Taking Back "Christian"

Dana Carvey as "Church Lady"; photo found online.
I suspect Church Lady is not Christian.

I think it's time to take back "Christian." I've been ruminating about this for some time, and I'm quite convinced.

What do I mean? Well, I began to notice a few years ago that people were calling themselves "Christ-followers" or "followers of Christ” instead of “Christian.” At first I thought it was a fad thing. You know the phenomenon; for a while different buzzwords came along with their associated traditions, like everything was Maranatha, then Praise, then Celebration, then Relevant. And I have missed a buzzword ...or ten ...in that list.

Let me set the stage. I read a few years ago that the famous author of vampire novels, Anne Rice, had become a Christian. Intriguing. More recently I read that she declared that she is not longer a Christian.

What is this? Conversion whiplash?

Here's what Anne Rice had to say about that:

For those who care, and I understand if you don’t: Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to “belong” to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.

Well now, that was interesting. Doesn’t nearly every Christian feel like an outsider?

Looking further, I saw more explanation:

In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

Wait a minute. I can't believe that God loves gays, be feminist, use artificial birth control, be a Democrat, be a "secular humanist" (whatever that is), respect science, be pro-life ... and still be a Christian? What kind of a list is that?

I started to get the point: Anne Rice was not denying Christ. She was refusing a place in the group of people who called themselves by the same name she did, but who criticized her stance on a number of issues. And Anne believed that Jesus was calling her out of that group. That could be the only reason she would quit "in the name of Christ."

To clarify, here’s one more quote from Anne Rice:

My commitment to Christ remains at the heart and center of my life. Transformation in Him is radical and ongoing. That I feel now that I am called to be an outsider for Him, to step away from the words, "Christian" and "Christianity" is something that my conscience demands of me. I feel that my faith in Him demands this of me. I know of no other way to express how I must remove myself from those things which seek to separate me from Him.

It was a declaration heard around the world. Anne Rice made her point, and she made it on the platform of her notoriety as an author and as a relatively recent, unexpected Christian convert.

Since reading about the disavowal of Christianity by Anne Rice, I've begun noticing others avoiding the name "Christian.” And I have wondered: are they jumping ship from the label for the same reasons Anne Rice did--because people who called themselves "Christian" behaved in such odious ways? Does calling yourself a "follower of Christ" mean anything different? Does it make you better? Purer?

I don't mean to disrespect Anne Rice or to question what she felt called to do, but I feel differently called. I think it's time that people--thinking people, caring people, well-educated people, kindly people, culture-shaping people--people who have committed themselves to Jesus Christ, take back "Christian." Quit changing their names. Quit jumping ship. Stand up and give the name the definition it was intended to have. Be a Christian.

And what does it take to be a Christian? In Acts 16:31, Paul and Silas answered this question with, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household." They said nothing about any list. Nothing about being pro-anything or anti-anything. All followers of Jesus in those days were Christians, and I see no reason why all followers of Jesus should not be Christians now.

If anyone should be jumping ship and dropping the name, it should be people who do not behave as Jesus did. Maybe that would be the people who try to divide the good people from the evil people by applying a bunch of rules and judging who does and doesn't meet them. Maybe that would be people who oppress others, socially and economically. Maybe that would be people who pass by others in need, and do not respond with caring.

The rest of the world is watching. They don't discern any difference between a “Christian,” a “Christ-follower,” and a person who loves Jesus. As far as a Muslim, Hindu, spirit-worshiper or Buddhist is concerned, they’re all the same. If the Christians who love like Jesus change their name, who will model for the rest of the world what a Christian is, what Christ is like? If you’re truly committed to Jesus, if you're becoming like Him as much as you can be in context of your human weakness, should you not keep the name, define the name for those around you, defend what that name should stand for?

Others may see it differently. But I, for one, will not be changing my name. There may be huge differences between me and some who share the name—funeral picketers and Koran burners and billboard crusaders among them. I want to help strengthen the definition as something quite different from theirs. I hope and pray to be the kind of person who defines "Christian" in a way that would draw others to know Jesus, who would bring peace rather than discord, who would convey love and not hate, who would be welcoming rather than judgmental, kind rather than cruel. If not me, I hope it would be my Christian brother or sister who models it better than I. It's time to take back "Christian."