I’m fascinated by the amount of posts I read by people calling themselves followers of Jesus. As I scan through various blogs from all corners of the Christian tradition I’m increasingly finding people wanting to attribute such a title to themselves. It has a nice ring to it – ‘Follower of Jesus’ in fact I described myself the exact same way when I filled in the ‘religion’ category on my Facebook profile. Are you a Christian? No, I’m a follower of Jesus – it sounds awfully ecumenical, tolerant and free from so many tags and labels that so many of us as younger evangelicals wish to be rid of. Yet in many circles it seems to be taking on a life of its own – a life that may, in reality, be pointing away from the Jesus it claims allegiance too.
When I probe behind the phrase on so many blogs (yes I know I’m being mystical about which specific blogs and posts I’m referring to but I’d rather keep it that way because it has been a general impression of a number of blogs rather than one aimed at a specific post or blog) I discover something that is rather disturbing. It is disturbing by its omissions rather than by what it affirms. Usually these posts speak about Christ’s calls to uplift the poor, look after the marginalized, love one’s enemies, turn the other cheek etc. etc. And at this point I’m loving it and rejoicing in the supreme moral vision of our Lord Jesus that extends to so many of our current issues in this broken world. It’s affirmation and cheering on all the way from my point of view and one finishes such a post feeling convicted to go out into the world and tackle contemporary issues as a follower of Jesus. But step back and take a closer look – what’s missing? When I step back what I don’t often see is a cross, I don’t see nail pierced hands, I don’t see a thorn scraped brow. Ultimately I don’t see the glorious substitution of Christ in my place whereby I can truly call myself a follower of Jesus – because he has purchased me with his very own blood. Rather I see an ethical Jesus, a Jesus who knows right from wrong but has no way to deal with a problem that stretches so much deeper than right or wrong behaviour. I see a moral first century Rabbi inspiring people to be more moral – and it’s deeply disturbing.
A Jesus without a cross is a Jesus that will not transform or cause anyone to benefit from his amazing moral vision. My deepest fear is that people who pursue this type of Jesus will be found one day to not be a follower of Jesus at all – and that would be tragic.
Great post… you’re dead on right. The cross and the substitutionary atonement of Christ are what show us the glory of God, which is the very height of our Christian existence. God demonstrated His own love for us that way. It’s the crux of the matter of following Christ.
Good thoughts man! I would definately see myself in what you’re talking about. Keep up the good work.
Good post, Stephen – following Jesus for his moral vision and ignoring everything else…that seems to be missing something. I’d want to ask someone who self-described in that way, “What do you do with evil?”
If I were to describe myself as a follower of God in the way of Jesus, is that distinction more helpful, or do you hear the same thing?
I’m not really that concerned what people call themselves – I’m quite happy to call myself a follower of Jesus. My concern is that we have a holistic picture of Jesus – that we see him as the King of God’s Kingdom bringing with it all the moral and ehtical implications but at the same time dying as a suffering servant to redeem a people for himself trapped in rebellion. I also think its important to see that true access to that moral vision comes through seeing Christ first as the suffering servant and its implications.
Hey Stephen… I wasn’t quite sure what you where really saying in the post itself… my guess wasn’t that you where bothered about labels, nor that you where “going back” to the old dualism Social Gospel vs Evangelistic Gospel… rather that you where challenging people not to do that themselves through their “lashing back” at Evangelicalism… anyway I thought I agreed with you, till I read your above comment… now I know I agree with you… the point for me is that the Jesus you describe is above the divisions and the labels, Jesus is evidence of a holistic Gospel of Shalom. I think this is the Gospel that Claiborne talks about and lives… not a Gospel of solving people, either religiously, socially or physically, but of serving people… therefore our morality comes not from duty, guilt, power etc, but out of love for God and each other (God’s creation). I can’t remember who said it but someone said “It is impossible for someone who believes that God will wipe away all tears in the future to tolerate tears now.” Brueggemann in “Living toward a vision” calls the church to see the starting point of the re-creation and reconciliation of all things as the table and the towel and basin… places of humility and servanthood, only made real because of Christs place within them.
Anyway, thanks for the post and comment. Very challenging and helpful
Mark
“A Jesus without a cross is a Jesus that will not transform or cause anyone to benefit from his amazing moral vision. My deepest fear is that people who pursue this type of Jesus will be found one day to not be a follower of Jesus at all – and that would be tragic” (Stephen)
See Stephen – here is the real problem with this whole thing…what beliefs are more important than others and defining belief.
Now we may have a Jesus that died on a cross (sign of love BTW) and becamse some type of atonement – but these are not things any of us in the Christian faith can do anything about whatsoever – they are happenings in history. We can believe they happened – but that’s not the type of belief Jesus is referring to in his teachings.
