This is an extract from my Peter Project, presented as a stand-alone essay. I think it works.
Christian. In 1 Peter 4:16 we find the only instance of where a ‘Christian’ uses the appellation ‘Christian’ in all of scripture. The only other case is when King Agrippa accuses Paul of almost persuading him to become a Christian (Acts 26:28). Is this spoken in sincerity or in mocking sarcasm? Written words have no voice inflexion. According to NWT this name was bestowed by divine providence (Acts 11:26). If this name really was given by Jehovah himself, should our brothers not have accepted it with enthusiasm and used it with pride? Why then is this name so conspicuous by its absence throughout the ‘Christian’ Greek Scriptures, a name that has become a label for a third of the World’s population? In modern times, when we have to categorise ourselves for ‘equal opportunities’ legislation, which of the boxes do we, known as Jehovah’s Witnesses, tick? ‘Christian’ seems too vague and carries a strong suggestion of mainstream ‘Christianity’ and all the hatred attached to it. Yet we are Christians in that we model the Christ to the best of our abilities, and so ‘other’ seems wrong. It’s a dilemma I have often grappled with. What did our first century forebears call each other? It’s a fascinating matter on which to ponder.
Throughout the gospels the followers of Jesus Christ were known as disciples and the word, in its singular and plural versions, occurs 264 times in the Greek Scriptures. Of these it appears 28 times in the book of Acts; all the other instances are in the gospels. Why, after the death and resurrection of our Lord, did the use of ‘disciple’ die out? Whilst these people were following Jesus, the man, around the country it described who they were, but ‘disciple’ was certainly not unique. Gamaliel had disciples. John the Baptiser had disciples. The Pharisees had disciples. Any charismatic person could have disciples. After the resurrection, and as devotees of the invisible Jesus Christ, it no longer proved adequate. And so we come to Antioch and Acts 11:26 where we are told that they came to be called ‘Christians’; but by whom? It wasn’t the Jews as they rudely referred to them as Nazarenes and Galileans. The Romans could not care less – these Palestinian zealots were all the same to them. It is unlikely that they gave themselves this moniker. It says ‘they were called’ not ‘they called themselves’. The most likely source is from the Antiochans who were describing what they observed – men and women devoted to the Christ, preaching the gospel and living accordingly. In what spirit this name was coined is impossible to know. However NWT, unlike most translations adds the words ‘by divine providence’. The Greek word chrematizo means ‘they were called’. Watchtower 15/7/00 says that this word is always associated with something supernatural or divine, whereas Strong, Thayer et al note that it also had a secular usage concerning legal transactions and the receiving of a name in business. Who is right and who is wrong and in what sense did Luke use this word, I am not qualified to judge. Nevertheless this divine bestowal is inferred not explicitly stated. Now if the designation ‘Christian’ was given by divine appointment, why is it almost completely ignored by Luke, utterly ignored by Paul, James, John, Jude, and the writer of Hebrews, leaving us with this lone sample from Peter? And this carrying the strong suspicion that he is using it in a pejorative sense as if he is referring to enemies who call us such? Maybe it was a somewhat meaningless label, as it is today - a title of convenience. I am British by the fact that I was born in the UK and choose to continue living here. I do not need to have done anything to gain that designation, I do not need to believe or be patriotic. I just am by circumstance. This is how most Christians become Christian; they just are due to events beyond their control – usually their parentage. So am I a Christian? Yes and no! I am a Christian in that I follow Christ and try to be Christlike. I am not a Christian in the prevalent sense of the word. I have no desire to be associated in any manner with the vile activities carried on in the name of Christianity. Neither do I worship Jesus; yet I am devoted to him through love, appreciation and gratitude as the Son of God. Perhaps our first-century friends had a similar predicament. So what did they call themselves?
