A Feminist’s Manifesto

I am—unashamedly and undeniably—a feminist. And this is what I believe.

I believe that women are endowed with the greatest of all earthly honors: the image of God himself. In his sovereign goodness, the Creator has bestowed upon every single woman the tremendous privilege (and the tremendous responsibility) of bearing the image of her Creator. Women are not the fortunate beneficiaries of mindless evolutionary force; they are the intricate craftsmanship of a personal God. The Creator has invested into each woman a full measure of his very own imagination and artistry, and for this we should honor each woman and celebrate the God who created them.

I believe that women were created for men and men were created for women. From the very beginning, God created two sexes in order that they might be joined to one another in the covenant of marriage. Because of this, both male and female possess a natural sense of dependency upon the other. This is not a defect in their Creator’s design; rather, it is a central part of his wise plan. He did not create men to be superior to women, nor did he create women to be superior to men. Each one looks to the other with the ultimate goal of being joined together in a life-long relationship of marriage.

I believe that bearing children is distinct and solemn privilege for women. Every human being has a mother, and every mother is a testament to the uniquely feminine wonder of childbirth. It is neither a curse nor a nuisance to carry a developing human being for nine months within one’s womb and then selflessly to deliver that child into the world. Although there is much pain involved in the process, this is a result of sin and not a part of the originally created order. To bear children is to know a joy that no man can ever experience and to partake directly in the mysterious miracle of creation. And even for those women who, in God’s providence, are unable to bear biological children, the opportunity to adopt presents a whole new set of uniquely feminine privileges. After all, any woman who chooses to set her affections upon an orphaned or abandoned child shows depths of motherly love that can hardly be imagined. So whether it is through “biological” birth or “adoptive” birth, the process remains one that is as dignified as it is feminine.

I believe that women encounter no context which requires a more courageous and noble character than that of motherhood. To carry out the responsibilities of motherhood is to count oneself among the giants of this world—the heroines whose valiant achievements change the course of history. It is no small matter to raise a child, and all other pursuits with which a woman might concern herself pale in comparison. A woman may be a successful doctor, lawyer, or businesswoman, but nowhere does the glory of her femininity shine more brightly than in the home where she cares for her children and nurtures them with love. A thousand professional opportunities will never rival the overwhelming importance of mothering a child.

I believe that women, in the context of marriage, are a visible representation of the church of Jesus Christ. This fact alone confirms the solemnly precious nature of femininity. Women are to be disparaged only insofar as Christ disparages his church. If Christ ever neglects the interests of his people, then it will be appropriate for men to neglect the interests of women.

Therefore, I believe that women are to be loved, honored, cherished, and cared for by their husbands. Any man who disrespects, belittles, or scorns his wife proves that he is ignorant of the inherent honor of femininity. For a husband to love as Christ loves the church is to love at great personal cost, with a constant desire to bring about the well-being of the beloved. As a representation of the church, each wife deserves more affection, care, sacrifice, and protection than any man can possibly offer. Jesus Christ has known no limits in showing love to the church. Husbands should strive to do similarly for their wives.

Furthermore, I believe that men should do all they can to preserve the dignity of femininity. This cannot be done by sexual liberation, vocational liberation, or any other form of social liberation of which we might conceive. In order to preserve the dignity and honor of femininity, men must celebrate their wives, love their wives, honor their wives, and sacrifice for their wives. They must recognize that the responsibilities of childbirth and motherhood command the respect and awe of the world. They must encourage their children to rejoice gratefully in the sacrifice of their mothers, and they must encourage other husbands to honor humbly the magnanimity of their wives. The true wonder of femininity cannot be reclaimed by encouraging women to forsake the very things that make them feminine in order to engage in (supposedly) more lofty pursuits. On the contrary, it must be reclaimed by honoring, cherishing, and celebrating those things which are wonderfully and uniquely feminine.

I am a feminist, and these are the things I believe.

