Sharpening Iron: A Review of The Jesus Paradigm
In his new book. The Jesus Paradigm. Dr. David Alan Black issues a bold challenge to the church. His fundamental premise is that the Church lost its way around the time it became allied with the Roman Empire following the rise to power of Constantine. and for the most part has been doing things wrong ever since.
While the reformation was an important corrective. it still retained many of the errors. and thus was still locked into a pattern for the church that was based more on the world’s way of doing things rather than the biblical pattern. For Dr. Black. what was needed was not a reformation but a restoration more in lines with the approach taken by the Anabaptists. a restoration of the Church back to what it originally was and was meant to be. A Church not based on the way the world works and views things. but a church that follows the model found in the Bible. a church truly centered on the teachings of Jesus. not just in theology and morality. but in its organization. structure. and practice as well.
My view of The Jesus Paradigmis best summed up by Proverbs 27:17. “As iron sharpens iron. so one man sharpens another.” Calls for change are never easy. and calls for changes so large as to constitute a paradigm shift are extremely difficult. Dr. Black’s challenge is no different. In fact many will find much they disagree with. I certainly did. But the true value in Dr. Blacks’ book is not the suggestion he makes. but the effective way he calls. and even challenges. the reader to think deeply and seriously about the Church. its structure. and its role in both the world and the life of the believer.
As Dr. Black writes. “Churches today have to make a choice to follow contemporary patterns of ecclesiology or use the early church as a model.” (p 40) He believe that the division between church leaders and members is far to stark. Not only being unscriptural. Dr. Black argues that this has resulted in a “responsibility redistribution.” For example. the Bible is fairly clear that parents have the responsibility to bring up their children “by training and instructing them about the Lord.” (Eph 6:4 ISV) Yet the current church structure has encouraged parent to abdicate their responsibility turning it over to church leaders to deal with.
Rather than the current structure that is so common and widespread as to be taken for granted. Dr. Black believes that churches should move towards an “every-member ministry” where “most jobs that are currently salaried positions will be filled by volunteer help”(p 2). and where “new believers will be asked to specify a regular community involvement… in addition to their commitment to a ministry in the church.” (p 3)
Such suggestions are such a stark departure from the norm. that many might be tempted to reject them out of hand. But the way Dr. Black lays out the biblical and historical evidence in support of his position will permit no such kneejerk rejection. In some respects. there is nothing new in Dr. Black’s biblical evidence. For the most part he simply quotes familiar verses. But again this is one of the strengths of the book. for often these verses are so common that we have passed over them without much thought as to what they are really saying.
For example. in 1 Thess 5:14 Paul writes “We encourage you. brothers and sisters. to admonish the unruly. comfort the discouraged. and uphold the weak.” As Dr. Black relates. “I well recall how shocked I was when I first realized that Paul was exhorting. not leaders. but the brothers to ‘admonish the unruly.’… Every time Paul wrote to a church in order to deal with its problems. he never appealed to the leaders. Instead. his constant request was for the whole church to deal with its trouble.” (p 70)
Perhaps the weakest part of the book is Dr. Black’s comments on the relationship between politics and the church. But this was not because I disagreed with Dr. Blacks general position that “Christians today must maintain an ultimate commitment to Christ and eschew loyalty to a political party.” In many ways I agree there must be some sort of separation. even if I do reject the recently developed constitutional concept of a strict separation of church and state. This is why I do not write about political issues on my consider.org blog.
Nor is it because I disagreed with some of the political positions he took. which I do. Rather it is because he did not remain consistent with his own position. Thus if I were to attempt to rebut some of the positions he takes. I would need to do it on my political blog (Hushbeck.com/blog) and not on my Christian blog (consider.org/blog).
Still. overall. while I found much to disagree with in The Jesus Paradigm. the process of working through the book. of struggling with and considering the criticism Dr. Black has concerning the state of the Church. the corrective measures he suggests. and most importantly the biblical and historical evidence he lays out. helped clarify many of my lingering doubts and nagging problems I see in the modern church. It moved my thinking. and my understanding forward. And what more could one ask for in a book other that the Bible? In short. it is an important book that should be not only read. but seriously considered by anyone interested in the state and direction of the modern church.
This is Elgin Hushbeck. asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Note: as a matter of full disclosure. Dr. Black was my professor of among other things NT Greek. and The Jesus Paradigm was published by Energion. which also published my three books.
