So my Systematic Theology professor, Dr. Mike Wittmer, started a blog a few weeks ago. He finally took the plunge after some of us had been pestering him about it for a year. He is generally fair-minded and has a new book coming out next month with as equally fair of a look at the emerging church. Check both out!
Last week he wrote an interesting post that I thought I would post here for discussion. I responded twice, and those responses are below. Any thoughts?
My traditional, conservative church rightly warns against the rising tide of liberalism in evangelical churches and reminds us that we must believe something to be saved. Across town, there is a left-leaning church (determined by the fact that “Yes, We Can” bumper stickers outnumber the Christian fish symbol on cars in the parking lot) that rightly speaks about the dangers of legalism, hypocrisy, and the need for Christians to put their beliefs into practice with acts of sacrificial love. Both churches are preaching to the choir.
Recently it occurred to me that churches are like political parties in that each has a distinct base. There is a certain type of person with a distinctive set of beliefs that attends each church. Even its visitors tend to look the same. And if I was a pastor, I think it would be part of my job to regularly offend this person.
C.S. Lewis reportedly said “remember the resistant material” (I heard this from Os Guinness, and though I haven’t found where Lewis said it, the statement is so good that I’m going to assume he did). Lewis’ point was that there is some aspect of the gospel that will offend every person and culture. Our job as ministers of the Word is to determine what part of the gospel offends our culture and then preach that part. If we proclaim only the part of the gospel that our culture already agrees with, then we are being redundant, merely cultural Christians who are not yet proclaiming a transcendent Word from God.
So here are two questions which each pastor and teacher should regularly ask themselves:
1. When was the last time I was offended by the Word of God? How long has it been since I heard a Word from the Lord which convicted me that I was a sinner and needed to change? If it’s been awhile, we may be trying to control the voice of God, only seeing in Scripture what we already believe.
2. Think of the person in your congregation who represents your base. How long has it been since you delivered a Word from God that challenged this person? Has he heard anything in the last month that would make him uncomfortable? If not, then despite your orthodox theology, you may be a cultural Christian, saying only what your base wants to hear rather than what they need—a transcendent Word from the living God.
Anyone can talk about the sins of the other side, but to target yourself and your base, that requires courage and faithfulness. God didn’t call us to preach the Word in general, but to preach the Word to this particular person in this particular congregation. Let them hear it.
Here were my responses:
“Our job as ministers of the Word is to determine what part of the gospel offends our culture and then preach that part. If we proclaim only the part of the gospel that our culture already agrees with, then we are being redundant, merely cultural Christians who are not yet proclaiming a transcendent Word from God.”
Really? What parts are those? Let’s look at the gospel’s parts:
1) God’s Story of Rescue says that the we were crafted after the Creator to exist in an eternal relationship with Him marked by mutual love. That’s good news, not offensive news.
2.) This world is screwed up thanks to rebellious, broken people. Do you really think people need to be reminded this? Sorry, people already know things a screwed-up, that there is evil in the world and they do things that just aren’t they way they are supposed to be. Why do Christians continue on insisting that the gospel begins with sin? While people certainly respond negatively, perhaps in offense, at the demands of God’s Way, i’m pretty sure that people intuitively know that things aren’t the way they are supposed to be. The good news is that we all can be rescued form this brokenness and rebellion.
3.) God invaded the world in the person of Jesus Christ to rescue us from our brokenness and rebellious choices. He came and died for all people (I know you don’t think this is the case, that Jesus simply died for the chosen elect, the elite). Through Jesus all people can find the rescue they desire and reconnection to relationship with God. That’s good news, not offensive news.
4.) Jesus is coming again to re-create all of this, to restore things to the way God intended them to be at the beginning. That’s good news, not offensive news.
I don’t get why people insist that the gospel is offensive. You know this. I and plenty of other fair-minded people think that Jesus and His gospel Story are inherently (un)offensive, not in-and-of-themselves offensive.
Explain to us all where Jesus (or Paul for that matter) has called His followers proclaim an offensive message. I thought we were called to disciple people in the Way of Christ and God’s Story of Rescue. And that Way is Life and Good News. Not offensive news, Mike.
-jeremy
PS- I know a good book on this subject by a budding theologian 🙂
And he said:
Jeremy:
I really want to avoid a public debate with you, but let me say that of course I agree with you that the gospel is good news and that it begins with creation. But you do need to explain how the most unoffensive man ever died in the most offensive way ever.
The gospel is that Jesus is Lord (see the N.T. Wright essay you are reading for Tuesday), which means that we are not. I don’t know anyone, including myself, who does not find it hard to die to self and live for Jesus. I think that is what C.S. Lewis meant–that if we don’t talk about our sins and the specific ways that we must die to sin, then we are not applying the Lordship of Christ to the precise spot where this people needs to hear it. Thus, because we are sinners, the life-giving gospel will offend us.
