I wrote a first version of this article (revised in the light of comments) five years ago, in response to people posting online the list on the right. Surprisingly, this is still being reposted as an expression of New Year’s resolutions. When I gently challenging it, one friend said that it is a good antidote to people selecting the opposite values. But, I wondered, is it really helpful to counter some people being selective about what it means to be like Jesus by simply being selective in the opposite direction? Isn’t it the whole idea of being selective that is the problem?
In fact, this meme 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 12 aspects of his personality and ministry, but I suspect it would be possible to add more. (Do offer your own characterisations in the comments—and thanks to those who did so previously!)
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?
So perhaps this should be our New Year’s resolution: to be more like the Jesus we actually find in the faithful testimony of the gospels and the rest of the New Testament, and resist the temptation to be selective.
Note: Mat Sheffield previously commented on the image at the top: ‘I believe the image is “buddy Jesus” from the film Dogma. It’s an appropriate image, because the film’s use of it is a deliberate mocking of the church’s tendency to make Jesus relatable at the expense of having him saying or doing anything meaningful.’
Buy me a Coffee
Happy New Year, Ian! I liked this post last year, and I like it again…
It was two years ago—and I included your suggestion!
A happy and blessed New Year, Ian! It’s a great post, thank you, and thank you for your ministry this past year.
At my selection conference when you have to explain your churchmanship, I said that my spirituality (there is a massive difference!) is Anglo-Celto-Geli-Matic. (Anglo-Catholic, Celtic, Evangelical, Charismatic) Since then, I would add ‘Lib’, as there’s nothing wrong with a smart dose of Liberation.
Your post set me thinking on the missing category ‘Celtic’: surely, good news! Jesus is just like you and loves worship songs with a harp, uilleann pipes and tunes that sound like they’ve been nicked from a pub serving excellent Guinness.
You missed out children!
Jesus displayed a “child-like” humility, sincerity, docility, and trusting obedience to His Father. His message: aiming for greatness will not help us enter the Kingdom of Heaven. He directs our aim low – to that of a child. We must have faith, acknowledging we do not understand God’s mysteries.
Ooh, good observation!
You don’t need faith to realise that we will never understand all the mysteries… just common sense. Humans are so ridiculously vain. Happy New Year Jack. Remember me in your prayers. If you run into Anton say HNY to him and his cat from me:)Cressie
The cat, though elderly (in feline terms: 11 years old), still behaves like a juvenile; he and I have much in common. Happy New Year, Cressida!
This is a very serious blog Anton…Juvenile behaviour is not welcome here. 🙂
“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).”
According to Paul, signs and wonders were one of the main characteristics of an ‘apostle’. To him this seems to differentiate apostles from ordinary Christians and other church leaders, hence his use of this ability/empowering to perform such signs and wonders as strong evidence of his own apostleship. This accords with the quote from Acts 5:12 . It seems to me therefore that to use ‘his followers’ is too general a term as it is clear only a limited few were empowered in this way.
I wonder how this should affect the charismatic church’s understanding of how God works today, or has God changed how He works from 2000 years ago?
Peter
Yes, these were my thoughts too.
Thanks Peter. Where do you see Paul limiting ‘signs and wonders’ to apostles?
And how does that fit with his discussion of what the Spirit gives to all in 1 Cor 12?
Paul says – “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.”
The Greek does seem to be saying the performance of signs, wonders and miracles is the distinguishing evidence for being an apostle as opposed to an ‘ordinary’ Christian (the NIV contains the word ‘including’ as if these were simply one ‘sign’ of apostleship but ‘including’ is not in the Greek). If there was no difference Paul could not have said what he said as he was defending himself as an apostle. Given this was the same church at Corinth where the gifts were rather abundant, that gives even more weight to his words by distinguishing himself from other gifted believers and elders.
Re 1 Cor 12, ‘There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. ‘ etc
I dont think that chapter excludes an understanding of certain sign gifts being limited to the apostles, as it is the Spirit who has chosen how to distribute gifts to the church as a whole. If the apostles (and Im not limiting that word to the Twelve + Paul) were the main ‘messengers’ of the Gospel after Jesus and the key establishers of churches, I dont find it surprising if they were particularly and noticeably empowered compared to others. They stood out. I think we tend to assume the gifts were evenly distributed throughout the church, but why should that be the case?
If you disagree, Ian, how then do you understand 2 Cor 12:12 above, given Paul there is defending his own position specifically as an apostle?
The ongoing inclination towards “evenly distributed ” gifts is, I suspect, one of the major reasons why the C of E (among others) is deeply divided; particularly as these divisions highlight the lack of clarity and application concerning the underlying question of *ecclesiastical authority*. The church is built on the “foundation of apostles and prophets” – Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone [Ephesians 2:20]. Even if the prophets in this context are of a NT variety, the wider context of these principles [see 2: 12-13 and 2: 19 and not forgetting Luke 24: 27] make it abundantly clear concerning the *primacy of apostolic authority*; founded in Jesus Christ, manifested through the Holy Spirit and rooted in the totality of Holy Scripture. and while the NT witness may not be overly-preoccupied with the actual Apostolic *rule* within the church, as one commentator puts it: “The apostles are the touchstones of doctrine and the purveyors of authentic tradition about Christ.”
