A book that claims to be about restoring “the supremacy of Jesus Christ” in Christians’ lives — that sounds pretty good, right?
But I suppose that depends on whether one’s version of Jesus is based on truth — not just one’s favorite truths about Him, but the entire Biblical picture. And according to Mike Duran, who recently read and today reviewed Jesus Manifesto by Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola, this book just doesn’t present all the words about the Word. Is this lying by omission, simple naïveté (assuming Christians have only one set of problems), or is there “a fresh alternative — a third way” reason?
Subtitled “It’s time to restore the supremacy of Jesus Christ,” the authors begin with a series of sweeping, but predictable, generalizations about the grim state of affairs: “The world likes Jesus; they just don’t like the church. But increasingly, the church likes the church, yet it doesn’t like Jesus” (pg. xvi), and “If the church does not reorient and become Christological at its core, any steps taken will be backwards” (pg. xiv). This kind of “bash the church” rhetoric is at the heart of the postmodern, post-evangelical movement, and propels much of what Sweet and Viola unpack. Apparently, for many “emergent” Christians, problems with the church are a license to reconfigure the gospel. And, ultimately, Jesus Manifesto seems determined to do just that.
[. . .]
The “hard sayings” of Christ about hell, damnation, and judgment are nowhere to be found in this book (unless intimated toward religious elites). As such, the Jesus of Jesus Manifesto is the friend of sinners NOT the “judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). The Jesus of Jesus Manifesto comes to bring unity NOT “division” (Lk. 12:49-57). The Jesus of Jesus Manifesto carries an olive branch NOT a “sword” (Matt. 10:34). The Jesus of Jesus Manifesto ushers souls to heaven NOT “eternal punishment” (Matthew 25:32,46; see also Matthew 13:41-43, 49). It is this ecumenical evasiveness that spoils Jesus Manifesto. The Bible teaches that the Good Shepherd will one day return with “the armies of heaven… to strike the nations” (Rev. 19: 11-16), that the cross of Christ “offends” people (Gal. 5:11) and its message is “foolishness to those who are perishing” (I Cor. 1:18). Sadly, it is this “offense” that Sweet and Viola jettison in favor of uncritical inclusion.
Read Duran’s complete Jesus Manifesto review here.
And read Bob Kauflin’s quote of Kevin DeYoung here: “I wouldn’t want people to diss my wife, so why should I tolerate people dissing the bride of Christ?” 1
I am still wondering why it is that Sweet, Viola and similar authors are unaware of their own insular environment. It’s enough to make homeschoolers cringe2 — an apparent new Christian “bubble,” from which those on the inside are quite happy and comfortable with themselves, their friends and movements and jargon, but seemingly ignorant that those “outside” the Inner Ring are finding even better and more Biblical solutions to problems.
Do Sweet and Viola truly not know that thousands of Christians are already striving to recognize Jesus’ supremacy, but in the way that Jesus Himself said He wants, and not by going off to come up with a spiritual System that corrects for only one’s preferred set of perceived problems?
Maybe they know and are just kind of blind to it (this can happen to the best of us). Or maybe they’re seriously stuck in this parallel world. Or maybe there is a “third way” to explain this too, but I’m trying to be optimistic.
