|
Monday January 5, 2009 ~ 14 Comments
  Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost have written a new book, Rejesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church, in which they call the church to "reconfigure itself," and "recalibrate its mission, around the example and teaching of the radical rabbi from Nazareth." Alan is a good friend and I am grateful he took the time to answer some questions here and come around the blog today to interact. Here is our interview: In simple terms, what problem(s) is ReJesus addressing? We are addressing what we call 'the subversion of Christianity'; the process by which we remove the defining presence and influence of Jesus for His church, our discipleship, and mission. reJesus is about exactly that...re-Jesus-ing the church! Putting Jesus back into the most basic equation and seeing what happens! In the past the church has sought and experienced "reformation" (the church's work to bring itself more in line with the expressed will and ways of God) and "revival" (God's work in leading his people to live more in line with his expressed will and ways). How does you call to "ReJesus" the church look similar to and/or different from what has happened throughout the history of the church? In many ways we believe that both the renewal, as well as revival, of the church and its mission are directly related to the more elemental task of reJesusing the church. Instead of simply reforming the church and its theology, we prefer to use the term 'refounding' the church: and we suggest that we must do this by recovering the definitive role that Jesus plays in shaping church, discipleship, and mission. The fact is Ed, that we so easily remove the influence and role of Jesus from our midst. We do find it hard to live with a Lord, humans tend to prefer our own ways and agendas to that of a demanding Lord/King. So in ReJesus, are you saying something new, or something old? Well, actually it is ancient...primal really. Whatever we can say about Christianity, it has everything to do with Christ. Jesus is the Founder and the Gospels are our most foundational stories. We are simply renovating ancient truths. H. Richard Niebuhr was right to note that "The great Christian revolutions came not by the discovery of something that was not known before. They happen when someone takes radically something that was always there." All of this will sound risky to many readers. Is it? How? Can you tell them why it's worth it?  Oh too right. it is risky! Particularly if we insist on clinging to our middleclass penchant for safety and security, and consumerist addiction to comfort and convenience. I believe that the closer we get to Jesus, the more 'dangerous' he is to us. We prefer to keep him at arms length and engage him from the relative safety of objective theology. Why is it worth it? Because without Jesus we have no legitimacy, or in fact do we actually have Christianity, because Christianity minus Christ equals Religion. And hey! Who wants a religion? Is it worth it? It is our eternal destiny to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom.8:29.) We cannot escape it. It is our joy, our salvation, our freedom. All else is just messing with the fringes of the faith. Why is it that keeping Christ at the center of our confessional identity can be so much easier than remaining Christocentric in our person, practices and piety? Because simple confession, like theology, as important as it is to our integrity, is not enough for us to truly 'know' God. I would argue that to truly know God we must supplement intellectual knowledge with that type of knowledge that can only come from engaging our hearts (our passion, feelings, our capacity for love) as well as our actions (obedience and action). We spend the good part of a chapter on this aspect of what we call "Hebraic epistemology". This is what it means to take the Shema seriously. And Jesus himself puts this at the center of a missional discipleship. "One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one" answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 'The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:28-31 NIV) The mind is simply not enough to know and love God as we must. In the book you make a biblical argument for experiencing and living under the Lordship of a sent and sending God. A God that is immanent, close and accessible through Jesus Christ. Is there a place for seeing and worshipping the God who is also seen as transcendent, holy and "other?" Of course! God's transcendence is vital to a Christian understanding of God. But you are right in noticing that we have chosen to focus on the primacy and centrality of God Jesus as He is revealed in and through the Incarnation. We believe strongly that whatever ideas of God we might entertain; they must first be interpreted through the lens of Jesus--whatever that might entail. We call this fact that Jesus reveals God to us, 'The Christlike God" because we know through his life that God is indeed like Jesus--he says if you have seen him you have seen the Father...he and the Father are one!! Sure we know God through Scripture as well as nature...but the most distilled, and central, knowledge of God must be gleaned from the life, teaching, ministry of Jesus as revealed in Scripture. This is what makes us distinctly Christ-ian. This has massive implications for us, especially for our understanding of God, but it does not exhaust the extent of the revelation we find in Jesus, because not only does Jesus redefine our concept of God but also he shows us the perfect expression of humanity as God intended it. In other words, he models for us what a true human being should be like. Therefore, focusing our discipleship on Jesus forces us to take seriously the implications of following him, of becoming like him. It sets the agenda for our spirituality. It acknowledges that Jesus as our model, our