Should Christians be Different
In his Christianity Today article “The Scandal of the Public Evangelical” Mark Galli gives a stark challenge to the evangelical movement. Pointing to the many recent scandals that have involved evangelicals, he writes, “We assume that with sufficient exhortation and moral effort, our sins will become smaller than a widow’s mite and our righteousness larger than life. This is coupled with the long-standing evangelical myth that there should be something different about the Christian. A look. An attitude. A lifestyle.”
I found a number of things troubling about Galli’s argument. The first was his starting point: the failing of a few public evangelicals, in particular Carrie Prejean, the Gosselins, and Mark Sanford.
It seems to me that Galli has fallen victim to the celebrity based mentality so prevalent in our media driven culture, a culture that is normally very hostile to evangelicals, at least when they are not just ignoring them. The sad story of Carrie Prejean, Miss California, demonstrates this very well. She rockets to fame because she took a mild stance in favor of traditional marriage, and for that she becomes a star for evangelicals, and target for the media.
This brings me to one of Galli’s statements that I believe was exaggerated to the point of being a straw man. This was his claim that “our sins will become smaller than a widow’s mite and our righteousness larger than life.” Now perhaps that is what he is hearing on Sunday mornings, but it has not been my experience. In fact, I see almost the opposite; the stress on being just “sinners saved by grace” to the point of downplaying of sin; the increased stress on the praise portion of the service, and the downplaying of the actual study of the Bible; the growing idea among the young that church is a fun activity rather than a serious commitment to God.
But even if that were not the case, Prejean’s is to me more an example of the viciousness of the media than any weakness among evangelicals. Even if we could all reach perfection in Christ, we would still all have a past, and given enough media animosity, a past that could be exposed. After all just look how Jesus was attacked, and he was perfect. So how much more can we, mere sinners, be attacked.
Neither the Gosselins nor Mark Sanford are representative of what I would consider “average” evangelical role models. They are the “role models” the world chooses for us, but they should not be the role models we as the body of Christ look to. Our role models are of little interest to the world but can be found in virtually every church should we care to look. They are those who live godly lives of service, with little or no fanfare, but a love for the Lord.
Galli’s argument has at its root an additional flaw. If we seriously follow Christ I do believe, in Galli’s words, “that there should be something different about the Christian. A look. An attitude. A lifestyle.” Following Christ will have an impact on us, how we live, and how we interact with others. This, in fact can be seen in the decline in things like honesty in the culture as it has moved away from Christianity and embraced a more secular view.
But there is a huge difference between better and perfect. We are not, and I believe never will be, in this world at least, perfect followers of Christ. We all still struggle with sin, and will continue do so while we live. But we are also indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and leading a spirit filled life will have a impact on how we live. It will not make us perfect, but it will, if we seek to follow our Lord, make us better. And this should be something we have to offer the world. That so many Christians often resemble the world is, I believe, a failure of the Church.
That said, Galli does make a valid point that this is not the only thing we have to offer the world. It is not even the primary thing we have to offer. As he points out toward the end of his article, “What we offer the world is not ourselves or our moral example or our spiritual integrity. What we offer the world is our broken lives, saying, ‘We are sinners saved by grace.’ What we offer the world is Jesus Christ and him crucified.”
That is, and always should be our primary message to a world that is lost; the message of Gospel. The recent public failures should serve only to remind us that the world is hostile to the message of God and will use whatever it can to discredit it. This will not change, nor will Christians in the limelight cease to disappoint us from time to time. But our goal is not to please a celebrity enthralled culture, it is to reach world with the Gospel, and to serve a risen Lord.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
News Report or Defense of Obama?
Just saw an AP news report, FACT CHECK: GOP joins spin game over stimulus jobs. While they mentioned the Republican math as “convoluted” as the White Houses formula, there was no link to a comprable story fact checking the While House. A quick search for “fact check” found this article but no corresponding article for the White House. Basically the article is “Repbulicans are correct… But…”
Palin and Obama
In a post on why there is so much hatred directed toward Sarah Palin, (Not Hating Sarah Palin) Henry Neufeld make the following comment,
“If the left had really wanted to see Palin diminish as an issue, they should have stayed away from exaggerated attacks and rumors. But the right should have done the same thing with Barack Obama. Despite huge differences in personalities, stories, and political views, I think very similar frustration has fueled hysterical anti-Obama rhetoric on the right. Those on the right simply could not and cannot understand Obama’s personal popularity.”
