If Jesus were a hipster, emerging, post-evangelical …

16 Responses to If Jesus were a hipster, emerging, post-evangelical …

1. Steve Allison says:

   January 26, 2014 at 8:41 am

   Yes, it was creative and clever, a fun read. Clearly he has read widely and understood it well enough to write a good parody. And some thought that it described Brian McLaren, Peter Rollins, Tony Jones and the Emergent Church end of things. But I’ve read those guys and no, the caricature does not fit that well, in my opinion. The comments were instructive. I would say though that the postmodernist hipsters that John satirizes deserve it to some extent. But I am happy for the things they have taught me. That both liberal and fundamentalist religion are enlightenment progeny and perhaps there is a way to move beyond that.
2. Grizz says:

   January 26, 2014 at 9:33 am

   Brave comment, Steve. Perhaps I am not well-read enough to see the inspiration for the parody. It fell very flat for me. I am no apologist for post-modern anything, and I fail to see the appeal of mockery in most cases. Perhaps I have just been too dense to find that in Jesus’ repertoire? If so, perhaps you could enlighten me?

   I have long felt that the casual mockery in which both the best and worst of us occasionally (some more than others) indulge is very un-Jesus-like. Yes, I see Him call a high priest and a king and the Pharisees descriptive names to characterize their abuses religiously, but not as parody so much. He calls one a fox, another a political appointee, another group a brood of serpents, and so on, but is that parody? sarcasm? or a way of using common suppositions as a means of communicating the error of others’ approaches to truth? Perhaps this is parody, of a sort. Maybe I am just too dense to grasp it.

   All that being said, I do not know anyone who fits the descriptions, even with tongue firmly planted in cheek, that were part of that post. If that makes me naive and un-perceptive, please forgive my opacity.

   The only part I even remotely found objectionable was the haughtiness of the descriptors employed and the (?) high brow (?) language used to convey the message. I have a college degree, with summa cum laude honors, and find the kind of linguistic devices used to be pretentious at best. When language becomes the smokescreen to hide one’s meaning, how is that communication at its best? Do we even strive for the best in communications anymore?

   Maybe I am just confused. Think of me that way if it helps you feel better. I will be trying to forget the post referenced while you are finding a place to file away my review. I just do not find it helpful.

   Oh what a fuddy-duddy I am!

   G
3. Charles Mclean says:

   January 26, 2014 at 9:34 am

   I am beginning to think that the “emergent church” is just the first generation of the church who actually read modern philosophy and took it seriously without discarding Jesus. There is some actual truth here, and if the “community” which is so often referenced ever becomes more than the usual “birds of a feather” sort, it may benefit the church. If not, it will be just one more sect, having arrived at that level of enlightenment which we all have achieved: a level at which our group is just a bit wiser than everybody else.

   But the serious question: If Jesus was a hipster, would he look like Buddy Holly, or would Buddy Holly look like him?
4. KJ says:

   January 27, 2014 at 1:32 pm

   Steve,

   I’m really heartened that there might be a way through it. Setting soteriology aside,as I’m not presenting a defense,the Orthodox church posits that western Christianity, catholic and protestant, breeds atheism. And it promotes a juridicial view of God. Jay has written extensively about the gems of the east, but I haven’t read this yet among his many posts, although he may have.

   The most significant division I can find between western and eastern christendom is the one we deal with today in the cofC: What is the character and nature of God? Loving father or vivisecting wrathful Judge.

   From http://glory2godforallthings.com/the-river-of-fire-kalomiros/

   “Do not Western theologians consider hell, the eternal spiritual death of man, as a punishment from God? And do they not consider the devil as a minister of God for the eternal punishment of men in hell?

   The “God” of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride.

   What is the Western dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it not by this infinite satisfaction that He deigns to accept the salvation of some of us?

   What is salvation for Western theology? Is it not salvation from the wrath of God?

   Do you see, then, that Western theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the hands of God!

   How can one love such a God? How can we have faith in someone we detest? Faith in its deeper essence is a product of love, therefore, it would be our desire that one who threatens us not even exist, especially when this threat is eternal.

   Even if there exists a means of escaping the eternal wrath of this omnipotent but wicked Being (the death of His Son in our stead), it would be much better if this Being did not exist. This was the most logical conclusion of the mind and of the heart of the Western peoples, because even eternal Paradise would be abhorrent with such a cruel God.

