Greg Stevenson blogs:
I came across an interesting passage in the C. S. Lewis biography I have been reading. Prior to his conversion to Christianity, Lewis was a thorough-going atheist who strongly resisted the biblical depiction of God and particularly of Christ. As he began opening his mind to Christianity, he started to read the Gospels and was surprised by the depiction of Jesus he found there. The Jesus he encountered there was not at all the Jesus the church and society had led him to believe could be found there. (CONTINUE…)After reading his post, what are your thoughts? In what other ways is the Jesus one encounters in the Church different from the Jesus one encounters in the Gospels?
Loading ...
June 16, 2006 at 15:54
This is one of those topics for which I am glad I grew up in a fairly strict fundamentalist church. We heard the stories about the loving, compassionate Jesus, but we also heard the story of his overturning the moneychanging tables in the temple. We learned that the awesome nature of God’s compassion had to be to match the awesome burden of our sin.
And, while I know my church had it’s inconsistencies, I learned early on that if the Bible is to be our only source for faith and practice, we can’t adopt a cafeteria-style approach.
This, as in many areas of theology, is one in which I’ve tried to embrace the “both/and” view instead of the “either/or.”
At least according to Scripture.
June 16, 2006 at 16:40
I think there are several aspects of Jesus ministry that would make some religious professionals today uncomfortable.
One Sunday morning in our church, the pastor carefully explained that since many people have abused alcohol, the policy of the church was that neither the pastor nor any of his staff could buy or drink any alcoholic beverage. He felt that if people saw him have a beer, that their ministry would be handicapped. I remember thinking, it’s too bad Jesus didn’t adopt this policy. He and His staff could have been so much more effective had they been tea-totalers. Was alcohol abuse any less a problem in Gospel days? Yet Jesus’ first miracle was to make 180 gallons of high quality wine for people that had already had a glass of cheap wine. He was not reluctant to socialize at a dinner party with a glass of wine. “And I, the Son of Man, feast and drink, and you say, `He’s a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of the worst sort of sinners!’ But wisdom is shown to be right by what results from it.” I can just see at the great feast in Heaven, the tea-totalers will put their hands over their glass and say, no thanks, I’m a Christian. Jesus loved to fraternize with the common man in their own element.
I think some would also be nervous around Jesus when they realize he is a pentecostal healing evangelist. He laid hands on the sick, cast out demons publically, called forth Lazarus with a loud voice. People in His home town made fun of His healing ministry. He didn’t just heal with a soft word of authority, He depended on power. He felt power go out of him when the woman with the issue of blood touched Him. He healed when the Power of the Lord was present for Him to heal (Luke 5:17). Sometimes when He spoke crowds even fell over backwards involuntarily (John 18:6). I think a lot of Christians today would be embarrassed of him and want Him to deliver nice sermons only.
He could be physically violent. He threatened (or hit) bank tellers with a whip, swinging it at them and forcing them out of the temple. Then he smashed their bird cages, knocked the money drawers to the ground and threw the money on the floor. Whew. What would be the equivalent today? Picking up a baseball bat, swinging it at whoever was making money in a Church, throwing the cash register on the floor and tossing fistfuls of dollars. Yikes. Such passion makes us nervous.
As has been said, most of His animosity and criticism was directed at religious professionals as a class. He detested honorary religious titles like Good Master, Father or Rabbi. Call no man Father (Matt 23:9). Don’t be called Rabbi (Matt 23:8). He couldn’t stand repetitous, long public prayers.
He was a middle class businessman. Carpenters of that era were not like our house builders, they were furniture makers and artisans, producing wood implements. He was not just A carpenter among many, He was THE carpenter for Nazareth. He carried on his fathers business with His four younger brothers James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas. No wonder He used so many business and financial investment analogies in His preaching.
He paid His taxes. He cooked. He sang. He told jokes and was funny. He enjoyed a glass of good wine. He was not tall or particularly good looking (Isaiah). He was semitic, most likely with black curly hair and a prominent nose. In otherwords, He was of the people. He was one of us.
June 16, 2006 at 18:01
Jesus did not only provide 150 gallons of the best wine to those who already had a glass of wine, but to those who were already well drunk (as John 2 actually says).
