Jesus: Carpenter or Construction Worker?

Imagine a carpentry shop. What are the images that come to mind? Imagine a crew of builders working on at a construction site. What comes to mind? What comes to mind when you hear the phrase, Jesus was a carpenter? What changes if you think of Jesus working for years on a building crew? A recent article I read by Jordan Monson persuaded me that “builder” or “construction worker” is a better translation than carpenter for the word in Matt. 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Now, instead of just thinking, "oh, those Bible scholars, always digging for details to argue about," I urge you to take a few minutes and join me in reflecting on what difference it might make whether we think of Jesus working at a carpenter’s bench or on a construction crew.

 I will briefly mention some of the main points in Monson's argument and then share some of his thoughts and my own on why it matters.

 “Carpenter” is not technically a wrong translation of tektōn, but the word is broader than that—more the sense of a builder who uses various materials—wood, stone, metal, thatch, plaster, etc. “Carpenter” may have seemed like the most fitting word for Bible translators in 17th-Century England, surrounded by woods and buildings made of wood, but does it make sense in Galilee? There were not many trees around Nazareth; hence little work was done with wood.

Monson, does not, however, just base his argument on building materials available for Jesus the tektōn. He asks the astute question, from where does Jesus draw his examples and metaphors? He often spoke of farming, occasionally of fishing, but not of carpentry—only one mention of wood and sawdust (Matt 7:3). But, Jesus often mentioned stones, foundations, and rocks. That points to him being a mason, working with stones.

Like other builders of the time, Jesus likely did not just work on small projects in his village. He and his father probably traveled to the nearby Sepphoris and worked with others on large building projects that Herod and others built. Jesus, at times, would have worked under the authority of head builders and perhaps had less-skilled laborers under his authority. This work experience shows up in his teaching. Jesus talks about wages, managers, hiring and firing, and building projects.

What difference does it make that instead of spending time cutting boards and hammering nails in a carpentry shop, Jesus, God incarnate, was chiseling, carrying, and laying stones?

It is easier to romanticize Jesus the carpenter meditatively working on a wood project with the sun streaming through the window. Few people plaster walls or build cement-block walls as a hobby, but many love spending time creating something out of wood at a home workbench. Thus it is easier to turn Jesus the carpenter into a more dignified respectable job.

The reality is that tektōn at that time, whatever building materials used, was a lowly position. Monson writes, "Jesus was not elite. His trade was not respected. Early church leaders of an aristocratic bent found Jesus' trade to be embarrassing. They wanted to distance him from it. The first substantive polemic against Christianity attaches the respectability of Jesus precisely on this account. In the second century, the pagan philosopher Celsus disparaged Jesus as 'only a tektōn'" (42-43).

God, through Jesus, did not just practice solidarity with and bring dignity to the marginalized through a few meals during his ministry. He spent years of living, working, and eating with the lowly. Thus, thinking of this word correctly enhances the significance of the incarnation for many who work in low-status jobs. God was quite literally one of them. What is the import for these people that Jesus was a construction worker? How might it challenge higher status people and their practice of viewing people differently based on their jobs?

There are multiple other reasons why the incarnation matters for us. One is that through Jesus’ being a human, God has experienced the joys and sufferings of humans. To move Jesus out of the quiet carpentry shop into the rough and tumble world of a construction crew broadens the sense of what he experienced. Think of conflicts you have had with co-workers, frustrations with a supervisor, drudgery on the job, unfair pay, or being totally drained after a long day. God incarnate likely experienced all this and more. Jesus experienced, as we do, many ways that human sin complicates the work-day world and causes suffering and pain. We pray to a God who does not just know about but has experienced what we go through. I invite you to take some time consciously praying to the God who worked as a stonemason on a building crew.

What are other ways that your thoughts or feelings about Jesus are enriched by thinking of him on a construction crew?

Based on: “The Stonemason the Builders Rejected” by Jordan K. Monson, Christianity Today, Dec, 2021: 40-43.

To further explore the significance of Jesus' humanity and divinity watch two 15 minute videos at the bottom of this page on my website.

