The conversation explores:

- The way women and men both lose out in a sexist society.

- The importance of community in finding a better way to think about gender.

- The fact that "Rocky 3" is, perhaps, the most "manly" movie ever made.

- Sexism in film.

- Cookies.

- And much, much, more.

It is no surprise that I think “anarchism” is perhaps the best path towards human liberation. By “anarchism” I don’t mean “blowing shit up” but rather recognizing that since things like hierarchies, collective violence, and general domination are problems that we need to work to dismantle, we should seek ways of organizing as humans that don’t encourage hierarchies, violence, or domination.

 

But getting there is the big challenge. It always is the big challenge. And, since I think human beings have inherited so many bad ways of thinking, I often lose hope that we can ever get beyond our world’s current crises.

 

I don’t believe in the “myth of progress.” I don’t think things will get better if left to continue as they are. Things are getting worse. Perhaps this sense of despair factors into my belief in God. Maybe my existential hopelessness births an irrational hope within me.

 

But I’m not so certain. Beauty and mystery bubble up from the ugliest of places. And this beauty and mystery, I believe, are gifts of God. If we listen to the deep truths groaning out of the earth – if we are attentive to the beauty in every human being, I think we can begin to create liberated spaces.

 

One need not believe in God to create this. But I do believe folks need to be mystics. A mystical atheism trumps, I believe, the cold belief of the fundamentalist every time.

 

A mystic is one who connects directly with ultimate reality… spiritual truth… God. Such a posture is necessary to believe and sacrifice what is for what can be. It takes faith to seek a better world. Fundamentalists (either theist or atheists) don’t have faith. They rigidly grip certainty until all life has been squeezed out…

 

1. Luke's 1st letter
2. My 1st letter
3. Luke's 2nd letter
4. My 2nd letter
5. Luke's 3rd letter
6. My 3rd letter
7. Luke's 4th letter
8. My 4th letter
9. Luke's 5th letter
10. My 5th letter

We think this joining makes sense for a number of reasons. Currently Jesus Radicals has mostly static content, but has an organizing ability in terms of annual gatherings and in helping to mobilize people to work on certain issues such as opposing the national anthem decision at Goshen College. Jesus Manifesto’s reader driven essays, which are largely in the same arena as the content and focus of Jesus Radicals will provide more up-to-date and thought out responses from people. Jesus Manifesto also has started recording regular audio interview with folks like Ched Myers, Richard Horsley, and Mary Jo Leddy to get at issues at the heart of a Jesus-centered life. Having the two sites join means Jesus Radicals will open up to a much more open content and decision-making process that has long been part of our conferences, in which a small group of people organize and have a lot of input from many people. It will also mean that Jesus Manifesto will connect more directly with real-life networks of people pursuing radical praxis.

We don't assume that our new shared web presence will be flawless. However, we believe this move invites broader conversation than either site can do on its own. This, we hope, will result in more real-life embodiment and deeper conversation. Opening space for more collaboration and deeper conversation is what our sites are all about.

While we are still working out the details, one thing is clear to us: Readers of both sites will continue to have commonly held assumptions questioned.  

Here's the info:

IN THE BEGINNING: ANARCHISM, CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROOTS OF RESISTANCE
August 6 & 7, 2010
Portland, Oregon
www.jesusradicals.com

The theme for the 2010 anarchism and Christianity conference emerges out of the knowledge that without grasping the systems that shape our society — without understanding as well as we can how we got to where we are today — our ability to examine, unmask and resist the oppressive forces we encounter and create new, just life-ways will be crippled. To resist the powers of environmental destruction, of empire, of racism and a host of other social sins we must have more than just a passing understanding of how these death-dealing problems came to be. We must be willing to get at the root in order to discern a better way forward and sow new seeds. Come and dig deep together. There are some amazing presenters (like Wes Howard-Brook, Tre Arrow, John Zerzan and more).

CONFIRMED SESSIONS
- Anarchism and Christianity Primer
- On Empire and Civilization: Biblical interpretations and Anarchist
explorations (Tentative title)
- Race, Racism and the Nation-State: A Christian, Anarchist Perspective
- The Theology and Practice of Non/Violence
- Navigating the Security Culture: Activism in a Post 9/11 World
(Tentative title)
- The Struggle for Life on Big Mountain
- Beyond Creation Care: Environmental Activism & Christianity
- The Greening of Anarchy: the shift towards an anti-civilization approach
- Open Forum, workshops and more…

MORE INFORMATION
Conference site: www.jesusradicals.com/conference
Support the gathering: www.jesusradicals.com/conference/donate/
Past conference downloads: www.jesusradicals.com/conference/video/ and
www.jesusradicals.com/conference/conference-mp3s/

In this episode, co-hosts Sarah, Mark, and Jarrod interview Brian McLaren. Listen in as they explore the nonviolence of God, the state of the world, and our relationship to Empire.