 

The Demise of Christian America: A Cause for Joy

I do not usually care to write about politics. The subject has become so ridiculously divisive that it’s hardly even worth the time to talk about it. But lately I have been so troubled by some of the alarmist, highly Republican-ized, anger-filled rhetoric that is issued from within the walls of evangelicalism that I feel it necessary to let off some steam by proposing a sketch of a new perspective from which to think about politics, government, and the church’s relationship with the state. While many Christians seem ready to head for the hills in light of the godlessness of our government (and, more specifically, in light of our current president’s administration), I hope to argue as briefly as possible that a secular government is actually a fantastic context for a thriving, vibrant church, and it is something which brings with it tremendous opportunities for powerful gospel ministry.

But before going any further, I think I should identify two specific presuppositions that are at the foundation of my argument (although admittedly it bears more resemblance to a “rant” than an “argument”). First of all, I am presuming that American Christians are more concerned about the health of the church than the health of the nation. And secondly, I am presuming that American Christians are committed enough to the church that they are willing to face any amount of suffering that might come their way. Unfortunately, these presuppositions are quite enormous, and they may in fact be more presumptuous than I would like to admit. But nevertheless, I am going to give us all the benefit of the doubt and assume that our commitment to the country in which we live is indeed surpassed by our commitment to the church into which we have been called.

That being said, I propose that the increasingly secular nature of our government is in fact a thing to be embraced, not a thing to be despised. It is not within the context of a quasi-Christian society that the light of the gospel shines most brightly, but rather it is within the context of outright secularism that the church stands out as being truly unique, truly relevant, and truly impossible to be ignored. To put it differently, the greatest enemy of the American church is not a Democratic Congress, a secular government, a socialistic economy, or even Barack Obama. No, the greatest enemy of the American church is a government that conforms externally to certain Judeo-Christian traditions in order to pacify its citizens.

And if you think that whatever remains of the religious heritage of our country (if there ever was such a thing) amounts to anything more than mere external conformity to people’s expectations, then you are sorely deceived. With perhaps a few exceptions, it would be difficult to find a country whose core values are more corrupt than ours. We are a nation driven by greed, lust, and exorbitant pride, and the fact that there are certain remnants of Christianity scattered throughout our governmental superstructure does not change the fact that we are iniquitous to the core.

Sadly, many evangelicals put forth monumental effort in the public sphere to preserve these tokens of our country’s long lost piety. In response to the threat of no longer having the phrase “one nation under God” in our country’s pledge, these people go to the courts and the media outlets with an astonishing degree of tenacity. A similar response is provoked by the possibility of having currency that does not say “in God we trust” or schools that do not allow public prayer or courthouses that do not post the Ten Commandments or classrooms that do not teach the biblical account of Creation. Nothing incites the wrath of evangelicals quite like these great abominations, for we are confident that by preserving these meaningless traditions, we might actually be able to preserve the (supposed) religious heritage of our once-great nation.

But what we fail to realize is that our country will never be counted righteous simply because our government tips its hat to Christianity. I often hear Christians talking about how the United States needs to “go back” to the good old days when Christianity supposedly ruled the day and directed the course of our country. But I wonder, to which good old days precisely do we wish to return? To the days when our “Christian” nation quarantined Native Americans? To the days when our “Christian” nation allowed slaves to be transported across the ocean so that they might be forced to toil until they die? To the days when our “Christian” nation looked the other way while white people killed their black neighbors simply because of their skin color? To which of these golden eras should we return? They all seem rather hellish if you ask me.

The point is this: the more assured a nation is in its own perceived religiosity, the more evil it becomes. The evangelical world desperately needs to realize this. We cannot usher in the Kingdom of God by writing pious phrases on our currency or force-feeding prayers to children in public schools. Saying we are a nation under God will only add to our guilt (for it is a lie) and posting the Ten Commandments in our courthouses will only increase our sin (for this is the function of the law; see Rom. 5:20 or Rom. 7:7-14). The more we adorn ourselves with external piety, the more dangerous we become.