To use your favorite example, notice how many homosexuals are offended at what the Bible says about their sexual practice. Should we swallow this offensive part of the gospel or tell them that submitting to the Lordship of Christ has direct implications for their sex life?
By the way, if you paid closer attention in class you “would know” that I am agnostic on whether Christ died for all or just the elect. Logic implies the latter but Scripture says the former. Stop web surfing, my friend!
So I responded:
I agree with Steve: maybe it’s just semantics, but can’t we find a better word? “Offend” is incredibly caustic. The Jesus I see in the scriptures was inviting, beckoning, and wooing. In the words of an 84 year old man in my congregation: we follow “the loving, gentle, caring Jesus.” Paradoxically he was also demanding and confronting of sin and the systems of evil.
Obviously, people were uncomfortable by his demands and even responded in offense. I don’t deny that one bit. Jesus even answered the very question you posed with a parable on 4 soils. The disciples themselves would have been asking why people weren’t responding in triumphant jubilation at the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven…at the gospel. So he says that people who have ears to hear are responsible to listen, to respond by embracing this good news through repentance, belief, and following. To respond by denying self, taking up your cross, and following him and his way.
While Jesus doesn’t address the nature of the SOWER (instead focusing this parable on the SOIL) I think Paul gives a great picture on how that sower should be. 1 Thess 2 talks about how even though Paul, Silas, and Timothy could have waved their apostle card around and demanded conformity and conversion, they didn’t. Instead their posture was as a nursing mother and encouraging father. As Dr. Meadors said in class: this imagery is inherently power denying and entirely basin-towel oriented.
I certainly affirm the need to confront rebellion. I just think we have 2 very different ways of going about that, Dr. Wittmer. Re: my pet example, for example: I think if Christians actually followed the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 28 on DISCIPLESHIP your said “offended homosexuals” would react quite differently to the community of Jesus, Jesus Himself, and His Story. Not to get personal or anything, but how many gay people are your friends? I’ll make it easier: how many gay people do you know? By name?
I don’t ask these questions because I presume an answer, but rather 1) because I’m curious and 2) to emphasize the point to all of your readers that we’re called to be in relationship with “the other” and the proclamation of the gospel (especially with its demands on dying to self, repentance, honesty about rebellion, etc…) must occur in the context of relationships. From my conversations with my gay friends—the people whom I am actually in relationships with—the problem entirely is the very anti-discipleship methods employed by the Church in general and Christians in particular.
Maybe I’m missing something in this post, Dr. Wittmer, but the use of this sort of language—offend, offensive, offending—seems nothing close to the example of a nurturing mother and encouraging father Paul talked about. Can’t we use a better word? Words matter for me, Dr. Wittmer, and I think a reason America is skipping into post-Christendom is precisely because our starting place and posture revolves around these words.
Maybe I’m wrong. I’m guessing you think I am 🙂 Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to help you understand better where I am coming from. I hope you can hear what I’m saying here.
-jeremy
Am I being too nit-picky with the word “offensive”? For some reason my ears burn every time I hear this word from Christians. Am I off base? Thoughts?
In truth, I think you are probably over reacting a little to a word that certainly the nuanced version can be found in Scripture. Jesus was constantly offending the religious groups–many of whom were sincere.
I don’t know if we should go out of our way to offend someone but I think we should preach the whole enchilada which will offend many people, and that’s OK. Sometimes, I think our generation reacts to the flaming jerks of our parents generation who wouldn’t know how to be gracious if their very life depended on it.
hmmmm…yeah I can see that. maybe I should see a shrink to ‘get’ why I get so offended by the use of the word…
ahh well…thanks for your truthie comment 🙂
-jeremy
Perhaps a better way to put this would be to say that Jesus spoke prophetically into his world. He compared those who were dirty on the inside to cups dirty on the inside. Jesus called people “what they are” and “what we are” (present) is not what “we should be” (future). We are called to be people who follow Christ, and we must constantly be reminded how difficult and taxing such a walk can sometimes be.
When people wanted to follow Jesus, he compare it to building a huge house, you shouldn’t start if you can’t finish. There are plenty of ways to simply read the Bible and let the text speak prophetically into the lives of those who are hearing it. There is not much we need to “add” to it to make it speak prophetically and powerfully. Some people will be offended and offset by the demands of prophetic truth.
I like what you’re saying here Danny. As I told another friend of mine: when we use this type of language we automatically create an unhealthy condition and mindset for being Christ in the world. I am all for the prophetic witness you speak of Danny, and that Jesus modeled. But should “offensive” be the starting place for that witness? I just think that beginning with that mindset conditions Christians right off the bat for unhealthy incarnational practice.
