Good points. I get what they are trying to do here and I agree with some of the sentiment. But after having read it a few times and especially after listening to Len talk about it on the latest Hombrewed Christianity podcast, I fear that it may end up swinging the pendulum in the opposite direction. I get the sense that a binary is being created between -- to put it in shorthand -- Jesus and the Kingdom. I don't get that at all. It seems to me that the two are necessarily inter-twined and should work in tandem with one another. I think we should be about unification, not bifurcation.
steve lewis
· 4 months ago
Spot on Mark. I picked up the same things about the Kingdom of God and the social activist things - false dichotomies there.
The other thing on my wish list would have been to be Christocentric, but also fully Trinitarian. The way we focus ourselves on Christ is by working in rhythm with his continuing Spirit, our encourager. I read over the manifesto very very quickly, so I may have missed something, but that part seemed a little left out.
markvans
· 4 months ago
I agree about the lack of Trinitarian focus. This came up in the Re:Jesus book by Frost and Hirsh as well. I don't get it. If someone affirms the doctrine of the Trinity, it should really inform EVERYTHING. One simply CANNOT meaningfully talk about Jesus apart from the Father (who is his object of worship and his father) or the Spirit (who empowers and sustains).
So when someone misses these points but then maintains that they are trinitarian elsewhere, I get confused. I'm not being cute here...I actually get confused. The triune relationality of God either shapes one's understanding of Jesus or it doesn't. And if it really does, it should be readily apparent whenever one talks of Christ. Especially when one is talking about the proper way to understand Christ and live as the embodiment of Christ in the world.
Joey Aszterbaum
· 4 months ago
Hi Mark.
First, I just want to encourage you to forgive them whatever debt you think they might owe you re: Jesus Manifesto(tm). It's easy to be somewhat possessive about 'intellectual property'. Luke 6, my man :)
Second...It seems very easy to get caugh up in the abstraction game with the Father and the Spirit. I feel somewhat confident that the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and that if I've seen the Son I've seen the Father. This isn't to downplay Trinitarian...but rather to admit a personal and perhaps ecclesial inability to stay 'grounded' without a strong Christocentric focus.
I love the idea of a Christ-centered Christianity. Thing is, it's just too easy for me to admire Jesus and not so much to actually follow him. Following him doesn't exactly mean BEING him (the example thing), but are we so worried that people are going to get so busy acting like Jesus that we might forget who he is? Wow...I would love to live in the world where THAT is a valid concern.
David
· 4 months ago
reading the manifesto and listening to Len talk about it makes me want to do the old 'Neil Edward Oliver'. There are two sides drawn in the dirt, but what we really need is discussion above both.
jesus vs the kingdom? justice vs mercy? the issues are so sharply drawn against each other to almost the point of parody.
i absolutely agree with you... "Throughout, there is just enough over-statement to rob this manifesto of its power."
i appreciate so much what they are doing and it stretches me... but also irritates me.
paul munn
· 4 months ago
Did you listen to "the YouTube song Give Me Jesus" while reading the manifesto (as they recommend)? You might not have understood it deeply enough without the full experience!
Sorry they ripped off the title, Mark. That was kind of jerky (since they seem to know about this site—didn't you interview them once?). And a letter from a publicist doesn't exactly reflect the close-knit life of the ekklesia they seem to describe. But you seem to be responding well.
Adam
· 4 months ago
From personal experience I have seen this theology (Christianity=Jesus) to be problematic. I think it inherently leads to a spiritualized other-worldly focus, rather than engagement with this world (Kingdom of God). I do appreciate that Viola has tried to reconcile these ideas (Jesus and KOG) in recent years, but I still find it problematic. I don't know Sweet's work, but I know Viola is coming from a Watchman Nee/T. Austin Sparks influence, and I think historically this flavor of theology leads to a distancing from this world.
Anyways, those are my thoughts, my experience, but I'm sure there are others who feel differently.
Eliacin
· 4 months ago
I was not surprise to see you helping out in spite of the obvious lack of politeness in conversing with you about the name they gave (hijack) for their document. I do not think I would have gone the extra mile, but there you go living into the reality of the things you speak. Thanks.
I was also not impress by what the document says. Nothing really new. It seems to me like David C Cook Publishers is experiementing with a stunt in sticky, viral marketing. I'm no foreseers, and the things I've tried to foresee have never happened, but I do not think this is going to stick for very long.
I appreciate the fact that you've been faithful keeping The Jesus Manifesto for so long, way before the word manifesto was a cool one Christianity®. Thanks also for opening it to other voices.
Jonathan Brink
· 4 months ago
Mark, I appreciate what you are trying to say. Sometimes in trying to bring out what is missing, that very thing excludes what was previous highlighted. I like how Rick McKinley says it. He always asks, "What is the whole picture look like." Not, "What is missing."
Ted Troxell
· 4 months ago
So it's all about Jesus. Who knew?
Eliacin
· 4 months ago
I was not surprise to see you helping out in spite of the obvious lack of politeness in conversing with you about the name they gave (hijack) for their document. I do not think I would have gone the extra mile, but there you go living into the reality of the things you speak. Thanks.
I was also not impress by what the document says. Nothing really new. It seems to me like David C Cook Publishers is experiementing with a stunt in sticky, viral marketing. I'm no foreseers, and the things I've tried to foresee have never happened, but I do not think this is going to stick for very long.
I appreciate the fact that you've been faithful keeping The Jesus Manifesto for so long, way before the word manifesto was a cool one Christianity®. Thanks also for opening it to other voices.
Eliacin
· 4 months ago
I was not surprise to see you helping out in spite of the obvious lack of politeness in conversing with you about the name they gave (hijack) for their document. I do not think I would have gone the extra mile, but there you go living into the reality of the things you speak. Thanks.
I was also not impress by what the document says. Nothing really new. It seems to me like David C Cook Publishers is experiementing with a stunt in sticky, viral marketing. I'm no foreseers, and the things I've tried to foresee have never happened, but I do not think this is going to stick for very long.