We simply cannot afford to miss the point that Christ is not building his church by sending us into every country so that we might “Christianize” it with certain slogans and conventions and cheap clichés. Christ is building his church by sending us into every country so that we might make disciples. And carrying around a wallet full of money that says “In God We Trust” makes disciples of absolutely nobody. Not one person will enter the Kingdom of God by being born into a country with a Christianized government. The church will not be built by political activists who sue the ACLU for secularizing our country; the church will be built by men and women who boldly proclaim Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Consider for a moment the government in place during the infancy of the church. This was a government that knew nothing of the “Moral Majority” or the “Christian Right”. There were no Christian principles of government, nor was there any shred of loyalty to the true God. In all actuality, it was a hostile environment for Christians. Remember: early followers of Jesus paid taxes to a government that would more than likely turn around and kill them because of their faith.

And yet it was under this government that the church flourished. Why is this? I am convinced that the reason for the church’s growth lies in God’s use of the principle of contrast. When the government gets Christianized, the line is blurred between the City of God and the City of Man (to borrow Augustine’s terms). But when the government is unmistakably secular, there is no confusion whatsoever. There are those who persecute and then there are those who get persecuted. There are those who say “Be quiet”, and then there are those who keep preaching the gospel. There are those who go to the arena to watch the show, and then there are those who go to the arena to get eaten by lions. The demarcations are clearly drawn and evident for all to see. In such a context, the church distinguishes itself with brilliant clarity. There is no such thing as a cultural Christian when the culture is pagan through and through.

If, therefore, we are truly concerned about the church, then our nation’s trend toward secularism should be strangely exciting. Perhaps the days are soon coming when Christians will be excluded from holding public office and pastors will be mandated to keep quiet and (gasp!) churches will lose their tax-exempt status. That, my friends, would be not the end of the world, but a glorious blessing from heaven! By all means, take the slogans off our money and the prayers out of our schools and Fox News from our televisions. All it can do is rescue us from our reliance upon our sentimental, patriotic, vague form of deistic religion, banishing the notion that the proclamation of the gospel can be replaced by aggressive, shrewd politics.

God has entrusted the gospel to the church, not to the state. As such, we must realize that we cannot legislate salvation. Surrounding ourselves within the cozy confines of a Christianized government may make us comfortable and secure, but it will be a tremendous disservice to those around us who need the gospel.

So if God chooses to give our country and our government over to wickedness, then so be it. As for me, I would much rather live in a country ruled by a secular (perhaps even hostile) government than live in a country who wraps itself in American flags and nominal adherence to Christian traditions, wistfully singing “God Bless America” while sinking slowly to hell.

 

On Meaning and Form

When we say that a text has meaning, what are we saying? This is undoubtedly a question in which few are interested, and not surprisingly so. At first glance, it may appear too abstract or too impractical to capture the attention of the average person. It’s a philosophical question, and it seems to have little value in helping us go about our daily lives. But what I believe is that the exploration of this question is actually vitally important to the way we read, interpret, and understand God’s Word.

Let us then return to the original question: what does it mean for a text to have meaning? If we were to pose this question to most people, we would probably get two predominant responses, representing two levels of textual meaning. The first response would go something like this: In order for a text to have meaning, its words (and that to which the words refer) must be understood clearly. Thus, the sentence “The dog chases the cat” would have meaning for most of us because we know what a “dog” is, what a “cat” is, and what it means to “chase.” However, the sentence “Gardush klabing postag turzo” would not have meaning simply because we have no clue what any of the words mean. If they do in fact refer to realities of the world in which we live, our cultural and linguistic tradition is unaware of it.

But there is a second response which would represent another (and deeper) level of textual meaning. This second response would affirm everything that was stated above, but it would go a step further. Not only must the individual words be understood, but the syntactical arrangement of those words must be understood, as well. For example, even though we know the meaning of the words “cat”, “dog”, and “chase”, we nevertheless would have to say that the sentence “The cat dog chases” has no real meaning. This is because the words are not put together into a coherent syntactical structure. Is the dog chasing the cat? Is the cat chasing the dog? Are both the dog and the cat being chased? We have no way of knowing.

