Thursday, July 21, 2016

The Problem with the Jesus Movement

I have been asked to write an encyclopedia article on "Jesus Movement, the." When asked, I realized that I don't often use the phrase myself. But it is a common enough designation in biblical / Second Temple studies that it warrants some definition. So I agreed and began to solicit help from a sociologist friend.

It seems to me that scholars use this phrase to indicate the group that coalesced around the personality, teachings, and legends of Jesus before the group can be properly called "Christianity." It also occurs to me that using sociological language for this group allows us to avoid talk of messianism, experiences of divine intervention, and other god-talk and thus avoid the appearance of religion. I.e. social-scientific language sanitizes Jesus for secular consumption. Or maybe it's just that biblical studies (alongside the rest of the humanities) has been trying to appear more like the "hard sciences" in the era of modernity. Whatever the case, somewhere along the way we adopted this particular sociological category: "movement."

But it must be asked: was the Jesus movement a "movement"?

In my research, "social movements" are variously defined by sociologists. But, in general terms, successful movements tend to have a few discernible features:
1. A deeply felt social problem. This must be a specifically named experience of shared suffering or social discontentment. I.e. there must be an impetus for a social antidote around which the social movement rallies.
2. A charismatic personality. This is "charisma" in Weber's sense. I.e. we're not talking about a gregarious fellow necessarily. We not talking about gifts of the spirit necessarily. Rather, this personality is seen as exceptional in some way. He or she may be a gifted orator or may perform amazing actions that inspire social change. This person usually communicates a direction for the group and accesses resources that mobilize them. This person tends to be an authoritarian, acting unilaterally and forcefully commanding his/her following. This person attempts to revolutionize or reform a particular status quo.
3. A shared ideology: The group must be motivated by a sense of shared moral judgements, intentions, and symbols by which they orient their lives.
4. Organization: The leader(s) must be able to marshal economic, political, cultural, and/or military resources to make the movement move. 
By this short gloss of a framework, was the Jesus movement a social movement? I think not. But I am willing to be convinced otherwise. Do please chime in to help me.

There is no doubt that Jesus' following identified social problems. But does any single social problem explain the emergence of the collective identity? I suppose anti-Rome folks will point to Roman colonization and domination as the key. After all, "kingdom (or rule) of God" probably stands in opposition to Roman rule. But does this motivation explain why Jesus' following, teachings, charismatic actions, etc. took the specific shape that they took? Probably not.

The second stage (and it should be said that stages 2, 3, and 4 happen almost simultaneously most of the time) is the only stage that works for Jesus and his followers. Jesus was an exorcist and a healer. This might have been enough to draw crowds. He (or so it seems) was a skill orator. But then we run into number three....

The third stage is another dilemma. What was the shared ideology of Jesus' so-called "movement"? Eschatology? The belief that Israel's God would return as Judge? Care for the poor? Okay, fine. But how does this differ from many (most?) groups within the Second Temple period? Moreover, Jesus' stories and puzzling sayings often confuse rather than clarify. We must wonder whether a specific ideology was being promoted. After all, early Christianity seems to branch out in several directions.

The fourth stage is also a dilemma. Jesus seems much more like an unpredictable holy man who runs from crowds and much less like an authoritarian who organizes them into a force.

In order to call Jesus' following a "movement" we have to force Jesus into a sociological model that doesn't work. I am much more inclined to think of Jesus as a charismatic personality who ends up alienating most of his followers. It could be that early Christianity rallies around the problem of the Cross and thus launches a "social movement." But this doesn't explain how/why Jesus' initial following came together.

In short, the most important dilemma here is identifying the "social problem" (i.e. stage one). What is the specifically named experience of shared suffering or social discontentment? Sickness? Demons? Rome? Agrarian economic disparity? Differences of opinion on purity issues?

19 comments:

  1. "The fourth stage is also a dilemma. Jesus seems much more like an unpredictable holy man who runs from crowds and much less like an authoritarian who organizes them into a force."

    This seems like a false dilemma to me. An unpredictable, introverted, or disorganized leader could still be quite effective if he or she has organized, detail-oriented subordinates handling the day-to-day operations.

    Matt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Point taken. What I should have said is that Jesus and his followers don't seem organized, much less interested in marshalling a singular effort.

      But maybe Peter is the real mastermind behind this operation.

      Delete
  2. Great piece. Tough questions...

    If you haven't already consulted his work, chapter 4 of Freyne's "The Jesus Movement and Its Expansion" would serve as an excellent conversation piece regarding stage 1, since he discusses how a dissatisfaction with the status quo (with respect to Roman Imperial rule, the current Temple/priestly system in Jerusalem, etc), is linked to Jesus' ministry in Galilee (he uses the expression a "geography of restoration"). This may speak to your question on how a deeply felt social problem could influence or result in the flavor that Jesus' following, teaching, and healing ministry took.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Freyne has been my go-to book on this topic (among others). As you might guess, I find his argument unconvincing. Still a great book. I will also note that most who place weight on the "movement" terminology are keenly interested in economics.

      Delete
  3. Gene Stecher
    Chambersburg, Pa.