Brian is an internationally known (and controversial) evangelical pastor, speaker, and activist. He is the author of numerous books, including his latest book, "a new kind of Christianity."

For more information about Brian, visit www.brianmclaren.net/archives/about-brian/

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT JESUS MANIFESTO

The truth is, I agree with perhaps 90% of the book–especially the central thrust–that Jesus Christ is a living and active presence here and now–and that we, by extension, are called to manifest Jesus' presence into the world. This idea might seem like a "no duh" to many Christians. However, as the authors point out, "the reality and experience of an indwelling Lord has been almost lost to the Christian faith." ¹

Jesus Manifesto serves as a helpful reminder that Jesus isn't some long-dead sage who showed us a new way to live. Nor is he a theologically abstract principle or idea. One needn't look too long to see that most of Christianity assumes a sort of deadness to Christianity–that it is a religion of principles laid out by someone who is no longer present. This has certainly been my own experience of Christianity, for the most part.

Rather, Jesus dwells in us ² and, therefore, the important question isn't "What would Jesus do?" but "What is Christ doing through me…through us? And how is He doing it?" ³

There are huge implications to such a shift in our thinking. If being the embodiment to Christ to the world is much more than simply living out good principles, then all bets are off. Our faith becomes a terrifyingly beautiful journey with Christ in the world.

Since Christ's abiding presence in his Church is central to our life together, Frank and Len set out to challenge those things that set themselves as the engine for our faith…like conservative morality, church growth, miracles, movement-building, social justice, evangelism, leadership principles, prosperity, spiritual warfare, systematic theology, etc.

I affirm, whole-heartedly, the attempt to articulate a Christianity that finds its beginning and end in the conviction that Christ is in us and we are in Christ. And for that reason, I recommend this book…with some reservation.

However, this book needs to be held to a high standard. Why? Because the book attempts to speak with a bold voice to a Church at a "crossroads."⁴ This book is a manifesto about Jesus–it is a strong call back to faithfulness to what the authors consider the absolute core of our faith.

So this review isn't exactly positive. If you're looking for a glowing review, don't worry. There are dozens of positive reviews on the web. Google "Jesus Manifesto review" and you'll find them. Jesus Manifesto, in its defense, does a better job of affirming the abiding indwelling presence of Christ than almost any other book I've read.

However, there are two ways in which the author's have fallen short to deliver on the promise of the book. My two primary concerns have to do with the inadequacy of the "message" of the book in regards to praxis as well as to the inadequacy of the "medium" of the book in regards to how it is (and is likely) to function within consumer-driven Christianity.

JESUS MANIFESTO HAS AN INADEQUATE VIEW OF "PRAXIS"

The book asserts—over and over again—that the center of our faith is the indwelling Christ. Any sort of pursuit of justice or embracing of praxis or embodied cruciformity of one's life flows out of that…right?

It is hard to challenge that sort of logic. I almost affirm it…yet…there is something that just doesn't sit right. My problem isn't with the premise of the book, but rather the author's relegating of praxis to, at best, the outcome of Christ-in-us (or, at worst, a secondary component to our faith).

We know Christ, and then we do justice, right? They write: “When the business of the church becomes more about pursuing the 'reign of God' than following Jesus, then we start hearing more about justice than justification, and Jesus the Liberator replaces Jesus the Way, the Truth, the Life.” ⁵

To the authors, “Jesus was not a political revolutionary.” ⁶ Justice and stuff is important, “but the social and political reform of the world through the powers than be has never been the agenda of the body of Christ. Ceasar sought to the change the hearts of men by laws and institutions. Jesus changes the hearts of women and men and brings them into a new society, the church…” ⁷

While I agree Jesus IS not a “mere” revolutionary and that our goal isn't to reform societies and nations, I'm uncomfortable with the pietist assumption that Jesus changes hearts, and THEN people are part of the church…wherein they can, secondarily, engage praxis.

