How to create your own personal Jesus


I first wrote this three years ago—but it seems as important as ever in the light of current debates.


A while ago, someone posted this graphic on my timeline, and my impression is that, far from being something merely humorous, this list is taken by many as a serious description of Jesus’ ministry and a characterisation of the kind of person we meet in the gospels. This is just one example of the way that we find it easy to trim off the parts of Jesus’ ministry, personality and actions that we find uncomfortable, and in doing so create a Jesus of our own choosing. I thought it would be fun to discover all the Jesuses in the gospels that look like the different groups of people we meet in church and society.


Liberals: good news! Jesus is just like you! He criticises the Pharisees for being too religious, and imposing their religious expectations unfairly on others (Matt 23.4). He appears to have a radical programme for social change, in which the poor are rewarded and those unjustly imprisoned are released (Luke 4.18), and this is rooted in a long-term vision for the inversion of social roles in which the rich and powerful are humbled, and privilege is removed (Luke 1.52). Judgement will be on the basis of whether we have offered practical assistance to those in need in the world around us (Luke 10.37, Matt 25.40).

Pastors: good news! Jesus is just like you! When he sees the crowds coming to him, rather than being overwhelmed, he is moved with compassion (Matt 9.36, 14.14, Mark 6.34). Out of a crowd pressing around him, he is able to pick out a woman in need (Mark 5.30) and he postpones his other activity in order to respond to her condition. He refuses to make a show of his miracles, but instead protects the dignity of those he ministers to by taking them out of the spotlight and treating them in private (Mark 7.33) and bringing healing in their own home away from the crowds (Matt 9.25, Mark 5.40).

Radicals: good news! Jesus is just like you! He just doesn’t seem to care what people think of him (Mark 12.14) and he taught his followers to have a similar disregard for the opinions of those in authority (Acts 4.19). He confronted those with privilege, and challenged their abuse of power fearlessly (Matt 23.16). He demonstrated his criticisms in dramatic symbolic actions which all would see and remember (John 2.15).

Introverts: good news! Jesus is just like you! He experienced some of his most important moments of affirmation and testing in long periods of time spent on his own, away from others (Luke 4.1–2), and made a regular habit of spending time alone, away not only from the crowd but even his closest friends, in order to be renewed and refreshed in silence (Mark 1.35).

Catholics: good news! Jesus is just like you! He was clearly an observant Jew, who was disciplined about going to church (synagogue, Matt 4.23) every week, and he observed the pilgrim festivals, with his family, like a good religious Jew (Luke 2.23, John 7.14, 10.22). He clearly believed in the importance of symbolic action (Mark 7.33, John 9.7), and engaged in communal rituals which he expected others to repeat (Luke 22.19, Acts 2.46).

Conservative evangelicals: good news! Jesus is just like you! He loved long, uninterrupted monologue sermons—see Matt 5 to 7 or John 14 to 17— and was clearly focussed on teaching the insiders rather than explaining things to outsiders (Mark 4.11) who generally found him strange and baffling. In fact, he was clear that his focus was primarily on the sheep who are already in the fold, even if others join by accident (Matt 15.24). When he did talk to outsiders, it was on his own terms, and he was often perceived as being rude and abrupt (Mark 7.27). He appears to have had no interest in programmatic social reform, but instead focussed on the need to repent because of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God (Mark 1.15). He believed that it is spiritual, not material, things that matter (Mark 8.36). When he saw that people were lost, and was moved with compassion, he didn’t offer practical help—he gave them another sermon (Mark 6.34)!

Mystics: good news! Jesus is just like you! He engaged in some rather bizarre actions, spitting on mud and laying it on people’s eyes and ears instead of just praying (Mark 7.33), and doing obscure and apparently meaningless things like writing in the sand whilst people watched, without offering any explanation (John 8.6). People often found his teaching puzzling and obscure (Mark 4.13) and sometimes downright offensive (John 6.61, Matt 13.57).

Calvinists: good news! Jesus is just like you! His central message was not that ‘God loves you just as you are’ but that ‘the kingdom of God is coming, bringing judgement, so you must repent or perish!’ (Mark 1.15, Luke 13.3). He offered good news, but that good news was that God offered a way out of the coming judgement to any who would respond. He emphasised the narrowness of the true way of discipleship (Matt 7.13–14) and that, though many might like to follow him, in God’s sovereignty few are actually chosen (Matt 22.14). He spent time with sinners—because he believed they were sick, and needed the medicine of repentance administered by their true spiritual doctor (Luke 5.32). The invitation to follow him was an invitation to follow a hard path of self-discipline and self-sacrifice (Mark 8.34). He was more than happy to talk about judgement and the ‘outer darkness’ where people would, in agony, bitterly regret their decisions in life (Matt 8.12).

Charismatics: good news! Jesus is just like you! He did not minister, teach or do anything miraculous until the Spirit had not only come on him (at his baptism) but come on him ‘with power’ (Luke 4.14). Signs and wonders were integral to his ministry (Matt 11.5) and his followers clearly continued the same kind of miracles and healings (Acts 5.12).

Nationalists: good news! Jesus is just like you! He was quite clear that the Jewish people were special in the sight of God, and he had come to minister to them alone (Matt 15.24). He was quite rude to outsiders who presumed to think that they could share the privileges of God’s chosen people (Mark 7.27). When people suggested to him that there might be another way, he was adamant: salvation only came through Jewish people (John 4.22).

