The Most Influential People in American Christianity

Here's a starter list of the Most Influential People in what we might call American Christianity, in the evangelical sense, for lack of a better term.  They're the ones whose thinking has had the most impact on the way we actually live.

Nobody agrees with lists -- please make your own -- but here's mine:

1)  Paul

2)  Martin Luther

3)  Bill Bright/Billy Graham (tie)

4)  John Calvin

5)  Jonathan Edwards

7)  Bill Hybels

8)  James Dobson

9)  Tim LaHaye and That Other Guy

10)  (tie)  Jesus of Nazareth/John Wesley

Comments

[Brody]

What?!! That's an outrage!! I would have had Jesus at #9. How dare you.

[Jason]

Hello,

You left out Pope John Paul II, He had some influence. And more importantly you should add Bob the tomato and Larry the cucumber. Although I'm afraid that might knock off your number 10.

[Seaton]

I think I should be #1. After all, it's what I think that really matters isn't it?

[Brant]

Good point.

If anyone feels led to offer the "you're just criticizing the churches" line of "thought": I'm not.

I work in this. I get a great birds-eye view, I'd say, of where people are. I talk with dozens of people every single day about life and how Christianity relates, on the phone.

Jesus is not quoted often. At all. And if I say something that Jesus said, people react against it, or instantly try to press into a narrative that Jesus didn't intend. And these are churchgoing folk who have Paul memorized.

I also speak to large groups of church people, and share basic teachings of Jesus, and they seem to have rarely or never heard them. They do not have a clue what the "good news" was, according to Jesus Himself. No idea. Stumped. The main theme of Jesus's teaching -- the Kingdom of God? Not familiar with that.

It's not for "lack of solid Biblical teaching". They *know* all kinds of stuff about and in the Bible. Just not what Jesus said and meant.

They take what they do know about Jesus and put it through the lens of the epistles, without understanding the context of the epistles, either. They don't read Paul through the lens of Jesus, they read Paul through the lens of our culture, and fit Jesus in there, somewhere.

Jesus's teaching doesn't fit very well with our theology and way of life, so we go elsewhere.

These are general statements, but in my experience, now having dealt with thousands of people for many years in different places in both church ministry and the media, they are generally very true.

[Seaton]

Couldn't agree more. We make good disciples of Paul (and others), not so much disciples of Jesus. I meant more along the lines of the rugged individualist american mentality.

[Samuel Jones]

Insofar as we believe Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, is it a false dichotomy to separate him as an influence from the person of God in Jesus? This objection is of course theoretical, as you explain the practical split in your comments. Really sadly, that's the only disagreement I can come up with.

The bit about interpreting the Epistles from our own cultural context is dead on. Most American Christians have no idea how American they are.

I think we like Paul because it's easy to intellectualize Paul's teachings, because they're mostly doctrinal and clarifying. Jesus' teachings mostly demand an immediate response: Actual physical or spiritual activity. We don't like that.

[Texas in Africa]

You forgot John Piper.

[kcillini77]

1) Oprah
2) Joel Osteen
3) Joyce Meyer
4) Dave Ramsey
5) Rick Warren
6) T.D. Jakes
7) Benny Hinn
8) Juanita Bynum
9) Bruce Wilkinson
10)(Tie) Every athlete who has thanked God for helping them win on national TV.

[Kristina]

I like your list!
hope you are feeling better, been thinking bout you/ I got off the meds a few years ago.
It's been rocky but good. Kristina

[Bob Sacamento]

First of all, this list is disturbing because so much of it is right on target. I myself would move Paul and Billy Graham way down to the bottom. And another list of "up and comers" like the -- shudder -- TBN crowd would be helpful too, because this list is going to look alot different in five years. But in alot of ways, you've got it right.

Now, I know I miss the point here quite often. Sorry. So maybe I'm responding here to something that wasn't intended. But here goes: If Paul is way up there on the list, it doesn't bother me that much because there just simply isn't any Jesus "behind" Paul that we can reach to, unless we're getting some kind of direct latter-day revelations. Paul met the risen Christ, moved in the same environment that he did, worked with his original disciples. If he got anything wrong, or even just got some emphases different, it's just too late for us to think that we can do any better.

There have been no end of attempts to see Jesus without Paul, Peter, John etc. And these attempts have all ended up with a Jesus who looks exactly like we wanted him to look in the first place -- the proto-Marxist Revolutionary, the Businessman par excellence, the pacifist, the Leader of Men. It just never works in the end.