I appreciate the fact that you've been faithful keeping The Jesus Manifesto for so long, way before the word manifesto was a cool one Christianity®. Thanks also for opening it to other voices.
bexgee
· 4 months ago
I too got the memo and at first I thought it came from you. I agree - it's a good Christo-centric document. (What a relief from those emergent/progressive discussions that downplay or downplay the resurrection as though we've evolved beyond this "myth.") But I also agree with Blake that we're setting up the possibility of a binary where it's Jesus or justice. I don't see where our savior gave us this option.
I know that everyone is positioning themselves as some kind of online guru who can teach you how to harness the power of the web but viral and social marketing services seems to be one aspect of book promotion that authors have to do themselves so it feels authentic. I tend not to get involved with a particular project unless I have developed a relationship with the author and they ask me to engage with them on a project to build up a respective synergy. Speaking of the Trinity, I love how Eliacin talks here in threes. <vbg>
Julie Clawson
· 4 months ago
The document was just rude and really unhelpful to the church.
We evangelicals spent so long talking just about the person of Jesus that we forgot to follow anything he said. A manifesto telling us to go back to that unbalance way of faith just doesn't seem at all useful.
But they also seem to be confusing emerging kingdom of God / justice talk with classic liberal theology. That theology did deny the person of Christ and the resurrection which is why we had the pendulum swing to evangelicalism in the first place. But that isn't what is happening now no matter how badly the critics want to pretend it is. Telling people to give up a both/and faith in favor of one extreme because you falsely fear they follow the opposite extreme is kinda silly.
Adam
· 4 months ago
I agree - I think this document moves us backward.
Ranjeet Sonone
· 4 months ago
[this is what I posted on their blog - reproducing it here since people commented here too]
Dear Frank and Leonard, Yes, I agree with most of the comments posted already - will not repeat them. I will write what "else" I thought.
I think this manifesto sounds like a "one-punch-two-punch" style document that wants to push all the hot buttons on which churches/christians spend time/energy/devotion - and hence dilutes the focus from being solely on Jesus Christ. If the title is Jesus Manifesto, you should have kept all that "criticism" out.
Second, I have started to think about a simple, hardworking farmer as an audience when reading these days (or even writing) - and evaluating it. Will your manifesto be read by a rural farmer, say from some small southern town, and will he get it? What does he think Jesus is? Does he have enough time and imagination to think about all this? If not, who is at fault? The farmer works hard all week, goes to church, hears some sermon preached, comes back and gets in the rut again. People like us, who have access to everything "technology" and the "revolution" can write and talk about such manifestos, while sitting in our beds connected to the "internet". But what about those who do not have such a lifestyle? I think you are writing to an audience that is already tuned in and access to the "revolution" that you are talking about - and hence this manifesto is not a hard sell to that audience. Even sunday-only-church-going people, like me, find this stimulating - but not solely focusing on Jesus. What needs to change in the mode of "communication" and "how" we communicate? Worth thinking, I guess.
Lastly, why did it end with promoting the books? This is definitely not a manifesto then.
Some honest opinions, because I know you listen.
-ranjeet
Lisa Ellwoods
· 4 months ago
This has been the problem of most everything coming out of the 'Emergent/Emerging' movement... it is completely disengaged from common people. I live and minister in a small town in MN and I will tell you that it has been my experience that people here do not spend time reading this stuff at all... maybe they will read something like 'The Shack' but certainly would not read something called a 'Manifesto'. (sorry Mark) They are concerned about basic needs not theological arguments.
Oh, and the local farmer/worker will be seen online... just very different sites than Emergent blogs.
-Lisa Ellwoods
paul munn
· 4 months ago
The fact that farmers don't tend to read theology shouldn't discourage us from writing or discussing it. Theology has always reached the "common people" in a trickle-down way. It appears, Lisa, that you read the stuff here, and you can translate and pass along whatever you think might be valuable to the farmers/workers you interact with.
I think the problem with the "manifesto" discussed here is that it's full of good sounding but vague and abstract theological statements that don't have much relevance to real life. There's much on this site, though, that is practical (relating to "basic needs") and would be valuable to farmers and workers if they had someone to pass it along to them in the language they are comfortable with.
Becky
· 4 months ago
Here we get into the Q of who is the intended audience for a book. We need books for scholars and non-scholars alike. It can be a challenge to find Christian books that can appeal to someone who doesn't have a masters degree and yet wants to read something a bit more challenging than say "Your Best Life Now." Books like Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis) and Simply Christian (NT Wright) have a readership that reaches folks ranging from PhDs to high school dropouts but they are the exception not the rule.
paul munn
· 4 months ago
I'm not sure books are even that important in communicating Jesus' way. He did it quite well without writing anything.
And coming up with a book that speaks to everyone seems futile to me. Speak to someone, and let them pass along those truths to others, in their own language. That's one way the live person is a much better communicator than a book, they can know their subject well and know their listener well and translate for them. Jesus did that constantly, speaking one way to the disciples and another way to others, putting God's Word into words that his listeners could hear.
Jamie Arpin-Ricci
· 4 months ago
"I'm not sure books are even that important in communicating Jesus' way. He did it quite well without writing anything."
Not a ringing endorsement for the New Testament, eh? (wink) Seriously, though, books are not the end all, but neither should we understate their past and present importance as mediums of formation.
Facebook User
· 4 months ago
Well, technically the New Testament existed initially and primarily as oral history and testimony, and was only later put to paper in as letters and the gospels. And oral transmission of the bible is one of the most effective methods of evangelism and missions/leadership training - the Southern Baptist Convention has done a ton of work/research into that, and they've come up with some really good material and studies.
In addition, theologians such as Kwame Bediako have detailed what a 'bottom-up' theology looks like - Bediako focuses on West/Central Africa, but there are parallels to other locales. In these instances, academia finds itself more in a role of theological historians, racing to catch up with the insights and movements on the ground amongst the people.
Theology is something that can flourish in all social strata, and does not require literacy to be efficacious.
Jamie Arpin-Ricci
· 4 months ago
Oh, I know, I was just being facetious. However, I will say that, while theology does not require literacy, it can be an important gift to it. I don't think we have lost more than we have gained by its use.
paul munn
· 4 months ago
Good points, "Facebook User." And I think it's probably safe to say that the majority of Christians throughout history, being illiterate, have not become followers of Jesus through books but through encounters with living Christian witnesses.
