The Fashion of the Christ
"Me and Jesus, got our own thing goin'. Me and Jesus, got it all worked out. Me and Jesus, got our own thing goin'. We don't need anybody to tell us what it's all about." - Tom T. HallWho is this Jesus guy anyway? I have to tell you, I'm getting some mixed messages. Especially here on the Net - there's about as many different "Christs" as there are blogs. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech, but it seems like every Christian blog I run into these days introduces me to a Jesus that I've never met before.
Some are pretty harmless, and I tend to pass these over. Others seem to be hateful, even cruel, pushing agendas that I don't remember Him ever pushing in the Bible. Some even are distilled down to a "Mr. Rogers" archetype, complete with puppydogs and lambs and a kind word for everyone. Frankly, I'm not sure which is worse. Can a Saviour sue for lible?
A popular t-shirt these days reads, "Jesus is my homeboy." And that's just one example of what happens to Jesus. Jesus has become hip, trendy, a sort of personal mascot. Want to justify X? Talk about how Jesus was the ultimate X. Insert in place of X - hippie, revolutionary, liberal, rebel, conservative, rastafarian, heretic, etc. Just tweak the image and there you go - pre-packaged Christ, ready made to support whatever fool thought flitting through your head. I believe that many Christians are doing a terrible wrong to Jesus . I'll explain why in a moment, but first I'd just like to introduce y'all (all y'all?) to a few of the Jesus' I've met. Here you go:
1. Angry Christ - This is the Jesus you'll encounter most often - at least, the one I encountered most often. He hates - well, a lot of things. Sinners seem to be a popular choice, as do heretics, democrats/liberals, homosexuals, backsliding Christians, abortionists, circus clowns and people named "Doug." People who want this particular Jesus on their side tend to quote a great deal of "fire and brimstone" verses from the bible, as well as verses where Jesus spoke harshly to people (calling them "snakes" and other such things) - usually to justify their ignoring of other verses that call Christians to treat others gently and with kindness.
2. Patriotic Christ - This guy is much more popular in the States than up here, but you still run into him a lot. Try Googling an image search for "Jesus" and "American Flag" and you'll see what I mean. This Jesus is typically a Republican, loves white people best (although it depends who you talk to) and just wants to bless your socks off - financially of course. He's become even more popular since 9/11, which is hardly surprising. You'll find a few different versions of him, but almost all of them have blue eyes. Which personally really creeps me out.
3. Buddy Christ - Best example of this was parodied in Kevin Smith's excellent movie "Dogma." This Jesus is laid back, relaxed, just chillin'. You wanna sin? You go right ahead, Jesus got your back. Feel like sleeping in on Sundays? Jesus'll unplug your alarm clock. Need some blunt? Jesus won't just give you a light, he'll pack the bowl himself. He'll never get you down, he'll never call you on the carpet - he's even pretty sure he can get you off the hook for what you did at Marti Gras, but he'll have to ask his dad. Oh, and he's great at parties because he'll never let you run out of booze.
4. "Mushy Love" Christ (thanks Kerri) - Personally, I find this one the most irritating. This Christ is ALL ABOUT YOU. He is just itching for you to throw your hands back, close your eyes and sing him a pretty song. He never condemns. He never gets upset, except at mean and nasty people and don't worry; you're not one of those. You're the reason he's waiting at your worship service, because he just can't get enough of you - unless you're an emerging Christian, in which case he's at Tim Hortons. This Jesus' favorite song is "All you Need is Love", and he can't wait for you to die so he can give you a great, big hug.
So why so many Christs? Why the franchising of the Saviour? I'll tell you, but you sure won't like it. In a word: shame.
We're ashamed of him. We can't stand him. He makes us uncomfortable. The Jesus that I see in the Bible reaches out from the and pokes us in the eye. He says things like, "Love sinners," and "Do not judge." He holds the religious to impossible standard. He claims to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He praises people we don't think deserve it. He compares God to a corrupt judge and a cruel master. He compares God to a loving Father. He came not as a king or ruler but as a stinky, smelly baby. He left not as a conquering hero but beaten, battered and rejected. He wants us to treat everyone equally. He confuses us and confounds us, and still he demands from us everything and more. Sure, he was revolutionary, sure he was angry, sure he was loving, sure he was human and friendly and harsh and a rebel and all of these things and more. He does not fit into any box we've got prepared for him.
So we change him. We dress him up, make him acceptable for company. We try and change the message of the Gospel into one of laws and rules because this new standard he call us to - sacrificial love - is way too damn confusing. We send him to one extreme or the other, always trying to avoid the impossible, unacceptable truth - that he is God made human and defies all explanation but his own: "Before Abraham was, I Am." And we do this out of shame.
