In Scot McKnight book The King Jesus Gospel, which I reviewed a little while ago, Scot issued an interesting challenge: “I have always encountered people who boldly announce to me that they are ‘noncredal’ and even say ‘I don’t believe in the creeds’ because of their next words: ‘I believe in the Bible.’ I respond with one question, and I think I ask this question because I too was at one time one of their number: ‘What line or lines in the Nicene Creed do you not believe?’”  He states later in the same paragraph that “there’s nothing there not to believe.”

With the deepest respect to Scot, this post is my response to his question.  In point of fact, I have what I think are several reasonable objections to the Nicene Creed, which I’m going to lay out below.  First of all, here’s the text I’m using.  There are several variants, and I had to pick one, so I went with the version I found at www.reformed.org/documents/nicene.html:

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I’m not going to do a complete line-by-line commentary of the Nicene Creed because it’d get real boring real fast.  I will stipulate, in answer to the objections that I’m sure some will raise, that there is a historical context in which the various clauses of the Nicene Creed (and others) may be more fully understood.  But part of the error in insisting upon the creeds, in my view, is precisely that the creeds are taught in most churches as a thing to be believed and assented to, entirely devoid of their historical context.  In fact, if we looked more frequently at the controversies that were being considered, which influenced various clauses in the creed, I rather suspect more of us might come to the conclusion I have, that some of those old arguments don’t compel us as they compelled the Fathers who fought over them in the third, fourth and fifth centuries.

At any rate, the following paragraphs address my major thoughts or objections.

I believe …

Strange as it may seem, my first objection comes with the very first two words, “I believe.”  I’ve mentioned before that I see the Shema of the Old Testament, quoted by Jesus in Mark 12:29-31 among other places, as one of the best examples of a creed actually in the Bible.  The Shema starts off with a simple declarative statement “The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”  The focus is not the fact that we believe something, it is the reality that there is a God and He is one.  God is God, and God is there, and God is one, regardless of what you, I, or anybody else thinks or believes.  The shift from “there is a God” to “I believe in a God” may seem subtle to some, but to me it implies that the individual’s assent is the important thing.

Furthermore, the Shema goes from declaring that there is one God, to commanding that this God is to be loved as Lord.  The creeds, on the other hand, focus merely on “right thoughts,” that is, giving intellectual assent to the existence and character of God.  This is part of the shift from discipleship to religion against which I’ve argued repeatedly on this blog.

… the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds… (referring to Jesus)

This is not a section I actually take issue with, though I do take issue with the proposition that it matters.  What I mean by this is that this clause, along with the “begotten, not made” clause later, address the issue of Jesus’ pre-creation existence.  While I do see texts in scripture that suggest Jesus did in fact pre-exist creation (not least the first chapter of John, and John 8:58), I don’t know that a dogma of Jesus’ origin, and the timetable of his existence, is something we actually need to care about.  Sure, the biblical evidence suggests these clauses are true (I think).  But I fail to see what difference it makes.  I certainly don’t countenance the Constantinople Council’s anathematization of anyone who disagreed.

… God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God … (referring to Jesus)

I rather suspect that only a tiny fraction of everyone who recites this phrase has any clue what it even means.  I’m not sure I do.  I presume it’s referring in some way to Jesus’ divinity, and the commentaries on it that I find through a quick Google suggest the same, though interestingly I find an alternative translation “God from God, Light from Light” etc., which may even be compatible with the divine-yet-subordinate position that I have previously suggested is a more accurate characterization of what Jesus said about himself–that is, that he comes from, and is therefore distinct from, the Father.  So my objection to this phrase depends on how the speaker interprets it:  if as a classic Trinitarian construction that places Jesus as fully divine and equal to the Father, I object to the content; if rather it’s just something the speaker doesn’t comprehend, I then object to reciting as credal, words that have no meaning to the speaker.

I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life …

It’s in Pneumatology that I really start to take serious issue with the Nicene Creed.  This is one place where this creed goes far beyond its antecedent Apostles’ Creed, which merely stated “I believe in the Holy Spirit,” full-stop, with no qualification or theorizing.  Whatever the Holy Spirit is or is not (and on this I have previously written), I can think of no place in the Scriptures where the Holy Spirit is referred to as Lord, and “Giver of Life” is mis-attributed altogether.  The two texts to which I would point for this latter would be Genesis 2:7 and its beautiful New Testament mirror in John 20:22.  In Genesis it is God the Father who breathes the breath of life into man (“breath” and “spirit” are synonyms in Greek and, I’m told, in Hebrew too), and in John it is Jesus who breathes the Holy Spirit onto the disciples, initiating or symbolizing their new life in the new Kingdom.  The Spirit is, if anything, the life that is given, not its giver.

… who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified … (referring to the Holy Spirit)

I can find no place in the Scripture that admonishes or commands anyone to worship the Holy Spirit, nor states that the Spirit is glorified.  Nor can I think of any reference to people doing so.  The Breath of God is, as I wrote before, the tangible and very active presence of God working and speaking in the world, but it is never an object of worship.

There is more, I am sure, to be said, and this post is more of an opening for dialog than anything definitive.  Nevertheless each of the above objections is, I believe, a reasonable point to challenge the Nicea crowd for going beyond what is written in some rather substantial ways.

There remain areas where, while I say it differently, I do believe things that are substantially similar to the statements of the great creeds.  I illustrated as much in my post What IS a Christian, Anyway? I’m not saying the creeds are all wrong, but I do hold that emphasizing them is most assuredly wrong.  As Tom Wright stated in a recent lecture at Calvin College, “It is possible to check the credal boxes, and miss the larger reality to which they are the signposts.”  More than that, I would say without reservation that the Nicene Creed includes several boxes that ought not to be checked at all.

The concept and ideas around heaven is one of things that has been hijacked and subverted from its original understanding. I once heard N.T Wright eloquently say it like this: “heaven is great but its not the end of the world.”

Unfortunately most Christians believe that heaven is simply a destination and that death then heaven is what eternal life means. Of course there is something eternal to this thing we call life but the more profound understanding comes when we realize that an eternal kind of life is meant to be started right now in the here and now while we live on this earth.

