Why Jesus?

You would think that among those who call themselves "Christ-ians" the question, "Why did Jesus come to earth?" would be fairly simple. Stop a moment and ask yourself how you would answer this. Surprisingly, I find a huge amount of confusion and downright bad theology among evangelicals when it comes to answering such a foundational question.

Read what Brian Fikkert concluded in his research: "We have asked thousands of evangelical Christians in numerous contexts this most basic question -- why did Jesus come to earth? -- and fewer than 1 percent of respondents say anything even remotely close to the answer that Jesus himself gave. Instead, the vast majority of people say something like 'Jesus came to die on the cross to save us from our sins so that we can go to heaven.' While this answer is true, saving souls in only a subset of the comprehensive healing of the entire cosmos that Jesus' kingdom brings and that was the centerpiece of his message" (When Helping Hurts 33).

In high school, I remember seeing a fellow evangelical wearing a t-shirt that said, "Born to Die" in reference to Christ's mission. And at the time I thought there was nothing wrong with that theology. But think of the ramifications of this view for a moment. What significance would there have been to any of Jesus' ministry? Why did he spend time healing, casting out demons, speaking prophetically to the religious power structure, and training disciples in his ways? Why did the gospel writers use so many words to write about such events? And, more importantly, does the resurrection even matter? I once heard a Sunday School teacher in a rural Free Methodist church say, "Jesus came to die for our sins. That was the only thing he did that mattered. Even if he hadn't been resurrected it wouldn't have mattered because what needed to be done was accomplished through his death." Our truncated theology has led us into unorthodoxy.

Perhaps we ought to allow Jesus himself to answer the question. Why did he come? Jesus believed his own mission could be summarized by the words of the prophet Isaiah:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19)

Objection, your honor! Jesus, that doesn't make any sense! Didn't you come to make an ETERNAL difference rather than a TEMPORARY difference? I mean, in the grand scheme of things, isn't it more important that you go about saving people's souls rather than making blind people see? What good is it for a blind person to see if he doesn't confess you as Savior and Lord and have a personal relationship with you and thereby avoid hell? Pardon my boldness, but isn't this "releasing inmates from jail" and "introducing the year of Jubilee" stuff LESS important than paying the price for our sins on the cross so that we can all go to heaven? Why didn't you say that THAT was your mission?

To put this another way, when Jesus encountered the blind man of Luke 18 who cried out for mercy why didn't Jesus say to him, "I am the fulfillment of all prophecy. I am the King of kings and Lord of lords. I have all the power in heaven and earth. I could heal you today of your blindness, but I only care about your soul. Believe in me." (Fikkert 35)?

I get the impression from some of my conservative evangelical friends who look from afar at my ministry in the inner city that they think much of what I do is a waste of time. I get questions like, "Why do you spend so much energy talking about things like healthcare? What does economics have to do with the gospel message (by which they mean the inculcation of information about Jesus' vicarious atonement)?" Some have even asked, "Why do you spend so much money giving people physical food when what they really need is spiritual food?" All this time I spend being a "do-gooder" is wasteful in their minds because the ONLY thing that matters in light of eternity, according to them, is the salvation of a soul which is accomplished by saying the sinner's prayer. Anything else is a distraction. Some are a bit more open-minded and are willing to tolerate social justice, but only as a means to an end. That is, yes, sometimes you have to feed people, but you do that only so that they'll listen to you when you share the real gospel with them.

Well, if such thinking is correct, then Jesus was off his rocker. Jesus should have been doing Billy Graham crusades instead of eating with tax collectors, giving sight to blind men, debating with the Pharisees about the Sabbath, and feeding a crowd of 5000 (with apparently more concern for their stomachs than for their souls).

This is the big gaping hole in most evangelical theology: they have become so obsessed with the King that they've completely forgotten about the kingdom. In fact, one pastor whom I deeply respect and want to emulate in many ways, shocked me by asking, "What exactly do you mean by always talking about 'the kingdom of God'? What is 'the kingdom of God'?" I wanted to scream! You mean to tell me you've been a pastor for how long and you don't know what the kingdom of God is!?! Well, it's only the central message that Jesus came to preach! It's only the reconciliation of all of creation including humanity into right relationship with the Creator! It's only the entire agenda of the the early church!

But I need to back up. For those who may not be aware, the kingdom of God, simply stated, is "the renewal of the whole world through the entrance of supernatural forces such that things are brought back under Christ's rule and authority and are restored to health, beauty, and freedom." (Timothy Keller, an evangelical who gets it).

Explaining why evangelicals have abandoned kingdom theology would take far too long and this entry is long enough already. Suffice it to say that they have bought into a false dichotomy between body and soul which was foreign to the Jews of Jesus' day (see my note called "What Does It Mean to Be Human?"). Furthermore, they have so emphasized their nice, neat "road to salvation" that they've completely forgotten about what Jesus did when he was on earth.