June 17, 2006 at 13:26
Tim,
Just to clear it up, the passage doesn’t actually say that those at that feast/marriage were “well drunk”. The man makes the statement that the common practice was to bring in the not so-good wine ‘When men had well drunk’ not ‘are well drunk’.
Jesus never contributed to sinful behavior nor set a wrong example to those who love to get drunk and call it a character of good things to do.
John 2:9-10
9When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
June 18, 2006 at 08:52
Yes, the one thing that I am struggling with is the fact that we do not see the same Jesus in the church that we see in the Gospels. The thing that is frustrating the most is that most churches do not want to present the hard side of Jesus and only the soft side. I think some of these parables were meant to make us take a deep look inside to see if we really have what it takes to follow Jesus. I think fear is a great motivator (never for salvation, though) becuase if I experience anxiety or fear it makes me look at my life and see what needs to change. It then becomes a positive. But in order to keep people in the pews these days the church does not want to scare or offend anyone. Very frustrating.
June 18, 2006 at 22:08
Clarity,
Most translations tend to side with Tim, the New Revised Standard, the NIV, the NASB, all translate the phrase to carry “being drunk” connotations, what translation are you referencing? The root word is methuo, which is conjugated in a variety of ways but they all imply being drunk, whether that is “being made drunk”, “having well drunk” or simply “being drunk.”
Additionally, wouldn’t the phrase, “hav[ing] well drunk” imply some account of over drinking, more generally? Or if having well drunk doesn’t imply at least a couple of the men being a little tipsy, what are we to do with that phrase? And while it may not literally say that here everyone is drunk, it does throw Jesus into a story where he (Jesus….the bringer of the good wine) brings it out after everyone is a little tipsy, doesn’t that imply some relationship to the present situation?
June 18, 2006 at 22:10
I praise God that I am a member of a “prostestant”, “charismatic” church. They teach the WHOLE Bible, not just the “warm, fuzzy” parts.
In order for Jesus to effectively minister, He had to enter this earth as a HUMAN being. He was/is 100% eternal and 100% human. The Bible tells us He is our High Priest and was tempted as we are. In order for that to happen, He had to express His emotions also…! Because He is the Son of God, He would be moved by the same things God is moved by, and because He is human, He would express Himself in thouroughly human ways.
Futhermore,C.S. Lewis had to deal with the Anglican Church, the national church of England. The primary reason for the founding of the Anglican church was Henry VIII wanting to (a) divorce and marry someone else simply because he had beriberi and was impotent. (thing to make you go hmmmm….)
June 19, 2006 at 11:54
joshwall,
Did Jesus contribute to drunkness? You cannot know from that passage. He made good wine since they had ‘no wine’.
John 2:2-3
2And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
3And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
We don’t know many things from this glimps of a wedding Jesus attended, but we can know from Jesus is that He was without sin.
I think many want Jesus to be whatever they want Him to be, rather than what He was, perfect, blameless and without sin, and no desire for sin or contributed to no one’s sinful nature.
Seems many would like to ‘make’ Jesus fit into whatever party style they have so as to justify even if ‘a little’ drunkeness for the sake of the flesh and it’s desire.
June 19, 2006 at 14:57
I like Mr. Stevenson’s article. He’s right! Many believers have over-relied on Hollywood’s portrayal of Christ as accurate. In my humble opinion, it’s anything but accurate. I remember watching one popular Jesus film where the Jesus character walked around like a zombie with a glazed look in his eyes, (like he had been smoking some “pot”), as he quoted scripture. None of the other characters in the film seemed to understand what he was saying. If I had been a disciple to that Jesus I wouldn’t have been sad when they crucified him, I would have been relieved!
Others have portrayed Jesus as the ultimate peacenik and yet the book of Revelation describes Him as one who makes war. (Rev. 19:11) He is the Prince of Peace AND a Great Warrior.
I think knowing Christ is a process and the more time we spend in the scriptures and in prayer and with His Body here on earth the more our eyes will be opened to see Him as He is. Yet I do think there are aspects of Him that even the most mature believer will not know until they reach heaven. I think we’ll all be surprised at some point by seeing a side of Him we hadn’t seen before. How Great is God the Son!
