Atheism is therapeutic

The church in the West is raising functional atheists (those who confess with their mouths but live as if there is no God) because they have capitulated to late capitalism. Thus, we're impotent to engage the material world in meaningful ways. So what is the church ministry about if we're raising functional atheists? "Therapeutic, consumer deism." Ministry tends to imbibe (especially liberal Christianity) therapy, consolation (to the point that suffering from illness or grief is picking up and carrying one's cross), and maybe even passion for "issues" with no depth of engaging those issues. We love the idea of love, but do not actually love. We think that reading a book in a class means having done what the book talks about (whether contemplative prayer, social justice, or living simply). Thus, our essential action is apathy produced by consumerism that pacifies us and aids in the essential goal of self-actualization: the realization that the individual is all that matters. Atheism declares there is no god. So does the church if the church will not begin to live alternatively in dominant story of late capitalism.

"Knowing God" - the Problem of Humanity

Well in answering one of my good friend's questions to my post below on Brian McLaren's book and doctrine I basically wrote a long enough answer to put it up as a new post. So here's the context. In the review I wrote:

Bonhoeffer wrote, “it is only when one knows the unutterability of the name of God that one can utter the name of Jesus Christ” Thus what we DO know about God is that ultimately God is unknowable. So doctrine is not an end in itself, thus aNKoC is not an end in itself.

Seth has some other good questions which you can read in the post below, but here's the heart of what he's saying:

But I don't get from that quote (and again I don't know the whole context behind the quote from Bonhoeffer) is that God is unknowable. Jesus seems to say the exact opposite. He identifies himself with the Father, and says several times that if you know me, you know the Father; if you see me, you have seen the Father, etc. It seems that God is knowable, but ultimately he is known through the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Here's my response:
Well, I want to be careful because there's this strange dialectic I'm trying to walk here (creating a both/and or neither/nor category). In some ways I want to say what you are saying about Jesus, but in a more or differently nuanced way.

First, in regards to JC's words about knowing the Father. Thomas asks Jesus to show them the Father and the way to get where JC is going. I think we can agree that this passage isn't about doctrine (as if Thomas is saying, so is God eternal or everlasting?), knowing God categorically, conceptually, or perceptually. Instead, what Jesus is talking about is "the Way," the life and person that best reflects God on earth (himself). These verses in Jn 14 seem to point more toward relationships, allegiances, and ways of life (or mission) more than doctrinal statements about God.

There are many different ways of "knowing" in the Bible, but I think of the most metaphorical, physical way..."knowing" as sex. This knowing is about something deeper and more personal then concepts. It seems that "knowing" in the Scripture is almost always a deeply human, physical, and relational term as opposed to abstract, categorical.

Second, and ultimately I believe the greater truth is that God is unknowable. What I mean (not sure about Bonhof) is that we cannot use scientific reasoning and the 5 senses to create concepts that tell us "what" God is, God is neither provable or disprovable. We cannot point to God and say, "see God suffers or no God is immutable."

Language about God is tricky, but I don't think our words or categories ever fully satisfy the reality of what God is in his being. It's very important to say, or maybe admit (since there have been many abuses) that what we can know about God is that God is unknowable, un"what"able. But while our language, concepts, and perceptions of God always fall short of his Being that doesn't mean they aren't important. While we cannot say "what" God is, we can say "that" God is...that God is loving, good, infinite, simple, just, faithful, unified, etc. Now do these words describe God metaphysically, ontologically? No, but they do give us categories to understand how God can be the way he is, and relate the way he does (and possibly just as important it helps us understand how we should relate to God and each other).

Since we cannot claim what God is, but only what God is not (Bonhof's Christology) we can speak doctrines without fear of logical incoherence...like the idea that Christ is fully God and fully human (real logical right?). And that bring us back to Bonhoeffer, where he is saying that this way of talking about God (the "that," not "what") allows us to speak logically and coherently about the existence of God while being able to make statements about the incarnation.

I agree that we do know God through Christ, but I cannot say that doctrinally speaking I better understand God's being because of Jesus. Actually, because of Jesus I am a little more confused about God's existence. Did God die on the cross? Does he suffer? 3 and 1, 3 in 1, 3 = 1?

God is knowable, as in we can relate to and be in relationship to God. God is unknowable as in, I cannot point to and make conceptual statements that exactly describe the reality of God's being. Jesus leads us to what is really important, a life giving relationship with God; but after that we are stuck in our limited human categories to think about ways of describing conceptually and perceptually this reality. And that is theology in a nutshell, the aftermath of being swoon by God.

A New Kind of Christianity: Too far, not far enough...or is that even the point? a book review

Stones have been cast. “Too far!” “Not far enough!” Love him or hate him, Brian McLaren shows in his newest book that he is willing to be a prophetic pastor, a figure representative of a conversation and movement (which means people are way too harsh and unloving to him). Book reviews are floating all over the internet dealing explicitly and directly with A New Kind of Christianity’s (aNKoC) content. For years as most know, McLaren has been in the messiest and necessary business of asking hard questions of the church, Christianity, and cultural changes. But aNKoC deals with creating and coming to answers to ten of the most important questions being asked within and of Christianity worldwide according to McLaren:

• The Narrative Question: What Is the Overarching Storyline of the Bible?
• The Authority Question: How Should the Bible Be Understood?
• The God Question: Is God Violent?
• The Jesus Question: Who is Jesus and Why is He Important?
• The Gospel Question: What Is the Gospel?
• The Church Question: What Do We Do About the Church?
• The Sex Question: Can We Find a Way to Address Sexuality Without Fighting About It?
• The Future Question: Can We Find a Better Way of View the Future?
• The Pluralism Question: How Should Followers of Jesus Relate to People of Other Religions?
• The What Do We Do Now Question: How Can We Translate Our Quest into Action?