When we begin to strive to live today as if all was right in the world as God originally intended, it is as if our veil is lifted and we see this world differently. This theme fits nicely into the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven reality. If only Christians would be taught more often what it looks like to be used a vessel to usher in heaven into the here and now. This I believe will be the challenge to the church over the next decade and longer.

The church has focused so much on the inner transformation that it has forgotten how to pair that vision with the transformation of the world vision as well. For some strange reason God has chosen to use his people to re-build his Kingdom on earth as it is heaven. Jesus was the first fruits of this vision and now it has been extended to his people through the profound presence of God’s Holy Breath (AKA Spirit).

I love how N.T Wright articulates this in that through Jesus God became King. When you pair that profound way at looking at how the heavenly realm and earthly realm are working toward becoming one with the Christus Victor view of the cross, you end up with a Kingdom citizens vision and mission. Loosely, to not just be recipients of new creation but to be agents of it as well. We are of course to shape ourselves into living an eternal kind of life now but we are too also look for places where the powers have strongholds and through prayer, sacrificial love, non-violence, etc tear down those strongholds and re-claim for the Kingdom what the powers have taken on this earth.

Shockingly in all of those battles Jesus has already won. All we have to do is remind the powers that they lost and send them packing. Because we are image bearers it will be our physical work and words / prayers that will accomplish this feat.

I want to end this post with an image and some reflections on it.

I have to say this image makes an interesting point. Of course it is entirely a generalization and deeply flawed, however, if the Church and God’s people were being loyal to their calling as also being agents of new creation, I believe the words describing Christians would be as follows.

Christian:
Takes care of the sick
Cares for widows and orphans
Advocates for the poor and those on the underside of power
Brings food to the hungry
Brings water to the thirsty
Provides shelter for homeless
……

And many more things rooted in sacrificial love. Believe it or not that list above, and more, is actually what I consider “evangelism.”

Grace and Peace.

Tom (N.T.) Wright recently gave a lecture at Calvin College that I appreciated very much.  In it, he drew attention to an important issue I’ve written about here before: the over-simplification of faithfulness to Christ that takes place when creeds and statements of faith occupy a central position.  I know my own position is more extreme than Wright’s…he suggests putting the creeds in their rightful place while I suggest that the creeds themselves are part of the problem.  In context he still “loves” the creeds, while I accept the Apostle’s Creed as true though incomplete, and consider the Nicene Creed to be partially in error (a topic I intend to address in detail soon).  Nevertheless, I found Tom’s lecture to be refreshing in the extreme and I heartily commend it to you all.  You can read a bit of the background here.  The full audio of the one-hour lecture is also downloadable and though I usually don’t post podcasts, this is well worth a listen.

To whet your appetite, I transcribed one of the most salient (to me) passages which occurs between 8:20 and 10:34 in the audio:

The creeds were drafted in order to highlight points on which the church resolved major difficulties. But when the creeds began to be used as a teaching syllabus (as they often are to this day), then the problem begins, because of course the creeds jump straight from Jesus’ birth to his death … and I have a mental image at that point, of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John standing there saying ‘Excuse me, we spent a lot of time and effort telling you about all that stuff in between, and you just skip over it?  What’s that about?’

Now, I have nothing against the great creeds.  I love them, and I say them or sing them ex animo.  But they have accidentally encouraged—or the way they have been used has accidentally encouraged—a reading of the New Testament in which the main body of the four Gospels is not theologically load-bearing.  For many Christians, it would have been quite sufficient if Jesus of Nazareth had been born of a virgin, died on a cross, and never done anything in between except, perhaps, lived a sinless life.

The four Gospels then, function for many as the dispensible back story for the Gospel as preached by Paul … this is the de facto position of many Protestants and many Evangelicals—many conservative Evangelicals—the irony being, of course, that it’s the exact same position as that of Rudolph Bultman, with the only difference being that Bultman thought most of the stories were pious fictions.  But the reason why most Evangelicals would differ is not that the stories are doing anything theologically, in themselves, but simply to shore up a view of the inspiration of Scripture.  Not for the only time, swaths of Evangelicals are more anxious to protect a theory of Scripture, than to hear what Scripture actually says.

And toward the end, one more excellent quote (55:40 in the audio):

We have substituted the static belief in Jesus’ divinity for the active belief in what the Incarnate Son was actually doing.  It is possible to check the credal boxes, and miss the larger reality to which they are the signposts.

There’s much more to hear.  Take your time and give it a listen!

On Facebook recently I shared an article by Rachel Held Evans on Facebook. It was a great article with a simple desire to point out that asking tough questions about the text is not a slippery slope to faith abandonment.

The sharing of this article sparked a dialogue both online and offline with a number of people which got me thinking and led to the title of this post. I may not be in the same camp on a number of theological issues as much as mainstream evangelicalism. That is one of the reasons I have no problem labeling myself as a non-evangelical and stating that I resonate with different faith traditions more than evangelicalism. Although I ask the tough questions about the text and have come to some different conclusions, I can boldly say I have very good, well thought out, exegetically honest, and communally vetted conclusions.

So why do I bring this up in the first place? Because I have gotten the sense through the years, from those who question where I have landed, that they seem to think that I don’t accept the stock answers because I am stubborn, rebellious or perhaps something worse. I get the sense some think I reject the standard issues just because. I have never gotten the sense from any of the more controversial conversations on controversial subjects that I may actually have deeply researched my conclusion. It seems they assume I have not, yet they have and that is why they are right and I am wrong. When in all actuality nothing can be farther from the truth.

As much as it shocks me to think about this reality, I happen to be a public authority and noted thought leader in the technology industry. This position has earned me a spot as one of the few technology columnists for a number of publications including TIME.com. I speak regularly to captains and leaders of industry at CEO summits, industry trade shows, and many other public and private forums as an authority / expert within my field of knowledge. To accomplish something like this one does not formulate opinions or expertise without deeply researching, analyzing, and vetting ideas in order to make conclusions that I do. I would approach conclusions made to my faith with no less diligence than I do in my professional practice.

This is why I titled this post the way I did. I have finally reached a point in vetting my beliefs and working out my salvation if you will where I am absolutely confident in the areas that for me are black and white (there are still grey areas). I know where I stand on many issues, I know why I stand there, and I can back it up with sound plausible exegesis.

