I wanted to say something yesterday about "what Jesus taught" in the America and "the Least of These" thread, but I hesitated lest it distract from the primary discussion. I hesitated also because I figured it would not be received well. It had to do with divorcing the call to follow Jesus' social ethic from its necessary context of biblical theology.
It wouldn't have had anything to do with accusing Bono or anybody else of socialism, still less would it have had anything to do with accusing Bono or anybody else of not being a "real Christian" or of insisting people become believers before we help them. And it wouldn't have been about downplaying the need for social justice or the general calls to charity, to love our neighbor, to care for the least of these, and to practice pure and faultless religion (James 1:27).
But I was pretty darn sure that had I said what I wanted to, I would have been accused of one or all of those things. So I kept my mouth shut.
But it nagged at me all day. When the girls were napping, I read a Vanity Fair profile of filmmaker Michael Moore. In it Moore champions Jesus' command to turn the other cheek and His declaration that the first shall be last and the last first. (How that applies to Moore's documentary approach, I'm not sure.) It set me off a bit, because here was a guy who never hid his desire to bring down the Bushes and in the article did not conceal the satisfaction he got from knowing he had hurt the Bush family, but nevertheless says we -- and by "we" he means you bigoted conservatives, of course -- ought to live by the ethic of Jesus.
Still I was determined to say nothing, especially since the magazine article had inspired more indignation than a desire to wax theological. It wasn't until I progressed further in my reading of Scot McKnight's A New Vision for Israel: The Teachings of Jesus in National Context, and entered the chapter titled "The Ethic of Jesus: Conversion and Cost," that saying something began to make sense and take shape. That I had been thinking about it all day was a good sign that it was a soapbox awaiting mounting. (I'm making it into a "real" post because, as you can see, it's already too long. ;-)
I have, I think, a justifiable concern with what Bono and others are preaching. I say preaching, because it is not just ethical platitudes the proclaimers of social justice are offering. They are explicitly connecting their call to "what God wants." If you really love God, they seem to say, you would do more about __________. If you really want to prove you're a good Christian, you would do ___________. On the surface, they are right, and they should not be ignored. (This does ignore the fact that most lovers of God and most Christians are doing these sorts of things, but that's not the point.)
No, my point is that even while God is connected to the ethical demands of these self-styled prophets of social justice, a holistic biblical understanding of God is not. My contention, therefore, is that demanding the specific ethic of Jesus without regard for the specific theology of Jesus -- and all that it entails -- is generally pointless and ultimately fruitless. You can't really understand and embrace Jesus' teachings without obeying Jesus' call to repent and follow Him. You can't have the Sermon on the Mount without the hill of Golgotha. Here is the McKnight passage that finally set me off:
What Jesus said about ethics, about how people are to live before God and with others, remains the most misunderstood dimension of his teachings. The fundamental problem is that the ethic of Jesus has been ripped away from its moorings in what he affirmed about God and the kingdom. Reversing this process becomes all the more important: until God and kingdom are understood, there is no place for the ethic of Jesus.
(p. 156)
The ethos of Jesus is a fine aspiration, and real good can come of people trying to employ it apart from the more central truth claims of Christianity, but the ethos will never be as powerful nor as life-changing as it would be when grasped firmly within the theos of Jesus.
People like Michael Moore rightly see in Jesus' ethic a revolutionary and subversive approach to social interaction and community. But they don't see the kingdom context. For people like Michael Moore, "doing what Jesus taught" is an end unto itself and reflects no further than the goodness of man. But that is not at all how Jesus presented his ethic in the Gospels. In the Gospels, the call to social justice and love was always couched within the specific call to unbelievers to repent of "their way" and accept that the One God of Israel was finally bringing in His kingdom in the presence and ministry of Jesus Christ. The inclusivity of the community began with the exclusivity of Jesus? self-proclamation.
See, the Sermon on the Mount and the other teachings of Jesus were not about creating a kingdom through better interaction with each other. They weren't about all of us getting along. They weren't "how to make the kingdom;" they were reflections of the kingdom's presence. They were proclamations of the kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount is what the kingdom looks like. And so divorcing the Sermon from its kingdom context is actually to strip it of its real power. If it becomes about behavior, it has missed the boat. Because the kingdom involves repenting of human effort and embracing the yoke of God's sovereignty. And repenting of human effort and embracing the yoke of God's sovereignty involves believing that Jesus is who he said he was and trusting his sacrifice truly satisfies goodness and justice.
This is more than folks like Michael Moore will admit, I think. And it's more than folks like Bono are preaching.