Yeah alot of people who quote only Paul don't like what Jesus said, and that's bad. But then I could point to alot of well known guys out there these days who quote Jesus all the time and really don't like Paul. (Not directing that at you or your post, Brant.) And I think that error is only slightly less egregious.

[From Brant: In my thousands of interactions, I just haven't really run across those people. I don't see Too Much Jesus as a big threat.

To say "only Jesus" never works...? Without Paul, or James, or John...? Wow.]

[Steve Sensenig]

I think you're kidding yourself by thinking Jesus would even make the top 10 in a list like that. But your follow-up comment clarified it pretty well.

When I was in Bible college, we used to jokingly sing the hymn that normally says, "My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness" with the lyrics "My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield notes and Scripture Press."

[Brant]

Excellent list. I was going to include Oprah, but couldn't squeeze her in.

Sam -- No, it's not a false dichotomy to separate Paul's writings from the person of Jesus. I'm not a follower of Paul. Jesus is the author and perfector of our faith, not anyone else.

We're not called to be disciples of Paul's writings. Or of Luke's, or of Solomon's in Eccesiastes, one could say.

True, many believe we are, and that would explain a lot. I mean, after all, Jesus's words occupy a very small percentage of the Bible -- FAR less than Paul's -- so they must be worthy of that much less study.

But I'm supposed to follow Jesus. I'm not a disciple of the Bible, which is a good thing, as I'm a human, and not a book. I'm also not a letter to a church in first century Ephesus.

But you've put your finger on something, certainly. People really don't make a distinction, which, given the other factors you list (like the nature of Paul's doctrinal emphasis) and the pure amount of Paul's writing, means Paul will be taught more than the Man he saw as the true author and perfector of his faith.

[Zach Nielsen]

You forgot Bono

[ChestertonianRambler]

I'm with Samuel Jones--if God spoke inerrantly through Paul, and the Word of God became flesh in Jesus, then it would seem that both have equal verbal authority.

That is, we can't fully understand Jesus without Paul (else why would God have to inspire Paul), but Paul's only function is to reveal Jesus more fully.

Also at stake: Paul spoke more in categorical imperatives, whereas Jesus, the God-man himself, tended to speak in response to specific situations. And when Jesus did speak in not-responses to current situations (i.e. Sermon on the Mount, &c.) he did so in a way that was self-reflexively obscure.

I have no problem getting my theology for Paul, as long as it points me towards Jesus--since Paul's message was God-inspired.

[ChestertonianRambler]

"From Brant: In my thousands of interactions, I just haven't really run across those people. I don't see Too Much Jesus as a big threat."

Check out "Liberation Theology." It is, as far as I can tell, a direct attempt to put Christ's (not Paul's) social message into the world today, to stand for the oppressed against the oppressors.

It tends to miss the finer points of what Jesus means (i.e. ALL are fallen; God's redemption of individuals from their fallen state; &c.) but it listens attentively to what Jesus said (especially when it confirms the social gospel.) The result has been, in extreme cases, some rather less-than-Christlike revolutions.

I agree that "too much Jesus" is not a bad thing. But I think "the wrong Jesus" is always a bad thing. And "the wrong Jesus" can speak Jesus's words, just as Satan can quote Scriptures.

A Jesus who affirms our lifestyles is a Bad Thing. A Jesus who tells us to mend our lifestyles in order to obtain perfection is closer to Jesus's actual words, but still misses Jesus's meaning.

If God had thought Jesus's words sufficient in themselves for the instruction of every Christian in every aspect of what Jesus was, is, and means, there would have been no need for Paul, or any of the rest of Scriptures.

When I see Jesus's words, I see a standard of perfection I could never reach on my own power. When I see Jesus's death, I see a forgiveness that I could never have dreamed of. When I read Paul's words, I see the working of the "Comforter" who Jesus's words mentioned only vaguely--and the model for a postresurrection Church.

When I think about Revelations, I see Jesus (in the divinely inspired words of John) returning to complete the redemption of the world. I see perhaps the culmination of Jesus's work in the final battle--when all the Church Millitant is there, but the victory (and violent work) is Christ's alone.

In all of this, I see Jesus--but the words that are red in my Bible is only a small part of this.

