They will know we are Christians by our clever use of synonyms.
Posted on 24 Apr 2008
It is an odd trend I’ve noticed for us Christians to call ourselves “Christ-followers”. It seems rather cheeky, counterproductive, and if I daresay prideful; a cool-guy attempt at sidestepping the tragedies of our heritage and the crap of our present. In my research (I had an edifying peek at the Passion website where it is the vernacular), I didn’t uncover any legitimate schism in the faith to merit this new title, but I may be misinformed.
Perhaps this mysterious name upgrade is similar to the move away from ‘colored’ or ‘Negro’ that transpired in the previous century. Those words were tied to violence, hatred and a history and new words were given birth to provide a space for new culture and meaning. Is ‘Christ-follower’ a more active word, implying more than just identity, a bit like ‘person of color’ implies personhood and not just physicality. These word games are the Dickens. I must be missing something here. Please, let me know, I’m no good at such post-religion gaming.
My faith priorities include an obsessive need to be hip, witty, passively inclusive, without blemish, and positionally distanced from the prosperity gospel, nominal faith, WASPiness, evangelicalism, sexiness, Osteenism, Kirk Cameron, vicarship, the Inquisitions (unless really necessary), slavery, the Crusades (the Iraq War being the obvious exception–duh), and anything the news media would intentionally obscure one’s identity for embodying, such as obesity, body hair, gopherism, or VD. Oh, and I believe that Christ is the Messiah too, is there a good clean word for all that? (that was mixed sarcasm there, take your picks)
Elise
25 Apr 2008 (07:45)
I’ve thought about that too…the “Christ-follower” descriptor. What is it about the term “Christian” that people you use those words are trying to avoid? I suppose the easy answer is that they are trying to steer away from being a “nominal Christian.” Perhaps what we all are looking for is a term that jars the normal sensibilities and makes someone think…or at least makes us think what we are identifying ourselves as and what we want to be known as. Staying alive in such a way that I don’t languish and atrophy is huge on my list. But how do I do this? How do I not succomb to humdrum life and humdrum Christianity? I don’t know. For me, as you have probably observed in past weeks, it has been very close encounters with sorrow, sadness, and potential loss of the original family unit as I have always known it. Does it have to be sorrow that keeps me from atrophy and humdrum? Can it be deep, bubbling-up joy as well? I know for certain it is for me, but I don’t relish the times I have been in lately. It is hard not to feel like such a drag and someone my friends don’t feel heavy around. Yet I call to mind times when I was alive in a joy-ful sort of way (such as a recent trip to a different corner of this land) and times when I get to experience the aspects of creation that wow me to silence.
Sometimes, for me, the only way I can stay alive is to forget about religious monikers and just do what makes me come alive. Does that mean I have to find elicit joy that will bring harm to me or another? I hope that I am able to look deeper into my desire to find that what truly makes me come alive will not bring harm to myself or to others either. It is a tough journey to be on, is about all I can say at times.
Have I completely wandered off the subject? Perhaps. But these are thoughts that were stirred up as I read your post. Being around you or reading your writing makes me think in good ways, so stay with it, Zadok!
Elise
25 Apr 2008 (07:49)
oops! sorry I did such a horrible job proofing and correcting typos/misspellings in that post!
Dan Hauge
27 Apr 2008 (08:48)
I’ve been noticing more clearly in myself–not necessarily with regards to the word ‘Christian’ but in other ways–just how much of my motivation is based on how I want people to perceive me. In groups dealing with racial reconciliation, for example, I monitor my responses and do a lot of self-editing so that I sound like I am on the ‘right’ side, not always because I want to learn (though I do want to learn) but because I want to be seen as being one of the cool people who gets it the right way. I think the current trend away from using ‘Christian’ has some similar problems. There is a desire to distance ourselves from the oppression and shallowness that name often signifies in our culture. But is my desire to distance myself from that more for the sake of working for a humbler, more constructive faith, or is the desire basically that I be perceived as such, and not as ‘one of those other bad kinds of Christians’?
Can I get to the point where I will embrace a cliched term, or speak my current imperfect opinions, regardless of how I am perceived, and still work for better understanding and a more loving faith? Can I work hard in the right direction without worrying how much credit I get for it?
Brian
29 Apr 2008 (12:19)
Man, I am kinda scared to write this comment, but, while I appreciate your thoughts, I like “Christ-follower.” I like anything that helps breathe life back into “Christian.” That’s why I like “disciple” better than “believer,” simply because what’s implied in both of them. (I mean, I like it as a synonym for “Christian” — some of us are probably believers without being disciples.) I think the same for words like “God” and “church” and the like, because through overuse and misuse the meaning seems to be diluted often. Just my two cents. I hope that doesn’t make me too cool-guy.
