I had a thought as I was reading Coach Drury's great summary portrait of how many emergents (for lack of a better term) are preaching Jesus (www.drurywriting.com/keith). By the way, I don't want anyone to think I'm mega-down on the emergents. For example, I've really liked what little I've read of McLaren so far, and I just think McManus is a little out of focus--I think I'd really like Mosaic.
But it occurred to me that, in a way, this focus on Jesus the revolutionary isn't actually a view of Chrisitanity as a religion--it isn't actually a "Christian" view because it stops with Jesus before God raises him from the dead! It's like Charles Sheldon's "What would Jesus do?" I'm not sure that Sheldon actually himself believed that Jesus was divine. Rather, he saw Jesus as the greatest moral example to emulate. In a similar way, some emergent portraits see Jesus as a model for us to emulate as a revolutionary of sorts.
But these portraits are only half the story--and they're not the most "Christian" half. For it is not until God raises Jesus from the dead that we have full Christianity. Jesus before the resurrection is a prophet, but he is not yet functionally a priest or a king. And of course all the New Testament documents--including the gospels--are post-resurrection and thus, Christian.
You cannot appropriate the New Testament books as Scripture and limit your perspective on Jesus to this pre-Christian form. By the way, I am not saying that Jesus himself or most of the NT authors thought they were starting a new religion--they saw themselves as part of the old religion we call Judaism. But whatever we call their form of religion, it was not what it was apart from the resurrection and all that it signified. And ultimately, the view that Jesus was God would require a "parting of the ways" from the religion of the Jewish Scriptures.
As Kevin Wright commented in response to the previous post, the association of a church with a state has often had negative consequences. And I must admit that I am not really too fond of bureaucratic ecclesiastical structures. But I don't think Constantine is the ultimate culprit for a process that has repeated itself over and over again under certain conditions. And I think there are equal dangers to a "confederate" church that has no real accountability to any visible authority. And of course, the generation after the apostles always seems to move in the direction of structure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
What is Christianty stripped of religion? I saw it at a Colloquium on the problem with pain. One after another men got up and explained how Christianity went beyond religion, and in fact, you didn’t even have to believe in God. If you just recognized, that the term God is outdated, and Jesus was a revolutionary person in society who wanted us all to be socialists and died a martyrs death thinking only of others, then you could do that as well. Is it a stretch. . yeah probably but I fear that’s where we are heading if we really want to take away the “religious” aspects of Christianity.
Yeah, I suppose a lot of non-christians have a "Che Guevara" perception of Jesus also. (Keith could add this to his gallery: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/250752.stm ) I've been wondering why this is more appealing than other interpretations of His personality? Maybe our hyper-visualized culture wants the same Rambo, military Jesus that the 1st century Jews wanted, because things would happen in a way that we could actually see an interpret as being from God?? I suppose it's easier than viewing him as a praying man who waits on his Father's will. It would certainly make for a more exciting movie. "The Passion II: 'Jesus spilt blood; this time, He's gonna return the favor'... In theatres January...."
Maybe this perspective balances out more feeble perspectives of his character, where He's always loving and never critical?... (I think the discussion has been right about this emptying out Christianity of the supernatural, and making it simply a political or social construct)
Two concerns are raised in my mind:
1.) A revolutionary Jesus may eventually lead to a Gnostic Jesus. A Christ robbed of recognition of death and resurrection eventually becomes a symbol devoid of salvific value. Jesus goes from providing atonement to merely opening our eyes to a world and lifestyle we cannot presently see. We are filed with mere information and not grace and presense.
2. A barbarian/warrior Jesus may lead to and promote an ontology of violence. It is difficult to harmonize a Christ who was brazen, warrior-like, and revolutionary with one who suffered in silence, submitted to persecution, and turned the other cheek. Or, perhaps these are the very aspects that make Christ such a revolutionary. Regardless, as a Body who is called to die before we cock a gun, protraying Jesus as a barbaric personality seems somewhat incongruent. How do we "turn the other cheek" when we have images of aggressive barbarians, warriors, and revolutionaries filling our minds? To those that would suggest the terms used are not intended to carry with them the full cultural value already assigned to them, I would respond by saying that more work needs to be done to dissect the implicitly violent values away from the language used. Otherwise, our Jesus becomes one associated more with Grand Theft Auto than Deacon Stephen of Acts.
Kevin I think you are wright on, on this one (pardon the pun). I too have a tough time reconciling a barbarian Jesus that dies in quiet. Can a revolutionary Jesus turn the other cheek and then punching them after the second slap? Is there anyone who can help me out with this who is on the side of the "Che Guevara" Jesus?