The "Word," after all, is not a book but a living person. And the "manifesto" being discussed here emphasizes that Jesus is not a theology or ethic but a person, embodied (hopefully) in his followers. A good point. It also, however, serves to introduce and promote two books by popular Christian authors (which you can order now using their handy links to Amazon...).
casey
· 4 months ago
Of course farmers read theology. Lisa's point is that the ones she knows don't read the kind of theology found on most emergent blogs and they are not particularly interested in heady theological debates.
markvans
· 4 months ago
We have a good number of readers from the country, actually. Working class and rural folks care about theology...but a theology that connects with real life. It may not seem like it, but many of the themes on JesusManifesto.com are profoundly practical. We write a lot about things that have grown up from the struggles of the people, rather than things that flow from the lofty perch of Academia. My own writing, while certainly a bit philosophical, almost always grows out of real encounters with struggling people. And while I may use different vocabulary talking about such ideas with average urban and rural folks, the ideas almost always carry over.
Manu Caddie
· 4 months ago
It's not a manifesto in the sense of a summary of the core beliefs of a movement - and it's not particularly useful so probably doesn't warrant the amount of time we're all spending typing about it. A more useful text to debate might be Mark Brett's "Decolonizing God" or Tripp York's new book "Living on Hope While Living in Babylon: The Christian Anarchists of the 20th Century".
Ranjeet Sonone
· 4 months ago
I think Lisa got what I was saying - if Jesus reached the common man/woman, our theology must reach too - without needing any translation. I took farmers just as an example. I was recently in many rural areas in the US, and noticed that the lifestyle "is" very different, validating my belief that we in the "urban" world do not truly know it. I was at a small ranch, meeting with some very simple minded people. One of them gives rides to people on horses, young man, 23 - and guess what his most important concern was - "nothing". He just wanted to live on the ranch, meet people, give rides, may be get married one day - very "simple" and a genuinely nice guy. He is connected to the "internet", no doubt. But as Lisa points out, what does he read? I just cannot imagine talking to him about "bride of christ", "eternal glory", "passion of christ", "jesus manifesto" - unless I am somewhere on the same page as him and talk his "language" and start where his concerns today are, I cannot see such a dialog. And then, if he is so simple minded, could he blamed for not thinking "deep" - is he not capable or is he not willing or something else?
May be, we all are in a vaccum, talking about theology - and reading/writing/commenting - but there "is" some part of the world outside of ours that we are not connecting to. And that does not mean we pick our bags and go "rural". We could connect with people there - but should we be talking/thinking more about that?
The same issues are in the "urban" areas too - replace the horse with something else.
In my mind, if I have to start with terms like "manifesto", "organic", "emergent" etc. - there is something we are missing. Jesus did not use any of those terms. Need to keep the farmer in mind - even for my "language" of communication.
-ranjeet
markvans
· 4 months ago
I cannot help but feel like this is a bit condescending. Rural folk aren't non-theological or simple minded. Sure, they might not use the same words that those steeped in theology might use, but they do think about these things. Almost all of my family and my wife's family is rural. The word "manifesto" is as likely to be understood in Pelican Rapids, Minnesota as it is in Minneapolis, MN. In either case, the problem isn't with the word, as long as it is defined. The issue is whether or not it connects. This manifesto of Viola's and Sweets is probably something a lot of folks from anywhere in the country can resonate with. And while JesusManifesto.com may not always resonate with rural conservative folks, sometimes it does. And the idea that Jesus cares particularly for the poor and the struggling and the left-out and the oppressed is something that I find a lot of resonance with in rural America.
Lisa Ellwoods
· 4 months ago
People where I live (and I can only speak for this area) do have theology... but probably would not talk about it as 'theology.' Not to say that they couldn't... just more that they wouldn't. As Mark points out... they don't 'connect' that way. Hopefully, I am able to live my life in such a way that people can see that Christians, like Christ, care for those on the margins through unconditional love.
Ted Troxell
· 4 months ago
This is a balanced review, Mark -- much more so than I would be. I echo your points of contention and, being less discreet, I'd go on to point out that, once again, a couple of white guys have it all figured out, and once again, it comes in the form of overstating the obvious. And it smacks of pretension: a Magna Carta?? Seriously? And we're supposed to listen to a song while we read it to get the full effect? Seems dangerously close to self-parody.
So it's "Christ. No more. No less." But what does that mean? What does that look like? Can we explore that without invoking (distributive) justice or social concern? Didn't Jesus do justice, and prattle on incessantly about the kingdom of God, and commend to us a constellation of values, and offer at least one leadership principle (becoming a servant)? If we all get "back to Jesus" and we all have a different Jesus (which seems inevitable to me), are we any better off? I agree that there's some good stuff here, but I also share Eliacin's suspicion that this is a buzz-building publishing ploy. So I guess I'm just doing my part.
paul munn
· 4 months ago
"prattle on incessantly"?
Ted Troxell
· 4 months ago
Humor, Paul.
paul munn
· 4 months ago
Yes, I suppose Jesus doesn't mind a few jokes at his expense. (He's very forgiving, I hear.)
"Yes, I suppose Jesus doesn't mind a few jokes at his expense."
He's suffered worse.
markvans
· 4 months ago
Like what? ;)
Ted Troxell
· 4 months ago
It was hard to get a car loan back then.
Jamie Arpin-Ricci
· 4 months ago
This is the best threads in the whole conversation!
James Wright
· 4 months ago
didn't need loans, just a fish with a big enough mouth to hold the right amount of change.
Ted Troxell
· 4 months ago
Nicely done.
I was trying to impugn a culture where lack of credit constitutes a national crisis, but I think it bombed.
James
· 4 months ago
I liked it. I think that got outweighed though by the lack of cars.
Nate
· 4 months ago
I thought of this site when I heard the HBC podcast this week; I didn't know Viola knew you guys.
I'm glad that not everyone is swooning in breathless adoration of the document. I saw the thing as vague and self-congratulatory.
Julie Clawson
· 4 months ago
I just have to add - i'm a bit shocked by this comment by Frank to you - "My recommendation to you (and challenge perhaps) would be for you to write your own manifesto that improves upon the weaknesses that you feel are present in our ours. Our statement is by no means perfect, but it’s what we feel the Lord has given us. It’s our “portion,” if you will. We’d love to see yours someday."
really? love to see you do something with a manifesto? hmmm...
