Conservative Jesus, liberal Jesus. Whatever. You can hang the name "Jesus" on anything, but it ain’t necessarily so. You could name your Chihuahua “Jesus”, but that doesn’t make him el salvador del mundo, and I won’t be bowing down to your pooch. Or to your bad religion. Even if you hang a cross on the wall and tell me I must.What’s Jesus got to say about it?
He says the world has plenty of bogus christs. "Men will tell you, 'There he is!' or 'Here he is!' Do not go running off after them. For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. [Luke 17:23-25]
I can feel the eyebrows raising already: Come on, Joe B, that passage is about the “end of the world” or “the rapture”, what's it have to do with anything? Well, if you can set aside your "Left Behind" 3-D glasses for a moment, you may find the key in Jesus’ strange answer in verse 37: "Where, lord?", they asked. He replied, "Where there’s a cadaver, vultures gather."
Naturally, the fellas asked Jesus to get specific: “Where, Lord??” But there is a broader principle in play, one that stretches from Genesis to Revelation, and it cuts right through your life. It's not a matter of "when" or "where".
In verses 26 thru 30 Jesus describes people on the eve of judgment. And they are being normal. Just…being…normal. Then suddenly, but not without warning, God is sorting them out by fire or water or by sword. Jesus warns in verse 30, “It will be just like this in the day the Son of Man is revealed. Nobody should go back inside to save his stuff, or come back home to get anything. Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will save it.”
This fundamental principle of Jesus is not when or where, it's always and everywhere: Where people live the way of flesh, they are just vulture food! And, looking back to Luke 17, we see that such people are prone to invent (or just infer) a bogus Christ. One who justifies them, and who condemns their opponents.
And here too is the seed of the inevitable, carnal tendency to choose up sides, put on matching shirts, and fight it out. We try to be like God, so God is like us. Therefore God is on our side. Therefore your side must be defeated. It is nothing more or less than the collective iteration of not loving your neighbor. It is ambition. It is politics. It is war. It is the evil that Jesus abhors and God avenges. And it is normal.
It also happens to be why I have quit "Church, Inc" forever. I'd rather walk by the spirit on the fringes than bow my knees to a so-called-christ who’s just the mascot of some group’s shared opinions. A christ who affirms us as we slouch, in Jesus' name, down the mortal path of Man: accumulating assets; forging alliances; competing for adherents; inventing rules; enforcing norms; quelling dissenters; excluding nonconformists. In other words, being normal. Being plain old ordinary men of juicy flesh. Whitewashed outside, but full of respectable, normal, 10%-more-righteous-than-your-neighbor bones. The kind of normal that God's vultures eat for lunch on the side of the road. "There is a way that seems right to men, but it ends in death."
Lost souls assure themselves that God is on their side. They cram into churches and jostle to the fore, seeking validation from God, and authority over men. But the people of the spirit move with God, free and powerful as the wind. They participate in God's new creation, expressing faith in Love. Their hearts are siezed with the beautiful revolution of the Kingdom of God.
“If you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you shall live.” [Romans 5:4]
Posts
26 comments:
Does this mean you won't be joining the “Kill a Commie for Christ Crusade?” The one sure way to assure salvation and everlasting life. I pity you bro and I'll pray for you.
You know though if you get any more esoteric or much deeper, you need to send these out with “A Guide to Joe's Mind: Not for the faint hearted” and decompression tables so people don't get the Bends while trying to ride along. Either that or a large yellow warning sign that reads; “Approach with Caution. This may apply to you.”
But why is it that humans are driven to overly complicate the simple while overly simplifying the complicated? I'm thinking that a new Christian Game is in order called; “Build a Theology.” Draw at random any four verse cards and build your own theology while ignoring what the other 135,000 verses have to say. Ooops, my bad, its already been done.
Summary for those of average reading skills: "Ninety percent of Christianity is not Christian. Sevent-five percent is not even close. Twenty-percent is anti-Christ."
