Review: The Jesus Style

 I was recently given a copy of Gayle Erwin’s book The Jesus Style (YAHSHUA Publishing, 2009)by a member of my congregation who had received it in the mail (solicited or unsolicited I do not know).  She gave the book to me more because I “like books” rather than because she thought it had a particularly attractive, controversial, or questionable content and wanted my feedback.

I found that I was not initially impressed with the work.  As I read the first two chapters, I found that much of what he was saying I found to be quite hard to take in that it seemed so spurious.  For example, his treatment of Jesus’ childhood has little basis in scripture at all. 

“Do you suppose the friends and neighbors of Jesus never asked him why he didn't favor Joseph?  Do you suppose his childhood friends never gathered and laughed at the claim that the Holy Spirit was his father?  Do you suppose the Pharisees never brought it up to him?”(p.9) 

My initial response to Erwin’s questioning is ‘no.’ If I were a Biblical literalist, I wouldn't suppose this at all as the text doesn't supply this line of questioning at all – though the Infancy Gospel of Thomas might lend itself to these kinds of questions.  And I found myself reflecting on the fact that Jesus never claimed that the Holy Spirit was his father.  In the Gospel of John, from which Erwin draws most of his conclusions about the nature of Jesus and what we should believe about Jesus, Jesus claimed God as his father.  In the birth narrative of Luke, the angel tells Mary that the Holy Spirit will overshadow her, but Erwin seems to replace the 3^rd person of the Trinity for God.

But Erwin has already set up a series of straw man arguments (defined as ‘misrepresenting an opponent’s point of view or argument, usually for the purpose of making it easier to attack) and other fallacies of diversion to make his larger points with regard to the birth narratives. This is his tactic throughout the entire book.  Most notably, he talks about Jesus in comparison to what he [the author] would have done in that circumstance.  “If I had wanted to do this, I would have…” is a constant source for the author to show just how unique and distinct from common humanity Jesus is.  Erwin seems to seek to create a series of arguments to imply how humble and unimpressive the birth narratives are.  These are set up, it seems, to place the idea of Jesus’ royalty (kingship) in juxtaposition against the actuality of his birth to (I think) lead us to be more impressed by the birth than as unimpressed as we seem to naturally have been supposed to be. 

Erwin also makes a startling claim, made more for shock than from substance I would suspect.  “Though we know that is not what Jesus was [a bastard child], the world viewed him differently.”(p.9)  I wonder where he gathered that particular understanding of Jesus.  Certainly not from the Gospels.  It could have been the case, but there is no inference of that attitude towards Jesus – especially when he is found in the temple at age 12, when that would have been an obstacle for the young Jesus to overcome. 

What Erwin seems to be doing is truly worsening the attitudes of “the world” towards Jesus in an effort to demonstrate Jesus’ identification with the poor and outcast by submitting himself to a life characterized by the whispers and mocking of the crowds, even if there are only a few indications that this was ever the case in the life of Jesus according to scriptures.

Erwin’s worsening of the story of Jesus’ early life seems deliberate and designed to bring Jesus even closer to the poor and wretched than the text would normally infer.  This seems to be similar to the claim attributed to Paul in 1^st Timothy that he is the chief or foremost of sinners.  Erwin seems to want to make Jesus the most wretched of the outcast and the lowliest of the poor in order to point out that he wasn't. 

But this trend follows from his claims about Jesus as the Messiah.  He begins by explaining how John the Baptist went from certainty to uncertainty in his claims about Jesus.  “Early in his ministry he said of Jesus: ‘This is the one!’  Later, he asked, speaking out of his doubts, ‘Are you the one?’” (p.4) 

Chronologically, this claim is true.  However, it is only true if you piece the story of John the Baptist in order by placing the story of John’s claim of Jesus “This is the Lamb of God” from the Gospel of John first.  In the synoptic Gospels, only Matthew has John state that he should be baptized by Jesus.  The rest have John baptize Jesus and later express his doubt.  Luke seems to imply that John noticed nothing about the baptism of Jesus that was special, as is true with the Gospel of Mark.  John’s doubt, expressed in Matthew and Luke isn't necessarily doubt, but perhaps a level of uncertainty that Jesus fits the bill based on John’s own preaching. 

Erwin’s point, though, is that John started out strong but finished with doubt.  Erwin asks, “Why did he [John] get confused about who Jesus actually was?” (p.4)  Erwin then falls into something of a quagmire trying to answer the question.  Tellingly, he writes “Whatever their expectations, Jesus did not coincide with their, or our, poplar understandings of the Messiah.”  This is a question that bears some scrutiny.  What were the expectations?  And was John wrong in holding to those expectations?  If John (and by implication, the Jews) were wrong in what they were looking for, then doesn't that beg the question that perhaps all of the ‘predictions’ of the Messiah were in error?  If Jesus was the Messiah, but he didn't conform to expectations, then either the expectations were wrong or Jesus did not fit those expectations and would of course be held in doubt as to the messianic claims about him.