June 19, 2006 at 18:04
Clarity,
We can know that Jesus is without sin, as the Text attests to, and while we cannot know that Jesus isn’t talking to people who are drunk, we don’t know they aren’t. Additionally, the only time drunkenness is condemned is once by Paul (Eph 5) in a household code, which is a section of text that is questionable in regards to its application. I feel Paul is telling people not to get drunk, but he also tells us not to marry, not to work in professional ministry, and women to be subject to their husbands.
I don’t know if I find that one appearance of drunkenness to be enough for me to flat out label it as a sin. Not good, yup; counter to what I think God wants, yeah; but I’m not sure about a sin. I think Jesus could have had a bit too much wine and still be able to be Jesus…
It seems to me that many want to make Jesus so holy that his feet barely touched the ground. He got made, he cursed out his enemies, and was often getting ticked at his disciples (at least in Mark) things that are often flat right condemned by the church. Though if you look at the emergence of holiness the passivity=holiness really something that comes to fruition during the ascetics. The lone monk sitting in the desert and all of that, sometimes I wonder what would happen if the passive Jesus of the monastic church would have met the Jesus of the Gospels; or at least Jesus as he appears in Mark.
June 19, 2006 at 18:34
Clarity:
Weeellll….as Ronald Reagan would say. I’m sorry I introduced the subject of wine. Of course there is no way to justify drunkeness. Just as there is no excuse for gluttony. But that doesn’t mean that we stop eating food because so many people get fat. Jesus plainly drank wine. He said “And I, the Son of Man, feast and drink, and you say, `He’s a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of the worst sort of sinners! JESUS FEASTS AND DRINKS. But is he a glutton or a winebibber? Of course not! Could some of the celebrating guests at the wedding have been a little tipsy. Sure.
Religous people today have the same problems as the religous people of His day. They are afraid to go to a worldly feast (another word for…party) or share a beer with the common folk at a meal because other religous people will say, ahhh “a glutton and a drunkard, and a friend of the worst sort of sinners!” Do you suppose He had a purpose in going?
Actually that’s kind of cool isn’t it “the friend of the worst sort of sinners”. Jesus was frequently observed drinking at feasts with un-churched people so the religous people concluded He was a drunkard. What pathetic, misguided criticism. He was trying to reach people right where they were at. He was about saving souls.
Anyway, sorry I brought it up.
June 19, 2006 at 20:14
Anyone who is interested in the Gosple messages should get a copy of the “Secret Message of Jesus” by Brian McLaren.
Like C.S. Lewis Brian takes the reader through a review of the gospels and there cntral theme, which differs from both conservative and liberal side of the religious spectrum.
It is raw look at Jesus and his teachings. No one who reads it will feel the same after.
June 21, 2006 at 12:00
As Greg Stevenson blogs about C.S.Lewis
>.
I find it very interesting that the issue of drinking and drunkeness (John 2)has been brought up. From my own experience, I have seen that in many Christian/Evangelical communities there
are differences regarding what I call “Cultural values”.
In the American Culture (depending on the cultural value held) some look at wine as being
“sinful”. When I lived in Spain, the Evangelicals there used wine in their communions.
They didn’t see it as sinful. Was drunkeness
to them sinful? The answer would be yes.”Do everything in moderation”. But if we were to go to other cultures around the world and look at their values, especially Evangelicals, some of the things they do wouldn’t be approved by our own cultural values (or even the way we interpret Scripture which has some cultural values included as well).
So what I am trying to say with all this is?
C.S. Lewis’ comment probably had to do alot with his own culture and their cultures values and little to do with the Jesus found in the Gospels. The real Jesus is on another plain.As we operate on his plain, the spiritual one, we will understand better what he was really trying to say instead of getting all messed up with our own Cultural baggage.
Heaven is going to be far beyond our imaginations. A whole different new culture
completely, ie. language, music, thinking,values,
etc.,etc.
June 21, 2006 at 17:40
My statement implying the possibility about Jesus giving much “good wine” to those who had already had drunk “much wine” was intended to reveal that we tend to naively read our cultural conditions into the gospels even when we think we are unmasking the “real Jesus.”
