Let's Put a New Face on Jesus

For most, the only glimpse of Jesus they'll ever see is the church--His followers. Jesus said we are to be his witnesses. A witness gives testimony. And from our testimony people will make a determination about Christ, his character and His nature.

Unfortunately, the general perception of those outside the church is that Jesus has a political agenda, is homophobic, a misogynist, and He arrogantly claims all other religions are wrong. Why do they have that perception? Because that's the face we've painted in Jesus.

In recent years, many of His followers, though well intended and, I believe, desirous to put "shoe leather" to their faith, have reduced a relationship with God to political clout, protecting the conservative agenda, and standing against the changing morality. In many cases the perception is correct because in political circles, most Christians place receive their direction form the Christian voters pamphlet, or a celebrity pastor/evangelical leader rather than the Holy Spirit!

Now, I will tell you I am unashamedly a conservative, who believes firmly in the Word of God and that Jesus is the only avenue to a relationship with Him. But I also believe we need to look at our attitude, our life and our actions, and ask our selves, what are people learning about Jesus.

Jesus said in Matthew 28 "Go into all the world and make disciples". Notice he didn't say "go and make converts"! What is a disciple? A disciple is a student. Literally means "one who studies". Since the pagan world has only the church to study and learn about Christ, maybe it's time some of us change our perspective and give the unsaved world a different picture of Christ to study.

Does that mean I change My political affiliation, and that I become liberal in my application of scriptures? Not not at all. But it may mean I set some of these issues aside rather than lead with these things, and that I allow the Holy Spirit to transform people into the kind of Christians he wants them to be.

Dan Kimball in his book "They Like Jesus but not the Church" calls us to do a little spiritual inventory and gives some questions to ask our selves:

1) If you were to look at the sermons of your church over a period of time, would you say they are more positive or negative in tone and content? If they are positive, how would you say sin and repentance are addressed so that you are not going to the extreme of ignoring them [italics mine]

2) What is your congregation's attitude toward those who hold beliefs different from your on secondary doctrinal issues? How do you talk about other denominations?

3) How is your church known in the community? How do you think people in your town describe your church and the people of your church? Do they even know you exist? What are you known for? Would your church be missed in the community if it went away? How would it me missed?

4) Are there any ways your church is involved in compassion and social projects locally and globally, demonstrating that the church is a positive agent for change in the world? If not, what can you do about it?

5) If you were to ask those you associate with daily, both inside and outside your home, whether you talk is judgmental and negative of loving and positive what would they say?

6) You may say that you are a loving and accepting but if some one came in to your church and began following Jesus, can you honestly say that would be your foremost concern, not what they look like of how they dress or whether they drink or smoke or what language they use? [pg 113-114]

I am not suggesting we change our politics, our values or our theology? No. I am saying, we may need to rethink our methodology of winning people to Christ. Because rather than attracting people to Christ our actions in many cases are having the opposite affect.

So lets commit to living a life that is consistent with our theology and the nature of Christ. Christ never had an alter call and I haven't found the place yet where he leads any one in a sinners prayer. Instead, he interacted with people , touched their lives, became involved in their messy humanity, felt their hurts, and allowed the Holy Spirit to convict of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8)

Maybe if we live out the reality of a changed life and did what Jesus did, love people even though they are sinners, maybe we can put a new face on Jesus--One that a seeking person could never resist!

Mission Compels us to Reform

I read this recently and thought it worth reading and considering. It is written by John Armstrong and published on Mark Driscoll’s web page of Mars Hill church in Seattle, called resurgence. I hope you find it as helpful as I did

Mission Compels Us to Reform

Christianity is not the same as ecclesiasticism. Christianity is centered upon Jesus Christ, as he is presented to us in the foundational document of Christianity, the Bible. Ecclesiasticism is centered in the church-its development, dogma and practice. Make no mistake about it, we cannot have Christianity without the church, at least in one vital sense, but the church is reformable and "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). Christ does not change, thus the Christian gospel never changes. But the church must change if it is to be truly faithful to both Christ and Scripture.

This principle, and the point I am making through it, is both vital and dangerous. It is vital because without it you have a tradition rooted in particular times and debates, but not a tradition that is alive and vital for the present time. It is dangerous precisely because a church that is subject to the spirit of continuous reformation is a church that can go badly astray in any age or place, and often has. It can become a church that seeks to get so close to the culture that it is virtually indistinct from the culture.

Witness the influence of liberalism on the church in the twentieth century and the resultant bankruptcy of many churches and schools that bought into this deadly form of existentialism. Liberalism presented itself as a necessary reform movement and some of its call was, in actual fact, quite correct. (This is precisely the problem, some of it was correct but the central truth of the gospel of Christ was profoundly threatened over time as the seeds of destructive process infected the church.)