And I'm convinced that I've got a lot of this wrong--but I rely on grace, not works, and so add Luther into the mix but it's really what I see in Paul.

[From Brant: Liberation theology is running amok in American evangelicalism?

We can't know the "right Jesus" without Paul...?

I humbly disagree. Good news: God is alive. He is not a book. He is not a letter to a church in Asia Minor. Children can understand Jesus without leading a leftist revolution in Haiti.

The illiterate can know Jesus without reading II Thessalonians. The poor, people without copies of the Bible (good news for Paul, who didn't even have the Gospels) -- all sorts of people can know Jesus, the "right Jesus", without Paul's writings, or James, or Peter's, or Obadiah's.

This is because Jesus is actually alive, right now, and His Holy Spirit can and does lead us into truth, and it is not dependent on a book to do it, or a thorough-going knowledge of Pauline theology.

Paul's writings are not equivalent to Jesus.]

[Brant]

Where did we get the idea that we can't fully understand Jesus without Paul? Honestly? Is that in the Bible?

What about Luke? James? Matthew? Daniel? Malachi? Ecclesiastes?

Can the Holy Spirit figure in here? Can we even allow children can "fully understand" -- as if even Paul himself "fully understood" Jesus -- without understanding Thessalonians, or Obadiah, for that matter?

I respectfully disagree with this view, but I do encounter it daily, and it makes my point, beautifully. Jesus is made a mere part of the larger revelation. That's why Jesus is less influential than Paul. Perhaps "Christianity" should take a new name.

For purposes of our discipleship of Jesus, Paul's letters = Jesus? We can't -- no one can -- know Jesus without Peter, too? Seriously?

Is this even in the Bible somewhere? Or just in the air we breathe? Shoot, Paul didn't have the Bible. Could he know Jesus? Yes, he encountered Jesus, but can we not have encounters with a living Jesus? Can children know the real Jesus without understanding Romans?

I still don't understand Romans. Maybe this is why I'm so messed.

Is God a book? Or, as we would have it here, pretty much equivalent to a book, since we canonized it?

God is ALIVE folks. He wants to KNOW you. A book cannot KNOW you. You are called to a living relationship with JESUS. HE should be the lens through which Paul is viewed, the Bible is viewed, everything is viewed. Not II Corinthians, but Jesus.

I do remember Jesus telling off teachers of the law, religious experts, for stopping people from knowing him, while they act so learned, and heaped burdens on the backs of others. Let's face it: Many Christians are scandalized when Jesus is understood without their education.

We can't stand simple things.

[ChestertonianRambler]

If you don't publish my last (and long) comment, that's fine.

Here's the summary: Jesus is more than the words that he spoke between his incarnation and his return to Heaven.

He is even more than the actions he did between those times. (Though his "action" of cross-death-heaven kinda hints strongly at the rest.)

Jesus is God, and he is Man, and he is the Way Man can be holy, like God.

God gave us some words other than Jesus's, and sometimes they make Jesus and his words make more sense.

If our theology is not focused on Jesus, it is wrong. If our life is not focused on Jesus, it is wrong.

But if our thinking and our life is not focused, at one particular moment in time, on the specific words spoken by Jesus during his first incarnational visit to Earth, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it might be, and we do need (also, at times) to be reminded of His words, because they are in the metaphorical center of the Bible for a purpose.

[Bob Sacamento]

"To say 'only Jesus' never works...? Without Paul, or James, or John...? Wow."

Hmmm, maybe I didn't miss the point all that much after all. Let me put it another way. Do you think we need the epistles? If yes, then, though I might not be expressing myself in the clearest manner possible, I think you and I must be in substantial agreement here.

Or do you think we don't need the epistles? In that case ... how do I put this? .... "Wow."

[Seaton]

Brant, you'd better be careful. Kingdom thinking gets you killed.

[David]

thanks for nailing this to the door. This is one of the biggest problems with having the Bible.. it's a really easily misused story.

Here's how I see Paul. he was a spokesman. for the church and her interaction with the holy spirit and direction of Jesus. i really believe that very little of what Paul said actually came from Paul's head. not exactly in a God-inspired/innerant sense, but in a church-body/holy-spirit 'working out our faith in fear and trembling' inspired sense. He was relaying info that was being worked out by folks in communities all over the roman world. He was road testing ideas springing up from folks who were inspired by Christ and God's story.

