I thought about this verse "Everyone who believes
that Jesus is the Christ is born of God" (1 John 5.1). If Jesus is not the
Christ, then I'm not going to waste my time following that Jesus guy, when
there are other people I would much rather emulate. If Jesus was just a nice
guy who got killed, then he was a loser, in my estimation. But,
on the other hand, if he really was the son of God, the Messiah and was
resurrected on the third day to bring many sons into the family of God.
If we also are resurrected and become part of God's intergalactic eternal
kingdom...now that's a different story!
Nathan Crawford said...
Coach,
I think that Christ will win out. Here's why. We are only now really taking the
Jesus work of liberalism seriously. The Jesus in this work was a mystic (a la
Borg and Crossan) and peasant and just a popular
preacher. However, it seems that many theologians now ascribe to be more Pannebergian and Moltmannian.
These come from the influence of Barth. I think that in the years to come, the
influence of these theologians will outlast the work of liberals.
It always seems to me that it takes some time (50 yrs) for ivory tower theology
to filter down to the populus. Liberalism is at its
peak in the populus, but soon it will react with
Barth and then we'll have Moltmann and Ricoeur etc. etc.
JohnLDrury said...
Great on-the-ground framing of the
issue.
Along with Nate I hope for a "trickle down" Barthianism,
but such a future is not guranteed unless people like
yourself putting it in clear terms for everyone.
My one response to these great thoughts is a warning that we do not over-react
toward another extreme of a Docetic
"Christ" who lacks the historical anchoring of Jesus of Nazareth, who
was and is the Jewish man whom God elected to be his flesh. This is certainly
not your intent, but I thought I would simply reframing your framing as follows:
Jesus
vs.
Christ
vs.
Jesus Christ
As for me and my house ...
Kevin K. Wright said...
Perhaps we need a discussion on how a Resurrected Jesus
defines how we do discipleship, how we worship, and what type of books we
write. I agree with John that if we overreact, we'll find ourselves performing
the same reductionism on Jesus that Protestants have impressed upon Mary. She
goes from being theotokos to being just another
plaster figure in our nativity scene.
Rod said…
I agree with John's comment that the choice is between
three options, not just two. And, Karl, this is much more
than spin. This is the essence of the faith. Why bother doing all those
things you are doing?
I disagree with Keith, though I suspect he is just stirring the pot, that "Jesus" is gaining in popularity at the
expense of "Jesus Christ."
The writings of N. T. Wright are making a persuasive case for "Jesus
Christ" and are resonating with many in the emerging church (which is not
a generational movement by the way).
Rod
ap said...
I will agree with Nate and John, as well, because of the
world's growing Christian presence. The Anglican Communions of the world are
much more historically driven and therefore less liberally-inclined than the
ACC and the ECUSA. The reason, in my opinion, is because a peasant teacher just
doesn't preach very well--which is exactly what drove Barth from his own early
liberalism.
MattH said...
To understand this dynamic in Christ one must appreciate
that church history dealt with the dual natures of Christ long before any of us
were a blip on the radar. One cannot discuss the man of Jesus without
discussing his divinity. It is who Jesus was, He was
fully man AND fully God. To highlight one over the other or preach one and not
the other is a very dangerous and heretical path to go down to. I think any
idea that we might have about what Jesus we will present we must
atleast put it through the test of the Nicene
Creed. They new the nature of the heresies that were alive and well and chose
specific words to describe who Jesus Christ truly was.
è Keith.Drury chimes in saying…Good
correction, Nate-John-Kevin-Rod-ap-MattH… the way I should have framed this article is with
three options—Jesus, Christ and Jesus Christ. My own background actually errs
on the side of “Christ”—forgetting Jesus was a real human being. As kids we never imagined that Jesus could
even be (actually) tempted—though we
allowed that he might be tempted to make stones into bread for something to
eat—but not the “serious” temptations we faced. And I have college students today who were
raised in a similar environment-some argue that Jesus could never have had body
odor or been aroused sexually. They too
have a Jesus-less Christ and that is just as serious error as a Christ-less
Jesus. So your points are well-taken and a better article would have addressed
this error also.
John Mark said...
There are some voices out there who
see us headed toward a rather muddled religiousity in
this country, and if they are right, then "Jesus" would be perfectly
adaptable to this kind of mix. I am curious about Barth. In the Quanstrom book on holiness theology, he mentions Barth in a
way that makes me think he (Barth) impacted our collective thinking in ways
some of the more conservative elements would see as detrimental. My own
theological training is, alas, limited. How important is Barth to us in the
holiness movement--I know he is deeply revered in many other circles.