The Need to Hear the Good News Again, and Again

People often think of biblical commands and ethical direction in the Bible as a test and imagine God gave them as an evaluative tool. I begin my ethics course by stating that that ethical direction and commands in the Bible are a gift from God. In responses that students write to the class, they frequently share how radically the idea of ethics as gift contrasts with the view they had. Often they reflect on how this new perspective changes their view of God (or at least it points to the possibility of seeing God differently than an accusing figure ready to scold them). It is both a very fulfilling moment as a teacher, to observe the positive impact of the class material, and very sad to see how many need liberation from this mistaken image of God and Christian ethics.

A God of conditional love and bounded group religiosity are intertwined and mutually supportive. So, a couple weeks later in the course when I teach about bounded, fuzzy, and centered churches I once again have a fulfilling and sad moment. Many students respond to the class by sharing how they have struggled under the weight of trying to stay on the right side of the lines of a bounded church and the God associated with those lines. Some write of having been shamed and wounded by bounded churches. Again, as in the first week, talk of a centered approach and a God of unconditional love sparks hope for the possibility of an alternative.

This happens each time I teach the course. I expect it. Yet this semester it impacted me more than usual. I had follow-up conversations with a few students who seemed both especially eager to experience an alternative and unable to imagine how they might do so. They had been Christians for years. You might sit next to them at church, in a Bible study, or in a seminary class and not guess that under the surface, deep in their being, they do not feel unconditionally loved by God. You may be unaware that they strive to measure up to the expectations of God and their bounded churches.

I talked to one of the students by phone as I took a walk, listening, empathizing, asking questions, and then talking about Jesus. I encouraged her to read through a gospel looking at Jesus and continually reflecting on how Jesus differed from her view of God. I suggested she do this with a friend of hers who I knew had experienced significant healing in this area. After we ended the call I kept walking; I felt a deep conviction. There is such great need, we must proclaim the good news that God is love; we must invite people to relationship with Jesus and help them experience Jesus’ loving embrace.

A voice within me said, “those words sound familiar, like saying, ‘we must do evangelism.’” Yes, certainly, but what I felt in that moment was a need to re-evangelize, continue evangelizing—proclaiming to not just non-Christians but also Christians the good news that God is not the God of bounded group religion, but the God revealed by Jesus Christ.

I encourage you to do three things. First, take a moment and rest in the reality of God’s love for you. What parts of your being need to experience Jesus’ loving embrace today?

Second, in settings where you teach, preach, counsel, lead Bible studies look for opportunities to more frequently proclaim this good news. Odds are in those settings, as in my class, there are people desperate to hear it. (And with our natural religious tendencies, the truth is all of us need frequent reminders.)

Third, pray and listen. Are there people in your life who in the depth of their being do not believe God loves them unconditionally? How might you help them know and experience that God loves them?

Exhorting Ourselves and Exhorting Others

Shaped by bounded group religiosity many people experience behavioral exhortations in Christian settings as life-draining—the weight of “oughtness” pressing down on their being. Fear of the shame of not measuring up fills their being. A fuzzy-church approach responds by toning down the commands or avoiding them altogether. A centered-church, committed to transformation toward Christlikeness, must include exhortation. Yet it must do so in a way that does not lead to what is experienced in a bounded church. Not an easy thing to do—especially if the people listening to the exhortation carry bounded-church ways in their beings. I dedicate almost two hours of class time to working on how to do this. Then I have students write an exhortation. They turn in their best effort; I give feedback; they revise and hand in a final draft. As I wrote a year ago, I have made significant improvements to my teaching about giving imperatives (commands) rooted in indicatives of God’s action. Even so I was sobered and discouraged after reading students’ first drafts a couple weeks ago. Only one student came close to doing well. Their papers reminded me that if one has a lifetime of hearing exhortations given in a bounded context of conditional acceptance and peppered with “shoulds” and “oughts” it is difficult to even imagine another way. Then I had the thought, “what if the way we exhort others reflects our internal conversations—how we tell ourselves what to do and not do?” Perhaps students’ papers reflect not just what they have heard in bounded churches, but how they talk to themselves internally. I invite you to reflect on your internal exhortation language as I share some of what I observed in mine.

The most problematic internal exhortations are voices that explicitly state “You should do X to demonstrate to God and others that you are a good Christian,” and add “If you do not do X you risk rejection by God and your church. How could you call yourself a Christian if you don’t? But, just think how positively people will think of you if you do it!” Yes, let’s work to strip that conditional judgmental language from our internal conversations.  It is clearly not of the Spirit of God.