We must strive to do the difficult work of INTERPRETING Scripture and not pretend that we are the first ones ever to read it “as it really is.”
No doubt but that this generation has prided itself on casting off the “legalism” of a previous era. I expect as time goes on we will increasingly find we are not as bright as we think we are and our predessers were not as dumb as we think they were. The increasing problems Christians are facing while supposedly becoming more like the real Christ should tip us to this possibility.
It is hard work to sift through the fog of cultural influences that cause us to read Scripture (and the life of Christ) in ways biased by our cultural factors.
For us in the 21st century we have had nearly one hundred years of the use of the word “wine” meaning only alcoholic beverage and because of this it seems preposterous to many to think of Biblical wine as anything but alcoholic even though the ancient evidence is rather strong that “wine” could have been either alcoholic or non-alcoholic. If one checks the history of the word “wine” (all the way back to the Hebrew “vin”) it is clear that “wine” did not always use to mean alcoholic wine. In fact there are plenty of existing ancient references to “good wine” as wine that could be drunk in high quantity without making one drunk.
The historical evidence is difficult to sift through, but it is certainly possible, that Jesus did not provide 150 gallons of alcoholic beverage to people already a bit tipsy. Non-alcoholic wine is within the semantic range of both the Hebrew and Greek words for wine.
A study of the OT strongly suggests that God commends the sweetness of wine (also honey) and not the intoxicating feature of alcohol. In fact the Hebrew word “strong drink” is the word we know as “sacchrine” (this “sweet word” is found in derivative forms in many diverse modern languages – strongly suggesting the meaning of the root word for strong drink was not strong in alcohol but strong in sweetness)
It is possible that the current rise of alcoholic consumption among young people claiming to be “more like Jesus” is may very well be making them less like Jesus.
June 22, 2006 at 01:24
In John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
We all know that Jesus is righteous, pure and holy. I often picture He cannot tolerate the unjust and foolish behaviour especially in His Father’s house – a “spanking” to correct our ways.
We are doing the series of 1 John. God has opened our eyes. Teaching us to live right so that when the day come, we will not be ashamed to face Him. 1John 2:28 “And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.”
June 22, 2006 at 06:44
To All:
Regarding the wine issue, yes, Jesus drank. It’s mentioned time and again in the Gospels. He also participated in the Passover meals throughout His human life which involved drinking wine.
And, yes, Jesus is “so holy”. It’s His nature. But, He still touches the ground. He can do that because of His human nature – so that He can touch sinners.
As for drunkeness (i.e. indulging in TOO much wine or strong drink) being a sin, anything that is contrary to God’s nature is sinful. Look to the Proverbs (21:17, 23:30-32). They allude to the trouble too much wine can bring. It’s even suggested in Proverbs 31 that one in authority not be prone to drinking wine. Looking through any of the Biblical accounts of individuals indulging too much is an example of what trouble, and sin, drunkeness brings. The only time much wine is acceptable is to use as a sedative – Proverbs 31:6.
Paul also wrote to Timothy and Titus that leaders in the communities should not be “addicted” to wine. That would be akin to alcoholism or drunkeness. Addictions start taking precedence in the individual’s life which would put in God 2nd place which we all know is a “no no” (“Thou shall have no other gods before me…”). Wine could be used, however, as medicine – i.e. for Timothy’s upset stomach in 1 Tim 5:23.
Wine is fine; drunkeness is not. It’s not the object that is sinful, just what one does with it that determines whether it’s a sinful act or not. It’s about the condition of one’s heart – which the Lord mentions time and again throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments.
June 26, 2006 at 07:45
I was of the understanding (misunderstanding?) that one reason people drank wine during that time was because water was often unsanitary. The fermentation process made wine safer to drink than water, and that’s why people (including children) drank wine. Of course the side effect of drunkenness can’t be overlooked.
This conversation about wine just highlights Stevenson’s (& Lewis’s) point, doesn’t it? Churches have created traditions around our understanding of Him, but how accurate are those understandings? He lived in His culture rather than hiding away from it, and we must do the same. That doesn’t mean that I should go out to the bar next weekend & witness while I’m getting sloshed, but it does mean that I should find the line that God has drawn for ME without judging people on the other side of that line.