Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost have written a new book, Rejesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church, in which they call the church to "reconfigure itself," and "recalibrate its mission, around the example and teaching of the radical rabbi from Nazareth."

Alan is a good friend and I am grateful he took the time to answer some questions here and come around the blog today to interact.

Here is our interview:

In simple terms, what problem(s) is ReJesus addressing?

We are addressing what we call 'the subversion of Christianity'; the process by which we remove the defining presence and influence of Jesus for His church, our discipleship, and mission. reJesus is about exactly that...re-Jesus-ing the church! Putting Jesus back into the most basic equation and seeing what happens!

In the past the church has sought and experienced "reformation" (the church's work to bring itself more in line with the expressed will and ways of God) and "revival" (God's work in leading his people to live more in line with his expressed will and ways). How does you call to "ReJesus" the church look similar to and/or different from what has happened throughout the history of the church?

In many ways we believe that both the renewal, as well as revival, of the church and its mission are directly related to the more elemental task of reJesusing the church. Instead of simply reforming the church and its theology, we prefer to use the term 'refounding' the church: and we suggest that we must do this by recovering the definitive role that Jesus plays in shaping church, discipleship, and mission. The fact is Ed, that we so easily remove the influence and role of Jesus from our midst. We do find it hard to live with a Lord, humans tend to prefer our own ways and agendas to that of a demanding Lord/King.

So in ReJesus, are you saying something new, or something old?

Well, actually it is ancient...primal really. Whatever we can say about Christianity, it has everything to do with Christ. Jesus is the Founder and the Gospels are our most foundational stories. We are simply renovating ancient truths. H. Richard Niebuhr was right to note that "The great Christian revolutions came not by the discovery of something that was not known before. They happen when someone takes radically something that was always there."

All of this will sound risky to many readers. Is it? How? Can you tell them why it's worth it?

Oh too right. it is risky! Particularly if we insist on clinging to our middleclass penchant for safety and security, and consumerist addiction to comfort and convenience. I believe that the closer we get to Jesus, the more 'dangerous' he is to us. We prefer to keep him at arms length and engage him from the relative safety of objective theology. Why is it worth it? Because without Jesus we have no legitimacy, or in fact do we actually have Christianity, because Christianity minus Christ equals Religion. And hey! Who wants a religion? Is it worth it? It is our eternal destiny to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom.8:29.) We cannot escape it. It is our joy, our salvation, our freedom. All else is just messing with the fringes of the faith.

Why is it that keeping Christ at the center of our confessional identity can be so much easier than remaining Christocentric in our person, practices and piety?

Because simple confession, like theology, as important as it is to our integrity, is not enough for us to truly 'know' God. I would argue that to truly know God we must supplement intellectual knowledge with that type of knowledge that can only come from engaging our hearts (our passion, feelings, our capacity for love) as well as our actions (obedience and action). We spend the good part of a chapter on this aspect of what we call "Hebraic epistemology". This is what it means to take the Shema seriously. And Jesus himself puts this at the center of a missional discipleship. "One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one" answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 'The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:28-31 NIV) The mind is simply not enough to know and love God as we must.

In the book you make a biblical argument for experiencing and living under the Lordship of a sent and sending God. A God that is immanent, close and accessible through Jesus Christ. Is there a place for seeing and worshipping the God who is also seen as transcendent, holy and "other?"

Of course! God's transcendence is vital to a Christian understanding of God. But you are right in noticing that we have chosen to focus on the primacy and centrality of God Jesus as He is revealed in and through the Incarnation. We believe strongly that whatever ideas of God we might entertain; they must first be interpreted through the lens of Jesus--whatever that might entail. We call this fact that Jesus reveals God to us, 'The Christlike God" because we know through his life that God is indeed like Jesus--he says if you have seen him you have seen the Father...he and the Father are one!! Sure we know God through Scripture as well as nature...but the most distilled, and central, knowledge of God must be gleaned from the life, teaching, ministry of Jesus as revealed in Scripture. This is what makes us distinctly Christ-ian. This has massive implications for us, especially for our understanding of God, but it does not exhaust the extent of the revelation we find in Jesus, because not only does Jesus redefine our concept of God but also he shows us the perfect expression of humanity as God intended it. In other words, he models for us what a true human being should be like. Therefore, focusing our discipleship on Jesus forces us to take seriously the implications of following him, of becoming like him. It sets the agenda for our spirituality. It acknowledges that Jesus as our model, our teacher, and our guide is normative for the Christian life. He is the standard by which we measure ourselves, the quality of our discipleship, and therefore our spirituality