It wasn’t easy and I have been fortunate to have access to noted biblical scholars, heads of noted theology schools, as well as read most of the major scholarly works from a wide range of scholars from a wide range of faith traditions. This journey started when I was 27 and I am now 33. That is how long it took for me and for many it probably takes longer.

I realize for many of those I engage with debate and conversation with, that they have as well vetted and rigorously wrestled with these issues and come out on a different side. I respect that wholeheartedly and in most cases can see where they are coming from. I value their efforts and their convictions and have no problem to agree to disagree and go build the Kingdom together.

With many of my answers to some of the tougher and perhaps more controversial questions about the text it is important to note the vast diversity which is the Christian tradition. If you only explore answers to questions within the very short and heavily Calvin based history of evangelicalism then you are missing the bigger picture.

For many Christians the questions that pop out in my mind about many biblical issues may never come up or they don’t matter as much to them to answer as they do to me. I am OK with that and I fully acknowledge that reality. The truth is not everyone thinks like me and that is OK. This journey is still going as there are still matters that lie in tension, in a good way, in my brain. But there is a peace in confidently knowing not only what you believe but why you believe it.

On her blog, Rachel Held Evans has just issued a challenge to Christian men, to respond to John Piper’s recent pontifications on God’s having given Christianity “a masculine feel.” I suppose it will come as no surprise to most of my readers that I take neither a conventional “egalitarian” nor “complementarian” approach to the issue.

Rachel is absolutely right to call Piper out on this. My own first reaction to the suggestion of a “masculine Christianity” is basically one of “eeewww!” To be fair, what Piper actually suggests might characterize such a faith doesn’t sound so far off:

“When I say masculine Christianity or masculine ministry or Christianity with a masculine feel, here’s what I mean: Theology and church and mission are marked by an overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus.”

Interestingly, I rather suspect that if we were to remove the word “male” modifying “leadership” in that paragraph, few readers would find much objectionable in Piper’s description of leadership. This is an important thing to consider. I submit the problem is fundamentally that we have badly misunderstood both gender and leadership as Jesus (and even Paul) taught them, and hence are objecting to all the wrong things. Seriously, what is particularly masculine about “tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice?” I personally know men and women who do, and others who most decidedly do not, exhibit all those characteristics.

Frankly, I’m getting more than a little fed up with the repeated drumbeat of observing “male” or “female” characteristics in God, or in ourselves for that matter. I’m a daddy, it has always given me great joy to embrace and kiss and hold my kids. I could never breastfeed them, obviously, but when our youngest couldn’t nurse, I fed him–and wept many tears over him–while my wife pumped what I would then feed him. Was I getting in touch with “my feminine side” as I did this? Hell no! I was lovingly caring for my son and my wife! I resent the implication that tenderness is uniquely feminine, or the converse that strength is uniquely masculine.

Egalitarians have, in my opinion, been far too acquiescent to these sloppy definitions of gender. Each time one calls out the Pipers and the Driscolls of the church by pointing out “feminine” traits in God, they are tacitly granting these harmful distinctions in gender character (but see my parenthetical comment at the end).

The second key issue I take with this debate is with our definition of leadership in the church. Conservative church leaders insist that pastors, and particularly the “senior pastor,” must be male. Egalitarians object that women are also gifted in the same qualities and should be able to participate in these offices. Neither considers the possibility that the authoritarian structure that is the modern pastorate might itself be unbiblical!

I can think of no better illustration of my point than a passage that is often held up as a prime exhibit of the apostle Paul’s presumed mysogynism…1 Cor. 11:2-16. The common reading of this passage sees all the language that can be interpreted to demean or control women. I’m not going to get into that here. What I want to point out, is verse 5, completely ignored by most it seems, in which Paul doesn’t even question the reality that women are praying and prophesying! One can argue, as I’ve heard before, that prayer is private, but there’s no such thing as private prophecy. Add the record of Philip’s four prophetess daughters (Acts 21:9), and the story of Priscilla and Aquilla (a husband-wife team who schooled Apollos in theology…and Priscilla’s name comes first every time!), and it’s pretty clear that the New Testament church heard plenty from women as well as men.

What we do not find in the New Testament record, is individual church leaders invested with unaccountable, unquestionable authority.  In contrast, throughout Jesus’ ministry we find repeated efforts on Jesus’ part, to disabuse his apostles of the notion they should rule each other or anybody else. In fact, most references throughout Acts and the Epistles to pastors, teachers, apostles, deacons, prophets, or any other function in the church are in the plural.  1 Cor. 12:7 (to each one) and 1 Cor 14:26 (each one contributes) are only two examples of many showing us that the body ought to hear from each other, not merely from a limited cabal of ordained leadership.

So my appeal is that we not correct error with error. The autocratic style of leadership exhibited by male church leaders will not be fixed by simply adding women to the ranks of the autocracy. It will only be repaired when we rediscover the real meaning of Ephesians 5:21 and we all submit ourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ.

One final parenthetical comment.  I remain troubled by the trend among some, while rightly objecting to the male-centric theology that has inhabited the church for too long, to refer to God in female terminology.  This is not least because it seems to me to tilt toward ancient idolatries of goddess worship.  Atheist wags have said in the past that “man created god(s) in his image,” and the gods so created were a pretty disgusting bunch.  No less the goddesses, many of whom demanded various perversions such as human sacrifice, temple prostitution, and other sexual and fertility rites that have been rightly blasted by the prophets throughout the ages.  Feminized idolatry is no less reprehensible than the male version.

Though I am by no means a verbal-inspiration fundamentalist, I do think that God has consistently revealed his character throughout the ages (and in many different cultures) using masculine terminology.  As I pointed out above, the perversion of the concepts of masculine and feminine within our theology and our culture do not change this.  Certainly, whatever the use of male terminology with reference to God may mean, it does NOT carry a sexual component, and any claim to the contrary is blasphemous.  But replacing it with female terminology is, in my view, one of many forms of remaking God in the image of modern humanity instead of the older and more benighted version.  Biblical Christianity deserves better.

