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.

It’s happened again — an “emergent” professing Christian on his Facebook profile posts a note making imbalanced claims, and I start offering responses. Others then add more responses, and they seem not to get anywhere with the post-writer or others sharing his views.

They tend to say things like “Christians seek both religious and political power and prestige,” without qualifier, as if seeking religious and political power is the only problem in the professing Church. Others like me say back that the Church has many problems, resulting from worse lack of belief in the Gospel. We get ignored in favor of more trendy slams against the Church, and on and on it goes, the great circle of internet time-wasting life. It’s quite a kick.

Here’s one sample, edited only slightly.

Counting up the stereotypes in your recent comment [. . .] I think you’ve been reading too many [George] Barna surveys without critically evaluating the kinds of people surveyed or the language used to qualify real “Christians.” (However, I’m surprised you also didn’t mention “Christians’ divorce rate is the same as the world”! )

Are all these supposed greedy-power-hungry-warmongering folks true Biblical *Christians* or merely professing ones?

(Even if they are Christians, should we condemn them for surface symptoms, or seek to understand and correct the roots of these errors: wrong views of Christ and the Gospel?)

Anyway, I know plenty of Christians who are not all about Stuff. They give their lives and resources for others. Plenty of popular Christian leaders, such as John Piper, directly oppose the idea of Christianity-and-the-”American-dream.” If you truly haven’t seen them, you need to get out more.

I don’t need to remind you of Jesus’ infamous (and sobering) reminder later on in Matthew 7: 21-23 that not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter His Kingdom.

“Jesus told us not to judge”? Actually, He cautioned against hypocritical judgment.¹ Then He goes on to warn of false teachers that come in among the flock like wolves. You yourself are doing quite a lot of judgment in your comment. So am I, and judging in itself is okay, as long as we strive to judge without hypocrisy and with Christ-honoring love.

I think you already believe this. Still, I hear a lot of Christians being careless with their language. “Jesus told us not to judge” is a wrong statement that reinforces wrong views.

No, Christians are not perfect and have a lot to learn. Who would say otherwise? Yet looking to Him and the Gospel, not bemoaning problems, is the solution. Pulpit-pounders of previous generations (and some survivors today) decry the lack of moral behavior in the Church, but stop there.

Let’s not do that. Let’s point to Christ Himself and His Word, His Truth, His love for us and our resultant love for Him, our gratitude for Him saving us, as the basis for better living. That is the only way to wash the Bride’s garments cleaner: looking to its Groom and loving Him before than ever.

Naturally, this resulted in several Prayers of Salvation right there in the Facebook discussion.²

Well, maybe next time I’ll have this next quote on standby — thanks to my re-reading a little book by Randy Alcorn called The Grace and Truth Paradox. It’s the best summary I’ve seen so far by a popular yet Biblically based Christian author, about how Jesus is both grace and truth — and therefore, His people should be too.

Grace without truth is no longer grace, Alcorn writes in this little 90-page hardback. Without truth, “grace” turns into harmful, dangerous “tolerance,” a pathetic substitute.

And truth without grace ceases to be truth, he adds. “Truth” alone becomes self-righteousness.

That could summarize the entire book, which a trained reader could likely start and finish inside one afternoon. Thus a lengthy review might be half the length of the actual book! Yet I thought I’d post this brief excerpt, specifically addressing how the Christian grace/truth living affects how we perceive modern political platforms. Christians cannot claim a single party or cause without qualification, Alcorn says — something I wish “emergents” and others would remember.

Political Grace and Truth

Often, conservatives emphasize truth (morals), and liberals emphasize grace (compassion). Conservatives want to conserve what’s right; liberals want to liberate from what’s wrong.

Liberals’ commitment to fighting racism in the sixties was commendable. But sometimes liberals fight against true standards, life the beliefs that abortion, fornication, adultery, and homosexual behavior are wrong. They embrace tolerance as a grace substitute. Liberal Christians often end up being liberals first, Christians second.

Conservatives want to restore lost values. They want to go back to the days when prayer was allowed in schools. But they forget that the same schools that allowed prayer didn’t allow black children! By trying to conserve so many things—even things that were clearly wrong—conservative Christians have sometimes been conservatives first, Christians second.

Why should we have to choose between conservatism’s emphasis on truth and liberalism’s emphasis on grace? Why can’t we oppose injustice to minorities and to the unborn? Why can’t we oppose greedy ruination of the environment and anti-industry New Age environmentalism? Why can’t we affirm the biblical right to the ownership of property and emphasize God’s call to voluntarily share wealth with the needy? Why can’t we uphold God’s condemnation of sexual immorality, including homosexual practices, and reach out in love and compassion to those trapped in destructive lifestyles and dying from AIDS?

We cannot do these things if we are first and foremost either liberals or conservatives. We can do these things only if we are first and foremost follower of Christ, who is full of grace and truth.

Listening to “emergent” Christians talk about their ideas on the internet is not very easy.

For me, that has proven especially true in the past couple of weeks, for at least three reasons.

The first is that they keep saying things about God that are not too Biblical, or imbalanced, even if they aren’t strictly heretical (i.e., something that keeps you from being a real Christian).

The second is that they keep assuming other Christians, such as myself, mainly believe as they do for certain reasons — they want to preserve power, they want to shoot homosexuals in the streets for sport, they’re all legalists, fundies, etc. They don’t give much leeway to those who believe “traditional” Christianity, and live their faith in love, because they really believe the Bible teaches this and God wants it.