Well with much chagrin I lost a response I worked on that I'd hoped would be expressing my concern with the post and ethos of "unchurch" without unduly condeming brothers or sisters in Christ.
The last two paragraphs are "oxymoronic" or contradictory in the sense that the entire ethos and intent of "unchurch" is divisive by saying we are not "church" - by which I mean you are defining yourselves by what you are not and what you are not is "them" which is vaguely those people who are not expressive of your ethos or entirely in agreement and "in your camp." "They" are whomever use any method that you decide is wearing a "corny t-shirt."
It means you are defining yourself by what you are not, which is also unspecific and therefore a non-sequitur or straw man type argument or discussion.
And I would probably say these words describe what I see here-words that I have borrowed from others insight: "And here too [within "unchurch"] is the seed of the inevitable, carnal tendency to choose up sides, put on matching shirts, and fight it out. We try to be like God, so God is like us. Therefore God is on our side. Therefore your side must be defeated. It is nothing more or less than the collective iteration of not loving your neighbor. It is ambition. It is politics. It is war. It is the evil that Jesus abhors and God avenges. And it is normal."
These things on this blog reveal about each of us in unchurch what is also placed upon others as sin or failure to love and obey Jesus: " Being plain old ordinary men of juicy flesh. Whitewashed outside, but full of respectable, normal, 10%-more-righteous-than-your-neighbor bones. The kind of normal that God's vultures eat for lunch on the side of the road. "There is a way that seems right to men, but it ends in death.""
there are many wearing corny tshirts that we will see beside us worshipping at the throne - and whatever sin is theirs and attached to "corny tshirt faith expression in Jesus" will also be without condemnation for those in Christ Jesus just as mine or yours is.
What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this life of death in sin? Thanks be to god through Jesus Christ our lord. At just the right time Christ died for me, the ungodly - while I was still a corny tshirt wearing sinner.
I should note for the record that I have at least two corny t-shirts.
Good, challenging stuff here, Joe.
It is all too easy (and, as you say, all too 'normal') to enlist Jesus in the service of causes of our own choosing. And we do well to keep ourselves as clear as we (sinners that we are) can be on the difference between causes that really are Christ's, and ones that, good though they may (or may not) be, aren't. . .
I know that Anonymous (who writes astonishingly like Joe B) is using the t-shirt thing emblematically, but someone needs to note that the unChurch blurb does not mock corny t-shirts, christian or otherwise. It jabs at a manner of living that trivializes Christ.
"Let not [your adorning be] that of...putting on apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." [1 Pe 3:2-4]
I make note of what I remember...how much I trivialized Christ in my days past. Excuses of being young, takin milk, being worldly obsessed... Those excuses do not take away the reality o how I have wounded in my trivializing...
I just try to cast a simple warning... "Unchurch" ethos and community may be the opposite side of the same coin...if we do not abide... And love him even over these thoughts and expressions... If he calls it's to go where we previously condemned as trivial... Would we go? Or act like Jonah and run away an wonder why he does not destroy...
I'm not sure Joe's expression of his fringe walking is any more faithful obedient or abiding...it can be or also turn into another form of bowing... Our sin is insipid and total...
For those of you who missed it, Anonymous referred to this blurb on the front page of the blog (most vistors link to an article from elsewhere and never see the front page):
"The unChurch is just some people following Jesus together. We are sort of an experiment in faith. Like, what happens if we really do all this Jesus stuff, instead of wearing it around like a corny T-shirt? We call ourselves the unChurch...well, because we are not a church. Our rule is loving one another for real, living in the overlap where heaven and earth meet. "Come thy Kingdom; be done thy will! As in the heaven, so be it on earth!"
This is what Anonymous refers to as "defining ourselves by what we are not."
So Anonymous, could you explain how this defines us by what we are not? You seem to identify yourself with "what we are not", so what is it that you are for that you think we are against?
