i recently got a copy of jesus brand spirituality, a book by ken wilson, which came out this week. anyone who knows me well knows i love reading, but i read so much, i really only skim books to find nuggets that will stick with me.
this book, however, had me sucked in from the first couple of pages. technically, it had me sucked in from the title. last weekend, i read it in about three hours and highlighted/underlined so many things in it.
i’m going to have to do another post just to share all the insights, but i thought i’d share the first chunk with you now.
i should also say that nobody asked me to review this book…this is straight up out of my own felt need to share this book with you and express that i think it is one of the most important books any church leader or believer could read.
with that said:
- we can only hope jesus will continue to challenge every effort to hijack his brand, because he is, and always will be, the main attraction.
- jesus invited curious onlookers to help him do what he was already doing so that his actions would have greater impact…there were no faith quizzes to pass before you could help out; all it took was the willingness to go somewhere with jesus because you liked what he was doing.
- jesus was a mystic who prayed with his eyes open
- the roman empire embraced christian faith as the state-sanctioned religion. this in turn gave birth to the monastic movement as devout individuals sought a more spiritually enlivened form of faith, removed from the trappings of the empire (*my thought: we are on the cusp of this again, with people getting worn out from “trappings of the empire” and are longing for a deeper, more Christ-like faith)
- since religion can both illuminate and obscure jesus, sometimes we need to dig to find him. a good place to dig is the gospels. here, we find jesus on a mission from god to repair the world. in his glance, we catch an invitation for us to join him.
- caring for the most vulnerable isn’t a matter of compassion alone; it’s a demand of justice and the true sign of religion.
- as we engage with the realities that engaged jesus’ attention, we are more likely to encounter him.
- the gospel is a message with personal, social, and global reach. if it’s not good news at all these levels, it’s not good enough.
- have we front-loaded people with so many matters of belief that we are, in effect, asking them to swallow the whole package as a pre-requisite for a meaningful engagement with jesus?
- as a result of our long and productive love affair with rationalism, we tend to suffer from an anemic view of what we call “spiritual experience.”
anything resonate with you?
if you’d like to get your own copy…you can get it right here! i seriously can’t tell you how much this book rocks.
Comments
43 responses to “jesus brand spirituality”
Oh heck yes it resonates. I have often said that I feel my faith has been hijacked. Not my personal relationship with Christ, but Christianity as a whole. I feel that Jesus is too often made in our image, you know, He’s a clean-cut, middle-class, white, American, who votes a straight Republican ticket. I have always loved the fact that God loves me, ALL of me, I wish we could do the same with Him! Just love His homeless, revolutionist, compassionate, non-party choosen self.!
There’s always been an argument between those that think faith comes first, and is followed by theology, and those who think that you need some theology before you can have any faith.
However, an authentic face to face encounter with Jesus is going to be a revolutionary/enlightenment experience that brings both faith and theology, and, wow, that’s what we need.
Jesus, show yourself more in our lives, and mess us up.
i hope you are wrong about a looming re-emphasis on monasticism. though that life is not without some merit, it is not the way to join with God in His desire to redeem a broken world, and it is not the life we saw Jesus live.
John, allow me to clarify. I simply think people are getting tired of the “trappings of the empire” and are looking for a deeper and more Christ-like faith.
I’m glad Ken Wilson wrote this book. I haven’t read it yet, but I think it’s expressing the growing movement away from the “religion” that is defined by what we as a culture want it be.
It’s refreshing to know that the box we’ve put Christ inside the past 60-80 years is being removed. Could this be the beginning of the overwhelming spread of the Gospel? Wouldn’t that rock…
“caring for the most vulnerable isn’t a matter of compassion alone; it’s a demand of justice and the true sign of religion”
We do a street ministry (free friday night barbecue on the street) right outside of our downtown church until 2am or so.
Few of us are actually very compassionately swung people. Not that we don’t have it… it’s just lower on our gifting scale. It’s just simply what the felt need of our immediate community is. They need relationship with people who can help them out of their crappy cycle and burger every now and again.
It’s been funny for us to watch a bunch loud mouthed uncompassionate people running (what has been dubbed on the street), “That hookers and bums bbq”
dang i got into trouble for being critical of the book, but it was a misunderstanding and Ken and i are homies now!!