Grumpy old men: good news! Jesus is just like you! He often was tired and hungry, and this made him rather confrontational with those he met (John 4.6). He got fed up with the people he was teaching when they were slow to respond to what he said—and he wasn’t afraid to tell them (Mark 9.19). He even got fed up with his closest friends, and was frustrated by their failure to understand and trust him (Matt 8.26). When people made inappropriate requests, he was quite happy to insult them in the strongest terms (Mark 7.27).

End times speculators: good news! Jesus is just like you! He expected an apocalyptic doomsday to come, in which nation would rise against nation and there would be wars, famine and disease, all accompanied by cosmic signs of the sun being darkened and the moon turned to blood. And he appears to have expected his followers to read the signs of the times (Mark 13, Matt 24).


At one level, this is quite a fun exercise—but at another it is deadly serious, and offers key insights into Jesus as he is depicted in the gospels, and our interpretation of him.

First, it is really quite startling to realise what a complex and multi-faceted character Jesus is. When I started writing this post, I was planning to offer only four different profiles. But the more I reflected, both on the complexity of Jesus and our tendencies to select what we want to find, the more different aspects of his character I noticed. I have here teased out 11 aspects of his personality and ministry, but I suspect it would be possible to add more. (Do offer your own characterisations in the comments!)

Secondly, what is striking is the way that this complexity is actually found in all four gospels. We have a tendency to notice the differences between one gospel and the next, and that can be helpful in noticing the details, and seeing how each gospel is drawing out some particular theological priority in order to highlight it, not least in the context of speaking to a concern or an audience of interest. However, the danger with this is that we miss what is common—and this is much more significant and substantial than the differences. All these different aspects of Jesus are found in all the gospels—and this demonstrates both that the gospel writers don’t appear to try and flatten out complex, even apparently contradictory, aspects of Jesus, and that they all appear to be writing about the same subject, even when they offer different emphases.

Thirdly, the varied evidence of the text explains why people find it so easy to see the Jesus that they want to—since there is a large amount of diverse material there. But you can only do this by reading very selectively, and in the end (as someone, I forget who, said), if we worship the Jesus of our own choosing, we are not actually worshipping Jesus, we are worshipping our choices.

Fourthly, what this then means, when we get into arguments about who Jesus was and what he taught, is that the answer is to go back to the text—and not just selected bits of the text, but the whole text and the whole depiction of who Jesus is in the gospels. I have find this especially helpful in the current debates about ‘inclusion’ and sexuality and marriage. How did Jesus’ inclusion’ actually work, when he spent time with ‘sinners’ because he believed they were ‘sick’, and was happy to tell them so? What did Jesus in the gospels actually teach about marriage, sexuality and sexual ethics? These questions often take us back to the heart of the matter.

Fifthly, the tendency to make Jesus in our own image is a sign of declining biblical literacy both within and outside the church. And the really worrying thing about the future is that our ordained leaders are spending less and less time on studying scripture and how it is interpreted, in favour of doing more in context, learning about church growth and mission strategy. Is this really the right priority for the long-term health of the church, whose first task is to worship God as he has been revealed to us in Jesus, and call others to do the same?


DON'T MISS OUT!
Signup to get email updates of new posts
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.


Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:

For other ways to support this ministry, visit my Support page.


Comments policy: Do engage with the subject. Please don't turn this into a private discussion board. Do challenge others in the debate; please don't attack them personally. I no longer allow anonymous comments; if there are very good reasons, you may publish under a pseudonym; otherwise please include your full name, both first and surnames.

106 thoughts on “How to create your own personal Jesus”

  1. I love this! Great fun but a warning to us and our egocentricity. I’ve been very influenced by Rowan Williams saying that inclusiveness is not a Kingdom value, but welcome is. For me, an important and helpful distinction.

    Reply
  2. Thanks Ian. That post is a really helpful challenge.

    You forgot “Conservative Evangelicals: good news! Jesus is just like you.” It might be fun to see that one? Good to demonstrate you can criticise your own tradition?

    Many blessings

    John

    Reply
    • John, I have bowed to your pressure, and added a paragraph!

      Conservative evangelicals: good news! Jesus is just like you! He loved long, uninterrupted monologue sermons—see Matt 5 to 7 or John 14 to 17— and was clearly focussed on teaching the insiders rather than explaining things to outsiders (Mark 4.11) who generally found him strange and baffling. In fact, he was clear that his focus was primarily on the sheep who are already in the fold, even if others join by accident (Matt 15.24). When he did talk to outsiders, it was on his own terms, and he was often perceived as being rude and abrupt (Mark 7.27). He appears to have had no interest in programmatic social reform, but instead focussed on the need to repent because of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God (Mark 1.15). He believed that it is spiritual, not material, things that matter (Mark 8.36). When he saw that people were lost, and was moved with compassion, he didn’t offer practical help—he gave them another sermon (Mark 6.34)!

      Reply
  3. Somewhat flattened of necessity, caricatures but brings out some key aspects.
    They all however appear to be mostly Jesus at the human level.
    An equally or more challenging level is when we look upon Jesus as God incarnate and all the classical attributes of the Person of God, even as they are in God made flesh, in Jesus. Fully man And fully God.
    Perhaps for another day? But if not now, when?

    Reply
    • Thanks Ian, great food to chew over. Geoff, yes it is indeed challenging to think about Jesus as God incarnate. But I am wondering what you think the differences might be.

      Reply
  4. Yes, this is very good! In response to your response to John Bavington, Conservative Evangelicals might mention a bit about Biblical inerrancy (“not a jot or a tittle”) and the cuddly love for those who are In, without talking about those who are Out.

