Andy
-
06:34:29 am on April 22, 2008 | # |
Driscoll quotes Madeleine L’Engle in a statement that perfectly summarizes the second chapter of Vintage Jesus:
To be a Christian is to believe in the impossible. Jesus was God. Jesus was Human.
And therein lies a fundamental difficulty for non-Christians in the acceptance of Jesus - that He was (is) fully human and fully God.
I found that Driscoll began to find a rhythm to his writing once he listed the various quotes from assorted writers and theologians as to the nature of Jesus. Being one who is not planning on the pastorate (no matter what my friend Will thinks), I found myself engaged by the differing viewpoints on the dynamic tension between Jesus’ humanity and divinity. So many traditions within the Christian faith are prone to an overemphasis between one or the other, and it is a tension that I find myself struggling with as well, particularly finding myself more prone to the overemphasis on his divinity and not understanding the importance of his humanity.
And on this point I believe Driscoll handles the balance between divinity and humanity well. Of note in page 36: “…when Jesus became a man, he did not change his identity as God but rather changed his role.” Furthermore he states that Jesus “laid aside the independent exercise of his divine attributes.”
Those two quotes really lay the foundation of Driscoll’s effective argument, as we see time and again through the Gospels how Jesus submits to the Father’s authority - that even with his divine nature, he acts only in concert with the will of God.
Driscoll brings his argument to a head on page 45 with what I believe to be the key takeaway for this chapter:
For those who are sick, abused, burned out, tired, bedridden, flat broke, tempted, weary, hated, lonely, and dying, the humanity of Jesus on his darkest days is encouraging. Without these insights into Jesus’ life, it would be difficult for us to run to him in our time of need because we would be unaware of the similar experiences he had during his life on the earth. Those experiences make him a compassionate friend. Therefore, the humanity of Jesus is as important for our love of Jesus as his divinity.
Jesus is the conduit by which God is able to relate to us, his children. We were unable to do so in Eden, unable to do so through the Law, but now we are able to connect with God because Jesus is our mediator, having lived among us, fully comprehending the breadth of the human experience.
Lanz Franco 4:19 pm on April 22, 2008 | #
It doesn’t matter what you have planned, Andy… Its what God has planned.
I read this chapter relatively quickly and I haven’t gotten any further. It didn’t impact me like a meteor, but more like a small rock in a still pool. I keep coming back to this chapter again and again. I’m not sure I agree with everything Driscoll writes, but his painting of Jesus’s dual nature is very compelling. I guess Jesus is the one who brings balance to the force.
AJ 5:55 pm on April 23, 2008 | #
Good summary, Andy. One thing I like about the book is the way Driscoll is deliberate about including “take-aways” like the one you mention here. Case in point:
“Why does it matter that Jesus was both God and man?”
As God, he saves us…
As man, he understands us (became us)…
Bernard 1:57 pm on April 24, 2008 | #
Okay, I’ll just be raw here with two points.
One, I DON’T fully understand the need for or the purpose of Christ’s complete humanity. I think there are so MANY reasons and different explanations, and they may all have some truth to them.
Two, I think Driscoll takes pains to almost “gutterize” Jesus Christ, and the highly conservative part of me resents that. To accuse Jesus of “being funny” with a particular line - camel through the eye of a needle, for example - takes away some of the theological “punch” of the statement that is delivered. It’s the old “Aw, shucks, I was just joking about that” mentality being applied to the Son of God, and I hesitate to start using that thought pattern when I read the Word of God. Sure, I believe Jesus was genuinely friendly, happy, and probably smiled a lot, but those are MY impressions, not a Scriptural teaching. Did Jesus fart? Did He burp? Did His feet stink? Did He pee? Sure. I believe He was that human. I also believe that it’s worth discussing, but it’s very easy to cross the line where part of His deity is removed by excessive emphasis on the “earthy” part of Jesus Christ. I think that Driscoll is AWARE of this, but I think - in transposing the sarcasm that works so well in his sermons but sometimes seems crass in writing - he has made Jesus almost into a homeless bum with a short haircut. I DO think we often miss the truth of Jesus’ human side, but I DON’T think that making Jesus sweat, stink, and sit on the pot necessarily makes us understand why He became human.
But I do think it’s a good discussion to have.
Lanz Franco 4:29 pm on April 24, 2008 | #
Yeah, but the stuff he left in the pot didn’t stink.
Andy 8:24 pm on April 24, 2008 | #
Bernard, I don’t take issue with what you say; I think this is a sign of where I think the book is weak - who is the intended audience? Is this to be a book that speaks to folks like us, or is it aimed at those who are not Christians?
If this is a book aimed at non-Christian twenty-somethings in Seattle, then I think the “earthy” descriptions of Jesus can work (although I would concur they probably play better spoken than read). This gives them a Jesus they can relate to.
But you and I don’t necessarily need that - rather, we do need to be reminded of his humanity, but I would hope that we have grown sufficiently in our faith that we don’t need those kinds of descriptions of Jesus.
Crassness aside, I still like the chapter, because I think his key takeaway is solid. But I still think the larger problem with the book goes back to the beginning, wherein Driscoll needs to setup some basic apologetics before his argument in subsequent chapters can withstand the harder questions non-believers may ask.