I pondered this situation recently after reading a brochure that came to me from the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America. This small "faithful" church suggests that the solution to the modern church problem in America is to be found in return to a strict, historical and confessional Lutheranism. The brochure asks: "Should Lutherans apologize for the Reformation?" (The answer, if you wondered at all, is a resounding, "No!") The brochure then charges that most Lutherans want to be "something else" when they adopt the worship services of the Baptists and the Pentecostals. By such actions, the brochure argues, they are "disinterested in biblical theology." The problem is that interest in biblical theology, which I strongly encourage, is not equal to "not apologizing for the Reformation." The brochure then goes on to say that the name "Lutheran" is not "some sort of ‘brand preference' . . . [or] simply one more ‘denomination' among many." (This, of course, makes it the correct and faithful witness to the truth, or the true church.) The brochure further advances the notion that the ministers and churches of this diocese shall be "Lutheran without apologies or excuses." Frankly, if I believed this argument was valid, which of course I do not, it would be better to become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox than to fight for a Lutheran church on this type of argument. Even Luther, in my mind, did not argue in this way!

The point here is not to attack these conservative Lutherans, who undoubtedly love Christ. You could put the name Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal, Independent Free, or whatever you like, into any of these sentences and you would be describing the approach taken by some within each tradition through ecclesiasticism. I believe we do much better to talk about Christianity in the singular, not of Christianities as represented by Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or some form of Protestant or Free Church Christianity. Christianity has often been neglected or ignored by the church itself, even betrayed by it. In a modern, and now in a postmodern, world it is not compromise to admit this fact. I believe this admission will actually open the door to the Spirit's work in leading us to deeper repentance and truly missional Christianity. But this scares the daylights out of many conservatives-Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

The danger here is clear-we can miss the Christian substance, without which there is no Christianity. In the process we miss the very spirit of Christian faith and practice. In its place we prefer a Roman judicial system, an Orthodox traditionalism, or a form of Protestant fundamentalism, whether in actual creed or, as is often the case, simply in practice and mind-set.

I say again, I believe in the church! I confess that belief every Lord's Day in the Nicene or Apostles Creed. And I believe in the visible church, not knowing what an invisible church really is. (The term "invisible church," which can have a positive theological cash value, is now used incorrectly in almost every instance.) But I also believe that the church should bear witness to Christ, thus the church must continue to seek the truth as it is revealed in Holy Scripture. By so doing the church is made faithful to the Christian kerygma; i.e., the saving content, or "proclamation," of the early Christian message.

The church, in all its historical expressions, is not Christianity. Love for Christ, and his gospel, is much bigger than the various forms of the church. Instinctively we all know this to be true, but many keep striving to find the one true historical church so they can find a type of certainty that assures them they have come into the right communion and now hold consistently to all the right truths. I respect the sincerity of this pursuit, and the good will of most who make it. I simply do not agree with it. I rather long to see a Christianity that is more distinctly Christian. And I want to see a church that lives in continual reformation as it seeks Christ and the obedience of faith. (cf. Romans 1:5; 16:26).

The kind of reforming spirit I am describing makes many people nervous, yet I have come to believe that it is the true spirit of reform. I also believe it is the spirit of the New Testament. When I read the New Testament faithfully, it makes me nervous about many things. Radical reformation means that we must seek to go to the "root." Such reform is always needed because the church is always sinful. And it may be needed now more than ever, at least in the West. The Christian, and the church, that pursues such reformation in mission, will face real problems, on both the Left and the Right. If we remain locked into the conservative-liberal divide of the past, thinking only of what happened then, we will miss our moment for reformation and revival. This is precisely why we have been given both the Word and the Spirit. A church community centered in mission will keep asking for the Holy Spirit, and thus returning to Holy Scripture with a renewed heart, as it seeks to declare his glory to the nations.

¹Kerygma is a Greek word that literally means "proclamation." It refers narrowly to the preaching of the kingdom as found in Jesus' teaching (Mark 1:14-15). In forthcoming issues of Viewpoint I will address the fundamental nature of kerygma and how this relates to the church and the teaching of Christian living, or what is called didache. Suffice it to say, understanding and applying this biblical distinction has great power for the church's missional witness to the world.

Mergent Church or Emergent Church?

I was reading the Oregonian the other day and was drawn to an article about a church in Portland who was holding it’s Easter morning church service at Rose Quarter in Portland. The Rose Quarter is the largest concert venue in Portland and where the Trailblazers play their basketball games. The church is called living hope and its history speaks very clearly about the life of the church in America.