Frankly, this is the sort of intellectual equivalence that drives me nuts. Let me first stipulate that certain aspects of the left and right are equivalent. There are thoughtful people on both sides and kooks on both sides. That given, there is little equivalence between the “average” liberal opposing Palin, and the average conservative opposing Obama.
Nor do I think that the average conservative “simply could not and cannot understand Obama’s personal popularity.” They understand it all too well, which granted, probably is a source of frustration.
Concerning the liberal attacks on Palin, they are quite simple. ANY Republican, and especially any conservative who might reach a position of power is savagely and personally attacked by the left with some combination of: dumb, heartless, greedy, uncaring, racist, bigot, homophobe, etc. The facts are irrelevant. Not only will these attacks not be questioned by the mainstream media, the mainstream media will for the most part join the chorus.
Thus many liberal still think that Reagan was an “amiable dunce” despite the fact that those who have actually studied his writings know that he was a serious political thinker. Another example, is the common claim that George W. Bush is likewise dumb. According to one report, “Indeed, Bush is known to read… little – both for official business and for diversion.” Like so much of the lefts attacks the facts are somewhat different. By virtually any standard Bush is a very serious reader, reading on average about 100 books a year of which about half are non-fiction. In comparison it looks as if Obama reads less than 10 a year.
The list of other examples is long. Bork, Thomas, Bush 41, Quayle, Gingrich, and now Palin, to name but a few. Whoever the Republicans nominate in 2012 is, that person will likewise be savaged.
What was surprising about Palin was not that she was viciously attacked, but that she generated such a strong ground swell of support so quickly. This is a testament as to why she was seen as one of the rising stars in the party, and was on many conservatives short list for potential VP candidates, including mine.
But context is important, and frankly another part of the groundswell of support was that, for many she brought hope to the campaign, especially given the fact the party seems to have lost its conservative principles, and frankly, so many republicans were having a great deal of trouble voting for McCain, even in light of Obama.
For example, when it became clear that McCain would be the nominee, I wrote a column outlining the problems I had with him. I ended by writing, “For me, my current plan is to vote for McCain in November, and I will detail my reasons why in a future post.” While I did vote for him, I never could quite get around to writing that future post.
For those who think she was a drag on the ticket, the simple fact is that from the time of her announcement to when McCain suspended his campaign because of the housing induced financial crisis, was the only time since McCain’s nomination that it looked like Republican might actually have a chance to win.
As for Obama, the “average” conservative knows very well why Obama is so popular: his media image. It is just a fact that if all you hear about someone is positive you will tend to have a positive view of them. Virtually the entire entertainment and new media has fallen for Obama, a young, black, good looking , relatively unknown politician who, at least when using a teleprompter, gives good speeches.
He has never been seriously challenged by the press, and instead sends tingles down their legs. Thus Obama is allowed to make sweeping generalities and vague but nice sounding policy statements without having to get down into the actually details that might alienate voters. Thus for the most part his campaign was simply hope and change, without having to actually fill in any details.
Even now what do we know about him? Actually very little. For the press often seem more anxious to defend him than to question him. As I cite in my book Preserving Democracy, reporters when over Palin with a fine tooth comb, while taking Obama at face value. Perhaps if reporters had asked Obama some of the questions they asked Palin, things may have been different.
More importantly, it is not so much that conservatives “hate” Obama, but that they strongly oppose his policies, I don’t think the reverse is true for liberals and Palin. This goes to a core difference between liberals and conservatives. Whereas conservatives tend on average to think that liberals are wrong, liberal tend to think conservatives are bad. For example, while conservatives think that Obama’s handling of the economy is seriously misguided, and will lead to even greater problems, liberals tended to see Bush’s handling of the economy as corrupt and aimed at “helping his buddies.”
I would also say there is a greater degree of partisanship on the left. Over the last eight years conservative had many strong disagreements with Bush’s domestic policies, in particular Campaign Finance Reform, Spending, Immigration, and the Stimulus bill to name just a few. In short they were guided by principles and supported him when they agreed with him, and opposed him when they didn’t. This is continuing with Obama. While there is much for conservatives to oppose with Obama, many give him generally good marks on his handling of the war so far.
