| The Cross-tian |
I remember the first time I heard that some believer somewhere decided that the label "Christian" had too much baggage associated with it. So he (or she?) decided to identify himself (or herself?) as a "Jesus follower" (or was it a "Christ follower"?) instead.
I live in the same world that you do. That is, I am aware that in our culture whenever a person identifies himself or herself as a Christian that same person immediately is regarded by our culture as a spokesman for, and representative of, every form of Christianity there is. I mean how many times have you heard someone call down all of Christendom because of the crusades? I can understand therefore why some would rather change their label than educate the ignorant.
If and when someone brings up the crusades as a criticism against all of Chrsitianity, I point out that the Crusades took place before the invention of the printing press, and therefore before both the translation of scripture into vernacular languages and the publication and wide distribution of the same; that is, I point out that the primary reason "Christians" (note the quotes) took part in the crusades was because they were almost universally ignorant of what the scriptures say, and again because, at the time, there was no separation of church and state, so that political powers were using the church to motivate the ignorant masses for the sake of personal glory, and capital/political gain. There have been no crusades since the printing press was invented. No holy wars because the bible was made available to the masses, and people began to see for themselves what the scriptures taught, and more importantly, what the scriptures did not teach.
The point is, there are all kinds of reasons for a person to want to distance himself or herself from a label that carries with it all kinds of baggage. My definition of Christian is very, very narrow. I don't believe that a person can become except by grace and that through faith. I believe that unless a person turns away from their rebellion against God, that their profession is empty and regardless of how convinced they are of their legitimacy, I consider them to be unregenerate and deceived. But there are many who believe that you can be saved just by "asking Jesus into your heart" or by "repeating this prayer" or by simply deciding that you are a Christian now (and going to church!), etc.
When some unregenerate soul imagines that they are a beleiver and does something that the Holy Spirit would never lead a person to do, and they claim that God is leading them to do it, (Send money for my green prayer hanky!) they are in effect standing up and saying this is what all Christians believe - and there are people in the world that take their word for it, or who will make presumptions about Christianity that while perfectly applicable to false or superficial Christians, do not reflect the condition or attitude of the real McCoy.
So, as I said, I can understand the mentality of those who want to change the label. You know, "Don't call me a Christian, I prefer 'Christ Follower' because I don't do all that weird stuff" or, "because I don't believe in all the pews and the pulpit - I just believe in emulating Jesus wherever I am (i.e. in a churchless vacuum)". Whatever. Anyone who is still salt in this world sees that for what it is.
What baffles me however is why no one has coined the term "Crosstian" yet.
Seriously. Cross...tian? I mean, if I were inventing a new savvy label, that would top the A list for sure. You know, I take up my cross daily, ergo I am a Crosstian?
I am stretching here I suppose.Labels: social commentary |
posted by Daniel @
11:12 AM
3 comment(s)
 
|
|
|
- 
- 
- 