Scot McKnight’s latest book The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited, is a worthwhile read and I commend it to all who believe that the message of Jesus is, can be, or ought to be genuinely “good news.”  McKnight has done an excellent job of analyzing what Jesus and the first-century Apostles meant when they spoke of the “gospel” (gospel being derived from the old English godspel or “good news,” is equivalent to the Greek εὐαγγέλιον “euangelion” from which we also get our English words “evangelize” and “evangelism”).  Before I complete this review I’ll examine a significant issue where I think Scot missed the boat, but this is a place for extension of the dialog, and does not in any way temper my recommendation of the book.

The King Jesus Gospel sets out to answer what in my view may be the most breathtakingly misguided question ever asked in modern Christendom.  As McKnight tells it, “John Piper…at a big conference in April of 2010 asked this question: ‘Did Jesus preach Paul’s gospel?’”  Scot’s more charitable than I would be.  He states that he “would defend the legitimacy of Piper’s question,” based as it is on the notion that Paul’s gospel is essentially the doctrine of justification by faith, and that’s not a topic upon which Jesus seems to have spent much (if any) time. Obviously (and I’m sure Piper would agree) any biblical “gospel” must rest entirely on Jesus, and that most certainly includes the “gospel” of justification by faith.  The mere suggestion that Jesus, who himself IS the gospel, might not have preached the gospel, blows my mind.

But I digress.  While McKnight is kinder to Piper’s question than I would be, he quite properly points out that such a question suggests that our very definition of “gospel” may need reexamination.  I absolutely agree with his statement:  “When we can find hardly any instances of our favorite theological category in the whole of the four Gospels, we need to be wary of how important our own interpretations and theological favorites are.”

So what is “the Gospel?”  McKnight goes into a detailed–and, I think, entirely correct–study of the church’s use of the term “gospel.”  His approach is best defined, I think, in his own words:

I want now to make a stinging accusation.  In this book I will be contending firmly that we evangelicals (as a whole) are not really “evangelical” in the sense of the apostolic gospel, but instead we are soterians.  Here’s why I say we are more soterian than evangelical: we evangelicals (mistakenly) equate the word gospel with the word salvation.  Hence, we are really “salvationists.”  When we evangelicals see the word gospel, our instinct is to think (personal) “salvation.”  We are wired this way.  But these two words don’t mean the same thing…(p. 29)

(note for those who don’t play with Greek…”soterian” comes from the Greek σωτῆρ “soter” which means “savior”.  That is, a “soterian” is one who preaches–or emphasizes–salvation)

In this point, Scot is solidly on track.  I have before suggested that salvation gets too much focus within the Christian message…not because salvation is irrelevant or incorrect, but because it’s not the main event in God’s story.  He then spends a significant and important portion of the book refocusing the “good news” preached by both Jesus and the Apostles (as related in Acts), within the story of God’s redemptive work through Israel, and eventually, beyond Israel to the world.  Jesus, according to his own preaching and later that of Peter and Paul, is the culmination of all that God was doing through the nation of Israel up to that point in history.  When Jesus declared the Kingdom of God, he was declaring “good news” on a myriad of levels, of which salvation from sins was definitely one, but only one and not necessarily the greatest.  There was (is) a new king on the throne…the one God promised for ages past.  If that’s not good news, what on earth could be?  (for more on this, see my advent meditation on Jesus’ announcement of Jubilee).  One more quote of note:

My summary point of comparison: gospeling declares that Jesus is that rightful Lord, gospeling summons people to turn from their idols to worship and live under that Lord who saves, and gospeling actually puts us in the co-mediating and co-ruling tasks under our Lord Jesus.  When we reduce the gospel to only personal salvation, as soterians are tempted to do, we tear the fabric out of the Story of the Bible and we cease even needing the Bible.  I don’t know of any other way to put it. (p. 142)

There is much more to glean in the pages of Scot’s book, not least as he discusses the methods by which Christians over time, have attempted to persuade others to consider and accept the claims of Jesus (hint, it hasn’t always been about hell).  Without getting into all of it here, let me commend his perspective to you as well worthy of consideration.  In short, it’s worth looking at how the Apostles evangelized, and contrasting it to the sales pitches we adopt today.

But I want to turn to one area in particular where I part ways fairly substantially with McKnight’s arguments, and that is the credence he gives to the church fathers.  Fairly early in his book (chapter 5), Scot makes the argument that the early church creeds, in particular the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, are a direct outgrowth of, and a faithful characterization of, the gospel Jesus and the Apostles preached.  He states directly that the creeds are “an articulation” of Paul’s gospel summary in 1 Corinthians 15, and even that “…denial of the creeds is tantamount to denying the gospel itself because what the creeds seek to do is bring out what is already in the Bible’s gospel.” (emphasis in original)

McKnight returns to this notion in Chapter 10 “Creating a Gospel Culture” when he suggests that following a traditional church calendar can focus the church on a fuller view of the gospel than that embodied by soterians.  He may be onto something when he says that “focusing on these events in their theological and biblical contexts… [will expose the church] …every year to the whole gospel, to the whole Story of Israel coming to its saving completion in the Story of Jesus.”  He continues later to advocate knowing “our creeds,” because “the wisdom of the church is on the side of the value of creeds and confessions of the faith.”

I’ve disagreed with Scot on this before.  In fact, though I doubt he’d remember me, I engaged him a bit on his own Jesus Creed blog a couple years back when he did a series on the historical heresies of the early church.  My point then, which remains a concern today, is that he seems to have given the 3rd- and 4th-century “church fathers” a complete pass from critical examination.  This is unfortunate, as I believe it is precisely in those periods, and in the creation of the creeds themselves, that the seeds of this entire misapprehension of the gospel has its ultimate roots.  Go back and take a look at the actual text of either of the Apostles’ or Nicene creeds (Google is your friend…there are lots of sources).  What’s the operative declaration in every phrase? I believe.  It’s a propositional issue.  Discipleship is at best implicit, though even to say that is being generous.

Look again at what is being stated that one must believe.  God’s nature, Jesus’ origin, his suffering, death, burial, resurrection.  All important stuff, and to deny it is certainly to be talking something other than Jesus’ gospel.  But the whole “Story” that Scot does such a good job of describing in the rest of his book is completely absent from either the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed.  The Nicene Creed even says that Jesus’ incarnation was “for us men and for our salvation,” a soterian statement if I have ever encountered one.  If he’s right (and I think he is) that the soterian message overtook the gospel in error, then the creeds were (and are) part of the problem, not the solution!  It is precisely the reduction of discipleship to a set of propositions to be believed, that is the very essence of the creeds.  It may have taken a while to get from the Nicene Creed to the Four Spiritual Laws, but the arc was inevitable.