-jeremy
I think you should begin with people.
All of these models of “offense” or “pure gospel” or whatever is all good and well, but the reality is that we start with people. Different people will be in different places. For those who are prideful, we must them ‘the fall.’ For those who are rich, they must learn to give to the poor. What we are really teaching is grace, but how that grace plays out depends on the person.
I have followed these posts and look forward to your book. My change of heart is that I agree that the gospel is not an offense, with one exception.
Religious people are offended by grace in the gospel. Do we treat the outcasts like Jesus did the woman who was about to be stoned? God did not offend that woman caught in adultery nor did He lower his holiness. He simply offered forgiveness–the gospel. The religious spirit in us hates this. We want to control the process, conversation and dispense the gospel like a commodity.
I am trying not to be stuck in my own religious cowardice and embrace grace and community which takes courage. It is easy to offend. It is harder to embrace like Jesus did to the adulterer. Only then is “go and sin no more” brought in the picture.
I had a professor in college say once that “the gospel is offensive, we don’t need to add to it.” I think you are right in reminding us how our lives and the way we communicate should reflect the love of Christ, but I think the gospel itself will offend people. I believe the message of the gospel is the offending part because the message says that we cannot achieve righteousness on our own. It strips aways our pride. And at least for myself, I hate being told I can’t do something. Whether it be my standing before a holy God or something else.
I think you are confusing where the “offense” occurs. The message of Jesus Christ on it’s own merits is not offensive. How could it be? It speaks of love and peace, of putting others first, and loving our enemies.
I think the Good News can become offensive in two ways:
1) how we present it (judgmental, condescending)
and
2) exposing truth to entrenched sin (this is what I believe Whitmer was talking about).
The first one is wrong on so many levels and is possibly (based on your writings) what you are most concerned about.
The second is unavoidable. Ultimately all sin is selfishness, an unwillingness to subvert our will to God’s. The Good News calls us to turn away from self, to submit to Jesus Christ as Lord. It forces us to acknowledge we are wrong and in a post-modern society that believes there is no right or wrong, only personal choices, most will find that offensive.
Is not the Gospel–the Good News, The New Testament, Jesus, Himself–deconstruction? The “event” or “advent” introduced to the “same” causing the “same” to “tremble and reconfigure”. Does everyone openly allow themselves the opportunity to “reconfigure” or is it human nature to grip the “same”? I believe that most would grasp their autonomy in a deathgrip–resisting the transformative nature of the Gospel. (This is where the work of the Holy Spirit takes place in regeneration)
There have been comments regarding whether or not “offense” is the right word. Perhaps “offense” is only part of the story. What about indignity and apprehension towards the outset of an unknown and endless journey? (I’m thinking of the rich young ruler) I will, however, concede that there are two sides–a “tension” if you will.
One of many of Derrida’s definitions of deconstruction is “the possibility of the impossibility”–this is encouraging and affirming. This is the tension that I speak of (see the Sermon on the Mount)–a paradox that, yes, is freeing (not in our modern, autonomous understanding–that is a whole different discussion) and also offensive.
Caputo’s “What would Jesus Deconstruct?” is a helpful source to “un-pack” how Jesus and the Gospel–in the context of deconstruction–could be “offensive”.
The words we use, and the way we use them, matter a great deal more than most people acknowledge. I fully agree with your point. I just wrote a post on my blog on a similar theme.
A while ago, I bristled at one pastor’s use of the word guilt. What he meant was conviction. But he made it sound like we’re supposed to live in perpetual guilt. Redemption is offered to set us free from guilt — it’s a miracle we’re called to investigate and invest in. If you’re preaching guilt, I have no idea how you work that in…
More recently, people have been bandying around this notion that faith is “dangerous” or “offensive” . That in itself is dangerous and offensive. It’s certainly not what faith is. And if our whole faith experience is being coloured with those words, we’re in big trouble! We’re starting with the expectation that we’re telling an offensive story. Which means that we tell it offensively (or pre-emptively defensive), and when people are offended we think we’re experiencing persecution for the cause of Christ. It’s an amazing disconnect!
Faith is mysterious enough without us trying to cloud it in ambiguous, scary terminology. Please, can’t we leave that to ’80s heavy metal…? 🙂
While Jesus was not offensive by design, nonetheless, many of His words were confrontational to those who held power or way over those who ‘were powerless’ the disadvantaged that often were taken advantage of by ‘retainers’ and ‘elite’. He spoke frankly to them in a way that could be considered offensive. In Matthew 21:33-46 scripture says they ‘perceived’ He was speaking about them and it is pretty clear they were upset by His words.
I think the title of your book is provocative and might entice someone to reconsider some of the things the church might gleefully overemphasize in respect to ‘offense’ but ‘ride loose in the saddle’ so that your message can be given a hearing.