Phil
· 4 months ago
I didn't read anything in either the manifesto itself or Sweet & Viola's exchanges with Mark that could fairly be characterized as "rude." Nor, considering the number of comments so quickly generated here, does the document seem "unhelpful." Indeed, if it is all very "silly" and lacking in value, one wonders why so many were spurred to honest dialogue by the manifesto (and when has it ever been the case honest and careful dialogue between followers of Jesus is absolutely lacking in some benefit?).
Frankly speaking, the only thing here that is really unhelpful, silly, & (possibly) rude in this thread is the use of pejorative adjectives for the purpose of denigrating Sweet & Viola's manifesto and their subsequent interactions with Mark. I've no doubt, Julie, that you have a far more thoughtful critique than the drive-by hits you've offered here.
I'd add that I'm shocked; but given the acrimony which so often characterizes intramural Christian disagreements, I'm not.
markvans
· 4 months ago
I think the "rude" she was talking about is what I alluded to at the beginning of my post here.
I don't read anything acrimonious about people's responses to Frank and Len...and if there is any negative feedback, I have no doubt whatsoever that they can handle it.
Phil
· 4 months ago
Haha. Ok, ok. And you're no doubt right; they're both big guys and perfectly capable of dealing with a little criticism. Julie, being a formidable person herself, can no doubt deal with the feedback as well.
I guess I took issue with what seemed to be hyperbole flirting with ad hominem attack. I think when we (Christians) start lobbing loaded adjectives at each other constructive conversation and thoughtful critique tends to go out the window pretty quickly.
Anyway, it's your blog and I take the implicit correction. Thanks for the conversation here.
Adam
· 4 months ago
Where is that comment?
Leonard Sweet
· 4 months ago
Mark:
I appreciate the graciousness of your response to our "Jesus Manifesto." It has been a major challenge for me over the years to maintain your level of poise and generosity when someone rips off one of your phrases and metaphors, so I honor you and apologize for this transgression. One of the reasons why I footnote so obsessively in my books is that I always try to acknowledge my debts, and to honor the bridges that carry me across. I was only vaguely aware of your existence, and had mistakenly filed your webzine in my mind with the "new monasticism" conversation, of which I have not been a part. But that does not excuse our unthinking use of your moniker without at least your permission and/or a prior conversation and/or a footnote.
Maybe we didn't make the trinitarian aspects off our thinking as explicit as we should have. As someone who has written widely on the trinity, and who has written whole books on how to do life trinitarily ("triangulated living," I have called it), I simply assumed that people would know that I am on record as refusing to talk about Jesus without talking about the Father or the Spirit. In Christ the full manifestation of the Godhead dwells, "God in Three PERSONS, blessed Trinity." The purpose of the Holy Spirit is more than a generic "comforter and sustainer" by the way. The Spirit's purpose is always to bring Christ to life in our lives, as Augustine most memorably put it in the greatest essay ever written on the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit =the Lover, the loved, and the love that unites Lover and loved.
I also regret the inclusion of the phrase "kingdom of God" in the litany of items that are replacing the lifting up of Christ. After all, the "kingdom" is what Jesus talked about the most; it was/is his vision; we can't lose that language. But as someone who teaches a graduate course on "The History of the Social Gospel Movement in American Christianity, 1880-1950," I am acutely aware what happens to a movement when the language of "kingdom" and "kingdom principles" replace devotion to Christ. Walter Rauschenbusch, the founder of the social gospel movement in the US, never separated "kingdom" from "Christ," and even understood the kingdom AS Christ. But not most of his successors. I have published many sermons in sermons.com with the theme of "the key to a clean heart (Ps. 51:10) is dirty hands" and even argue that the open sesame to the Pearly Gates may well be "Show Me Your Hands"---you got clean hands, go back; you got dirty hands, welcome." But we get our hands dirty in mercy-ministries in the world because we see Jesus where Jesus appears most: on the margins, on the periphery, on the edges, where the poor and the oppressed are found. "Inasmuch as you did it to the least of these, you did it to me." This is "holy living:" the ability to see Jesus in the most despicable people you can think of, and treat them as Jesus. To be "pure in heart" in Jesus' "Beatitudes" does not mean never to have a lustful or unsanctified thought (good luck with that), but to see Jesus in everyone. You will note that we were careful not to talk about making Jesus the "center," even though this has been the headline for the manifesto, because Christ de-centers our life and moves us to the margins and boundaries (I argued this way back in SoulTsunami). A move to the "center," whether it be the "centers" of religion, power, politics, whatever, is a move away from Jesus, who is found at the edges.
In some ways, I regret we did not go further in this document (or more "backward," as some of our critics allege). Maybe we weren't "backwards" enough. Where we wrote "God is not so much about fixing things that have gone wrong in our lives as finding us in our brokenness and giving us Christ," I wish we had stated it even more baldly and boldly with our Orthodox brothers and sisters: God doesn't just give us Christ, God makes us Christ for the world. Where we wrote, "He is the sum of all spiritual things..." I wonder now at why just spiritual? He is the sum of all things, period. And where we wrote "Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live" maybe we should have added, "Jesus came to make us Jesus for the world."
Thx! for this opportunity for me to respond briefly to our critics, and thx! for your graciousness and integrity of witness.
Still in One Peace,
len
markvans
· 4 months ago
Thank you for that response, Len. I think that a great number of folks are likely to read your manifesto in a disembodied sort of way, not knowing the context it is emerging out of (pun intended). I hope people will take this as a starting point for a deeper exploration of what it means to participate in/with/for Christ, rather than a static end-point.
LenSweet
· 4 months ago
Bingo! Yahtzee! Love the profundity of your pun. You really were "Jesus" in your response to us, Mark, and I'll never forget it. Thx! bro
markvans
· 4 months ago
Aw shucks. ;)
Steve K.