Let me be clear here. I am suggesting that the faithful following of Jesus is a precondition for knowing Jesus. We don't, in an eruption of pietiestic “knowing” of Jesus come to know Jesus. Rather, in being with Jesus—tangibly in relationships with flesh-and-blood humanity—we come to know Jesus.

Can there be “knowing” apart from “doing?” Can we “know” Christ apart from “practicing” Christ? The authors apparently assume so. Viola and Sweet seem to be falling into a clearly pietist form of Protestantism in their understanding of how presence and praxis relate to one another in our relationship with Christ. But is that really how it works? Is that Biblical? Doesn't the Gospel begin with the call to “follow?”

And do Christians need to first experience the crucified Lord in their hearts and then follow him wherever he leads, or do Christians need to encounter the crucified and therein experience the crucified Lord? While I would be reluctant to say that such an encounter necessarily precedes revelation of Christ, I would be even more reluctant to grant that such encounter is secondary to knowing Christ and him crucified.

Can we know the Gospel apart from the poor? I don't believe so (yes, my liberationist sentiments are showing). The Gospel is more than about politics and the poor and justice and peace. But it isn't about less than those things. And, as far as I'm concerned, we cannot experience the indwelling Christ in a vaccum. The world encounters Christ through the church, who only encounters Christ in communion with the poor.

If, as the authors affirm, Christ and the church cannot be separated, ⁸ and that this link is, at least in some way, contingent upon the church "functioning properly," is it not fair to suggest that Christ's indwelling is contingent, at least in some way, on praxis?

This book, thought it points to embodiment as a necessary implication, doesn't really connect the presence of Christ in us to any particular expression whatsoever. And so, by falling into this generalizing tendency, it becomes practically gnostic. If we can come to know Christ apart from following him, and knowing Christ doesn't necessarily produce a Christ-shaped way of life, where does this indwelling lead? 

JESUS MANIFESTO "CLAIMS THE CENTER" RATHER THAN SPEAKING FROM THE MARGINS

I don't think I've ever read a book review that explores the implications of the manner in which a book is written. But, because I don't think books are discreet things that are analyzed solely for the words on the page, I'm want to explore the way that this book functions as a social tool.

As I've already pointed out (here and here), this book began with an online manifesto—a magna carta calling for people to re-center their lives on the risen Lord. That initial manifesto gained traction and turned into a book. The book has done well—even popping up in Amazon's top ten list.

This book about the humble Lord (who we meet in the margins) has endorsements from some of the most celebrated and influential leaders in the church today (from mega-church pastors, scholars, activists, and even an Archbishop).

And the book isn't just the opinion of two authors about who Jesus is…rather, it is a spark for renewal that has a growing list of signatories.

This book isn't just a book. It is a well-publicized manifesto about Jesus Christ that is being used to catalyze a movement. It is a social tool. It kinda feels like a "if you're not with us, you're a heretic" kind of book. It is an attempt to reclaim the center. This book is, perhaps, a "power move" of sorts acting as an "initiating event" that will, I suspect, try to kick off a social movement.

This sort of thing happens in social movements all the time. If you don't like the direction a movement is going, it is a natural impulse to try to come out with some sort of manifesto calling people to whatever it is you consider central and then to ask people to join your bandwagon. You might even throw in a conference or two.

This is how Christian publishing and Christian trends tend to work…you build social capital by nurturing your own "platform" and then spend that social capital trying to influence your larger circle.

Don't get me wrong–I struggle with this temptation all the time. After all, I started JesusManifesto.com when I decided to write a book of the same name. At the time, I was making all the right sorts of connections and getting invited to speak at more and more things. At the time, I was encouraged to write a book. Speaking and writing are the ways one influences movements, after all.

But I felt like there was something unhealthily self-promoting about going down that road. My anarchic sentiments make it hard for me to justify any sort of vanguardist posture. If I had any platform at all, I decided I would use it to share other people's stories–let other people speak (which is why this site has, for a while now, been driven by reader-submitted articles).

It is possible to influence and nurture the good things I long to see in the Church without setting myself up as a guru, without making a name for myself, without using marketing and buzz to promote my own vision of how things should go. And so, I spend a fair bit of time travelling to communities to connect and support. I try to resist the will to power. I'm not against writing books. But one needn't plug entirely into the consumer-machine to get a book "out there."

