Several weeks ago I saw some parody videos like the one below (based on the Mac vs. PC ads). Personally, while I thought there were some good points made, the faults in the subject of the parody (the ‘Mac’ guy cannot help but seem smarmy and somewhat condescending) are apparent in the parody, as well.

I’ve now seen more discussion around the subject behind the parody – 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.

On a related topic – I’m currently listening to Rob Bell’s ‘Blessed are the Peacemakers’ series, and I will admit that I was uncomfortable with week 2, though week 3 (especially the introductory commentary) put it in much more perspective – decoupling the church completely from political affiliation, and a view of ‘peacemaker’ that is not a mamby-pamby peace-at-any-price/pacifistic pushover. Bell is walking a fine line here,and he’s asking a number of questions that are uncomfortable finding answers to…