Why did Jesus come? It was more than just to die. It was to inaugurate a new kingdom breaking into the world in which all of creation -- humanity included -- would be liberated from decay in both physical and spiritual ways. It was to show humanity a glimpse of what the future kingdom will look like and to invite a new community called the church to participate in it ahead of time. It was to meet a blind man on the road, heal him, and leave it at that.

What does it mean to be human?

I began reading an excellent new book by Joel B. Green (my former Asbury prof) entitled Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible. It occured to me as I read this that many of the theological and even political disputes I have with my fellow Christian brothers and sisters are rooted in a vastly different anthropology, or understanding of what it means to be human. Green points out the practical questions that are rooted in our how we define humanity:

- Given contemporary experimentation and innovation in the area of Artificial Intelligence, can we imagine anything about humans that our mechanical creations will be unable to duplicate?

- If, like sheep and pigs, humans can be cloned, will the resulting form be a "person"?

- On what basis might we attribute sacred worth to humans, so that we have what is necessary for discourse concerning morality and for ethical purposes?

- What view of the human person is capable of funding what we want to know about ourselves theologically -- about sin, for example, as well as moral responsibility, repentance, and growth in grace?

- Am I free to do what I want, or is my sense of decision-making a ruse?

- How should we understand "salvation"? Does salvation entail a denial of the world and embodied life, focusing instead on my "inner person" and on the life to come? How ought the church to be extending itself in mission? Mission to what? The spiritual or soulish needs of a person? Society-at-large? The cosmos?

- What happens when we die? What view of the human person is consistent with Christian belief in life-after-death? (Taken from pg. 20).

Obviously, these are HUGE questions and the answers to such questions are not agreed upon by all theologians. But there are two main schools of thought which will determine how we answer almost all of these.

The first is called the "dualist" mentality and this is certainly the most predominant view in popular evangelical theology. Dualism dates back to Plato who drew a sharp distinction between the body and the soul as two separate entities. Plato's legacy and influence lived on and strongly impacted early Christian thinkers like Tertullian, Augustine, and Justin Martyr. In modern circles it emerges in devotional literature that exhorts us to deny this world and focus solely on the next. I pick up on it strongly in Thomas A Kempis, Oswalt Chambers, John Piper, and so on. In fact, this dualism of body and soul so permeates our thinking that to question it is viewed by many as completely unorthodox and contrary to biblical anthropology.

The alternative to this view is called by many names, but more often referred to as "monism." In monism the body and soul distinction is a fiction. "We do not have a soul; we are a soul" as C. S. Lewis stated. Thus, the physical and spiritual aspects of our lives are intimately connected with one another. Monism generally values the here-and-now more than the then-and-there. I've come across holistic spirituality in the writings of Matthew Fox, C. S. Lewis, and even Rob Bell.

Above I highlighted one question because I think it is so critical to the many disputes I've had in person and online with fellow evangelicals about the nature of what God wants us to do here on earth. Does God want us to focus simply on "saving souls" or is it bigger than that? Is doing social justice among the poor an essential element of our mission or is it a distraction from what is really important (i.e. the work of the heart, the inner person)? What will heaven look like and are humans in any way responsible for the bringing of it? Is heaven far off or will it be here on earth? The answer to all of these questions will determine how we judge the importance of various Christian activities.

Furthermore, a question of human identity emerges. Most of my politically conservative friends assume a post-Enlightenment, modernist, western view of the self. Philosopher and theologian Robert Di Vito summarizes this view: Many understand the modern sense of the human in terms of "the location of dignity in self-sufficiency and self-containment, sharply defined personal boundaries, the highly developed idea of my 'inner person,' and the conviction that my full personhood rests on my exercise of autonomous and self-legislative action" (12). Wow! How often have I heard arguments from the right that swallows such a presupposition without even being aware of it!?

Di Vito offers an alternative he finds far more biblical: the person "1) is deeply embedded or engaged, in his or her social identity, 2) is comparatively decentered and undefined with respect to personal boundaries, 3) is relatively transparent, socialized, and embodied (in other words, is altogether lacking in a sense of 'inner depths'), and 4) is 'authentic' precisely in his or her heteronomy, in his or her obedience to another and dependence upon another." (Di Vito, "OT Anthropology," 221).

If this alternative anthropology truly is more biblical, then this has radical implications about the mission of the church, the goal of the nation-state, our ecclesiology, and our spirituality -- just to name a few.

I will post more on this later, but suffice it to say that we need to be better informed about the presuppositions we bring to the table as we debate theological and political matters. I embrace the monist position and, as a result, and holistic missiology. I am aware the my holistic missiology is unpopular and even offensive to those who have been raised in the church to believe that the soul and only the soul matters in light of eternity. Such people are well-meaning, but I believe ultimately misinformed about the nature of man as it is outlined for us in the scriptures. To name just a FEW implications of this anthropology: 1) it is ever bit as important to care for a person's physical needs as it is to care for his spiritual needs, 2) the mission of the church ought to involve the redemption of creation (i.e. "creation care") rather than treating it as though it's all going to burn soon, 3) among the various roles of the state is the obligation to care for the common good (even at the expense of the modernistic ideals of "autonomy and self-determination"), 4) "salvation" can no longer be viewed through purely individualistic and postmortem lenses; it must involve radical social change on the family, city, state, national, and global levels because the gospel is much, much bigger than "Jesus gets your butt into heaven."