You can read the book or the reviews to find out the “what” that Brian is trying to say, but aNKoC’s true importance lies not in what Brian is saying but what he is doing with aNKoC. The real point of this book is to (1) recognize the real need to find language that is contextual yet faithful to Scripture & our deeper Christian tradition and (2) to guide actions into the kingdom/ethics/mission.

So what is Brian doing in aNKoC? He is giving Christians permission to reformulate doctrines in light of recent scholarship, conversations, cultural changes and most importantly mission. This book is both emergent and doctrinally focused (insert gasps here). And now more then ever with the growth of world Christianity and emerging, late capitalistic culture the church must learn to talk about doctrine in a healthy and humble way.

Bonhoeffer wrote, “it is only when one knows the unutterability of the name of God that one can utter the name of Jesus Christ” Thus what we DO know about God is that ultimately God is unknowable. So doctrine is not an end in itself, thus aNKoC is not an end in itself.

But the reaction and conversation on the blogosphere revolving around this emergent book of somewhat systematized theology of doctrines is symptomatic of the state of the church. First, these reactions reveal that doctrine is very important (it has fallen on hard times with all this pomo talk). In WWII, the Barmen declaration which deeply affirmed Trinitarian and Christological doctrines were used to attack the Nazi funded state church. Embedded in Walter Rauschenbusch’s theology are manifest destiny and nationalism. More recently, John Stackhouse has (wrongly) affirmed that God is in globalization. Doctrines are necessary for they reveal our convictions and ethics.

Second, doctrine is very important but we don’t know why. Liberals focus on the experiential kernel of doctrine, that we form beliefs off of hidden individual experiences. Conservatives focus on propositional, abstract truths that correlate to our doctrines, thus they believe what we say equals what is real. Both are wrong.

Doctrine is not an end in itself, but always exists to serve the mission of God. As Robert Louis Wilken writes, “Doctrines or theoretical concepts are never ends in themselves but always at service of a deeper immersion in the res, the thing itself, the mystery of Christ and of the practice of the Christian life.”

This week while at ChurchWorks (or does it? as Bass reflected), Diana Butler Bass spoke to a group of Cooperative Baptists and said “Historians know that people only argue about something when it’s going away,” in reference to the national debate around the identity of the USA as a Christian nation. We argue about being a “Christian nation” exactly because we are no longer a Christian nation (as if we ever were…thanks Rauschenbusch). In this same way, we argue about doctrine because as McLaren writes, “the bad news: the Christian faith in all its forms is in trouble. The good news: the Christian faith in all its forms is pregnant with new possibilities (aNKoC, xi). “

The “doctrine police” would do well to hear Martin Kähler, “Mission is the mother of theology.” Why did Peter find transformation and new doctrine at Cornelius’ house? Mission. Why did Nicaea, Gregory, and the early church struggle with Christology and the Trinity? Mission. Why is the church in the Western context finding new doctrine? Mission. Why is world Christianity growing and creating new doctrine? Mission. Why is Brian McLaren writing a book called A New Kind of Christianity? Mission.

Mission serves the kingdom of God that Jesus was crucified for proclaiming and doctrine serves mission and the one who was crucified by pointing toward the significance of Jesus’ life, not the life itself. It is the Scripture and Holy Spirit’s work in community to reveal the life of Christ and doctrine’s work to witness to that significance.

Our cultural context is one of great upheaval and change for several reasons. Not least of these are the effects of globalized late consumer capitalism creating a homogenous experience of liberal individuals who simply do not experience the world the same way people did 100, 50, or even 10 years ago did. In this globalized world the church, especially in the West, must be faithful to God’s mission by allowing the gospel to sprout new life, language, and doctrine in its new setting. The church exists not for itself (just like doctrine), but must exist for the other, for mission encapsulated by hope, justice, and love.

Language is a tricky thing, but best understand by its performative intent. Does this statement mean you are grieving, want me to do something, rejoicing, sarcasm, asking for help, etc? In understanding what you mean by your words’ performative function, I can truly grasp what you are saying, what you mean.

Doctrine’s performative action is witness. It exists to point to God, the unknowable.

While I do not agree with many of Brian’s methods or assumptions behind the doctrine’s formulated in aNKoC like the recasting of church history as negative (Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, the Pope, etc) or his simplistic “bad guy:” the “Greco-Roman” reading of the Bible; I do find great hope in aNKoC. Let us remember that Brian IS NOT seminary trained. Brian is a Jesus follower with a heart for God’s mission and in wrestling with this mission he is forming doctrines in service of the church…not vice versa. The world will not be saved by the few elite, seminary trained professionals for God’s mission is too vast, wide, and deep to be limited to experts.

In the West, atheism is growing in interest, pluralism and “therapeutic, consumer deism” is on the rise. The church in the West is in decline. Doctrines serve mission and right now that mission is failing because we are not believing rightly.

As Catholic Baptist theologian Barry Harvey of Baylor says, “doctrines order our transactions.” People are turning away from the church because our actions and transaction are not rightly ordered. We need new doctrines birthed out of the deep and rich traditions of Christianity. We are wealthy with theological reflection, but we must mine the wells and give to those who are willing to give their life to God’s mission the freedom and space to create new doctrines, just as Peter did, just as Paul did, and as Brian is doing (hey, it’s a biblical idea).

In so doing the church will find the “crucial difference…between telling us a story differently and telling a different story.” (Nicholas Lash).

I highly praise Brian as a brother in Christ willing to be a scapegoat for many and a refreshing voice for others. A New Kind of Christianity only deepens my belief and hope for giving people the space to discover new language and ways of putting together our story of God’s great redemption of the world in Jesus Christ. Brian is a mentor and friend to those who are tired of the conversation and Christianity as only thoughts/ideals/belief, old doing things the way they’ve always been done (badly and often without civility), and ready to give their life to a Kingdom come, but not yet. aNKoC is not the last word or the word after that, but gives permission to live into Christ and rethink that which is trying to be born. So quit throwing stones and go do it, be it, live it, and order yourself and God’s people back into love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control so that God may be in all and known by all.

