By Larry DeBruyn
\nGuarding His Flock Ministries<\/p>\n
“Therefore I make known to you, that . . . no one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit<\/strong>.” 1 Corinthians 12:2, NASB<\/p>\n Amongst pan-evangelicals nowadays, there\u2019s\u00a0a lot of talk . . .\u00a0talk . . .\u00a0talk . . .\u00a0going on about \u201cJesus,\u201d the name that bespeaks the\u00a0humanity of the historical person known by that name.\u00a0The best selling religious allegory The Shack <\/em>humanizes\u00a0Jesus as a relatively unattractive Middle Eastern Jewish man with a \u201cbig nose\u201d who functioned as the retreat center\u2019s repairman.[1]<\/p>\n At face value, there is nothing wrong with portraying\u00a0Jesus as human.\u00a0In Jesus, God became\u00a0incarnate.\u00a0Paul the Apostle wrote, Jesus was \u201cmade in the likeness of men . . . <\/strong>[and] found in appearance as a man<\/strong>\u201d (Philippians 2:7-8). Christians cannot deny\u2014though Docetism, an ancient heresy in the early church, taught that His body was not real, that He\u00a0only \u201cseemed\u201d (Greek, dokein<\/em>) to have a body\u2014Jesus possessed and possesses a genuine humanity. To counter the\u00a0false teaching of Docetism, John the Apostle wrote that \u201cthe Word became flesh, and dwelt among us<\/strong>,\u201d and that \u201cmany deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh<\/strong>\u201d (John 1:14; 2 John 7). For reason of His incarnation, no true Christian believer denies\u00a0Jesus’\u00a0humanity. But with all this \u201cJesus-Jesus-Jesus\u201d talk,\u00a0believers\u00a0ought to be concerned\u00a0that\u00a0a Christ-identity crisis\u00a0is going on\u00a0amongst\u00a0professing evangelicals as\u00a0they\u00a0attempt to deconstruct\u00a0the\u00a0traditions surrounding\u00a0Jesus in order to\u00a0discover\u00a0the authentic\u00a0Jesus of the primitive gospel.<\/p>\n “ReJesusing”<\/strong> Whether it is the grand ecclesiastical project of institutional churches, epitomized by the ostentatious excess of the Vatican, or the tawdry grab for the hearts and minds of the aspirational middle class by prosperity-style Pentecostalism, the Christian movement has been subverted. Like a forgotten nativity scene in a shopping mall dominated by Santa Claus, reindeer, elves, Disney characters, tinsel, baubles, and fake snow, the biblical Jesus is hard to find.[4]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then the\u00a0authors add: “Let’s get our Christology right and then dare to place all our deeply held desires for how to do church at its service. Not vice versa.”[5]<\/p>\n Though the authors make a fair\u00a0point for going back to the source of the Christian faith, a faith that in many ways has been corrupted by intruding ideologies\u00a0for two millennia,\u00a0we must note that their\u00a0desire to restore Christianity to its primitive roots\u00a0is not new. It’s been tried before, and rightfully so, for\u00a0we\u00a0Christians ought to desire to rid\u00a0our faith of\u00a0symbolic baggage and get\u00a0down to the nitty-gritty practice of it. Presumably that’s why God gave\u00a0to us His Son and the Scriptures that\u00a0witness to\u00a0Jesus (Luke 24:44; John 5:39); to clarify what we should believe about Him and\u00a0how we ought to behave in Him (2 Timothy 3:16-17).<\/p>\n But\u00a0my concern is that\u00a0Jesus\u00a0talk may\u00a0not be\u00a0all\u00a0it’s cracked up to be, and that because\u00a0it\u00a0appears to deemphasize\u00a0Jesus to be, as\u00a0Peter confessed Him,\u00a0“the Christ\u00a0the Son of the living God<\/strong>” (Matthew 16:16), it will\u00a0lead to nowhere in the end. In fact, the authors seem to infer\u00a0that\u00a0understanding\u00a0Jesus to be\u00a0the Lord Jesus Christ <\/em>is\u00a0a metaphysical imposition by the\u00a0church upon the\u00a0primitive but authentic\u00a0Jesus.[6]\u00a0This\u00a0is\u00a0what\u00a0emergents believe\u00a0has accumulated around\u00a0Jesus, what they call\u00a0the Jesus myth.\u00a0Thus\u00a0they propose that,\u00a0to really understand Jesus, the\u00a0mass of\u00a0ecclesiastical beliefs\u00a0and traditions about Him\u00a0must be\u00a0discarded\u00a0so that\u00a0the modern church can be\u00a0“rejesused.” In their view, the church\u00a0must be “rejesused,” or to use a computer metaphor, be “rebooted,”\u00a0so that a new kind of Christianity can emerge. Coordinate with this line of thinking, one can observe that in Wm. Paul Young\u2019s novel The Shack<\/em>, Jesus is never referred to as \u201cChrist\u201d or \u201cLord.\u201d Maybe those designations represent for Young a philosophical imposition upon the life of Jesus.