Comments on: What’s In A Name?

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Sat, 11 Mar 2006 06:55:37 +0000

1) What did Jesus and the disciples call themselves? Can I call myself that?
2) If Christ is greek for Messiah, what can people in other languages call themselves? Can I use those words?
3) Did Old Covenant folks have to call themselves “Jews” or “Hebrews” to be a good witness?
4) What if I wanted to call myself a Yahwist?
5) The day before they were first called Christians in Antioch, what were they called?
6) Does having a Christian Bookstore in any way bias one’s view of this question?
7) Does this change our view of having “Christian” tattooed across our backs?
When we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is “Christian” what we mean?
9) Do they call themselves Christians in heaven?
10) What if a situation arises such as Bonhoeffer’s, when “Christian” is co-opted for overt sinful purposes? Would adopting another name be ethically necessary in order to be faithful to Christ?

By: wnpaul

wnpaul — Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:52:48 +0000

I agree that it would be pointless speculation to argue about who is a Christian. But perhaps we can agree on what I think was the iMonk’s main point: that what Osteen preaches is, more often than not, not the Gospel of Jesus incarnate, crucified and risen. Therefore Osteen in his professional capacity is more properly described as a motivational speaker rather than a Christian preacher – whatever his personal spiritual state may be.

By: mrupert22

mrupert22 — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 05:39:57 +0000

My language was kinda strong… Love ya, Monk!

Posts are such a crappy communication medium. “That’s stupid crap” can be taken so many ways. Yeah, it’s pretty much only criticism, but I meant it as friendly criticism, if you can follow. Still, I would encourage all of us (myself as well) not to fall into the trap of arguing who is and isn’t Christian… Where does that all end, ya know?

No, I take that back, maybe my initial post was a little irate. I tend to be all over the place. About a year ago I was insistent that Catholics aren’t Christian… Now… whatever…

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 01:47:42 +0000

leif….I’m probably the one getting the butt-kicking on that post.

By: leifrigney

leifrigney — Thu, 02 Mar 2006 00:01:25 +0000

Did you read the part of my post where I say that I struggle against being a universalist? The whole thing about the “wide tent” on my site? No pissing contest here.

By: mrupert22

mrupert22 — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:37:17 +0000

Oh come on!
You’re going to get on a high horse and say Osteen isn’t a Christian because you disagree with him? That’s really pathetic. This is why emergents (and I consider myself one) are looked upon with negativity. Don’t be like that… That’s stupid crap.

We’re all embarrassed by a relative, yet how many of us change our name because of it?

Yes, McLaren, Internet Monk, Osteen, Rick Warren, Billy Graham. CS Lewis, Hank Hanagraaf, Pat Robertson, you, me, we’re all Christians. Let’s not make it some kind of pissing contest–you lose sight of Jesus that way.

http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/2006/02/christian.html

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:33:42 +0000

Someone at the BHT, commenting on leif’s post, said that it is tempting to do this because of association with the TBN crowd.

My response:

Here’s a problem I have with leif’s project:

I don’t want to say Osteen, etc are Christians. I mean, technically, they may be, but for my money, they deny the Gospel. I’d prefer to say THEY (and the rest of the whack jobs) AREN’T Christians, rather than to say I’m not a Christian….and they are!

By abandoning Calvinism to [name deleted] and his ilk, I lose no sleep. Give me Five Solas and call me in the morning. (With a tradition chaser btw) But leaving the term “Christian” to the TBN crowd seems like a disservice to the true and faithful.

It’s a hassle to disassociate myself from the idiots, but it seems to me to be an easier, more reasonable job than disassociating myself from the term Christian. Why? Because Christ stands in judgement over those jokers and their million dollar underwear or whatever. My job is to be congruent with the name Christian, which is still a pain, but not in the same way. I am seeking to define what it means to be human by way of Jesus.

Here’s my suggestion to leif: don’t MAJOR in the name Christian. Use a lot of ways to label, story, explain and analogize this trip. (See Charlie Peacock, New Way To Be Human for details.)

I’m inspired by Bonhoeffer, whose “religionless Christianity” ruminations affected me deeply as a young Christ….uh…..believer.

By: A.J.A.

A.J.A. — Wed, 01 Mar 2006 01:12:05 +0000

“Even some Christians have begun to realize how indefensible Christianity is and are trying to fool you into thinking they’re something else. But they still believe [writer's least-favorite Biblical doctrine here]. It’s just a typical dishonest Christian bait-and-switch.”

That’s why this is a bad idea.

By: coderforchrist

coderforchrist — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:41:30 +0000

I agree with Jerry here, although I will say that the question of whether we think someone is really a Christian or not isn’t the issue. The issue is that the term “Christian,” to many non-Christians is associated with “bad things.”

Frankly, it seems to be human nature to group and label things. It allows many things to be said in one word, and allows us to mentally handle all the information we deal with daily. My point is, eschew the label “Christian” if you will, invariably, another label will replace it. If that label actually gains ground, it will eventually be tarnished by the same people that have tarnished the label, “Christian.”

In addition, “Christian” is familiar. While not calling yourself a Christian outright may allow you to actually talk to someone who might just reject a “Christian” out of hand, eventually, the person will notice that you seem to believe a lot of things similar to Christians, and will likely group you as a Christian. This may be good, in that, perhaps, they now have an element of “good” in their experience with Christians, but if you object to them considering you a Christian, that can lead to confusion, if not an impression that you are being less than honest.

Rather, I think a better approach would be one that seeks to show that Chrisianity is good, while acknowledging that Christians screw up. I think this will look more honest, and less silly, to those “on the outside.”

By: fish on

fish on — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:04:16 +0000

I am not on the same intellectual level as most of you, and I can not articulate at your level, so I will simply say: if leif becomes successful at a name change with an other descriptive word to replace “Christian,” it is only a matter of time before it will be perverted also.

In Revelation 2:2, it appears to me that the church at Ephesus was battling the same kind of issue: Namely, people calling [naming] themselves apostles, but not really apostles.

Like it or not, if someone calls themself a Christian, we tests them by what we see and hear of and from them. If we start to label ourselves by another term “Of The Way,” we will still test those who start calling themself “Of The Way.” By the way, “Of The Way” will eventually be infiltrated by the wick, and they will pervert the term, “Of The Way.”

jerry [fish on]