I still use “Christian,” though. Just a habit. No, it’s more… I like it better. Come to think of it, to call myself a “Christ-follower” sounds a bit awkward. I once told somebody that I never got “saved,” but rather I got “seized by the power of a great Affection.” Not that I didn’t get saved (oops, I lied then), and not to try to be cool, but rather because this fella left the church due to something that hurt him some time back when. He knew all the verbage. Being “saved” to me meant something very different than being “saved” to him. Quite the opposite, I’d say. Maybe the same thing can be said about “Christian.”
Anyway, thanks for your post. Very well said!
SuJ'n
30 Apr 2008 (12:19)
I agree with Brian. I too like Christ-follower and disciple. Christian describes a member of a religion; Christ-follower and disciple describe a relationship. While it’s important to me to identify my membership in the religion, I also find times when I desire to emphasize the relationship I have with Jesus. For that reason, I don’t have the same feeling of disgust with the ‘synonyms’, but in fact empowered by them.
Most of the time I too use Christian. Most people have some construct of what this means, or what it is intended to mean. In other words, Christian is just plain easier to explain.
Dan Hauge
1 May 2008 (20:48)
Hey Brian, I appreciate your comments. I think, in my own perspective, the word ‘Christian’ has not been diluted of it’s dynamic, relational sense, so I attacked the question from the direction that I did. But if emphasizing other terms is helpful in communicating what is true about a relationship following Jesus, then that’s a good reason to use other terms. And your second example is even more to the point–it is important to be sensitive to what certain words or terms (like ‘saved’) connote to other people who have had very different experiences with them than you or I may have had, and therefore use different phrasing as an act of love and respect, in the interest of better communication.
Zadok
2 May 2008 (06:35)
Dan, I like it. I’ve been rethinking these notions too as Brian and SuJ’n have brought interesting thoughts to bear. I suppose I am one who hopes we don’t abandon the term Christian simply because we’ve done a right job of dragging it through the mud. In conversation, I quickly discern whether or not I wish to take the leap towards intimate discussion of my faith or just leave it at Christian and be on my merry way. If I go around saying “no, not Christian, Christ-follower” I imagine I’ll just get cockeyed responses and come off as arrogant (the experience that started this whole thing off). When Colbert asked Anne Lamott what faith she was and had no trouble saying Presbyterian, it was rather refreshing. I was half expecting her to go into a diatribe about following Christ and such. In most of my circles, people have a basic understanding that faith labels are nebulous things, to be held lightly.
Dan Hauge
2 May 2008 (09:16)
It really does depend on the level of interaction, I think. Generous conversations are always preferable to label-choosing, or label-changing, in my opinion. On the other hand, where those conversations are not always possible, or where certain labels have unavoidable painful connotations, then sometimes label-changing may be an act of love.
I did look at the Lamont/Colbert bit–it was great. Got a little nervy when he started pushing the issue of ‘Christ being the way,’ even in his satirical way–Stephen seems to know quite a bit of the background of these issues.
Zadok
2 May 2008 (09:23)
I’m gonna clean out some of the absurd quips in the original post. I was in a rather bitchy mood that particular day.
Brian
2 May 2008 (11:03)
Thanks everybody for your thoughts, and Zadok for your original post. Reading through everyone’s responses, you all come across as generous. (Even in your bitchy mood, Zadok.) I remember a similar story as Anne Lamott’s. It was, I think, Rich Mullins. He told the story of having picked up a hitchhiker once. During the conversation that ensued between them, the hiker told Rich, “I feel like I should tell you that I am gay.” Rich responded (and I love this), “Oh. Well, then, I feel like I should tell you that I am a Christian.” The hiker’s response is a telling one. He asked, “Oh, then, do I need to get out of the car?”
Unbelievable.
The coolest thing about the story, at least I’d like to think, is that that man left that ride with maybe a bit of a different taste in his mouth with the word “Christian.” Now “Christian” was a man who had been kind and honest to him instead of something that would get him kicked out of a warm and dry car.
SuJ'n
2 May 2008 (15:04)
Yes, all around. We need to take ownership and reframe the word “Christian” just as the words “black” and “queer” have been reframed. The problem is, just as with any group of people who claim an identity, not all of us are the same. The other problem is that someone we ourselves act in a way that sullies the word. Even though we hate that “Christian” has come to mean intolerant, self-important, pious and “Pollyanna”, I know that I too can be intolerant, self-important, pious and “Pollyanna”. Talk about being broken!
It’s exhausting and frustrating how imbued with baggage the word is. I’ve spent countless discussions with Alan (formerly Catholic and now proudly atheist) trying to dismantle his assumptions about what “Christian” means (see above for details). Unfortunately, his criticisms of Christians are quite on the mark. Because I care about him, I’m (sometimes) willing to spend the energy to unpack the baggage. But in most cases and with most people, I can’t or won’t invest that time. Then I just hope that who I am as a person (faulty, blundering, desire-driven, confused, hopeful) gives them a rich and assumption-breaking example of a Christian.
Zadok
5 May 2008 (07:09)
Assumption-breaking is near the top of my weekend activities list. Good stuff SuJ’n.