He doesn't like it...

So, I'm almost done with Brian McLaren's newest book and will have my thoughts on it up soon. But I thought I'd post this guy's review, because it is very different from what mine will be. I mean, I do not agree with McLaren 100% and think "A New Kind of Christianity" leads to a dangerous place at times, but I'm generally sympathetic to the project. Also, I like a lot of what he says thus far. So, before I get my thoughts up here's a tidbit from someone who wouldn't agree with my take on McLaren:

Finally – and most importantly – this is not a minor tweak of Christianity. It is a repudiation of the church’s understanding of God and the gospel. It really is tearing up the contract and starting all over again. McLaren says we’ve got the whole Biblical storyline, as well as our ideas of God and Scripture, all wrong. He’d rather be an atheist, he says, than believe in the God that many of us think is found in the Bible. You don’t get any more basic. We are talking about two fundamentally different versions of Christianity and the gospel.

and you can read the rest here.

I should like to make a remark to him...

Soren Kierkegaard

One sticks one's finger into the soil to tell by the smell in what land one is: I stick my finger in existence---it smells of nothing.

Where am I?
Who am I?
How came I here?
What is this thing called the world?
What does this world mean?
Who is it that has lured me into the world?
Why was I not consulted, why not made acquainted with its manners and customs instead of throwing me into the ranks, as if I had been bought by a kidnapper, a dealer in souls?
How did I obtain an interest in this big enterprise they call reality?
Why should I have an interest in it?
Is it not a voluntary concern?
And if I am to be compelled to take part in it, where is the director?
I should like to make a remark to him.

via.

Some Banksy Animations

Pete Rollins posted these over at this blog, and I found his reflection true. The true power and beauty of Banksy, a Christian anarchist, is his anti-celebrity, his anonymity, and his powerful artwork...which is more powerful because of the first two things. To quote Rollins:

In a world where, to quote Kierkegaard, leadership so often reflects the tyrant (the one who leads from their ego) it is rare to find leaders who are martyrs (who have laid down their ego and are driven by something greater).

Pass this on!

Torturing Reality

Since switching over to Netflix from Blockbuster I've only received one movie through the mail, a movie every American should watch: Taxi to the Dark Side. My first reactions were the feeling of being crushed, angered, and a desire to change change the status quo for politics. Often I get so frustrated with my fellow compatriots and myself for our short memory. With a new president to distract us, all the talk about torture and these secret war prisons have in the least subsided to a whisper.

Torture is disgusting in every form and should be regarded as an enemy of humanity, an unnecessary evil. It transforms our imaginations as US citizens (35% of the population sanctioned torture AFTER seeing pic's from Gitmo).

Politics has become a matter of using and manipulating language to create a reality so that people remain ignorant about reality. As I've mentioned before, I believe the most patriotic act a person can do in this climate of phobia and manipulated reality is to call awareness and repentance to our country's ills and brokenness. Torture is a crime against all of humanity, even the perpetrators.

Something I've been wrestling with since I've began to understand Political theology and Slavoj Zizek is the pressing question, how do you bring about a new political order within the old politic? As the documentary I just watched points to, the Cheney/Bush administration seems to have done this in eight years to an extent. Under this administration the US defied the Geneva Convention and the USA Constitution by (re)defining the terms and at other times propping security and safety over against "the self-evident truth that all men are created equal."

So is this the best way to bring in a new political order? Having a powerful administration that manipulates the people through false records and ambiguous language?

I would hope that this isn't the only answer. It could be the real solution is found in the cross, in the broken body of Christ that recreates humans in the image of a given and estranged God, uniting the isolated and creating a body given to all. The church is a political body by its very existence, thus it must be first faithful to its calling to serve and suffer, while bending reality toward God's love and justice.

Pirates, Orthodox Heretics, & the Betrayal of Betrayal

Probably the most interesting conversation on the emerging church/theology blogosphere right now: Pirates, Orthodox Heretics, and the Betrayal of Betrayal (thanks Kester for rounding up all the links).

Moltmann & Homosexuality: A Bit Disappointing & Not in that Way

From everything I've read, I don't think Moltmann explicitly addresses homoseuality. I've had lots of theoretical conversations and hypothesis on what he "might" say about it, even at the Emergent Conversation over lunch. Over at the Moltmann Yahoo group, there was a discussion on what Moltmann would say about it, but since it was merely speculative it shows that he doesn't talk about it in his works clearly or directly.

So when at the Emergent Moltmann Conversation when Tony Jones put the questin to him, I was excited. Yet, I found his answer rather disappointing. Moltmann answered, "The church in Germany doesn't struggle with the problem (referring to the schismatic nature of ordaining homosexuals or blessing partnerships in the USA), because we are about the Gospel and not about sex. We believe in justification by God's work, not human work."

Some other things he said that I thought were provoking were that gay or straight can be ordained to ministry. Also, he wouldn't say (and this is what I thought most interesting) that a gay partnership is equal to marriage between a man and woman, since "marriage is to further children." Yet he would have no problems blessing such a partnership, "why not bless a partnership? Homosexuality is neither a sin or a crime, like near-sightedness is neither a sin or crime. I don't understand the schism or heat of the debate."

For such a deeper thinker, I was somewhat surprised how surface level and simplistic his answer was even though it was simply a conversational format. Yet, to say that Germany is worried about the Gospel and the church in the USA is not is overly simplistic and not a valid depiction of cultural realities. Germany carried(ies) a national guilt so intense that Moltmann himself says many of his comrades in POW camps didn't survive the shame. It makes sense that Since WWII, Germany would be intentional, even overly intentional to be very inclusive and not prejudice. America doesn't have this cultural history, but a very different story. So, I felt like this statement was simply unfair and unrealistic.