Surprisingly, this isn't a new thing we've done with Jesus. Humanity has been doing it for thousands of years. A close friend of mine wrote an expository article on the "Golden Calf" story in Exodus. The interesting thing is, the Israelites weren't trying to invent a new god to worship - after all, they had just witnessed a whole pile of miracles by God - they were trying to put an understandable "face" on him. They picked the biggest, strongest creature they knew and made that image to try and have a representation of God among them. That's why God was so angry. They weren't worshipping a false god, they were trying to confine and subjugate the one they knew...
This is the same kind of idolatry as what we're doing to Jesus today. And he saw it coming too, "'If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels.'" (Mark 8:38). As much as we try to explain him away, I doubt that Jesus will lose out to the frauds in his place. And it's hard to criticise them because in a way they're all right. Maybe there's more we can do to introduce the genuine Christ - the Christ of the Bible - to the world. That's my question for this week: how can we avoid the pitfalls of creating an idol instead of the true Christ while still making our presentation of the Gospel relevant to this day and age?
posted by Grey Owl at 1:26 a.m.
27 Comments:
Good post. Outof curiousity, what did you mean by "He holds the religious to impossible standard"?
Peace,
Jamie
What I meant was that Jesus holds us to the standard of himself - the process (as Paul calls it) of "conforming ourselves to Christ." He cerainly didn't hold the sinners he was around to that kind of standard, but those people who wanted to be seen as "religeous" he showed them what it really meant. Make sense?
I think so. I thought you were going to say that the Law and the Sermon on the Mount were preached to prove our inability to fulfill them, which is a popular idea I reject. Thanks for the clarity.
Peace,
Jamie
Great little essay, Dan. Your concluding question is excellent. My response is tentative because I don't have a concrete answer. I think it's important that we portray Jesus (in our lives and in our gatherings) as a whole person, a complete character, rather than focusing too much on one singular characteristic.
I also think that if Jesus begins to resemble our mother or the irate motorist behind us, we've gone too far.
I'd like to add that we have lost so much of who Jesus is in our lack of understanding his Jewishness. Scot McKnight's book "The Jesus Creed" explores this well, as do others. What little I have read has already revolutionize Jesus- his person and his teachings.
Sadly, modern Judaism and Messianic Christianity do not offer an accurate context to learn from (at least not fully), so scholarish is necessary, which means few are interested and willing outside the academics.
Peace,
Jamie
wow Dan! It was worth waiting for. (The page finally came up for me- I think it was just another blogger thing.) I also appreciate the "y'all." Felt right at home. I won't try to answer your question now,but I'll try to get back. Good piece.
We have witnessed a Historic Moment here, ladies and gentlemen - the first post of jon with no h! Attenders of the latest Rendesvous will remember Jon as the polite fellow who enjoyed the bbq ribs. Welcome here Jon! In answer to your point, that's exactly what I'm saying. Jesus as a whole person includes the Jesus-as-friend, Jesus-as-judge, and everything else we distill him down to. If there's one thing Jesus isn't in the Bible, it's predictable.
Jamie - I'll agree with that. The lack of interest outside of academia is a serious rpoblem - what do you think we can do to remedy that?
Cindy - I look forward to your response!
Good question, Dan. One promising aspect of the blogging world is that it has provide a place where academics and shlubs like me can mutually share and exchange ideas, so that is something.
I also think the arenas of film and fiction are far too under-utilized (at least well) within the Christian world. I haven't darkened the fiction section of our local Christian bookstores in years.
At the risk of sounding self-promoting, I also believe that parachurch groups like YWAM, YFC, etc. have distinct contexts to disciple in new ways.
Any other ideas?
Peace,
Jamie
P.S. I'll weigh in on your closing question later too.
Whoa, Dan-D Grey Owl!
This is one of the best descriptions on this topic that I've read anywhere. Dude, you nailed it.
Now, to go ponder an appropriate answer to your concluding question...
Okay, you asked for my two cents on your blog. I hope you don't regret it. Why are people lee interested in academia and how can it be fixed? A sticky problem I am sure you've seen the answer to both out here and in the various churches. Too many churches and preachers condemn people for trying to dig deeper for understanding rather than just listening more intently to the teachings they are being fed. Going off this beaten path is very rebellious, and this is made clear. Nobody wants to be thought less faithful for their curiousity. They call the people who search academia for a better understanding pagans, heretics. Not such weighty words on those it truthfully applies to. Very weighty words on the would be seeker.
Rob, thanks! Coming from you that's high praise indeed!