Of paramount importance for this generation therefore is the creation of a *leadership*which is submerged in these presuppositions, and which reflects both in thought and practice their glorious truths.
I would have thought that 1 Cor 12 and 14 (written to lay people in the Corinthian church) would be sufficient to remove the idea that such gifts were SOLELY for the Apostles?
Ian – have you had a think about this?
I’ve some observations and questions along those lines too.
Jesus sent out the 12 and then the 72 who did miracles in his name. Is there any evidence that the 72 continued that after Pentecost? Even the 12 had to wait until Pentecost.
The gift lists in 1 Cor 12 and elsewhere seem to be different in nature than the 12 and 72 did.
This year I want to be more like…which Jesus?
The categories of people mentioned all seem to have a piece of the Jesus of History.
Some might well be content to have at least a small piece of Jesus.
Some might have collected quite a few of the Pieces.
Some may even have the full deck of cards.
It is, I think, an Anglican deck of cards as the focus seems to be on the Jesus of History.
St Paul had another perspective of Jesus [ not the New Perspectives of some theologians]
He no doubt only saw the Historical Jesus as a pain in the rear.
His perspective was radically altered when he saw the Glorified Jesus!
Ever after he exhorted the saints to “Learn Jesus” EPH 4 : 20 — 1 John 2:27
Saying “2 Cor 5:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
The writer of Hebrews [ch6] exhorts the saints saying the Jesus of History is only the first principles of the doctrine, he wanted to take them on to perfection.
As Paul also aspires.
“That I might know Him…..and the power of His Resurrection
Do we in fact “know” Christ; do we or can we “walk as He walked”?
For an excellent treaties on this and a perspective of the Glorified Christ
I heartily recommend “ Christ our all”
@.austin-sparks.net/english/books/christ_our_all_1935.html
Shalom.
‘He no doubt only saw the Historical Jesus as a pain in the rear.’
I don’t understand why you say this…?
I think he means before Saul’s conversion (and renaming as Paul) when he was acting as a Roman agent against the followers of ‘the way’.
I’ve been re-reading “The Quest of the Historical Jesus” on and off for the past 40 years, but only discovered last year that Schweitzer had produced a 2nd edition, an English translation of which was commissioned back in the 70s, the manuscript mislaid, and not published until 2000. In it I found the following striking passage:
“. . . Modern Christianity must always reckon with the possibility of having to abandon the historical figure of Jesus. Hence it must not artificially increase his importance by referring all theological knowledge to him and developing a ‘christocentric’ religion: the Lord may always be a mere element in ‘religion’, but he should never be considered its foundation.
“To put it differently: religion must avail itself of a metaphysic, that is, a basic view of the nature and significance of being which is entirely independent of history and of knowledge transmitted from the past . . .
–Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus 2/e, (SCM Press, 2001), 402
I wonder what he meant by this. Maybe it is just a philosophical point: that a theological conclusion cannot be left at the mercy of historical premises which are always in theory open to revision?
What he means by this is that the Christian faith, as traditionally understood, is completely false.
I think that is a problem!
The original commissioning editor was Dennis Nineham, of whom it was said that he “believed in the Real Presence, but not in the Incarnation”. Hmmm.
IAN
‘He no doubt only saw the Historical Jesus as a pain in the rear.’
I don’t understand why you say this…?
Paul’s view of Christ was that he was a deposed false Messiah.
That is until he had an encounter with the Risen, Glorified Christ.
ACTS 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord?
And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
Ever after he preached his vision and wanted to know Him,
Christ, more and to teach others to “Learn” Christ not just as an historical figure but as the all present all powerful Lord of Life.
Any reading of Paul ( if he is read at all) will confirm this.
See also “ Christ our all” by T.Austin Sparks
@.austin-sparks.net/english/books/christ_our_all_1935.html
Shalom.
It is not either/or but both/and: predicated on the incarnation, His life, the Cross, the Resurrection, the Ascension in space time and place, historicity; on being fully man and fully God; on the Triunity of God; on there not being a closed, material world view/philosophy.
It is not faith in faith, nor faith in fiction, in error, lies, deceit, but on objective truth, and the irreducible correspondence nature of truth: corresponds to reality, IS.
Thanks Ian.
Insightful as always. Made me realize my two favorite:
-Evangelist Jesus – came to seek and save the lost, parable of the lost sheep, coin, son, etc.
-CEO Jesus – on a mission, set his heart link flint to go to Jerusalem, had to go through Samaria, strategic in assembling his leadership/servant team, casting vision for new wine, etc.
So easy for each of us to follow the Jesus we identify with inside your own story and values.
Thanks again for your post throughout the year. Edifying!
Happy New Year!
Thanks Ian. Yes!
Happy New Year!
Oh dear….Jesus fits the Catholic description best . The rest have strayed on to the wrong path I fear….everyone back on to the right track for the new year I say ! Happy New Year everyone !
Happy. There a theologically freighted word.
Don’t we just love ‘how to ….:
Will we be happier than ever…?
“How to Be Happy” from Ligonier Ministries https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/how-to-be-happy
Didn’t Ghandi say something like “the whole world would be Christian if Christians were like Jesus”?
He may well have said that, and I think he was wrong. If Christians were like Jesus an awful lot more of us would get crucified and/or persecuted than seems to actually happen.