We are taught never to buy a book by its cover, but I’ll tell you this: some titles are enough. The title to Rubel Shelly is one such title: I Knew Jesus Before He Was a Christian… And I Liked Him Better Then. Stunning title.
Agree? What do you think of the ideas here? Comments, suggestions, ideas, responses?
Jesus “did not come to found a new religion that would generate still more human precepts masquerading as divine doctrine. He did not produce a creed or command us to write one. He came to ‘reveal the Father.’”
Jesus did not round up disciples to teach about the Trinity, millennium, baptismal formulas, worship protocols, head coverings, the Rapture, female clergy, or a thousand other topics that divide Christians today. He focused on the ‘fundamentals’ instead. He gave his pupils their two-question final exam on the first day of the course — and left us our lifetimes to cram for it. Question one: ‘Do you love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength?’ Question two: ‘Do you love your neighbor as yourself?’”
Here’s a killer statement: “People who read the Gospel stories from the life of Jesus are attracted to him. People who know Christ only through his followers often can’t stand him” (14). Print that out, paste it on your desk or shelf or mirror and let us all remind ourselves. We have a challenge.
Rubel Shelly, though, says he’s pro-Jesus and pro-church. But … we’ve got to get Jesus first.
“Jesus is an appealing and wonderful presence in the world. He brings hope and healing into broken lives. He gives sight to blind eyes and hearing to deaf ears. He brings lepers out of quarantine and back into their families, sinners out of banishment and back into community. He tells the people to whom nobody else will give the time of day that the kingdom of God belongs to them.”
What happened? “Christianity became the umbrella term for a host of competing denominational brands…”.
The big idea of this book is right here: “American scholar Sam Pascoe is often credited with saying that Christianity was born in Israel, only to be taken to Greece and morphed into a philosophy. From there, it was taken to Rome and made into an institution of civil power. Eventually, it migrated to Europe where it was developed into a culture. Later still, it was brought to America and made into an entrepreneurial business enterprise.” Bingo!
An entrepreneurial business enterprise … with some debate whether people are product or consumer, usually consumer. But in either case it distorts.
Great title! I’ll definitely pick this one up for my Kindle. This is exactly where 30 years of following and 25 years of pastoring has taken me to. Can’t wait to see how Rubel, a great story teller and communicator, unpacks it!
Does the entrepreneurial business enterprise critique apply best most of the Protestant megachurches. Many have pointed this out … but I’m repeatedly struck with how entrepreneurial and managerial they are. They may get a lot of people under the same roof (and a lot of money in the same offering plate), but what about discipleship? Empirical research shows that larger church size (even taking into account small group participation) is linked to weaker religious outcomes for individuals. To me, the clearest place to focus the business enterprise criticism is at the feet of megachurch entrepreneurs. Of course denominations aren’t off the hook either (just look at Southern Baptist church growth manuals and things written by people such as Ed Stetzer).
I cannot wait to read this. My mom bought a copy at the Streaming conference last week and I am eager to steal it from her. I think there will be a prisoner exchange this weekend for “Blue Parakeet”.
Rubel is a wonderful teacher and a blessed and dear man. I was eager to read this even before the synopsis and quotes posted here. Thanks for covering this Scot, it sounds like the book I thought it would be.
Jason, can you point me to some of that empirical research? As a pastor of a church of 800 or so, it would be fascinating to see. Thanks!
In response to Scot’s questions, I think this type of Christianity-is-now-an-entrepreneurial-business-enterprise argument breaks down if you press it. So you wrote a book to sell to lots of people to make some money, then other people buy said book, read it on their Kindle/iPad (or order it from Amazon at a discounted price which is then shipped to your door in a few business days), then post a blog about it probably using a Mac Book…oh wait, that’s all that bad entrepreneurial-business-enterprise stuff at work.
I think you just look silly trying to make these kinds of arguments. Sure, you can sell a lot of books with it, but in the end what does it really accomplish?…except to fuel the very thing your writing against.
And I’m not so into the whole Jesus-is-not-Christian thing. It’s confusing to outsiders (not to mention unhelpful). Why not be much more helpful by offering a loving critique of things within the Christian faith instead of trying to reinvent (or relabel) the whole system? Again, another one of those 21st century entrepreneurial-business ideas (in my opinion).