When people come to a text, therefore, these two levels of meaning must be in place. There must be both semantic meaning (the phrase I am using to speak about our understanding of words and the realities to which they refer) and syntactical meaning (the phrase I am using to speak about our understanding of the way the words fit together). If either of these aspects is missing, the text in question will not have meaning for us.

The application to biblical exegesis should be obvious. For some teachers, interpreters, and preachers of Scripture, the first level of meaning is as far as they go. They do their word studies, consult their concordances, dictionaries, and lexicons, and by virtue of understanding the semantics of individual words, they assume that they understand the text. The more conscientious interpreter of Scripture, however, will realize the insufficiency of this method, and seek to understand not only the semantic range of words, but also their syntactical arrangements. They will recognize that meaning exists not only in individual words, but also in the way in which words are combined. They will consult resources to aid them in this study as they seek to discern meaning from such things as sentence structure, word order, case distinctions, and a whole slew of other grammatical considerations.

But what I am here proposing is that there is yet a third level of meaning that too many interpreters seem to miss. We have seen that all texts must be understood at the semantic level (how the words are defined) and the syntactical level (how the words fit together). But we must also understand them at another level, by considering the form of the text itself—the way it is written, the language employed, the pace of the narrative, the arrangement of ideas, the implementation of word play, etc. Thus, not only should we seek out a text’s semantic and syntactical meanings, but we should also seek out this third level of meaning, what I will here call the formal meaning of a text.

An easy way to illustrate this third level of meaning is to look at two different sentences which seem to communicate the same thing. Sentence one: “I was lonely.” Sentence two: “I wandered lonely as a cloud / That floats on high o’er vales and hills.” Now if we concern ourselves with just the first two levels of meaning, then these two sentences are virtually identical; both are communicating some truth about past loneliness. But the question then is this: If both sentences mean the same thing, then why did William Wordsworth (who wrote the second sentence) use such a lengthy phrase when he could have simply said “I was lonely”? All language is the communication of meaning, and (based on the semantic and syntactical levels of meaning) both of these sentences mean the same thing. But nevertheless, Wordsworth chose to employ a more abstract and less efficient sentence. Why is this?

The answer involves an understanding of a text’s formal meaning. Discerning meaning is more than identifying what words mean, and it is more than recognizing how the words fit together grammatically. We must also pay attention to the way in which various ideas are presented. Hence, the reason Wordsworth wrote “I wandered lonely as a cloud / That floats on high o’er vales and hills” rather than “I was lonely” is because the first sentence has a fundamentally different meaning than the other. At the semantic and syntactical levels, the two sentences are the same. At the level of form, the sentences are quite different.

Again, let us apply this to biblical interpretation. When reading and interpreting the Bible, we must realize that meaning is not just communicated through word choice and syntax. It is also communicated through alliterations, rhymes, structures, poetic devices, repetition, stylistic variations, and other such literary phenomena. Hence, when we read Psalm 136, it is not sufficient to know what is meant by the words “His steadfast love endures forever” or what is meant by the particular syntax employed. We must also know what is meant by the continual repetition of the phrase which we see throughout the psalm. This repetition contributes to the text’s meaning. All these considerations must come together to inform our reading and guide our interpretation.

To use another example which might make clarify the importance (and practicality) of this third level of meaning, we can consider the opening chapters of Genesis. Once again, if we stick to the first two levels of meaning, then I am confident that what is being taught is a literal 24-hour day creation. This is (I think) an inescapable conclusion. But if we take into account the highly poetic nature of the text, the deliberate structure of the narrative, and the literary tradition out of which the text was produced, then I do not think that a literal 24-hour day creation is nearly as likely. This is not to say that such a reading is impossible, merely that it is (in my opinion) improbable. Nevertheless, the important thing to note here is that it is the form of the text which ultimately helps us discerns its meaning.