So while McKnight has done an outstanding job of characterizing certain of the symptoms of a deep malady within today’s Evangelical church, I think he’s stopped short of the roots of that malady.  Those roots, I would submit, are firmly embedded in the power struggles of the third and fourth centuries (possibly earlier), and in the whole process that took the Way of following God’s anointed King and reduced it to a “religion” filled with propositions to be “believed.”  Here, at last, the Gospel must be rescued from the religion that has for so long held it captive.  Scot gets us on the road, and for that, his book is worth the purchase and the reading.  I hope we all go further.

(The following is a lesson I taught for our Advent series at my church Dec. 18th)

When Jesus announced the beginning of his ministry, the first prophetic reference he made was to the book of Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn;
to grant to those who mourn in Zion—
to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.
They shall build up the ancient ruins;
they shall raise up the former devastations;
they shall repair the ruined cities,
the devastations of many generations.
Strangers shall stand and tend your flocks;
foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers;
but you shall be called the priests of the LORD;
they shall speak of you as the ministers of our God;
you shall eat the wealth of the nations,
and in their glory you shall boast.
Instead of your shame there shall be a double portion;
instead of dishonor they shall rejoice in their lot;
therefore in their land they shall possess a double portion;
they shall have everlasting joy.

For I the LORD love justice;
I hate robbery and wrong;
I will faithfully give them their recompense,
and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
Their offspring shall be known among the nations,
and their descendants in the midst of the peoples;
all who see them shall acknowledge them,
that they are an offspring the LORD has blessed. (Isaiah 61:1-9)

So reads the prophecy in Isaiah.  Now take a look at how Jesus quoted it:

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read.  And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:16-21)

Jesus Proclaimed Who He Was

The first important thing to recognize is that by appropriating this passage from Isaiah, Jesus was making an unmistakable declaration.  The word translated “anointed” in the Isaiah passage is the Hebrew מָשַׁח֩, which I’ve seen transliterated as either “masah” or “mashach” (sorry, I have to depend on others for the Hebrew as I’ve never studied it).  The Greek word for “anointed,” in both the Septuagint Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, is ἔχρισέν, “echrisen.”  It doesn’t take much squinting to see (correctly) that we get our English words “Messiah” and “Christ” from those two words.  It’s a simple realization, perhaps, but when Jesus states in Luke 4:21 that “today this Scripture has been fulfilled,” he is making an unequivocal claim to being Israel’s Messiah…the Anointed King.  This is not just a label that others laid on Jesus…according to the gospel of Luke it’s a title he claimed for himself from the beginning of his ministry.

Jesus Also Proclaimed Who He Wasn’t

Things get interesting when we compare the Luke and Isaiah passages.  Take a look at them side by side, and at first one would think Jesus was simply quoting Isaiah 61:1-2 with the bits slightly rearranged…but then we notice a glaring “omission.”  He completely left out “the day of vengeance of our God.”  As if that wasn’t “bad” enough, read the rest of the story in Luke 4:22-30.  Jesus’ claim of Messiahship was warmly received at first (v. 23), but then Jesus went on to foretell that his hometown folks were going to be unhappy with him for not doing more for them.  He even had the gall to point out two specific instances in which Gentiles received miraculous intervention from God to the direct exclusion of needy Israelites (v. 25-27).

An uncomfortable element of Jesus’ message was also unmistakeable:  The Messiah you are looking for is not the Messiah you’re getting.  The Messianic passage in Isaiah 61 looks like a restoration of the kingdom of Israel, complete with God’s vengeance (v. 2), the restoration of destroyed ruins (v. 4), foreigners serving Israel (v. 5), Israel serving God as priests (v. 6), and the world finally acknowledging Israel’s greatness (v. 9).  But not only did Jesus leave out all of that, he explicitly told of Gentiles getting blessings that his hearers would have expected to be reserved for Jews.  No wonder the crowd tried, for the first of many times, to kill him!  Jesus was spoiling all their restorationist, exclusionary dreams!

Jesus Announced His Purpose

In selecting from the first two verses of Isaiah 61, Jesus gave his hearers a master plan of the work he was sent to do:

• Preach good news (Greek “evangelize”) to the poor
• Proclaim liberty to the captives
• Proclaim sight to the blind (Septuagint; Hebrew scripture “release from bondage”)
• Liberation of the oppressed
• Proclaim the “Year of the LORD’s favor”

Although the order varies between Luke’s account and Isaiah’s original, the combination of these elements occurs in both places, and we can see in these elements a powerful theme.  If Isaiah and Jesus had only mentioned liberty to captives and those who are oppressed, and maybe even the release from bondage part, then the notion of God’s Anointed One coming to throw off Roman rule and lead Israel to political greatness, might even make sense.  But taking all five of Jesus’ bullet points, and particularly the “Year of the LORD’s favor” reveals a decidedly different focus.  Though he was not blowing a trumpet, Jesus was announcing that God’s Jubilee had finally arrived.

Jubilee and God’s Economics

Jubilee is a concept we don’t think about too much.  We Christians like to talk a lot about the parts of the Jewish Law that provided for atonement (though we usually get those wrong too in my opinion), and we occasionally look at the more arcane bits about sexuality or ritual purity, but the economics of ancient Jewish law aren’t often examined.  They should be.  The two key passages for understanding Jubilee economics are Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15.  Let’s have a look, starting with Lev. 25:1-7.  In this section we learn that God declared a seventh-year “Sabbath year” in which the land and the vines are to be given rest and neither cultivated nor harvested.  The practical implications of this are teased out in Lev. 25:18-22, in which God promises a bumper crop in the sixth year, enough to sustain the people through the seventh year and up till the harvest of the eighth year.