Wow. I have often commented to my friends that Christianity is now an industry more than a movement of people who follow Jesus.
I do have some questions though. Was Jesus always appealing to those who encountered him? What about the John 6 episode when many quit following because his words were “too hard”? Luke 4 when they wanted to throw him off a cliff? John 8 where they wanted to stone him to death? What about the throngs that cried out, “Crucify, Crucify”?
Yes, Jesus is an appealing presence! But he also seems to stir people’s negative emotions too.
Nick S,
I don’t think the point is that Jesus is not Christian, or that we can do away with everything entrepreneurial. It is that a church is not a business.
A church, a local manifestation of the body of Christ, is a gathering of people who come together to be the body of Christ to each other and to the world.
They come together to as a people in a place to know others and be known, to serve, to learn, to worship, to partake in sacrament, to fellowship, to be encouraged and held accountable, to participate in mission collectively and to be equipped for mission individually.
The church as business enterprise loses sight of this in the same way that a drug company loses sight of the importance of “orphan drugs.” The values – profit in the case of the drug company, and numbers in the case of church as business enterprise – don’t lead to decisions in accord with the values of the kingdom of God.
RJS #8-
“The church as business enterprise loses sight…”
A slight, yet possibly important distinction is that the original reference was about “Christianity” as a business enterprise, not church.
Also, how is it know when the line is crossed into business enterprise?
The title reminds me of South African author Albert Nolan’s 1976 book entitled, “Jesus before Christianity”
The title is reminiscent of Gandhi’s famous quote, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
I’ve spent enough time being disappointed, frustrated, angry, sad over a particular church’s (or “the” Church’s) failures, but ultimately I have to look inward and examine my own actions. Have I represented Christ well? I pray with my kids before entering the nursing home where we volunteer for God’s help in being good ambassadors for Christ to the people we meet and serve.
Learning of Jesus and loving Him as a result of reading the Gospels was part of my healthy faith journey. But there have been good people in my life along the way too that helped me grow in faith.
The title of the book reminds me and convicts me that my witness in the world matters… Sobering.
I don’t like the title and I disagree with most of what I’ve read in the above article. For some reason in today’s world, there seems to be a double standard held over the heads of Christians by everyone from atheists to other Christians. (And these folks seem to know what the finished product ought to look like.) The double standard says: 1) All Christians should be loving, kind, tolerant and politically correct; and 2) Christians never sin and should never struggle with sin or make mistakes. Please allow me to say, “B.S.!” If the followers of Christ were any better in Jesus’ day or the days of the book of the Acts, we would NOT have 3/4s of the New Testament. (We especially wouldn’t have the letter to the Corinthians.) The Church (and all Christians that make up the Church) are Jesus’ Bride. When we criticize her, we talk about His girl. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be corrected when correction is needed. We most definitely should. But Jesus LOVES His bride – no matter what. And He will fashion her into the Bride of His good pleasure – and He will fix what needs to be fixed. Until then, He has chosen every believer and loves them fiercely. But He’s not gonna change the definitions of truth and He’s not gonna suck up to atheists, pouty finger-pointers, whiners, or political correctness. Ever. He loves us too much to ever do that.
I think it’s always good to hold up Jesus, just as he is in the Gospels, with his priorities of teaching and action, and compare him to us. It’s painful, but can such a practice ever disappear from discipleship?
If the post is any indication, I like how Shelly seems to have drawn the contrast, though many have made similar efforts recently. If I had to name a few basics off the top of my head, they’d be the same mentioned above, with the addition of leading the Reign of God.
The central question and issue (and the language of the post) does remind me of something: I don’t care if we use the term “charismatic” or not and perhaps we shouldn’t for all that is attached, but it’s tough to make the Jesus-comparison to western Chrisitanity and not wonder immediately about the one-ness of Jesus agenda (word and deed) with the Spirit’s manifold power. I don’t want this issue to take over the thread, but if we’re gonna look at Jesus and (western) Christianity and talk differences and even ‘basics’, this one is obvious, at least to me.
Nick S., Knowing Rubel, I think his argument would focus on “church”–he is a congregationalist (Church of Christ) when he speaks of Christianity.
In any case to quibble over the metaphor seems a little defensive. To deny that the American church has adopted the image of big business (even small churches with their board meetings and salesmen evangelists) is to ignore the obvious reality. The church has often taken the image of the prevalent institution in a culture: government, university/school, business and whatever comes next.