Also, he's okay with ordaining gay ministers and blessing partnerships, but he never called the partnerships marriages and actually compared homosexuality to a physical defect. Obviously he sees homosexuality as being less than a healthy (read: normal) human. Will the resurrection, the New Creation where all physical defects will be healed have homosexuals? Why not if this is truly who they are? Is homosexuality simply a distortion of the created order? Is homosexuality an illness, sickness, or defect that should be "fixed" by genetics manipulation if possible? This is where I find his words to lead.

Furthermore, since marriage is intended to further children and for that reason homosexual partnership is less valuable or "not equal," does that make a marriage between a man and woman with no children less than equal to a marriage with children?

Is marriage simply about furthering children, or is this a proof text from Israel's creation story that is irresponsible in a world of almost 7 billion people?

Overall, I was excited to hear Moltmann's thoughts about this issue that has become so divisive in the USA and across the world in many denominations, but I left disappointed and unchallenged. What do you think about Moltmann's assessment and thoughts?

Top 10 Reasons Men Shouldn't be Ordained

I love this.

10. A man’s place is in the army.

9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.

8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.

7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, change the oil in the church vans, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.

1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

Moltmann, Session IIb, Day 2

Political or Public Theology: A theology that effects the world.

Moderators: Eliacin, ___, DS, and TJ:

• approaches to theology in public
  
• 1) Change swords into question thoughts. Become dragon killer, so the axis of evil is eliminated. Atomic bombs into question a bombs
• 2)leave swords of unbelievers, become Amish or Hudderite
• 3) Change swords into plowshares. change war and military complex, but a ecological complex
• peaceable man- into peacemaking man.
• we need communities that participate in peaceable kingdom and communities that work for peacemaking in the world.
• Otherwise, peacemakers may become violent themselves with a peaceable people.
  
• Eliacin- influenced by lib theolgians. seems to me, for most part, if we have emrbaced hope, we must live into resistance. examples of where are concnrete practices, rhtythms, values as we anticipate in global social movement for resistance. So we need to create alternatives. Concrete examples of church creating enclaves or the future:
• JM- these movements are not always Xn churches, but many Xns take part in these movements. some are very effective. example- green party in europe, there were oppo. groups.
  
• In Nicarague, to live a community life in the slums. Show how mutual help will bring htem out of misery. contrary of poverty is community. there is wealth in community, resources.
  
• what is place of church in God's kingdom?
  
• church has 2 tasks: diaconia- serving poor and sick and homeless in society/ 2- prophetic task to say ot the powerful, look to those in shadows of this empire. prophetic, diachronic service. need both, one is empty without the other.
• we need a church that serves the sick and is prophetic against the illness of society.
  
• "let's pray for prophets, who can speak in public and convince people."
• Anticipation & resistance: Eliacin- are we co-creators, or should we just expect this to happen, resignation.
• Kingdom is already there is the healing and stories of JC. We prepare the way for the KoG, by anticipating the righteousness and peace within our possibilities and potentialities which are certainly limited.
• belief in progress collapsed in WWI. Belief in progress is returning in oidea of globalization, finances, goods, factories. Abyss is approaching with destruction of environment. we have globalization without the globe. the earth has nothing to say.
• abu grahb- DS- moltmann experienced so much grace in hands of prison camps, YMCA, brit's, etc. presence of grace was salvation. (great ideas and question from Danielle)...(this reminds me of Dostoevsky and Bro Karam. where he appeals to mercy for criminals).
  
• it's more convincing to love your enemy than to hate and kill your enemy. so what happened in prison in iraq is outrageous and cannot understand administration that allows that to happen.
  
• Moltmann went back to his prison, afterward. the grace was such a grace and gift from british gov't and ymca to give former enemies, new chance of life. and we'll never forget that.
• to give grace is wiser policy than so called enemies...the terrorists and anxiety of 9/11 is terrifying.
• commitment to never serve in german army, but to kill the dictator. when he told this to the mennonites, said, "that's okay."
  

Moltmann, Session Ib, Day 2

Theological Method: the Creative Spirit of Play, Life, and Death:
moderated by Tony Jones & Tripp Fuller

• Time to talk about Moltmann's methods "or lack thereof, as Moltmann said in the car."
• why it's important he broke away from writing a 3 part systematic theology, etc:
  
• truth is found in unhindered dialogue. fellowship is of mutual participation and unifinying sympathy
  
• how is that different from barth or theo predecessors? Thomas Aquinas is single great theological thought, whether there is a god or not and found 5 ways for proving god, natural theology. then comes in church and talk about relation of God and Christ and HS, etc. "Then he died." and said
  
• "I count this all straw"- Aquinas
  
• All theo systems of medieval times, must have an open end b/c power of Christ they expect to come. similar to great
  
• barth- writing 19th cent. theology while living in 20th century.
• Barth begins with self revelation of God- dogmatic insight of church...that there is a church, so it is a thought for those in the inside. Barth was strong for developing Christian doctrines, predestination for example.
  
• Barth was good at developing his own theology, but not working with others. over 8k pg's from Barth. "the truth can't be so long."
• resist- temptation to write system, b/c not systematic person.
• holds an idea, and sees how this ideas relates to everything: ie. Trinity. How does this fit with kingdom, church, etc. Before that...aware of ecological crisis...lectured on creation.
  
• books are founded not in system, but a single idea or perspective. Trinity, ecology, resurrection, cross, etc.
• truth is found like "headlights"- in nature are only reflection of light of Christ...they dont illuminate in themselves, but a reflection of Christ. like headlights reveal the road and trees, it is the light of the car, not of trees that reveal them.
• spent a long time talking about the necessity of a theology of creation and nature, it is a Christian endeavor. Struggle between Yale (Barth, no nature & theo only for Xns.) and Chicago (for everyone who can listen or there can be no mission)
• Starting point- JC and experience of HS and universal horizon which we can discover in NT.
  