You have done much to skewer cultural conditioned views of Jesus ("bearded lady Jesus" was my favorite). But, when I read the book I wanted to ask something that is both a question and a compliment-- the Jesus you described looked a lot like you, Alan-- a wandering teacher calling for change, a wild man with a powerful message, focused on the Kingdom of God, and with a Hebrew worldview. How culturally conditioned do you think your view of Jesus might be?

None of us is free from trying to make Jesus like us on a good day! Actually that's what we are trying to 'skewer' it debunking the stereotypes of Jesus. Actually I am a strong believer in ongoing validity of the second commandment--we should not make any images of God. Every time we attempt to image God, be it mental or metal, we limit him and thereby seek to control him. We must always allow Jesus to be beyond any stereotype that we might wish to make of him. As you say, a lot of the book is iconoclastic. It's a bit of fun at our own expense really. But hey, thanks for the compliment!

While everyone can benefit from reading this book, who needs to read it (for whom is it most critical)?

We hope that the book is accessible to all thoughtful Christians. It is certainly geared towards a missional audience. But I do think it will appeal mostly to people engaged leadership and formal ministry.

As pastors seek to bring about the change you call for in the book, what are the top areas they should focus on?

Recovering Jesus in thought, imagination, action of the church. Radicalizing the church by recovering the ethos, teachings, lifestyle of the Founder. And to do this they will have to take discipleship in the Way of Jesus seriously. I can't think of anything more foundational and important to the life and mission of the church.

What other books, resources would you recommend to those who are convicted that such things need to change?

You know, I love Soren Kierkegaard, but he is probably too complex for most people to read directly. A good introduction or two on his thinking is good medicine. For instance he saw it as his life's task Soren Kierkegaard, when he said, rather cheekily, "My mission is to introduce Christianity into Christendom." Dietrich Bonheoffer's work and thinking is timeless. I loved Stanley Hauerwas' commentary on Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary) and Jacques Ellul's work in The Subversion of Christianity, and The Presence of the Kingdom, is really excellent. Also, Debs and I are working on a book on missional discipleship--published early '10. In many ways it will be a guide to outworking what it means to take Jesus seriously. And then of course there is your work on breaking the discipleship code.

Alan will be around today to dialogue about the book. Feel free to post questions and comments below.

J. Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine, is often a voice of reasoned critique when his movement needs some correction. (You have seen me cite him before, click here.). This is true of him once again, and this recent article is a must read. But before I share a bit from Grady's article, let me give you a little background just in case you haven't heard of the Lakeland revival and the surrounding controversy.

On April 3, 2008 Canadian evangelist Todd Bentley was invited to speak to the Ignited Church of Lakeland, FL. Though he was only scheduled to be there for 5 days, he remained for 3 months during what he considered to be the biggest pentecostal revival since the Azusa Street revival. To put it mildly, the "Lakeland revival" has been controversial. Claims of people being raised from the dead? Violent healing? Now it appears Bentley is stepping down after filing for separation from his wife and admitting to an inappropriate relationship with another woman. Grady asks some hard questions in his article.

Why did so many people flock to Lakeland from around the world to rally behind an evangelist who had serious credibility issues from the beginning?

To put it bluntly, we're just plain gullible...

A prominent Pentecostal evangelist called me this week after Bentley's news hit the fan. He said to me: "I'm now convinced that a large segment of the charismatic church will follow the anti-Christ when he shows up because they have no discernment."

Why did a group of respected ministers lay hands on Bentley on June 23 and publicly ordain him? Did they know of his personal problems?

...No one in ministry today should be out on their own, living in isolation without checks, balances and wise counsel. It was commendable that [C. Peter] Wagner reached out to Bentley and that Bentley acknowledged his need for spiritual fathers by agreeing to submit to the process. The question remains, however, whether it was wise to commend Bentley during a televised commissioning service that at times seemed more like a king's coronation.

In hindsight, we can all see that it would have been better to take Bentley into a back room and talk about his personal issues.

