But Who Do You Say That I Am?
Rhetoric. Ain't it grand? As a species, humankind seems remarkable at twisting common words into whatever the speaker wants them to mean. When reflecting on arguments steeped in politics or religion, this is pretty commonplace. Consider the word "tolerance" which is probably the most well-known example. What does it mean? A true definition would be along the lines of being respectful, objective and even kind towards those you disagree with. Some folks started using it in a way to imply that if you didn't agree with or condone certain ideas, beliefs, or actions that you were bigoted. Tolerance became a word capable of bludgeoning someone who didn't conform, instead of a way to agree to disagree on matters.
In Christian spheres, the word love is another example. These past several years we keep hearing "love is love" and that the most important commandment is to love others; doctrine is largely irrelevant. Setting aside that Jesus actually said the greatest commandment was to love God and loving others was second, how do we love others? The answers are scattered throughout scripture. And love does not always look like love. Is it loving to smack a child's hand? If you're running through a daycare whacking toddler hands, yes. Yes, that is unloving. And creepy. And you should be in jail. But what if my one-year old is trying to crush a light bulb on the Christmas tree? Smacking her hand isn't pleasant, but it's better than letting her cut up her tiny hand on jagged glass. That should inform how we handle loving people. We shouldn't just go up to everyone around us calling them sinners and running away. That's not loving, but stepping aside from the core issue that we are all sinners in need of grace, and that scripture does a pretty good job explaining that something like homosexuality is sinful, is also unloving.
So words matter. Whether it's tolerance or love, we need a common definition in hand.
This brings me to an article I recently read from Relevant Magazine, titled "The New Jesus Movement." If you're unfamiliar, the original Jesus Movement sprang out of the West Coast in the 1960s and lasted up until the early 1980s. Think hippies who loved Jesus. Institutions like Calvary Chapel and musicians like Keith Green found notoriety during this time. It was very Charismatic, and focused on being counterculture and simple living. This Relevant article briefly profiles a similar modern movement, fronted by young pastors Banning Liebscher (Jesus Culture/Bethel), Carl Lentz (Hillsong NYC), and Judah Smith (The City Church), and how its focus on asceticism propels it.
Critiquing this idea is a little complicated. If we were examining Liberal Christianity or the Word of Faith movement, it's easy to hold it up to scripture and see the many ways they fall short and distort Christ's teachings. However, like it's forerunner the Seeker Sensitive movement, this New Jesus Movement is almost too shallow to critique. And, perhaps, that is the critique.
In the article, Liebscher states that he wants "to be known for what [he's] for" and not what he's against. He follows that up, stating, "Now, I have a theology. There are biblical truths we should not deter from, but all some people want to know is what you're against...I'm for Jesus, that's what I'm for."
This sounds good. I want to be for Jesus too. And I want to be more known for following Jesus than boycotting a store that had a gay couple in its commercial. But I have two concerns with this statement.
First, Jesus was against stuff. Jesus was against Satan (Matthew 4:10). He was against sin (Matthew 4:17). Against corruption (Matthew 21:12-13). Against hypocrisy (Matthew 23). Against false teachers (Matthew 7:15-17).
How would Jesus feel about child abuse? Human trafficking? Abortion? Biased judicial systems? It's not bad to be known for what you're for, but being for something inherently means you are against other things. I'm an Eagles fan. If the Eagles are playing the Giants, I'm not just for the Eagles, I'm against the Giants. You can't be for Jesus and not against someone selling children into sex slavery.
Second, it's right to be known as being for Jesus. And to Liebscher's credit, he says he has a theology. Unfortunately he downplays it. Unfortunately because here's why it's not enough to just say you're for Jesus: Who is Jesus? And to answer that question, you need theology. You need those biblical truths. To eschew them and give them a minor role in teaching is to fail to equip your congregation or readers the imperative knowledge of who Jesus was and is. Jesus' identity impacts how we worship him and what we tell others about him.
Maybe Liebscher is naive. Maybe he doesn't understand that there is a running list of counterfeit Jesuses being taught. But he should understand.
In Matthew 16, we read about Jesus having a moment with his disciples. First, he asks them who people think he is. They responded, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets" (v. 14). It may appear that Jesus is simply checking in with the marketing team on how his audience is receiving him, yet here are Jesus' next words:
"But who do you say that I am?" (v. 15)
I'm not sure there is a more important question for the Christian: Who is Jesus? Simon Peter answers, saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (v. 16). To this response, Jesus declares Peter to be the rock his church will be built on. Remember the gold stars you got for perfect spelling quizzes in third grade? Jesus response here is like a gold star times infinity. Adulation doesn't get better than this. Peter answered rightly.