And to criticize Rubel for selling a book and marketing it is patently unfair. Rubel is not Christianity nor is he a church! I haven’t read the book but I seriously doubt Rubel is saying there is something wrong with the existence of business or business models, per se. It’s just it isn’t the proper lens through which to view church or Christianity.
Also, the “Jesus is not Christian” thing is not necessarily an entrepreneurial approach as much as it is a teaching technique. Jesus himself used statements and images that were meant to stop a person in his tracks and to pay attention(e.g., “prostitutes and tax collectors will enter into the Kingdom of heaven before you”, Samaritan heroes, priests and pharisees painted as villains while tax collectors and cheats are painted as justified). Sounds to me Rubel is just following the tradition of Jesus.
Gary Feister (comment #12),
I really think you’ve missed the point and the spirit of the entire post and discussion.
I’m no fan of the market driven “church” myself, but I have to note, lots of people in the N.T. were attracted to Jesus too, until He said something they didn’t like or wouldn’t understand. Same today. Sometimes when people don’t like you it’s a sign you’re doing something right.
JohnM @ #16 – good point, and one I have pondered on quite a bit since studying the Beatitudes, slowly and deeply. “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:10, NKJV)…does not mean being called out or rejected for being a complete jerk.
Regarding the “entrepreneurial” nature of the church in North America, I imagine Rubel is going further and deeper than contemporary consumerism. We live in a culture that rewards innovation and bucking the system and has since its foundation. Our pragmatism drives many things and this isn’t something new to contemporary churches. A really great resource that I’ve enjoyed dipping in over the years is Nathan Hatch’s “Democratization of American Christianity”: tinyurl.com/42c3ras
@Rick #9, you can know when a church has crossed over into a business enterprise when marketing becomes more important than discipleship. Some as I have witnessed firsthand are more concerned with creating a brand and that is their number one priority. To market their church so as to get butts in the seats which translates into money in the till as opposed to making discipleship the number one way to reach people. Obviously, there is a business side to ministry, but when that becomes first and is not fueled by spirituality, then I think churches have crossed the line. Christianity is a product of the church, so I think this applies to Christianity as well as individual churches.
Let’s clarify something. Rubel didn’t say that all people in the Gospels were attracted to Jesus. He said that *those who read* about Jesus in the Gospels are attracted to him. That means that people are attracted to the Jesus who will let people walk away from him. Rubel isn’t saying Jesus is marketable.
At the risk of over-extending the metaphor, perhaps the problem with the Church in America is not the use of a business model per se, but the choice (in some cases) of the wrong business model: one that focuses on profits and/or which focuses on sales at the expense of after-market maintenance.
Pat #19-
Thanks.
“when marketing becomes more important than discipleship”
That is an interesting indicator to point out.
Rick,
I think Pat’s comment (#19) is a good point – when marketing becomes more important than discipleship.
There is another aspect as well – when target audience becomes more important than the entire body of Christ. Niche marketing – even in cases where discipleship is viewed as important – facilitates a consumer church characterized by church hopping.
Joe #21 – Perhaps your are correct. But I have a difficulty with the whole “church as business” metaphor. This is still a consumer mindset that runs contrary to the ways of Jesus.
I don’t see how one can reconcile consumer Christianity with discipleship. I grew up in churches where evangelists based their techniques on sales approaches, non-believers were “prospects” (and when they didn’t show interest you left them to more promising “contacts”), and of course you had to have that “closing technique” to get them to become a Christian. This wasn’t unusual in the 60′s/70′s–whether the church was large or small. In the 70′s we went the route of pop-psychology and Zig Zigglar positive thinking which was still an off-shoot of the business model. In the 80′s everything was about In Pursuit of Excellence. In the 90s it was all about “seeker sensitive” and marketing the church with our mission statements and business strategies. While the idea of discipleship always was given mention–it never seemed to be the major emphasis. We were more concerned about making the Sunday event an attractive, invigorating, venue and we even became very concerned when attendance figures and giving figures dropped.
Our actions betray our attitudes. We may not have intentionally thought of things this way–we operated believing we were glorifying God. But we weren’t being critical in our thinking. I think we just accepted the cultural baggage we carried as neutral. But is culture ever neutral?