...I trust that Wagner, Ahn, Johnson and Arnott didn't know of Bentley's problems before they ordained him. ... But I believe that they, along with Bentley and the owners of God TV, owe the body of Christ a forthright, public apology for thrusting Bentley's ministry into the spotlight prematurely. (Perhaps such an apology should be aired on God TV.)

Grady cites C. Peter Wagner. If you have been reading the blog, you will remember two recent posts on apostles, here and here that mention Wagner. In both cases, I shared a bit about Wagner so the timing of my post and the timing of this incident prompted this blog entry.

Well, Wagner recently brought what they call "apostolic covering" to Bentley. During a publicized gathering on June 23rd Wagner explained what this covering ceremony was all about (youtube). He said, "This is a ceremony celebrating the formal apostolic alignment of Todd Bentley." He explains that alignment is a kind of adjustment, or putting things in order. Bentley was asked if he recognized the apostolic authority of the apostles who were present, and when he did Wagner says that this will be a formal "commissioning" equivalent to offering the the right hand of fellowship as the apostles did to Paul in Jerusalem.

Wagner continued by proclaiming,

This commissioning represents a powerful spiritual transaction taking place in the invisible world. With this in mind, I take the apostolic authority that God has given me and I decree to Todd Bentley:

• Your power will increase.
• Your authority will increase.
• Your favor will increase.
• Your influence will increase.
• Your revelation will increase.

I also decree that:

• A new supernatural strength will flow through this ministry.
• A new life force will penetrate this move of God.
• A government will be established to set things in their proper order.
• God will pour out a higher level of discernment to distinguish truth from error.
• New relationships will surface to open gates for the future.

In his article, Grady also points out that Bentley's theology should have been seriously investigated when Bentley connected with the "healing angel" of William Branham. (See the picture below for the "healing angel.") Yet, Bentley was never called on this bizarre connection.

While teaching at Southern, I served a church in the same town where Branham founded a church. Branham was once a well known (perhaps the best known) Pentecostal healing evangelist... at least until he went astray.

A little history may be helpful:

Branham rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and in fact claimed the doctrine was of the devil. Consequently he believed that anyone baptized into the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit needed to be re-baptized. He predicted that 1977 would usher in the new millennium, and he believed denominationalism is the mark of the beast. Branham also believed the sin in the Garden of Eden that brought about the curse of God was not the eating of literal fruit, but the sexual union between Eve and the chimpanzee-serpent-beast. I kid you not.

Yet, the movement and the meetings with Todd Benley went on... until last week when reality caught up.

Now let me say, I work very hard to be charitable to Christians of different stripes-- much to the chagrin of those in my denomination who think we are the one true New Testament faith. And, this is not intended to be a post against one group (note, again, the title and you can visit my earlier posts on Pentecostal movements here and here.) Finally, I tend to think that movements should work out their theological discussions and I stay out of them-- rarely writing a post like this.

Yet, when I see things like this, it is just hard not to ask: does anyone still have a Bible and some common sense?

Let me add: I do not think this is a Pentecostal issue. That is why the title is, "Evangelical Gullibility."

In other words, all kinds of Christians are forwarding emails about the FCC's phony plan to ban religious braoadcasting, signing up to have emails sent to the loved ones after the rapture, and watching Christian television for its theological depth. For that matter, I have just as many odd people come up to me with "something they discovered in the Bible that no one has ever noticed" after I speak at a Baptist, Wesleyan, of non-denominational meeting as I do when I speak at a Pentecostal one. Furthermore, many Pentecostals and Charismatics HAVE expressed concern about this movement-- including some when I visit the Assemblies of God office a couple of weeks ago.

I just have to wonder with Grady if Christians really are just gullible.

True revival is generally a messy affair. On the one hand abuses often accompany genuine works of God, and on the other hand much of what is called revival is nothing more than fanaticism. Courage is required to ask tough questions and do so with with grace and kindness, patience is necessary to wait and see if what is called revival bears lasting fruit, and theological discernment is critical for the church when it comes to awakenings and revival.

One of the forgotten "spiritual awakenings" is the Fulton Street Revival. Today is the 150th anniversary of that start of that outpouring.

If I am doing the math correctly, about 3% of the population became Christ followers during this awakening. That would be the equivalent of 10 million people becoming followers of Jesus today.

The North American Mission Board has a video about Fulton Street here.