I am re-reading it slowly and less critically this time :)
http://kenwilsononline.com/2008/04/18/jesus-brand-spirituality-they-dont-like-it/
i had to place an order on amazon…i added this book to the list…does it come with a money back guarantee from anne?
only if you bought it through my associate link above… :) haha.
looks good. I love it when people are passionate about a particular book. Saves me the trouble of having to find it myself.
“caring for the most vulnerable isn’t a matter of compassion alone; it’s a demand of justice and the true sign of religion.”
Love it! That is why we are launching a new church….well one of the reasons. I’ll have to borrow this from my brother after he reads it! :)
aj, that makes sense! and, i agree wholeheartedly.
i think there also is a large group of folks who get the justification of Christ’s grace, but not the call to holiness/sanctification.
btw…hope you are well. :)
“anything resonate with you?”
Only everything.
Love the statement… “we can only hope jesus will continue to challenge every effort to hijack his brand, because he is, and always will be, the main attraction.”
kinda like the walls of jerico coming down – thank you Jesus for that
don’t get me wrong, this is an important topic but i realized many years ago that i can’t change religion and when i ask Him “why did you let them do that to the church?” He will say “what did you do for me?”
this generation is like none other in history as you are the seekers of all things – but, don’t let the seeking related pontification get in the way of His will and commands.
I agree with Michael above. That quote is amazing. I have to use it for Fanatic.
This comment is for all of you. I am very much interested in your responses to the following argument:
Regarding the man Jesus of Nazareth, assuming that all the miracles surrounding Jesus, all the teachings of Jesus (including his assertions of his own divinity), his resurrection and his ascension actually did occur:
Miracles, teachings, a resurrection and an ascension cannot prove that the recipient of that resurrection was the supreme being of the universe. They cannot prove that the recipient of that resurrection was the son of the supreme being. They cannot prove that the recipient of that resurrection was a lesser deity. They cannot prove that the recipient of that resurrection was an immortal being of any kind at all. They cannot prove that everything the recipient of that resurrection said about himself was in fact true. They cannot prove that anything anyone else said about the recipient of that resurrection was in fact true. All that we can know about these events is that something occurred that we can’t explain. We can’t explain the how. We can’t explain the why. And God knows that that is all that we can know about these events. God knows that miracles, teachings, a resurrection and an ascension cannot prove the divinity of the recipient of any resurrection.
Archie, Nice to see some clear thinking well expressed! I suppose there are many believers who imagine that the things you site are in fact proof. But proof, as perhaps you intuit, pertains to closed systems such as mathematics and scientific inquiry (which in turn is based on at least some assumptions which are themselves unprovable.) The God known by Jesus of Nazareth was a God of LOVE, which transcends any closed system. A mother who gives her life for her child, may offer evidence of love–and powerful evidence indeed–but proof? Perhaps her sacrifice was motivated by social conditioning rather than love. Who is to say from the perspective of proof? So I think you’re wise to get this conversation off the shibboleth of proof and onto something else. To receive the love of another always involves some risk–even with a flood of evidence, proof is elusive. There comes the moment of choosing or not to trust.
Because love is in the mysterious and messy realm of the personal.
Thanks for your thoughts.
ah yes. funny… i ordered this last week so i could read it on the plane to your house. still waiting. hopefully it is here tomorrow!
Hey Archie. Any attempt to prove God to a non-believer or to prove Christ is God is futile. The non-believer must be elected unto salvation and given faith as part of that election before they will become open to the existence of God and his son Jesus Christ. To attempt to prove God or to try and reason or argue someone to God just misses the point entirely so I don’t even waste the time.
Interesting post though.
Mike
Ken, thanks for your prompt reply. Your comments were thought-provoking. When I used the word “prove” I meant:
To demonstrate, through the use of evidence and reasoning, the truth or acceptability of a conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The above definition of “prove”, in my humble opinion, is not a shibboleth, but an integral part of our God-given gift of reason.
Now, I honestly don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I must state this clearly:
There are many possible causes, both natural and supernatural, for each and every historical event that is recorded in the Gospels, in Acts, and in the Epistles. There is nothing in the New Testament that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of the claim that Jesus the man literally was, and is, God.
If you are in the habit of claiming that Jesus the man literally was and is God, then it is morally incumbent upon you to present the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that such a claim is in fact true.