• God reconciles wholes cosmos to himself, and we are messengers to this reconcile. the gospel is universal b/c of the universal horizon of reconciliation
  
• Barth- "hidden universalism"- reconcile, not the universe, but every person. that's trhe difference between Barth and JM- reconciliation for whole cosmos or just humans.
• don't become narrow minded to only defend your own denom, christ is more than one's own denom.
• TF- read JM in light of holocaust, in light of Amer. 9/11
• Elie Wiesel- "night" JM was moved by it and his experiences in conc. camps.
• God is not punishing New york homosexuals, as someone said at that time. God that uses terrorists is a monster, not a god.
• rethink omnipotence- not in control, but caring and bearing everything. his Almighty power revealed when he destroyed pharaoh's army, but 3 or 4 phrases in that "you carry us, you are bearing us through the desert"- we are carried on eagle's wings.
  
• patience, carrying of God...gives his word time and a chance and future. this is for me the omnipotence of God. his patience
• Divine impassibility- inherited from Hellenistic phlio. God won't change b/c against nature of God. TJ- is there an epiphany moment when you rethought this, that this is not God...a god who is impassible. God must suffer for Moltmann, for only a God who can suffer can love.
• Aristotle metaphysics, book 12- "the divine is apathetic" impassible? this comes against the many stories of greek mythologies who are angry and cheating, etc. So created idea that God must be apathetic.
• learned form Abraham Heschel, that this God has pathos, not apathetic. God has sympathy, b/c if God is apathetic, then his image in us must be apathetic too. Apathy is in illness in the world.
• passibilty of God- first idea- got in Scotland about the impassibility and passibility of God. written in 1926, listed the whole debate. completely bypassed German theology, this 60 yr old debate in Anglican church.
  
• how was this perceived- "best sense of the word, I became controversial" "i like to be controversial"
• TF- mystical experience and exercising doubt-
• liked to bring life and death questions to theological questions. theological not related to life and death is an abstract theology, is a nice game but only for play.
• book of his best theo student- Volf- reflected on his own experiences in Exclusion and Embrace- full of his own existential experiences.
• life and death experiences are a source, of course, or its just a game of play
• fav line- "theologians needs to read forward and backward in Scripture" (from TF)
• talk about it: "i'm old enough not to be being called an heretic"
• read bible with new supposition: meet divine word in human words. and whenever i meet divine word, which became incarnate in JC, his suffering death and res...then I feel truth.
  
• Gal 3:28- christ is not male or female, etc- all are one. This is a phrase justified baptism of all equally. but then read Paul saying women should shut up in congregation. that closes to Christ. if women is all the time silent, we'd have no knowledge of resurrection of Christ.
• co-missionary of Paul was female. So Xnty is full of women and they speak out to fulfill prophecy of Joel- your daughters will prophecy.
  
• Criteria- incarnate word of God in Christ.
  
• other point for reading Bible- we read "Jews crucified Christ"- this is wrong, tehy werent allowed to crucufy people. this was a roman affair. Jews aren't enemies of God. Rom 9-11: Paul writes about Israel. This is closer to teh truth, I think, JM says.
  
• advocating biblical hermeneutic- reading closest to Christ- so how do you or by what do you determine what's closest to Christ? (good ? from TJ)
• "The Reformed church is my origin. The ecumenical church is my future.
• doesn't discount experience in truth
• question to fundies: "do you really read the Bible" and do you "really understand what you read"
• homosexuality in the Bible and fundies:
• Shouldn't leave interp of Bible to fundies only
• shaping of theology b/c of marriage: wife is most influential on his theo. she convinced him to sentences, that "I think this is the case..not this IS the case." not make objective statements for all to buy. If i say it this way, it provokes the subjectivity in others to make up their own mind, and not just quote me. (hey, that's what my wife says to me all the time)
  
• "there is no theo dialogue in our house before breakfast."
• poltical theo- insights into complicity in American foreign policy.
• johannes baptist metz and JM developed political theol- to overcome Luther's 2 kingdoms, where you msutnt mix theo with politics. so leave politics to Nazi.
  
• RC said better the Nazi's then the communists, so tehy supported them at first.
• To overcome this hesitation of Xns to stand up against violence and injustice in country, they developed pol.theo.
• reason for this- dead of Auschwitz was pressing on their conscience.
• free market has a different definition of freedom.
• lightning round: (one person, one sentence summary)-
  
• brief reflection on what you think of these people:
• john paul II- good pope
• pannenburg- very dear friend and opponent
• bonhof- died too early
• whitehead- very complicated to read
• derrida- pomo is another form of modernity. universal dangers which we can meet united, so we cannot split up and everyone go in relative direction. whether we live in big or small narratives we all live under atomic bombs, eco crisis, so extinction of all is possibility of all. so dont see why we have to give up universal questions or problems for
  
• haeurwas- NT speaks not abut peaceable kingdom, but a peace making kingdom
• luther- great german reformer, there too, ML and MLK whats difference
• abraham ? - competition between two, barthian camp,
  now retired, both friends. good friends on beer and wine
• augustine- ask his wife about him. (he left both, b/c too close to mother monica)
• freud- said you can freud only if you know austrians in viana. served in WWII, in austrian unit. only theme of austrialian soliders
  
• marx- like early marx, not capital marx. influences of romanitc philo, humanization of nature. early writings, redisvoered in 1931. communist manifest is great doc of 19th cent.
  