    Reply
  5. I think there is a need Penelope, to listen to Keller on those who are In, those who are are Out and for a readable presentation (and much more) there is, “Surprised by Jesus – subersive Grace in the Four Gospels ”
    And, The Inner Ring, by CS Lewis is instructive and incisive.

    Reply
  6. Thanks Ian

    This to me demonstrates brilliantly the biases we bring to hermeneutics, and the need for a range of voices to bring insights we can easily miss.

    It’s as if they all bring some light and truth, and there’s a great value in humility and sitting lightly with some things; and balance. I sometimes try to describe myself as all of the above (of course I’m kidding myself; and I’m just now challenged by the ‘grumpy old man’ trait(!)) My current emphasis is on unity – informed by Jesus’ prayer in John 17 but also Paul’s writings and also the ‘unity in diversity’ refrain out there which comes from this Pauline theology I believe. Of course there could be some personality bias even in that (pastor / conflict avoider etc) which can be counter-balanced.

    I agree with your call for a re-prioritising of biblical studies; I like the sentiment of the late pope Ratzinger (not my tradition) and others of a quest to a “personal search for the face of the Lord”. My passion is for a life-time engaging with these things…

    And many thanks for your lectionary posts, which I find very helpful

    Reply
  7. The picture of Jesus makes him look like a gay Italian used car salesman who would be broadly supportive of SSM – so it is relevant to recent discussions.

    Reply
  8. Wonderful! … and Ouch!
    Love it
    Every couple of years I’m compelled to re-read a little paperback from a previous generation, Your God Is Too Small, by
    J B Phillips.

    Thanks Ia

    Reply
  9. Would it not be more accurate to say we let others create an ‘own brand’ Jesus for us?
    Will denominations go the way of great department stores and supermatkets?

    Reply
    • A book you may enjoy, Steve, is “Through New Eyes”, by James Jordan.
      It is available as a free download.
      While it is far from revisionist, it leans heavily on symbolism, while not denying historicity.
      Not sure where it fits into any mainstream denomination, though I can see some run-offs into some mainstream whole Bible, biblical theology cross – pollinated denomination channels.
      Yours, Geoff

      Reply
  10. I feel left out. God is not just Jesus, you know. And quite often my God is like a mature female next-door neighbour who pops in through the back door, and sits down at the kitchen table for a coffee and friendly talk. And because she’s like me, we understand each other, and have a trusting relationship. She ‘gets’ me, and we care about each other, including all the little things that some people might think were too trivial and domestic to be all that important. We sometimes chat about men, and joke about them at their expense, especially dominant men who think they’re right. But we love them really, because at heart they’re like boys we feel maternal towards. Just because God’s my friend, it doesn’t mean she’s not God. But she chooses to call in and speak to me at my own level, letting herself in, sitting alongside me, with quiet friendliness, laughter, sometimes a sigh, and sometimes words of wisdom. ‘Would you like another coffee, dear?’ ‘I haven’t finished my chores, and I need to visit the old lady up the street.’ ‘Okay G, then will I see you in church on Sunday?’ ‘My darling, I will always be in church on Sundays.’ ‘Love you.’ ‘You too.’

    Just so nice.

    Reply
    • So this she is not made in your image then?

      Not merely different from the Christian idea of humanity in God’s image, but the precise opposite?

      Reply
    • And quite often my God is like a mature female next-door neighbour who pops in through the back door, and sits down at the kitchen table for a coffee and friendly talk.

      Do you ever have disagreements? Because if you never dusagree with someone, then they can’t be a real person; they’re an imaginary friend that you’ve just made up.

      Reply
      • I can assure you I have *big* disagreements with God. Do *you* ever have disagreements with God, S? Be personal and open up. Try to show me you aren’t a bot. What makes you angry with God?

        Reply
        • To S C Don’t put a question mark where God puts a full stop! For God doesn’t call the qualified; He qualifies the called!

          Reply
          • Colin

            And yet many of the great biblical heroes did question or petition God and the establishment understanding of scripture has also changed over the centuries- 2017 UK would have seemed blasphemous to Christians from 1017 – women leading the country, no slaves, freedom to vote, women owning property, women speaking in churches etc etc

            It must never be wrong to question

        • Susannah – I don’t have disagreements with God as such, but I do seriously wonder what He is up to – what on earth various things that I see around me could possibly have to do with some eternal plan of salvation and creating people for eternal communion with Him.

          A major example of this is what is going on in the Ukraine right now and what divine purpose it serves to have large numbers of people blown up.

          But there may be some divine purpose behind it. For example, the brother-in-law of a Ukrainian whom I know was called up for active service on the front line and has seen some action (this is where I get most of my information about the war – reports from the brother-in-law of this acquaintance and the understandingwar.org web site). Apparently he has become much more devout, reading his bible and praying since he was sent to the front line – so there may be something that isn’t entirely negative about the situation.

          Reply
          • Thanks for sharing that, Jock. I think my own biggest complaints to God have arisen from pain and pitiful loss I have witnessed in my work as a nurse. We know our lives are fragile and brief in this world, and there is much suffering. But as Christians, while I think it’s healthy to be honest with God, there is a whole other side, to do with encounter with God’s love and goodness, and that fragile spiritual lifeline called trust. The suffering we witness is not something we can be glib about. It’s real and it’s pitiful. Perhaps part of our response is opening to love ourselves, and living out a kind of resistance, refusing to stop loving even in the face of evil, disaster, and pitiful suffering. Lord have mercy. Let us always pray for the world. Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

    • I think that psychologically we are known to create what we need. For example, as a child who did not experience protection or some of the necessary feelings of warmth and love, I “take care of that child,” so to speak. As an adult, I can speak to myself: “Hey, yes, it’s okay to sit here a little longer. Your body needs rest. You are so very loved! Isn’t God good to give us the things we need right here in this moment? A warm, soft blanket and a nice cup of coffee?” Etc.