I think viewing Paul's contribution in this way helps to bring him back down to earth. A massively important leader to all, but in many ways simply an early-church networker.

[Samuel Jones]

God gave us what he thought we needed in the Bible. None of us will fully understand Jesus this side of heaven, but God gives us the grace to have understandings adequate to our situations if we honestly seek Him. (Paul's way too abstract for a lot of people. . . like The Apostle Peter [2 Peter 3:16]) That's not really the point here though, is it? I think this list is scary dead on, and I think Brant's first longer comment (#4 from the top) explained well how we effectively split Jesus and Paul.

We really lost something, I think, as the church became a big clunky institution with hired orators to do 'the work' and forgot how to BE as members of the body, Disciples of Christ, and disciple makers of disciple makers. Praise God for his Grace, and may he teach us anew!

[ChestertonianRambler]

Minor Point: I am not, generally speaking, living in the center of American Evangelicalism. Perhaps I'm reacting in the wrong way because of that. For me, much of American Evangelicalism is what the Shire was to Gandalf--a spot of sanity in a world rushing to twenty places of madness. Also (and more importantly), Evangelicalism showed me Jesus.

I see a lot of Jesuses. Maybe I'm wrong to sift through the words God gave us in order to decide which one is real. Maybe I should only sift through the words Jesus spoke. Or maybe I should only talk to the "alive" Jesus who is, somehow, somewhere in my heart (even though Jesus said that's the "Helper," I think.) Maybe I'll never mistake him with Satan (who Jesus talked about and too, so I can also mention him. Phew.)

But what happens if I do? What happens if Satan tells me, in the middle of the night, "you don't have what it takes to be saved. Never will." For me, that's the time for doctrines of Grace, not for re-evaluating (from my perspective mired in midnight darkness) every word spoken by Jesus when he was alive.

Final shot: Jesus is a PERSON, not a lens. He's ALIVE, but sometimes he's harder to find or know than one could ever imagine. But his Father (who is, kinda sorta, Him Himself) left us a bunch of words, to help us know the person.

Even if we call them "lenses," because those words change our perspective so that we can see Jesus for ourselves.

Oh, and Jesus may have criticized "readers of the law," but a lot of Jesus's words are simply quotations (and complex reworkings) of the Law itself. Jesus himself first impressed people by his ability to read.

Theology is important, folks. Not because we should worship it, not because it can know you, not even because it gets everything right. It is important because it can, maybe, help you to know Christ.

And then maybe Christ can do what Christ does--that is, to change lives, and bring the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth.

[Keith Giles]

I couldn't agree more with this.

It has been astounding to me to discover how little we "Christians" know about our own founder, and God (in the flesh).

Imagine being a Muslim who doesn't know much about the teachings of Muhammed? Or a Jew who isn't so sharp about that Moses dude?

We've made being a "Christian" more about knowing the right information and less about what Jesus said it was about - Following Him.

I'd love to have you come and share at our next Non-Con (Non-Conference) in March of next year, if you're available.

Love to just chat a while on stuff like this too. It's great to bump into someone who thinks like I do...at least it suggests that I'm not crazy.

My email is
"elysiansky" at (hotmail) dot (com)

-Peace,
Keith
http://www.keithgiles.com

[Scott]

"God gave us what he thought we needed in the Bible."

Only what he thought we needed or did he give us what we actually needed?

Love the post Brant!

[Bekah]

I had much the same revelation on my journey to Rome several years ago. Being brought up in Evangelical Christianity, with missionary grandparents, private Christian schooling, including Liberty University, I think gave me a pretty strong idea of what was important in American Evangelical Christianity. Paul is definitely the strongest Biblical influence in this particular strain of Christianity.

However, to place Paul and Jesus in a dichotomy in opposition to the "too strong" emphasis on Paul we've witnessed in the Evangelical Church is also going overboard in the other direction. Jesus should not be isolated. We cannot truly know Him, unless we know his relationships, too: who He is within the Trinity, to and with His chosen Apostles, with His mother, with the sinners, and the poor, why He has chosen men to carry on His mission, inspired to write books, etc.

If Paul is our first interaction with Christ, we have failed if we don't allow him to lead us TO Christ. Or any other avenue. All we know about Christ should not come from one...book, apostle, disciple, whatever. God surrounds Himself with witnesses and develops a unique relationship with each of us, so that together we magnify His Glory.