"The unChurch is just some people following Jesus together. We are sort of an experiment in faith. Like, what happens if we really do all this Jesus stuff, instead of wearing it around like a corny T-shirt? We call ourselves the unChurch...well, because we are not a church. Our rule is loving one another for real, living in the overlap where heaven and earth meet. "Come thy Kingdom; be done thy will! As in the heaven, so be it on earth!"
The entire emphasis is we are not what is out there. "unchurch" - not that church. We are not A church.
We're not corny.
We love and are going to love (implying "unlike them") for real
What we/you write about is not wrong to desire from the body of Christ or confessed followers of Jesus. To be like god was not wrong to desire. To be a people who follow Jesus but are not "that" - not a church. How can that be? I do understand what is being hinted at and what we/you want to not be. No one wants to be the wolves/weeds/goats in the church that Jesus tells parables about.
But...We do..we are...sometimes...
...jesus said to Peter once...get behind me Satan...and then did he start and "unpeter"?
That's what's so magnificent about his love for his church...he still loves the church...
The experiment proposed here is good mixed with what seems a temptation to forget other commands of god/Jesus by separating or saying we are not the church...or a church...instead of loving the church...
Am I the only one who sees something wrong with even using that language to describe or hint at a group of followers of Jesus with leaders/writers listed where we "listen" to their teaching/words and not be a church regardless of the underlying reasons?
That would be...choosing to not be a church...not his bride
The church is his bride... In all the imagery all the ways he loves his people...Despite all their shortcomings...are we the ones that have a right to say "we will love and follow Jesus and experiment with it but not be a church" or endorse the church rather most posts are hinting at loving and following Jesus - all good stuff we desire like a better more faithful church - but i suggest energy on condemnation could be dropped.
Unless you are confident the husband of the bride is calling you to these things.
What is desired - following and being more like Jesus is good - but don't miss the temptation and lie within it that says you can do these things and not in a church or be a church or have a body and love it...and don't miss the damage done to entice people who know forgiveness but are burnt by the church to also say...they are right .. I can follow Jesus on my own...who needs the church?
I speak from my own experience...and maybe this is as much of my own confession from doing what I have done that seems so familiar...
If it does not speak to you than let it pass as chaffe...but I regret my time in my own "unchurch"
Anon, I think you are falsely assuming the people writing these posts don't all "go to church" somewhere. I've spent most of my life in a church building. I'm not calling anyone away from a body of believers.
The ekklesia, *the* church, is made up of people, yes. So yeah, we Jesus-followers ARE each the church, by that definition. True dat. Don't misinterpret what Joe B means when he says he quit "Church, Inc." Perhaps he should clarify.
(And right after he wrote that, I told him someone would misinterpret it.)
Interesting notion of a lap dog named Jesus. It reminds me of a story.
Many people know that Lloyd's of London is a famous insurer. Few people know that it began as Edward Lloyd's Coffee House. It was popular with ship owners, captains, and merchants. These men would make deals among themselves, with the help of enterprising waiters, to share the risks and rewards of their trade. The society of the coffee house became so important to the trade that the most important men purchased seats there, and the waiters became ever more active in brokering deals. Today, Lloyd's only business is insurance. If today you visit the steel and glass tower of Lloyd's of London you will find that the high rolling risk brokers are still called waiters, and you will find coffee and references to coffee all around you. But coffee is not their business. Coffee is a just a ceremonial observance, a memorial of their humble beginnings, a ritual of a deal struck. The name stayed the same; everything else changed.
By the way, Joe, that t-shirt blurb is on every post's page, not just the front page.
Oh. Nevermind.
There is nothing new under the sun...
I tried to allude to the possibility somebody was involved in church here that was not what someone wanted it to be: "Am I the only one who sees something wrong with even using that language to describe or hint at a group of followers of Jesus with leaders/writers listed where we "listen" to their teaching/words and not be a church regardless of the underlying reasons?"
Whatever your relationships you are in, they will say alot. And none of those relationships I know of, so I cannot comment.