I think of the “Cowboy Churches” and “Biker Churches” and what are we doing with this? Marketing to a niche audience. Whatever happened to Jew and Gentile worshiping together as disciples–becoming “one new man”?
I am not suggesting jettisoning culture or ignoring cultural differences. But all of this seems to indicate how entrenched we are to marketing and the business metaphor.
Ok. I feel better now. I’ll stop. (Sorry about the rant).
RJS-
“Niche marketing”
Another interesting indicator to think about. Thanks.
I haven’t read the book, but I see a number of things with which I would disagree. It seems like Shelly wants to move the locus of our faith from what God is doing now (in the church through the Spirit) to what God did in the past (through Jesus). This is not the answer.
Obviously, Jesus’ life, teaching, and work on the cross are the crux of the story we believe. But we can’t live only in the past. Our message has to be grounded in the present (God’s ongoing work of reconciliation) and in the future (God’s eventual consummation of history).
Jesus emphasized that the miracles he did by the Spirit validated his message (Luke 11:20). Peter preached that the work of the Spirit in the early church proved that Jesus was the Messiah (Acts 2). The work of the Spirit among the Gentiles was what eventually got the early church to get on board with the missio dei (Acts 10). Finally, the work of the Spirit in the Galatian churches was proof to Paul that justification was by faith and not by works of the law (Gal 3:2). In every case, the work of the Spirit in the present validated the message about the past. The work of the Spirit in the church is crucial to the integrity of our message.
Obviously, I am not against emphasizing the teachings of Jesus. But saying, “Let’s forget what God is doing in people’s lives right now and look at what this book says” would be a grave mistake.
I have never heard of anyone becoming a Christian because they were disgusted with Christians but then picked up the Bible and converted. (I’ve heard of a lot of Christians who were disgusted with other Christians but then found solace in the Bible.) But I do know a lot of people who know very little about the Bible, but become followers of Jesus because another follower showed them by their lifestyle that they knew God.
K. Reux #24: My main point, which was probably inartfully made, was that a church that focuses on growth without discipleship is like a business that focuses on sales without doing anything to maintain the product. I would certainly agree that the usual for-profit business model is inappropriate. Perhaps there are non-profit business models that are a better fit.
I would hesitate to throw out the business model, however, because it may help to see that we need to have a vision, develop goals, have a plan, supervise the implementation, etc. A mindless, “Spirit-led” meandering is not going to get the Church anywhere either. “Shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves,” as Jesus said.
Tremendous post, Scot. Thanks.
Matt, I think you may need to read the book because I see some inferences here that I don’t recognize in this book. The Jesus vs. Christianity/etc theme is about divisiveness in the church that distracts from our capacity to focus on and hold up the Lord Jesus. He’s very pro-church, believe me.
The big idea of this book is right here: “American scholar Sam Pascoe is often credited with saying that Christianity was born in Israel, only to be taken to Greece and morphed into a philosophy. From there, it was taken to Rome and made into an institution of civil power. Eventually, it migrated to Europe where it was developed into a culture. Later still, it was brought to America and made into an entrepreneurial business enterprise.” Bingo!
The quote as I found it reads:
Christianity is very adaptable, able to become all things to all people.
So while Christianity may initially affect and impact a culture, it slowly begins to take on the attitudes and behaviors and characteristics of the culture until it becomes hardly distinguishable from the culture.
“If Jesus had preached the same message that ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified.”
(Leonard Ravenhill)
Bingo? A narrative story about Christianity that leaves out Syria (and surrounding areas), Africa, Armenia (the first “Christian nation”), India, and the Slavs? Strikes me as … incomplete.
Joe Canner–not a problem at all. I understand your point and I wouldn’t characterize it as “inartful” at all. Thank you for your graciousness.
As a former minister for over 30 years I’ve gone through all of these morphs and cultural changes–and usually each change caused a division or war. The funny thing we thought we were fighting for doing church more effectively. I think we were fighting the wrong battles (on all sides).
I tend to rant, and sometimes I miss the point of others. So I would ask forgiveness for any insensitivity on my part.
Also, I know Rubel. He certainly is pro-church and pro the people of God. Scot, from what I know about Rubel, your characterization of him is spot on (#30).