The third reason is because these are not just philosophical issues that can be talked about over (insert trendy drink of your choice) while tapping out notes on your (insert i-Something of your choice).¹ I keep getting that impression from a lot of “emergent” advocates — and to be fair, from some “traditional” Christians too — that all this is just a bookish discussion.

Instead, this stuff is vital. It affects people’s lives. Believing wrongly about spiritual realities ruins marriages, families, churches. False doctrine (no matter which doctrines you believe are false) corrupts how one views God, morality, salvation, how to interact with the world.

And what if it’s true that Christians who still hold to the Biblical framework of man’s personal sin against God²), and eternal consequences for failure to repent and believe Christ? If so, those who claim or act otherwise are in a lot of trouble. Why? Because in their efforts to help the world, heal its hurts, etc., they’re stepping right over dead bodies — ignoring man’s true problem, deadness in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 1-2), in order to treat flesh wounds.

One month ago I addressed this issue in Part 1. It started with a fantasy-world analogy³ and actually dared to finish with a surface evaluation of the civil rights era. Now I’ll finally finish up, with some thoughts on Christians and others who could seem to prefer moral zeal but without Biblical knowledge, following a certain earthquake.

Do your paperwork

More than a month has passed since the earthquake that tore through the half-island nation of Haiti. Already afflicted with disease, death and poverty, the island is still suffering the aftermath of that near-apocalypse. The blighted country’s existing population of orphans undoubtedly swelled, and charity workers, Christian or not, are trying to figure out what to do.

They want to help the suffering people, they really do. They have great hearts, those charity workers. But what they also need to make sure they have is, um, the right paperwork.

This also goes for a certain group of Baptists.⁴ In early February, ten members of an Idaho church were trying to get into the Dominican Republic, crossing the border with multiple Haitian orphans in tow. Instead they were arrested and charged with child kidnapping.

More recently, eight of the Baptists were freed and returned to the U.S. in time for some to get on the Oprah show.⁵ But two of their leaders, Laura Silsby and Charisa Coulter, are still jailed in Port-au-Prince. They hadn’t had the right documents, Haiti authorities said, and oh, by the way: some of the children weren’t really orphans. A World magazine story (on Feb. 4) further describes:

[Silsby] told reporters last week: “Our hearts were in the right place.”

[. . .]

The Americans, members of a group called New Life Children’s Refuge, said they planned to establish an orphanage for children in the Dominican Republic. CNN reported that the group has no experience running an orphanage, and that the group’s headquarters are listed as Silsby’s now-foreclosed home.

What I hope is that the missionaries (or missionary wannabes?) are not now thinking this is simple anti-Christian persecution. I hope they aren’t claiming “this was God’s will” for something that just wasn’t very good sense. I hope good intentions aren’t being held up over God-glorifying wisdom.

I also hope other Christians won’t pick on them too much. Rather, we should seek to encourage good-hearted Christians who could use some, well, wisdom too.

In Romans 10:2, Paul refers to non-Christian Jews who have “zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.” They don’t “submit to God’s righteousness,” the apostle says. In their case, having a “heart in the right place” was not enough.

The same is true of not only the Baptists in Haiti, or the social-gospel “emergent” folks, but any Christian. We should also be Biblical. We need to do the right paperwork. Otherwise, we risk making Jesus look bad, or else, have all these great intentions to help people but instead miss the real problems. ⁶

Rejecting society-prosperity “gospels”

Not having an actual orphanage to take the “orphans” to is a bad enough problem. Far worse is the issue described in Part 1: if you had a God-given “power” to give resurrection from death to some victims (though you don’t know who), why would you ignore it in favor of only treating not-quite-dead-yet people for surface wounds?

Yet many Christians, “emergent” or not, do this all the time.⁷

We get wrapped up in things like Natural Disaster Recovery, and Man’s Inhumanity to Man, and Addressing Injustice, and tend to neglect the far worse problems in man: the natural disaster of the Fall, man’s inhumanity to God, and the worse injustice of not constantly giving Him glory.

Many know the health-wealth-and-prosperity “gospel” teachers are an easy and rightful target for Christians who point out their heresies and/or greed.

But how is a society-prosperity “gospel” much different? It turns the Christian religion, or missionary work, primarily into trying to heal a society’s wounds, without the “secret power” of the Gospel that God uses to raise someone from spiritual death!

Though it sounds cliché, John 3 remains clear: Jesus told Nicodemus that unless anyone is personally, supernaturally, “born again,” he cannot even “see” the Kingdom of God. The Gospel, personal and life-transforming, powered by Christ’s divinity, sacrificial death and resurrection, is what raises people to life. It’s the secret power. It’s the only ultimate hope for humanity.

No one is saying all Christians should end their Haiti relief work, or any civil-rights work, so we can all only yell John 3:16 all over the place. Rather, Scripture is clear that helping the poor, feeding the hungry, addressing injustice, defending life, etc., are part of Christians’ Gospel-powered presence in the world. However, in combating civil-rights evils, or caring for the poor or orphans after the Haiti earthquake, shouldn’t Christians at least also spread the Gospel that Christ died to save sinners from their own spiritual deadness?

The choice is not “either we preach the Gospel, or we help the poor or fight injustice.” Christians throughout history haven’t seen this as a dichotomy (though a lot of people nowadays seem to force it into a black-and-white issue). Neither does the Bible.

By rooting everything we do not in our own society-prosperity work, but in that secret power of God to replace hearts of stone with living hearts of flesh (Ezekiel 36:26), we stay truly humble. We work out of gratitude to God, not confidence in our own morality or intentions. We still have zeal, but with Biblical knowledge. We do our paperwork — and hopefully have a little more common sense and hearts in the right place. Best of all, God, and not us, will get the glory.