Yet, in these days I have noted that most of my explicit internal exhortations are what I might call naked imperatives. Simple statements like: “Mark, it would be good for you to do X.” Or “Mark, this person needs help, do X.” Today I do not experience these simple naked imperatives as conditional statements that threaten me with guilt and shame if I do follow through. Yet, I remember when they were not so benign, the words have not changed but my experience of them has.

For instance, I think back to 1984. After four years in Honduras I was moving to Syracuse NY to work as a campus minister with InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. Where to live? Others involved with InterVarsity recommended I look for an apartment near the university. Made sense. But voices within me said, “Mark, it would be good for you to live among the poor on the bad side of town.” I had just spent four years living out a bounded approach, evaluating missionaries by whether they lived with the poor or isolated themselves in nice houses behind large walls in neighborhoods of the wealthy. The internal voice did not make explicit statements about gaining, or losing, acceptance depending on where I lived. Yet I imagined the badge of honor I could wear if I was on the right side of the line drawn by activists—myself included. In the end, I opted to live a few blocks from Syracuse University, but not without some shame.

Why the difference? Why would I experience the same naked imperative so differently today than decades ago? What this says to me is that, once we eliminate explicitly problematic wording, the most important thing in our internal conversations and in our exhortations to others is not the words themselves, but what we bring to the words. In Syracuse in 1984 there was a lot of bounded religiosity in my being and a sense of God’s love being conditional. That influenced how I heard the naked imperative. Therefore, what is needed is what I call “religion undermining indicatives.” As I describe in chapter two of Religious No More, Jacques Ellul portrays religion with an upward arrow ↑ because our natural tendency is to think we must do things to earn God’s acceptance. Ellul uses a downward arrow ↓ to communicate that Christian revelation, the God of the Bible, is the opposite. Any indicative statement that points to the primacy of God’s loving action challenges our religious tendency and reinforces the gospel ↓ arrow.

What do these statements of God’s grace and loving initiative do? They clothe the naked imperatives with loving acceptance and warm invitation. The truth is that we do not actually experience commands as naked. I called them naked in the sense that they neither have explicit words of conditional religion nor explicit words of God’s love. It is just the imperative, like: “Mark, write a letter to that inmate.” Or “Mark, take a break and go talk to your neighbor.” We clothe the commands. In 1984 I wrapped that naked command in robes of bounded religiosity and a God of conditional love. Even though just months earlier I had read Jacques Ellul, confessed my religious ways, and experienced God’s grace in new and profound ways, the reality was that there was still a lot of bounded-church religion in my being. Those were the clothes I most naturally put on the naked imperatives. Today I clothe them differently. How did the wardrobe change happen?

Through reading Ellul I had discovered toxin in my system. Two things combined to make the clothes I put on those imperatives toxic—a religious concept of God and a bounded-group approach to Christianity. I later realized that it is one thing to discover you have toxins in your system, another thing to flush them from your system. I decided to pour into my being sermons that countered a religious concept of God and repeatedly emphasized God’s loving initiative. I read and re-read books of sermons by Karl Barth.[1] I listened to Earl Palmer and Robert Hill sermons. I kept at it, for a few years, until I sensed the level of toxins had diminished significantly. My default way of hearing internal exhortation had changed because my concept of God had changed. I urge you to do a flush of toxins as well. Today I would add to the list of sermons to listen to: Debbie Blue[2] and Grace Spencer.

Pouring in the good news of the God revealed by Jesus Christ will aid in diluting our internal religious tendencies. Think of it as a general shower. Yet, there will remain parts within us especially entrenched in their view of God as a judgmental, religious God of conditional love. What I think was most effective in changing the clothing I put on naked imperatives was intentionality in bringing those parts into Jesus’ presence. When I felt fear arising in my being; when I felt the threat of being found on the wrong side of a line; I would invite those shamed parts to rest in Jesus’ embrace. Not just a general cleansing, but a very directed injection of religion undermining indicatives.

This is ongoing work. I continue to need to hear the good news of God’s loving initiative, in general and directed ways. I end this blog with words that served as a toxic cleanse for me in recent days. As I read them, in the first case, and sang them, in the second, it really did feel like something cleansing and life-giving poured into my being. May it be the same for you. Read them slowly, let them sink in. Especially invite resistant or doubtful parts to trust that this is true.