Deuteronomy 15:1-11 adds to the provisions for the Sabbath year:  “At the end of every seventh year you shall grant a release” (sound familiar?).  The release described in Deuteronomy is a cancellation of monetary debts, particularly any loan to “a brother who becomes poor.”  Deut. 15:12-18 further provides that in the the Sabbath year any Hebrew debtor slave must be released (in other words, it was not so much slavery but rather indentured servitude which was permitted for economic reasons).  “Good news to the poor” indeed!

Back to Leviticus 25:8-17.  Here we have the introduction of the Year of Jubilee itself.  The “sabbath of sabbaths” is to follow on the fiftieth year…a special year of Jubilee in which even land must return to its family owners.  Not all real estate, as Lev. 25:29-31 states that a house in a walled city is not subject to Jubilee release; however the means of production (that is, agricultural land) and homes in rural areas were to return to their familial owners.  As Lev. 25:15-17 makes clear, it is not productive land, but rather potential crop-years, that may be sold in the rural areas.

Jubilee and the Sabbath years were not merely occasional interruptions on the calendar, as the latter part of the chapter makes abundantly clear.  In Lev. 25:35-42, Israelites are commanded to care for their poor brethren.  Though there are a variety of provisions, the most stunning is v. 36-37:  Take no interest from him or profit, but fear your God, that your brother may live beside you.  You shall not lend him your money at interest, nor give him your food for profit (see also Deut. 23:19 and Exod. 22:25).  In powerful counterpoint to the economics by which we live, in God’s economy the poor are not an acceptable profit center.  Period!

It is of course a cause of some concern to many readers, and was deeply abused in our own country, that the Levitical law does provide for slavery of non-Hebrews.  A closer examination of these provisions is still worthwhile.  Lev. 25:42 explains why Hebrews could not be enslaved:  because God himself had already bought them (or redeemed them, see Deut. 15:15) from Egypt.  And this is where Jesus’ extending the “good news” of Jubilee to the Gentiles comes into play:  Now that God through Jesus has redeemed all of humanity, there are no longer any “strangers and aliens” available to be enslaved.  In Jesus, all of humanity has been purchased by God and is no longer for sale to anyone else!

Tragically, most of the provisions of God’s law of Jubilee may never have been practiced.  We certainly have no record in any Biblical account of a year of release–Sabbath or Jubilee–ever happening.  A few rabbinical websites I’ve been able to find do describe the way of counting the Jubilee year and imply that some elements may in fact have been practiced, though as this site explains, rabbis and Talmudic scholars seem to agree that the land provisions of Jubilee only apply in the land of Israel proper, and that none of it now applies since the majority of Jews do not live in Israel.  We do know that there was at least some historical awareness of the prohibition of interest, since more than once the people of Israel are criticized by the prophets for charging interest of their brethren (see Neh. 5:10, Prov. 28:8, Ezek. 18:8-13 and Ezek. 22:12).

Part of why much of this law may never have been practiced is a harsh reality:  actually doing Jubilee is not practical…in fact, absent God’s provision it’s economic suicide.  That’s why the promise of provision in Lev. 25:18-22 is so crucial.  Jubilee is impossible except by depending upon God to keep his word.  And it’s much harder for most of us to “have faith” in God when it comes to our homes and our stomachs than it is for something as amorphous as our “souls.”  ‘Twas ever thus, I suspect.

Recognizing Jesus’ Jubilee Kingdom

Any good Evangelical can tell you that the Law has been fulfilled in Jesus the Anointed One (Messiah/Christ).  What we are far less likely to recognize is that the Kingdom Jesus declared is not devoid of laws.  These laws aren’t the way we are “saved” (though that question isn’t as relevant as it is often preached), but there is nonetheless a character and conduct expected of Jesus’ subjects, quite different from that of the world in which we live.  In his declaration of Jubilee, I believe Jesus aligned himself and his followers firmly with the testimony of Moses and the prophets for thousands of years before:  there is a radical, decidedly material, economic component to living in his Kingdom.

I can’t describe with certainty what this economic component ought to look like.  That’s something that needs to be worked out with prayer and much dialog within the local body of believers.  But I think we can glean some universal truths that must be part of Jesus’ economy:

1. God’s people are to see the poor as the objects of God’s particular concern and love, and to use our abundance to help them.  There is nothing wrong with business in God’s economy, but Jubilee Christians may not conduct business whose profit is derived from the poverty of others.  (for more on this you may want to check out my post Would Jesus Occupy Wall Street?)
2. Most of us are no longer farmers, so it’s harder to think what the sabbath of the land might look like.  I do think it suggests a balance to the notion popular among some, that when God granted humanity “dominion” over the earth, he gave us a blank check to exploit it for all it’s worth.  Rather, trusting in God to provide our needs, we should be gentle in our use and stewardship of the natural resources with which we’ve been entrusted, and learn to let those resources have a rest from time to time.
3. We do not live in a place with hereditary land ownership as Israel did.  But within the seven-year debt forgiveness cycle and the fifty-year land return cycle, I see a general principle that the aggregation of wealth must have limits.  Both the poor and the rich need some sort of periodic reset button to prevent the permanent marginalization of some and the permanent aggrandizement of others.
4. Bondage comes in many forms.  We Christians like to concentrate on spiritual bondage, and it’s a real thing…not for one moment do I mean to minimize it.  But there’s still real physical slavery in this world (check out this post and the links on it for just a few examples), and we ought to be doing everything in our power to fight it.  There are also many who are in bondage precisely because of their economic poverty.  We need to look closely at how our lifestyles may add to (or at least enable) that bondage, and what we can do to proclaim liberty to the captives, whatever form their captivity may take.

Luke 19:1-9 gives us an interesting insight into what Jubilee can look like.  This is the story of when Jesus went to the home of wealthy tax collector Zaccheus.  Ol’ Zach must have really gotten smitten by the notion of Jesus kingdom, as his response to Jesus was to give away half of everything he owned, and to pay quadruple damages to anyone he’d ever wronged.  That, my friends, is Jubilee in action!

Jubilee is as radical an idea today as it was in Moses’ time, and in Jesus’.  Spiritual, yes in some ways, but with a nuts-and-bolts practical application that we cannot ignore.  God has always had a different economy than the world’s.  God’s people have rarely, if ever, trusted him enough to follow it.  But just maybe, this is part of what Jesus meant when he said:

Seek first the Kingdom of God, and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.  (Matt. 6:33)

May we welcome the advent of Jesus Christ not just with Christmas bells, but with the ram’s horn of Jubilee!  The Kingdom of God is at hand!

