There are good reasons to be concerned about contemporary Christianity. But must the answer always be “a fresh alternative — a third way” (pg. xiii)? In the case of Jesus Manifesto, authors Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola 
construct a “third way” that bears little resemblance to the “narrow road” (Matt. 7:13-14) which Jesus Himself preached.
Subtitled “It’s time to restore the supremacy of Jesus Christ,” the authors begin with a series of sweeping, but predictable, generalizations about the grim state of affairs: “The world likes Jesus; they just don’t like the church. But increasingly, the church likes the church, yet it doesn’t like Jesus” (pg. xvi), and “If the church does not reorient and become Christological at its core, any steps taken will be backwards” (pg. xiv). This kind of “bash the church” rhetoric is at the heart of the postmodern, post-evangelical movement, and propels much of what Sweet and Viola unpack. Apparently, for many “emergent” Christians, problems with the church are a license to reconfigure the gospel. And, ultimately, Jesus Manifesto seems determined to do just that.
Along the way, the authors teeter between sublimity and absurdity. On the one hand, Sweet and Viola do a terrific job pulling everything back to Christ, showing how Scripture and biblical history center around the Son of God and all our causes and convictions should be subordinate to Him. Their language is exultant, their praise effusive. But the closer we examine the Christ they acclaim, the less He seems like the biblical one.
The “hard sayings” of Christ about hell, damnation, and judgment are nowhere to be found in this book (unless intimated toward religious elites). As such, the Jesus of Jesus Manifesto is the friend of sinners NOT the “judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). The Jesus of Jesus Manifesto comes to bring unity NOT “division” (Lk. 12:49-57). The Jesus of Jesus Manifesto carries an olive branch NOT a “sword” (Matt. 10:34). The Jesus of Jesus Manifesto ushers souls to heaven NOT “eternal punishment” (Matthew 25:32,46; see also Matthew 13:41-43, 49). It is this ecumenical evasiveness that spoils Jesus Manifesto. The Bible teaches that the Good Shepherd will one day return with “the armies of heaven… to strike the nations” (Rev. 19: 11-16), that the cross of Christ “offends” people (Gal. 5:11) and its message is “foolishness to those who are perishing” (I Cor. 1:18). Sadly, it is this “offense” that Sweet and Viola jettison in favor of uncritical inclusion.
One of the ways Jesus Manifesto attempts this is by downplaying “doctrine.” The authors write, “The apostles’ message throughout Acts is not the plan of salvation. It’s not a theology or a set of doctrines either. It is a person — Christ” (pg. 12), and “According to Scripture, Jesus Christ (and not a doctrine about Him) is the truth” (pg. 80), and “When Christ is understood in terms of a cohesive theological system, Jesus becomes subordinated to a human description” (pg. 81). Can theology get in the way of relationship with Christ? Absolutely! Is Jesus more than a doctrinal system? Of course! But the assumption that a doctrine or “theological system” ALWAYS impedes a relationship with Christ is untenable. On the contrary, good theology fires a right relationship with Jesus. In fact, how does one even “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (II Pet. 3:18) without embracing a series of biblical prepositions about Him?
Scripture is filled with exhortations about believing correctly. In fact, it was those same apostles (the ones who did not preach “a theology or a set of doctrines”) who cautioned against “false Christs” (II Cor. 11:3,4; 13-15) and admonished about a time when men “will not endure sound doctrine” (II Tim. 4:3). The apostle Peter warned about “false teachers” who “secretly introduce destructive heresies” (II Pet. 2:1). Diminishing the relevance of, or need for, right theology and sound doctrine potentially skates the razor’s edge of this heresy. It is one thing to caution us about replacing Christ with Christology. It’s another thing dismiss Christology as a substitute for Christ.
Even more puzzling is the contradictory nature of the authors’ argument. For in order to “restore the supremacy of Jesus Christ,” Sweet and Viola assume certain things about who Jesus is and why He is supreme. But where do they acquire such knowledge and how does the reader know it’s true? After all, the Bible warns us about false Christs. So how do we know that the Jesus of Jesus Manifesto is legitimate? By corroborating it with Scripture. The belief that “Jesus Christ (and not a doctrine about Him) is the truth” is in fact a doctrinal truth. Yes, the apostles preached “a Person” and not a “plan of salvation.” However, that Person fits uniquely into a plan of salvation articulated in Scripture.
