Tim Challies seems moderately disappointed with Mark Driscoll’s new book, Vintage Jesus. Challies primary issue with the book appears to be Driscoll’s application of contemporary slang to the story of Christ’s life. I tend not mind such things myself and so Driscoll’s slang, while perhaps posturing, is nonetheless not bothersome to me. Rather I’m somewhat dismayed with how Driscoll appears convinced that everyone else’s conception of Jesus is deficient compared to his. Says Challies:
“It also engages in some light apologetics, defending Jesus against the countless caricatures of Him that have arisen through the history of the church.”
Okay, so that sounds like a perfectly good book topic I guess. The problem is that, based on Challies’ excerpts, Driscoll just adds one more caricature to the list, Redneck Jesus:
“Jesus was a dude. Like my drywaller dad, he was a construction worker who swung a hammer for a living. Because Jesus worked in a day when there were no power tools, he likely had calluses on his hands and muscles on his frame, and did not look like so many of the drag-queen Jesus images that portray him with long, flowing, feathered hair, perfect teeth, and soft skin, draped in a comfortable dress accessorized by matching open-toed sandals and handbag.”
I cannot recall a great many handbags in the icons and religious paintings I’ve seen, and usually the beard kills the “drag queen” aesthetic for me. As for the muscles thing, I’m sure that carpentry made him strong, but the image that Driscoll conjures up might not have jibed with Jesus’ metabolism, there are lots of chunky and scrawny tradespeople out there (more chunky than scrawny these days, but life in Roman Judea was a tad more hardscrabble, I’m sure).
What uncoils from this depiction is a sort of trailer park Jesus, someone who would enjoy insufferable redneck comics. Some of the stuff shows an utter lack of scholarship, for example, Driscoll makes a big deal out of Jesus’ mother, Mary probably being a teenager when she gave birth to him. Guess what? So were most first-time moms at that time (and indeed, such was the case until the last century or so everywhere and continues to be the case in much of the world), but alas, I digress.
Driscoll fails to counteract any “caricatures” because he has simply made up his own caricature out of crude stereotypes about macho blue collar men as a solution.
for me, the red flag with mark driscoll is that the Jesus he describes sounds a lot like himself. there’s no sense of different “jesuses” at different times (i.e. the passive one, the macho one), as one might expect from a human being who was able to perfectly master the human condition for over thirty years. instead, we hear about a motorcycle loving, tattoo wearing (I read this part in a Relevant article about a year ago), slang-talking, feminist despising fellow. not only is Jesus sort of removed from his cultural context, but he becomes Mark Driscoll, or at least one his buddies, in the process.
I haven’t read enough of Driscoll to have too much of an opinion on him, so I will say that I appreciate that he at least cares about theology and tradition. and the relevancy/irrelevancy question in terms of contextualizing the gospel seems to be a fine line that Driscoll walks carefully. i’m just not sure who Driscoll is trying to get at with his macho Jesus.
and that’s *expect, since I can’t seem to edit this comment
Given what Isaiah says about Jesus’ appearance, it’s doubtful that he was “buff” in any sense of the word.
Edited.
Maybe buff was different back then? I think that there is a purpose to Drisscol’s madness, which is counteract the, lets face it, inaccurate portrait of Christ we’ve been given for the last few centuries. As well, like always, Driscoll is goin for the men and providing a vision of Christianity that men will want to be a part of. I think he’s hilarious anyway. It’s only the hippie liberals like Dan that don’t like it
I find it odd that you would concoct an entire blog post on a book didn’t even read, based on a the review done by a single web site. Maybe this post would be different if you found a site that rated the book more favourably?
Perhaps it would be if I had no idea who Driscoll was or if I had never read or heard him use these ideas to describe Jesus. The construction of Redneck Jesus is something he’s been working away at for a while though. I used Challies’ review as a jumping off point, but I could cull near-identical quotes from Driscoll’s previous interviews and sermons.
But then I feel you’ve missed the entire point. Driscoll states openly that he feels that Christianity has been robbed of it’s masculinity and the reason for it (or one of the reasons) is that Christ is portrayed in such a flamboyant way “who want to worship a God they can beat up?”. Now using a redneck a modern comparison might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but is the issue being addressed? Christ was a man’s man and He did things that are considered masculine today. Driscoll is trying to show MEN the Christ they have been missing out on. This message is under preached and the issue of men in the church is something needs to be addressed, I know it does in my church.
Sooo many typos!!! Sorry
“The beard kills the “drag queen” aesthetic for me.”
Come to Toronto, the aesthetic gets killed all the day long.
Jay,
Whatever Driscoll thinks Christianity has been “robbed” of, he does a disservice with a silly exaggerated portrayal to correct it. Why is it that church leaders are in such a hurry to make Jesus into someone that a certain demographic would identify with? We really have no idea what Jesus was like from age 13 to age 30, so it’s presumptuous to apply contemporary stereotypes of labourers to him. We just do not know.
Ian,
Not sure what you mean, I live in Toronto and I don’t see any bearded drag queens.
I was being facetious.
I agree with Dan in that introducing hyperbole to counteract hyperbole can do great damage to one’s point (I’m not sure where this critique was during Keith’s admittedly hyperbolic stance regarding pastors reading business mags).
But why Jay likes Driscoll is valid: Jesus’ masculinity has been washed away in our oh so sensitive culture. This is a culture of appeasement which renders everything rather grey. It has as its goal maximal inoffensiveness. From Christ’s own lips we know that he is cause for offense — and must be — if the truth is actually being proclaimed.
But I still come back to Dan’s issue: we experience things like the emasculation of the image of Christ precisely because of hyperbole and importing too much of ourselves into our understanding of God. Moderation, where did you go?
“Who wants to worship a God they can beat up?”
How about one you can crucify?
Checkmate Andrew!
Honestly, I think you all are making too much of Driscoll’s analogy. You have to consider his audience. He isn’t creating a new Jesus or a new view of Jesus for men who want to hear about a manly Jesus. He’s simply putting the truth of Jesus’ life into terms that ordinary people understand. It’s not redneck Jesus – it’s Jesus, the son of Joseph the carpenter who lived in the middle east where it is hot. If you put all that together and think of it realistically, rather than imagining Jesus walking around with a glowing aura around him, you get an in-shape (which could mean a muscular build), tanned, calloused, sometimes sweaty man. My point is that as a preacher/teacher, Mark Driscoll is always looking for ways to communicate the gospel effectively and in ways that anyone can understand, and often finds ways to be comical about it while he’s at it.
Mark Driscoll preaches the gospel of Jesus from the Bible, not Redneck Jesus. That is very clear if you’ve ever listened to his sermons, of which I’ve heard at least 60-70. Also, if when Mark Driscoll describes Jesus, it sounds like a description of himself, it’s probably because he’s trying to be like Jesus…that’s what Christians do – and an admirable goal, I might add!
Cameron,
Mark Driscoll describes Jesus as a guy who resembles himself but that’s because Driscoll is so good at emulating Jesus (as he characterises him).
Doesn’t that seem a tad circular to you?