“The poor you will always have with you…”  So said Jesus according to the accounts of three of the four Gospel writers (Matt. 26:11, Mark 14:7, and John 12:8).  He said it in the context of someone objecting to a woman pouring perfume on his feet, when the value could have been given to the poor.  (aside…Matthew says the disciples objected and doesn’t identify the woman; Mark identifies neither; John identifies the woman as Mary, sister of Lazarus & Martha, and the objector as Judas Iscariot).

Anyhow, I have run across this verse abused by conservative Christians, who were objecting to liberal Christians’ attempts to actually fight poverty, particularly using political means.  The argument seems to go something to the effect that if Jesus said we’d never get rid of the poor, it’s foolish for the liberals to try.  Of course that’s specious; Jesus finished that very sentence by saying “and whenever you want, you can do good for them.”

But I just discovered something that I had never noticed before.  Jesus wasn’t just making a random commentary about life when he said “the poor you will always have with you.”  I didn’t realize this, but he was quite probably referring to the Law of Moses…specifically Deut. 15:11:

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

Whoa, what’s that?  Because there will always be poor, God always expects his people to be generous to the poor!  Not because we can ever “cure” poverty, though the reset-buttons of the Sabbath Year and Jubilee would certainly reduce the generational effect of poverty (see Deut. 15:1 and Lev. 25).  But no, the reason we are to treat the poor with kindness is in verse 10:

You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake.

Hmm…how’s that for an economic stimulus plan?

Although I read Love Wins back when it first came out, I have recently wanted to see and experience the enhanced E-book version that includes video and a study guide. That’s not the point of this post, what I would like to focus on is more on the thread of Rob Bell thrashing and a common theme he is hit with in God’s wrath.

As I started looking at the enhanced ebook options I started again looking at the reviews. I was hoping the reviews would talk about the new video and the study guide but instead, as to be expected, much of the reviews were around how wrong Rob Bell is. On that topic what many many people keep going back to is the reality of God’s wrath. That biblical reality is what is used to make the claim that God’s wrath means damned to hell.

Now, not getting in and going deep on whether or not there is a hell I would rather try and present a way of understanding God’s wrath. Let’s take for example this verse which gets thrown in Rob’s face frequently.

John 3:36: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

Establishing a baseline of eternal life. John 10:10b I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. When Jesus said that I don’t believe the bible supports the idea that He only meant life in the future in heaven. Rather I think Jesus was saying eternal life can start right now.

Now eternal life starting now, here on earth, as a bench line let us look at John 3:36′s statement on wrath.

If eternal life starts now and I can start living an eternal kind of life while here on earth, as a human being, truly embracing my humanity and my image-bearingness in the present, then what if God’s wrath is simply the opposite of all of that? What if God’s wrath is living as a broken, deceived, worldly, abandoned, lonely, greedy, lustful, anxious, angry life?

If we could add that perspective then we can view John 3:36 to say. If you obey and surrender to God and seek to live life to the full, free from a less than human life then you have found and will have life. However if you do not obey God you will chase after a less than fulfilling life.

My point is what if that verse is not talking about the future but the present? What if God’s wrath is what happened long ago when earth fell and the less than fully human life reality came into this world?

I tend to believe the bible is very heavily centered on God’s desire for humans to become the true humans who are showing the world who he is and what he cares about by being image bearers in the present. However a lack of submitting to God as the sovereign King would result in the chasing after a life less than what God desires or AKA his wrath.

I have just finished Lee C. Camp’s book Who Is My Enemy?   This is a book every American Christian should read–full stop.  It is also a book everyone who’s frustrated with the public political stance of American Christians should read.  And it’s also a book anyone wrestling with the questions of war and peace with regard to the church and/or teachings of Jesus Christ should read.  And it’s also … oh, forget it, just go buy and read the book already! (and no, I get no remuneration for this…I bought my copy on Amazon!)

Camp wrote this book out of a journey he undertook to attempt to see America through Muslim eyes, as well as to get to know Muslims first-hand, as he contemplated Americans’ fear of Islam in the post-9/11 world.  Along the way, he learned a lot about his own faith as well.

I have had conversations with more than one Evangelical Christian about Islam.  I’m sad to report that most of those discussions seem to get mired down in the notion that Islam is essentially a violent religion bent upon the destruction of any and all who do not convert to the Muslim religion and subject their nations to the Islamic “Shariah” law.  Most of those friends, frankly, discount my own personal experiences with any Muslim who might have ever treated me with anything like respect or even love…they are convinced that any such person was either deceiving me in order to eventually convert me, or else he wasn’t really a committed Muslim.  Maybe my faith is weak, but I don’t know how many of this particular subset of my friends would even hear Lee’s message.  But for the rest, I believe he’s drawn out some important insights.

Camp makes a compelling historical case that when Christians claim Islam is a violent religion, they’re suffering a serious case of collective amnesia regarding Christianity’s own history.  We all know that the “Christian” Europeans launched the Crusades during the medieval era; I did not know that not only Muslim history, but also written records from the crusaders themselves, document at least one instance of the crusaders actually boiling Muslim adults, roasting their children and eating them.  Camp recounts records from the crusaders’ own accounts as well as those of Arab historians, of whole towns slaughtered, mosques filled with people burned alive, and similar accounts of wanton slaughter that frankly horrified the Muslims who survived.

But then, in answer to the claim that Christians became more enlightened since the Middle Ages, Camp also relates the history of the colonial and early American slaughter of Native American people, including one event where hundreds of Indians were massacred over a period of weeks on the provocation of one settler being murdered.  In the 17th century, the Christian Puritans who came to America well-trained in Calvinist Christianity, stated following their wanton slaughter “Thus was God pleased to smite our enemies, and to give us their Land for an Inheritance.”