      It’s me, recognizing what I have needed, and I know that. I allow the love and the comfort which I did not receive. But it’s purely a psychological technique, of self nurture.

      It’s not specifically God. It’s God’s goodness which lets me understand what’s needed, so I thank Him for it. It’s His goodness in providing the material things. It’s His love which I feel; but that image I carry in my mind isn’t specifically Him.

      Reply
      • But it’s purely a psychological technique, of self nurture.

        It’s a delusion, in other words. A self-created mirage, a fantasy. A creation of pure self-deceit.

        Reply
        • O_o
          Wow. You’re right.
          My personal response (to someone else’s picture of God) of differentiation of a comforting psychological image (which is a valid technique amongst therapists) in helping a person handle a difficult time in life and who/what God is must be killed a cold and horrible death. The human mind must not find comfort in any way.

          I specifically said this technique is *not God.* We may comfort ourselves, we may do many things to meet our personal needs – but those things are not God. We may thank him for the comforts, for the techniques, for the health and love we find – but they are not Him.

          Goodness. Chill.

          Reply
          • Just like it is invariable that people’s imaginary friends, pets, and sometimes the friends they deliberately choose correspond to their needs.

            However, the ‘God’ that is a projection that fulfils people’s needs has been seeping into worship music for some time:
            ‘Oh – you’re never going to let me down’
            ‘I have heard a thousand stories of what *they* think you’re like; you’re a good good Father – that’s who you are – and I’m loved by you.’

          • Christopher – your description of modern worship music reminds me of an anecdote related to me by an acquaintance of mine. He had just been at the office Christmas party where the wine was flowing liberally and, on his way home, passed through a department store, trying to find a Christmas present for his wife. But due to the demon drink, he wasn’t exactly engaged in the task and was simply going up and down, up and down on the escalators. At the top of the escalator, he was accosted by a Muslim friend, who reprimanded him, along the lines of – we Muslims also hold Jesus in high regard – as a prophet – and we don’t celebrate him by getting drunk. He said that he then felt a friendly tap on his shoulder and a voice saying, ‘hello, I’m Jesus – and it’s all right to get drunk on my birthday’.

  11. An interesting exercise as far as it goes, focusing only on the “historical Jesus” but short of the “Manifold [Lit. Multicolored] wisdom of God concerning our Lord. I would suggest the inclusion for the
    BEREANS Those who search the Scriptures. Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
    Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself
    . John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me
    Wherever the word Scriptures is mentioned in the NT IT obviously means the OT in contrast to our current tunnel vision focused on the NT. It is the Holy Scriptures which are able to make you wise unto Salvation.

    SPIRITUAL WARFARE WARRIORS Another much neglected area of Christian thinking which focuses predominantly on the Love of God and neglects the ascended Lord of Glory
    As God is the same Yesterday Today and Forever and gives a more focused view consider a broader but more focused
    Manifestation covering all the scriptures: –
    Ps 45:3 Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty.
    Ps 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand;

    Isa 49:2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;

    Zech 9:13 When I have bent Judah for me, filled the bow with Ephraim, and raised up thy sons, O Zion, against thy sons, O Greece, and made thee as the sword of a mighty man.

    Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

    Luke 10 : 34 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

    Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
    Rev 2:12 And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

    Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

    Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treaded the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

    Reply
  12. Jewish believers: Good news! Jesus was probably a Pharisee.
    His parents made the appropriate sacrifice after his birth, but it was the poor people’s alternative.
    He was a regular synagogue attender, even though his own people in Nazareth tried to stone him for blasphemy for saying that Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled in their hearing.
    He had almost nothing to do with Gentiles (see for example Mark 7) and told His disciples to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10).
    Although he regularly debated with the other Pharisees (as readers of this blog regularly do with other Anglicans) He only has one memorable discussion with just the Sadducees: He dismisses them with the words, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” (Matthew 22:29) – words which could apply equally to some leaders of the CofE today.
    Perhaps if folk today better understood the Jewish context in which Jesus operated, we would not be in such a mess today? After all, those who want to throw out say Leviticus fail to realise that by so doing, they are throwing out “love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18).
    As Jesus pointed out in Matthew 5:17, He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfil them.

    Reply
  13. Re sexuality I would actually agree with Ian. It would be helpful if conservative evangelicals could remember that when gay people read the gospels they read them as every bit applying to them and not just the bit where Jesus quotes Genesis about marriage. Likewise conservative evangelicals need to remember that the whole of the gospels, the whole of scripture, applies about gay people, not just the clobber verses and, frankly, “love God, love your (gay) neighbor as yourself” is the most important part.

    I do wonder how (most of) the senior leadership of the CofE can sit well considering these words about gay people after a decade of failing to come up with any serious reforms and still refusing to care about abuse

    Reply
    • ” Likewise conservative evangelicals need to remember that the whole of the gospels, the whole of scripture, applies about gay people, not just the clobber verses and, frankly, “love God, love your (gay) neighbor as yourself” is the most important part.”

      Most of them do remember that Peter. It is a gross misrepresentation and a common trope to suggest that all Conservative Evangelicals just resort to so called ‘clobber verses’ to justify their opposition to SSR and SSM. I am sure there are some, but this is not generally true of most of them.

      The arguments against such relationships are much more profound, deep-rooted and are to do with the whole import and trajectory of Scripture that is rooted in creation. There are many resources on the blog which you may not have read, that argues this position.

