Among the moderns really only the Quakers could be said to follow The Way in who they follow, all the rest follow some different teacher of their choosing.
I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.
Sadly, they're not the majority, but living this way is pretty hard so it's not that surprising.
> I feel that there's a lot of truth to this, except that there are lots of actual Christians amongst the various denominations.
I don't think this is a good take. I think C. S. Lewis got in better in Mere Christianity:
> We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to “the disciples,” to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were “far closer to the spirit of Christ” than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity
A "Christian" is someone who believes certain things (e.g., Nicene Creed), and that he should do (or not do) certain things. The inability to live up to one's ideals does mean you reject those ideals (or make them invalid).
Much as I dislike disagreeing with C.S. Lewis, my personal nomenclature is to reserve the term Christian for those who live the values promoted by the Gospels. This is clearly non standard though, so I see the potential for confusion.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_20:23
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_(religion)
There was an early Christian heresy what believed that clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism
And another belief that humans can be saved by their own efforts, without the need for God's grace:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism
In some ways your idea would be contrary to scripture (?): since no one can (fully/perfectly?) live those values, then no one can (fully/perfectly?) be Christian. Whereas is in the 'Lewis model' every one can be a Christian, but just a better or worse 'instantiation' of one.
Yeah, I definitely take that point.
That being said, I don't have a better term for the small number of people who actually try to live the teachings of the Gospels, as opposed to those who mumble along to the Nicene Creed, take the Eucharist and go right back to robbing their fellow humanity.
So that's the term I picked.
Like, to be fair, I am almost certainly a heretic from the perspective of the Catholic Church, but if the Source of All judges me based on that, then I guess we have very different priorities.
For context, I grew up in an Ireland where literally everyone was a practicing Catholic, but very few actually lived it in their lives, hence why this annoys me. As Jesus (did not) say, blessed be the hypocrites etc.