Liberals, on the other hand, seem more driven by partisanship. One clear example, they opposed the increase of the debt under Bush, but are ok with an much greater increase now that Obama is in charge. In short it is clear that while they complained about “Bush’s debt” the focus of their complaint was Bush, not the debt.
Thus while at the fringes there may be a correspondence at the extremes, there is a significant divergence between mainstream liberal and conservative attacks.
The Defense of Marriage Part II
When looking at the issue of the government sanction of marriage, the first question to ask is: should government even get involved at all? Why shouldn’t marriage simply be a private matter between those involved to arrange their relationships in whatever way they want to arrange them? In short, why should government care in the first place? This is essentially the Libertarian argument. It’s a private matter and government should stay out of it all together.
At first glance, this seems to be a good argument. But the key words here are “first glance” and “seems.” As I pointed out last time, government does have a clear interest in self-preservation, and thus in the development of future citizens.
More than this, there is a clear link (e.g. Orr , Anderson, Medved, Gilder, Gallagher ) between the breakdown of the family structure and the rise of social problems, problems that not only cost government a great deal of money, but also cause a great deal of pain and suffering throughout society as a whole. Nor should this be any surprise.
A key problem critics need to address is: If the family unit is so optional, so much a matter of personal choice, why has it been so universal? Why has the basic family unit of a man and a woman been the norm for virtually every culture in every period of human history? The closest runner up would be polygamy, but that has been more an option for rich and powerful men, than any norm. As for same sex marriage that has been unknown. Even in cultures that approved of, and even encouraged, homosexuality, such as ancient Greece, marriage was still between a man and a woman. This would indicate that there is far more going on in marriage than just personal choice.
Historically the family unit has been the bedrock of civilization. The historian Will Durant wrote “The family has been the ultimate foundation of every civilization known to history. It was the economic and productive unit of society, tilling the land together; it was the political unit of society, with parental authority as the supporting microcosm of the State. It was the cultural unit, transmitting letters and arts, rearing and teaching the young; and it was the moral unit, inculcating through cooperative work and discipline, those social dispositions which are the psychological basis and cement of civilized society” (Mansions of Philosophy)
If it truly plays such a key and foundational role, then if the foundation is weakened, one could reasonably expect the society to suffer; and it has. As Gallagher wrote, “The overthrow of the marriage culture and its replacement by a postmarital culture is the driving force behind almost all the gravest problems facing America – crime, poverty, welfare dependence, homelessness, educational stagnation, even child abuse.” (p 4) For example:
The US Department of Health/Census reports that children from fatherless homes are 5 times more likely to commit suicide. The Center for Disease Control reports that they are 20 times more likely to show behavior disorders.
The statistics are really overwhelming. Children who do not have a mother and a father in a loving stable relationship are at greater risk, often dramatically greater risk for: teen sexual activity, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, teen pregnancy, child abuse, emotional problems, depression, sleep disturbances, expulsion or suspension from school, antisocial behavior, impulsive behavior, violent behavior, mental illness, psychiatric hospital admission, and incarceration.
Even if these problems were simply limited to the children themselves, there would be justification enough on humanitarian grounds for government to take an interest in marriage. But these problems are not limited to the children. These problems affect others and cost the government literally billions of dollars.
So government does have an interests. But that they have an interest does not automatically mean that they should get involved. While at first this may seem to be a much harder question to answer, in reality it is a false question. This is because it implies that government could still be neutral, and uninvolved. Yet government is rarely, if ever, neutral as in fact true neutrality is very difficult to achieve. More importantly government is already is involved, and as such any action will either support or detract from marriage.
The evidence from the last few decades strongly demonstrates this. Much of the last half of the last century could be seen as government reducing its support for marriage and becoming more neutral. As a result a very good case can be made that government has not taken a strong enough role. Back in the mid-nineties, long before same-sex marriage became a major issue, Maggie Gallagher wrote that “Over the past thirty years, quietly, and largely unremarked outside a narrow group of specialists, American family law has been rewritten to dilute both the rights and obligations of marriage.” (p 131)
As we have seen in the statistics cited above, the affects of this move to neutrality are also pretty clear, even if often ignored. So it would appear that government, has a strong enough interest to play a role in marriage. Yet government has for decades been abdicating its role, weakening and devaluing marriage, with serious and detrimental effects on children and society. Based on this, what is needed is a strengthening of marriage, not a further weakening, which will lead to even more problems and suffering.