As some one who works with teens
I think Jesus Christ will win. Frankly these kids think mamby
pamby non-confrontational "spirituality" is
stupid. They want something worth dying for and a good teacher who said the
same thing as every other religion then got his stupid self killed ain't that inspiring.
Nice thoughts. McLaren added to
Lewis:
Lord, lunatic, liar or....
LEGEND?
Seems to fit nicely here.
Who cares... Jesus, Christ,
whatever.... we in the local church are too busy reaching out, ministering to
the hurting, keeping our heads above water to worry about how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin or what sort of spin you put on Jesus.
è Keith.Drury chimes in saying…Pastor Karl
you never cease to reliably represent the very worst of my generation’s
approach to things—thank you for doing that so dependably. Sometimes I wonder if you are just baiting us
on here…but whether or not I love it when you post, for you always raise dust
when you do.
disciplerw said...
While Jesus may be popular, especially among older
generations, I must agree with AJ about the teenagers that I am responsible
for. They will not tolerate a faith/belief that is not life changing. Teenagers
will either accept or reject their church and ultimately, Christian faith,
based on the difference between Jesus and Jesus Christ. Seeker sensitive Jesus
does not apply to them. Offend as few as possible does not apply to them. They
will either accept Jesus Christ, or reject the whole thing (including just
Jesus)
Andrea said...
I think certain pockets of the "just give me
Jesus" trend are motivated by a reaction to the OVER emphasis of the
cross. Some feel the Church's teaching has been heavy on the death-of-Jesus
Scriptures and light on the life-of-Jesus Scriptures. Hopefully, this
corrective won't be a pendulum swing in the other direction, cutting out the passion
of Christ. We'll have to watch for that in our faith communities and in our own
lives.
Larry said...
I had to think about this one for a few days ... but, yes,
I think a Christ-less Jesus is just as good as a Jesus Christ.
Here's why. Jesus is a living person,
whether we care to think of him that way or not. People who are attracted to
"Jesus only"--if they truly come to know him--will not be able
to keep that assessment for long. They will come to see that he is both the Son
of God and the Lord's Anointed One.
If they do not, then they probably never knew "just plain Jesus" in
the first place.
I say, preach Christ and him crucified. It worked for Paul.
I think you are right and it is a logical progression
given the recent and current western church.
Consider the last time you heard about hell in church, or consider sin used to
be touted as wrong because it grieved a holy God, and now sin is something we
should steer clear of because it will end up causing negative repercussions in
the here and now.
As to your question, is this Jesus only movement valid for future faith and
practice, I think it is a part of an evolution of ideas. We need to understand
and appreciate the "Jesus" you describe totally, but not exclusively,
that would be only sharing half of the picture. If one only teaches the Jesus
gospel, then I think we call people to walk with Jesus and be missional which
is great, but we may not help people to realize their personal need for a
savior and forgiveness.
My vote is to keep the Christ in Jesus, and feel free to make prominent the
characteristics of Jesus as friend of sinners, accepting and loving of all,
unorthodox and so forth.
daniel
said...
In a society where heavy medication is the saviour from sin and suffering -- where Xanax
and Oxycontin are the "peace which passes all
understanding" -- where "fear and wonderment" and "belief
in the divine" (aka "magical thinking") are "treatable
imbalances", it is no wonder that the church is leaning more toward a
"here and now" type of faith. Our society has become so heavily
medicated and apathetic that they couldn't have a "crisis" let alone
a "crisis conversion" if they tried. A belief in miracles is
relegated to the insane and children's "fairytales".
How shall we go about waking the anesthesized cow?
Mark Klass said...
Poor me! I've never read Barth so I'm probably not
qualified to comment on the "thin soup" of this new generation's
theology. To make it worse, I'm not even a part of this new generation, but
then again, neither is Keith.
But I have struggled through my own journey to a more comprehensive
understanding of Jesus. For me, the one truth that sticks out in my journey is
that the closer I get to Him the more aware I am that He exceeds the periphery
of my awareness. Whether I see Him as a man or as God at any particular moment
in life doesn't make Him less than He is and my view of Him won't change His
substance. He is perfectly capable of protecting His own reputation - and He
will!
Elijah was reminded that God had protected a remnant of true believers in his
day even though Elijah wasn't aware of it. I suspect God will continue to do
that. Whether or not I am part of that remnant of believers depends on whether
I chase after Him with all my being. Part of that "chasing" must be a
continual searching after Jesus as He is revealed to us in Scripture with an
absolute reliance on God's Spirit for understanding.
Bottom line: Our understanding of Jesus is incomplete. It has been, is, and
will continue to be. God's certain knowledge is complete and will prevail,
whether we see and understand or not and He will make sure that the Truth He
wants revealed will remain available to those who want it and seek it.
