What have we taken literally that was supposed to be figurative?

Use your decoder ring and tell us what was really said.

When we want to quote someone but we can’t figure out a way to be critical of the quote, we “paraphrase” so that we can make the quote fit our argument.

When we can’t find anything wrong with a sermon we like to take a small video clip so that we can take what is said out of context.

And when we are really grasping at straws we just take everything literally. Those are the easiest to attack.

It’s just a preference, though. I’m not offended when someone calls me a Christian, and I am a “Christ-follower,” as well. I still think it’s helpful in some contexts to differentiate believing Christians from social/in-name-only/nominal “Christians” who don’t believe the gospel.

Personally, I think that’s a legitimate point. I just think the word “Christ-follower” sounds contrived and it not really descriptive of born again believers, either. Personally, I prefer to refer to believers as believers.

I hate the term “Christ-follower,” even though it’s really THE popular term now, even among my friends who are actual Christians. I can appreciate the point that the term Christian is massively overused now and is used to describe people who are not believers in Jesus Christ at all. I get the point that it’s confusing and inaccurate much of the time. But I cringe every time I hear the term “Christ-follower” used.

Once and for all: no one is saved by being a “Christ-follower.” We are saved by putting our faith in Jesus Christ. Nothing else. When people ignore the simplicity of the gospel, they have a hard time explaining what the gospel is and are constantly groping to define what is necessary to be saved. Lots of people who accuse me of being a proponent of “easy-believism” (guilty, btw) absolutely refuse to state plainly what they believe to be the plan of salvation. But it always, ALWAYS comes down to some work that must be done by man to be saved. Usually this is couched as “repenting of sin,” a phrase not found in any literal bible translation, which means some ill-defined standard of “turning from sin,” (which means you can still sin, you just hate it now, but you’d better stop doing the big ones or you didn’t really repent of your sins.) In real terms, it means you have to stop doing (or maybe be willing to stop doing) the sins that the person sharing the “gospel” has already stopped.

The updated version of this is the “Christ-follower” requirement for salvation. I’ve been in church services where people have prayed to “become a Christ follower.” I’ve heard pastors I respect tell people that being a Christian means you start “following Christ in the best way you know how.” This type of phrasing about the gospel has become the norm in a lot of church plant sermons I listen to online.

So if we become a Christian by being a “Christ-follower,” what happens if we stop “following Christ.” What does it mean to “follow Christ,” anyway? Is it necessary to believe in the resurrection? Do we have to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? People who think they’re saved by being a “Christ-follower” have almost certainly not placed their faith in Jesus Christ; they are trusting in their own ability and will to be a Christ-follower. This vague (at best) presentation of the gospel is essentially an invitation to trust in a false works “gospel,” which is no gospel at all.

Did I mention I don’t like the term “Christ-follower?”

[Christ follower] rejects God’s family. God refers to the church in familial terms. We are all adopted. We are Christ’s bride. We are brothers and sisters. You might not like it, but when Christ saved you, you joined the family. When my wife married me, she married into my parents and siblings as well. Just because she’s embarrassed by my brother (I jest, bro, because I care) was not enough of a reason for her to suggest that we change our last name to McSnickenmeister so no-one could connect the dots between her and the rest of my family. When Jesus chooses you, his family comes with him. It’s a package deal. It’s a good deal.

[Christ follower] rejects grace. Christian denotes a state of being and belief; we are part of Christ’s church. Christ follower denotes a state of action and effort. Being a Christ follower is always a secondary state compared to our status as Christians. I am a Christian because of what Christ did, not anything I did. To be a Christ follower I must do something. In terms of how both terms explain the essential quality of God’s grace in our salvation, Christ follower couldn’t really be more wrong. The consequence of being a Christian is that one follows Christ, but one can never follow Christ before, or without, being a Christian.

His whole point is that it is idolatrous to know God just for the sake of knowing God. Cooper has an interesting conception of idolatry if worshiping God can become sinful. He’s the one God we can worship without it being idolatry.

Knowing God and serving people are simultaneous and equal pursuits in Cooper’s mind. In Cooper’s formulation, we have faith in order to have works. I would say that we have faith, therefore we have works.

There’s an important difference.