It is so common in our society for books of any sort to be published in this way that many folks probably don't see it as a negative thing at all. But using clout, marketing, buzz-fabrication, high-profile endorsements, social platform, and movement-building to affirm the abiding presence of our liberator doesn't SEEM to fit the message, does it? Should we really simply accept that this is the "way things are?"

Of course, Jesus Manifesto isn't unique in its method of publication. Nevertheless, I am taking the risk to "nit-pick" because of the lofty aim of this book–to clarify the centrality of our faith. In other words, if you are going to write a manifesto about Jesus that boldly claims the center, then the manner in which you proclaim that manifesto should be examined as well. And, given my earlier critique on praxis, I have problems with the fact that this manifesto isn't coming from the margins. In other words, it doesn't really seem that liberatory.

By appealing to Christians with clout (endorsers) and calling people to join the campaign (signatories), this isn't a call to engage Christ in the margins, but a calling to the center. It is, functionally, a power-move. Though the words in the book are humble (in the sense that they serve only to elevate Christ), the marketing campaign is not. Nor is the impulse towards movement building.

So this isn't a simple little manifesto or epistle that was written by those who are named blessed by Christ (ie, the poor) and distributed from community to community. It isn't a voice from the margins calling us to faithfulness. Rather, it is a book from the center, published by the largest Christian Publisher in the world, from two relatively well-known Christian writers, to build momentum around their vision of Jesus.

I realize that this all sounds ridiculous to many of you. I realize that this is how publishing “works” today. But, given the nature of the book in light of the concerns of the previous section, shouldn't the medium fit the message?

In the end, I suppose I'm a bit disappointed. I love the premise, but not the execution. I wish this book were called Jesus Manifesto: Restoring the Subservience and Humility of Jesus Christ. I wish the book was influenced more by marginal voices and contained more of a liberationist understanding of the indwelling of Christ. And I wish the book had been published in a way that corresponded to its message.

If this seems like silly naivete to you, then we probably differ on what makes for a good Jesus Manifesto.

* * * * *

Their conversation covers, among other things: the “argument” within Scripture between advocates of the “religion of Empire” and the “religion of Creation,” the ethic of love (rather than nonviolence in the New Testament) and the anarchic impulses within Scripture.

Wes is adult educator, writer, and co-founder of Abide in Me Ministries. His book  ‘Come Out, My People!’: God’s Call Out of Empire in the Bible and Beyond, is now scheduled for Fall 2010 for publication by Orbis Books. His other books include John’s Gospel and the Renewal of the Church, Becoming Children of God, The Church Before Christianity, and Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now (co-written by Anthony Gwyther).

Wes will be presenting at this year’s Jesus Radicals conference on August 6-7 in Portland. For more information, go here.

Our thinking has become so darkened that all we consider is ourselves. We have fallen into the hubris of pride and tell ourselves it is our God given duty. We believe that “God gave man the stewardship of the earth, to look after it and to use it for our enjoyment while living from its benefits. Plants, animals, fish, and fresh water. Minerals, such as coal, copper, gold, silver to make things and earn a living,” including that black sticky stuff.

We can be sad and shake our heads at the damage that black sticky stuff causes; the creatures that gasp and drown, the trees that fall, the mountains that crumble, the water that’s poisoned, the air that’s polluted. But we don’t have to do anything different, after all, we need that black sticky stuff and God gave it to us to use for our enjoyment.

Instead, we can blame the problems on someone else’s greed. Never mind the fact that they were only trying to make a living off of supplying our own greed; making so we can go where we want when we want; making it so we can eat what we want when we want; making so we can wear what we want when we want; feeding our insatiable desire for something new, whether or not its really better, whether or not what we had could be fixed.

We can be sad and shake our heads at the damage that black sticky stuff causes, because after all “the earth we inhabit is not a permanent planet. It is, frankly, a disposable planet – it is going to have a very short life. It’s been around six thousand years or so – that’s all – and it may last a few thousand more. And then the Lord is going to destroy it.” If what we do causes a little damage here or there, that’s regrettable, but in the long run it doesn’t really matter because it’s going to get destroyed any way.

The only thing that really matters is if “I confess with my mouth to be a believer and accept Jesus is Lord and I believe in my heart that he died for my sins and God the Father raised Jesus to life after his death. Romans 10:9” Since our salvation depends on faith and not works, black sticky stuff can still ooze into our lives and serve our every whim, even at the expense of other parts of creation, even at the expense of other human beings.