• nicholas cuso (?)- may have missed his classes
• volf- very dear friend, gifted theologian, came to JM at tubingen- "concept of work in karl marx"- wrote great dissertation of work and theo of work. beginning, but drafted to yugoslavian army and returned and full of sign of suffering and resistance. so JM loved him very much when he returned from yugo wounded. wrote book on community. now he is going on writing, etc. go to eastern europe- either became influential in eastern europeans or go to yale and become american pomo theologians and unfortunately decided for Yale.
• schleiermacher- both point to same future, coming of God. prob with creeds: Schle could affirm them as he dismissed the OT as foreign to Xnty as other religions are.
  
• Pelagius- Patron Saint of American Xns.
  

Moltmann, Session I, Day 2

We begin this morning talking with arguably the premiere theologian of our time: Jurgen Moltmann. The conversation this morning turns to a quick overall look at Moltmann's autobiography and theological method and after the coffee break Tony Jones and Danielle Shroyer will talk to JM about his theological method. Here are some rough notes from the conversation.

Session 1a:

A Story of a Life after Auschwitz: "Where is God?"

• 1926 in Hamburg, secular family of teachers and schoolmasters
• firestorms- a life surrounded by explosions, bombs, and death. - left with the burning question "where is God" and "why am i alive and not dead like the others" (is there any meaning to life)- "these questions followed me and tortured me for years."
• As an imprisoned soldier, the soul became imprisoned.
• blooming cherry tree- overwhelmed by blooming of life "still feel weakness in knees in remembrance of this and raised sparks of life in my heart."
• Couldn't live with the guilt of his people as he saw pictures of camps.
• Read Bible in camp and came upon Ps. of lament, esp. ps. 39 (or 79?). - found words to speak for his heart.
• Lost interest in poems of Goethe and Schilling, but found himself in the Psalms b.c gave words to feelings of forsaken. Then read gosp. of Mark and read Christs "my god why have you forsaken me."
• Felt close and understood by God forsaken Christ.
• Christ found me in dark pit of my soul...and place behind barbed wire where we felt forsaken.
• Felt presence of Jesus in life and felt like he was taking up...
• "I was not seeking God if God was not already drawing me."
• In 1946, special camp arranged by British YMCA, prison ministry, funded by american business man John ?...and he was accepted to camp.
• 1st book- Niebuhr- nature and destiny of man
• studied and learned heb then greek in prison camps.
• wasn't sure of what the church was about, but had his first encounter in YMCA prison camp.
• soul was healed from wounds of war
• felt like Jacob after wrestling with "dark sides of God."
• Meet Elizabeth while studying theology
  
• 3 examinations in 2 weeks "doctoral, school, and wedding"
• after Barth there could be no theology, b/c he has said everything.
  
• pastor of rural congregation of about 300 people and 3000 cows. reformed congregation.
• felt like a fool with his phd with the farmers and tried to preach life experience and not give lectures to them. b/c when he lectured to them they rolled their eyes. pastored for 5 yrs.
  
• changed to seminary in wuppertal and felt impoverished b/c with the church he lived in the problems of life, but as a professor only saw the good educated students and in distance a distance.
  
• saw black ghettos and huts of sharecroppers deep in woods and burned crosses of KKK in front in front of churches, and his "American dream was a little bit disappointed"
• he liked America on the surface, but saw the misery of it too
• American dreamed was almost lost at MLK's shooting, but was saved at Durham when 400 men and women of all colors sat in rain and shine for mourning. then they sang "we shall overcome"
• first liked America, then disappointed, then i began to love america
• Faust and Goethe: 20th century humanism summation: do good, love beauty, follow your instinct for life...humanism of free will and reason, good emotions.
  
• there were no words in humanism to describe to pain of what I faced during the war with death and shame, but found it in lament psalm and cry of christ
• do you to continue to draw on parish ministry for theology: "yes, what would the people think about it and make of it.
• must listen to the people's questions and answers, and the people should not be shy and get away from prof theology but take responsibility for the education of theologians.
• to most of things in life came by chance, so things in latin america, came by chance.
• very moving story in '89: six jesuit bro's killed, in jesuit univ. in san salvador along with house keepers as an act of terrorism.
• many liberation theologians were angry with him when he criticized the marxist lectures of liberation theology. "but where was karl marx born, here (latin amer.) or in godham, ga.)
• jim cone stood up and went through the rows of liberation theologians and said "you are all whites and to my knowledge there are more blacks in ...were are tehy blacks in lib. theology
• then dorethee soelle stood up and went through the rows: "to my knowledge, more than half of theologians are female, but there are no women lib. theogians."
• Tones fav moltmann work: preface to "Trinity and kingdom of God" b/c it's about a change or transition and move toward contributions to systematic theology. realized who he was as a theologians and what he is not.
• started with Theo of Hope...resurrection; then toward perichoritsm to Theo of Cross; social doctrine of trinity bc since auagustine we have had psychological account of trinity: god has two images, father and son (two subjects) and hs comes out of that. there is no need for the HS if he is relation between two subjects. HS is no subject.
• there are icons of two subjects and an animals, the dove.
• EO: icons- 3 angels sitting around table.
• So EO has complete doctrine of Trin. where we have a shattered doctrine.
• So best idea is social doctrine...perichorises: Son, Spirit, Father indwell in one another and they interpenetrate.
• From that, concludes that the congregation is a good image of Trinity, that they all maybe one. Prayer in John: "I am in you, so they may be in me"
• Leo Boff tells story: communities in Brazil come together in one place, sign "holy trinity is best ...of trinity"
  
• simple terms "doctrine of trinity, is not part of mystery, very simple, if you come into notion of Jesus, you come into fellowship of God who he called Father; and in fellowship with Jesus, surrounded by God, you feel life giving energies of Spirit." Christian phase has a triadic state already, so we already live in God, surrounded by God.
  
