Giles Fraser's 'Evangelical Cheesus' is not the Jesus of Evangelicals

Whilst I rarely agree with Giles Fraser, I have some sympathy with his view that bemoans, what he perceives to be, a certain form of Evangelicalism. He comments:

Jesus morphs into Cheesus – the es getting steadily elongated. Those who talk about Cheesus do so with a creepy sort of chummyiness. This is what evangelicals call "a personal relationship", by which they mean that Cheesus has become their boyfriend or best mate.

And when such people speak of Cheesus they have to wear that sickly smile too. It's that I-know-something-you-don't smile. Patronising, superior and faux caring all at the same time. And if you disagree with them they will pray for you. It makes you want to bang your head against a brick wall.

Certainly, there can be a tendency to over-emphasise Jesus, friend of sinners - with the emphasis on 'friend' - to the detriment of Jesus, the Son, God himself. Such a position can lead to an over familiar mateyness and cause us to forget entirely that Jesus Christ is Almighty God and should be approached and revered as such. 

However, let's not overlook two other possibilities explaining the existence, amongst Evangelicals, of those characterised by Fraser's description. It is entirely possible that such people were sickly, patronising, superior and faux-caring before they had any conversion experience. That they exhibit these character traits, only now expressing them through the words and phrases associated with theology and religious experience, does nothing suggest Evangelicalism 'creates' such people. Alternatively, these people may have simply misunderstood the New Testament writing or, whilst understanding, apply them in a rather blunt manner. Any sense in which a believers acts 'superior' is clearly antithetical to the New Testament writings and suggests the individual has not really understood the gospel itself, which makes clear none of us have any right to superiority.

However, Fraser is entirely wrong to equate, what he interprets as, "a creepy sort of chumminess" with the Evangelical claim to "a personal relationship". Evangelicalism at no point proclaims that Jesus will become your "boyfriend or best mate". Indeed, the relationship into which one is brought - or, more accurately, bought - isn't entirely comparable to friends (who calls their best mate "Lord"?!). Yes, we are reconciled to God through the cross - simply stated we are 'friends again' with Him - but the relationship between man and God is one of Father-Son than co-equal mates. We are adopted into the Son's sonship, thus inheriting that which is the Son's because we are in the Son. That is a far cry from gaining fringe benefits because, when the Son comes into his inheritance, we're his mates so we benefit by association. In fact, the relationship between Christ and the believer is rarely, if ever, cast as the relationship between mates in the New Testament.

Fraser again touches on a grain of truth whilst simultaneously missing the point when he states:

Cheesus cannot deal with tragedy. Which is why, for the worst sort of Cheesus-loving evangelicals, the cross of Good Friday is actually celebrated as a moment of triumph. This is theologically illiterate. Next week, in the run up to Easter,Christianity goes into existential crisis. It fails.

The fact that this is not the end of the story does not take away from the fact that tragedy will always be folded into the experience of faith. Even the resurrected Jesus bears the scars of his suffering. A man who has been through something like that will never smile that cheesy smile or think of faith as some sunny suburban upspeak. 

Certainly a fact often overlooked in Evangelical circles is that the cross was a complete disaster for Jesus' disciples. As William Lane Craig comments: 

Even the most skeptical scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Indeed, they pinned nearly everything on it. Without belief in Jesus' resurrection, Christianity could never have come into being. The crucifixion would have remained the final tragedy in the hapless life of Jesus.

There was nothing in Jewish writing or culture that would have expected the resurrection of the Messiah. Although the concept of resurrection did exist, the Jewish view differs in two fundamental ways compared to Jesus' resurrection: "In Jewish thought the resurrection always (1) occurred after the end of the world, not within history, and (2) concerned all the people, not just an isolated individual. In contradistinction to this, Jesus' resurrection was both within history and of one individual person".

...confronted with Jesus' crucifixion and death, [the disciples] would only have looked forward to the resurrection at the final day and would probably have carefully kept their master's tomb as a shrine, where his bones could reside until the resurrection. They would not have come up with the idea that he was already raised.

As for the second point, the Jewish idea of resurrection was always of a general resurrection of the dead, not an isolated individual. It was the people, or mankind as a whole, that God raised up in the resurrection. But in Jesus' resurrection, God raised just a single man. Moreover, there was no concept of the people's resurrection in some way hinging on the Messiah's resurrection. That was just totally unknown. Yet that is precisely what is said to have occurred in Jesus' case. Ulrich Wilckens, another prominent German New Testament critic, explains: "For nowhere do the Jewish texts speak of the resurrection of an individual which already occurs before the resurrection of the righteous in the end time and is differentiated and separate from it; nowhere does the participation of the righteous in the salvation at the end time depend on their belonging to the Messiah, who was raised in advance as the 'First of those raised by God.' (1 Corinthians 15:20)"

It is therefore evident that the disciples would not as a result of Jewish influences or background have come up with the idea that Jesus alone had been raised from the dead. They would wait with longing for that day when He and all the righteous of Israel would be raised by God to glory.