· 4 months ago
Why not edit your "Jesus Manifesto," Len? Why does it have to be a static document? It's on the Internet, for Pete's sake. Wikify it! Or not. Your call ;-)
James Wright
· 4 months ago
I might be the odd man out here (usually am) but I didn't read it as something that was ever to be taken apart from the Trinity in any way. I'm still not quite sure how that idea got thrown in the mix. Then again, I've read a good deal of you's fellas other stuff, so I dunno exactly how newbies would take it. I agree with Mark, I hope it will be taken as a starting point for deeper exploration in Christ, surely. Mainly because its never my wish for anyone to stop dead with a "theology" of Christ. Aren't we in a relationship with the Living, Loving God? I'd never just assume that I know everything about my wife and leave it at that (that is likely to get me killed). If I cannot know my wife perfectly and fully in every way and she is right next to me physically, how would I ever be so arrogant to assume that I could just stop exploring Christ's heart either? That is the relationship!
Anyway, I really liked your "key to a clean heart is dirty hands." Where can I find that and do you mind if I link to it? Google it, I guess...
Jason Coker
· 4 months ago
I know that for Len Sweet his concern lately has been for exactly the error of liberal Christianity - I see this as his way of pushing back in an unapologetically Christological direction. That's not a bad thing, however, without the context of the emergent/emerging discussion in the background this really does just begin to resemble a bit of a fundy rant. My main concern is that any preaching of Jesus should push us into a more incarnational engagement with the brokenness of this world here and now. Hence, preaching Jesus shouldn't make us us less inclined to ethical thinking, but more so.
VITL
· 4 months ago
In the end, all our philosiphying and individuality is vanity. If we are not; loving one another as ourselves, expressing the unconditional love we ourselves have experienced in Christ Jesus and sharing it with each other, we have missed the mark. May God grant us a fresh revelation of the Glorified Christ Jesus!
markvans
· 4 months ago
Wait...that sounds like a philosophical statement. ;)
Seriously though...though I think your first statement is an over-statement, I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying. We desperately need to ground our lives in the love of God and neighbor. In fact, the two cannot be separated from one another. The question is: what shape does that love take? It is far too easy for love to be mere sentiment. How do we love our neighbors (and enemies) in a way that is tangible, real, and powerful enough to challenge those things that divide and destroy us?
VITL
· 4 months ago
First part - Ecclesiastes 1:14 Second part - John 14 & 15, 1 John 1:2
You know, I'm just a simple minded girl from Kansas, so don't take what I say too seriously...but it seems to me that Jesus spent alot of time pointing quite a bit of what he said to the pharsees...(pardon my simple-minded spelling) I'll bet he spoke more to the hard-hearted pharasees than he ever spoke to the romans...Ya'all are sounding a bit like some hard hearted pharasees...I find our own pride to be much more damaging, much more dangerous than the opinions stated in A manifesto...If your feathers are so ruffled maybe the Holy Spirit (who gives us the words to pray...nothing is ever "new" in this world) might be trying to get you to set aside your pride...Ya'all are acting like the older son who is trying to play "god" by pointing out how "good" he has been while his snotty younger brother is the one who has really blown it...you know the prodigal one...Maybe the Holy Spirit is trying to tell you "come in to the party...you've had me with you the whole time..." Set down your pride, open your minds and hearts and stop pitting Christian against Christian...
markvans
· 4 months ago
Dana, perhaps you could say who you're addressing...because it isn't very charitable to say that everyone is acting like pharisees. I find your judgmental attitude very discouraging. I'm not even sure what you're upset about.
paul munn
· 4 months ago
Do you think you are helping the situation with vague and unsubstantiated accusations, Dana?
And it's probably worth pointing out that Jesus' arguments with the Pharisees were "Jew against Jew," so I don't think it should be surprising if his followers challenge and argue with other Christians.
[This comment disappeared on their site soon after I posted it yesterday, but then reappeared just now. I'm not sure why. I did write to Len about it and he was open and responsive, though he thought it was unfair to assume they were trying to promote their books.]
I think what Mark was pointing to is that you emphasize the person of Jesus, yet do not describe him (or the nature of his kingdom), maybe even intentionally. And you seem to strongly criticize the emphasis of other Christians on ethics, theologies, and teachings drawn from Jesus (even the emphasis on "the kingdom of God," which Jesus focused on himself), yet these are the ways Christians have tried to describe the nature of Jesus and his body, to help us avoid following an ethereal "person of Jesus" that we made up to suit ourselves.
You say, "The Jesus who walked the shores of Galilee is the same person who indwells the church today." I agree, if by "church" you mean the authentic, committed followers of Jesus, whose lives look like his. But much that we see in "the church" does not look like Jesus at all, while they all (or at least most) claim to be following Jesus. Their "Jesus" is just a word, without real content (much less a real person). And this abstract "person of Jesus" is easily adapted to their own desires or social pressures, including the pressures of the powers of this world. Hence the description "anemic Christianity."
I also think you should be more open to challenge and criticism, since you are posting this publicly, and the Jesus you write about is not yours (not even "your portion" is yours) but the one living Jesus of us all, his body. You challenge Mark to write his own statement ("instead of criticizing ours" seems to be the implication). But from your statement here it would seem that what we need is not more statements but living people embodying the living Jesus. And Jesus (who never wrote his own "manifesto") was quite an outspoken critic of his fellow Jews, especially those considered to be the religious leaders and teachers of the people.
Like, perhaps, the popular Christian authors of our day. You write "Christians don't follow a book." But wandering through a Christian bookstore might lead us to quite a different conclusion. And this "manifesto" (and the work of your publicist to spread the word about it) also seems to be an attempt to promote your books.
The living Jesus perhaps wonders why you are charging people for the "good news" that he always gave away for free.
paul munn
· 4 months ago
p.s. Now just the last part of my comment has been deleted (with an explanation). And Frank Viola has replied, which I appreciate and respect. The continuing conversation can be read on their site.
paul munn
· 4 months ago
Now my second comment has been deleted (though I did get an e-mail from Frank and replied to him privately). The deleted comment, which explained why I didn't think my first comment was unfair or "imputing evil motives" was this:
Thanks for replying, Frank. I didn’t mean to imply that you presented an ethereal Jesus in your manifesto (or elsewhere), but only said that Christians often emphasize Jesus’ moral teachings, theology, etc. to help us avoid following an ethereal Jesus. And your manifesto makes a point of criticizing these ethical and theological efforts.