I'm sure if I spent the time, I could find a lot of good and probably some bad stuff emerging from the teachings of Liebscher, Lentz, and Smith. That's not really what this post is about. The concern is that our words matter. The meaning of those words matter. If you're saying you're for Jesus, good. But who is Jesus? To answer that, you need theology. And if you're pastoring a flock, you need to teach that theology.
In Christian spheres, the word love is another example. These past several years we keep hearing "love is love" and that the most important commandment is to love others; doctrine is largely irrelevant. Setting aside that Jesus actually said the greatest commandment was to love God and loving others was second, how do we love others? The answers are scattered throughout scripture. And love does not always look like love. Is it loving to smack a child's hand? If you're running through a daycare whacking toddler hands, yes. Yes, that is unloving. And creepy. And you should be in jail. But what if my one-year old is trying to crush a light bulb on the Christmas tree? Smacking her hand isn't pleasant, but it's better than letting her cut up her tiny hand on jagged glass. That should inform how we handle loving people. We shouldn't just go up to everyone around us calling them sinners and running away. That's not loving, but stepping aside from the core issue that we are all sinners in need of grace, and that scripture does a pretty good job explaining that something like homosexuality is sinful, is also unloving.
So words matter. Whether it's tolerance or love, we need a common definition in hand.
This brings me to an article I recently read from Relevant Magazine, titled "The New Jesus Movement." If you're unfamiliar, the original Jesus Movement sprang out of the West Coast in the 1960s and lasted up until the early 1980s. Think hippies who loved Jesus. Institutions like Calvary Chapel and musicians like Keith Green found notoriety during this time. It was very Charismatic, and focused on being counterculture and simple living. This Relevant article briefly profiles a similar modern movement, fronted by young pastors Banning Liebscher (Jesus Culture/Bethel), Carl Lentz (Hillsong NYC), and Judah Smith (The City Church), and how its focus on asceticism propels it.
Critiquing this idea is a little complicated. If we were examining Liberal Christianity or the Word of Faith movement, it's easy to hold it up to scripture and see the many ways they fall short and distort Christ's teachings. However, like it's forerunner the Seeker Sensitive movement, this New Jesus Movement is almost too shallow to critique. And, perhaps, that is the critique.
In the article, Liebscher states that he wants "to be known for what [he's] for" and not what he's against. He follows that up, stating, "Now, I have a theology. There are biblical truths we should not deter from, but all some people want to know is what you're against...I'm for Jesus, that's what I'm for."
This sounds good. I want to be for Jesus too. And I want to be more known for following Jesus than boycotting a store that had a gay couple in its commercial. But I have two concerns with this statement.
First, Jesus was against stuff. Jesus was against Satan (Matthew 4:10). He was against sin (Matthew 4:17). Against corruption (Matthew 21:12-13). Against hypocrisy (Matthew 23). Against false teachers (Matthew 7:15-17).
How would Jesus feel about child abuse? Human trafficking? Abortion? Biased judicial systems? It's not bad to be known for what you're for, but being for something inherently means you are against other things. I'm an Eagles fan. If the Eagles are playing the Giants, I'm not just for the Eagles, I'm against the Giants. You can't be for Jesus and not against someone selling children into sex slavery.
Second, it's right to be known as being for Jesus. And to Liebscher's credit, he says he has a theology. Unfortunately he downplays it. Unfortunately because here's why it's not enough to just say you're for Jesus: Who is Jesus? And to answer that question, you need theology. You need those biblical truths. To eschew them and give them a minor role in teaching is to fail to equip your congregation or readers the imperative knowledge of who Jesus was and is. Jesus' identity impacts how we worship him and what we tell others about him.
Maybe Liebscher is naive. Maybe he doesn't understand that there is a running list of counterfeit Jesuses being taught. But he should understand.
In Matthew 16, we read about Jesus having a moment with his disciples. First, he asks them who people think he is. They responded, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets" (v. 14). It may appear that Jesus is simply checking in with the marketing team on how his audience is receiving him, yet here are Jesus' next words:
"But who do you say that I am?" (v. 15)
I'm not sure there is a more important question for the Christian: Who is Jesus? Simon Peter answers, saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (v. 16). To this response, Jesus declares Peter to be the rock his church will be built on. Remember the gold stars you got for perfect spelling quizzes in third grade? Jesus response here is like a gold star times infinity. Adulation doesn't get better than this. Peter answered rightly.
I'm sure if I spent the time, I could find a lot of good and probably some bad stuff emerging from the teachings of Liebscher, Lentz, and Smith. That's not really what this post is about. The concern is that our words matter. The meaning of those words matter. If you're saying you're for Jesus, good. But who is Jesus? To answer that, you need theology. And if you're pastoring a flock, you need to teach that theology.
Comments
Post a Comment