The “Nazareth Manifesto”

I’m guessing that most people get pretty focused on books as they read them. On the other hand, maybe it’s just part of my unique weirdness that line after line of Jim Wallis’ book, On God’s Side triggers new thoughts and new ideas for sermons, blogs, church newsletter, etc.

Part of the attraction is that line after line of Wallis’ writings restates something I’ve tried to write or say—only Wallis writes it so much more effectively.

His primary thesis, as is mine, is that our American culture is living out an extreme and belligerent partisanism—from Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. to Old First Church in Centerville, USA. As I have tried less effectively to say, Wallis sees value in an open dialogue between all adversarial participants, and he affirms that each side has something of value to offer for the common good. The common good is the final goal of all his writings.

And he grounds his thesis in his understanding of the Christian faith.

Tragically, one element of evangelical Christianity, because of its deep convictions about biblical eschatology, will see the common good as a compromise, and therefore an unacceptable concession to the unique rightness of their perspective. Perhaps the rest of us, in our apostasy (I apologize for my cynicism; but I’ve decided not to edit it out, because I think they truly see us as apostate) can go ahead and seek the common good; while all the time leaving the door open for any possibility of finding other common ground upon which they and we can work together.

Wallis says that both conservatives and liberals have made major contributions to the common good. Conservatives contribute a concept of individual responsibility, while liberals offer a call to social responsibility. In my view he is correct in his assessment that the greatest flaw in our culture is that each side seeks to absolutize its own position while overlooking (or at least minimizing) the other’s.

In the same way, Christians have divided the gospel with some evangelicals focusing correctly but incompletely upon what Wallis calls an atonement only gospel, with Jesus as exclusively savior. They see Jesus’ teachings about justice and serving, e.g., the Beatitudes, Luke 4 and Matthew 25, et al, as intended for a different dispensation that is yet to come, and not for our present earthly existence.

Liberal Christians, on the other hand, tend to avoid the mystery of God’s salvific acts in Jesus Christ or to declare them metaphors (because they can’t explain them), and to focus correctly but incompletely upon Jesus’ clear and consistent teachings about such things as economics and the poor or loving both our neighbors and our enemies—the social gospel. In that perspective, Jesus is exclusively teacher.

My first sermon in seminary class made the point that the same New Testament contains both Matthew 25 and John 3. So, Wallis’ conclusions resonate deeply with me.

I am drawn especially to what Wallis calls Jesus’ “Nazareth Manifesto” recorded in Luke 4. These are the first public words, the first sermon, the first act of ministry for Jesus following his baptism. His words constitute his understanding of his purpose, and he gets his job description from Isaiah 61.

Jesus’ own self understanding is rooted in his proclamation that the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God is at hand and is being fulfilled and lived in the present moment. To be sure, there is an element of “not yet” in his proclamation—an eschaton toward which God is calling history. But Jesus is clearly calling people to participate in the kingdom now; and that participation is to be manifest in acts of kindness and compassion and in becoming advocates for justice. To miss the call to present participation in the kingdom is to miss a major part of Jesus’ work and message.

On the other hand, participation in the kingdom requires conversion. After declaring his manifesto in Nazareth, Jesus, from that time on began to preach, “Repent! For the Kingdom is here!” Repent. That means so much more than simply feeling sad or apologetic for our wrongdoings (although those feelings are not precluded in the call to repentance). The word in the original language is metanoia, and it means simply “to turn around.”

We’re going in the wrong direction, and getting further and further from God and God’s kingdom; and that holds true whether our correct but rigidly incomplete proclamation is an atonement only gospel or a gospel exclusively of social responsibility. To neglect either is to leave our proclamation incomplete.

The younger generations get it. That’s why they’re leaving the churches by the droves! They want a gospel of integrity—complete and comprehensive. And they are turned off by rigid rules and by churches that are more concerned about defending their doctrines than about living them. They’re turned off by churches that are concerned more about self-justification than about walking with the teacher and letting the teacher lead us into wholeness.

Together in the Walk,

Pastor Jim