Thanks also for an explanation for the deletions. I did not think I was imputing “evil motives” to you, but only pointing out the impression you make with this site. In the manifesto itself you refer people to your books (including direct links to Amazon). You also conclude with pictures of your books and there are more links in the sidebar to take people to sellers of your books. You yourself also repeatedly refer people to your books in your comments here (as you do in your comment to me), instead of making that information available free of charge. So I don’t think it is unfair to say that you are promoting your books here.
And I never said that promoting your books was “evil.” I did, however, point out that Jesus always gave all his teachings, the “good news” of God, to people for free. And aren’t you preaching here that we should embody the living Jesus? Is it wrong to expect you to practice that as well?
paul munn
· 4 months ago
I just added this on the other site, which maybe I shouldn't have, but I couldn't help myself (and it's a bit funny):
I have no way to respond to the moderator privately, so...
I see you are intent on deleting anything more I say here (while leaving Frank's comment about me "imputing evil motives," which is untrue and judges my motives, and erasing all the evidence so no one else can tell if it's true or not). I wish you would take this manifesto more to heart and try to embody the living Jesus a little more yourself.
I'll do my best, too. Pfft, pfft, pfft. (That's me wiping the dust from my feet.)
p.s. I should add that I appreciate Frank's private conversation with me by e-mail. And I realize he is not responsible for these deletions.
All Comments
The other thing on my wish list would have been to be Christocentric, but also fully Trinitarian. The way we focus ourselves on Christ is by working in rhythm with his continuing Spirit, our encourager. I read over the manifesto very very quickly, so I may have missed something, but that part seemed a little left out.
So when someone misses these points but then maintains that they are trinitarian elsewhere, I get confused. I'm not being cute here...I actually get confused. The triune relationality of God either shapes one's understanding of Jesus or it doesn't. And if it really does, it should be readily apparent whenever one talks of Christ. Especially when one is talking about the proper way to understand Christ and live as the embodiment of Christ in the world.
First, I just want to encourage you to forgive them whatever debt you think they might owe you re: Jesus Manifesto(tm). It's easy to be somewhat possessive about 'intellectual property'. Luke 6, my man :)
Second...It seems very easy to get caugh up in the abstraction game with the Father and the Spirit. I feel somewhat confident that the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and that if I've seen the Son I've seen the Father. This isn't to downplay Trinitarian...but rather to admit a personal and perhaps ecclesial inability to stay 'grounded' without a strong Christocentric focus.
I love the idea of a Christ-centered Christianity. Thing is, it's just too easy for me to admire Jesus and not so much to actually follow him. Following him doesn't exactly mean BEING him (the example thing), but are we so worried that people are going to get so busy acting like Jesus that we might forget who he is? Wow...I would love to live in the world where THAT is a valid concern.
jesus vs the kingdom? justice vs mercy? the issues are so sharply drawn against each other to almost the point of parody.
i absolutely agree with you... "Throughout, there is just enough over-statement to rob this manifesto of its power."
i appreciate so much what they are doing and it stretches me... but also irritates me.
Sorry they ripped off the title, Mark. That was kind of jerky (since they seem to know about this site—didn't you interview them once?). And a letter from a publicist doesn't exactly reflect the close-knit life of the ekklesia they seem to describe. But you seem to be responding well.
Anyways, those are my thoughts, my experience, but I'm sure there are others who feel differently.
I was also not impress by what the document says. Nothing really new.
It seems to me like David C Cook Publishers is experiementing with a stunt in sticky, viral marketing. I'm no foreseers, and the things I've tried to foresee have never happened, but I do not think this is going to stick for very long.
I appreciate the fact that you've been faithful keeping The Jesus Manifesto for so long, way before the word manifesto was a cool one Christianity®. Thanks also for opening it to other voices.
I was also not impress by what the document says. Nothing really new.
It seems to me like David C Cook Publishers is experiementing with a stunt in sticky, viral marketing. I'm no foreseers, and the things I've tried to foresee have never happened, but I do not think this is going to stick for very long.
I appreciate the fact that you've been faithful keeping The Jesus Manifesto for so long, way before the word manifesto was a cool one Christianity®. Thanks also for opening it to other voices.
I was also not impress by what the document says. Nothing really new.
It seems to me like David C Cook Publishers is experiementing with a stunt in sticky, viral marketing. I'm no foreseers, and the things I've tried to foresee have never happened, but I do not think this is going to stick for very long.
I appreciate the fact that you've been faithful keeping The Jesus Manifesto for so long, way before the word manifesto was a cool one Christianity®. Thanks also for opening it to other voices.
I know that everyone is positioning themselves as some kind of online guru who can teach you how to harness the power of the web but viral and social marketing services seems to be one aspect of book promotion that authors have to do themselves so it feels authentic. I tend not to get involved with a particular project unless I have developed a relationship with the author and they ask me to engage with them on a project to build up a respective synergy.
Speaking of the Trinity, I love how Eliacin talks here in threes. <vbg>
We evangelicals spent so long talking just about the person of Jesus that we forgot to follow anything he said. A manifesto telling us to go back to that unbalance way of faith just doesn't seem at all useful.
But they also seem to be confusing emerging kingdom of God / justice talk with classic liberal theology. That theology did deny the person of Christ and the resurrection which is why we had the pendulum swing to evangelicalism in the first place. But that isn't what is happening now no matter how badly the critics want to pretend it is. Telling people to give up a both/and faith in favor of one extreme because you falsely fear they follow the opposite extreme is kinda silly.
Dear Frank and Leonard,
Yes, I agree with most of the comments posted already - will not repeat them. I will write what "else" I thought.
I think this manifesto sounds like a "one-punch-two-punch" style document that wants to push all the hot buttons on which churches/christians spend time/energy/devotion - and hence dilutes the focus from being solely on Jesus Christ. If the title is Jesus Manifesto, you should have kept all that "criticism" out.