teacher, and our guide is normative for the Christian life. He is the standard by which we measure ourselves, the quality of our discipleship, and therefore our spirituality You have done much to skewer cultural conditioned views of Jesus ("bearded lady Jesus" was my favorite). But, when I read the book I wanted to ask something that is both a question and a compliment-- the Jesus you described looked a lot like you, Alan-- a wandering teacher calling for change, a wild man with a powerful message, focused on the Kingdom of God, and with a Hebrew worldview. How culturally conditioned do you think your view of Jesus might be? None of us is free from trying to make Jesus like us on a good day! Actually that's what we are trying to 'skewer' it debunking the stereotypes of Jesus. Actually I am a strong believer in ongoing validity of the second commandment--we should not make any images of God. Every time we attempt to image God, be it mental or metal, we limit him and thereby seek to control him. We must always allow Jesus to be beyond any stereotype that we might wish to make of him. As you say, a lot of the book is iconoclastic. It's a bit of fun at our own expense really. But hey, thanks for the compliment! While everyone can benefit from reading this book, who needs to read it (for whom is it most critical)? We hope that the book is accessible to all thoughtful Christians. It is certainly geared towards a missional audience. But I do think it will appeal mostly to people engaged leadership and formal ministry. Recovering Jesus in thought, imagination, action of the church. Radicalizing the church by recovering the ethos, teachings, lifestyle of the Founder. And to do this they will have to take discipleship in the Way of Jesus seriously. I can't think of anything more foundational and important to the life and mission of the church. What other books, resources would you recommend to those who are convicted that such things need to change? You know, I love Soren Kierkegaard, but he is probably too complex for most people to read directly. A good introduction or two on his thinking is good medicine. For instance he saw it as his life's task Soren Kierkegaard, when he said, rather cheekily, "My mission is to introduce Christianity into Christendom." Dietrich Bonheoffer's work and thinking is timeless. I loved Stanley Hauerwas' commentary on Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary) and Jacques Ellul's work in The Subversion of Christianity, and The Presence of the Kingdom, is really excellent. Also, Debs and I are working on a book on missional discipleship--published early '10. In many ways it will be a guide to outworking what it means to take Jesus seriously. And then of course there is your work on breaking the discipleship code. Alan will be around today to dialogue about the book. Feel free to post questions and comments below. Posted on January 5, 2009 at 5:02 AM ~ 14 Comments Tagged with: christology, church, jesus, missional, reformation, rejesus, revival, theology 14 CommentsLeave a comment |
  
  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Being of solid middleclass stock, but now having been an urban church planter for the last 10 years I find that statements like this:
"Oh too right. it is risky! Particularly if we insist on clinging to our middleclass penchant for safety and security, and consumerist addiction to comfort and convenience."
Never seem to go over big amongst said middle class :). But I find them to be medicine to my soul and they help me put into words how the more I am willing to follow Jesus where ever the deeper I grow in him. I also find them to be my prayer for the church...
D
Ed - once again, great interview.
Alan, can we reJesus and still be strong in the development of systems and strategies? It seems that this role and passion is almost easier for the senior pastor types who cast the vision and stir the spirits and delegate. But those of us in more supporting roles (even exec and admin pastors) are still tasked with systems, strategies, and the practical aspect of helping our people connect with God and others. I don't know that we are seeking safety and security--at least it doesn't feel like it. It feels like we are trying to get the nuts and bolts together so people can experience and live out the faith they are hearing about.
With that said, how do those of us whose calling and vocation require more technical and practical approaches get reJesus'd?
I just finished the book and I highly recommend it. I'm thinking of getting our leadership team to read it together and discuss how it might apply to our church and mission. The parts on consumerism are really challenging me as I believe that this worldview has done great damage to our vision of discipleship.
Alan, thanks for writing this. As I've told you before, I am especially challenged by your statement that we will not become missional if we are consumers instead of disciples. And, we will not become disciples until we really know who Jesus is. Could you give us a preview of you and your wife's book next year and tell us how you think that we can really get ahold of the real Jesus in our churches in a practical discipleship sense?
David, you are right is doesn't go down with said middle-class. But that could well an indicator of modern idolatry. If we are not letting Jesus into those spaces, we invite other forces to fill the vacuum. Our hope lies in Jesus.
Terry, I hear you. And as Ed will testify, I do believe in develooping systems. The Forgotten Ways, my previous (and more comprehensive) book is basically a 'phenomenology of movements'. systemic to the core. What we need to do is be very wary of institutionalizing the system. One of the things I love about living out the Lordship of Jesus in the power of the Spirit is that it tends to force us simplify whatever human systems we create. When developig systems, simplicity is elegant!