<\/p>\n A Name above All Names<\/strong> First<\/strong>, He is Jesus because He is the Savior for our sins (Matthew 1:21). Second<\/strong>, that He is \u201cthe Christ\u201d is how Jesus Himself expected to be referenced (Compare Peter\u2019s confession and Jesus\u2019 response to it in Matthew 16:16-17.). Third<\/strong>, by His resurrection, Jesus was \u201cdeclared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord<\/strong>\u201d (Romans 1:4). Fourth<\/strong>, Paul wrote to the Romans that nobody can be saved if they do not confess\u00a0\u201cJesus as Lord<\/strong>\u201d and believe in their heart that \u201cGod raised Him from the dead<\/strong>\u201d (Romans 10:9; Now in contrast to name-it-claim-it hyper-charismaticism, there\u2019s the real the word of faith<\/em>! See\u00a0Romans 10:8.)\u00a0And fifth<\/strong>, in that He\u2019s now ascended into heaven and there occupying\u00a0the honored place at the Father\u2019s right hand (Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1), addressing Jesus as \u201cLord\u201d by faith gives recognition to\u00a0Jesus\u2019 honored state. One day \u201cevery knee<\/strong>\u201d shall bow, \u201cof those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord<\/strong>\u201d (Philippians 2:10-11). Question: Before our ascended Lord, why should we not\u00a0bow our tongues\u00a0and like the Apostle Paul, refer to\u00a0Him as \u201cChrist Jesus,\u201d \u201cJesus Christ,\u201d \u201cLord Jesus,\u201d or \u201cthe Lord Jesus Christ\u201d? Having observed that the New Testament refers to Jesus as Savior<\/em> 24 times and Lord<\/em> 522 times, one author concludes: \u201cWe should be able to make a personal application of these important statistics.\u201d[7]<\/p>\n So what are we to make of all this Jesus talk, this talk which while it rightfully exalts his earthly name on the one hand, wrongfully diminishes His heavenly name on the other? We need to be careful lest we create a Jesus so earth bound that He becomes of no heavenly relevance. After all, Jesus is “the Son of Man<\/strong>” (Matthew 16:13; Compare Daniel 7:13). Here’s what I mean.<\/p>\n A “Conspiracy” of Jesuses<\/strong> Now for the purpose of working up God’s kingdom below, one can only wonder when this conspiracy of little Jesuses <\/em>will morph to become\u00a0a collusion of little Christs<\/em>. Could this eventually be\u00a0the fallout of an emergent\u00a0Christology that attempts to affect the institution of God’s kingdom on earth through little Jesuses? On this point\u00a0we must note that New Age author Neale Donald Walsch tells his readers, “Many have been Christed, not just Jesus of Nazareth. You <\/em>can be Christed, too.”[10] Or as Helen Schucman\u00a0stated\u00a0in A Course in Miracles<\/em>:<\/p>\n Is he [Jesus] the Christ? O yes, along with you<\/em>. His little life on earth was not enough to teach the mighty lesson\u00a0that he learned for all of you.[11]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Conclusion So who is Jesus? Is He Jesus-Jesus-Jesus, or THE\u00a0LORD JESUS CHRIST? As we answer this question, we ought all\u00a0remember that \u201cno one can say, \u2018Jesus is Lord,\u2019 except by the Holy Spirit<\/strong>\u201d (1 Corinthians 12:3). If we should find a deficiency within us making it difficult to\u00a0refer to Jesus as \u201cLord\u201d there may be\u00a0indication\u00a0of\u00a0a deeper problem going on within our\u00a0souls; and that is in all this Jesus talk, we are not really being led by the Spirit (John 15:26);\u00a0or worse, that our hearts are\u00a0not really regenerate. After all, regeneration is the nexus by which the Holy Spirit imparts\u00a0Jesus’ life\u00a0in\u00a0us for the purpose of living His life\u00a0through us. To be Christlike on the outside demands that people\u00a0first possess\u00a0the Spirit of Christ on the inside (Romans 8:9). In\u00a0its fullness, the Kingdom will not come by\u00a0emulation, but\u00a0by regeneration.[12]<\/p>\n ____________________ By Larry DeBruyn Guarding His…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":13353,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[1299,1300,1301,26,64,234,264,683],"class_list":["post-4386","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bookfilm-reviews","tag-rejesus","tag-alan-hirsch","tag-michael-frost","tag-emerging-church","tag-leonard-sweet","tag-new-spirituality","tag-new-missiology","tag-larry-debruyn","wpcat-8-id"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nTo this point, a couple of authors have written a book titled, ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional <\/a>Church<\/em>.[2]\u00a0The book proposes\u00a0“a rediscovery of Christology that includes a preoccupation with the example and teaching of Jesus for the purposes of emulation by his followers.”[3]\u00a0Why do the authors propose rediscovering Jesus? Because, as they rightly\u00a0describe,<\/p>\n
