ILLUSTRATION BY RYAN W. KIMBALL/CNN
Yesterday on CNN.com John Blake wrote an article titled, “Do you believe in a red state Jesus or a blue state Jesus?” that I found utterly annoying.
In this article there was a survey that is designed to help you determine which Jesus you follow (or which Jesus with which you can resonate). It asked readers to choose:
- Jesus the Lamb of God who died for the sin of the world or Jesus the champion of the oppressed who died to bring social change?
- Jesus who was “hands-on” bringing healing in this life and Jesus who pointed people toward the next life where there is no more sickness or disease?
- Jesus who is the only way or Jesus who is one of many ways to the Creator God?
- Jesus who will return at the Second Coming or Jesus who remains present with us now?
- Jesus as our savior or Jesus as our example?
- Jesus who’s depiction in Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ made you reflect upon Jesus’ suffering for humanity or who made you sick to your stomach?
- Jesus who is encapsulated in John 3.16 as the Son sent by God to save sinners or Jesus as encapsulated by Matthew 25 who calls his followers to bring salvation to the world by caring for “the least of these.”
- Jesus who was an exorcist who could remove demons from people’s lives or Jesus who would sit and guide people through their trials?
- Jesus as the one who has risen from the dead or Jesus who’s resurrection is merely symbolic?
Those of us who confess about Jesus what the church has said about Jesus over the years should realize that we do not have to accept Blake’s paradigm.
I follow a Jesus who stood for the oppressed and the marginalized so that his actions challenged the comfortable authorities of this world to the point that they killed him AND I see God the Father using Jesus’ self-sacrifice as the Lamb of God to cover the sins of those who killed him and the sins of the whole world because the Father’s love for the Son.
I follow a Jesus who didn’t fix everything in this life, but who did give us a glimpse of future shalom when he did heal the blind, or the crippled, or the sick.
I follow a Jesus who claimed to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life and whom we can trust to judge with wisdom and love when people come before him on the Day of Judgement.
I follow a Jesus who remains present with us by his Holy Spirit, reigning in the heavens in the authority of the Father until he conquered his final enemy, death AND a Jesus who is not visible to us now, but when he “returns” will be seen by the world.
I follow a Jesus who is my savior, but who calls me to be his disciples meaning I should try to follow his example.
I follow a Jesus who died violently in such a manner that it sickens me, yet I see that in his death God has overcome Satan, death, hell, and sin.
I follow a Jesus who established a Kingdom that welcomes and cares for the “least of these,” who made our entrance into this Kingdom possible by dying for the world as the agent of God the Father.
I follow a Jesus who can sit at a well with a woman from Samaria discussing the water of life and a Jesus who will go find a demoniac, exercise his demons, and show Satan that God’s Kingdom is alive.
I follow a Jesus who did rise from the dead, physically, making himself a symbol of resurrection life. The symbol is meaningless if death’s defeat has not been put into motion.
I reject Blake’s either-or. This is the very presentation of Jesus that the church needs to avoid. A Jesus of Democrats or a Jesus of Republicans? Jesus is neither. The Jesus remembered by the church is far more complex.
So let me suggest an alternative Jesus to you. In this hostile political environment where everyone want to claim Jesus for their ideology, why don’t we let Jesus claim us for his? If in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, free nor slave, then why Democrat and Republican. Sure, our identities exist, but they should remain informed by our identity as Christians.
I have mentioned the Election Day Communion taking place at hundreds of churches across the country Tuesday evening. I hope you will consider attending one or registering your church to host one or even getting together a small group of Christians to have communion together. Let’s avoid the world’s attempts to make us Republican Christians or Democratic Christians.
November 5, 2012 at 12:10 am
“… why don’t we let Jesus claim us for his?”
Good question, why don’t we?