According to the paper, Living Hope is the one of the nation’s fastest-growing churches, ranking 43rd in growth in a recent church survey. It began in 1996 in Battle Ground, Wash., and in 2003 merged [emphasis mine] with Prairie Community Church in Brush Prairie, Wash. A 2005 merger [again, my emphasis] with Vancouver Community Church started the establishment of satellite locations.

Last year, the church opened five satellite campuses for Easter — the first church in the nation to ever open that many sites in one day — to help accommodate the nearly 8,000 people who attended services during the weekend. The numbers expected for this year forced Living Hope to think in broader terms.

While I am sure Living Hope is an excellent church, I ws drawn to the phrase "The church is one of the fastest growing churches in America" It is large not because it has embraced a neo-pagan culture and learned to engage it’s participants with the gospel, but rather because it was able to merge with other existing churches. That may work well in the corporate world where bigger companies swollow up their competition but is that the Great Commission? Did Jesus say, "go and make disciples or go and make big churches--merge!

“For 2,000 years this “Christian story” has been told in every paradigm of history and in every culture and geographical area penetrated by the Christian gospel. While the Christian faith has a fixed framework of creation, fall, incarnation, death, resurrection, church, and new heaven and new earth, this frame work and the story of God it reveals is always contextualized into this or that culture”

Robert Webber, Myers professor at Northwest Seminary in Lombard Illinois notes in his excellent book, “Listening to the Beliefs of Emergent Churches” that the 20^th century marked a change in theological thought. To understand the change, he drew upon the analysis of sociologists William Strauss and Neil Howe. In their book “The Fourth Turning: What the cycles of History tell us about America’s Rendezvous with Destiny”

They assert that a sociological study of history reveals “patterns that occur over time”. According to their research, “Anglo-American society enters a new era—a new turning—

Every two decades or so. At the start of each turning, people change how they feel about themselves, the culture, the nation and the future”. Turnings come in cycles of four. Each cycle spans the length of a long human life. Together, the four turnings saeculum comprise history’s seasonal rhythm of growth, maturation, entropy, and destruction.

The first turning according to Strauss and Howe is A High, an upbeat era of strengthening institutions and weakening individualism, when a new civic order implants and the old values regime decays.

The Second Turning is an Awakening, a passionate era of spiritual upheaval, when the civic order comes under attack from a new values regime.

The Third Turning is and Upheaval, a down cast era of strengthening individualism and weakening institutions, when the old civic order decays and a new values system implants.

The Fourth Turning is Crisis, a decisinve era of secular upheaval when the values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one.

The first turning in the current cycle began in 1946, right after WWII. The second, Awakening in 1964-1984. Confidence in the institution called the American way began to erode. Attentions shifted from the institution to self. If you remember, in the 50’s we enjoyed Life magazine. In the 70’s it was people magazine. In the 80’s the popular magazine was Us. Now the popular read is Self. Each magazine reflected where culture was in the cycle

The Thrid turning, Uraveling, occurred between 1984 and 2004. The decline of civic order began in the awakening if the 60’s, but in this time period, the civic order underwent a rapid unraveling. Society, instead of being one big happy family that was moving in the same direction, became a nation divided by groups, all demanding their rights. These groups—homosexuals, feminists, blacks, environmentalists, skinheads, moralists—all wanted to be heard.

Currently, 2004—We are in the fourth cycle which is Crisis . We return once again to the beginning of the cycle of crisis, stability, revolution, and unraveling. The new cycle is fueled by the emergence of a post Christian, neo-pagan culture.

The sign that a new culture wit different values had more than emerged was removal of the 10 Commandments from Judge Moore’s Alabama court Room a few years ago. The 10 commandments were the values that affected the previous thinking and behavior. They no longer do.

And we must embrace this new culture with its values with the timeless truths of the scriptures. We must therefore brace for a collision. We must theologically, learn what to hold tightly and what theologically to hold with an open hand. We must hold tightly, the scriptures. Sola Scriptura; but not Sola this-is what-I think-what-they-mean-Scriptura. We most hold tightly to the worship of God, the Trinity, and that Jesus life was payment for sin on the cross. What we must hold loosely are things like eschatology, our opinion of women in ministry and the like.

Like it or not, the church is in crisis. We must learn to reach the emerging culture with the timeless truths of the scripture. We must decide what to hold tightly and what to hold loosely. WE must face the reality that in this present turning individual feel their views deserve to be appreciated, heard and respected. It’s no longer majority rule it is the rulership of individuals. We must learn to listen, and be willing to get out of the Christian subculture and develop relationships with people of different beliefs and a non biblical world view. If we don’t “emerge with the culture” then, like the Living Hope Church, to survive, the church will merge, merge again just to survive until there is nothing to merge anymore