• We don't believe in the trinity, we live in the Trinity. We live in God. There's an indwelling of trinity in us, as there is an indwelling in God.
• Shroyer- unity with Trinity as three in one. as pastor that helps b/c they're not doctrine based church and there's a lot of beliefs. unity comes not from doctrine, but from Christ who is above that. Talk about gift of unity of trinity that doesn't have to be sameness.
• Jesus addressed his God as abba, the father. Paul heard this prayer in Galatia and Rome. But this prayer disappeared in 1st century and replaced by "our father in heaven." far distance. misunderstanding of patriarchalism, father in family is distanced.
• re-introduced the Abba, prayer..we'll feel nearness of JC.
• not just 3 persons, but 3 rooms: they give for the two others to dwell in one another. to give room to each other means what we are doing, when we accept others in loving friendship, we give them life space.
• benediction: read Ps. 39.
  

Emergent Village Gathering, Day 1

Tonight, we began the Emergent Village proper (Danielle Shroyer of Journey Church in Dallas introduced the key note? speaker...Jurgen Moltmann...she did just write a book along those lines) with the professor of Missional Theology at Biblical Seminary, John Franke.

The main thrust of John's time was spent summarizing his main idea from his newest book, that truth is found in pluralization. While I'd like to press him some on this and get a better understanding of this (not because I don't think that truth exists in a plural world or that there is one way to truth, but because I'm not sure pluralism leads to meaningful community and truth exists in community or maybe I should say I don't think we (I) know how to engage difference or pluralism right and in a way that allows for true conversation to happen).

Tripp has some good notes on John's talk.

I'm excited about being here. I've already enjoyed some food and sights in Chi-town. I can't tell you how excited I am about Moltmann tomorrow (more on this later). I get to meet some really cool people, some I only know on the interwebs, so putting so flesh on them is nice. Plus worship tonight was meaningful. It was lead by a local Emergent church, Wicker Park Grace. The music was all home grown, and there was an artist who painted with pastels (i think) during the entire event. Plus, I never miss a chance to take communion, hopefully finding myself, a baptist transformed by God's grace in the sacrament of becoming the body broken for the world.

I'll hopefully get some more posts up during this gathering (coming out of hiatus...uhm, make that: blogging sabbatical).

BTW: I created a Twitter account since so much of this conversation is held in this space. So follow me if you'd like.

The US & Torture

The power of torture is not so much that it gathers info or intel for the CIA. Rather the true power is that it creates a viewpoint within the American nation. Torture is the power of imagining ourselves as so righteous that we must allow our leaders to do the dirty work of torture to uphold our rightness, democracy, and exceptionalism ( or "the last great hope of the world"-Obama). Torture also creates enemies. Of course these aren't your run of the mill bad guys either for torture allows us to imagine that the enemies are so vile they must deserve it, subhuman. This of course leaks down to the power of punishing innocents (which has been widely the practice and mostly the case in the "enhanced interogation methods" used in the War on Terror), so we believe that if they are being tortured or treated so inhumanly, they must be guilty.

Torture is disugsting in every form. The solution?
Absorb it through the Eucharist or in other words allow the sacrifice or torture of Christ to become the once for all declaration that we all sinful, that we are all loved, and in Christ we are all redeemed. Or as William Cavanaugh says,

If the Eucharist is a participation in the sacrifice of Christ, if we become the Body of Christ, then we too are called not just to minister to the victims of this world but to identify with them. The opposition of them and us, friend and enemy, even victim and helper, is overcome. Violence against the enemy is unthinkable, because we are the enemy. Raniero Cantalamessa says “the modern debate on violence and the sacred thus helps us to accept a new dimension of the Eucharist,” thanks to which “God’s absolute ‘no’ to violence, pronounced on the cross, is kept alive through the centuries. The Eucharist is the sacrament of non-violence!

Check out Cavanaugh's entire article at the Other Journal, the journal of Mars Hill Graduate School.

Homebrewed Christianity

Last week I got one of my teeth drilled out, otherwise known as a root canal. For me, the worst part of the dentist are the sounds. Naturally I popped in my headphones and was taken to a different place, a place of "religionless Christianity."

For some time now I've been enjoying what I believe to be one of the best podcasts out there coming from one of my ole' friends from undergrad, Chad Crawford and his bud Tripp Fuller, a Phd. candidate at Claremont Graduate U. Both of them are graduates of Wake Forest Divinity School.

Between the witty banter and pedantic sarcasm, these two brewers gather together some amazing voices in theology and the church today and talk brew. While getting my tooth drilled hollow, I enjoyed the episode about Bonhoeffer's religionless Christianity and the interview with Jeffrey Pugh who has recently published a new book on the aforementioned material. They also let the likes of emerging heretic Tony Jones interview New Testament scholar turned atheist heretic Bart Erhmam on his new book, Jesus Interrupted.

But of course the depth of only 51 episodes provide so much more than those two gems with interviews with great thinkers like Diana Butler Bass, Brian McLaren, Richard Rohr, John Cobb, John Dominic Crossan, Phyllis Tyckle, Walter Brueggemann, Mark Scandrette, and many more.

As if anything else needs to be said: GO CHECK IT OUT! These guys will have you thinking each week about important theological issues for the church.

The Slow Church & Spirit Time

RealLivePreacher has written a wonderful post about Slow Church. He opens with the Carthusian monks at the Grande Chartreuse monastery in France who allowed themselves to be filmed for the documentary: Into Great Silence. Of course, it only took them 16 years to get an answer back to the director.

I can remember in seminary that I was frustrated, frustrated beyond belief. The world was changing and the church was dragging its feet to catch up. Everyone knows that the culture, technology, ideology of the church is at least ten years behind if not a few centuries. Change couldn't come soon enough. Shortfalls are the easiest to spot in almost every scenario and belief, thus I wanted to change all things that I didn't like about the church. Certainly some of things were more noble than others. Certainly the church does need to change. But at the same time, I can't help but wonder if there is something right about slow change.