Ill bite: We don’t because we construct popes for ourselves, out of mere men; popes of science, religeon, politics .. popes such as John Calvin, Charles Darwin, (name your favorite politician, or theologian) who if we dare contradict, speak a sacred shibboleth that sets us very clearly in that ‘other’ camp … you know the one .. the camp of the irrational, worthy of ridicule.
Could it be that every man is a liar, God true? Can’t be! For then that would make ALL men, even our FAVORITE men – ‘liars’. It would make US ‘liars’. For ‘us’ to be liars, that would take just a bit too much humility for us to possess, especially when it suggests we re-examine our own presupposisitions: an exercise which might then lead us to find them false. When that happes, woe to our politics, our science, our religeon!
No, it’s easier to read a verse such as [Rom 3:4] or [Psa 116:11] and agree in principle, BUT ONLY in principle. For to agree in practice would set us at enmity with the world – and that is just a tad too confrontational, too uncomfortable.
But it sure is a radical idea isn’t it? “… why don’t we let Jesus claim us for his?”
November 5, 2012 at 6:36 am
I don’t want to sound as if I think I should be an island alone to myself unable to listen to others. While “every man is a liar” that includes me. Therefore, I need to make sure I listen to others as well while trying to be discerning of where they may be wrong and where they may help me see that I am wrong. I think my greater concern is not so much individuals who may guide me in areas like religion (we all need other’s to help us understand our faith), or science (many people know more than I do about science), or even politics (many politicians know more than I do about foreign affairs, domestic concerns, the economy). My concern is when we buy into one big tent ideology to the point that this big tent ideology consumes and replaces our Christianity.
To build on what you wrote, yes, for instance, one could listen to the scientific community’s findings and wrongly follow (some) members into a worldview that denies God or the need for God. Or we can follow religious leaders within Christianity who are corrupt and have selfish aims. These mistakes need to be avoided. I think that is what you are saying.
November 5, 2012 at 3:04 pm
It’s a good point. Clearly there is a pragmatic here – when to be sceptical, when not to be. I don’t see harm in believing others as the norm, unless one always does so unquestioningly.
I set my own minister (pastor)’s teeth on edge this week when a discussion about Calvinism/Arminianism came up and I pointed out that both, though apparently sincere, and likely skilled theologians, were both equally imperfect in their understanding.
Now I quite like my pastor (minister) – and he and I get along quite well, but he was aghast. Who the heck did I think I was to take on giants of the faith? Is this not simply evidence of arrogance? I certainly hope not, but I think he misunderstood my point.
Fact is that every man (species, so includes women too) must be convinced in our own mind [Rom 14:5] AND we are to ALWAYS esteem Christ above everyone else [1 Cor 1:12] which means no-one should be at the centre of our thinking save Christ [1 Cor 3:4-6]. We should never boast in men [1 Cor 3:21] which is exactly what we do! A Calvinist boasts in Calvin, an Arminian in Arminius. Calvin and Arminius both have imperfect doctrine however sincere their faith. The reformation then has replaced infallible Catholic popes with infallible protestant ones.
Clearly this response has couched its view of big tent ideology in terms of religious/faith views but we see it in science and politics too. Science is particularly bad because it holds that because someone is highly educated their ration of saying true things is somehow higher. In fact highly educated people are wrong (even with respect to their speciality) as often as uneducated people.
That is not to say we are not to listen to them at all. They have worthy thoughts we should consider, but their thoughts like ours are imperfect and subordinate to objective truth, and the bible, which means their thoughts (perhaps we agree with) and ours, however convincing must always be tested by scripture, conscience and prayer, just like the ones we disagree with.
It is not arrogance, but humility NOT to esteem the opinions of these men too highly. It is also humility NOT to esteem own own opinions too highly lest we dogmatically hold fast to false notions and miss that still small voice whispering to us that we err in our thinking (and we wonder why the Holy Spirit seems absent in modern churches; He cannot be heard beneath the din of our own correctness).
Pingback: tgif | Many Things