In Acts 11, Christians were busy in Antioch. It is there, we read, that "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26). Now, of course, they weren't. I mean, "Christian" is an English word. So ... "christianos" in Greek. Okay, close enough. In Acts 9, Paul was sent to find those "belonging to the Way" (Acts 9:2) and in Acts 19 people were "speaking evil of the Way" (Acts 19:9), so "the Way" was another common term in the day. But we've ended up with "Christians." Note, in that Acts 11 text, the other word used: "the disciples." So "Christian" refers to "the disciples" or, more completely, those who are disciples of Christ. Back then. Today? Not even close.
Today, "Christian" often has only vague connections to "Christ." It may be a disciple of Christ or a person who professes belief in the teachings of Christ (even if they deny Christ) or anything related to the institution referred to as "Christianity" such as the institution or the Scriptures or ethical values related somehow or a country that professes Christianity (I've spoken to people who profess, "I'm an American; we're all Christians."), for instance. It may even refer to treating people in a kind and generous way. Like the holiday we call "Christmas," one might reasonably ask, "What ever happened to Christ in all of this?"
Over the years, we've tried to point this out. From "the disciples of Christ" to "the brethren" to "the Jesus People" ... from "followers of the Way" to "fundamentalists" to "evangelicals" ... believers throughout Church history have realized that the institution of Christianity is not always synonymous with biblical Christianity. More modern "Red-Letter Christians" or "Missional Christians" are similar ... and will all suffer the same fate ... as the promised false teachers (e.g., Matt 7:15; 1 John 4:1; Matt 24:24; 2 Peter 2:1) following their "father of lies" (John 8:44) infiltrate and subvert misguided "believers" (Isa 29:13). We need to set aside worldly names and adhere to the Christ we're designed to follow as found in the pages of God's Word. Others can worry about keeping Christ in Christmas. I want to keep Christ in "Christian."
8 comments:
People calling themselves Christian without believing anything Christian feels like such a recent phenomenon, but that is because we're so used to reading the great Christian authors. In reality, deviation from revelation has been present since the beginning. All we can do is contend for the Truth revealed by the Truth.
“Over the years ... believers throughout Church history have realized that the institution of Christianity is not always synonymous with biblical Christianity.”
I have come to understand “the institution of Christianity” you mention as Christendom or “cultural Christianity”--as opposed to the true Church, the Body of Christ on earth. Members of the true Church have been born-again from above and comprise a subset of what the world knows in general as “Christians.” It’s important to know of the intermingling of false and true believers in the world and to be aware of how Satan is using tares in the Church for evil purposes against God.
David, I agree that the phenomenon of being “Christian in name only” rose up right from the start, since false teachers and pretenders were called out by even the writers of the New Testament books. I am also mindful of the legalization of Christianity by Constantinople in 313 A.D., when “cultural Christianity” became not only increasingly prevalent but mandatory; this was, of course, the beginning of the general widespread apostasy and corruption of the true faith that is present today and will exist until the Lord returns.
Biblical Christianity began as a relationship of individuals with the Christ and with others with the same relationship with Christ, but it became something you belong to rather than something you do. Heresy and orthodoxy became more important than discipleship. Christianity was originally a relationship of a disciple to Christ and became in institution when it became a behavior than a relationship. As an institution, it became a civic identity, and when the teachings of the One about Whom it was intended to revolve became antithetical to the beliefs of those in power, the Teacher became more external to the politics and power of the institution. Further drift occurred in denominations, from "Roman Catholic" to all those estimated 45,000 denominations worldwide. We ceased being "disciples of Christ" (and even those designated "disciples of Christ" ceased to be disciples of Christ). In the Air Force, I was asked (for my dog tags) my religion. I said, "Christian." They said, "Okay, but what kind? Catholic? Baptist?" They didn't have a category for "follower of Christ."
A very accurate (and fervent) summation! It strikes me that the prevalent practice of dedicated affiliation with a “Christian” denomination (many of which are not even so, as you point out) reflects a religious spirit, rather than true discipleship to Christ--as if one is saying, “my faith is in the wisdom of my chosen group.” I, too, “want to keep Christ in ‘Christian’" and to keep my focus solidly upon the Teacher.
Regarding your Air Force dog tags, I just read this at Google Overview:
In the U.S. military, service members can list almost any religious preference, or "No Preference," on their dog tags, a significant expansion from older, limited codes (P, C, H) to accommodate diverse beliefs like Atheist, Agnostic, Jedi, or specific denominations, allowing for personal faith expression or lack thereof, with regulations ensuring this reflects individual identity rather than government endorsement.
Evidently, there is room for up to 18 characters, so that “personnel have enough space to spell out their chosen faith or lack thereof.” It seems that now, happily, one can specify “follower of Christ” as you wished to do. Let’s hope that many do … and are!
I was, of course, referring to the Air Force when I was in ... 35+ years ago.
Yes, of course. I just thought you might be encouraged to know that that has changed a bit for the better since then.
I would submit that most all of those you listed regard themselves as strong "Christians" as you're using the word (not intended to criticize how you're using it...just sayin'). I'm not against debating whether another is doing it well (I certainly can't honestly insist I'm an example of what "doing it well" looks like), or even "closely enough to qualify". I can think of one or two who would adamantly insist at the same time that I'm "missing the mark" worse than are they.
Post a Comment