      The better approach for liberals is to say that the Bible is simply wrong on this matter as most reputable liberal scholars agree with reputable conservative ones, that it is very difficult if impossible, to come to any other conclusion that it emphatically rejects SSM.

      and that of course leads to much deeper questions on the authority of scripture…

      Reply
      • As you know, I am a ‘liberal’, but your comment hits the nail on the head and I agree with you. The heart of the ‘divide’ in understanding is not the sexuality issue per se, but the nature of scriptural authority. I have always said that in my reading of the scriptures, the biblical authors were not okay with man-man sex. Not the authors, and not the successive religious communities of their tradition. And I believe that a ‘conservative’ Christian can present arguments for opposing man-man sex which extend into theological structures and do not depend just on ‘clobber’ verses at the immediately literal level of texts taken in isolation. The conservative position does have theological seriousness, and conscience does need to be respected on this matter.

        As you have also said (and thank you because I think you are so right) there is a further divide at the paradigm level. Liberals like myself deeply value many of the insights in the Bible, but we believe “the Bible is simply wrong” on some issues, because it’s written by fallible humans, writing from within their own mindsets, their own cultural baggage, their own prejudices, and the limits on their own understanding of science.

        Can scripture still be a conduit for the Holy Spirit, interacting with our minds today and our consciences today, if parts of it are actually the product of the authors’ own contexts and human fallibility… and so may sometimes be wrong, or really not applicable to the world we live in today? I believe so. I think it is obvious and experientially clear that many many passages of scripture teach us, inspire us, and open our hearts to God through the revelation (at work today) of the Holy Spirit. But we do not necessarily need or benefit from an infallible scripture as a comfort blanket.

        If some parts are contextual, provisional, and reflective of cultural views back then… why should we be afraid? Shouldn’t we still have faith, even if parts are temporary? Does scripture have to be a fax from God, to be received and applied by robots? Are we that insecure in our faith that we can’t handle the reality of authors sharing profound encounters, and trying to make sense of those encounters as best as they can, but still fallible like we are too? Why do we need an absolutely watertight Bible, with no leaks (errors or limited perspectives) at all?

        So there’s the real paradigm front line. Not sex, which is just an emotive pretext and platform, but the whole way we handle the Bible.

        Got to say, Chris, I think your answer is really sharp and well-pitched. I just happen to read the Bible with more insistence on context and fallibility, and am one of those ‘liberals’ who believe that parts of the Bible can be mistaken, and that our God-given consciences can interact with the scriptures, with life being lived right now, and with the Holy Spirit here, now, alive and active.

        I’m just throwing this in to acknowledge the very good points that you make, not seeking to engage in endless debates which drag on and on, especially in Lent, and especially as I generally post at Thinking Anglicans and one forum is arguably enough in a life on Earth that is all too short. But I do read comments here. Yours was a good one. There is a face off between paradigms going on, between different views of how to read and understand the Bible. I’d suggest that to believe ‘the Bible is always right’ – though people will argue it’s not just literalist because as you say, it’s not just clobber texts but theological systems… is still inclining towards a kind of ‘quasi-fundamentalism’. That is not a direction I can go, as I think it’s attributing the Bible with a level of authority and a weight it cannot carry. There is a lot that is spiritually authoritative in it, but some of it is provisional, temporary, the product and prejudice of the authors’ own cultures. Yes, I think they are opposed to man-man sex (of any kind). But I also think they are wrong. Their cultural insights are inadequate, and their wider theological justifications (which you mention) are in my view tenuous on this issue. God be with you.

        Reply
          • Ian

            Just because I disagree with your reading of scripture please don’t call me a liar. I sincerely disagree with you and have always tried to be polite to you.

          • They are open and honest. They just happen not to agree with Susannah on this. Because, hey, people can disagree on hermeneutics, ethics, doctrine, theology. Especially if they don’t see ‘correct belief’ as a salvation issue.

          • They are open and honest. They just happen not to agree with Susannah on this.

            But when something is so obviously wrong, is it possible to believe it and still be intellectually honest? Or are you necessarily lying somewhere — either to others when you say you believe it because you really don’t, or to yourself because you’re having to secure yourself into bridging something that if you actually considered it you would know was wrong?

          • so obviously wrong

            And self-servingly wrong to boot, which is further circumstantial evidence for at the very least wilful self-deception.

        • If some parts are contextual, provisional, and reflective of cultural views back then

          How does one tell which bits are ‘ contextual, provisional, and reflective of cultural views back then’?

          Is the command to love one’s neighbour ‘contextual, provisional, and reflective of cultural views back then’? How do you know?

          Reply
        • S

          I honestly believe the claim that Romans 1 is about gay people to be obviously wrong, but I don’t think Ian Paul is necessarily lying because he reads it another way.

          Reply
          • I honestly believe the claim that Romans 1 is about gay people to be obviously wrong, but I don’t think Ian Paul is necessarily lying because he reads it another way.

            Well the claim that it’s about gay people is obviously wrong. It’s not about gay people. It’s not about people at all. It’s about same-sex activity, by anyone.

            It’s your pretending not to understand that no matter how many times it’s explained to you that seems dishonest.

          • S

            But to me it’s clearly about the pagan Roman elite. I dont think you’re dishonest because you wont agree with me, but our readings are impacted by different life experiences, knowledge and tradition

          • But to me it’s clearly about the pagan Roman elite.

            Why do you think that? I can’t see anything in the passage that suggests it’s specifically about the pagan Roman elite. Paul (and remember of course that this isn’t just Paul writing, this is God communicating with us through Paul) begins with: ‘The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.’