The authors conclude, “The body of Christ is in need of a reconversion to Jesus, not as Savior and Lord, but as the awe-inspiring, all-inclusive person he is” (pg. 171). Sweet and Viola do a great job of calling the church back to its “first love” (Rev. 2:1-7), disentangling Jesus from the politics and traditions we often brand Him with. However, the “all-inclusive person” they enunciate is hardly the fullness of the One we find in Scripture. Which ultimately makes “Jesus Manifesto,” just “Jesus Lite.”
I’ve not read the book, but regardless, this offered some fantastic points that could, sadly, could easily apply to many other books as well. Thank you for sharing.
I’m going to pass it on via Twitter.
-Marshall Jones Jr.
doctrine: a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject.
Great review Mike, I’ve been wondering how, when and why doctrine has become such a bad word in the church. As you quoted from II Timothy 4:3, if a systematic understanding and application of foundational truths about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, sin, forgiveness and a whole host of other things found in Scripture are “in the way” then people throw themselves open to believe any thing that “tickles their ears.”
The last part of your review really got me however;
“The authors conclude, “The body of Christ is in need of a reconversion to Jesus, not as Savior and Lord, but as the awe-inspiring, all-inclusive person he is” (pg. 171).
So…according to this quote, we really don’t need Jesus as Savior and Lord but simply as a really cool guy who justs love everybody?!?
No thanks, I like having Jesus as Lord and Savior of my life just fine. I’d be lost without him.
Great review! Your thoughts are very similar to my own, except I think you expressed it even more clearly that I did! Here’s my review: http://homewithpurpose.blogspot.com/2010/05/jesus-manifesto-restoring-supremacy-and.html
Meant to add…your link at the Booksneeze site has an extra “http” at the beginning so doesn’t work properly…thought you’d want to know. 🙂
Thanks Kara for the comment and pointing out my bad link. I enjoyed your review. Though I came down on the book harder than you, the basis of our concerns are the same. While I appreciated the authors’ desire to lift up Christ, I felt they did so at the expense of a complete biblical profile. Many Christians try to soften Jesus’ image to make Him more palatable, and I’m afraid Sweet and Viola do that here. Blessings!
Thanks, Mike. I was afraid of being too harsh and erred on the side of too nice, LOL. I’m glad others have had the same concerns. I was disappointed that I couldn’t give a whole-hearted recommendation to a book that focuses on Jesus’ sovereignty and supremacy.
Mike, I enjoyed your review and thought your points were ones we all need to hear and to think about, whether we’ve read this particular book or not. The fact is, “Jesus lite” is in the camp of professing Christians. We need to be ready to give an answer.
One point I thought of as I read your remarks: since Jesus and his disciples, initially, were addressing Jews, there was already a doctrinal system in place. The Jews knew about sacrifice as a means of reconciliation with God. They knew about the wages of sin. They knew about the promised savior. What they didn’t know was that Jesus was He. So that’s what the disciples preached in Acts.
When the apostles moved out of Jerusalem and the church included Samaritans and Gentiles, they gave an abundance of doctrine.
Yesterday on the radio I heard part 2 of a conversation between Alistair McGraf and … I forget who. But one of them pointed out that the “new” imaging of Jesus is really the old liberal version that deconstructed the Bible by tossing out all the stuff that was hard and didn’t fit with their view of a social gospel rather than a gospel of salvation.
Nothing new under the sun.
Becky
Great comment!
You make some incredibly solid points, Mike. It’s just not a very good book.
Fabulous review. Great work!
I think I’ve mentioned this before on here, Mike…I’m getting super tired of trying to make Jesus more appealing. If the gospel (the real one, as it is plainly laid out…not anything added onto it) isn’t offensive, then it’s not the truth. The idea of dying to one’s self, taking up one’s cross daily, jettisoning things like premarital sex or drunkenness or backstabbing, is offensive to everyone at all times — even to Christians, because we daily have to make the choice. Luckily for most Christians the “god side” beats out the “human side” easily, with some slip-ups here and there.