This is the last paragraph from the revised version of current student John Drotos’s ethical exhortation:

See this is the beauty of the gospel; that God did not choose to stay distant and far but choose because of his great love for us to come near as the 12 and 72 spoke of.  Do you know that you have access to the world’s greatest gift?  The unfailing, intimate, reconciling love of God.  Can I urge us now to lean into this love today?  Give this love a chance.  A love that doesn’t keep a record of wrongs but is always present, close, and ready for us to turn to it.  A love that can heal our greatest hurts and pain.  A love that if allowed in will transform us and never leave us the same.  Can we then as a response to this love become a people who live transformed by it?  Sharing it with all those we know, near and far.  Can we then because of this love reveal Jesus to a hurting and broken world?  Revealing Jesus through our actions and words.  I believe the answer to this and more is yes, because of the great love that is at work within us.  Now as we leave would we be empowered by this love to share the good news with others that the kingdom of God has come. 

Former student Rebekah Townsend led worship at an event I attended. The songs she chose overflowed with religion undermining indicatives. Again, let the words of two of the stanzas sink in.

In my Father's house

There's a place for me

I'm a child of God

Yes I am

I am chosen not forsaken

I am who You say I am

You are for me not against me

I am who You say I am

(Oh) (Yes) I am who You say I am[3]

Next Month, part II of this blog. What I have observed as I set out to apply internally what I teach students to do externally in their exhortations, to link commands to words of God’s action, like: having been loved by God, love others.

[1] Karl Barth, Deliverance to the Captives, Reprint edition (Wipf and Stock, 2010); Karl Barth, Call for God: New Sermons from Basel Prison, Revised ed. edition (Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd, 2012).

[2] A book of sermons: Debbie Blue, Sensual Orthodoxy (Saint Paul, Minn: Cathedral Hill Press, 2003).

[3] “Who You Say I Am,” by Ben Fielding and Reuben Morgan.

Deepening Already Deep Convictions Through Being on the Ground in Israel

A set of plain steps—ancient, but very ordinary. It was my first day in Jerusalem. I saw ornate churches built on holy sites, large ruins, and the temple mount’s huge walls towered over it all. Yet looking at those steps most moved me that day. The steps come up from the Kidron Valley. After leaving the Garden of Gethsemane those who arrested Jesus would have brought him up these steps to get to the house of Caiphas the High Priest. (The ruins of his house were right behind me.) I stood looking down at those steps and thought, “God incarnate, Jesus, walked up those steps as an arrested criminal.” I have heard the story countless times (Mt 26:57; Lk 22:54; Jn 18:12-24) yet looking at the steps I felt the reality of it, the scandal of it, the significance of it, in a way I never had before. Incarnation felt more real; GOD, in the flesh, walked on these steps! GOD, in the flesh, was led up these steps bound as a criminal. I thought of the men in my jail Bible study, took this picture, and looked forward to proclaiming to them with more conviction: “God knows the fear and shame of being arrested. You pray to a God who understands.”

Christians confess that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. In my Christology class I challenge students to take both seriously—to not rush past his humanity in affirming his divinity. I considered myself someone who already emphasized incarnation and the humanity of Jesus. Yet repeatedly during my two weeks in Israel I found myself pressing deeper into the reality of God’s experience of human life through Jesus. The greater the depth and breadth we give to our conception of Jesus’ human experience the more able we are to feel the reality that God understands, experientially, what we encounter in life. The greater depth and breadth we give to our conception of Jesus’ human experience the more able we are to marvel at and worship a God who scandalously entered into human life in all its vulnerability.

Just as the concreteness of seeing the steps took me to a greater appreciation of the reality of incarnation, so too being in the Garden of Gethsemane blew the dust off a story that had become dull and drama-less. Looking through the trees and imagining Judas and the guards storming in, I felt the tension of the scene in ways I had not before. Peter’s violent reaction made sense. Rather than just thinking, “silly Peter,” as I usually do when I read the story, I felt the aggressive threat and the fear it would have produced. It was no small, easy, or automatic thing to respond in a non-retaliatory way as Jesus did. My thoughts then went to the cross—forgiveness rather than revenge.