            Note ‘all the godlessness and wickedness of people’. Nothing there to say that he’s talking about the specific wickedness of a specific class of people. All the godlessness and wickedness of all people.

            And none of the sins Paul goes on to list — ‘They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.’ — none of that is specific to the pagan Roman elite.

            Even ‘Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles’ isn’t specific to the pagan Roman elite; rather famously the Jews once exchange the glory of the immortal God for an image made to look like a calf.

            So what in the text even suggests to you that it’s about the ‘pagan Roman elite’, let alone makes it ‘clear’, because I can’t see anything.

      • Chris

        I’m not talking about their opposition to SSM. I’m talking about their general callousness towards most gay people, their failure to offer any teaching that promotes life and their persistent attempts to block protection of gay people from abusive behaviour by church leaders.

        Opposing SSM really isnt the issue. It’s an excuse not to care

        Reply
        • Thank you for your reply Jermy. I do not think that the callousness that you speak of is of a general nature among conservatives in the CofE.
          You may be better speaking to people in Living Out to get more accurate portrayal of this. I think most would affirm the person while not their behaviour as would I.
          I am not sure what the situation is like in your American churches which may be different.

          Most of the callousness l have read about in the CoE seems to be the callousness extended by Bishop’s and their functionaries to clergy in ordinary churches.

          Reply
          • I do not think that the callousness that you speak of is of a general nature among conservatives in the CofE.

            Are we absolutely sure we’re not just seeing a refusal to descend to the Bill Clinton / Tony Blair touchy-feely schmaltz-fuelled register of discourse, but instead a determination to keep debates on the intellectual level where they belong, and miscategorising that as ‘callousness’?

          • Living Out is a support group for gay and bisexual Christians.

            It’s not a church. It’s not evangelicals affirming anything. Its gay and bi people supporting each other trying to live faithfully in a community that usually condemns them

          • I didn’t say they are a church. You do not have appear to have read what they do affirm. They are from many different churches.
            Most evangelicals do affirm them, but they do not define themselves by their sexuality like you appear to do.

    • I don’t know if you would class me as a “Conservative Evangelical” in so much as I support the leadership of women and (in some cases) the remarriage of divorcees as in tune with the Scripture… which is the breathed out revelation of God…. But..

      “It would be helpful if conservative evangelicals could remember that when gay people read the gospels they read them as every bit applying to them and not just the bit where Jesus quotes Genesis about marriage.”

      I assume they do… why would you think otherwise? Though it tends to be with a wholly other view of the authority question.

      ” Likewise conservative evangelicals need to remember that the whole of the gospels, the whole of scripture, applies about gay people, not just the clobber verses”

      You surely know that this “clobber verses” thing is without foundation… Why keep repeating it? And a liberal reading it all will surely know it’s not that simplistic.

      “and, frankly, “love God, love your (gay) neighbor as yourself” is the most important part.”

      … certainly the most (two) important commandments but its certainly not the only important thing scripture says… How about “Repent for the kingdom… at hand…”? As Rowan Williams said (reported earlier in the thread) Welcome is not the same as acceptance… All are invited/welcomed… in order to be transformed…

      Reply
        • Evangelicals, perhaps particularly conservative evangelicals, can seem very keen on condemnation for everyone! “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God”, “the wages of sin are death”, “you were children of wrath”, or perhaps:

          [Jesus] went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness*, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

          Perhaps the problem is the lack of condemnation for some of these things which Jesus himself (I hope that has some significance for you) regards as defiling.

          I would hope that you think that there are activities which do come under the category of “sexual immorality” – there seem to be some people who do not. One of the issues under dispute is whether sexual activity between two people of the same sex constitues sexual immorality.

          Is it loving to approve of someone’s behaviour if it is actually defiling that person?

          [* I was once doing a bible study on this with some 14 year old boys. “What’s lewdness?”, one asked. “Perhaps, telling dirty jokes.”, I said. The atmosphere changed. The list seemed unrelated to them, until that point. Suddendly Jesus’ words were uncomfortable – as they should be for all of us.]

          Reply
          • I would hope that you think that there are activities which do come under the category of “sexual immorality” – there seem to be some people who do not.

            There do indeed seem to be some people who think that there are no activities which come under the category of ‘sexual immorality’.

            But there are far more people who think that some activities come under the category of ‘sexual immorality’ — but that no activities that are consensual, and carried out in the context of a committed, long-term relationship, can fall into this category.

            And it’s especially dangerous to be in this second group, because you can kid yourself that because you’re not an ‘anything goes’ libertine, that means that you’re not in danger of falling into — or worse, leading others into — sexual sin.

            So you give the impression to the young couple that as long as they are in a committed relationship, it doesn’t matter whether they wait for marriage before having sex. That wouldn’t be immoral, you tell them, either explicitly or implicitly. And because you’re not waking up in a different person’s bed every morning, they go ahead and sleep together.

            But it is immoral, and you’ve just led them into sin, which means that as well as them being judged, you’ve effectively put yourself under James 3:1 and you will be judged more harshly than them!

          • My point is that evangelicals seem to think that the only thing the bible has to say to gay people is about sex and is condemnatory. They generally don’t allow any other teaching to apply to gay people

        • Peter, this post did not mention sexuality once. Yet you have steered the conversation around to that.

          This blog is not a space for your hobby horse. If you cannot engage sensibly on other subjects, then you need to take your comments elsewhere.

          I have made that quite clear in the comments guidance.

          Reply
          • Sorry Ian. I mis?interpreted “current debates” to mean the ever on going debate about what to do about SSM.