Thanks for reading!
Mike – wow are you saying there is no point to apologetics? That people like Josh McDowell have wasted their lives, that all the people who got saved through a careful rational explanation of the gospel that appealed to their intellect was worthless?
I am exaggerating here for effect, but how would you respond?
Archie – I’ll be less eloquent than Mike. It is not my moral, or any other obligation to prove anything about Christ.
Remember, the argument can go both ways – you have to prove that there are many probable causes for Christ’s miracles, etc.
My proof is simply that it’s True. I live it and it never fails, through faith. Those that do not have faith will never understand – absolutely never.
However, one way to put it to the test is to simply test it yourself – it’s truly life changing and I invite you to try it.
a bit off topic, i suppose, but i have to take issue with part of mike’s comment:
“The non-believer must be elected unto salvation…”
as someone who aligns with Wesleyan-Holiness doctrine, i firmly reject the proposition that God has pre-destined some to an eternity apart from Him. rather, the character of God as revealed in Scripture affirms the prevenient (going before) work of the Holy Spirit to ALL people.
if a person spends eternity apart from God, it is because they have rejected the appeal of the Holy Spirit and have been judged perfectly by a loving God. salvation is available to each of us if we will receive it through the grace of Christ.
@Mark
Certainly not!
First of all we are commanded to have an answer for those who ask about our faith. So to stumble on in ignorance because “it is what I believe and I know it is true” is ignoring a command of God. As a reformer I believe firmly in teaching and education of Christians.
Secondly reason, as part of creation, is provided by God for our benefit. Even though it was damaged by the fall, it is still a central part of the Christian faith. I will never say that the Christian faith is unreasonable. It certainly is!
Thirdly, no endeavor that gives us more of a glimpse into the very nature of God is a wasted effort! I love apologetics. As an old debater it gets my blood going to debate issues of faith with other Christians. Which leads me to…
BUT
Like the Law (which has its proper use but is often misused by those who do not understand the proper use) Apologetics are often misused by people.
You will never argue anyone to faith. Period. End of story. Apologetics can not argue or reason someone to the faith. Now, once God has begun his work in a person, then of course if they are of a more rational (as opposed to emotional) bearing, then Apologetics can help them to accept and mature in their faith. But you will never argue anyone to true, saving faith.
Apologetics have their place, but to attempt to prove God misses the point entirely. If God had not condescended to allow us to know him, we would have no idea of his existence. As an example when I minister to others, I begin by asking them if they will assume for a moment that there is one all powerful creator, and the Bible is the complete, inerrant, truthful word of that Creator God. If they will go with me that far then we can talk. But without that I am just wasting my time and frustrating myself.
We must begin with the assumption (one that I know to be true) that there is one singular creator and that the Bible is his complete, inerrant revelation to us. Then we can proceed from there. To begin anywhere else is an exercise in futility.
Does that make more sense?
Mike
PS I have heard Archie’s argument a million times and he is right. There is a plausible natural explaination for everything in the Bible if you look hard enough and stretch far enough. But I believe that sometimes the easiest answer is the correct one. In this case that those are miraculous occurrences. But I come to this conclusion based on my faith in the Bible and my personal knowledge of God, not some external “proof” that these things could not be natural.
@Mike,
Thanks mate, that’s really helpful. Now you have expanded your thoughts I understand the point you are making. And I think I agree with you. As I said at the top of the comments, a face to face encounter with Jesus is going to mess up anyone’s life (from the point of view of destroying their preconceptions and shaking their rational and cultural foundational assumptions), and that’s what I pray for the most; when someone really meets Jesus, they are never the same.
The only people with whom I have ever had the “let me prove to you that God exists” conversation are so interested in scoring their pro-atheism (or whatever) points that the goalposts in the conversation keep moving, and it ends up to be a load of hot air, so maybe you’re right about it being a waste of time.
However, for me, where apologetics and a clear understanding of the evidence for the crucifixion and resurrection have been invaluable have been in dialogue with people from other faiths, particularly Muslims, who believe that Jesus didn’t really die and that someone else was substituted. In this context, clear logical reason is an invaluable weapon against false teaching.
Anne – sorry for the theological digressions. We have strayed off-topic I fear. It’s been fun though :-)
@Anne
Why doesn’t the reply link work on these comments?