- Kevin DeYoung in Why We Love the Church rebutted Viola’s views in another book, in which the latter contended (with George Barna) that churchgoers main problems are fixations on buildings and stained-glass windows — a simplistic, one-sided and legalistic approach, implying sin sources are the ever-popular Our Environment rather than our own corrupt hearts. ↩
- I’m a homeschooled graduate. (Presents diplomatic immunity freedom-to-friendly-criticism card.) ↩
Aw, c’mon bro – this is hardly fair. I know that Mike Duran is a great guy and you probably see eye-to-eye with him on a whole host of things, but to cast aspersions on this book based not on your own reading, but someone else’s, is kinda disingenuous - don’cha think? Especially since, as I told Mike D. earlier on my own blog, “I think you’ve got the wrong authors. While they certainly emphasize grace (and you’ve gotta admit, most of the prickliness you mention – if not all of it – was reserved for the religious elite who thought they’d arrived, not the masses who knew they didn’t), you could hardly peg them as ‘liberals.’ In fact, many of my emergent friends would consider Viola, and increasingly Sweet, as rather right-of-center conservatives. That’s probably why a lot of Reformed and Baptist folk have endorsed it. (See a recent piece by Len Sweet where he responds to ‘Online Discernment Ministries’ accusing him of soft-pedaling the Gospel)
Even so, thanks for sharing your review – here are a few more that have come across my desk today:
http://je.posterous.com/caution-jesus-manifesto-c…
http://phoenixpreacher.net/?p=1748
http://seguewm.blogspot.com/2010/05/danger-of-pre…
http://seguewm.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/jesus-man…
Bottom-line, E. Steve, is that both Viola and Sweet are conservative, orthodox believers – they’re into the deity of Jesus, penal substitutionary atonement, the Trinity, and (yes, even) hell – even if they mention hell as scantly in this book as, oh, the Apostle Paul does. Check ‘em out – you might like the book. : )
True, Mike, I did draw some conclusions on the book based on the above review — yet I’m also familiar with other works by Sweet and Viola. However, I was impressed by Sweet’s response to criticisms, to which you linked above, and it makes me interested to read more. I have also read the above-linked reviews, and I’m aware anyway that some authors’ views can change between books, either to be more Biblical or less so.
However, while it may be encouraging to know the authors adhere to orthodox statements of faith, I suppose that could actually sharpen the criticism.
Why? Because that could reveal — I am not saying it automatically does — that the authors have a sort of “in storage” mindset for certain orthodox beliefs. (Some have also criticized Rick Warren for this, bringing return criticism wrongly saying Warren’s critics have called him unorthodox, instead of only faulting his public statements.)
In other words, though someone may believe in a more Biblically balanced view of Christ, he may not present all of Him to others. Why do that? If I knew an awesome Person had been misunderstood by people, and I wanted to clarify who He really is, I would do my best to present all of Him. That would take into account the fact that some readers might have assumed different sets of wrong ideas about Him.
Otherwise, particular views of Here is a Problem to Fix becomes more important than writing about the Christ Who transcends people’s wrong ideas about Him that can go in multiple directions — too far to the “right,” or “left,” or anywhere else.
But it’s likely you’d agree with my criticisms if two authors had written a book about exalting Jesus Christ, and yet only presented Him as the burning-hot righteous Judge Who punishes evildoers and won’t take guff from anyone. Such writers would be assuming that merely another set of Problems must be Fixed — but at the expense of also reminding readers that Jesus Christ, God/Man, died in place of sinners and all that, is love and mercy. Again, that would be an equal-reaction error.
Lest this seem to be picking only on some kind of “favorite” targets, I note Steve Brown’s endorsement of Jesus Manifesto and can make similar comments on that. From what I have read by Brown, and heard from him on Christian radio, Brown is another interesting Christian teacher who seems to have his orthodoxy down solid. Yet he seems to teach only against favorite errors that perhaps he has seen more often: legalism and lack of joy. Perhaps Brown believes these are the only errors in Christendom? Lack of discernment and endorsement of un-Godly living are problems at least equal in severity, if not greater in prevalence among professing Christians.
Ignoring a doctrine may not itself lead to unorthodoxy, but it is a first step that direction. This is Albert Mohler’s contention in a column called Air-Conditioning Hell:
From there the doctrine, such as that of Hell, may go on to be reduced by some, with the claim that the essential truth is preserved; ridiculed by others, who dismiss the notion that we need this doctrine at all; and finally revised entirely.
Let me close with a personal note. If I also claimed orthodox views about God, Jesus’ nature, salvation, eternal fates and such, and were to gain prominence in Christianity, a speaking/writing platform and such, and only wrote about particular aspects of Jesus’ character — such as holiness/wrath or love/mercy — I would hope believers would lovingly correct me. Hey, brother, we know you believe the full picture of our Lord and Savior, but how come you’re not giving others the whole picture?
If Jesus Manifesto contains a better-rounded portrayal of Christ, contrary to Mike Duran’s reading and (according to you) more consistent with the authors’ beliefs, I’d love to read this proof and would gladly amend this item to reflect it. It’s just that I haven’t seen that such orthodoxy is in the book, even if it is held by the authors.
That is perhaps a greater unfairness! After all, why should Sweet and/or Viola get to tell “the good parts version” about Jesus and leave His harsher sayings (about every person, not just obvious religious hypocrites!) for “bad cop” Christians to repeat?