‘Jesus hung out with freaks’

Theo Hobson

1 January 2011

/article_images/articledir_13152/6576433/1_listing.jpg

Meet Jay Bakker, minister to the hipsters of Brooklyn

But if you reject all the dogmatism and all the rules, aren’t you left with a thin, insubstantial form of religion? ‘No, we’re trying to create a community that is based in the non-judgmental love of Jesus — that feels like a pretty substantial thing to be doing. But it involves saying we don’t have the answers. We’re just trying to make sense of all this crazy religion stuff, this ’ere Gawd thang,’ he hams it up.

It would be easy to dismiss Bakker’s mission as an attempt to revive a liberal Protestantism that has failed. Doesn’t this emphasis on the social gospel, and this attack on ‘organised religion’, lead to a Christian-tinged humanitarianism? There’s much force in this criticism: Revolution does seem excessively geared to agnostic ‘seekers’, nervous of proclaiming the saving authority of Christ. On the other hand, there is something refreshing, and theologically substantial, in his attack on the legalism of evangelicalism. Most liberals are too circumspect to focus on this crucial issue. In Bakker’s gritty, visceral rejection of the religious culture he grew up in, there may be the seed of something new.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

More articles from: Theo Hobson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (2)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Henrik Blunck

January 10th, 2011 6:48pm Report this comment

There are many theories nowadays, and the freakier they are the more more people seem to be attracted towards them. Funnily, Dan Brown was almost lynched for his words, and xtianity seems to be as violent as cults when their savior/messiah is mentioned in controversial ways.

James Curtis

January 28th, 2011 1:08am Report this comment

I think there's something to be said, Mr. Blunck, about the fact that what the world defines as Christianity and what Scripture defines as Christianity (let's not be naive though. Granted, Scripture doesn't use the word 'Christian' or 'Christianity', but neither does it use 'trinity' or 'triune' but these are foundational doctrines of the church). While the world may have seen what they define as Christians running around trying to, as you say, 'lynch Dan Brown', the Christians as defined by Scripture recognized the silliness of Brown's 'theory' (which, if I recall correctly isn't actually a theory at all; I believe "The DaVinci Code" is still, indeed, labeled as fiction) and accepted it for what it really as (as I said before): Fiction. So, I would encourage everyone to confront their definitions of Christianity (or 'xtianity') under the heaviest scrutinies.

Also, in response to the actual article, I have a question: Wait. Conservatives receive the most 'attention'? Firstly, where does Christ mention anything about desiring attention is a good thing, and secondly can I please reference the numbers of the Episcopal (non-Reformed), Catholic, Anglican, PCUSA, and other liberally theological churches in comparison to the conservative? (ARP, PCA, Reformed Episcopal, Reformed Baptist, and OPC for a short, but almost complete, list!)

Not only is the intial claim of the article ridiculous, but the entire push for liberal theology! These protestant (for they must be, since they aren't Roman Catholic, right?) denominations/churches are not following their fathers in the cry of 'Sola Scriptura!' Where has the ideal of Scripture, not our own emotions and sinful (yes, Paul calls them sinful) desires, gone?

Post comment