è Keith.Drury chimes in saying…… Mark, sounds
like you’ve been reading the Eastern Fathers…. !
Amanda said...
Thanks for the article...and I appreciated the extra
warning from John.
I'm glad to read about other youth pastor's experiences and their confidence
that Jesus Christ will win out.
This is a constant struggle in my youth group--Jesus is more popular than Jesus
Christ. I think a general feeling among mainline kids is not that they don't
BELIEVE Jesus is the Christ, but that they don't CARE. (Actually, that's almost
a direct quote: "I believe Jesus is the Son of God and I don't
care.")
Thanks again for the article and sparking discussion.
Mandy
Dean said...
I had to wait more than a few days. I've read the post
several times and the comments that followed. And now I'm calling foul. There
is no either/or. There is only both/and. The very man who walked the dirt of
earth is also very God. Any success in overemphasizing or eliminating one or
the other of these realities diminishes the power of the gospel of Jesus
Christ. I believe the early creeds were so explicit on this issue for the very
same reason. A God who did not become man in the most absolute sense would not
such a one who experienced the frailty of flesh as we do and if that man was
not also absolute God, then His authority to redeem and declare us righteous by
His own act of self-sacrifice is nothing more than another martyr for a
temporal cause. But since the character of God and the destiny of man are in
the balance, He is, and must be, Jesus Christ. I side with both.
è Keith.Drury chimes in saying… Of course
you’re right Dean, this issue was “settled” at Chalcedon in 451… it seems,
however we still vacillate between the two natures and among some the humanity
of Jesus is on the rise in such a way that the His divinity is excluded. The genius of Chalcedon was holding what
seems to be an illogical position, which may be why we tend to vacillate
between the poles (in the West at least).
Anonymous said...
Let's not forget the "advance notice" regarding
taking control of an "image campaign" -- 4 "You shall not make
for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the
earth; Ex 20:4 (NKJV) The caution:
Designing a god to suit our own preferences. Pre-Keith...Pre-Barth...hmmmm?
This is a very significant issue regarding Inter-religious
dialogue. We cannot leave out the basic foundation - Jesus is THE Christ.
è Keith.Drury chimes in saying… Your point is
well put Joanne… to approach dialogue with Islam, Judaism or Buddhism does not
require us to abandon core beliefs of Orthodox Christianity so much as to know
them and hold them yet still be open
to dialogue.
Elliott Innes said...
I don't think I can answer whether I think the
"Jesus" stance is gaining ground. But I agree with the youth workers
who have posted and truly believe that as this current generation of teens
begins to join the ranks of church leadership, we are going to experience a
"Christ" boom throughout the church.
In the meantime: In an age where we, as "the evangelism machine" are
reaching out into new frontiers around the world, this article is at the very
least a kick in the backside to remind us not to present the gospel according
to comfort. I have seen to many people commit to serve "Jesus", only
to see them back away when confronted with "Christ." The
"Jesus" is fun, it's fellowship, pot-luck
dinners, great music and catchy preaching. But "Christ", that equals
persecution, hardship, sacrifice and giving up one's own will for their life.
In the face of pluralist folk religion and even more frightening, Islam,
presenting the Jesus does not present a road of hope and salvation and freedom,
but simply another groupings of teaching that just needs to be followed so that
perhaps the follower could find his way to heaven/paradise/nirvana or the great
rice field in the sky.
Sorry if this doesn't make much sense, but it's definitely helped me put things in perspective.
To me, it is always going to be a balance to what the
people around me need to hear. Not so I can feed them a few lines and make them
feel better, but to address their REAL needs.
Example: The local "been saved my whole life and know all about the Son of
God who's coming back again" might need a little kick of Jesus in his
life. TO see the side of him that worked with the people, reached out those
around him, worked miracles in the lives of the outcasts, fought against the
status-quo...that man needs Jesus.
However, I have many friends (the twenty somethings)
who are in love with Jesus, but not the church. This divorce has created the
whole bodiless Jesus that Drury mentioned in a previous
post. The only way to attach the two together is often to bring up community, with the head of it
being a more powerful member than we ourselves aka Jesus the Christ. These
people often need more than a social worker, but a redeemer, someone that sheds
hope on their current miseries of pluralism confusion and addictions to social
philanthropy.
My verdict: give people what they need. See people for who they are, and then
decide which Jesus to present. Obviously, we'd love to present Jesus in the
fullness of himself (meaning, give both "sides" their full due), but
the reality is, people usually have already relegated Jesus to one or the
other. How about we see people where they are and minister to them in whatever
way that place deems necessary. That almost seems like a Jesus Christ model to
me
è Keith.Drury closes out saying… I have
nothing to add Sniper… you have put it so well!
Kudoes!