      • Ian

        By clobber verses I mean the 5-7 verses that evangelicals use to justify opposition to human rights for gay people. This ignores anything positive about gay people by only allowing negative verses to be interpreted as applying to gay people

        Reply
        • This ignores anything positive about gay people by only allowing negative verses to be interpreted as applying to gay people

          But that’s just not true. No one, for example, has ever claimed that John 3:16, probably the most positive verse in the Bible, doesn’t apply to gay people.

          Reply
          • S.

            I don’t think I’ve ever heard an evangelical talk bible teaching about/for gay people that does anything more than condemn same sex sex. I have never heard evangelicals teach what John 3
            16 has to say to gay people

            I think this is a key reason why the CofE has failed in its decade long task to provide clearer teaching on gay people because a significant chunk only want to talk about sex and only want to condemn

          • I have never heard evangelicals teach what John 3
            16 has to say to gay people

            Seriously? You haven’t heard evangelicals teach that John 3:16 says that everyone needs to accept Jesus in order to avoid perishing and have everlasting life?

            Gay people are included in ‘everyone’ you know.

          • I’ve never heard evangelicals say that about gay people, no

            Have you ever heard them say it about tall people? Fat people? Thin people? People with ginger hair? People who like cats? People who like dogs? Actors? Plumbers?

            Or do you think maybe that ‘everyone’ includes, well, everyone?

          • S

            These other categories are not categories that are facing exclusion, discrimination and abuse by the church. Evangelicals dont treat them as semi separate from humanity.

          • I think youd find it hard to find a ginger person who had been coerced into an exorcism to rid themselves of their ginger demon

          • I think youd find it hard to find a ginger person who had been coerced into an exorcism to rid themselves of their ginger demon

            Well it’d be difficult for a demon to possess someone who doesn’t have a soul, wouldn’t it

          • S

            Are you claiming ginger people dont have souls, but gay people do? What about gay people who are ginger? I know that some conservatives hate the concept of intersectionality, but sorry, it does happen

          • Are you claiming ginger people dont have souls, but gay people do?

            I’m pointing out that it’s as ridiculous to claim that ‘gay people’ are somehow essentially different from other people such that they wouldn’t be included in the ‘everyone’ of John 3:16 as it would be to suggest that ginger people are essentially different from people with other hair colours.

        • Article 16.1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that:
          Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

          [I would say that the phrase “found a family” clearly relates to relationship which gives rise to children.]

          Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:

          Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

          It seems clear from the wording that both of these envisage marriage being between a man and a woman. If that were not the case, the wording would not need to mention the sex of the people

          What human rights are being denied by those who do not wish the Church to enact same-sex marriages?

          Reply
          • But these are heteronormative passages. They were written without thought to gay people.

            It’s like saying “please use the west stairs to leave the building”. It doesn’t mean that wheel chair users are specially denied the right to leave the building.

            The UN supports the right of gay people to marry

        • I know what you mean. But it’s simply untrue. How can you assert this after so many postings you *seem* to have read. Repeating this has just become a slur.

          Reply
  14. AW. Tozer
    ” Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshipers met together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be were they to become “unity” conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.”
    The Pursuit of God: The Human Thirst for the Divine.

    Reply
      • Interesting Geoff. I seem to remember N.T. Wright saying or writing something along the lines of if we find the ‘things of earth growing strangely dim’ when we ‘look’ at Jesus then we are probably looking at the wrong Jesus!

        Reply
        • Maybe he has not been Surprised by Joy. And looking at Jesus at the purely human level and scholarly, intellectual level.
          Maybe he wouldn’t recognise Jesus in the current events at Asbury Seminary, USA.
          Or maybe it is you not Wright, who couldn’t sing Turn your Eyes upon Jesus, in its modified (2019) or pre Wright original form.
          Maybe the words of Matthew Henry don’t mean much to many of us: “The best fellowship together is fellowship together with God”.
          When do we together most together turn our eyes upon Jesus. Yesterday was a prime example at Church, a Communion Service, where the whole service, songs, creed, confession, humble access, and scripture, preaching were focussed on Jesus and not ourselves, where we fall short.
          Does that mean we are not at the end, dismissed into his services into the world, his creation? Of course not.
          Do you really think NT Wright was negating any of that Anglican liturgy. I doubt it.
          Would he or you be uncomfortable, embarrassed, singing the song as part of a Communion Service of worship???
          As Wright didn’t make a comment here and may be quoted out of context, to say what you want to say, the question is addressed to you, not him.
          Tozer is right here not Wright (as you quote him, possibly out of context.)

          Reply
          • While I’ve not read much of Wright, I wasn’t impressed by his endorsement of Chalke’s book, The list message of Paul, nor his Surprised by God.
            Here is a link to a critique of his overall, perhaps umbrella theological theme(s). (Clue it is not related to sin and personal life transforming, salvation, but is mostly cosmological.)
            I did attend a weekend series of his lectures on the Resurrection – still have the cassette recordings, from his description of scripture as being like stages of a rocket, each stage being jettisoned, I’d look at his writings through that hermeneutic.

            https://banneroftruth.org/uk/resources/articles/2018/nearly-everything-wrong-n-t-wright-summed-one-chapter-heading/