   Thus was atheisrn born, and this is why the West was its birthplace. Atheism was unknown in Eastern Christianity until Western theology was introduced there, too. Atheism is the consequence of Western theology. Atheism is the denial, the negation of an evil God.”

   Reflecting on the tension and the answer of the eastern orthodox provided in the link above was, if nothing else, a worthy mental exercise for me after seeing my 31 years of cofc Christianity thru a western lens.
5. Jay Guin says:

   January 27, 2014 at 7:44 pm

   KJ,

   Thanks for an interesting perspective. I agree that we can and should learn a lot from the Orthodox. I’ve been working on that …

   However, I question their Western history. My studies suggest that Western atheism largely grew out of the cruelty with which the Christians treated each other. The persecution of heretics in the West, by all sides, was horrendous and repelled many.

   On the other hand, I can’t deny that the wickedness of the West to some degree was influenced by an unhealthy view of the character of God.
6. Steve says:

   January 27, 2014 at 7:49 pm

   KJ,

   I read Father Stephen’s Glory to God blog from time to time. Have even commented. Sometimes it seems that what he describes is an entirely different religion than the kind I’ve known. Often I have no idea or understanding what he is describing and what he is feeling. I drive by his church occasionally and have thought about going in to talk with him, but have not so far.

   Below is what he has to say about the Church of Christ in a post titled “Christian Atheism” back in 8/20/2007. It is a snippet of a much larger post. And it is similar to what you say about atheism being born of Western Christianity. I’ve often thought that atheism is a Christian heresy or a type of Christianity. I’ve known some who were quite Christian in a number of ways minus going to Church and assenting to a few certain propositions and beliefs.

   http://glory2godforallthings.com/2007/08/20/christian-atheism/
   ————————

   “Surprisingly, I would place some forms of Christian fundamentalism within this category (as I have defined it). I recall a group affiliated with some particular Church of Christ, who regularly evangelized our apartment complex when I lived in Columbia, S.C. They were also a constant presence on the campus of the local university. They were absolute inerrantists on the subject of the Holy Scriptures. They were equally adamant that all miracles had ceased with the completion of the canon of the New Testament. Christians today only relate to God through the Bible.

   Such a group can be called “Biblicists,” or something, but, in the terminology I am using here, I would describe them as “practical atheists.” Though they had great, even absolutist, faith in the Holy Scriptures, they had no relationship with a God who is living and active and directly involved in their world. Had their notion of a God died, and left somebody else in charge of His heaven, it would not have made much difference so long as the rules did not change.

   I realize that this is strong criticism, but it is important for us to understand what is at stake. The more the secular world is exalted as secular, that is, having an existence somehow independent of God, the more we will live as practical atheists – perhaps practical atheists who pray (but for what do we pray?). I would also suggest that the more secular the world becomes for Christians, the more political Christians will become. We will necessarily resort to the same tools and weapons as those who do not believe.”
7. Jay Guin says:

   January 27, 2014 at 7:54 pm

   Charles wrote,

   I am beginning to think that the “emergent church” is just the first generation of the church who actually read modern philosophy and took it seriously without discarding Jesus.

   There is truth there. The satirized version goes too far, and pretense is a common failing, but there is also some good thoughts even in the satire.

   But the serious question: If Jesus was a hipster, would he look like Buddy Holly, or would Buddy Holly look like him?

   This is such a great straight line. Let’s see —

   * That’ll be the day!

   * Umm … Jesus did not wear glasses.

   * It doesn’t matter anymore.

   * … …

   The last one may be a little too subtle, but I just happen to have bought BH’s Greatest Hits, so I’m pretty familiar with Buddy H. (If you’re a BH fan, then buy Roy Orbison and Sam Cooke to make for a perfect musical evening. You may want to close out with a little Don McLean.)
8. Steve says:

   January 27, 2014 at 8:04 pm

   There was a girl I was dating back in the spring of 1974. She came down with some sickness for a few days and I bought her Sam Cooke’s Greatest Hits. Somehow it marked or brought about an advancement in our relationship. We married the next year and have been together ever since!
9. Jay Guin says:

   January 27, 2014 at 8:08 pm

   Steve,

   I’ve been reading the End of Apologetics, which is about moving beyond liberalism, evangelicalism, and fundamentalism — as failed Modernist projects. It makes my head hurt — not because the ideas are that hard but because the author insists on saying things in the most obscure way possible. The Post-Modernists desperately need their own C. S. Lewis, and I’m not inclined to dig through all the clutter to deliver their message. (Yes, a series on apologetics is in the oven but timing is very indefinite.)
10. Jay Guin says:

    January 27, 2014 at 8:11 pm

    $10 says it’s “Darling, You Send Me.”
11. Jay Guin says:

    January 27, 2014 at 8:13 pm

    Father Stephen nailed us. Oww …
12. Steve says:

    January 27, 2014 at 8:19 pm

    Jay,

    That is the very song that has been going through my head since you mentioned Sam Cooke. I just finished the End of Apologetics too. I’ll save my comment till later. The evening is getting on and I need to leave my office to be with my lady.
13. Ray Downen says:

    January 28, 2014 at 9:03 am

    I read the “satire.” It is sacrilegious at best. The Bible is not outdated. Jesus is very much alive. We don’t need some new religion. The Way of Jesus is the right way and will continue to be so until the end of this universe.
14. Jay Guin says:

    January 28, 2014 at 7:08 pm
15. KJ says:

    February 3, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Thanks Steve and Jay,

    The moment has passed but I had fun working through this and I hope it adds to the conversation for those that see it.

    and Grizz…I like the way you think!

    Steve, this passage stuck out to me.

    “Though they had great, even absolutist, faith in the Holy Scriptures, they had no relationship with a God who is living and active and directly involved in their world. Had their notion of a God died, and left somebody else in charge of His heaven, it would not have made much difference so long as the rules did not change. the idea of contrasting a one-ness oriented sheep with an onery wilfull goat”

    I liked the term practical atheist. Practical atheism, like fundamentalism, is a kind of pathological primal solipsism where all inputs and consequences are judged self-referentially.

    When the performance offered for social approval no longer serves the desires of the person employing it, or they are shamed by their social circle for an unwelcome outburst, they very pragmatically change their performance. Pathology aside, this a fairly ubiquitous human experience.

    For them however, there is emptiness. There is no spiritual formation, no humility, no Pauline contentment, no peace for their inner restless tongue that James so astutely speaks of, that would give them the courage to speak against a determined peer group or refrain from satiating desires at their convenience while demanding everyone acquiesce to their desires and approve them.

    They have no tools for handling their twin masters of desire and identity.

    See, in the limpid Presence of “I AM” , desire and identity resolve themselves instantaneously. In paradise we have desire without sin because and in the presence of Supreme Is-ness desire is seen clearly as an expression of joy and not as a means to joy and fulfillment, or an idol, or an end unto itself.

    In the same way our identity is solid in that Presence, with fear melting away. In the end, in God’s presence the scales will drop. We will no longer see through a glass darkly. No more fear and no more hoisting ourselves on our own petard of obsessive desires.

    That’s why it’s really important to understand what we Christians are inviting people into. And it also raises the question in me: are we actually setting this up in our Churches undermining our attempts to convey faith to our offspring?

    I believe, in all the attempts of the cofC to restore the first century church, we have inadvertently smuggled in this juridicial presupposition.

    We’re such sticklers of Acts 2:38. Really it’s the metanoia we should focus on first and then move to baptism. Youth baptism without metanoia is absurd, a kind of wishful thinking and a superficial assuaging of parental fears.
16. Ray Downen says:

    February 3, 2014 at 2:57 pm

    It’s not obvious why some are so eager to IGNORE Acts 2:38 or to dispute with what the apostle says. Whenever a Christian is asked by a new believer what that person needs to do to “get right with God,” the CHRISTIAN will give the same answer as did the apostles in Acts 2:38. Without apologizing for what Jesus requires or attempting to replace repenting and being baptized with some other way of receiving remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

    Why do I say “the apostles” gave the right answer? It’s because Luke simply reports on what the ONE apostle said and did, but all the apostles acted and spoke that day, and what Luke reports is not Peter acting alone. The repenting called for is of course not just being sorry for having sinned, but is also turning TO Jesus as Lord, to make Him Lord of the person’s life. This is far more than only turning over a new leaf and deciding to live differently.

Comments are closed.