We can criticize our societies for having “departed from a Biblical worldview to that of a Humanistic and post modern one,” filled with “those who reject Jesus”. While at the same time we can believe that humans are God’s pinnacle of creation, that creation is here to serve human needs, and whatever the reality of global warming might be, it is subject to individual interpretations. The word that became the flesh of earth and sky, beast and bird, we reject as separate from God. And what we do to the least of creation is divorced from our beliefs in Jesus.

We can criticize our Jewish forebearers for not obeying the Mosaic Law, or listening to the warnings the Lord gave them of removing them from the land (Deuteronomy 28) if they apostatized. We can sadly shake our heads that the children of Israel did not listen and came under judgment – the Northern tribes falling to Assyria in 722 B.C., and Judah to Babylon in 605 B.C. In our Bibles we read how God designated the Babylonian captivity as a seventy-year captivity to rest the land for all the Sabbath years that Israel violated (cf. Leviticus 26:33-35; 2 Chronicles 36:17-21). And yet we never stop to think about giving our own land a rest.

We think we are smarter than the Israelites because we practice crop rotation, we have chemicals that fight off pestilence and weeds, and we have black sticky stuff that makes it so we don’t have to follow the natural rhythms of the earth. We have black sticky stuff that we can pump out of the ground every second of every hour of every day of every year. We never rest from pumping, shipping, refining, buying, selling, using and burning. We are so dependent on our black sticky stuff that we feel threatened whenever someone suggests we stop using it.

Instead we vilify environmentalists, claiming that because they serve creation, they worship the creature rather than the Creator. We vilify environmentalists for wanting to undermine the power our empire feeds upon. How dare they try and impose upon OUR freedom! How dare they suggest that our black sticky stuff could be irrevocably damaging the planet we live on! God’s in control and he would never let human greed and pride to murder millions of innocent people, not to mention many more plants and animals. This is just part of the natural cycle of things, over which we have no control. We are just innocent bystanders waiting to be raptured away.

And while we wait, we silence the groans of creation with pavement. We drown out its cries with our own noise bouncing through the airwaves, surrounding ourselves with incessant introspective chatter. We refashion creation according to our will and for our profit. All with the power of this black sticky substance.

By the power of the black sticky substance, we build bigger and better churches; we draw parishioners from afar off; we send our hand-me-downs and surplus to those who suffer from the poverty of supplying standardized products and services to a capricious market driven by fad and celebrity. By the power of the black sticky substance we proclaim the word of God louder, with cameras, lights, and action. By the power of the black sticky substance pages and pages of scripture, commentary, and devotion, are cranked out in version after version, language after language, until they weigh down our bookshelves, and overflow into our waste baskets.

I agree with those who claim that “we have collectively become ignorant and neglectful of God’s promised wrath on the children of disobedience.” We do not seek to put God’s kingdom first, his kingdom of the lowly worm, the humble donkey, or the peaceful dove. Instead, we worry over what we will eat and what we will wear. We worry over what the Jones will think of us instead of what God thinks of us. We emphasize the love of God to the exclusion of the coming day of reckoning.

We do not recognize the disaster we are bringing upon ourselves, our children, and their grandchildren. We believe that when things become difficult, that we will somehow escape the consequences, either by divine providence or by being raptured away. We do not recognize that the black sticky stuff that has oozed into every area of our lives has become the ipso facto god of our lives -a god that is destroying our lives down to the very core of our souls, a god that has imprisoned us in a web of catastrophic behaviors and blinded us to our own folly.

God is not deceived by our greed. Our God is a jealous God and will not settle for second place -not now, not ever. He will not settle for a second rate kingdom, despoiled of its natural beauty -not now, not ever. We have been hiding in the garden, donning the symbolic fig leaves of prosperity to hide the nakedness of our souls. He calls us out, and asks us what have we done?

Let us not try and pass the blame, but humbly repent with changed actions. Let us forsake our comfortable lives bought with the power of the black sticky god, and instead receive the new life bought with his blood. Let us pick up our crosses and follow in his footsteps, giving up our lives for new life of his creation -all of his creation. Let us rule creation as he rules: not with a scepter but a towel; stooping as he stooped to care for the needs of his subjects.

- – - – -

The quotes used in this article were taken from comments left on a blogpost by Kurt Willems and from the article “Evangelicalism and the Environmental Movement” written by John MacArthur. These quotes are typical of many discussions I’ve had with believers about the environment and are not used in order to single out certain individuals for criticism.