Fraser would be correct if he were merely talking about the disciples' view of the cross prior to the resurrection event. To them, at that time, this was disasterous. However, Fraser is entirely wrong to suggest that the cross, "celebrated as a moment of triumph", is "theologically illiterate". He claims the end of the story does nothing to change this fact. However, the cross is a moment of triumph specifically because it is not the end of the story. Indeed, this is why Paul and the other apostles pinned their entire claim of Christian faith on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This is why Fraser is so wrong about the Evangelical view of loss and disaster. Evangelicals are not convinced that a sickly smile or patronising platitude does anything to resolve a tragedy.  It is specifically because of the cross that the Evangelical view of tragedy is wider than that proposed by Fraser. Evangelicals see life beyond the here and now, in the presence of God, because of the work of Jesus on the cross. This doesn't mean "sunny suburban upspeak" solves all the world's ills; Evangelicals are perfectly aware of Rom 12:14-15. What it mean is life and hope beyond the problems of here and now. Such problems are not solved by that knowledge but we are given hope beyond them rather than an existence ending with them.

Fraser's 'Evangelical Cheesus' is not the Jesus of Evangelicals. His scornful view of a relationship with God cannot contend with 1 John 1 (esp. 1 Jn 1:3). His defeatist, pessimistic view of the cross is equally problematic when faced with these same verses (especially 1 Jn 1:7). John seems convinced that the cross was no disaster and through it we can have a relationship with Christ. Evangelicals tend to agree with John.

Authorship of Hebrews

Over at the 'who's that preacher?' blog, Gary Benfold has written a post on the authorship of Hebrews. He outlines his reasons for holding to the Pauline authorship of the letter and makes a case for why this is both significant and important.

Far be it from me to disagree with a more learned brother but I must admit to struggling with some of his arguments. Mr Benfold tells us there are four key arguments against the Pauline authorship (which he subsequently says are flimsy and therefore push him toward accepting that Paul was the author):

1. The Greek style is very different
2. There is no opening greeting
3. Hebrews quotes the Septuagint and Paul does not
4. 2:3 suggests the writer heard the gospel second-hand, Paul insist he received it directly from the Lord

Were these (a) the actual arguments and (b) the only arguments, I would agree the evidence against Pauline authorship is flimsy.

Here are some of the reasons I am not convinced Paul wrote Hebrews and on which I find myself at variance with Mr Benfold:

1. It is not merely the fact that there is no opening greeting that speaks against the Pauline authorship. Rather, it is Paul's specific insistence that he will always confirm the authenticity of any letter he writes (see 2 Thess 3:17 and Col 4:18). The lack of any such identification suggests Hebrews was written by somebody else. It is not an argument from silence, as Mr Benfold suggests ("it doesn't say Paul wrote it, so he didn't"), it is an argument from Paul's clear statement he will always identify himself. In this letter, he doesn't.
2. Stylistic difference can occur in letters written by the same person e.g. the letters of John. However, were we to accept that Paul wrote Hebrews, it would appear his style was largely consistent across all his epistles with the pointed exception of Hebrews. Whilst this is by no means conclusive evidence that Paul did not write the letter, suggesting Paul was the author raises more questions than it answers on this point.
3. Heb 2:3 clearly states the gospel was first 'spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him'. The 'us' is a clearly distinct group from 'those who heard Him' (otherwise those who heard him are confirming it to themselves making the distinction pointless). Gal 1:11f makes clear Paul heard the gospel directly from Christ but 2:3 definitively writes the author out of the 'those who heard Him' camp - it doesn't allow room to be in both. If Paul is the author, he cannot be in the 'those who heard Him' bracket even though he clearly places himself there in Gal 1:11f.
4. Mr Benfold suggests Gal 2:5-9 indicates the same thing as Heb 2:3. But Gal 2:5-9 makes clear that Peter, James and John were confirming Paul's apostleship (not the gospel he received) because this was (a) 14 years after Paul's conversion; (b) he had already met with Peter and James before this and (c) had been preaching the gospel long before they recognised his apostleship. Heb 2:3, on the other hand, does refer quite explicitly to receipt of the gospel message. So Gal 2:5-9 and Heb 2:3 deal with confirmation of two different things: Paul's apostleship (Gal 2:5-9) and the Gospel message (Heb 2:3).
5. Mr Benfold argues, in favour of Pauline authorship, the writer is close to Timothy - who Paul elsewhere called his 'son'. Not only does Heb 13:23 do nothing to particularly suggest Paul is writing, that he doesn't use the word 'son' in reference to Timothy (as he does elsewhere) is further reason to reject the Pauline authorship. Unless, of course, Paul is the only person who could possibly have been close to Timothy?
6. Whilst 2 Pet 3:15 states that Paul has written to Peter's readers, Peter does not address his second letter specifically to a Jewish audience (note the greeting in 2 Pet 1:1 compared to his first letter). In fact, there is every reason to believe Peter is writing with a Gentile audience in mind (or a mixed congregation). That 3:15 says Paul wrote to these believers, does nothing to indicate he was the author of Hebrews. All it tells us is Peter is writing to somebody Paul has already written to and could refer to any of Paul's epistles.