He carries the tale to the twentieth century, and the U.S. invasion of the Philippines under Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency, where civilians “stood along the side of the road, took off their hats, touched their foreheads with their hands.  ‘Buenos Dias, Senors’ (means good morning),’ and then the soldier boys proceeded to kill the residents and destroy the village.”  Even the most-justified (in American eyes) war in our history, World War II, had a dark side we rarely discuss:  the British and American firebombings of Hamburg and other German cities where the civilian residential areas were deliberately targeted in a strategy designed “to destroy the morale of the enemy civilian population, and in particular, of the industrial workers” (attributed by Camp to Sir Charles Webster and Noble Frankland, British historians of the war).  The same rationale, it may be said, also was used in our firebombings and ultimately nuclear attacks on Japan, justified by many in the American Christian world.

All this is not–and Camp makes this clear–an attempt to justify Muslim violence by positing some sort of “moral equivalency…” a “sure, they’re bad, but so are we” argument. Camp is rather confronting those who claim that Christians are peaceful and Muslims are violent, with the harsh evidence of violence in our own ranks.  As he says:  “I intend no rationalizing or excusing or justifying on anyone’s part.  My concern instead is that we practice honest self-examination rather than the dishonest procedure of comparing an idealized form of our faith tradition with the messy historical record of Muslims.”

This then is where Camp’s work becomes more theological.  Though not a proponent of Augustine’s criteria for “Just War,” he calls to mind a significant part of Augustine’s teaching that I most emphatically have not heard taught in American churches.  Augustine promoted several criteria for Jus ad Bellum, justice in deciding to go to war (this comes from pp.71-72 of the paperback edition of the book).  These are the well-known criteria that

• War is declared by a legitimate governing authority
• War must be engaged for just cause, such as self-defense, defense of innocents, restoration of order;
• War must be undertaken for right objective intentions…peace and justice as opposed to territory or resources;
• War must also be undertaken with right subjective intentions…justice and mercy not hatred and vengeance.

There is also the notion of due process in war:

• It must be undertaken as a true last resort after other options have been exhausted;
• The enemy must always be allowed to sue for peace on the grounds for which the war was started; the demand of an unconditional surrender is ipso facto unjust;
• The cause must be winnable
• Force must be proportional to the cause and the harm being prevented (this of course runs counter to the “Powell Doctrine”)
• Treaties & international law must be respected;
• Enemy combatants must be treated justly if captured.

But interestingly, Augustine also provided some other guidelines for Jus in bello, the just conduct of the war:

• Immunity of the innocent; noncombatants must not be targeted;
• Weapons must discriminate between the innocent and the combatant (this is often taken to state that land mines, which are completely agnostic to their targets, are unjust);
• Methods must be only what is necessary to achieve the objective;
• Human dignity must be respected; torture, slander, rape, poisoning of wells, are forbidden, and keeping truces and giving quarter are required.

The point that Camp makes in all this is that American Christians tend to claim Augustine’s “Just War” mantle in determining that the decision to wage war is just (although even there, our voice is rarely heard in a critical manner), but then Augustine’s further guidance is left entirely by the wayside in the pursuit of a war once engaged.  Here, the history Camp has recounted in previous chapters comes back to devastating effect, as time after time, the American position has been to win the war at all costs because we have adjudged the cause to be just, but with little regard to the justice of the means.  “This is not merely an argument about pacifism.”  Camp writes.  “This is about the fact that the church ignores JWT [Just War Theory] too.  This is about the move toward ‘total war,” in which we are told we must wage merciless war on behalf of the good news of democracy and free-market economies and political liberalism so we might be free to worship the Lord who in Jesus taught us to love our enemies.” (p. 96)

But here, then, is where Camp gets to the meat of his discovery.  The Christian theory of Just War is far more similar to the teachings of Mohammad in the Qur’an, than it is to the teachings of Jesus in the Bible. Islam also has a rich “Just War” tradition in both scripture and history…although certainly it has been violated in history just as the Christian tradition has.  But nobody who has read the texts can argue that Mohammad did not condone warfare in some form, while that argument is quite compelling not only for Jesus himself, but for at least the first two hundred years of Christianity.

Camp unpacks an association I thought I had seen before, but had yet to put into words, when he actually associates Christian warmaking as a logical extension of the Christian doctrine of penal-substitutionary atonement.  He explains it through the eyes of a Muslim theologian with whom he met (and this is Camp’s explanation, not that theologians exact words):  “The Christian myth gets to ‘redemption’ through a crucifixion, a violent, abusive act; ‘justice’ demands such punishment; and redemption requires the shedding of blood in exchange for the sins and hostilities committed.  This myth…ironically depicts the cross in such a fashion that it becomes easily co-opted by Crusaders of any and all sorts.”  (p. 114)

He then takes a clear-eyed look at the Muslim denial that Jesus ever died.  Camp is no synchretist.  His chapter “Good Friday” is absolutely clear in the centrality of Jesus’ death and resurrection to Christian doctrine and practice.  But he shows the truth of the cross as the counter-worldly way in which God chose to deal with evil…not by killing those infected by evil but by dying to give them life…so that resorting to the violent way of the world is actually to deny the way of the very Lord we claim to serve.  “Thus, we come to this ironic observation, that while the Muslim may deny the historical fact of the crucified Jesus, we Christians have often denied the ethical relevance of the crucified Jesus.”  And later, “…when the crucified Jesus becomes yet one more ‘doctrine’ merely to be believed, stripped of its narrative force, stripped of its ethical significance for the disciple of that Jesus…when the cross becomes an emblem, or the Scriptures that testify to this Jesus become the morale booster to go off and kill the enemy whom Jesus commanded us to love, then the Christian has denied the crucified Jesus every bit as much as the Muslim has, but less honorably so.”

The Muslim denies with his words,

because of what the Qur’an says;

the Christian denies with his deeds,

despite what the Bible says.

Camp’s concluding paragraphs are powerful.  “Wherever we Christians come out upon the question of ‘pacifism’ or ‘just war,’ we all will need immense courage to speak up and speak out:  against nationalism and militarism, against fearmongering and hatred of enemies, against praying for ‘our troops’ instead of praying for peace….[We need] to stop counting the United States, for all the many things about this country we may savor and know to be genuinely good, as the savior of the world, for the world already has a Savior…”

“Freedom is the gift of God and is enabled by cross and resurrection, not by the United States’ Constitution, or Declaration of Independence, or well-intentioned and honorable soldiers.  It is Jesus who gives us freedom…”

I hope I’ve whetted your appetite.  This is an important book!