\nYet\u00a0in contrast to Paul the author<\/em>, we can note that in various combinations Paul the Apostle <\/em>predominately referred to Jesus as \u201cChrist Jesus\u201d (90 times), \u201cJesus Christ\u201d (79 times), \u201cLord Jesus\u201d or \u201cLord Jesus Christ (72 times), or \u201cJesus our Lord\u201d (10 times). In the minority of instances when Paul refers to Jesus as \u201cJesus\u201d (Romans 3:26; 8:11; 2 Corinthians 4:5, 10-11; Galatians 6:17; Ephesians 4:21; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 4:14), the context indicates Jesus is being referred to as Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus or the Lord Jesus Christ. Why then, in contrast to the \u201cJesus-Jesus-Jesus\u201d talk going on these days, does the Apostle refer to Him as such? I suggest the following reasons.<\/p>\n
\nIn ReJesus<\/em>, the authors state that, “A true Christian expression models itself on Jesus . . .”[8] Then after citing Romans 8:29 (For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son . . .<\/strong>), the book\u00a0quotes\u00a0an author who calls this the “conspiracy of little Jesuses,” to which\u00a0the authors add, “we believe it is fundamental to God’s plans and purposes for his world [i.e.,\u00a0that Christians be a\u00a0conspiracy of little Jesuses<\/em>].”[9]<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>“Jesus” was as common a name in Israel during the Lord’s life as it is in Latin America today. So what is it that distinguishes His name above all other names? It is that–as the Apostle Paul knew\u00a0Him–He is \u201cthe Lord Jesus Christ\u201d! To the extent that emergents prefer to refer to Him mostly as \u201cJesus,\u201d they trivialize Him, making His name\u00a0an inconsequential moniker.<\/p>\n
\nENDNOTES
\n<\/strong>[1] Wm. Paul Young, The Shack <\/em>(Los Angeles: Windblown Media, 2007) 111.
\n[2] Alan Hirsch & Michael Frost, ReJesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church <\/em>(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2009). Leonard Sweet ecstatically endorses this book as follows: \u201cReJesus will rock your world—-and cause you to reJesus your life, reJesus your church, and reJesus your Bible. Expect \u2018reJesus\u2019 to become a mantra and a mobilization in the revitalization of Christianity in the 21st century.\u201d See Leonard Sweet, Book Endorsemnents at LeonardSweet.com<\/em>. Online: http:\/\/www.leonardsweet.com\/endorsement.php.
\n[3] Ibid. 15.
\n[4] Ibid. 9-10.
\n[5] Ibid. 12.
\n[6] The authors of ReJesus <\/em>note of Adolph von Harnack (1851-1930) that, “As a historian of dogma, he had seen too many agendas take Jesus captive, quoting him to justify all manner of beliefs and practices. He [von Harnack] became convinced that the kernal of the gospel had been overlaid by the husks of metaphysical concepts alien to the teaching of Jesus. The primitive stories of Jesus had been corrupted by official church dogma [presumably of which, the writings of the Apostle Paul are a part] . . . Indeed,” state the authors in the following paragraph, “it’s not hard to find examples to support this view. (p. 9)
\n[7] William McDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary<\/em>, Art Farstad, Editor (Nashville,TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985) 2075.
\n[8] Hirsch & Frost, ReJesus<\/em>, 13.
\n[9] Ibid.
\n[10] Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations with God<\/em>, Book 2, p. 22, quoted by Warren B. Smith, Reinventing Jesus Christ: The New Gospel <\/em>(Ravenna, OH: Conscience Press, 2002) 23. Warren Smith’s book is available in a PDF format online. See Lighthouse Trails <\/em>website for other of Warren’s writings at: http:\/\/WarrenBSmith.com<\/a>. I thank Warren for giving me the expression that\u00a0to\u00a0emergents the modern Christian faith with\u00a0its abundance of misconceptions needs to be “rebooted.”
\n[11] Ibid. 11. Emphasis mine. Smith quotes Schucman.
\n[12] The authors of ReJesus <\/em>admit that trying to walk in Jesus’ footsteps is a tall order. They state that in their study of Christology, which for them involves studying how persons can copy the person and works of Jesus in their lifestyles, there are limits to the ways “his life and activity can be emulated by sinful human beings.”\u00a0Then they add: “Some will say that such emulation is arduous to achieve in general [impossible might have been a better choice of words] when it comes to the specifics of his redeeming death and resurrection, the miracles, and his judgment of the unrighteous.” (p. 15) (From Guarding His Flock Ministries<\/a>)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"