This is one of the reasons why I have a difficult time reconciling Paul with Jesus. It seems to me that Paul wrote a lot about law, doctrine, and theology. Whereas, Jesus didn’t seem to concern himself with that. Jesus spent a lot of time building relationships with people. Paul focused a lot on correcting and providing direction for the various church plants spread throughout Asia Minor, and seemingly spent little time mixing it up with lost sinners. And, it seems to me that many Western Christians seem to lean towards Paul’s thinking more than Jesus. At least, this is my perception.
K.Reux #24 – Interesting. Does the consumer Christianity/business approach have longer history than I realized? It’s something I didn’t really notice until the 90′s, and I supposed it began sometime in the 80′s, perhaps with seeds sown(but not yet germination)in the 70′s. I figure it is something that developed out of a genuine passion for evangelism combined with oversimplification of the gospel call. I know, this is not a post about history, but might be worthwile to understand how we got where we are.
As a business owner I am very sensitive to my marketing and customer base. Generally, you get the type of customer you target. So in the case of lightweight MTD or sparkling entertainment, you end up with a bunch of shallow consumers whom you still have to convert to true Christianity.
One friend of mine religiously attends services so he and his wife can get some babysitting and adult contact. The last thing he wants is to be made uncomfortable in that time of relaxation.
So the American enterprise is oriented at attracting Americans, but what we need to attract is potential Christians. Those two things are different, as this post points out.
So I am with Pat#19, Rick#22, rjs#23 in the comment where marketing becomes more important than discipleship, but I am most definitely against K. Reux#25 objection to the niche marketing of Cowboy and Biker Churches. The difference is that niche of Cowboy and Biker are places to find people and don’t really necessitate a lack of depth or willingness to be different. Those are niches for Churches. But the primary model is tell sell a concept, such as easy, or entertaining, or attractive or some other psycho set that is at odds with Christianity so the churches end up with a bunch of people who don’t want Christianity, they want easy, or MTD or whatever.
Its not a question of whether one should market, it is a question of how one markets and segments the population.
K. Reux, (#24,25 and more)
Thanks for your comments and perspective. I am becoming convinced – as a long time church member, not a pastor or leader, that the only healthy approach to church is to maintain a level of detachment, to not care too much. Change is constant and unstoppable – the church will morph from A to B to C to … looking for the perfect solution. (As new ideas and new approaches are put forth as the perfect solution.)
Worship God
Love the people
Take advantage of resources and fellowship when present
Don’t become too invested in anything
Take ownership of nothing
Don’t count on anything
Don’t expect much
Realize we are all sinners
Hold everything except the people at a distance with an open hand
I havn’t read the book but I have read other books by Rubel Shelly and heard him speak on various occasions. He is a blessing of God to the body of Christ. To know where he came from and the sort of leadership he has had upon Christian ministry, there is a remarkable story to be told. As a preacher/minister for a Church of Christ, I believe it is very probable that when history is told of the Churches of Christ in the 20th century, Rubel Shelly may be the most influential person. Perhaps more so than anyone else, he is responsible for helping the Churches of Christ understand Christianity beyond the boundaries of a very unhealthy sectarianism into a more Christ-centered calling.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
DRT #37 – I understand your point. However, do we really need more niches? Does the concept of “cowboy churches” and “biker churches” mitigate unity? This isn’t planting a church in an inner city where there may be a certain homogenous demographic that cannot be helped.
Cowboy churches are planted in areas that may have several different types of groups. They are about creating churches that focus upon one particular cultural identity to the exclusion of others (even though they may say everyone is welcome). No matter how open the particular Cowboy Church is, I seriously doubt some kid into indie music would ever be interested in being part of a cowboy church. This is clearly niche marketing.
What of a church where insiders, outsiders, bikers, cowboys, punkers were all together and learned from one another. I don’t think Paul would suggest to the Roman or the Ephesian church there needs to be an early service for the Gentiles and a late service for the Jews or that they set up two different styles of church to appeal to a demographic.
I believe this is what so attracted people to the church in the first century. They saw people who didn’t belong together: merchants, slaves, wealthy, poor–all hanging out together and being part of a community.
Oops. DRT the comment was not #37 but #38! (sorry)
#38 – speaking from my experience, the business model was alive and well in the 60s (perhaps even the 50s). Churches were governed by “boards” and personal evangelism was viewed as sales. Even the terminology was used.