This strain inside the church of “getting everyone to like us, goshdarnit” seems be running through the western church for a while. Jesus didn’t die on the cross so non-Christians would be more willing to hang out with us, so let’s stop acting like He did.
As I mentioned earlier when you commented on my interview with Viola and Sweet, I think you’ve got the wrong authors. While they certainly emphasize grace (and you’ve gotta admit, most of Jesus’ prickliness you mention – if not all of it – was reserved for the religious elite who thought they’d arrived, not the masses who knew they didn’t), you could hardly peg them as ‘liberals.’ In fact, many of my emergent friends would consider Viola, and increasingly Sweet, as rather right-of-center conservatives. That’s probably why a lot of Reformed and Baptist folk have endorsed it – see http://theJesusManifesto.com. (See also a recent piece by Len Sweet where he responds to ‘Online Discernment Ministries’ accusing him of soft-pedaling the Gospel)
The bottom line is, both Viola and Sweet are conservative, orthodox believers – they’re into the deity of Jesus, penal substitutionary atonement, the Trinity, and (yes, even) hell – even if they mention hell as scantly in this book as, oh, the Apostle Paul does. 🙂
Oh, and it’s worth noting that I have no axe to grind and nothing to gain when I describe Viola & Sweet as “conservative and orthodox,” – as I quite readily admit to enjoying authors and teachers who are neither. (I’d certainly never claim, for instance, that Brian McLaren – another author whose work I enjoy – is ‘conservative’ in the contemporary sense.)
Mike, thanks for commenting. I had no previous reading experience with the authors of this book, and so I can’t speak to their background. They may be, as you say “conservative, orthodox believers,” but this book seemed far too ecumenical in tone for the average “conservative.” So I will stand by my impression of “Jesus Manifesto” as presenting an incomplete view of Christ.
I also have to take issue with your assertion that most of Jesus’ condemnations and warnings about hell were “reserved for the religious elite.” Jesus referenced hell many times — more than any other biblical figure — and not just as it related to the religious establishment. And even if He did, the absence of those references in a book specifically about Jesus’ supremacy is startling. Thanks for visiting, Mike!
Thank you for your review. I have listened to audio book of “Jesus Manifesto” and I enjoyed especially Chapter 2, where it unveils the mystery of “Jesus in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1). I believe Jesus is the Saviour of all men ( 1 Timothy 4:10) because God demonstrated His love in this: that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8) As someone said, “God is love and love keeps no records of wrong and love never fails”. Blessings to you.
Brother, I encourage you to do some research
all the stuff about “hell” in the New Testament has to do with the ending of the Old Covenant system and the destruction of the Jews & their man-made temple and the end of that Age in the first century in AD 70
Hagere, I’m not sure how you can possibly say that. How does the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) have to do with “the destruction of the Jews & their man-made temple”? Or how does The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matt. 25:31-46) have to do with”the ending of the Old Covenant system”?
While I agree with you that right doctrine is important and while I to questioned the reference of the apostles not proclaiming doctrine. I also believe that the point trying to be expressed here by Viola and Sweet is that mental knowledge and good doctrinal belief on its own cannot substitute for a relationship with Christ.
As someone who reads the Bible and believes in the consequences of hell for the unsaved, as well as the fact that we are sinners in need of a Savior who is none other than Christ, this particular part of the book spoke to me on something I personally wrestle with which is that my Christianity is very much a thing of the mind and less of the heart.
I would add that Christianity is about God, our Father. The “First oracles and the elementary principles” is about discipleship. Repentance from dead works and faith toward God (the first principle) defines the sin nature and the difference between dead works and works which are alive. It is not about rules and regulations it is learning the “way” of God. From the answer of this teaching we are able to understand the following “principles”. Everything is about “source”. Our source is the Spirit of God. Jesus is a done deal. Go back to the beginning and learn the foundation of truth Jesus being the cornerstone. We seem to miss the fact that the whole purpose of Jesus is to bring us to the Father. The “elementary principles”, the basic teachings of the gospel define the foundation of our relationship to God within the dynamic of the Spirit of God. What is the sin nature? What is regeneration? What is the anointing? How are we to interact within the sphere of the Body utilizing the fruits and gifts of the Spirit. When does the resurrection happen? What is the correlation between the resurrection and the Lord’s second return? What is judgment day? The “Jesus Manifesto” is watered down milk. Our life is about being a disciple, on call, 24/7. There is teaching, practice, failure, more homework, more practice. As it says that a good soldier doesn’t entangle himself in the affairs of the world. It is heart breaking to see the lack of education and understanding in the body of Christ. Jesus and us, the body, are the same person. He is the brains.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this book. It will help me as I complete reading it.