Jamie- I believe firmly that academia and the christian "layperson" can be completely compatable - but that will require some serious attitude changes. As Wanderer points out in his comment (thanks for stopping by man, you are always welcome here), "Too many churches and preachers condemn people for trying to dig deeper for understanding rather than just listening more intently to the teachings they are being fed." This, I find, happens especially where there is an emphasis on Biblical Literalism, a problematic view at best. I do find it encouraging, however, that many churches (like my own) are encouraging their congregants to seek the Truth of God on their own time through independant study. In my experience church libraries are increasingly adding theology and biblical studies texts in place of Christian romance. This is a trend that can only go good places, especially considering the quality of some of the fiction!
I'm glad you're all thinking about my closing question. I'm not sure even what I have to say about it yet. I'm still thinking, though, and I hope that together we can come up with some practical steps for ourselves (and our blogs) for the future. In my mind presenting Christ properly is the keystone of evangelism, so this question weighs quite heavily on my heart.
I hope my earlier comments didn't reflect that I am "less interested in academia and how can it be fixed". However, I think it is naively utopian to expect and ill advised to hope that the majority of global Christians will explore academia. That is what I was getting at with my comments.
Peace,
Jamie
Gulp... Ok, now PLEASE know that I wasn't calling anyone here "naive". Man, I need to pull my keyboard out of my mouth.
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie - The first thing that came into my mind was, "Is there any other kind of utopian?" ;)
Great post, very thought provoking.
"How can we avoid the pitfalls of creating an idol instead of the true Christ while still making our presentation of the Gospel relevant to this day and age?"
I think it begins at the introduction. Have we met Jesus and experienced his love and mercy as a reality, desperately needing salvation, or did we just decide we didn't want to go to hell?
Next, do we then work on fixing up our life getting busy with religion, or do we throw ourselves into knowing and following the one who saved us?
The only relevant Gospel is knowing Jesus. The only way to avoid the pitfalls of creating an idol is to truly know Him and to be in pursuit of knowing Him more. Then to our knowing, we add understanding because it helps us to know the One we love.
Grace - thanks for stopping by. That's exactly what I think; knowing Christ is where the Gospel starts and ends. That's why I get a little concerned when people start saying things like, "God is unknowable." If Christ is fully God then God is completely revealed in Christ, and if Christ is fully man then he is knowable to us. That's what makes Christianity so different in today's day and age.
sunshine, I'm really glad you chose to speak up. And you make alot of sense; our culture does have an emphasis on doing or being something worthwhile. I call it the "what do you bring to the table" phenomenon. A sociologist friend of mine has often been at dinner parties where he and his wife get asked the same question, "What do you do?" He says he's a Ph.D-carrying professor, she says she's a stay at home mom. Which one do you think gets the better reaction? Thanks again for stopping by.
Dandy, Grace & sunshine,
I agree that knowing Christ need to be central to our faith, not simply of His work on the cross, but also His life and teachings. Saving us from Hell is big deal, never to be down played, but we too often forget that for which He saved us. Great comments.
Peace,
Jamie
P.S. Distracting side note: Did you know that "Utopia" was actually seminal in a great deal of Mennonite/Anabaptist theology? They are only vaguely connected, so by no means read this as saying Anabaptism is naive utopianism. In fact, I consider myself more Anabpatist than anything else at this stage of the journey. Has any one else read it?
Jamie - I've never actually picked it up, but I've heard the same thing (that it influenced anabaptist thinking). So when are you going to "weigh in" on my final question? ;)
"How can we avoid the pitfalls of creating an idol instead of the true Christ while still making our presentation of the Gospel relevant to this day and age?"
I think this is the question. I mean THE question. So, I am not sure my answer would be anything more than a drop in the sea.
What I would add is this: We need missional community, caring accountability, strong humility and proactive relating. Let me try to elaborate on each:
-Authentic missional community is very rare, even in the church. It is characterized by authenticity, both as individuals and in relationships; vulnerability, a risk few are willing to take; diversity, not just for its own sake; above all, it is missional, meaning it engages and embraces the missio dei, the life, teachings and person of Christ as the model for the community, not just the collection of individuals.
-Caring accountability is generous, gracious and gentle, but is not bound by the pervasive individualism and privacy lies of our age. It is not simply focused on moral purity (which is where it is almost exclusively practiced today) but more centrally on active, missional living.
-Strong humility means a humility that is not self-reducing, or weak, but one that embraces strong conviction tempered by a firm understanding of our own individual and collective inadequacies.
-Proactive relating (as opposed to simply diversity) means that we cannot be content to wait for people to come to us or casually interact with "the other", but must pursue it. For example, if sin is to miss the mark, meaning sin is more about what it fails to be then what it is, then racism for a Christian is a failure to proactive seek out, engage, celebrate and embrace the God-given diversity He has created.
This is just a few things. Make any sense?
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie - it makes alot of sense. And I agree, it is THE question.
It sounds like your answer could turn into a post on its own. You've presented a very good picture of what authentic Christianity could look like these days, and I appreciate that.