Ceremonial washing area in Roman-era temple

The ruins of Beth Shean,, an ancient Israeli city, are right next to ruins of the first-century Roman city Nyssa Scythopolis. I was just about to head up to the hill to the Old Testament-era ruins—that seemed the obvious thing to do. But then I had another thought, “This is the sort of place that Paul would have spent time in—it is from his era. Take advantage of the opportunity Mark. You may not ever visit one of the cities he actually spent time in.”

I entered the ruins and imagined Paul walking streets like these. I spent most of my time sitting in the ruins of two temples. As I looked at the altar, the big columns, a place for washing, rooms for other cultic practices I reflected on both the importance given to religion and the elaborateness and formality of its practice. Then it struck me. What a contrast to the Christians.

Instead of going to a place like this, Christians met in houses, shared a meal. Very counter-cultural. What did their neighbors and fellow workers think!? I have written about shaming and pressure early Christians experienced,[1] but seeing these temples gave me much greater appreciation for how much they were going against the current of their times. I have even greater appreciation for Peter’s efforts in his first letter to counter the shame and ridicule and honor the Christians for following Jesus. May we be as courageous to be counter-cultural today and as generous in our affirmation of other Jesus followers going against the stream.

We cannot all go to the lands of the Bible. We can, however, seek to connect with the biblical text more concretely and experience the sort of things I did. Two suggestions: 1. With intentionality imagine the concrete reality of biblical texts—don’t just read the words, imagine the scene. 2. Read books by Bible scholars who have turned their research in fictionalized narratives to help us not just know about but feel the context of the biblical times. Two I recommend:

Lost Letters of Pergamum by Bruce Longenecker

The Shadow of the Galilean by Gerd Theissen

[1] Jayson Georges and Mark D. Baker, Ministering in Honor-Shame Cultures: Biblical Foundations and Practical Essentials (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016).

Unkindly Eyes or Compassionate Eyes?

Who is someone you have thought critically of today? A person or two you have looked at with disdain or disapproval this week? I invite you, pray a blessing on those people. What happens (to you)? Years ago, I thought critically of the pastor of the church I attended. He was a good orator, but often appeared to make up the sermon as he delivered it. He led us in making plans, but not in carrying them out. I could go on, but the point is I had a list of critical thoughts about him. I brought them to church with me each week. Seeing him through the filter of that list made it hard for me to see anything else about him. I had a hyper-sensitive radar to his negative attributes. It was a critical feedback loop. My growing disdain and frustration became a barrier to experiencing positive things that he and the church had to offer and also a barrier to my involvement in the church. My friend and mentor, Doug Frank, suggested that each week at church I imagine the vulnerable hurting little boy within the pastor. (Just as Doug had previously led me to think of the little Mark Baker within me.) What happened? I still had critiques of things the pastor did or did not do, but the starting point was compassion. The filter changed. I saw him differently.

How might it change our days if we wrapped every thought about another person in a blanket of blessing and compassion? How might it change our interactions if blessing and compassion were our starting points? How might that help us live out a centered approach to church? I will say more on that in a moment, but first a few thoughts about God. How might it change our concept of God, our experience of the God we live with, if we knew, in the depth of our being, that God looks at us through eyes of blessing and compassion?

For many, to hear the words, “God sees into the innermost parts of your being” provokes fear. If the peering eyes are unkindly ones, the fear is appropriate. Roberta Bondi, in her memoir, Memories of God: Theological Reflections on a Life (great book!) describes a turning point in her relationship with God and Christianity. Through reading one of the early desert monastics she realized, “that only God can judge us because it is only God who can look with compassion on the depth and variety of our individual experience and our suffering, and know us as we really are” (78). God looks at you with eyes of compassion. Rest in that thought for a moment. Imagine Jesus looking at you—looking not just at your actions, but probing with understanding at the roots of those actions.

Having the God revealed by Jesus, the God described by Bondi, at the center is a key element in the difference between the character of a centered church and a bounded church. It is not, however, just because of how it changes an individual’s experience of God. Emphasizing relationship with the center includes the biblical imperative of seeking to live in conformity with the center, to imitate Christ. Deepening relationship with Jesus calls and enables us to view others with compassion. That too will change the character of a church.