James, I'm probably stating the obvious to ya, but I'd like to think the church is a combination of both movement and institution. If you only have a movement, then what are you moving people into after conversion? If you only have an institution, then it tends to dry up and become irrelevent.
I think this blog was more of a critcism about narrowing the scope of Jesus' cause, by taking one dimension of His character, and turning Him into some sort of characature. I mean, to compare Jesus' cause with William Wallace's or Che Guevera's, is like putting Gandhi in the same sentence with Mr. T from the A-team. All freedom fighters ain't alike.
Ha! I may be a turkey, that's for sure. I am an ordained minister in the Wesleyan Church, does that make me an employee of a church institution? Would the voices of all ordained ministers be disqualified because they are employees of an institution? Most of those who have posted on this blog are actually students... but they're on track to be ordained. Should we disqualify their voice because they're on track to be employed by an institution?
In the end, I believe the true church is invisible and not limited by any political organization. I see it as the "movement" of God in the world, not a sociological movement. And in that sense, I see all Christian institutions as a subset of the movement of God.
But I ultimately agree with Josh--it can be a both-and rather than an either-or. Within the pages of the New Testament we see evidence of the same tension between apostles and prophets. 1 Timothy is heavy on the "deposit" of Paul's teaching. 1 Thessalonians says not to despise prophets. Continuity with the foundation keeps us from going Koresh. Spirit-moving innovation keeps us alive.
I think all preachers, teachers, and any sort of DS or leaders in a denom should have to keep their mouths shut on this one. . . . I mean it's only fair. That's the they did it in the early church right?
Sorry my that's cynical and reactionary side coming out. I just don't see why those employed by churches or "institutions" should be disqualified from this discussion.
Also I think we would all agree that we feel the church is much more than an institution.
On another note I feel like summit has been a modern message wrapped up in a pretty post-modern package.
I don't think anyone has come and out right bashed the E.C. movement. What I do think is that people have given thoughtful considerations because they view the E.C. movement as having a great amount of potential. I for one am excited to see how the E.C. continually developes in the larger church. However, as with any movement, there are theologial considerations to take into account. I hope that some day the E.C. will produce some of the world's finest scholars. When that day comes, I believe that church will be well served.
I was thinking earlier that a person might get irritated sometimes with the institutional church if you were from the Church of Scotland or the Anglican Church. I don't know whether I could be a Roman Catholic because of how intractable the establishment is, how unbending it is by nature of its very structure and virtually unable to acknowledge past mistakes. But I can't imagine a Nazarene feeling that way... :-)
Actually, I am always amazed at how loyal the average Nazarene is to the denomination--way more loyal than most Wesleyans I know.
Well said James. I hope the American church doesn't take a similar path, assuming that it already hasn't. Your comments about the state of the church over there reminded me of a phrase from one of my favorite evangelists, who happened to be Scottish also, Leonard Ravenhill. He said, I think we have too many church leaders organizing, but not enough agonizing and weeping. (Citing Joel 2:17) Maybe that's part of the problem?? (Just an aside here, but if you haven't already, check out some of his messages on sermonindex.net. That guy had such a heart and passion for revival; it's contagious.)
I'm OK with emergent/Barbarian/sic-'em religion... my caution is the attitude that sometimes comes across that this is THE way of doing Christ-following... and that all other ways are unbiblical, stale, dry, boring and out of touch with the "real" Jesus. The wild man Jesus is one way to seeing Him--but it is neither the only picture nor the whole picture.
If these emerging passion-sword wielding-wild-dangerous-warrior-untamed-primal Christ-followers will have a tiny bit more tolerance for some of us who consider "religion" a good word, and if they’ll let me attend Ken Schenck's "boring-formal-dry-creedal" worship service this Sunday without fear of being condemned as a Pharisee, and if they’ll be half as open minded about their brothers and sisters in the church as they are of those in the world then I think God can use this entire movement to “correct” some of the rest of the church. That’s what I’m always looking for in new movements—what if they are sent by God to correct something—what would that be?
I believe there is a dead religion crawling around in Christianity and a wave of renewal needs to kill it. However, if we follow some idealized dead revolutionary from the first century we will probably end up like he did. Maybe it is precisely the Jesus Christ known and known only as the Divine Son revealed at Easter that has any chance of defeating false religion. I personally don't think we humans stand a chance against our own religiosity. It's too ingrained. We need the God-human to wage battle against through his word. Of course, once I see him, I'll follow him. But I am not going to start the revolution without him then ask him to bless it or inspire it.
When I picture Jesus as a revolutionary I picture Gandhi more than Che Guevara or William Wallace. You can be a revolutionary without being a warrior.
Post a Comment