Now I was a child in the 60s, but my father was very active in these kinds of efforts. We went door-to-door which was a typical sales approach in the 60s. Even many of our large campaigns included campaign workers who used a sales approach.
Of course that’s the basic idea of a business model isn’t it: create or identify the need, propose solution, offer the product that is the solution, right?
Did it again…yeesh. Posting too fast. I meant the last post as a comment on #37! Ok, I’m quitting!
GREAT title! Hope someone got paid well for it.:) When I read the post I thot “a novel form of american primitivism/restoration movement”, then read that he is Church of Christ, a movement whose strengths I really appreciate. I get and love the point! However, you can’t leapfrog over 2000 years of history and start over as if it’s pre-Christendom. I wish we could. But the whiteboard is not blank, it’s already been scribbled on.
The Kingdom is like leaven, it’s not the dough. The dough/business of America is business. So if we’re missionaries to this culture, we gotta speak the language.
Churches are not businesses. A church is a family of families, and then there is the business/finances of the family. Fun post and a tempting book!
K Reux#41, I see what you are saying and agree that the ideal would be one where people are integrated across those lines. I am struggling though since even location does not bring people together anymore. I drive right by neighbor’s houses and people whom I have never met to socialize based on interest, not location. So we need to go where the people are. (or you and others, I am not a pastor….)
That is still quite different from attracting people by a shared affinity for consumerism.
rjs @ #39 – I think you’re onto something…how, exactly, to live this out (well) is the hard part. Really hard.
Scot, I may read this book. Yes, great title. I, too, think Jesus came to free us from religion, not pile it on thicker and deeper. I think he came to free us from religious tribal identity, so that we could love freely. Being a “Christian” – as Rookmaaker said – is to become fully human, not full of religion..
DRT it may be different to some degree–but it is still a consumerist approach. The church from my own understanding is primarily seen as a family and a kingdom–these biblical metaphors create form and function. A business metaphor also creates a form and function.
How one views oneself has consequences. The business metaphor has consequences which include (among other things) division into niche groups (which is antithetical to the Christian message of unity), a self-centered consumerist mindset, mass production (bigger is better), performance (are you being profitable for the church?), and a focus upon marketing as opposed to building in depth personal relationships.
Furthermore, in a business, my customer may be a great guy. I may even take him out to eat or play a round of golf with him. But rarely does he become family or friend. Because I am there to serve him and he is there to be served by me. If there is any suggestion that he serve me (or my company) then he chooses another company. If the consumer doesn’t like the service or the product anymore, or he finds a more attractive alternative down the street–he changes product.
This is not like a family relationship where I love my child and I will always love my child. I have expectations and demands and there are mutual expectations and demands placed on me on the basis of our relationship with each other. Behavior is based upon identity as a family member and upon relationship with other members.
To break with a family is much more traumatic than to change my choice of favorite restaurants. Loyalty is much greater. My family is diverse in styles and ages. Yet there is a real unity brought about by blood ties. Niche marketing is a poor imitation and misses all together the idea of in Christ there is no slave or free, rich or poor, etc.
The business model cannot replicate this and that’s why I see it as inferior, and indeed, antithetical to the purposes of God’s group of people.
Continuing the thought DRT: Also, going where people are is my neighborhood, isn’t it? Or the coffee shop down the street? If we are talking about reaching out to a world then yes we are mingling with people who may be “tribes.” But tribes live near each other. And somehow we are to facilitate the peace of Christ–bringing these disparate groups together.
But using what I think is your logic, we should never work to integrate races within the church–because there is still a large gap there. “Socializing based on interest” could be applied to Hispanic communities and African-American communities. Wouldn’t it be more powerful to see Cowboy, Biker, African American, Hispanic, Korean, etc. form one community together?
Niches happen naturally, true enough; but should we structure the church to encourage further division by niche?
K. Reux #48,
Much food for thought in that comment. Church should be more like family and less like a business relationship. But that “should be” is the key phrase.
K. Reux48&49, I agree with your conclusion……………….
….and I hear your argument….. perhaps after I fertilize and water my garden I will have this all figured out…….
Thank you DRT & rjs
I’m afraid I went off on a tangent here. I’m gonna have to get Rubel’s book.