Would you like to be part of a church community filled with people like I was with their radar set to highest sensitivity for others’ shortcomings, or with people like Doug Frank who look at others with eyes of compassion? A critical posture feeds a bounded approach. Looking critically at others enables me to feel a sense of superiority. Even if not done consciously, it is an over-and-above move. What happened when I looked at the pastor through different lenses? Thinking compassionately about his hurts and wounds was a leveling move. It was not pity; I too carry wounds. It put his actions that I was critical of in a new light and led to different thoughts about what might bring change in his life.

How about fuzzy? Note that Bondi does not say that the turning point was realizing God does not judge. Doug did not suggest I ignore the pastor’s shortcomings. Experiencing tolerance feels better than a critical unkindly eye, but tolerance is also less than blessing. A fuzzy approach could compassionately understand why a person acts as they do, but would stop there. It would be hesitant to take the next step. It would not seek to use that understanding to work with the person for change. Is that full compassion? Is that naming?

Let us look at others with eyes of compassion and prayers of blessing.

Honduras, Galatians, 25 years

The Saturday afternoon sun beat down on the tin roof. I was teaching in a small church in a poor Tegucigalpa neighborhood. We were about halfway through the workshop on how to study the Bible when a woman raised her and asked, ‘My friend told me that since I cut my hair I am no longer saved. Is she right?’

Those are the first lines in my book, Religious No More: Building Communities of Grace and Freedom. That woman’s question 25 years ago led me to suggest to the group that we gather the following Saturday to begin a study of Galatians. While preparing for that study I read an essay on Galatians by Richard Hays that sparked questions, gave me new insights, and left me excited by the possible uses and implications of his interpretation of Galatians. I was nowhere near ready to write the book. I was not even clear enough on these new ideas to try to teach them that next Saturday. But it was the beginning, the birth of what would grow into the book. (To see what ideas in Hays’s essay shook me up and excited me you can read this reflection on the experience and/or listen to this podcast.)

Several months after studying Galatians with that church I had the opportunity to study Galatians with Richard Hays at Duke University. The following summer I again led a study of Galatians in the same church; now using the ideas and approach I had learned from Richard Hays. A few weeks ago I was in that same Tegucigalpa neighborhood, once again teaching in that church. We revisited Galatians during a Saturday afternoon workshop. I taught them something I had not yet encountered when I studied Galatians with them in the 1990’s--Paul Hiebert’s concept of bounded, fuzzy, and centered churches.

Just as I shared new ideas with them, I wanted to hear from them. I wondered what they had observed and learned as they have sought to live out what we discovered together in Galatians years ago. Many from that original group have moved away, but a number remain. Sunday evening Mario and Alba invited those from the church who had participated in the initial Galatians studies to gather in their home for a time of sharing. A few of them had been in the workshop described in first sentences of the book, all of them had participated in the second time we went through Galatians as well as in a year-long Sunday School class on basic theology I taught after we moved back to Honduras in 1996.

Now, June 2017, and then, 25 years ago after the first Galatians study--five people are in both pictures

On Saturday I taught, on Sunday I listened. They shared a number of beautiful stories and great insights. In this short blog I will focus on just one person’s comments. Evelyn Cantor, a teenager when we did the second Galatians study and the theology Sunday school classes,  responded to my open-ended question by reflecting on children’s ministry.

In teaching children, people generally focus on themes, not on Jesus; they talk more of God than of Jesus. In our society and in our churches when people do talk about Jesus the focus is on his birth and death, not his life. I try to focus on Jesus as a role model for us and revelation of God. I ask who Jesus is and let that shape the way children think about who God is. People talk a lot about sin, but it is in the sense of standards and rules, and it is cloaked with a sense of accusation and threat. It is important to talk about sin because sin does bring harmful consequences in our lives. I seek to help children and youth reflect on sin, but without fear. Sin is real, but we can use other language. For instance, I ask, “Are you oriented toward Jesus or oriented toward destruction?”

There is much I could say about Evelyn’s comments, and perhaps that is the first observation—the contrast between her brevity and my longer statements. In just a minute or two she made a number of excellent critiques and profound theological statements. In contrast, even now it is hard for me to resist expounding on each line. The depth of her theological thinking impresses me, and her ability to state things with clarity in such concise ways. I will resist adding theological commentary; I invite you to read her lines again—slowly. Allow the Spirit to guide you in reflection on them.