Examples could be multiplied greatly and much more certainly could be said. But for these purposes, let it suffice to conclude simply that this issue of form and meaning is not nearly as impractical as it may at first appear. In short, if our consideration of a text’s form does not enhance our understanding of its meaning, then we probably need to rethink our interpretation. Literary style and form are not arbitrary, and the sooner we come to realize this, the sooner we can begin to understand our Bible in the way it was intended to be understood. Word studies and other such interpretive techniques are great, but they are just small pieces in an otherwise intricate interpretive puzzle.

 

Christians contra Culture

In light of my most recent post, I felt it appropriate to follow up by proposing a brief sketch of how we as Christians can emulate our “undeniably unusual Savior” and live against the grain of our culture. While engaged in his earthly ministry, Jesus Christ set himself against the culture around him—so much so that it got him killed. He made the crowds uncomfortable, he challenged the religious leaders, he provoked hatred from many on-lookers, and ultimately he established a church that would spend the next few hundred years facing persecution, the likes of which we can scarcely imagine. This is the legacy of Jesus Christ, and this is the legacy which we must joyfully accept and make as our own. Indeed, to be a part of the Kingdom of God is to go against the grain of culture. So if we are scared of the label “cultural freak”, then we should probably rethink our professed allegiance to Jesus.

What follows, then, are a few ways in which I believe the church can set itself against the cultural currents and reclaim its uniqueness in the world. None of these are novel or innovative ideas; they are merely Scriptural characteristics of Christian living that we should be practicing anyway. I should note that this is by no means a comprehensive list, but rather it is a few ideas that might get some of us thinking in the right direction. So (in no particular order), here are seven ways that we can live within our contemporary social context as Christians contra culture:

1. By proclaiming the gospel. For any person to stand up within the public square and declare that we are all wretched, hopeless beings whose salvation could only be purchased by the infinite worth of God’s own blood is to take everything that our culture holds dear and trample it under foot. Such an assertion destroys all notions of self-worth, it obliterates all hope of self-improvement, and it precludes all possibility of self-satisfaction. In other words, it undermines ninety-five percent of the television, film, and publishing industries, it exposes the utter folly and futility of our political system, and it confronts our obsession with the importance and value of our own lives. The gospel is not a culturally acceptable message. It breaks forth into the world as light into darkness, and to preach it is to give up all pretext of cultural conformity.

2. By pursuing unity. A unified church is a conundrum to the modern world. We live in a society that is marked by fragmentation, broken relationships, and ostracized individuality. It is within this context that the church has the opportunity to show its uniqueness through indiscriminate love. In a world of economic distinctions, social classes, political rivalries, and racial tensions, the church must display the unity to which it has been called. After all, what could be more counter-cultural than a church where a homeless man can sit next to a businessman, a black man can sit next to a white man, a Republican can sit next to a Democrat, and a man whom God has saved from a life of homosexuality, drug addiction, and crime can sit next to a man whom God has saved from religious traditionalism and moralistic prudery?

3. By caring for children. Our culture hates children. If you don’t believe me, then I challenge you to open your eyes and look around. The most dangerous place on earth is not a dark alley in the roughest neighborhood, nor is it a war-torn country where violence is a mundane reality of daily life. The most dangerous place on earth is a mother’s womb. Child after child is ruthlessly “terminated” because our culture views children not as people but as inconveniences. Even those children that survive their mother’s womb are not safe, for many of them will eventually end up in an orphanage, completely forgotten and ignored by the rest of the world. This is the plight of children in our day, and this is the reality against which we must fight. The church must love children and care for children with a zealousness that sets it at odds with her surroundings. We must feed and clothe those who are in need, we must visit and adopt those who are unwanted or orphaned, and we must celebrate the young ones in our midst no matter how strange such a thing may seem.

4. By living with austerity. It is hard to imagine a culture more materialistic than ours. We are obsessed with things, things, and more things. Our entire economic system is built upon the expectation that people will covet what they do not own and be greedy for money they do not have. And sadly, the church has by and large been sucked into this vortex of greed and materialism. We have failed to resist the temptation to find our joy in material comforts, and we have bought into the consumerist mindset of our day. This is simply unacceptable. As Christians we must reclaim our uniqueness in the world by showing those around us that we do not need the latest gadget, the largest bank account, or the most luxurious possessions in order to enjoy life. Our austere lifestyles should stand out as anomalies in a culture of comfort, pointing others to the surpassing joy of knowing Jesus Christ as Lord.