However, it is true that the authorship is of some importance. Mr Benfold is absolutely right to ask the question 'if you don't think Paul wrote it - why is it still in your bible?'. I very much agree with his argument against the view that Hebrews is in scripture because "it's obvious". Given that I don't think Paul wrote it, how do we justify its place in scripture?:

1. Acceptance into the canon wasn't strictly based on apostolic authorship. We have several books e.g. Mark, Luke, James, Jude that were not written by apostles yet found their way (rightly) into the canon. The three tests were (a) is it in line with the orthodox teaching?; (b) is it accepted by the worldwide church?; and; (c) did it have any apostolic authority?
2. Hebrews meets the criteria for inclusion into the canon on points (a) and (b). A letter in line with orthodox teaching and accepted across the worldwide church, is strongly indicative (though not a cast iron guarantee) of apostolic authority.
3. More importantly, rejection of Pauline authorship does not mean that Paul did not ever see the letter and give it his seal of approval (thus giving it the weight of apostolic authority). In fact, most of the prime candidates are folk close to Paul so, without writing the letter, Paul could easily have seen it and approved it
4. Rejection of Pauline authorship does not mean that another apostle other than Paul may have given it approval

On this rock I will build my church

As contentious passages of Scripture go, few have been contested as much as Matthew 16:18. Some have sought to argue that the 'rock' refers to Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ. It is argued that Jesus was referring to the confession of all believers that he is the Christ therefore building his church on such confessions. Others have sought to argue that the 'rock' is a reference to Jesus himself (see Isa 28:16 and 1 Pet 2:8). Jesus is referred to in Scripture as a rock and it is argued that Jesus was stating that he would build his church on himself. Whilst both these interpretations are plausible they do not take a natural reading of the passage. A natural understanding of the passage would suggest that Jesus was actually referring to Peter.


If the 'rock' Jesus refers to is Peter himself, and a natural reading of the passage makes this impossible to escape, what are we to say this means for the church Jesus says he will build? The Catholic Church have interpreted these verses as the inception of the the papal office. In reality, the interpretations that see the 'rock' as referring to something other than Peter really came into existence in reaction to the Catholic understanding of these verses. As a way of distancing themselves from this teaching a misinterpretation of the passage was adopted. However, given that these verses clearly refer to Peter, can we establish that they were intended to create the office of Pope?


Where we look elsewhere in Scripture it becomes clear that Peter was in no way given an office above the other apostles. In Acts 15 we see, although Peter is present, the advice of James is followed and not that of Peter. We also note in Galatians 2:11-14 that Paul rebuked Peter openly because he "stood condemned." In rebuking him openly, Paul was showing that he had equal apostolic authority as Peter. Such a situation could not arise if Christ had appointed Peter as Pope as he would have been absolute and infallible (as is the teaching of the Catholic Church). However, we note here Paul rebuking Peter openly and this being correct. We also see Peter in 1 Peter 5:1 refer to himself as "a fellow elder" rather than one appointed to a higher office. We see no part of Scripture suggesting Peter was in a higher office than the other apostles. In fact, we see some verses which show Peter to be rebuked for error and others where he places himself on the same level as other elders in the church. As such, we must conclude that Peter was not instituted into some higher office.


Given this, if Peter is intended to be the 'rock' to which Jesus refers, but he is not being appointed to papal office, what is Peter being singled out for? Peter had shown himself to be firm and suitable for laying the foundations of the church. Does this mean that Peter was somehow raised above the other apostles? Of course not! Instead, Matthew 16:19 tells us exactly how Christ was to use Peter. Jesus states:

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (ESV).

What are the keys to the kingdom of heaven? We know this to be the good news of the gospel. Peter then was to be given the gospel to take to the Jew and the Gentile.


Peter was not given any office or power above and beyond the other apostles. We must note that the second half of this verse is repeated in Matthew 18:18 as an instruction to the rest of the apostles. Given that the other apostles have the same authority as Peter and were clearly instructed to take the gospel to the world how is Peter singled out in any way here? Ultimately, Peter was to be the first to open the door of faith to the world, to both Jew and Gentile alike. We see this happen in Acts 2:14-36 where, on the day of Pentecost, Peter is the first to stand up and address the crowds with the gospel. In this way, Peter is laying the foundations for the church. He was the first to share the gospel with the world and all future work would build upon this.


As such, the 'rock' in Matthew 16:18 is clearly speaking of Peter himself. However, this was not a statement to set Peter apart from the other apostles in a special office or with greater authority. Rather, Peter was being given the honour of being the first to take the gospel to the world. Upon the foundation he was to lay Christ would build his church.