@Mark
I hear you. It is difficult to say that any attempt to witness is a “waste of time” but I firmly believe that God does not want us to become frustrated which can often happen if we take too much time arguing in futility.
As far as logical, rational arguments working on people of other faiths, I suppose you might be right. But I have also had my fair share of Muslims, Jews, ect that had viable alternative explanations for the resurrection that to them seemed more plausible. I am just not big on “proof” I suppose. But I would not hesitate to point to “proof” if I felt it was the right course.
So we stumble blindly on.
Mike
because i am not smart enough to fix it, and not motivated enough to remove it. :)
Oh, okay. Just checking. :-) I don’t even write in my blog anymore, so I admire you for keeping to it.
Mike
At the age of 20 I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, was born-again and baptized-in-the-Holy-Spirit, all in the same moment. It was a thrilling experience. Since then I have been a devoted Christian, active in a large Spirit-filled church and in several different ministries. I love the Lord and His people, and they love me. Filled with the Holy Spirit, I walk daily with the Lord, and actively seek His Truth wherever I can find it. I believe that all Truth is God’s Truth and that all Truth originates with God.
Therefore, I have taken up the study of Critical Thinking and in the process have learned quite a bit about myself and about the seeking of Truth. Here’s a portion of what I’ve learned as the Spirit has been leading, guiding and teaching me:
Critical Thinking is about being both willing and able to think, about developing two aspects of God’s gift of Reason to us: our Critical Thinking skills, and the disposition to use those skills to form good judgments.
Disposition means developing the habitual intention of being truth-seeking, open-minded, systematic, analytical, inquisitive, confident in reasoning, and prudent in making judgments.
Those who are ambivalent on one or more of those aspects, or who have the opposite disposition [biased, prejudiced, intolerant, disorganized, heedless of consequences, indifferent toward new information, mistrustful of reasoning, imprudence] are far less likely to use their God-given gift of Reason for Truth-seeking.
I’ll leave it there for now. I look forward to hearing any and all thoughts from you, my brothers in the Lord. [We need a few sisters in this discussion too. Do I hear an “Amen!” to that?]
Hey Archie, I love reason as well as anyone. As long as we recognize that our ability to reason was damaged by the fall, so when reason contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, reason must give way.
But that is not to say that there is not a place for reason or critical thinking, but it must always give way to the clear teaching of Scripture (which was not tainted by the fall).
Mike
Mike, Have you ever thought of it this way:
You said, “Our ability to reason was damaged by the fall.” Another way to say that is: “Our ability to reason is fallible.”
We all use our God-given “ability to reason” to determine what we believe about Scripture as a whole, and about every passage of Scripture as well.
Therefore, since our “ability to reason” is fallible, it follows that our use of our “ability to reason” to understand and interpret Scripture is also fallible.
It also follows that your determination that Scripture was never tainted by the Fall, is fallible, since you used your “ability to reason” to determine that.
Archie,
I love your description of critical thinking and it’s opposite. Most helpful. Thought: the notion of proof as “beyond a reasonable doubt” is one that applies in the court system (of U.S. at least.) I wonder if it is the same one that applies in matters of trust in relationship–which is the realm for engaging God, Jesus, truth in person. Don’t we often trust in the face of reasonable doubts? We come to these moments of choice–to trust or not. And we do or don’t with varying levels of doubt.
On the place of reason: I think it’s an element of the mosaic by which we discern truth. The mosaic includes Scripture, Experience, Community
(past and present), Reason. When they cohere, hold together, present us with the face of Jesus
(truth in person) we know we’re on the right path.
Good points Archie, but my thoughts:
1. Some things Scripture states clearly. Jesus rose on the third day for instance. There is no interpretation needed. Our fallenness is removed from the equation and only Scriptures perfection is in play. That is why we use what is clear in Scripture to interpret what is unclear. That way we are not interpreting Scripture, Scripture is interpreting Scripture.
2. We know Scripture is inspired and inerrant not by reason or logic, but because Scripture tells us it is. It is unaffected by the fall and it tells us so. That is how we know so we do not have to rely on our reason or logic.
3. We also know that Scripture is inspired, inerrant, unaffected by the fall because it is the presumption upon which we stand in the faith. We must all begin with some presumption. In this case it is the presumption that Scripture is inspired and inerrant. It is an element of our faith that we are given at salvation.