Card #1: I’m grumpy about the name thing

In June 2009, Frank and Len published an online Magna Carta for Restoring the Supremacy of Jesus Christ (a.k.a. A Jesus Manifesto for the 21st Century Church). I wrote about that initial “manifesto” here.

At the time, I was a bit irked about them referring to their document as a Jesus Manifesto, because JesusManifesto.com was known to them (at least to Frank). My frustration wasn’t about copyrights or anything like that–my initial frustration was very much on a relational level. And, to be honest, I was concerned that they were going to launch a big campaign and a book that would kinda steal this website’s mojo. But, overall, I was supportive of their manifesto, with only a few areas of pushback.

After talking with Frank about my concerns, he promised that they wouldn’t use the name “Jesus Manifesto” for a book name (since Frank knew that I had intended–at least in the past–to write a book with that name). Alas, I found out a few months ago that they were publishing a book named “Jesus Manifesto” that would expand upon the themes of their website.

That frustrated me. I wasn’t in rage or anything, but I felt kinda like JesusManifesto.com had been slapped around a bit. I talked to Frank about this and he assured me that, since “Jesus Manifesto” is a relatively common phrase, the name is fair game…and that we should share links to one another’s sites (which we did).

So, from one way of looking at things, they named their book “Jesus Manifesto” using a common phrase and I have no real grounds for frustration.

But, from another perspective, it is a generally obscure phrase only used here and there…and since there is overlap in our reader base, since many simply equate “Jesus Manifesto” with jesusmanifesto.com, and since there has been some prior connections between us (including some stuff encouraging folks to read Frank’s books), this could be seen as a careless act that could sideline one Jesus Manifesto for another.

Personally, I can’t help but feel the latter. I could be wrong. I don’t discount Frank and Len’s perspective. It makes sense. But it would have been nice if they had processed it more with the folks at Jesus Manifesto.

Card #2 I have deep antipathy towards the publishing machine

This whole scenario wouldn’t discourage me much if it didn’t directly connect with my own issues with publishing. There is a reason why “Jesus Manifesto” never materialized as a book project from me. I mean, does the world need MORE books from educated white guys? Maybe. But one should discern before writing a book. I have a strong suspicion that it is the Holy Spirit who should decide what gets read in the Church, not the Invisible Hand. In other words, I don’t believe that publishing should determine our apostles.

I had come to the conclusion that, if I am going to ever write a book, it would have to he collaborative, share the stories of communities in the margins, not be publisher-driven, and be carefully written over periods of deep discernment.

In fact, for the past year, I’ve been in that process. I’m co-writing a book with Eliacin Rosario-Cruz that will explore how we can nurture liberation (Kingdom of God) in the midst of Empire and we will draw upon the stories of faithful communities of resistance. It is taking a while to write because books that attempt lofty things should, in general, take time to write.

It is possible that Frank and Len’s book is amazing and inspired. But, I know it was written over a few months, was written by two prolific educated white guy authors, and it is written as a sort of rallying cry for the faithful…this book isn’t about content. It is about nurturing renewal. We should at least cause us to pause to discern before getting enthusiastic. Which leads me to my next point…

Card #3 They are over-reaching with the name “Jesus Manifesto”

The reason this site is called “Jesus Manifesto” is because we are inspired by Jesus’ own, actual, manifesto (as found in Luke 4:18-19). So, it is about Jesus’ own vision and our desire to live into that vision.

Frank and Len’s “Jesus Manifesto” kinda functions as a flag planted in the earth–gathering folks around their convictions about Jesus. In my mind, it is over-reaching to call what they’ve penned with their own hands the “Jesus Manifesto.” I realize their goal is to exalt Jesus (I deeply affirm that), but it might be the case that their simply exalting their own take on Jesus. Furthermore, they are doing it in such a way that, if you don’t agree with their take, you are assumed to be “majoring in the minors.”

The name is so lofty that it is almost impossible that they can deliver. And, as you’ll read in my next few posts, I don’t believe they deliver. I think they marginalize the liberationist aspects of Christ’s work (not only his three years working with his disciples, but also his work today by his Spirit). I’m also concerned that, by casting their net to wide, they’ve basically challenged nothing besides doctrine. Nevertheless, I agree with them that the real presence of Christ in our midst is a provocative, easily-dismissed, truth. I just think they fall short of their goal of articulating the radical implications of that truth. Stay tuned.