Turning the Head of Christ

A feature story in last Sunday’s Dallas Morning News brought back a flood of nostalgic memories. The article was about the famous painting of Jesus by a graphic designer named Warner Sallman in 1940.

I’m sure you’ve seen it. It was ubiquitous in the second half of the twentieth century; I remember it hanging a number of places in family members’ homes, as well as a few churches I visited. It’s a … shall we say, “pretty picture” of Jesus.

Jesus has flowing brown hair, a full beard, and blue eyes gazing off into the distance. His lips are slightly pursed, as if he’s about to say something calm and soothing.

The article speaks of the picture’s enormous popularity and quotes Billy Graham as saying about the work that it was “probably more satisfying to Americans than the more ancient conceptions which portrayed Christ as weak and emaciated.”

If by “weak and emaciated” Graham meant non-white, then he would have been spot on. Because this famous painting is nothing like the historical Jesus, of that we can be sure. The real Jesus was born in Palestine and was certainly darker than the famous picture, no matter that Sallman claims that he was inspired by a dream in which he saw Jesus.

Since we don’t have a clue as to what Jesus really looked like, the truth is that any drawing, painting, or sketch of Jesus tells us more about the artist and the person viewing the art than it does about Jesus.

Thus, this artwork and its subsequent popularity tells us a great deal about 20th-century American Protestant Christianity and all that was right — and wrong — about it. Sallman’s Jesus is a docile, submissive, and entirely-too-nice Savior of the World. He would have likely made a very good church member in 1950s Methodist churches. He might have even been a very good Methodist pastor, except for that long hair. The long hair is Sallman’s only acquiescence to Jesus’ essential strangeness. But the rest of this Jesus is entirely domesticated. This Jesus would never have turned over the tables of moneychangers, or challenged the High Priest, or told Peter to “Get behind me, Satan!”

It’s hard to imagine Sallman’s Jesus making too much of a fuss. Instead, he appears as a very loving, personable figure. And that is entirely in keeping with the Christianity of the time; Jesus was consistently preached as a sentimental figure who loved children and animals and would ultimately lay down his life so that those who believe in him would have their sins forgiven and live in heaven with him. This was the version of Christianity that was especially popular in white America at the time.

This was the Jesus that Americans wanted to believe in, and the fact that this Jesus was a Scandanavian-looking white dude made the whole idea palatable to the white church.

However, Sallman’s picture overlooks a vital aspect of the historical Jesus. The man from Nazareth spoke and acted in the tradition of the great Hebrew prophets, the rough-edged proclaimers of justice in the face of the world’s illegitimate powers.

In the midst of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and the subsequent anti-war drift, Protestant Christianity began to fracture between those who continued to think of Jesus in terms of Sallman’s vision and those who … didn’t.

I would argue that Sallman’s picture is sadly dated and largely irrelevant to our world. Not because Jesus’ hair is out of style, or that he is simply too white. But because what the world needs now is not a sanitized, BFF Jesus and pie-in-the-sky Christianity.

What the world needs now is more of the prophet Jesus who would be angry that children are being torn from their parents after fleeing from war-torn homes, who would be incredulous that children don’t have enough to eat in our cities, who would be outraged that we spend so much money on frivolous leisures, dangerous habits, and military hardware.

Now I’m not saying that Jesus wasn’t a loving figure, nor am I saying that we don’t find forgiveness of sins in him. I believe in life after death, too. These are all part of the Christian faith. However, they aren’t the total picture of the faith.

If we are to have a balanced faith, then we have to come to terms with Jesus the prophet, Jesus the troublemaker, Jesus the justice-seeker.

And a picture like that might not be very pretty.

Mapping Our Way in Missions

    I heard a (newer) member of the church say recently that she felt like she had grown closer to God since joining our community. That was music to my ears; one of my primary goals as a pastor is to foster spiritual growth. I am committed to helping each one of you to grow in your relationship with God.
    But she followed that remark with the observation that she didn’t really know how to get involved with any of the church missions. She was unclear about how to take that step.
    I understand her confusion. We have lots of mission projects, but they are a bit disconnected and disparate.
    Over the last couple of years, our church has taken significant steps in becoming more and more mission-oriented. We have been slowly reorienting our gaze outward rather than inward. We have fostered a number of new ministries through the formation of Catalyst Groups; we have bolstered the work we do with some long-standing organizations, like the Hillcrest House and The Well; and we have continued supporting other United Methodist projects.
    All this mission energy has been good for us. But it has also been a little disorienting, as this young member expressed. Some of you have complained to me that it feels like we do a little bit too much, that we have our hands in too many different projects. Others have said they would like to go deeper in their particular ministries, lack the tools and resources to make it happen.
    This spring, I will offer a class after Wednesday Night dinners to reorient our sense of mission. This class is open to all, and it will be the only class for adults on Wednesday nights, because I would like as many of you as possible to attend.
    I’m calling it “Mission Action Planning,” or MAP, for short. I've constructed it as a kind of primer on mission work. I'll talk about why mission work is important for the church, as well as what to do and what not to do when helping people. Some of the lessons are more theological and Biblical; others are more sociological and psychological. We’ll meet for 12 weeks, and you’re welcome to attend all or any particular session. I’m planning to cover the following topics:

What it Means to be a Missional Church
Being Present: Learning to Be in the Mission Field
Building Relationships: The Core of Mission
Cross-Cultural Competencies
Beyond “Helping”: Learning to Do Justice
Decolonizing Mission
Embracing a Missional Theology
Practicing a Contemplative Spirituality
Short-Term Trips/Long-Term Results
Releasing Outcomes
How to Form a Catalyst Group
The Role of the Mission Committee

    Some of the material might sound familiar to those who have been through Catalyst Training, and there will be some overlap. However, I’m adding new material, and changing much of what I have already taught. Plus we’ll have some guest presenters. You’ll find this to be a helpful refresher course in “how to do mission right,” as I like to put it.    
    The first class takes place after dinner on Wednesday, Jan. 31 at 6:30 pm, and will last for an hour. Please come and participate as we “MAP” out our missions, and learn how to effect creative change in our world.

Church DNA, Part Two

I closed last week’s column with a question: “What part of our church DNA needs some revision?” In other words, are there any unhealthy behaviors or traditions in which this church participates? Are there things we need to change?

I was hoping someone might leave a comment on the blog, but so far, nobody has written or said anything. I don’t think this is because we all believe our church is perfect, but rather because it is a difficult question that requires lots of thought.

Perhaps it would be helpful to meditate on the way the DNA of Kessler Park UMC has changed over the years. I understand that, at one point, this church had the reputation of being a “country club church.” Our members were caricatured as being wealthy, snooty, and a bit exclusive. I think all would agree that we’re not like that now! Our DNA changed; the way our congregation interacted with the community changed, and we finally lost that negative reputation.

Now that I have been your pastor for three years, I believe I am starting to understand this church’s culture and ethos. I have a better grasp on the ebb and flow of things, the way things get done, the kind of informal rules that guide church behavior.

Before I say anything else, let me affirm my conviction that KPUMC is a healthy organization. We have an identity, a sense of purpose, that is shaped by the gospel, and we have a strong conviction that our faith must be put into practice, lived out. We are not primarily inward-looking, but mission-focused, even if we’re not yet able to accomplish everything we want to do. But we are on the right track.

There are a few things that I think we need to revisit, or at least strengthen. Perhaps this is where we could stand to do a little DNA tweaking, a bit of genetic splicing, if you will:

1. Let me begin with what I mentioned before this Sunday’s sermon. I believe we need to reclaim our Scriptures as inspiration and guide, and take seriously Scripture study and knowledge. When I arrived as your pastor I was surprised to learn that, besides two Sunday School classes, there was only one midweek Bible study group meeting. I know that there was a tradition of Disciple Bible study in this church many years ago, but the interest in really getting to know the Bible has flagged since then.
    
2. Bible study takes place best in small group settings, or situations where people can have honest conversation and dialogue over Scripture. There are currently too few small group opportunities at KPUMC. And yet small groups are the place where relationships form, friendships grow, and community blossoms. We should be encouraging and facilitating more of these kinds of connections. Unfortunately, too many of us are engaged with the church only through worship, and not through any other activities.
    
3. Financially, the church is on fairly solid ground. We’re not deeply in debt, and we have recently started a permanent endowment fund to secure our future. But we have not yet become a place where we understand that financial stewardship is part of our discipleship. Too often we exist in a “fundraising” mindset; we view the collection plate as an extension of the church budget. Instead, we must begin thinking about our giving as our own response to God’s call to join in the work of the gospel. We don’t give to pay the light bill; we give to participate in God’s mission.
    
4. And finally, I believe that we need to continue to tweak our understanding of mission. We are a congregation that firmly believes in the importance of doing mission work. I am proud of all the work we do to support various ministries that work to transform lives. But we also need to take a further step that moves us from an understanding of mission as “charity” to mission as “doing justice.” We are too content with giving grace bags to homeless people, when we must also be asking why people are homeless, why affordable housing is so hard to find, what are long-term solutions to homelessness, etc. Very few churches ever make this step; perhaps it is our calling to find a way to move into more substantial justice work.

Again, let me ask for your input. What do you think of my suggestions? Do you also see room for improvement in these areas? Or can you think of other ways in which we need to change our DNA?