It is very much the scandal of the cross. It's the demands of the ethic without that nasty repentance and sacrifice business. That stuff is offensive, secondary, unnecessary, judgmental, bigoted, intolerant, etc. But you'd be hard pressed to find Jesus "doing social justice" in the Gospels without it.
Take his encounter with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well: This little vignette is absolutely about Jesus' interaction with a woman, and a Samaritan woman at that. Not only is she a third class citizen on the basis of her sex, she is a dog on the basis of her race. Jesus, a good and devout Jewish man, has no business being with her. But he does. At this point, we must rightly concur that to miss this important aspect of the interaction is to miss a huge part of Jesus' inclusion of "the least of these" in his kingdom message (an inclusion extended to other second-class citizens like tax collectors, prostitutes, drinkers, assorted Gentiles, the poor, the diseased, the disabled, the demonically possessed, et. al.).
But notice that the dialogue Jesus has with the woman at the well is almost entirely theological. Of course, she's trying to take the theological discussion one way (which place is best for worship, etc.) while he's taking it another (pointing to himself). And when the conversation is over, Jesus does not just bid her adieu, he tells her to sin no more.
That's just one example.
For those who plead God's call to the kingdom ethic while conveniently leaving out God's demand for kingdom holiness, the mistake is pretty much the same as the Pharisees, just on the opposite side of legalism. They want the behavior without really even a mention of the heart change. And by heart change, I don't mean having love in one's heart or feeling good towards another. I mean having a heart for the biblical God and for the sacrifice for sins made by his son Jesus. The kingdom ethic apart from this is practically worthless. It is a glory to man, which is no glory at all.
Take a look again at Acts 2. In the final passage of that chapter, we find a great picture of the early church in the wake of Pentecost. Verses 44-46 portray a wonderful image of the Jesus ethic in action. The community shared all things, they sold their stuff and provided for the poor. They had "all things in common." But this was not merely about establishing an alternate society. Lots of societies form with the goal of having all things in common. Most if not all of them fail. Extreme examples might include communism or even little hippie communes in which "free love" and "open communities" degenerate into jealousy and power struggles.
That's not to say, of course, that the Church is not plagued by jealousy or power struggles! But it is to say that communities formed around the ethical Jesus who nevertheless dispense with the theological Jesus will ultimately fail. The Church, however, will prevail.
Look again at that closing passage in Acts 2. Notice that the great picture of kingdom common-ism is bookended by the community's willful separation from the world and its corruption (v. 40) and a commitment to the apostles' teaching (v. 42) on one side and a connection between this ethical goodwill and salvation in Jesus on the other (v. 47).
Kingdom behavior cannot create kingdom hearts. It is the other way around. For the former approach puts the focus on man, while the latter gives the glory to God. This is more, I suspect than many of Bono's acolytes would be willing to accept. Bono says, "To me, faith in Jesus Christ that is not aligned with social justice, that is not aligned with the poor -- it's nothing." But the reverse -- "Social justice that is not aligned with faith in Jesus Christ is nothing" -- is just as true, is in fact truer. Why is it not preached except by those accused of bigotry and judgmentalism and putting conditions on the Gospel? Because most of us, Christians included, want the glory without the cross.
The evangelical, conservative church is not exempt from this error either. I think the Church makes the same mistake, despite its explicit acceptance of the exclusivity of Jesus. The Church reduces the Jesus ethic to pious sentimentalities, as well, equating doing good with being good, decontextualizing the teachings of Jesus until they become little more than baptized proverbs. Discipleship is about self-improvement, taking up one's cross is about staying positive through a rough time, etc. We are just as guilty, because we are drunk on self-help and our own potential and discovering the champion in ourselves. We too want the glory without the cross. Bonhoeffer had a phrase for that: cheap grace.
No sentimentality without (the) sacrifice.
No justice without holiness.
No right behavior without righteous character.
No ethos without theos.
Kingdom actions without kingdom character are rubbish.
---
I honestly meant to say more about the Church's problems in this area. But this thing already ran longer than I intentioned. I will carry my further thoughts over into another post I'm working on about the practical implications and personal applications of eschatology. It will speak a lot to how believing in the inaugurated kingdom of God affects the way we approach the community ethics Jesus taught.
Until then -- sorry to everyone I hacked off with this post. Seriously.
Great post Jared. Many times I see the titles of your theology or church posts and get a little glazed over because, frankly, I'm not the brightest crayon in the box. This one, however, spoke to me. I've been wondering about this very thing ever since reading Tony Campolo's book "Speakiing My Mind." It IS far too easy to divorce one segment of christ's teachings from another. Thanks for reminding us that all elements of His teachings and life are intertwined.