But, there are those that referred me here. To read, engage, and think about the lack of need for church, and I know you mean Church, "Inc" by my experience, but do they know what you mean really?
I think that I am well aware of what you are speaking to. But I have found seekers in there wondering and wandering, too. If for only one would you spare it Lord? Yes I believe he would.
And I am charged with being one of some overseers by a body but primarily the spirit of God in that body. Is there "church, inc" I deal with? Yes, there is. But there is more than that, and your sin is potentially no different then their's. You represent as much as what I have to deal with as "church, Inc." The quiet discontent who no longer speak face to face, but speak very loudly in the community and body.
These hidden and subtle expressions make it much more difficult and can be involved in encouraging sheep to scatter to their own ways, where yes some do find a body, but some say they will gather with others, but the end net effect is more often then not just more peer relationships, which are good and needed, but no mentoring, no spiritual mentoring, and no overseers who have walked before them. It is really about submission to authority and wanting to go their own way in something and not be challenged. They abandon the whole thing. Often these actions are taken in result of a pain for them that was not about the "church inc." really, it is about not wanting to submit to truth of some way (love and/or the Bible) and using some excuse like previous "church inc." failure or parents that forced them to church and then divorced and left the church, or even a good man that fails them, like Paul failed in loving John Mark.
There is nothing new under the sun...
Just consider my warning: "'Unchurch' ethos and community may be the opposite side of the same coin. If we do not abide and love him even over these thoughts and expressions, or if he calls us to go where we previously condemned as trivial, would we go? Or act like Jonah and run away and wonder why he does not destroy them."
Absolutely fascinating. An anonymous overseer, appointed by the Lord. If you actually know me, then it is pretty ridiculous to be offering anonymous pastoral counsel. If you do not know me it is even more ridiculous.
I'm proud of the overseers in my church--they are wiser, and I daresay humbler.
Its ironic and illuminating that you would find something sinister in the affirmative, joyful little blurb on this website. It must be a dreary life.
And for the record, Anonymous, "the church", "my church", and "Church, Inc" have all treated me just fine. I've been honored, respected, supported and paid. I am a member of the best church in town where I am honored, respected, and sought out for counsel, despite that my mission is a bit off-center of theirs.
So, go fish!
Joe B, while the situation has an obvious element of humor, some would feel insulted at the word "ridiculous." Remember when you step up on a stump, those throwing tomatoes expect you to receive them humbly and clean your plate. Don't let the juice get in your eyes, but let God search your heart.
Anonymous, I must say that I understand little of your comments. It is clear that you think Joe B is wrong, and that you are right, about...something. So please, without further concern for how it makes you look, kindly state what he is wrong about, and perhaps relate it to the article.
Okay, noble townspeople, continue! A new thread will begin in 24 hours.
This ain't my quarrel, so I hesitate to say anything, but I don't take Anon's comments as any kind of heavy correction of Joe, or 'the unChurch', or anyone else; only a word of caution, and trying to present a (I think he hopes) helpful 'alternative perspective'.
If I'm wrong, or if my attempts at peacemaking are taken more like taking a stick to a hornet's nest, I sincerely apologize. . .
Anonymous is already saying he is just being helpful. But I agree with the guy who said his mind is already cast in the negative. There is a whole series of unnecessary negative assumptions in there, questioning motives from the outset.
He reminds me of the Larry guy, and uses some of the same language. He even misused the term "straw man" like Larry did back about a year ago. (I'll always remember that because I just learned the term in my rhetoric class, and it's the first time I ever hear it outside a classroom.)
My theory is that someone made a test-tube baby using Larry's ecclesiology genes and Elder Child's writing communication genes and Craig's gentle nature.
Buzz, buzz, buzzzz.
Oh. Nevermind.
Someone should ask my kids about my 'gentle nature'. . .
And speaking of which, now I seriously wanna know how anyone got ahold of anything 'clone-able' from me. . .
