"Patience is a fruit of the Spirit much needed by theologians."
- N.T. Wright
Thursday, March 3, 2005
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.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/1898.
Comments on "No Ethos Without the Theos":
2. jen
- 03/03/2005 4:49 am CST
Absolutely a great post, Jared. I'll be interested to see what kind of conversation this generates.
4. Bill
- 03/03/2005 6:05 am CST
I have to join the throng here praising this post! This is such an important word for our time.
5. Jared
- 03/03/2005 6:24 am CST
Thanks, all, for the kind words.
I'm going to go back in now and bold/italicize some lines so the whole thing doesn't keep looking like one big blob of gray matter. The length (and title) might intimidate some readers, so I think highlighting some little skimmable lines might be in order.
6. Quaid
- 03/03/2005 6:46 am CST
I, too, think this post is great. I especially liked the Cheap Grace ref at the end of the post.
Jesus' name is evoked so many times in pop culture and politics by so many people who don't even know Him. The question now might be:
How do we injoin Bono's throng of ethos into a life of theos? How do we present obedience in the softest way possible without distorting the truth? We want to be sensitive to their sensibilities, but we cannot abbreviate the cost of discipleship.
7. Shrode
- 03/03/2005 6:48 am CST
Awesome post. Incredible. That'll preach brother. :)
No, I don't think there's going to be much argument with you. You are just so obviously right. :)
9. Misty
- 03/03/2005 8:04 am CST
I, too, think this is a great post.
I'm wondering how do you deal with people who want to divorce the teachings? Particularly unbelievers, though believers would pose a challenge as well.
10. Darren
- 03/03/2005 8:08 am CST
Great post. As my brother would say, "Right arm!" Uh ...
It's a great challenge especially to the church to read Jesus's gospel (amongst ourselves and to the world) as something inclusive of yet infinitely more than social justice.
11. Jared
- 03/03/2005 8:15 am CST
I would deal with them? Not sure exactly what you mean.
I think I would just kindly and respectfully remind them that ethics weren't all Jesus taught. C.S. Lewis's trilemma is a helpful approach. If I was having a sincere conversation with an unbeliever who nevertheless wanted to "act like Jesus," I would remind them of Jesus' other, less comfortable teachings about God and himself. I'd suggest that Jesus never left the option open to consider him just a great teacher of ethics. (Enter Lewis's trilemma -- liar, lunatic, or Lord.)
Dealing with believers can actually be trickier, because the sentimentalizing of Jesus' teaching is pretty much enshrined in the modern church's ideology. There are so many places in the Gospels that I see in new light and new ways simply by reading them in context.
We have to encourage Christians to read the Bible correctly, which is not an easy thing to do -- it's uncomfortable, it can be troubling and challenging, not just intellectually but theologically too.
We have to seriously fight what I call the "cult of application." The church almost entirely reads Scripture through a "how does this apply to me" filter. That's one of the best ways to get Scripture wrong.
Related to that is the recovery of theology in the church and in the life of the laity. Many believers have no interest in theology and do not consider biblical teachings important or interesting if they don't automatically apply to their everyday life or have automatic practical implications. (Robert at Dead Man Blogging did a great post on that subject a couple of weeks ago.)
Does any of that answer your question? Not sure myself.
13. Phisch
- 03/03/2005 4:29 pm CST
You mentioned the "cult of application" but I'm not sure what you mean. When I hear application, my understanding is that you take the truth of the bible and you live it out. The bible remains objective truth. But, do you mean that "application" is a person's personal take on the meaning of scripture?
14. Jared
- 03/04/2005 2:40 am CST
By "cult of application" I mean the tendency in the church right now to ignore or to find insignificant parts of the Bible or theology that does not immediately lend itself to practical application.
I think we need to get away from the idea that the only stuff in the Word worth our time is the stuff we find personally useful. All God's teachings are good and significant and worth knowing. And just knowing more about God should not be criticized as mere "head knowledge," as if to know more about what God says about Himself is not as important as getting what we want out of the Bible.
