Jesus the Radical

 Per Peter Wehner:

First-century Christians weren’t prepared for what a truly radical and radically inclusive figure Jesus was, and neither are today’s Christians. We want to tame and domesticate who he was, but Jesus’ life and ministry don’t really allow for it. He shattered barrier after barrier ...

For Christians, the incarnation is a story of God, in the person of Jesus, participating in the human drama. And in that drama Jesus was most drawn to the forsaken and despised, the marginalized, those who had stumbled and fallen. He was beloved by them, even as he was targeted and eventually killed by the politically and religiously powerful, who viewed Jesus as a grave threat to their dominance.

Indeed, every scholar involved in the constantly waxing/waning study of the so-called "Historical Jesus" acknowledges Jesus' friendship with the religiously/socially ostracized and marginalized as a defining characteristic of his "ministry." After all, the story of his calling of the tax collector Levi is recorded in the bedrock, Markan "triple tradition" found in, inter alia, Mark 2:13-17. Jesus' and his disciples' dining at Levi's residence elicited a peeved, self-righteous accusation masquerading as a question from certain Pharisees, described as "teachers of the law:" "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" "Sinners," here, is as much a sociological designation as it is a theological one. Like "liberal" or "socialist" in many circles today, it was a smear word, used to denote anybody whose adherence to the Torah didn't meet the standards of the accuser (and with the Pharisees, concerned as they were to keep the Torah strictly so as to hasten the advent of the long-awaited Davidic Kingdom, these standards were rigorous indeed). In such circles, association with such people wasn't merely personally damning; it was detrimental to the prospects of the Jews as God's covenant people.

The same accusation is likewise found in the "Q" passage dealing with Jesus and John the Baptist found in Luke 7:18-35//Matthew 11:2-19. Jesus' closing salvo against the "people of this generation" was as follows: "For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." But wisdom is proved right by her children (Lk 7:33-35)."

My concern today is not so much why Jesus made this such a central concern. Wehner's NYT column does a good job with that question. Rather, my concern is why this acknowledged Jesuanic radicalism has been marginalized almost completely in much of what passes for white, "evangelical" American Christianity today. "Evangelicals," as strict Protestants, wholeheartedly affirm that membership in God's covenant people--what the Apostle Paul, using a forensic/legal metaphor, refers to as "justification"--comes by "grace" alone. "Grace," as John M. G. Barclay has argued in his already classic Paul and the Gift, refers to an "unconditioned gift," one given without consideration of worth, be it ethnic or moral; hence, as the apostle famously affirms, grace excludes boasting, whether such pride rests in ethnicity (Romans 3:27) or moral performance (Ephesians 2:9).

But if boasting is excluded, that necessarily means that self-righteousness and pride are antithetical to what it rightfully means to be a Christian. Unfortunately, however, I hardly need to inform anybody that, in poll after poll, descriptors such as "self-righteous" and "judgmental" appear at or near the top in respondents' answers when asked their views of "evangelicals." Indeed, I would argue that it is not merely moralism, but selective moralism, that all too often marks the public posture of "evangelicals" in America today, much to their shame and the hindrance of the gospel of grace they profess to stand for. Some matters--in a constantly shifting environment, currently it seems that abortion and LGBTQ issues are high on the list--are emphasized, while others--not surprisingly, issues popularly associated with "liberal" or "progressive" politics, such as greed, lust for power, pride in "achievement" or even the country of our birth--take a back seat, if acknowledged at all. Meanwhile, egregious sins committed by Christian "leaders" like Ravi Zacharias and Jerry Falwell, Jr. are downplayed, if not conveniently ignored. I write this to our shame.

This is not new. I myself am what might be described as a "cradle evangelical." My father was a Bible Professor of some local renown.  I have been a Christian as long as I can consciously remember. I have a terminal degree in New Testament from a famous evangelical Seminary, have taught at an evangelical college and been a member of the Evangelical Theological Society for decades. Even so, the disconnect between the inspiring example of Jesus and the parochial example of the evangelical church has troubled me almost from the beginning of my faith journey. In my youth, I was vocally criticized for playing my trumpet in my high school's jazz band. It would be preferable, so they said, that I use my abilities to play "Christian" music rather than the "Devil's music" written and performed by people with sinful lifestyles. Certain activities and habits--drinking, smoking, dancing, movies, rock music--were deemed too "worldly" for Christians to participate in, without considering that "worldliness," in New Testament perspective, cannot be limited to such relatively trivial matters, but rather refers to the frequently unexamined structures of a world still operating on the stage of the "present evil age." 

Such an attitude manifests what I refer to as "ethical desiccation." Moreover, such contempt for the non-Christian world and for the "sinners" that inhabit it is theologically incongruous, not only with the example of Jesus, but with the acknowledgment that we, though "children of wrath," have been "saved by grace" (Eph 2:1-10). Grace received from God demands grace proffered to others. Why don't we?