Again, not that reason is not without its place, but when reason and the clear teaching of Scripture clash, reason must give way to Scripture not the other way around. Or else we end up with “Christians” (I say that because in my mind one can not deny the resurrection and be a Christian) who deny the resurrection or the divinity of Christ (and in this case by deny I mean that they have “natural” explanations for these things).
Good thoughts though.
Mike
By the way Archie, yes I have thought of that many times. In fact many Catholics I know try to use that as an argument of why I should submit to the teachings of the Catholic Church. I find the argument…. Unconvincing.
Mike
“my thought: we are on the cusp of this again, with people getting worn out from ‘trappings of the empire’ and are longing for a deeper, more Christ-like faith”
Perhaps but what do you do when the empire is not simply the USA, but late, global capitalism?
Ken, thanks again for your thoughts. I agree that Experience and Reason are part of the “mosaic by which we discern truth”. This of course includes our God-given gift of Critical Thinking.
Critical Thinking does not assure that one will reach either the truth or correct conclusions. First, one may not have all the relevant information; indeed, important information may remain undiscovered, or the information may not even be knowable. Furthermore, one may make unjustified inferences, use inappropriate concepts, fail to notice important implications, or use a narrow or unfair point of view. One may be a victim of self-delusion, egocentricity or sociocentricity, or closed-mindedness. One’s thinking may be unclear, inaccurate, imprecise, irrelevant, narrow, shallow, illogical, or trivial. One may be intellectually arrogant, intellectually lazy, or intellectually hypocritical. These are some of the ways that human thinking can be flawed.
Please explain how you used your God-given gift of Critical Thinking to determine that “Scripture and Community (past and present)” should be included in “the mosaic by which we discern truth.”
Everybody,
Christian believers seem to act as if they think they know what Jesus said or did over 19 centuries ago. In reality, no one today knows one bit of what Jesus ever said or did. Do you understand that?
@Archie
Critical Thinking is an excellent skill to cultivate for many reasons, but it is only one way to approach Truth. It is a modern myth that rational thinking is superior to all other forms of experience. Particularly when we’re talking about connecting with the Creator of the Universe, we have to realize how limited we are. If critical thinking was all that was necessary then the Law could have accomplished its task.
I think this is why Jesus told the scribes and Pharisees that “you diligently study the Scripture because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (John 5:39-40)
Critical Thinking can help you discern truth, but is only one of the ways we’re called to engage with Truth. Truth is a person named Jesus. I can’t prove he was resurrected, but it is the only way I can explain my ability to continue to fellowship with Him through the Holy Spirit that He sent to come along side us. I don’t set aside critical reasoning but I do engage my whole being in my relationship with Him.
I’ll be back from vacation in 2 weeks so Adios till then.
Ken,
Your JBS mosaic model for guidance to Truth seems to take care of many of the issues of authority (church or the Bible itself), but ultimately it fails in that it is circular reasoning that begs the question. Once the pieces of the mosaic fit together in the right places to “cohere, hold together, [and] present us with the face of Jesus (truth in person) [so that] we know we’re on the right path”, how is it that we actually recognize this image as being that of the true face of Truth (Jesus)? It must be beautiful, right? Anything that doesn’t fit into our individual ideas of what “love” is, must be thrown away (according to your book). Except everyone has different ideas of what constitutes beauty and love.
Only in our fully redeemed state, in our new bodies in the new heaven and new earth, will we actually come to communal agreement (in Christ) on the definition (recognition) of beauty, love, and truth (the person of Jesus) because He will be there with us, plain to see and experience.
Ultimately there has to be some underlying “assumption” in the authority of the sacred text itself (unadulterated by fallible human interpretation) as inherently infallible (at the very least in the descriptions of Jesus in the gospels). With this underlying assumption or paradigm, just as science operates through such pre-requisite assumptions, then we can actually journey together as a community, along with individual reason and experience (ultimately seeking guidance via the Holy Spirit), in our efforts to know Him (truth) “better”. This “knowledge” must always be subject to spice of humility in that we “know in part” “through a glass dimly”… thoughts?
For those interested in Ken’s reply, check it out at his blog:
http://kenwilsononline.com/2008/05/08/its-the-epistimology-stupid/#comment-347