If Jesus doesn't match the Messianic expectations, then we have one of several possibilities with which to contend:

1.      Jesus was the Jewish Messiah as the Old Testament proclaimed.

2.      Jesus was the Messiah, but not as the Old Testament proclaimed.

3.      Jesus was the Messiah, and the Old Testament was misinterpreted and/or wrong.

4.      Jesus was the Messiah, but not as anyone expected (invalidating the Messianic expectations?)

5.      Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah.

6.      Jesus was not the Messiah.

Erwin writes that “The question is, ‘How do we align our understanding with the truth?”  The point he is making is that Jesus is the Messiah and therefore we have to begin from there.  If the prophetic witness doesn't bear out Jesus, then the witness is incorrect as is John the Baptist.  However, Erwin would also utilize passages from Isaiah to bear witness to Jesus.  In particular he states “Isaiah tells us how he [Jesus] looked:  ‘He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. (Isaiah 53:2).’(p.13) 

I will leave the question of the usage of this passage out at this point, but it does show that Erwin believes that the prophetic witness of the Hebrew prophets not only predicts Jesus, but describes his physical nature.  Yet if that witness is so clear, how is it that John fails to comprehend Jesus?  Erwin would answer that Jesus was so plain, no one would pay attention to him.  And if we put together Erwin’s larger argument about Jesus, we would conclude that Jesus was a plain, average looking person who was exiled by his community for being an alleged bastard child that in no way conformed to the Messianic expectations of the time. 

How was it so completely botched?  “Either something had gone terribly wrong or the misunderstanding had been complete.  Jesus, knowing the tension between his reality and our understanding, stated: ‘Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.’ (Luke 7:23)”  But the implication is that people didn't get it because they couldn't. 

I had a professor who related a story about a student that was convinced that one of the Deans of the school was trafficking in drugs.  The student’s proof was that from time to time, the Dean had been seen going into the post office with a package and then coming out without it.  The student came to the professor to tell him his conclusions.  The professor said, “Do you think the Dean could just be mailing packages?”  The student responded, “He could be.  But it could be drugs.”  The professor relating the story said, “If you gave him that, then it certainly could be true.”

Erwin seems to be making a similar statement with regards to Jesus.  If we could just get into the right frame of mind and understanding, then it would all make sense.  However, given the facts as Erwin has presented them, we might not reach the truth without some kind of leap.

Likewise, Erwin explains that Jesus’ emergence from Nazareth further muddied the waters.  “The moral and religious reputation of Nazareth was so bad that Nathaniel’s response to meeting Jesus of Nazareth was: “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ (John 1:47)” (p.14) But where does he get this image of Nazareth? 

According to one source, “The disrepute in which Nazareth stood (John 1:46) has generally been attributed to the Galileans’ lack of culture and rude dialect; but Nathaniel, who asked, ‘Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?’ was himself a Galilean.  It would seem probable that ‘good ‘ must be taken in an ethical sense and that the people of Nazareth had a bad name among their neighbors for irreligion or some laxity of morals.” (Unger’s Bible Dictionary, “Nazareth)

However, Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, by Josephus, or in any Rabbinic writings.  Nathaniel could be skeptical of the claims about Jesus because Nazareth was such a ‘nothing’ town, not because it has any particular religious or moral issues.  Erwin’s claim about Nazareth has little to back it up, but it is in keeping with his larger points about Jesus being so misunderstood.  A background from the town that was the worst of the worst would fit with Erwin’s initial description of Jesus.

What we find is faulty apologetics.  As he advances his book, Erwin frequently uses the argument “If I…” as in, “If I had wanted to make an impression, I would not have come from Nazareth.”  Over and over again Erwin goes back to setting up the weak straw man arguments one after another only to use them to demonstrate what Jesus actually did.  His point in doing this is found when he writes, “If he [Jesus] could work through me [after showing you how I would have done things and how wrong I would have been] then he can work with me…and you.” (p.18)

It is here that we begin to enter into the better part of the book.  Beginning with the chapter entitled One of Many we begin to read what seem to be a series of short essays, sermons, and/or lectures where Erwin does shine.  His exegetical openings leave a lot to be desired, but when he begins to offer short pieces, his agenda becomes less on proving particular things apologetically and more about bearing witness to his understanding of Christ (which may be predicated on his particular exegetical understandings).  One of Many is a short piece, almost an aside to the previous chapters, but it is far more personable. 

He writes, “Most of my evangelical efforts have revolved around developing even more creative means to get the Gospel past the defenses of the world.” (p.34)  This tips his hand.  What he is trying to do in this book is ‘outwit’ the world, so to speak, in an effort to get the message of Christ (as he understands it) to the world.  It is, though, when he stops working so hard (as he appears to in the opening chapters) that he begins to resonate with passion instead of constructing false dichotomies between what the world (represented by his “If I…” statements) expects and what Jesus offered.  I found that in his short pieces he had great insights and truly profound ideas about what it means to be Christian.

All in all, Erwin should have offered a collection of sermons, essays and lectures rather than constructing an apologetical opening that left a lot to be desired.  I don’t know that the opening chapters were constructed later, but they felt forced in comparison to the later chapters that continued after One of Many.  Perhaps he was trying to branch out into apologetics with his stated goal of trying creative means to get the Gospel to the world, but his attempts were, in my opinion, what almost prevented me from reading any further.