As a lay leader and follower of Jesus I have been making it a point with all of the church and ministry leaders in Boston and Maine to read your books Alan. I have reached out to our Messianic friends to also help us re-read the Gospels. My 24 year walk with Jesus has been mostly in counciling to which the church in many cases created the wounds. I am on fire for the church to recapture it's calling. I have been an absolute pain to some leaders here in New England (Boston-Athens) but to others the message you have given me brings hope. APEPT is changing the way we are doing some church plants in Maine as well. I thank God for the heart He gave you and I look forward in some small way to help bring the changes needed in our very intellectual region.
By the way, you have also made me an avid reader of the dictionary.
Larry
Thanks Alan/Ed,
Alan,I am about half way through the book and very much appreciate your focus on Jesus. I'm grateful for your imaginative writing and reflection, and have a few questions:
1. What keeps imitatio Christ from becoming a new works-righteousness?
The whole concept of ReJesusing the disciple and the church is heavily influenced by the imitation of Christ. I'm sure you are aware of the historical dangers with this teaching if it is imblanced by a proper understanding of the gospel; however, it appears that, while you deconstruct religion, you do not point us to substantive, biblical resources for being like Jesus for imitating him. The only thing I detected was a very existentialist, pietistic emphasis on being with Jesus (contemporaneousness), but the Bible doesn't really seem to emphasize "a personal relationship with Jesus" as the power for imtiating and obeying him?
2. Is ethical monotheism dangerous ground if we don't fully grasp ontological monotheism?
You draw on the insights of christological monotheism in order to advance the ethical implications of imitatio Christi. Do you think you have downplayed the power for imitation of Jesus by not emphasizing the ontological montheism, cf. N.T. Wright, Richard Bauckham?
3. You mention the importance of the Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace in reJesusing on p.33. Can you clarify your theological commitments here?
Very gratefully,
Jonathan Dodson
Thanks Alan
The book I am working on is an exploration of what it means to actually live as disciples. But on topic, it involves trying to remove the theological, social, and cultural impediments to a distinctly missional form of discipleship--including consumerism.
I am trying to write around all the 6 elements of mDNA articulated in The Forgotten Ways.
Great interview and very enlightening to read Alan's comments.
While I have not yet read the book (plan to get a copy soon) might it be possible that the reason we need books like reJesus is that we have gotten away from observing the commands of Christ and substituted a host of other practices and traditions?
I John 2 speaks clearly that those who know Christ are the ones who obey his commands. Do we even know what those commands are? What kinds of good religious things have we substituted for obeying his commands?
Too right guy. But its a sneaky and insidious process called 'the routinization of charisma' whereby faith and encounter with God are turned into a religion, and I do explore this extensively in the book.
Hey Jonathan. good probing questions bro.
You are right that imitatiio can become works righteousness. But I guess most of us are not in danger of that as we have have a meaty diet of salvation by grace alone. I guess here what we are saying is akin to Bonhoeffer's idea of cheap grace layed out in his book Discipleship....
Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks’ wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church’s inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or
fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing.... 45
Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian 'conception' of God. An intellectual assent to that idea is held to be of itself sufficient to secure remission of sins.... In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God. 45-46
Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. 'All for sin could not atone.' Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin....
Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession.... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. 47
As for the issue of ontology, I do believe that we cannot lose a sense of ontological monotheism and Trinity! But again we are well trained to think this way. what we need is correction. We start with what the Bible and Biblical worldview can affirm and build from there--not the other way around.
As for Wesley, I am neither Wesleyan or Calvinist. I find both historically tendentious and insufficient. Both have truths and blindspots. The truth is somewhere in between, but darn hard to find. :-)
"But I guess most of us are not in danger of that as we have have a meaty diet of salvation by grace alone."
I think rather what most of us have is a meaty diet of regeneration, or point of salvation by grace alone. And then once we are "saved" we go back to works to keep us in with God, discarding any notion that we remain in need of ongoing salvation and grace.
I think in addition to consumerism the church in America is in love with a convenient moralism that allows us to continue to be our own functional saviors instead of really depending on the grace of Jesus. If we were really dependent on that Grace (and our utter inability to earn it or measure up) I think the result would be a rejection of many of the things that keep us from truly following Jesus.
Love the Bonhoeffer quotes by the way.
Thanks, Alan! I think the diet of grace varies from person to person, some tend towards religion as David has described, and others towards rebellion or indifference to grace. Either way, we need Model and the Maker, the example of Jesus and the recreative power of his Spirit, to produce a costly and precious, missional discipleship.
Hey, I hear from Gabe Lyons that we might do a panel at Q together...would be an honor. Also, I'll see you at the Missional Community Leader Conference here in Austin in Feb. Look forward to what you have to say!
Awesome interview, I am excited to get this book and read it.
Great interview! Loved the questions too.
I just reviewed "ReJesus."
http://frankviola.wordpress.com/2009/01/08/book-review-rejesus-by-michael-frost-and-alan-hirsch/