When Jesus addresses ‘belief’ it is very tied to ‘what you do’…or…’you are what you do’. The theological ideas are fun and all – but that’s all they are and those beliefs don’t do much for your life…whereas ‘following’ (verb) Jesus actually does – or ‘mimicing’ the same things Jesus did/taught. In this sense, following is more important than what one thinks about God (which is what theology really is – for example – the atonement).
You quote a scripture idea from Matthew 7 here “will be found one day to not be a follower of Jesus at all”…but the point of that Matthew passage is concerning ‘lawlessness’ or ‘immorality’…or one’s beliefs betrayed by it’s breaking (ie: to hurt someone else). In all actuality, the people that literally ‘follow’ Jesus are less likely to stumble upon lawlessness and committ acts against God and humanity…however…easy belief-ism (which theology and it many of it’s theories allow for) can lead someone to these ends by virtue of an atonement of vicarious favor (less responsible for your actions – Jesus did it all for you already).
The problem is the way we define ‘what we believe’.
I have no doubt that what we believe and what we do are intrinsically linked and necessarily so. But that doesn’t make what we believe irrelevant. Unfortunately I think both Jesus and the gospel authors were very concerned that we believe in the historical person and work of Jesus – Luke’s prologue makes this very clear as does John’s summary statement in chapter 20. My post was in response to people throwing out fundamentals about the atonement in the name of orthopraxy. The reality according to the scripture is that without the atonement you have no orthopraxy – you simply have a works righteousness that is devoid of power. Jesus’ dying on the cross was far more than simply a sign of love and when we forget that we forget what following Jesus is really about. Obviously people only ever do what they believe which makes right belief all the more important. I find Hosea 4:6 most convincing – God calls up the people because of their ‘lack of knowledge’ and yet the outward manifestation is lawlessness. Correct orthopraxy will always mean going back and doing theology.
“My post was in response to people throwing out fundamentals about the atonement in the name of orthopraxy” (Stephen)
Find me atonement theology within the gospels – let’s say Matthew for example – or even Luke. If this idea is so important it should litter the very pages of the gospels – correct? Fact is, that is not where you find info on the stonement.
“The reality according to the scripture is that without the atonement you have no orthopraxy – you simply have a works righteousness that is devoid of power” (Stephen)
I tend to agree – but what do we mean by atonement? Atonement is many things according to the Jewish faith – actually 3 things: (a) blood sacrifice; (b) charity and, (c) repentance. I actually agree – atonement is needed – but how that looks is really the grandiose question.
As for a works based faith – without works faith is…say it with me…uh huh…’dead’. No works means no faith according to James’ letter – which is very similar in nature to the gospel of Matthew’s message on this same topic.
As for the atonement part of our faith – well if we have an atonement for everything we do – then we have secured salvation in a sense…and we can do anything. Or do we have an ‘atonement model’…I am debating this in my head.
“Find me atonement theology within the gospels – let’s say Matthew for example – or even Luke. If this idea is so important it should litter the very pages of the gospels – correct? Fact is, that is not where you find info on the atonement.”
If you really believe that then can I refer you to a book by Peter Bolt entitled ‘The Cross at a Distance’ which takes you through the gospel of Mark and shows you how atonement langauge is littered all over the place. This whole nonsense that has arisen in Emerging Church circles about penal substitution being something that Anselm or the reformers constructed is just that: nonsense. And there’s a ton of literature to back me up here. I believe in a rich atonement and that there are many angles to the atonement and that it achieves many different things but I think all of those angles hinge upon the concept of substitution – Christ in our place. I’m not going to part with that, simply because nothing I’ve seen or read has convinced me that its wrong.
We both want orthopraxy, and yes I believe that faith without works is dead but I firmly believe that a historic evangelical understanding of the cross must undergird that orthopraxy in order to make it distinctively Christian.
Hi Stephen,
Your post comes as such a conviction. I’ve just pulled and all-nighter and I was going on about how His grace is sufficient for me. In truth, His grace was sufficient three weeks ago when I got the two assignments I managed to put together during my all-nighter. Wow. Not too long ago I posted on my group blog a question to all the Christians on my campus asking them: where are the Christians at Rhodes. Check it out sometime. I definitely think there are Christians who are keen to serve the Lord, but time and time again we do need to check who we’re following. I know I get it wrong sometimes, I get so excited about spreading the good news and “doing Christian” things to the extent that everyone knows I’m always off somewhere to a church do. Now I’m thinking differently about how I do life and university. I’ll definitely be seeking the biblical worldview about my work ethic.
Great blog!
Refilwe M.
< a href = “http://pointingpurple.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-attended-closing-of-christians-rhodes.html