    Anthony, regarding characteristic #3, "This person tends to be an authoritarian, acting unilaterally and forcefully commanding his/her following."

    When contemplating the possibility of a Jesus movement, perhaps it would be useful to distinguish between 'authoritarian' and 'authoritative.' In social/psychological studies, authoritarian tends to get a bad name. These two words are particularly associated with parenting studies:

    https://my.vanderbilt.edu/developmentalpsychologyblog/2013/12/types-of-parenting-styles-and-how-to-identify-yours/

    "Authoritarian parenting, also called strict parenting, is characterized by parents who are demanding but not responsive. Authoritarian parents allow for little open dialogue between parent and child and expect children to follow a strict set of rules and expectations. They usually rely on punishment to demand obedience or teach a lesson."

    "Authoritative parenting is widely regarded as the most effective and beneficial parenting style for normal children. Authoritative parents are easy to recognize, as they are marked by the high expectations that they have of their children, but temper these expectations with understanding a support for their children as well. This type of parenting creates the healthiest environment for a growing child, and helps to foster a productive relationship between parent and child."

    Can we classify the charismatic personality as a parent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did indeed mean "authoritarian", Gene. And yes, that is usually a bad thing.... although Trump supporters tend to think otherwise.

      Delete
  4. I think that the term "The Jesus Movement" runs into the same kinds of problems as the term "early Christianity". Because of the problems with communication over distance by people who were not exactly flavour of the month with either the Romans or the Jews, we need rather to talk about Jesus *Movements* and early *Christianities* because the way that people followed Jesus' teachings depended on where they lived and through which of the evangelists they had heard the gospel. And I think, re your comment about not appearing to be organised - that depends on what time you're talking about. I don't think that there is much appearance of organisation in the gospels, but more in Paul's writings and in Acts. I think that if you look at religious beliefs as the cultural aspect around which the groups coalesced (Judaism has a very strong cultural aspect as well as its particular religious beliefs) and Peter and Paul as charismatic leaders gathering people around the teachings of Jesus, then you begin to find a better fit between your definition of a movement or movements and the phenomenon that was first and second century Jesus-following.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that we have a better chance of finding a "movement" in post-Cross Xty.

      -anthony

      Delete
  5. I agree Anthony, the sociological nomenclature of movements doesn't fit well with the data we have.
    However, this is where I think Gary Alan Fine's work on reptuational sub-cultures works well as a pre-Cross and pre-AD70ish model. Especially as it allows for diversity in the subculture/idioculture. Perhaps the Bible in Ancient and Modern Media will consider this further?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris, will you say more about reptuational sub-cultures? I know Fine's name but not his work.
      -anthony

      Delete
    2. Sure happy to, I think GAF summarises his approach to reputational subcultures/idiocultures well in his 2014 SBL paper when he says: "In this chapter we present a model of understanding reputations by examining the interactional settings in which they are established and perpetuated, taking as our case early Christianity and focusing on the role of small groups as the crucible for the creation of reputations. These tiny publics build an idioculture (Fine 1979) that provides a basis of belief among participants. Through the recognition of an interaction order (Goffman 1983), reputational entrepreneurs push for their chosen beliefs about figures who come to stand for more than themselves as individuals, but are proposed as moral exemplars and guides for action."

      Fine's work looks at the formation (often emergent) of idiocultural groups around 'reputational leaders.' This form of emergent formation I think helps us to describe the formally pre-instantiation phase of social group formation, and fits well with minimal group theory and social identity. I think that this type of idioculture formation around the reputation of an individual (and the reputational entrepreneurs who are involved in the promulgation of said reputation) help us to describe the formative stages of early Christianity, or the 'Jesus pre-movement' as you are describing. In the ANE we can find similar parallels in both Jewish and G-R spheres, from CD and QS to the burgeoning Imperial cult (effectively spread on the reputation of the emperor).

      Undoubtedly there is much more to do here, and from my perspective integrating it with a more robust inter-group interactive model will strengthen the case. But I think it helps with what came before the 'Jesus movement' if you can describe it as such.

      Delete
  6. Is there a difference between a social movement and a religious movement?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Prompted by a couple FB discussions on this post, I ought to clarify:

    The question here is whether or not biblical scholars *think* that they are using sociological language or not. If so, it would behoove us to know what sociologists mean by their terminology.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Good questions, Anthony, esp. in regard to a formal essay such as your dictionary article. Then there are those of us who use the phrase in a non-technical sense in informal contexts, because it is pedagogically very useful. Even so, always nice to have someone remind us of the theoretical issues lurking behind such a term.
    Mike Holmes

    ReplyDelete
  9. Gene Stecher
    Chambersburg, Pa.

    Anthony, you raise the issue of a shared ideology of social transformation. I'm thinking of the non-violent Father, the deity that loves His enemies. I don't think that is a common denominator with any of the "movements" in the time of Jesus. You write that "the most important dilemma here is identifying the 'social problem.'" I suggest that the social transformational need was humanity's reliance on violence to problem-solve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gene, while I agree that Jesus and many of his followers were nonviolent (I would not use the word pacifist, BTW), I do not think that Jesus or most his followers believed in a nonviolent deity. E.g. Luke 19:27.

