Book Review: Jesus Made in America

A Cultural History from the Puritans to the Passion of the ChristAllow me to break standard book-reviewing protocol and simply sum up my thoughts on Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to the Passion of the Christ (IVP, 2008) by Stephen Nichols: One of the most engaging, informative books I’ve read this year. In fact, I’ll be surprised if this book doesn’t make my annual Top Ten list of “favorite reads.”

Jesus Made in America is not a history of Jesus Christ. Looking at the cover, one might expect to find a novel that tells the story of Jesus in a contemporary setting. No, Jesus Made in America is mainly about America, specifically – how Americans tend to remake Jesus in our own image and to service whatever needs or promote whatever causes we believe are important. Listen to Nichols:

“The history of the American evangelical Jesus reveals that such complexities as the two natures of Christ have often been brushed aside, either on purpose or out of expediency. Too often his deity has been eclipsed by his humanity, and occasionally the reverse is true. Too often American evangelicals have settled for a Christology that can be reduced to a bumper sticker. Too often devotion to Jesus has eclipsed theologizing about Jesus. Today’s American evangelicals may be quick to speak of their love for Jesus, even wearing their devotion on their sleeve, literally in the case of WWJD bracelets. But they may not be so quick to articulate an orthodox view of the object of their devotion. Their devotion is commendable, but the lack of a rigorous theology behind it means that a generation of contemporary evangelicals is living off of borrowed capital. This quest for the historical Jesus of American evangelicalism is not just a story of the past; it perhaps will help us understand the present, and it might even be a parable for the future. This parable teaches us that Jesus is not actually made in America. He is made and remade and remade again. What will next year’s model look like?” (18)

Nichols sets the bar high by devoting his opening chapter to the Puritan view of Christ. By drawing on the theology of Jonathan Edwards adn the lesser known Edward Taylor, Nichols shows how the Puritans combined a fervent devotion to Christ with a fervent desire to know more about Christ. Overall, his picture of the Puritans helps put an end to some of the unfair generalizations made about the Puritan period. And yet, Nichols does not view the Puritans through rose-colored glasses. He criticizes their propensity to act in unChristlike ways. (41)

Next, Nichols turns to the Jesus of the Founding Fathers. Here, he takes issue with the evangelicals who see their reflection in the beliefs of the founders. Nichols shows from their letters and writings how Jefferson, Franklin, and even Washington and Adams were all basically Deists (though some were more orthodox than others, of course). The Jesus of the founders was focused on virtue, not theology… on morals, not salvation.

With the foundation of the American view of Jesus set (through the pious orthodoxy of the Puritans and the Deistic, individualistic ideals of the Founders), Nichols then takes us through the previous two centuries of Christian life in America. He shows how Jesus was viewed by the frontier people as tough, casting off all ecclesiastical authority. He describes the meek and mild Jesus of Victorian culture in the late 1800’s. He watches the rise of liberalism in the early 1900’s, making Jesus out to be a “hero for the modern world.”

The last four chapters hit closer to home. Nichols devotes space to the Contemporary Christian music scene, the portrayal of Jesus in Hollywood movies, the consumerist impulse that markets and sells Jesus “stuff,” and the alignment of Jesus with the Religious Right or Left (depending upon the politician). (My only quibble with Nichols is that he seems to be more enamored with Jim Wallis than James Dobson. But I could be reading him wrong.)

The point of Nichols’ book? Jesus is the patron saint of everything. Every culture, in some way, seeks to mold Jesus into its own image. We are all susceptible to the danger. And yet, we can avoid the excessiveness of our own versions of Jesus by listening to Scripture first, tradition second, and experience third (instead of reversing that order, which is often the case in American spirituality).

Nichols encourages us to uphold Jesus in all his glorious complexity, not shrinking back from theological reflection. He helps us learn from the mistakes of those in the past, while offering words of wisdom for those of us seeking to be faithful to Jesus in the present.

written by Trevin Wax  © 2008 Kingdom People blog

© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)

4 Comment(s)

  1. Trevin,

    Haven’t read the book, but I would scarcely argue the premise that Americans tend to remake Jesus in our own image. I wonder, however, whether that is a human tendency rather than an American one.

    But from the one passage you site:

    “Too often his deity has been eclipsed by his humanity, and occasionally the reverse is true.”

    Really? I’ve noticed it the other way around. Maybe its just me. And…

    “Too often devotion to Jesus has eclipsed theologizing about Jesus.”

    Ahh, if that were actually true

    Sounds like an interesting read, though. Thanks for the review.

    Grace and Peace,
    Raffi Shahinian
    Parables of a Prodigal World

    Raffi Shahinian | Jun 18, 2008 | Reply

  2. Who then was the historical “Jesus”?
    So many describe him in so many different ways – but Christians often describes him as replacing the law and creating a covenant with gentiles

    Did you know that the original “Matthew” was written in Hebrew and it’s called Hebrew Matityahu. It speaks about an Orthodox Jewish leader.
    The historical Ribi Yehoshua were a Pharisee.

    I am a follower of Ribi Yehoshua – Mashiakh – who practiced Torah including Halakhah with all his heart.
    He was born in Betlehem 7 B.C.E . His faher name was Yoseiph and mother’s name was Mir′ yâm. He had twelve followers. He tought in the Jewish batei-haknesset (synagogues). Thousands of Jews were interested in His Torah-teachings. The “Temple” Sadducees (non-priests who bought their priest-ship in the “Temple” from the Romans, because they were assimilated Hellenist and genealogically non-priests acting as priests in the “Temple”; they were known by most 1st-century Jews as “Wicked Priests.” decided to crucify him. So they did – together with the Romans. His followers were called Netzarim (meaning offshoots [of a olive tree]) and they continued to pray with the other Jews in the synagogues.

    Christianity does not teach the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua. Ribi Yehoshuas teachings were pro-Torah.

    If you want to learn more click at our website http://www.netzarim.co.il — than click at the lick “Christians”; click at my photo to read about what made my switch religion from Christianity to Orthodox Judaism.

    Anders Branderud
    Follower of Ribi Yehoshua in Orthodox Judaism

    andersbranderud | Jun 18, 2008 | Reply

  3. Anders,

    I agree with everything you said. But I think you missed one minor detail about Ribi Yehoshua.

    He is risen.

    Grace and Peace,
    Raffi

    Raffi Shahinian | Jun 18, 2008 | Reply

  4. Anders,

    Where to start? There are ancient traditions that state that Matthew was originally written in ARAMAIC. Some are confused about these traditions and claim it was written in Hebrew. They are not the same language. Maybe someone can point me to a book or a library or museum that has a copy of an ancient Hebrew manuscript of Matthew. Till then, we have the Greek, and translations from the Greek into Aramaic and other languages.

    As for the name of Meshiakh, the scriptures in the original languages nowhere call him “Yehoshua.” They call him “IESOUS”.

    Further, God himself brought the religious system he ordained to an end in 70 AD. It had served its purpose and it was no longer needed. It is over, never to be resumed. And today’s “Orthodox Judaism” resembles the religion of TANAKH about as much as Roman Catholicism does. It is largely human traditions mixed with paganism.

    Sam

    He lived the life we should have lived.
    He died the death we should have died.

    Sam Mazzotta | Aug 17, 2008 | Reply

1 Trackback(s)

  1. Jan 1, 2009: from 2008: The Year in (Book) Review « Kingdom People

Post a Comment