I will, however, reflect a bit on teaching—and I am using that term in the broadest sense. I never taught Evelyn in a formal setting with assignments and grades. No, it was Sunday school classes, workshops, sermons, and conversations. Many of you who read this are teachers in this broader sense.

Her words encouraged me greatly. Teaching can make a difference; it can be a multiplying activity. I do not mean to claim credit for all she said and is doing. But my teaching contributed. Teachers, be encouraged!

Some of her lines clearly echoed things I had taught her church community—as I just said, that is encouraging, fulfilling. But what excited me more was that she said things that I had not said. Sure, they are related to ideas we had studied together, but the phrasing and application are hers—I will borrow from her! The line that particularly stands out to me is: “Are you oriented toward Jesus or oriented toward destruction?” It is exciting, as a teacher, to see how something you taught “stuck,” even more exciting when God’s weaves together something you taught, with the person’s experience, other teaching, her own insights and comes up with something new—teacher becomes learner.

How is this group doing as they seek to live out what we learned from Paul’s letter many years ago? Perhaps the best answer is not a comment made by someone who has been there for 25 years, but a comment by a newcomer. Maria, after having experienced bounded group religiosity in other churches, recently came to this church. On Saturday, during a small group discussion, Maria said, “Now I have been changing, not because of rules and threats, but because I am loved.”

May we, like Evelyn, think carefully about ways our talk about God and life can be even more Jesus-centered; and through that may others, like Maria, become more oriented toward Jesus and less oriented toward destruction—because of love, not fear.

Speaking of Jesus...

I had heard of Cornel West, walked by him at conferences, was intrigued by him, but I had never heard him speak. Last summer I had the opportunity to do so at the Hispanic Summer Program. HSP, started by Justo Gonzalez, provides Latina and Latino seminary students the opportunity to take a two-week course from a Hispanic professor in a setting in which they are not a minority in the classroom. Fresno Pacific Biblical Seminary became one of the thirty-plus sponsoring seminaries in 2013 so that our students could participate. I was at HSP for a shorter program, called Through Hispanic Eyes, for non-Hispanic seminary faculty and administrators. Cornel West gave an evening lecture to HSP students on black-brown relationships—participants in my program, as well as people from the community, were invited to sit in on the lecture.

I expected West to be radical. His passionate critique of the status quo did not surprise me; it did surprise me when he started talking about the cross. Numerous times he called the audience to look through the lens of the cross. He declared, “and what is seen through the lens of the cross is not a proposition.”

Too often it seems that the more academic the setting the less Jesus talk there is. And that had been true of the sessions I had been in with other seminary professors talking about how to better recruit and serve Latina and Latino students. We started each day with a devotional led by one of the participants. The devotionals were good—clearly people in the group had deep faith commitments, but Jesus was not mentioned again the rest of the day. We, myself included, never said, “let’s look through the lens of the cross. How might that shape how we approach this?” We did not talk about how following Jesus related to the topic of our training.

“What most challenged me was the fact that he so explicitly brought Jesus into his talk. Why do I not more often do what he did? He integrated talk of Jesus and the cross into a topic that did not demand it.”

West did not just mention Jesus, he proclaimed him!

This was not a sermon. It was a lecture and he spoke about many things, but he also preached—and without hesitation. He asked us “Do you have the nerve to follow Jesus? Are you willing to cut against the grain?”  He stated, “You can call Alexander great if you want, but he is not great through the lens of the cross. Through the lens of the cross love and serving others is what is great.”  “The way of the cross is the way of unconditional love and truth.” He exhorted us to put the cross first, not the flag of our nation.

If West, a former Princeton University Philosopher professor and current Union Seminary philosophy professor, had not mentioned Jesus or the cross in this speech on black-brown relations, I would not have left saying, “Can you believe that? He never talked about Jesus!” Similarly, I had not ended the first day of our sessions by calling home and telling my wife, “Lynn, I can’t believe it—hours together with seminary deans, professors, and admission directors, but no talk about Jesus in relation to our topic.” It is telling that what caught my attention, what surprised me, in those days was not the lack of Jesus talk in our session, but the presence of Jesus talk in West’s lecture.