      Also there are Jewish groups circa Jesus' time that employ nonviolent protests to enact change (specifically regarding the Temple). So I don't think that we're able to find much negative relief on this count as we compare Jesus' following to other sorts of groups within the Second Temple period.

      -anthony

      Delete
    2. Gene Stecher
      Chambersburg, Pa.

      Hi Anthony, the following observations seem to be consistent with Jesus as the bearer of “the Father who loves his enemies” message:

      (1) If we’re going to use the parables analogously for the character of God, could one not just as easily point away from the bloodthirsty king, which seems to have no connection with the character of Jesus, to the prodigal’s open-armed father or the road victim’s Samaritan rescuer.

      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreeed/2013/07/08/the-early-church-and-military-service/
      Although there is some evidence of Christians in military service, this blog suggests that no church thinker (e.g. Tertullian, Lactantius, Origen) for the first 300 years of Christianity advocated military service or supported the justification of killing in any circumstance. Cited is Preston Sprinkle’s Fight: A Christian Case for Non-Violence (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2013).

      The practices suggested in this information are certainly suggestive of continuing the main thrust of a leader’s teaching and character.

      (2) http://www.beki.org/dvartorah/nonviolent-resistance-of-the-jews-to-roman-occupation-in-israel-26-41-c-e/
      “This article presents and discusses incidents as related by Josephus, Philo, and Tacitus which seem to be described by at least one of these sources in each case as nonviolent resistance on the part of the Jews to their Roman occupiers, and examines the plausibility of their historicity.” Interestingly, the names of Pilate and Caligula are prominent as well protests against temple defilement. The willingness to suffer death by non-violent protest (e.g., opening the neck to the Roman blade) appears to be grounded in the awareness of absolute vulnerability before the military might of the Romans.

      I’m not sure one can rule out the possible character of a group, i.e., belief in a Father God whose non-violence is rooted in love of enemy, just because other groups practiced non-violence for their own reasons. After all, there is reason to believe that the Baptist, Jesus, and the Qumran sect all opposed the temple sacrificial system, each in his own way, but they still had in common the opposition.

      (3) We also have the dynamic of Jesus’ teaching of love of enemy. Is it possible, really, to advocate sacrificially for love of enemy and not think that one is expressing the true heart of reality. What is possibly occurring in the life of Jesus is a redefinition of YHWH, no wonder he generated an enemy reaction.

      (4) An outlier observation, of a psychological nature, is that part of the Jesus dynamic may have been his own search for a loving father.

      Delete
  10. From Dr. G

    If Jesus really was an intensely patriotic Jewish zionist though, then the Movement label would fit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Anthony,

    I have the similar concerns about calling whatever Jesus was up to, a "movement." I hope my noodlings might help you out, although, I suspect you know all this stuff already!

    How large does an individual's/leader's group of followers have to be for whatever the leader is up to be considered a "movement"? And, does the word "follower" mean the same as "insider," "in-group member," or one of "the twelve"? All these are tough questions, and I'm with you on the fuzzy-ness of the word "movement." I addressed the kind of group Jesus is remembered pulling together in my book - firmly following Malina on identifying Jesus' group as a kind of coalition called a "faction" - here's a little bit of it:

    "A coalition is a group gathered for a limited period of time for specific purposes, loosely connected, informal, and voluntary. Membership in a coalition did not override more permanent loyalties such as those to kin-groups. However, a particular kind of coalition called a faction was a group formed around a central, charismatic individual who recruited followers for a specific purpose over a given amount of time. Members of a faction exercised exclusive loyalty to, and shared the vision and goal of the one who called the group into existence. Jesus and his close followers together, formed such a faction. Rivalry between factions was expected along with the competition for limited resources such as honor and truth.

    Groups that were not rooted in kinship or lineage, materialized in the ancient Mediterranean because of a charismatic individual’s recognition of a need for some kind of change, and the impression that conditions for such change were possible. According to the gospels, Jesus’ ministry/movement followed that of John the Baptist, and was one with a rather clear goal, that is, to proclaim the coming kingdom of God and to evince this primarily by means of healing (cf. Matt 10:1–11; Luke 9:1–5; Mark 6:7–13)." [Gossiping Jesus, (Pickwick, 2013, 39-40]

    The key elements of what Jesus was up to from this perspective are the charismatic leader's vision or goal, and the understood short duration of the group's existence - that's a "faction." By contrast, I think "movement" implies something more enduring, and eventually more wide-spread than a "faction," so, I imagine the "Jesus movement" as being ignited by experiences of the raised Jesus - however rooted it may or may not have been in the re-membered words and deeds of Jesus and his primary in-group, or "faction."

    None of this is my concoction. Maybe these can help out: "Early Christian Groups" in Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Malina & Rohrbaugh (Fortress, 2003), 342-43, and "Social-Scientific Methods in Historical Jesus Research" in The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels, Ed. Stegemann, Malina, and Theissen (Fortress, 2002), 3-26.

    Pax!


    ReplyDelete