Many of us have those spiritual punctuation marks in our lives that allow for remembering beyond mere recollection.
They serve as points of return, refocus and reorientation. At least they can be.
When walking the church aisle during an “invitation time” long ago, my naïve but sincere confession was not to affirm the Bible as my savior and lord.
Shortly thereafter, I was baptized — but not in the name of the Father, the Bible and the Holy Spirit.
My primary commitment — as urged repeatedly in the stories, songs and sermons of my early faith tradition — was to Jesus.
Therefore, it is both remarkable and deeply disappointing to see how much of that emphasis on following Jesus has been diverted to ideologies at odds with what every witness claimed as the ultimate truth worth one’s whole life.
This diversion from a primary commitment to follow Jesus has swept much of white Americanized Christianity.
It has reached the point that many attitudes and actions — fully at odds with Jesus’ ways of selflessness, sacrifice and treating others with compassion and justice — now define being “Christian” in America.
Both the resulting tragedies and the diverting tracks are easily traceable.
The formula for doing Christianity without Jesus — except for a one-time, transactional prayer designed to escape hell — takes just three steps:
Step one: Redefine Christianity as “believing the Bible” instead of following Jesus.
Step two: Define “believing the Bible” in any way one chooses.
Popular beliefs include young earth creationism, male dominance, coerced indoctrination, so-called biblical inerrancy, anti-equality, racial and national superiority, and so on.
Step three: Equate the affirmation of that highly selective, preferred list of beliefs with being Christian.
Then defensively argue that anyone who doesn’t agree with those selective beliefs — even when at odds with Jesus’ life and teachings — doesn’t really “believe the Bible” and is therefore outside of the Christian faith.
In reality, Jesus is the one excluded by this three-step methodology. But apparently, his involvement is not needed beyond the “sinner’s prayer” initiation rite.
Why the switch? The short answer is fear of losing one’s identity, dominance and sense of value based on race, nationality and overall familiarity.
And all it takes is a willingness to trade one’s primary commitment to following Jesus for the tasty porridge of biblical manipulation in support of white nationalism.
It is easy to manipulate the Bible through selective texts and interpretations — when avoiding the filter of a Jesus lens — to justify all kinds of sins.
Some of history’s most destructive acts have been by carried out by those who claim high biblical authority for dispensing evil.
Jesus, however, is harder to manipulate and misrepresent. His teachings and example are rather clear about how one is to relate to God and to others.
Therefore, it is more effective to ignore him — pushing Jesus aside in favor of a higher commitment to the “Bible” as one chooses to represent it.
The collateral damage includes the easy dismissal and even resentment of self-denial, common good, inclusive love of neighbors, compassion and care for the suffering.
Should Jesus make a cameo appearance at all it is usually a misrepresentation of him overturning the tables of religious hustlers as an excuse for using violence at will.
Largely lost is how Jesus reserved his harshest rhetoric and actions for those whose religious piety caused harm to vulnerable people.
While particularly prevalent within white Americanized Christianity today — in service to abusive authoritarianism — this diversion from following Jesus is not a new approach to redefining the faith.
The same shift in allegiance has been used historically to justify slavery, child abuse and other cruelties enacted or enabled by professing Christians as being “biblical” and therefore acceptable. And it remains a popular approach.
Such redefined faith is so appealing that its message fills sanctuaries better than where Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and Greatest Commandment are proclaimed.
A little honesty would be appreciated, however. If Jesus’ stuff is not what one values most and seeks to reflect, please just say so.
Trying to retain the faith named for him (or, actually, a title given to him) while shifting allegiances to ideologies at odds with his life, teachings and calling is dishonest and disillusioning.
However, there is another very real possibility. It is to revisit those spiritual punctuation marks and recall to whom one’s primary life commitment was made.
John D. Pierce is director of the Jesus Worldview Initiative (jesusworldview.org), part of Belmont University’s Rev. Charlie Curb Center for Faith Leadership. Join us for the first Jesus Worldview Conference, October 13-15, in Nashville.