"But, there are those that referred me here. To read, engage, and...maybe pluck a hair or two outta Craig's nappy head."
I'm tellin' you Craig, we're watching you and we're everywhere!
This response i wrote on the second day this was posted:
Perhaps Anon is right that the unChurch ethic is at war with itself. Perhaps to question anything is divisive, and contrary to the unChcurch ethics of love and unity. But that leaves us in a quandary. Were Jesus and the apostles petty and divisive when they gave us their words? Are we being divisive when recall their words, and exhort men to follow them?
I doubt that Anonymous & Co. would argue overtly that Jesus, Peter, John & Paul are in error, so it appears that his objection is one of legitimacy: Can Joe B legitimately exhort men to obedience to Christ? In other words, it is a personal matter of whether I may legitimately apply level Jesus’ indictment of the Pharisees & Scribes to the charge of the religious leaders of our day.
Unsurprisingly, this is been a continuing issue on The unChurch Blog. I contend in this article that Jesus’ indictments were not merely to teach us that 1st century Jewish leaders were bad people, but to instruct us in what the kingdom of God is not, and how we must not pronounce it.. When today’s religious leaders are guided by the same worldly value-pattern as those past, they are indeed rejecting Jesus, just as surely as the Sanhedrin who sided with Rome against him.
God loves the Church. We are called to love the Church. Does that mean we are called to love the imperial apparatus of the early medieval “church”? Or the colonial apparatus of the early modern church? Or the corporate apparatus of the church of today? No, we are compelled to love the Church, the people who are bound together and quickened as one in the Holy Spirit. If we believe we are called to love their institutions, then we have stumbled at the same point as those who crucified Jesus for saying he said he would raze and raise the Temple. They freaked. They killed him to protect God’s temple from...God himself.
God loves the Church. And he loved the jews of the Temple, did he not? And was not every last stone thrown down? “How often have I longed to gather you, as a mother hen gathers her chicks, but you would not.” So heed the words of Hebrews 2:24: For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first was spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
Call Joe B a disaffected crank who seeks to divide the flock for his own satisfaction. Feel free, you are in good, respectable company. But I suggest you think twice before you cast your lot. Likewise our fathers killed the prophets.
Ever wonder why the prostitutes enter the kingdom ahead of the priests? Maybe this is why.
Ultimately, God decides who is right, and who is dead.
Well said. That almost could have been a post by itself.
I do agree with Anon's mention that churches are full of seekers, wandering and wondering. Even if sometimes we're more stubborn than the wanderers at the neighborhood pub!
And since I neglected to do so earlier, I also wanted to express my head-nodding with Nigel's "Lloyd's of London" story. Excellent comparison.
Why thank you Scott. I'll pass that along to "Nigel".
;-)
I am really sorry and embarassed. I don't know what to do with the tone in which my thoughts were received and the responses.
I'm just really asking your forgiveness bc I must have spoken out of turn or something is amiss. I never meant to disparage anybody specifically though I guess I was "pushing back" in some thoughts of how the blog and all topics were impacting me.
The embarassment of what I hope is a misunderstNding hurts quite a bit the way it was all taken and I guess I'll move on with just asking forgiveness.
Please know Joe that I don't know you and was not responding to the post specifically. I have my own context and my own body of people to try to love and shepherd and wrestle with these things in that and was challenging in ways I have felt challenged.
I don't know who Larry or craig are (or if that's al just a joke) but whoever they are they are innocent of any influence or writing.
Anonymous I will stay as I guess if I ever do meet you or you meet me it is truly not in any of this context or totally forgotten and no names are really known. Besides I just don't feel safe either based on the reactions.
Again, I am sorry.
It's okay Anon! I'm not offended. Nothing wrong with a bit of discussion and debate. No one can tell the tone behind someone's writing, I'm afraid. No reason anyone here needs to take anything personally. Sorry you don't feel safe... Feel free to stick around, as we'd love to have you. If not, I pray you good luck with your church issues!
Post a Comment