I am a Christian because of Acts 11:26: "The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch."

I'm torn. I understand the impulse to break past the definition of "Christian" some people have. Those words may jar someone to ask "what's that?"

In the end, it puts the focus on what I do, on my following making it sound like it's "up to me". Thank God, I am relying on God's grace not my efforts!

So in the end, "Christian" still wins out. The other sounds Pelagian.

Hi Paul. First, thanks for the nudge to start Twittering. I joined partly because of your previous post on Twittering. I'm just getting the hang of it and replied to you on this subject. Not sure if if it even made it out correctly as a reply! Anyway …

I guess I don't see what this big hang up on language is. I see "Christ follower" or "Jesus follower" as unpacking the term Christian. I use them both.

I think many are conscious of the fact that in today's culture many equate being a Christian with being a patriotic American, being a "good person", being on the membership roll of a church, etc. So I think it's simply a fresh way to give legs to what is a good and still useful word, although a word that has become somewhat meaningless or assumed in our day.

And I'm not sure if emergent (is it Emergent? who knows) has anything to do with this. Eugene Peterson, among others, have been using that was of speaking for a long time.

Pax.

Sounds like WWJD repacked for another go around.

Test this discussion among people who do not confess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Isn't this what we should be concerned about when it comes to labels?

When I shared Jesus among Wiccans, I found that if I introduced myself as a follower of Jesus, this opened to me A LOT more doors of conversation than if I called myself a Christian. The same happens in mission work among Mulims. The general public are often open to talk about Jesus but sometimes have bias against Christians or Christianity for good personal or historical reasons.

Ultimately, people could call me a pencil as long as I'm "a pencil in the hand of God."

For what it's worth from this non-Lutheran, I tend to prefer the term Christ-follower though I use both interchangeably. I do find it interesting that Jesus never called anyone to become a Christian, but often used the phrase follow me. I think that the term Christian to many means little anymore culturally, and signifies to non-believers your adherence to a religious system rather than the person of Christ. There are many who claim the label Christian who do not follow Christ, but I have not found many who claim to follow Christ who are not Christians.

I understand that the good Lutheran response to the phrase is to brand it Pelagian or pietistic, but I have to agree with Kurtis and Jeff. If you pressed it, "Christian" may have more of a passive sense and "Christ follower" an active, but even then–no one follows Christ without His call and the Spirit's stirring. And as a matter of cultural translation, the connotations that "Christian" is saddled with demand some deconstruction.

At any rate, "Christ follower" doesn't strike me as novel. It's an apt description of disciples as they are portrayed and described in the New Testament, not least the gospels themselves.

This is a distinction without a difference. The similarities with the "disciple" or "believer" debate stand out.

A Christian is a believer, that is, someone whom Christ has declared righteous by faith. Believers are also disciples, those who continually read, mark, hear, learn and inwardly digest God's Word. Those who continue to discover that they are saint and sinner. They are also "Christ followers". They bear the fruit of Christ's work in their lives through daily contrition and repentance as their new man arises and desires to love God and serve the neighbor. We do this daily in our vocations. The "Christ following" always comes after and flows from the "Christ believing". The late medieval church had this very confused. In fact, the Lutheran Reformation revolved around a very similar debate.

Various sects and groups arose early in the Reformation that proclaimed Luther and the Wittenberg reformers to be not really "Christ followers." This is simply a new form of enthusiasm. I really don't expect much else from the spiritual descendants of enthusiasts or the papacy. (Examples: Rick Warren & Basil Pennington) However, I do expect more from the Synod that claims to rest its doctrine and practice on the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions.

"Christian" to me sounds declarative, and we Lutherans like declaration. I was bought and paid for. I am baptized.

"Christ follower" sounds lawful, or as Chris Huckaby said, something I'm doing. Whenever I focus on something I'm doing, I always fall short.

The emergent crowd draws their identity from being "not like the church across the street" or "your grandfather's church." And so we have to play these silly word games like "Christ follower" not "Christian." This is reminiscent of the Jehovah's Witnesses who insist that Christ was crucified on a pole and not a cross. Also the emergents are big on being "non-institutional" about the church, that is, until they get themselves organized and try to protect what they've created. Silliness.

If they were first called Christians at Antioch, what were they called before that? And does this statement in Acts make those other previously used descriptive words (such as "The Way) inappropriate? I find it interesting that becaue "Christ Follower" has become associated with the emergent church that it must be 'wrong' somehow. I think we make mountains of molehills. Personally, I like the english translation and the play of the "ian" possessive ending on "Christ' which means, literally, "Belonging to Christ" . I taught my confirmation kids to define Christian this way: One who belongs to Christ. Seems the most accurate for me.

Hello, first of all, I like the new look and design. I've been viewing the posts via a feed reader for quite some time and last I checked (to subscribe to the new feed) the design wasn't finished. Very nice and very well done. It eloquently portrays your theme and atmosphere (as well as your focal point). Have you seen the Christian vs. Christ Follower ads? They are a spoof of the Mac vs. PC ads. They are all at: http://prayeramedic.com/2008/11/christ-follower-v…

I agree with Jeff that a lot of deconstruction and explanation is needed when you say "I'm a Christian." A majority of Americans make this claim yet we are the most amoral nation on earth. I'd say using a new term can be beneficial depending on who you are speaking with. Have you seen the statistics of what those who call themselves "Christians" believe (on average)? http://prayeramedic.com/2008/10/nonreligious-chri…

It's no wonder many of us choose to call ourselves "Christ Followers" in many cases. Also consider many successful missionaries to Muslims. They absolutely do not call themselves Christians or claim to follow Christianity. They explain they they follow Isa's (Jesus') teachings found in the Injeel (New Testament). This is because Muslims nations often assume that what they see in our Hollywood movies is indicative of a "Christian" culture (some confuse HOLLYwood with HOLYwood, no kidding). Often times the things Muslims hate about supposedly "Christian" culture are the same things genuine Christians hate! For contextual reasons, using another term is desirable. I recently met a missionary who tells Muslims he follows "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14).

It is interesting that believers were first called Christians in Acts 11:26 but later in Acts 24, when Paul is speaking before Felix, he identifies himself as a follower of "the Way." Clearly no one title is necessary, and "the Way" is an acceptable title. Whether one identifies him or herself and a Christ Follower or as a Christian depends on the occasion and to whom he or she is speaking. This is increasingly becoming an issue of contextualization in a post-Christian culture.

"A majority of Americans make this claim yet we are the most amoral nation on earth."

That's debatable at both ends of the sentence.

I imagine those who need to have the title 'Christian' unpacked a little more–and simply by other terminology, for Pete's sake–will find as much to argue with and to misunderstand about Christ-following as they do about Christianity.
People comprehend with the same limitations they place upon their seeing and hearing: We see, hear, and comprehend what we want.
In the end, it sounds as if Christians themselves are the ones confused about who they are and what they are to do.
Is that all this is? Another seeker-sensitive game?
We do much more than to follow Christ, and we can only follow Him so far, and, in fact, achieve nothing by following Him. (As if we faithfully follow Him, anyways)
It's hubris; at least, it is hubris-bearing.
Why not Christ-clingers? Christ-bearers? Christ-hearers? Will any other rose by any other name be as appealing and clear to those whose minds are already muddled on the subject (not the least of which are Christians themselves)?