so negatively defined in our day, why not believe it (or any term) can also be *postively* RE-defined for the future as well? Forget "Christian"....what about "American" or "westerner" or "white"? Don't these terms have negative baggage in certain cultures as well? So what alternative terms are there to *these* obstructing labels?
I've gone back and forth on whether to call myself "Christian", "Christ-follower", etc., dodging whatever inconveniences such labels may carry, and have gotten frustrated. Right now, I've gone back (tho' not w/o a little resistance) to referring to myself as a Christian again....and if someone were to think negatively of me because of that, then I receive it as a challenge to behave, communicate, and relate in a way that would change what that person may think of as "Christian". That to be a Christian IS about following Jesus and loving others in His name.
What brought me to this point? I guess I find it paradoxical that any negative baggage loaded on the term "Christian" (even for reasons that occurred centuries ago, like the Crusades or the Inquisition) is deemed justified, while similar negative baggage loaded on the terms "Muslim" or "Jew" (even for events and conflicts occurring over the past decade) is considered cringe-inducing, anti-Semitic/Islamophobic prejudice. This, in spite of the fact that Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists have had historical and present-day problems with each other, independent of Christians....yet we'll never see any of these groups suggesting they re-label themselves as "followers of Muhammad, Moses, Vishnu, Siddhartha, or Bertrand Russell" in order to break down the walls "old" labels may create between each other, regardless of how much semantics may mean in these cases.
I've also noticed how much I'm expected as an American Christian Westerner (I'm not white, so I don't have to "worry" about THAT label :-) to overlook any negative baggage in the terms "Muslim", "Jew", "Hindu", "Buddhist", "atheist", "white", "black", etc. in order to value the individual behind the label. This, we agree, is the right and noble thing to do. So why not believe that non-Western non-Christians *also* have the ability to do the same noble and right thing by valuing the individual behind the label "Christian"? Or are we so patronizingly arrogant to think non-Western non-Christians are so backwards and unable to do this right and noble thing that we Christians need to "help" them along (or fool them, perhaps?) by simplistically cloaking ourselves with a different, more palatable label?
Also, part of being a Christian is having the courage and humility to admit guilt, is it not? But this whole "Christian" re-labeling movement almost seems a not-so-subtle attempt to sidestep the guilt and embarrassment associated with Christian missteps by adopting a disassociated, hence unblemished category safe from outside accusation (i.e. "see, we're not like the "Christians" who do all those messed-up things, 'cause we're really "Christ-followers"). That seems a lot easier than working towards the kind of difficult reconciliation Donald Miller mentioned doing at Reed College in his book "Blue Like Jazz".
I think the luxury of this kind of article/thinking would only be found in the West. There are countries that DO legally discriminate based on one's religion, determining what benefits their citizens do and do not get because of it, or at least necessitate including it on official documents. Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, and more than a few Muslim countries come to mind. "Christ-follower" would probably not be a term legally recognized by any of them. "Christian" is, however. There, semantics mean nothing....legal identification and categorization is everything.
Also, having lived in China, I don't think the millions of dedicated Christians in China would ever refer to themselves as "atheists" or "agnostics" anymore.....or is that a culturally prejudiced anachronism of a less-open, Mao-led China from decades ago? This China depiction seemed a reckless attempt to make a point.
I guess I'm willing to live with the baggage of the label "Christian", as long as I'm willing to work for change in what people might think of the word....cleansing its whitewashed tomb, if you will. Others can choose other labels if they want. The fact remains, "Christian" is simply a more familiar, convenient term to the world, even if it may be stained or misunderstood. I think it's a little naive to think that by simply re-labeling oneself, the world will "get" Christianity (or Christ-following-anity or whatever). Calling oneself a Christ-follower doesn't guarantee walls still won't go up. And I've found it just confuses or prolongs the inevitable in conversations, when after explaining to people what I mean by the new label, having them say at the end, "Oh, you mean you're a Christian!". :-P It feels a little like re-painting that whitewashed tomb a shinier shade of gold, instead of doing the much-harder work of cleaning it out.
Posted by saM | Posted at 11/03/2008 5:26 PMWhy does any of you care what perception people have of your walk of faith. No one comes to the Father unless they are called no matter how many mistake laden attempts by Christians to live the walk or witness. We are facilitators; we help but we do not save anyone. More times than not we hinder. God knows who is who and will judge us all accordingly. Jesus knows who is who, "I know my sheep and they know my voice". Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father. He said so. Try walking the narrow path instead of the 'wide gate that leads to destruction'. All are called but not all will answer! I am a Christian because I have professed my faith that Jesus knew the only way to the Father and laid down His life to deal with our separation from God...SIN! Proud to say that I am a Christian. Although I try not to make it a tool of some agenda. We are mostly all wrong and Jesus was right. I will write a book about this one day. Jesus said we would be hated. Paul said to consider it great to be in such a low place. As for me or anyone owning Jesus or God for that matter, He owns us! Posted by nick | Posted at 11/08/2008 11:36 AM
I won't get into the semantics argument. The truth is your theology stinks. You say, "If the Creator-God were to ever take on flesh and become man, God would look like Jesus."
Guess what, God did take on flesh and his name was Jesus. Remember, Immanuel and all that.
Your understanding of the Word is lacking, and why your article was published as it was is beyond me.
If all you wanted to say is that the term Christian is misunderstood today and sometimes it can cause problems, then say that.
If you want to say that the church is a stupid idea, then say that. You would be wrong and unbliblical, but you would be understood.
Frankly, I don't know what your rant was against or for.
Posted by Bob | Posted at 11/08/2008 7:15 PM