I think that following this model would be great, but I'm not sure how it prevents Christ from being distilled down to one or two essential characteristics. Wouldn't it still be possible to have a flawed view of christ in this context? (I know it's an unfair question, I just want to know what you have to say).
Perhaps to distill Christ one must focus on the teachings and expectations above and beyond the name and the bullet points.
Look through the parables and tell me which man goes to heaven, the one who marches in lock step with rituals and traditions or the one who keeps missing church because the expectations of him on behalf of his brethren are so great?
Is not "I do this because this is what Christ would have of me" worth ten "Our Father"'s chanted with others on Sunday?
Now for my controversial spin on not idolizing Christ (for now that is what so many do with his name alone):
Which is more iin teaching with Christ, Grey Owl: Your church and mine working side by side with each other to help disaster victims, or these two groups failing to communicate with each other or work with each other because there is too much "my way is the right way" and "I can't work side by side with Pagans/Christians."
Would a little less selling and a little more demonstrating the walk help your distillation?
Wanderer - Bingo. I think that's a great way to go about it. And for the record, I'm not sure what your church is, but if your church and mine are going to work together to help other then I'll throw myself into sandbagging (or whatever) alongside you and let God sort the differences between us out. The only thing that I would have to insist on is that you let us (the Canadian church) bring the beer. What kind of church do you go to, anyway?
just tryin, I'm glad you enjoy the questions (and the conversation, hopefully). I agree, humility is one attribute that Christ demonstrates in abundance. We would all do well to emulate that!
The term "my church" was primarily used as a buffer term in the hopes of equating our two groups without people stopping dead on the terminology and choosing not to continue to read.
I am loosely affiliated with the Universal Life Church. As you know from mine and MaryEllen's Blogs I am a Pagan. More specifically I am a Witch, albeit somewhat more eclectic than some. I am the spritual leader for a mismatched flock of pagans including other witches, druids, practitioners of old Roman beliefs (don't read Catholic here, think older), and a whole host of others including an odd little Freemason who sees himself as a Wiccan for Christ.
All good people, although some are a bit eccentric. Many of us you wouldn't voluntarily sit next to on the bus if you judged from appearances. More importantly too many of us find ourselves shying away from the many outreaches out there not initiated within the Pagan community for fear of a collision of views that would undermine the work.
There are a lot of people out here willing to help others out. The army of volunteers would undoubtedly multiply if it could only be promised that the different groups would behave and not clash with each other. In my own small group I could feel confident enough to give my word, as you seem to indicate you could as well. The problem is when you expand to the two larger groups in question, too many fringe elements exist that just want to stir up the pot.
Oddly enough there are always those willing to fight, even though this is not Christ like, nor assisting us in being in harmony with nature. It seems human nature always wins with some.
Grey Owl,
I am not sure primary emphasis should be given to "prevent" the abuse of Christ's image. I think we should address it in our own communities, with the exceptional occassion of public defense. But I think making that the primary focus of the solution plays into the wrong hands.
Rather, I believe that as communities of faith begin to embody and manifest a more authentic, collective Christlikeness, it will create its own authority, one that will require less defense. It will be attractional, NOT in the modern marketing mentality, but in so far as it will "draw all wo/men unto" it.
Peace,
Jamie
Wanderer - Thanks for the expansion of your beliefs. That makes a bit more sense, actually, considering some of the things you said. When you said you were a minister, I was slighty confused (Unitarian, maybe?) but this makes alot more sense. And I can't speak for the rest of my church, but I'd pack hampers with you guys any day.
As for the "not wanting to sit on a bus with us" comment, well, you'd be surprised. A friend of mine could be a member of your group, and he and I have been very close for many years - and volunteered together for Habitat for Humanity. Things are not always what they seem.
Jamie - good point, and an important distinction. I thought you were on vacation?
"how can we avoid the pitfalls of creating an idol instead of the true Christ while still making our presentation of the Gospel relevant to this day and age?"
At the risk of causing anyone a coronoary :-), you can't.
Your buddy is right about the golden calf. There isn't a denomination or movement that hasn't committed this particular sin. Therefore let the true priests of God wield the sword of the Word as needed.
No one wants to take the Scripture as the literal Word of God so we now have all the problems you mentioned.
Chris P. - "you can't" - I think that you're probably very right. (Your turn for the coronoary!)
If Jesus is the same yesterday, today, forever, etc. then perhaps it is not a relevant presentation of him that matters, but an extremely truthful one. Although this does not preclude our responsibility to contextualize the gospel (as every effective missionary has done), it would prevent the destruction of Jesus' character.
I think we're more or less on the same page here, although I can'r be as supportive of Biblical Literalism as you. Its problematic nature has been demonstrated too well for me to take it very seriously.
Thanks for stopping by.
Post a Comment
<< Home