Second, I have started to think about a simple, hardworking farmer as an audience when reading these days (or even writing) - and evaluating it. Will your manifesto be read by a rural farmer, say from some small southern town, and will he get it? What does he think Jesus is? Does he have enough time and imagination to think about all this? If not, who is at fault? The farmer works hard all week, goes to church, hears some sermon preached, comes back and gets in the rut again. People like us, who have access to everything "technology" and the "revolution" can write and talk about such manifestos, while sitting in our beds connected to the "internet". But what about those who do not have such a lifestyle? I think you are writing to an audience that is already tuned in and access to the "revolution" that you are talking about - and hence this manifesto is not a hard sell to that audience. Even sunday-only-church-going people, like me, find this stimulating - but not solely focusing on Jesus. What needs to change in the mode of "communication" and "how" we communicate? Worth thinking, I guess.
Lastly, why did it end with promoting the books? This is definitely not a manifesto then.
Some honest opinions, because I know you listen.
-ranjeet
Oh, and the local farmer/worker will be seen online... just very different sites than Emergent blogs.
-Lisa Ellwoods
I think the problem with the "manifesto" discussed here is that it's full of good sounding but vague and abstract theological statements that don't have much relevance to real life. There's much on this site, though, that is practical (relating to "basic needs") and would be valuable to farmers and workers if they had someone to pass it along to them in the language they are comfortable with.
And coming up with a book that speaks to everyone seems futile to me. Speak to someone, and let them pass along those truths to others, in their own language. That's one way the live person is a much better communicator than a book, they can know their subject well and know their listener well and translate for them. Jesus did that constantly, speaking one way to the disciples and another way to others, putting God's Word into words that his listeners could hear.
Not a ringing endorsement for the New Testament, eh? (wink) Seriously, though, books are not the end all, but neither should we understate their past and present importance as mediums of formation.
In addition, theologians such as Kwame Bediako have detailed what a 'bottom-up' theology looks like - Bediako focuses on West/Central Africa, but there are parallels to other locales. In these instances, academia finds itself more in a role of theological historians, racing to catch up with the insights and movements on the ground amongst the people.
Theology is something that can flourish in all social strata, and does not require literacy to be efficacious.
The "Word," after all, is not a book but a living person. And the "manifesto" being discussed here emphasizes that Jesus is not a theology or ethic but a person, embodied (hopefully) in his followers. A good point. It also, however, serves to introduce and promote two books by popular Christian authors (which you can order now using their handy links to Amazon...).
May be, we all are in a vaccum, talking about theology - and reading/writing/commenting - but there "is" some part of the world outside of ours that we are not connecting to. And that does not mean we pick our bags and go "rural". We could connect with people there - but should we be talking/thinking more about that?
The same issues are in the "urban" areas too - replace the horse with something else.
In my mind, if I have to start with terms like "manifesto", "organic", "emergent" etc. - there is something we are missing. Jesus did not use any of those terms. Need to keep the farmer in mind - even for my "language" of communication.
-ranjeet
So it's "Christ. No more. No less." But what does that mean? What does that look like? Can we explore that without invoking (distributive) justice or social concern? Didn't Jesus do justice, and prattle on incessantly about the kingdom of God, and commend to us a constellation of values, and offer at least one leadership principle (becoming a servant)? If we all get "back to Jesus" and we all have a different Jesus (which seems inevitable to me), are we any better off? I agree that there's some good stuff here, but I also share Eliacin's suspicion that this is a buzz-building publishing ploy. So I guess I'm just doing my part.
For some more Jesus humor, go here.
He's suffered worse.
I was trying to impugn a culture where lack of credit constitutes a national crisis, but I think it bombed.
cars.
I'm glad that not everyone is swooning in breathless adoration of the document. I saw the thing as vague and self-congratulatory.
"My recommendation to you (and challenge perhaps) would be for you to write your own manifesto that improves upon the weaknesses that you feel are present in our ours. Our statement is by no means perfect, but it’s what we feel the Lord has given us. It’s our “portion,” if you will. We’d love to see yours someday."
really? love to see you do something with a manifesto? hmmm...
Frankly speaking, the only thing here that is really unhelpful, silly, & (possibly) rude in this thread is the use of pejorative adjectives for the purpose of denigrating Sweet & Viola's manifesto and their subsequent interactions with Mark. I've no doubt, Julie, that you have a far more thoughtful critique than the drive-by hits you've offered here.
I'd add that I'm shocked; but given the acrimony which so often characterizes intramural Christian disagreements, I'm not.
I don't read anything acrimonious about people's responses to Frank and Len...and if there is any negative feedback, I have no doubt whatsoever that they can handle it.
I guess I took issue with what seemed to be hyperbole flirting with ad hominem attack. I think when we (Christians) start lobbing loaded adjectives at each other constructive conversation and thoughtful critique tends to go out the window pretty quickly.
Anyway, it's your blog and I take the implicit correction. Thanks for the conversation here.
I appreciate the graciousness of your response to our "Jesus Manifesto." It has been a major challenge for me over the years to maintain your level of poise and generosity when someone rips off one of your phrases and metaphors, so I honor you and apologize for this transgression. One of the reasons why I footnote so obsessively in my books is that I always try to acknowledge my debts, and to honor the bridges that carry me across. I was only vaguely aware of your existence, and had mistakenly filed your webzine in my mind with the "new monasticism" conversation, of which I have not been a part. But that does not excuse our unthinking use of your moniker without at least your permission and/or a prior conversation and/or a footnote.
Maybe we didn't make the trinitarian aspects off our thinking as explicit as we should have. As someone who has written widely on the trinity, and who has written whole books on how to do life trinitarily ("triangulated living," I have called it), I simply assumed that people would know that I am on record as refusing to talk about Jesus without talking about the Father or the Spirit. In Christ the full manifestation of the Godhead dwells, "God in Three PERSONS, blessed Trinity." The purpose of the Holy Spirit is more than a generic "comforter and sustainer" by the way. The Spirit's purpose is always to bring Christ to life in our lives, as Augustine most memorably put it in the greatest essay ever written on the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit =the Lover, the loved, and the love that unites Lover and loved.