A number of things West said challenged me, left me pondering. But what most challenged me was the fact that he so explicitly brought Jesus into his talk. Why do I not more often do what he did? He integrated talk of Jesus and the cross into a topic that did not demand it—that many people would talk about without mentioning Jesus. My question is not: why don’t I talk about Jesus? I actually talk about Jesus quite a bit in classes and Bible studies. I even have a book titled Centrado en Jesus (Centered on Jesus). But it is one thing to talk with passion and conviction about Jesus when leading a Bible study, another thing to do so when talking about other topics. For instance, I frequently have conversations with people about the themes of this website without any Cornel West-like lines about the cross or Jesus. Why?

One answer could be that I have not looked at these topics enough through the lens of the cross to be able to integrate Jesus comments into my conversations. I do not think that is the case. I have thought of two other possible reasons. First, when in conversation with other Christians I think I and others assume the Jesus factor—sort of a “Well of course Jesus influences how we think about this, we are Christians.” So we do not bring Jesus into the conversation. Second, I think it is a reaction against some Christians overusing Jesus talk in clichéd ways. Not for the first time, I have reacted to some people’s negative version of a practice by abandoning the practice rather than reforming the practice. Cornel West’s example challenges me to do otherwise. It is not a call to sprinkle in Jesus talk just so I sound more Christian. Instead it is a call to bring more Jesus talk into conversation to acknowledge the reality that the point being made is influenced by Jesus and the cross, or as way of inviting reflection on how the conversation could be more profoundly Christian.

I can imagine some of you getting nervous now, perhaps thinking, “But wait a minute Mark, there are situations in which explicit Jesus language could be counterproductive—might end a conversation.” I acknowledge that. For instance I recently read Just Mercy. The Christian author writes a book in line with Cornel West’s observations and critiques. I believe the author, Bryan Stevenson, looks at the criminal justice system through the lens of the cross, yet he does not mention Jesus or the cross in the book. I imagine that was an intentional decision. He did not want to limit his audience by using explicitly Christian language. I do not critique Stevenson’s decision. I also, however, do not think it is always the best decision. I hope that the challenge of West’s lecture will lead to me bringing Jesus up more often in conversations with non-Christians on themes like consumerism or technique. Yet, I want to point out that the events described in this blog, HSP sessions and lecture, were Christian settings. It is Christian settings I have most in mind as I write this. Let us start there in increasing our Jesus talk.

After hearing Cornel West I added this line to my daily prayer guide: “Be like Cornel West -- let my Jesus commitments and convictions be more explicitly evident.” What has happened? There have been a number of times that this Cornel West-nudge has led me to explicitly bring Jesus into informal conversations, presentations and things I have written (including a couple of these blogs)--places where I probably would not have before. It has not, however, been as much as I thought it would be or as I would like it to be--plenty of room for growth here. Just last week after a lunch-time discussion with a few students about money/Mammon I realized that although I had used a few Christian words like “faith” and “trust in God,” I had not brought Jesus and the cross into the discussion in ways I could have. This is, however, progress. Pre Cornel West I would not have even had the evaluative thought, would not have recognized the missed opportunity.

“After hearing Cornel West I added this line to my daily prayer guide: “Be like Cornel West — let my Jesus commitments and convictions be more explicitly evident.””

Does this really matter? Is it that big of a deal? Certainly there is value at the level of witness—speaking of Jesus in this way makes public my allegiance to him. Yet it is more than that. Hopefully it is true that much of what I think and say is shaped by Jesus, and I am not calling us to label every thought. For instance, returning to the seminar I was in at HSP, I am not saying that the things we discussed were not influenced by our faith commitments, nor that we should have begun every paragraph by saying “Through the lens of the cross…” Yet, I have found that bringing Jesus into conversations has changed things. It is not just window dressing. It has led me to think and say things that I would not have had I not brought Jesus explicitly into the conversation or presentation.

I wish in the midst of that seminar I would have asked, “how as followers of Jesus do we approach the issues of recruiting and serving Latino and Latina students differently than others?” This question would have brought new insights, new emotions, new convictions and new challenges into the discussion.

I invite you to join me in expressing your Jesus commitments and convictions more explicitly in areas you currently do not do so.