It's always very interesting to observe the evolution of language and labels. For example, the term "liberalism" meant something very different during the Enlightenment period in the 1700's than it does today. In its classical sense, liberalism described the worldview we would now call "conservatism". Likewise, we hear the word "tolerance" today and assume acceptance of all perspectives without question or critique. This is different from the definition of "tolerance" which is to allow something about which one does not approve.
Language, by definition, contains certain meaning(s). But with any shifting culture comes a corresponding evolution of language. And every facet of culture is affected. (Think of what the term "gay" meant in the 1930's versus today. Or compare the war of labels in the abortion debate--it's not "pro-life" versus "pro-death", nor is it "pro-choice" versus "anti-choice". But each camp attempts to craft the language to convey their respective message, as well as, the implicit assumptions included in such labels.)
In fact, on Thursday I was chatting with a pastor at a well-known mega-church on the east coast who acknowledged that they no longer use terminology like "discipleship", because of certain negative connotations it gives to people--likewise terms like "worldview" and "apologetics". More generally, the evolution of labels in the Christian sub-culture sees the tension between the "emergent" church with its emphasis on "organic" and "incarnational" ministry over/against the ideas of the "institutional" or "traditional" church. (Interestingly, in the larger culture anything that falls under the heading of "traditional" is automatically assumed to be negative, compared to the more embraced term of "progressive".)
Likewise, there is trend among the Christian community to distance themselves from the label "Christian" (which seems to carries too much political, theological, and social baggage). Instead, more and more people are choosing to call themselves "Christ-followers".
Why does all of this matter? Because language matters. And for the Christian (or "Christ-follower", whatever your preference), it is especially important that we are not putting any unnecessary obstacles in the path of those who need to have a personal encounter with Jesus Christ.
Too often people throw around the term "Christian", for example, and it has begun to lose its meaning (or morph into something that is a far-cry from true Christianity). In fact, pollster George Barna has written that over 86% of Americans claim to be Christian. It's difficult to believe that such a statistic accurately reflects the true reality of Christianity in America.
And more recently, teen sensation Miley Cyrus has publicly touted her Christianity as a major influence in her life (while going from controversy to controversy). Or consider the Christian claims of political figures like President Bush or Barack Obama. Given the prominent role of religion in the life of many voters, the mantle of Christianity is conveniently adopted. To be sure, that is not necessarily to suggest that one's (even a politician's) faith is not genuine. But it is to point out the importance of looking beyond the label to the substance.
As I've suggested many times here on The Daily Detour, anyone can call themselves a "Christian". It's quite another thing to live an authentic Christian life. If we're going to call ourselves "Christians", we'd better be willing to live the label accurately. So I put to you, "What is it to be called 'Christian'?" (I'd be very interested to hear from you Christians, but also, especially those of you who stand outside Christianity looking in.) 