I also regret the inclusion of the phrase "kingdom of God" in the litany of items that are replacing the lifting up of Christ. After all, the "kingdom" is what Jesus talked about the most; it was/is his vision; we can't lose that language. But as someone who teaches a graduate course on "The History of the Social Gospel Movement in American Christianity, 1880-1950," I am acutely aware what happens to a movement when the language of "kingdom" and "kingdom principles" replace devotion to Christ. Walter Rauschenbusch, the founder of the social gospel movement in the US, never separated "kingdom" from "Christ," and even understood the kingdom AS Christ. But not most of his successors. I have published many sermons in sermons.com with the theme of "the key to a clean heart (Ps. 51:10) is dirty hands" and even argue that the open sesame to the Pearly Gates may well be "Show Me Your Hands"---you got clean hands, go back; you got dirty hands, welcome." But we get our hands dirty in mercy-ministries in the world because we see Jesus where Jesus appears most: on the margins, on the periphery, on the edges, where the poor and the oppressed are found. "Inasmuch as you did it to the least of these, you did it to me." This is "holy living:" the ability to see Jesus in the most despicable people you can think of, and treat them as Jesus. To be "pure in heart" in Jesus' "Beatitudes" does not mean never to have a lustful or unsanctified thought (good luck with that), but to see Jesus in everyone. You will note that we were careful not to talk about making Jesus the "center," even though this has been the headline for the manifesto, because Christ de-centers our life and moves us to the margins and boundaries (I argued this way back in SoulTsunami). A move to the "center," whether it be the "centers" of religion, power, politics, whatever, is a move away from Jesus, who is found at the edges.
In some ways, I regret we did not go further in this document (or more "backward," as some of our critics allege). Maybe we weren't "backwards" enough. Where we wrote "God is not so much about fixing things that have gone wrong in our lives as finding us in our brokenness and giving us Christ," I wish we had stated it even more baldly and boldly with our Orthodox brothers and sisters: God doesn't just give us Christ, God makes us Christ for the world. Where we wrote, "He is the sum of all spiritual things..." I wonder now at why just spiritual? He is the sum of all things, period. And where we wrote "Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live" maybe we should have added, "Jesus came to make us Jesus for the world."
Thx! for this opportunity for me to respond briefly to our critics, and thx! for your graciousness and integrity of witness.
Still in One Peace,
len
Anyway, I really liked your "key to a clean heart is dirty hands." Where can I find that and do you mind if I link to it? Google it, I guess...
Seriously though...though I think your first statement is an over-statement, I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying. We desperately need to ground our lives in the love of God and neighbor. In fact, the two cannot be separated from one another. The question is: what shape does that love take? It is far too easy for love to be mere sentiment. How do we love our neighbors (and enemies) in a way that is tangible, real, and powerful enough to challenge those things that divide and destroy us?
Second part - John 14 & 15, 1 John 1:2
And it's probably worth pointing out that Jesus' arguments with the Pharisees were "Jew against Jew," so I don't think it should be surprising if his followers challenge and argue with other Christians.
[This comment disappeared on their site soon after I posted it yesterday, but then reappeared just now. I'm not sure why. I did write to Len about it and he was open and responsive, though he thought it was unfair to assume they were trying to promote their books.]
I think what Mark was pointing to is that you emphasize the person of Jesus, yet do not describe him (or the nature of his kingdom), maybe even intentionally. And you seem to strongly criticize the emphasis of other Christians on ethics, theologies, and teachings drawn from Jesus (even the emphasis on "the kingdom of God," which Jesus focused on himself), yet these are the ways Christians have tried to describe the nature of Jesus and his body, to help us avoid following an ethereal "person of Jesus" that we made up to suit ourselves.
You say, "The Jesus who walked the shores of Galilee is the same person who indwells the church today." I agree, if by "church" you mean the authentic, committed followers of Jesus, whose lives look like his. But much that we see in "the church" does not look like Jesus at all, while they all (or at least most) claim to be following Jesus. Their "Jesus" is just a word, without real content (much less a real person). And this abstract "person of Jesus" is easily adapted to their own desires or social pressures, including the pressures of the powers of this world. Hence the description "anemic Christianity."
I also think you should be more open to challenge and criticism, since you are posting this publicly, and the Jesus you write about is not yours (not even "your portion" is yours) but the one living Jesus of us all, his body. You challenge Mark to write his own statement ("instead of criticizing ours" seems to be the implication). But from your statement here it would seem that what we need is not more statements but living people embodying the living Jesus. And Jesus (who never wrote his own "manifesto") was quite an outspoken critic of his fellow Jews, especially those considered to be the religious leaders and teachers of the people.
Like, perhaps, the popular Christian authors of our day. You write "Christians don't follow a book." But wandering through a Christian bookstore might lead us to quite a different conclusion. And this "manifesto" (and the work of your publicist to spread the word about it) also seems to be an attempt to promote your books.
The living Jesus perhaps wonders why you are charging people for the "good news" that he always gave away for free.
Thanks for replying, Frank. I didn’t mean to imply that you presented an ethereal Jesus in your manifesto (or elsewhere), but only said that Christians often emphasize Jesus’ moral teachings, theology, etc. to help us avoid following an ethereal Jesus. And your manifesto makes a point of criticizing these ethical and theological efforts.
Thanks also for an explanation for the deletions. I did not think I was imputing “evil motives” to you, but only pointing out the impression you make with this site. In the manifesto itself you refer people to your books (including direct links to Amazon). You also conclude with pictures of your books and there are more links in the sidebar to take people to sellers of your books. You yourself also repeatedly refer people to your books in your comments here (as you do in your comment to me), instead of making that information available free of charge. So I don’t think it is unfair to say that you are promoting your books here.
And I never said that promoting your books was “evil.” I did, however, point out that Jesus always gave all his teachings, the “good news” of God, to people for free. And aren’t you preaching here that we should embody the living Jesus? Is it wrong to expect you to practice that as well?
I have no way to respond to the moderator privately, so...
I see you are intent on deleting anything more I say here (while leaving Frank's comment about me "imputing evil motives," which is untrue and judges my motives, and erasing all the evidence so no one else can tell if it's true or not). I wish you would take this manifesto more to heart and try to embody the living Jesus a little more yourself.
I'll do my best, too. Pfft, pfft, pfft. (That's me wiping the dust from my feet.)
p.s. I should add that I appreciate Frank's private conversation with me by e-mail. And I realize he is not responsible for these deletions.