5. By embracing missions. Traveling to the far reaches of the world in order to share the gospel is unequivocally strange. It’s downright bizarre. It’s one thing to travel great distances in order to tour sites of interest or complete an international business deal. But to preach? This is the absurdity of global missions, and what a beautiful absurdity it is! The Great Commission is something that makes no sense whatsoever to our culture, and this is one of the precise reasons why we should be so fervent in fulfilling it. We should be engaging in foreign missions not just for the sake of unreached people groups who need to hear the gospel, but also for the sake of our own neighbors who need to see how remarkable it is that a group of people would invest their money and their lives into global gospel proclamation.

6. By upholding marriage. Divorce is rife all around us. And in the midst of its pervasiveness, it has made marriage into something trivial and unimportant. Our culture does not mourn broken marriages, it expects them. And (even worse) it makes large amounts of money as a result. This is a tragedy. But as Christians, we know the truth about marriage. We know that marriage is a covenantal agreement before God whereby a man and a woman emulate the relationship between Christ and his church until the day one (or both) of them dies. We must, therefore, confront our culture with a barrage of healthy, gospel-centered marriages that can only be terminated by death. We must show others that we are as serious about marriage as God is, precisely because we are serious about the gospel.

7. By celebrating persecution. If we do all of these things and do them well, then I believe it is safe to say that we will begin to experience more persecution than that to which we are presently accustomed. Just as the people around Jesus rejected him, so will our own culture reject us. We will be laughed at, mistreated, abused, and perhaps even physically harmed. We will be cultural freaks who (just like Jesus) excel at making people feel uncomfortable with their sin and their broken relationship with God. But rather than lamenting this mistreatment and persecution, we must follow the example of the early Christians (who were merely following the example of Christ) and celebrate every single blow that we receive. If our property is plundered, our bodies are beaten, or our reputations tainted, we should show the world that it is a joy to partake in Christ’s suffering. Our Savior was taken outside of the camp to be crucified on our behalf. Therefore (as the writer of Hebrews says) let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. And with bruised bodies and broken spirits, let us rejoice that we have been given the privilege of following in the footsteps of the worlds most controversial Cultural Freak.

 

Our Undeniably Unusual Savior

I heard a preacher recently argue the merits of a culturally relevant Christianity on the basis that Jesus Christ himself was not a “cultural freak.” The argument went something like this: Jesus was a man who looked like a normal person, acted like a normal person, and talked like a normal person. There was nothing overtly “heavenly” about him that would isolate him as being weird or different. (As this preacher said, people of his day didn’t look at him and say, “Whoa! He must be from Heaven!”) Therefore, we should follow his example and strive to avoid cultural freakishness in whatever way possible so that we might commend our message more effectively to those we seek to reach. The world should not be able to look at us and see a bunch of odd, eccentric people; rather, they should be able to look at us and see people who are (for lack of any better word) normal. In this respect, Jesus is our great role model.

Now while I appreciate certain aspects of this argument, it nevertheless has one exceedingly troublesome deficiency. Namely, it’s false. It is based upon the untenable presupposition that Jesus Christ in his earthly ministry was a man who conformed to cultural norms, assimilated to contemporary precedents, and blended in to the landscape of his day. But for the life of me, I cannot understand where someone would get the impression that Jesus Christ was actually such a man. How can anyone who has so much as skimmed over the four Gospels make the case that Jesus wasn’t a cultural freak? Very few of the words that are recorded to have come out of his mouth could be classified as normal. And likewise, very few of the actions that are attributed to him could be deemed culturally acceptable. He was bizarre in every sense of the word.