So, no, I'm not downplaying the importance of biblical application. I'm just criticizing the over-arching importance of it. Bible reading should start with interpretation and then move to application, but there are too many in the churches today who either start with application and base their interpretation on that, or start with interpretation and then judge the significance of it based on how personally applicable it is.
Just an example:
When we announced that our book club selection would be a book about eschatology, we got more than one comment asking why eschatology was important if it couldn't be applied to everyday life.
Firstly, I think having a good eschatology can be applicable to daily life. (I'm working on a post on that subject, actually.)
But more importantly, I resented the question because it implies that something as prevalent in the Bible as eschatology -- and the Gospels themselves are fraught with eschatology -- is not as important as "other stuff," because it does not lend itself to "helping me" in my Christian life.
That, to me, is an erroneous way of studying the Scriptures.
Does that make sense?
15. Brian in Fresno
- 03/04/2005 10:11 am CST
I think a good example of the "Cult of Application" may well be the Life Application Bible. I've looked through it but that was many years ago.
I mentioned some time ago that many people seem to get church and spiritual life mixed up with working or everyday life. I've heard so many people come to church and talk to their friends about tv shows or what was happening at work or any other of a number of things. I'm not saying that there should not be room for that. However I believe the reverse should ideally be the case we should be talking about church and our progress in spiritual matters at work with our friends at work. Again obviously this can't be constant.
I said all that to say this, the cult of application wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't backwards. The cult of application applies the Bible to one's life while it should be the application of one's life to the Bible.
John the Baptist had it right. He (Jesus) must increase, I must decrease. Paul had it right. Not I that live but Christ that lives in me. And, for me to live is Christ and for me to die is gain.
To referance the More on the Jesus Ethic Jared posted today.
I think our cross is a real cross that we carry to our own Galgotha. This is the journey where we die to Christ and Christ ressurects us with His life occupying our bodies so that He can use us as He needs us to be used. There shouldn't be an alter of persoanl revelance, there should be an alter of Christ and how we can be relevant to Him.
I'm writing faster than I can think so this is probably full garbage. I don't know.
16. Jared
- 03/04/2005 10:19 am CST
It definitely ain't garbage. That's good stuff, Brian.
Have you thought about starting a blog? That comment is definitely post-worthy.
17. Brian in Fresno
- 03/04/2005 10:34 am CST
The last couple of days I've had a very fleeting passing fancy of the idea of a blog but it mostly be made of questions. That does not a good blog make, at least I don't think.
It would be like, mister ignorance has a question, does anyone what to bother to answer it? Does anybody care.
Truth be told I just don't have time to keep up with trying a blog. I don't even have time to keep up with this one like I would really like to.
18. Jared
- 03/04/2005 10:41 am CST
I just don't have time to keep up with trying a blog.
Well, that'd be a good reason not to do it.
But don't not do it just because you think you have more questions than answers! (I sure hope people don't think we advertise this blog as having "the answers".) There's room for all kinds of blogs out there, and there's already many that are all about chronicling the spiritual journey of the blogger -- daring to ask honest questions, daring to say I don't know, daring to ask people for encouragement and help, daring to be vulnerable, daring to just be authentic.
I would think a blog about "the journey" would be great, and while it might not attract a huge readership, I'd be willing to bet it would attract a loyal and likeminded one.
Anyways, glad you've thought about it, at least.
19. Aaron
- 03/05/2005 5:59 am CST
"Wanting the glory without the Cross" is not a mistake, and it's not a sin. How do I know? Because Jesus himself wanted the glory without the cross. He ended up taking the cross, not because he pursued it -- instead he spent hours begging God to take it away -- but because it fell on his shoulders, dropped there by God.
Claming to "want the cross," or to actually ASK for the cross, is simple masochism. And it's impossible to want it -- the whole point of the cross is that it's something you don't want, something you wouldn't every ask for yourself. Even Jesus couldn't ask for it.