Reading through the epistles we find a number of different terms of affection and association: saints, or holy ones: believers, the faithful: brothers and children. Each of these describes a different, but close, bond of unity that is simply not captured in the vague term ‘Christian’. In the introduction to the epistle to the Colossians, Paul uses all of these as he greets them as ‘holy ones and faithful brothers in union with Christ’. The epithet ‘saints’ or ‘holy ones’ describes our character and our relationship with Jehovah. It comes from the Greek hagiois: set apart by, or for, God, holy, sacred. What a lovely name that would be to have - saint. Alas, this is not possible. The word has been thoroughly abused, misappropriated and corrupted to refer to the veneration of the dead, worthiness and elevation to this rank by the decree of some bloke who wears a white dress and speaks in Latin. This abuse is scripturally wrong on so many levels. Notwithstanding, we are saints, holy ones. We have been set apart by Him to bear witness to His name, to preach the good news of His kingdom. We have stripped ourselves of the old personality and we endeavour to uphold and demonstrate His standards and qualities. ‘You must be holy just as [Jehovah] is holy’ (1:16). It describes what we are.
To be set apart we must believe and that presupposes a process through which we have come to this standing. To believe we must have faith; faith and works are inseparably linked. Belief is active, dynamic. Without faith it is impossible to please God well (Hebrews 11:6). Faith comes from knowledge. Faith and knowledge motivate us to love. Faith and love are aspects of God’s holy spirit. So we are believers, we are the faithful. It describes our relationship with Jehovah, his son Jesus and the organisation he uses to affect His will. It describes what we do. Again and alas, ‘believer’ is not a unique, identifying description. People believe in all sorts of nonsense, with or without corroborative evidence. A believer is often viewed as someone who is slightly strange, obsessive, nerdy.
Neither of the above describe the relationship we have with each other. In the first century, congregations were set up for worship, mutual support and encouragement. It was a structure where like-minded people could come together in solidarity and to maintain their detachment from the world. So close was this bond that they called each other brother and sister. ‘Blood is thicker than water’ is a saying that describes how families stick together through thick and thin. This is even more so in a spiritual sense and is quite extraordinary given our diverse backgrounds. Look at the list provided by Paul to the Colossians – Greek, Jew, circumcised, uncircumcised, foreigner, Scythian, slave, freeman. What a motley bunch! It was a first century miracle. Today this miracle continues – Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, white, black, Asian, former Catholics, Protestants and Muslims, rich, poor, educated, uneducated… what a list of immiscible characters all calling each other brother and sister. Oil and vinegar emulsified into one beautiful, sumptuous dressing that adorns the worship of our amazing God Jehovah.
So what are we to be called? ‘Christian’ is such a loose, meaningless designation. In the first century it was unique and would have set our brothers apart from the Judaism that had been so forcefully rejected by Jehovah - had they used it!. Yes, we are disciples. Through divine education disciples become believers in the faith and that faith motivates us and binds us into a tight-knit global community the likes of which the billions of this world’s putative Christians cannot even imagine. We accept the holy standards that Jehovah exacts of those who represent Him. We thus become holy ones, saints, set apart for holy service. We are all these things. Worship of Jehovah is such an awe-inspiring privilege that it simply cannot be summed up by a single-worded epithet.
We call ourselves ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’, a name derived from Isaiah 43:10. It describes to whom we belong and what we do. Even this name doesn’t adequately describe what we are. To the world, we are a bunch of very friendly, or annoying, zealots and simpletons. But it is a unique name; it sets us apart from the Christianity that has been so forcefully rejected by Jehovah. So we ‘keep on glorifying God while bearing this name’ just as our brothers glorified their unique, un-apostatised, form of Christianity. And just as ‘Christian’ became meaningless, so too will ‘Jehovah’s Witness’. In the world to come we ‘will no longer teach each one his neighbour and each one his brother, saying, “Know Jehovah!” for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them, declares Jehovah’ (Jeremiah 31:34).
In the meantime I think that I will stick with ‘other’ and if anyone wants clarification I will happily oblige!