Consider just a few examples. In the fourth chapter of Matthew, we see Jesus beginning his ministry. Interestingly enough, the Jesus we see in this portion of Scripture bears a striking resemblance to the disturbing street preachers of which we all are aware (and of which we all like to make fun). We read: “From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (v. 17). He then starts roaming the countryside telling specific individuals, “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” (v. 19). By the end of the chapter, we learn that great crowds are following him from both near and far. This is simply not normal (to put it modestly).

But it only gets more bizarre. In Matthew 8, we find Jesus casting out a number of demons from two possessed men and sending them into a herd of pigs. The pigs then proceed to rush into the sea and drown themselves. Upon seeing this, the herdsmen of the pigs (who must have been observing this incident with gaping mouths) run to tell the rest of the town. What follows is recorded for us in verse 34: “And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region.” The townspeople realized what many of us try to overlook: this Jesus character is strange, uncanny, and downright dangerous—so much so that they begged him to leave.

Yet of all the outlandish actions of Jesus Christ, perhaps none is more remarkable than the one recorded in Luke 4. In this passage, Jesus enters the synagogue in his home town, unrolls the scroll of Isaiah, reads a few lines from it, and then declares, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (v. 21). At first, people don’t seem to be too flustered, but before long this all changes. We read that those present were “filled with wrath” (v. 28), and “they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff” (v. 29). The words of Jesus were so offensive and so startling that the people were compelled to kill him on the spot. (Ironically, we see a very similar situation unfold in John 8, when Jesus applies Yahweh’s great “I am” phrase to himself.) Any “cultural relevance” that Jesus might have achieved up until that point went flying out the window. People hated him, and he could not change this fact by wearing the latest style of tunic or using the most contemporary lingo and slang. No amount of superficial external conformity to the social norms of his day could alter the fact that Jesus Christ was (in every sense of the term) a cultural freak.

If we want to be biblical, the line here must be clearly drawn. As soon as we start making assertions that in his earthly ministry Jesus Christ was anything other than a rebel, an outcast, and perhaps even a little bit maniacal, we prove that we either have not read our Bibles or else we have categorically rejected our Bibles. One cannot look at the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and pretend as though he is meant to be understood as a culturally-sensitive, normal individual. Normal people don’t claim to be from heaven. Normal people don’t say, “Before Abraham was, I am.” Normal people don’t command others to become their disciples. Normal people don’t forgive sins, cast out demons, heal diseases, and rebuke religious leaders. Normal people just don’t do these things. How on earth, therefore, can we honestly pretend to believe that Jesus Christ was normal?

Now I understand that it might make us uncomfortable at first to realize that we worship a Savior who spent his earthly years on the fringes of society doing and saying things that were downright wacky (in the eyes of the culture). It is seductive to think of our Savior as a culturally fluent man of his times, for Christianity becomes much more palatable when its Christ is seen as an ordinary fellow, conforming to his culture and blending in to his surroundings. But the sooner we get over the embarrassment of admitting the unusualness of our Savior, the sooner we can get over our own obsession with the hellish notion that effective ministry entails cultural conformity. Jesus loved the people of his culture and he engaged the people of his culture. But he certainly didn’t fit in with the people of his culture.

It is, I believe, an inescapable truth that as long as the church is seeking the approval of its surrounding culture, it will never be able to communicate clearly the message of the cross. If our proclamation of the gospel does not startle, alarm, and offend, then what we have proclaimed is not the gospel. And if our lifestyles as Christians do not earn us the label of “cultural freaks”, then I daresay that our lifestyles are in need of a drastic overhaul.

The gospel we believe is a gospel that is hated by the world. The God we worship is a God who is despised by the world. The Savior we proclaim is a Savior who is rejected by the world. Why on earth, therefore, would we delude ourselves with the notion that the church can be anything other than a burgeoning mass of cultural freaks? To love righteousness, holiness, and sacrifice while despising riches, pleasures, and status is to set ourselves at odds with everything our culture holds dear. It follows, therefore, that this message, no matter how attractive we make it, will always set us apart as lunatics and oddballs.

We should be a strange, eccentric, and terrifically abnormal people. And this should come as no surprise. After all, we have been called by a strange, eccentric, and terrifically abnormal Savior.