Enough for now...

Op-Ed on Healthcare

I have recently worked with Sojourners to submit the following editorial to several important newspapers (see the list at the bottom). Whether or not they will publish it is to be decided, but here is a peek of what I've submitted for my blog readers to enjoy!

--------------

Despite what many may say, reforming our broken healthcare system is a moral issue. It is an outrage that nearly 12% of Indiana residents live without health insurance. Over 744,000 residents of our state are currently uninsured – that is almost the size of Indianapolis! By next year, in the richest nation to ever exist in the history of the world, fifty-two million Americans will not have health coverage.

Some have tried to say that the faith community should stay silent, clergy should stick to spiritual matters – but for me, it is immoral to stay silent.

As a minister, I believe this debate is much more personal than statistics about the uninsured. Statistics fail to tell the heartbreaking human story of suffering that I witness in my church every day. A report can’t reveal the anguish of a mother unable to afford a doctor’s visit for a sick child, or the pain of a husband ignoring a debilitating injury because missing work means losing his job, or the woman who spoke to me recently about her treatable form of cancer which is going untreated due to its unaffordable cost.

While the Bible does not outline specific public policies around the provision of health care, it does make it clear that protecting the health of each human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility for people of faith. Throughout the Bible, God shows a special concern for the vulnerable and sick and acts to lift them up.

The Bible also teaches that society organize in such a way that all have genuine access to the resources needed to live a dignified life, as well as provide for those who are unable to care for themselves.

The Hebrew prophets consistently say that the measure of a nation’s righteousness and integrity is how it treats the most vulnerable. And Jesus says the nations will be judged by how they treat “the least of these” (Matthew 25:31-45).
While all people of faith will never agree on every aspect of health-care reform, there is an overall agreement on a few key principles.

1. Health, not sickness, is the will of God. We can see this from the story of the garden, in Genesis, where sickness never was, and from the vision of a city, in Revelation, in which death will be no more. When we are instruments of bringing about that good health, we are doing the work of God.

2. United we stand, divided we fall. The division between those who can afford adequate coverage and those who cannot is a threat to our unity and a threat to the health of our neighbors and our nation. 46 million in our country are uninsured and millions more who are, still can't keep up with their bills. The common good requires a system that is accessible to all who need it.

3. Patients not profits. No one should be discriminated against in their health care because they are sick. Our faith mandates that we give extra consideration and help to those who are sick, but every time an insurance company denies coverage for "pre-existing conditions," excluded ailments, or confusing fine print, their profits go up. Every doctor I know decided to pursue medicine to help people. The health insurance industry makes a profit by not helping, but our faith requires it.

4. Life and liberty must both be protected. The health-care system should protect the sanctity and dignity of life in accordance with existing law and the current rules; and the prohibition on federal funding of abortions should be consistently and diligently applied to any legislation. Strong "conscience" protections should be enacted for health-care workers to ensure they have the liberty to exercise their moral and religious beliefs in their profession. Evidence suggests that supporting low-income and pregnant women with adequate health care increases the number of women who chose to carry their child to term, so if we do reform right, we can reduce abortion in America.

5. For the next generation, health care reform should be based on firm financial foundations. Health care is a vital and wise investment for the future of our families and society. But, the way we pay for it should be fair and equitable and seek to lessen the burden on succeeding generations--both in bringing everyone into the system and by bringing the costs of health care under control over time. Our religious traditions suggest that social justice and fiscal responsibility must not be pitted against each other, but balanced together in sound public policy that is affordable for individuals and for society.

We need bold actions, political will and the moral urgency to pass comprehensive health care reform now. The guardians of the status quo will surely make this a tough fight. But inspired by faith and hope, together we can make whole that which is broken. The spirit of change is on the move.

Grace and Peace,
Greg Coates

Pastor, First Free Methodist Church of Indianapolis

This has been submitted to the following papers: Indianapolis Star, Herald-Times (Bloomington), Journal & Courier (Lafayette), The Star-Press (Muncie), The Courier-Journal (Louisville), Tribune-Star, Hoy, Daily Journal, Herald-Bulletin, Daily Ledger (Noblesville), USA Today, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, South Bend Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Kalamazoo Gazette, Chicago Sun-Times, Post-Tribune, The Journal Gazette, Elkhart Truth, The Herald-Palladium, Goshen News, Evansville Courier & Press, Owensboro Messenger-Inquirer, The Gleaner, Vincennes Sun-Commercial