          • Geoff, thank you for this response.
            I think you need to reread Ian’s original (updated) post.
            You ask ‘When do we together most together turn our eyes upon Jesus’ and refer to the Communion service. Yes, indeed, and yes, Wright would NOT negate any of that liturgy. (as an aside I note that the liturgy also includes ‘The Prayers of the People’ which turns from ourselves to the world and others as part of that ‘looking at Jesus’).
            But we also need to remember that Jesus himself talked about when we see him (or don’t) in Matt 25: 38,44. We NEED to go back and read the text to correct what we are seeing when we say we are looking at Jesus.
            Of course my ‘quote’ from Wright is probably out of context. But I did not say I was quoting him. It is rather ironic that you yourself say you have already read ‘Surprised by God’ (I understand ‘Surprised by the God of Hope’ is due in January next year)
            You say below ‘(Clue it is not related to sin and personal life transforming, salvation, but is mostly cosmological.)’. Well yes, Wright’s ‘theology’ is in a sense ‘cosmological’ because God is creator and redeemer and restorer. This does NOT deny personal salvation.
            Also you say Wright describes ‘scripture as being like stages of a rocket, each stage being jettisoned’. But you actually don’t give context, content or conclusion.
            You supply a link to an article criticising Wright’s theology. But that article is simply sloppy!
            Geoff, please reread Ian’s post especially the bit about ‘reading selectively’ (and read N.T. Wright)

          • Hello Bruce,
            That’s a no then. No you wouldn’t sing it as praise during a Church communion service.
            Sure, it’s not the whole Christ as revealed in the whole canon of scripture.
            Sung theology is very revealing. There are those who visit this site who wouldn’t sing, In Christ Alone my hope is found.
            BTW Wright’s biblical hermeneutic was stated by him at the lectures on the Resurrection, that I mentioned. It was in a Q+A session when it seemed that he was subscribing to Replacement theology. His rocket example seemed to be more like dispensational theology, perhaps verging on replacement theology, rather than
            the Kingdom of God, even as shortened by Goldsworthy in whole Bible Theology to ” God’s people, in God’s place, under God’s rule.”
            “Aim at heaven and you get the earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither.” CS Lewis.

          • Hi Geoff
            To clear things up for you, I might sing the song ‘Turn your eyes upon Jesus’ just not the line about the things of earth growing strangely dim. I might sing ‘clear’ for ‘dim’ just as I would be wary of THAT line in ‘In Christ alone’ if its reading denies the Trinity.
            I do really encourage you to reread N.T. Wright. I think that his lost Shakespearean play ‘hermeneutic’ might satisfy you. Your suggestions of ‘dispenationalism’ and ‘replacement theology’ really DON’T pan out.
            Is C.S. Lewis being rather dualistic in that quote? Or in your reading of it? Shouldn’t its context include God is creator?

          • Hello Bruce,
            I point out again that few worship songs bring out the fullnes of Christ. Indeedy first comment was that of necessity the categories that Ian emphasised seemed to flatten Christology to the human level, not Jesus as fully man and fully God, nor explores the classic attributes of God.
            If you looked at the whole lyrics of In Christ Alone you will see it is Trinitararian.
            If I recall correctly our host could not support its atonement theology.
            Indeed the Triunity of God is largely absent in the original article and the comments.
            As for CS Lewis, here is an extended article which sets out the context for the quotation:
            https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/c-s-lewis-on-heaven-and-hell/

          • Hi Geoff.
            So are you saying (as I would infer from the article that you linked) that the context of Lewis’ ‘heaven and hell’ is Platonism? There is not one mention that Jesus rose from the dead. Why is that, Geoff?
            Again, maybe you should read N.T. Wright and not dismiss him because he wrote about a BOOK by Steve Chalke.
            On the question of Ian’s original post, are you forgetting that Jesus replied to Philip that if he had seen him (Jesus) he had seen the Father? What ‘classical attributes’ of God are hidden from us in looking at Jesus?

  15. Turn your eyes upon Jesus
    IN a recent TV report, a young Olympian publicly announced his faith in Christ at the same time announcing his homosexuality. He sounded joyful concerning his Christian faith. He ended by saying
    “God made me what I am” There may be many sincere souls who feel likewise.
    However, it completely Dismisses the fact of why Jesus came with the need to save us, because it is sin which has made us “what we are.” Jesus came to save us from, the wrath of God. from the power of sin,
    from the flesh, from the World, and from Ourselves .To Recreate us through new birth.

    Remember how Paul exemplified this when he went to the city of Corinth, where the people were buttressing their lives of immorality, shame, sordidness, and pagan barrenness, by arguments, and reasonings.
    Paul told them,
    “When I came to you, … I determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified,” (1 Corinthians 2:1-2 KJV).
    That is, I did not come to debate with you.
    I did not come with the wisdom of this world.
    I did not come to cancel out your arguments with a counter-argument.
    I did not come to debate philosophy.
    I came to declare to you that in Jesus Christ there is relief, release, and deliverance from the pride of the human heart; pride is slain by the cross.
    When you accept what this cross means, and what this One who died for you has done, and you kneel at his feet, there is released in your life a power that cancels out your pride.
    You are brought low before him, and God begins to make you over again on a different scale.
    That is the power of the gospel.
    That is the power of the Christian.
    That is the message that will, alone, help society.

    Reply
  16. Yes, well said. As you know from having read the book, Paul Washer listed Ten Indictments against the Modern Church:

    1. Denial of the Sufficiency of Scripture
    2. Ignorance of God
    3. Failure to Address Man’s Malady
    4. Ignorance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ
    5. An Unbiblical Gospel Invitation (as exemplified by the young Olympian)
    6. Ignorance regarding the Nature of the Church
    7. Lack of Compassionate Church Discipline
    8. Silence on Separation (the need, I take it, for the Church to dissociate herself from what is unholy)
    9. Disregard of the Scriptures concerning the Family
    10. Pastors Malnourished in the Word of God

    The message that will alone help society is not being heard.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Geoff Cancel reply