Owning the Name "Christian"
Today I was listening to a lecture on some of the beliefs of Islam and one man's "tactics" for sharing the Gospel with them. In the lecture, the man (who is fluent in Arabic) was approached by a Muslim in a restaurant in the Middle East, and the Muslim overhearing his conversation and realizing he was American, asked him when he had become a Muslim. He told the Muslim that he wasn't, but that he was a "follower of Jesus".
"A Christian you mean?" asked the Muslim
"No, a follower of Jesus," replied the man.
He went on to explain that most Muslims associate "Christians" with the Crusades and the oppression that their people have suffered from "Christians" in the past. This man wanted to free himself from that stereotype to tell the Muslim what a real "follower of Jesus" is like.
Now I can understand the thinking behind this, and maybe even the effectiveness of it by drawing another's curiosity; but, the whole sound of it struck me funny. My thinking is that a "Christian" is what a Muslim says a "Christian" is in some sense, good, bad, ugly, or indifferent. I do want to associate with the men of the Crusades, not because I believe what they did was right, but because, in the end, they are still my brothers. I don't want to abandon association with the historical church because there have been times of grievous sin in it's past or because their have been tares mixed with the wheat. I would argue that if the name of "Christian" is wrongly viewed, it is our own fault and up to us to redeem it . . . not abandon it.
Thoughts, anyone?
"A Christian you mean?" asked the Muslim
"No, a follower of Jesus," replied the man.
He went on to explain that most Muslims associate "Christians" with the Crusades and the oppression that their people have suffered from "Christians" in the past. This man wanted to free himself from that stereotype to tell the Muslim what a real "follower of Jesus" is like.
Now I can understand the thinking behind this, and maybe even the effectiveness of it by drawing another's curiosity; but, the whole sound of it struck me funny. My thinking is that a "Christian" is what a Muslim says a "Christian" is in some sense, good, bad, ugly, or indifferent. I do want to associate with the men of the Crusades, not because I believe what they did was right, but because, in the end, they are still my brothers. I don't want to abandon association with the historical church because there have been times of grievous sin in it's past or because their have been tares mixed with the wheat. I would argue that if the name of "Christian" is wrongly viewed, it is our own fault and up to us to redeem it . . . not abandon it.
Thoughts, anyone?
posted by Brian | 9:11 PM
5 Comments:
It would seem to me, that witnessing to the unsaved needs to be guided by the Holy Spirit. If this man was led to use the expression "follower of Jesus", he was being truthful and informative. When we deal with humanity, we often encounter emotional baggage and misunderstandings. An example would be the person who has a hard time envisioning God as Father, because of a life experience with a bad father. Would it make most sense to try to and convince them of the need to see God as a father, or to see God in one of his many other roles or names?
I would argue that similar to Paul when he refered to the inscription to the unknown god, this man used what he knew of the culture and used it to point toward Christ.
Now, that being said, you are right in that no Christian was ever perfect, whether a Cruasder or otherwise. Our shame lies in our sin, not in our Saviour.
I will assume that "owning" a name can't be too important to someone who remains "anonymous".
Couple of arguments I have against your examples: In your first example, you are picking apart characteristics of God that would be better focused on than others in certain situations (I will gladly agree with this idea), but in the post the name "Christian" is at stake, it is not a characteristic, it is a name that is all inclusive, such as calling God, Yahweh; the second example you give is completely irrelevant because Paul is starting from scratch with a people that have no preconceived ideas of Christianity.
By the way, while you are witnessing in that moment, how do you know what expression the Holy Spirit is leading you to use?
Interesting responses. I am trying to figure out according to your ideas, why did Jesus say take up your cross and follow me? Shouldn't he have said, "Take up your cross and call yourself a Christian?" Again, seems that the man was repeating the words of Christ. Did Jesus come up with the term Christian?
So calling someone a Christian is like calling God Yahweh. I am having a hard time seeing the parallels there. Wouldn't calling Jesus, the Christ, be more like calling God, Yahweh?
You think the example of Paul witnessing is an irrelevant example regarding witnessing in general or just witnessing compared with the two scenarios?
Lastly, let me throw the ball back in your court: You tell me, how do you ever know when the Holy Spirit is leading you?
Also, interesting to me is your assumption that by my remaining anonymous, it means I don't want to "own a name." Perhaps, the real reason is because I know you personally and if you knew my name, your preconceived notions would keep us from having this fascinating dialogue.
"Usually the only people who leave me comments are those I already know or have some connected relationship to. With that, I do believe in this case identity does matter past being a Christian because relationships matter. I address my Mother differently than my Brother, I address my Pastor differently than an acquaintance, I often will address women differently than men, etc. Just as in the one Godhead, the Son addresses the Father differently than the Father addresses the Son and so forth."
Thought I'd add this quote from you in reference regarding how you respond to others. Seriously, is this idea greatly different from how a man should witness?
I waited, thought about not responding, and then I thought, "What the heck, why not?!"
I suppose if all that is important in question is whether we use the words of Christ in identifying ourselves, then we could probably have as many names as we do denominations. (I personally prefer the "Born-Again, Salty, Flesh-Eaters".)
Point somewhat taken on the name comparison, but I think calling God, Yahweh is more like calling the Christ, Jesus (rather than the other way around). The point is that one is a misunderstood nickname and the other an understood proper name (Follower of Jesus vs. Christian).
Yes, alas, Paul, I confess that I believe him always to be irrelevant. Okay, not really, in fact, hardly ever.
Ball in my court: Often, when I have a tough decision to make and I am anticipating the leading of the Holy Spirit, I frequently get a warm, fuzzy feeling in my stomach which will usually move to somewhat of a "gut feeling", then on some occasions the "gut feeling" rises into my throat; and even then on rare occasions I run to the "John" and vomit out the warm fuzzy only to find out that it was yesterday's lunch. Then, I remember to pray, reflect on the Word, and attempt to make a wise decision in faith knowing that the Spirit is working through those means.
In answer to the question in your last comment, I would give a hearty, "No! It is not so different!" In the beginning situation (if it were me), I am approaching a Muslim and I am a Christian, and I would argue that I should address him and introduce myself accordingly.
Passing the ball back to you:
The main question for the blog is whether it is important to stand behind the name the world associates you with and which the Church has given you or to avoid that association in order to enter into a conversation with someone so that you won't have to deal with any preconceived ideas about Christians?
Post a Comment
<< Home