Perhaps I am too naive, but I think the fullness of Christ is revealed through the Body of Christ as a whole.
Because we are each limited in our individual understanding of God we each have a tendency to focus in on certain things.
I think the various focuses are good as long as they are part of the Greater Whole.
God is a God of both and. A God of Grace AND Truth. A God of Forgiveness AND Judgment. Etc.
Although there may be two sides to a coin, there is still only one coin.
Our tendency as believers is to gravitate toward one side or the other. But, with God each side brings perfect tension and balance and the one side does not preclude the other side. We need the views of Jesus Manifesto and the views of this review. Together we are closer to the fullness of God.
I think all of us need to realize that we are able to unfold only a small part of God’s truth and all that He is apart from God’s Spirit and the Body of Christ.
Consider how many types of flowers there are. A rose is different from a daffodil and yet they are both flowers. The truth about one does not change the truth about the other. And yet if we were to describe flowers only using the description of a rose we would be giving a true description, but not a full and complete description of flowers as a whole.
Although there are many types of flowers, they are all flowers and only One Creator of those flowers. Together a garden of flowers unveils the greater glory of our God and Creator.
Thanks for sharing! When I look out my window upon the garden of God, I just noticed another species of flower that helps more fully unveil the glory of God.
In Him,
Fenn
Jesus is the cornerstone upon which we stand along side of the truth of the apostles and prophets.
We are looking downward instead of recognizing that everything Jesus did, as a man, was to enable us to be in an intimate relationship with the Father.
We need a “Father Manifesto”, and not a Jesus manifesto.
Jesus is the door, the Spirit is the map and the Father is the destination.
Who did Jesus say to pray and worship? We are being disobedient to the “milk” of the word because we are uneducated in the revelation of the anointing.
“Go on to perfection”! Come with boldness to our Father.
Where in the NT does it say to worship Jesus? It doesn’t!
If we understood what the dynamic of the creative experience of “repentance from dead works and faith toward God” we would understand what our “sin nature” is. If we understood our sin nature we would have a deeper, more intimate relationship with the Spirit of God. God, the Father, is seeking those to worship Him, God, in Spirit and in Truth. Jesus is the foundational truth and the Spirit, who is given to us as “the promise of the Father, when Jesus ascended to sit next to his “Dad”.
Jesus and us, the believers in Christ: Christ is the Spirit of God, are the same. We are one body.
Jesus was born and then given the Spirit without measure while we are born-again and receive the Spirit in limitation. He is the first born and we are the rest of the family.
Flowers and truth have nothing in common. The Spirit searches out the deep things of God.
Radical grace? NO! We need a “radical anointing”!
Jesus is position while the Spirit is expression.
Just as the Jews elevated following the law above their relationship with God we have elevated Jesus, the son, above our relationship with our Father.
You want revival in your life? Go to the Father. Then, by the onslaught of the enemy trying to keep you away from the Throne, you might begin to understand that we are not just babies, we are clueless as to what the elementary principles define.
Every person on earth is headed for the lake of fire unless they believe on Jesus. (I used lake of fire in place of hell because its another theological subject and possible debate.) Suffice it to say that the final destination of those who do not believe on Jesus is the lake of fire; the second death. Read end of book of Revelation. However, Jesus isn’t willing that any should perish and grace brings us into a harmonious relationship with the Father. Jesus is sitting at the right hand of the Father now. In His place He sent Holy Spirit to live in us and through us. Therefore manifesting Jesus incarnationally is very ambiguous. Jesus is now our mediator and the high priest of our profession. Again, He sits at the right hand of the Father and ever liveth to make intercession for us. For His finished works on the cross, we are eternally grateful and love Him because He first loved us. The problem with these individuals is because they don’t believe in the authority of the word of God, they’ve created a Jesus in their own image. As Mike stated….we’re not going to know the real Jesus without the understanding of the Holy Writ.