In an earlier book (much much earlier The Second Incarnation with Randy Harris) he speaks of the pattern for church being Jesus. I think this is his point. As was stated in the post: Jesus and the Church are both important, but we have to get Jesus first.
Once upon a time the “Holiest of Holies” was reserved only for the high priest and only for one day a year. If memory serves me correctly the high priest was roped to a wooden plank that allowed other priests to pull to him to safety should he be(quite naturally)emotionally overwhelmed before the presence of the Lord.
Today we write books with titles like, “I knew Jesus before he was a Christian… and I liked him better then”.
How discouraging. How profane.
What is holiness, my friends? Are we living holy lives?
Today awaits us. As does tomorrow. How will we measure?
Another thought. Jesus caught fishermen and told them he would make them fishers of men. A bit of an intrinsic business metaphor….
Paul Johnston: I think you’re missing the point.
DRT – ok, I’ll admit that is somewhat of a business metaphor with this exception: there are no inherent consumers in catching fish (one can be a fisherman and not sell the product)–and the metaphor was used only once (don’t use parallel passages!
)–nor was the metaphor used as a description of church.
One could also say the use of agriculture metaphors are business oriented, but I think we’re stretching Jesus’ point beyond recognition in both cases.
DRT, thanks though for your attitude. I appreciate the fact you are not being argumentative. I fear sometimes I come across that way, but that is not my intention.
If you are a guy, let me call you a gentleman. Thanks!
i’m sold on the book. i never would have picked it up because of the title, so i’m glad it was highlighted here. i find comments like that title annoying. it feels like the term “christian” is being abandoned to the dogs to be chewed up. i believe the term should be preserved. it’s our own fault for destroying the term in the first place, so we should be responsible for redeaming it, not discarding it.
however, i do believe part of the process of redeaming the word “christian” is to bring people back to ‘Christ’, which i am guessing is the theme of this book.
also, usually when you hear people talk about Jesus “before Christianity” they are inferring that Jesus did not initiate the church.
K. Reux, Thanks! Yes I am, and assuming you are a man, the same… Have a great holiday.
Andrew #5,
See these and the things they cite:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X07000774
http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/content/72/1/91.abstract
What any other Christian (or, for that matter, any other human being) does is none of my business. I don’t have enough information or understanding to judge anyone, so I’ll leave that to God. My prayer is that everyone knows God and understands the power of His absolute love. This love has nothing at all to do with labels or human endeavors–it has everything to do with life. We have but just begun to scratch the surface of understanding the life that is the main thrust of the Bible. Christ did come so that we might have the life that more abundant than the loss, death, and destruction that the kingdom of evil (aka the thief) has used to attempt to destroy God’s creation (John 10:10). And, as we begin to understand more and as we begin to take our places as sons of God, then Isaiah 25:6-8 will begin to manifest and life will overcome death!
K. Reux, perhaps I am. To be sure I am suspicious of the “point” as it is presented here, in this context and in so many other posts within the blogosphere. Human intellectual deconstruction of God seems to me to be to be at best, the lesser thing and at worst an almost hopeless task. See the Book of Job for details.
It is better I think for us to seek God’s presence so that we might worship Him, give thanks to Him and be infused with the Spirit through Him. How everything changes when one actually considers themselves to be in the real presence of the living God. How the decisions we make that effect our lives and the lives of others change when we feel Christ present within us and present in others.
Whatever our creedal distinctives mere intellectual understanding and assent will not make us holy. Will not make us the kind of Christians the world so desperately needs to encounter.
First, I in Him. Then Him in me. Then we can talk.
Interesting stuff. It reminds me of “The End of Religion” by Bruxy Cavey.
http://www.amazon.com/End-Religion-Encountering-Subversive-Spirituality/dp/1600060676/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306622329&sr=1-1
Paul Johnston,
All I can say is read Rubel’s stuff. He has been a pastor for 40+ years and one who has a deep understanding of the holiness of God and a love for the church (he also is a professor of theology and one time adjunct professor at Vanderbilt Medical School in Nashville).
The last thing Rubel would ever do is make Jesus “profane”. I have visited with him before, heard him speak for years, and read his materials. He certainly would defend the holiness of God. But he has no problem in turning a phrase to stop a person dead in his tracks to make him rethink what he has always thought–and in fact to make a person actually think for himself.
And btw, Rubel is no deconstructionist!