What is the Cross, really? The Cross is whatever God decides you are to bear, not something you ask for. It's the parts of life that there's no way you would ask for yourself.
That's what happened to Jesus, and that's what happens to each of us. We all face horrors in our lives that we desperately want to avoid -- all the pain, all the death, all the lack of control and crushed hope. We watch our parents die, half of us watch our spouses die. And ultimately we face our own death, and the unknown to follow.
And through it all we don't really know what's going to happen in the end. We don't know if God will take us to heaven, if we'll be in hell after we die, or if God has abandoned us.
Just as Jesus asked right before he died "My God, why have you forsaken me?" each of us ultimately lives our lives unsure of whether God is really there to save us, or if we've made a terrible mistake and we're doomed to die alone.
That's the Cross. It's not something you can accept. It's not a pill that's hard to swallow, but once you've got it down you can say "man, I'm glad I accepted that Cross. Now everything's better." That's not the Cross. You will never say that about the Cross.
It's a feeling that God may have forsaken you. That you don't know what's right, and you don't know who's going to win in the end. It's being completely alone.
That's what Jesus went through. That's the cross. Pointing out that "most of us, Christians included, want the glory without the cross" is silly. Nobody really wants the cross. Jesus didn't want the cross.
The ethics of Jesus, on the other hand, are something to hold onto as we each bear our cross, this thing none of us, not even Jesus, wanted.
The ethics of Jesus are a way to feel less alone, by finding Jesus as a friend in every face that passes by -- by recognizing that WE ALL have to bear this cross, and by helping each other we can share its weight a little on our way to Golgotha. And hope that in the end, God won't forsake us on that hill, just as he didn't forsake Jesus.
20. Ellen from MI
- 03/05/2005 6:24 am CST
Claming to "want the cross," or to actually ASK for the cross, is simple masochism.
That's a cross, not the cross.
We glory in the cross of Christ and when that glory is missing, we are missing.
What is the Cross, really? The Cross is whatever God decides you are to bear, not something you ask for. It's the parts of life that there's no way you would ask for yourself.
Those are burdens, not crosses.
The cross is an instrument of death and of grace. Of terrible evil and terrible love. An instrument of torture and and an instrument of salvation.
To put our earthly burdens on the same level of what Christ did on the Christ elevates this life.
I would not have chosen a few of the things that I've been asked to carry in this life. But they are burdens, not crosses. These burdens did not require my sinless sacrifice in the way that the cross demanded of Christ. They did not require that my innocent death be the same as the execution of a shameful criminal.
When we are asked to pick up our cross, it is not a statement that we carry our own burdens. It is a call to lay down everything in order to follow Christ. Our families, jobs, homes - everything.
I've been in a seeker-sensitive church where leadership was warned not to mention "blood" or "cross" - it might upset seekers. That is glory without the cross and it is wrong.
When Christ is about love and not about sacrifice - that is glory without the cross and it is wrong.
Unless I'm reading all this wrong, there no way to glory without the cross.
We glory in the cross of Christ. Period.
“But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” — Galatians 6:14
21. Jared
- 03/05/2005 7:16 am CST
Aaron, no offense man, but I don't think you understood my point(s) at all.
22. Aaron
- 03/05/2005 8:22 am CST
Perhaps not, Jared. But I hope you at least somewhat understood what I was saying.
23. Jared
- 03/07/2005 10:15 am CST
I feel compelled to point out here that I have unfortunately mashed up my Bible stories.
Jesus did not tell the Samaritan woman (John 4) to "go and sin no more." He did, however, steer the conversation toward the meeting of spiritual needs, while she was focused on the physical (where to worship, which literal water slakes thirst forever).
I have apparently mixed up Jesus' parting with the woman at the well with his parting with the woman caught in adultery (two chapters over in John 6), the one he saved from execution. Jesus told this woman to go and sin no more.
I apologize for this error (and I'm surprised no one caught it). While it may serve to call my biblical memory into question ;-), I do think the primary point of the example cited and the primary point of the entire post remain unweakened.
Leave a Comment:
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.