It could be that my frustration grew out of my own postmodern expediencies for instant change and the unsatiable desire for the new. Of course who wouldn't living in a culture full of instant meals, coffee, community (internet), and artificial desires created by marketing geniuses to trick us into simpy wanting the new car, house, phone, book series, shoes, etc)

I wonder if the many friends I have who are in that same place of frustration with the church are there because of the culture we live in. Certainly I believe they, as I did and still do, had good if not the best intentions for the church, the gospel, and engaging the world, but often our best intentions go awry due to the impervious nature of being honest and truthful with ourselves.

We live in a culture of instant change and insatiable desire for the new. It could be best that the church operates on a different timeline. Communities of faith, theology lived and believed, and transformation are all best served over time.

Here are some quotes from RLP that were beautiful in proving the rightness of the Slow Church:

People tell me that the average stay for a pastor in an American church is 18 months. That astounds me. We might have a stack of rocks on our back porch for 18 months while we talk about what we should do with them. Most of our best stories span 5 or 6 years at least. It takes about a decade just to figure out what’s going on at our church.

If you are thinking we don’t get anything done, nothing could be further from the truth. We do things. We just do them slowly. With time as no burden or constraint, we find we can do a lot with our bare hands. Children built our rock-lined path through the woods. Children working with their hands the last Sunday morning of each month. It took 2 years, but why should that matter? I watched a lot of the construction process. The man who guided them was in no hurry and didn’t mind if they lengthened the path only a few feet a month. The children were laughing. They had fun. And they built something our community loves.

Things are settled into the ground and beautiful. These things exist because we’ve chosen to live our lives slowly and deliberately in this community. We’re living on Spirit time, not clock time.

Don't hear me as swinging the pendulum as if the church doesn't need to change some things, certainly it must to survive and to communicate in the 21st Century. What needs to change along with the church though is our expectations for change. The new life so many of my frustrated friends, including myself, occurs within the slowing moving structures of the established and institutionalized, but it seems to me that too often we pull out of the farming business thinking it a failure long before seasons of harvest arise.

Patience is a virtue my momma always told me. Indeed, patience is essential for meaningful life in the church.

What Got Jesus Killed: The Kingdom of God

A sermon for Lent:

What Got Jesus Killed: The Kingdom of God

Tonight we continue to explore what I believe to be one of the most important questions for us during the season of Lent-

Why did Jesus die on the Cross?

A few weeks ago Ann preached how Jesus was killed for equating himself with God: “I and the Father are one.”

While it is true that Jesus made these claims, Rome could have cared less about the theological quarrels and quibbles of the Jews. As a matter of fact, Rome was more concerned with political zealots like Judas Maccabeus. The time of Jesus had grown increasingly volatile, the Jews hungry for justice and freedom from 500 years of oppression.

There were rumors the Messiah was on his way, meaning Jews everywhere on the edge of their seat waiting for his call to overthrow the hands of its current oppressor: Rome.

The cross was not only reserved for guys like Barabbas, remember the violent, political traitor Pilate released instead of Jesus, but the cross was invented as a means of control, a reminder that Caesar was Lord, the Prince of Peace and if you didn’t like his Pax Romana then crucifixion was your fate..

Jesus died then, the death of a political traitor, someone forming a movement that countered the ways of Israel and Rome.

So, I want to begin with the end, I’ll give my answer for Why Jesus died on the cross, then work from there. So my answer to this central question is: “The Cross is the unavoidable cost of God’s mission.”

So what was this mission that got Jesus killed?

IN our reading from the Gospel of Luke, we find Jesus’ mission statement. Jesus, like every Jew of his time, read and reread the prophet Isaiah, because this was a prophet pregnant with hope, much like the nation of Israel.
As a matter of fact these words in Luke 4 came directly from Isaiah 61. Yet Isaiah didn’t invent these words or concepts. Rather, the mission of God found in Isaiah, quoted by Jesus come to us all the way from Leviticus 25: the year of Jubilee.

Jesus arrived in the first century scene with this message and mission: I am the jubilee.



Jubilee was the sort of hope every Israelites’ imagination was full of. Under Roman occupation, Jews throughout the Empire dreamed of Jubilee. Established under Moses, Jubilee was created as an economic institution within Israel where all debt was forgiven and every slave released on the 50th year.

In the very simplest of terms, Jubilee can be described as God’s holistic mission. The Jubilee revealed that nothing, absolutely nothing was more important than humans created in the dignity and image of their Creator, no economics system, debt, or injustice could hold people under oppression. Israel was to be a witness to God’s restoring justice by instituting the Jubilee.

And under the vicious violence of the Romans, freedom and restoration is exactly what Israel longed for. So, when Jesus came making this claim that in him, God’s rule was coming on earth, just like he had taught the disciples to pray, “Your Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven,” Jesus wasn’t making mere spiritual statement about the state of your soul when you die, he was making political pronouncements:
In me God’s restoration is occurring, the hope that you wait for is now in your midst.

Basically, Jesus was making the claim that exile was over and God’s kingdom, his rule of was present among them.

Now that’s good news to captive Israel, right?

From some Jewish writers from the 1st and 2nd century, we find that “repent and believe,” terms Jesus used to build this Kingdom movement, meant he was asking for nothing less than full allegiance, allegiance to himself as the way of Jubilee.

But every group found something didn’t like & wanted Jesus dead over. He was either too radical or he wasn’t radical enough.

This last week, I heard a condemning statement that said, “if Jesus came down and lived among us now, we wouldn’t crucify him, we’d laugh at him.” For the same reasons those in the 1st century killed him, we in the 21st century mock him.

One such group, is the ever recognizable Pharisees.

For the Pharisees, what got Jesus killed was their religion. Now I know everyone gives these guys a bad wrap, but I think if we were being honest ourselves then we’d most likely identify with them. See, the Pharisees were the common people who preferred the familial and communal worship of the synagogue to the Temple. These were the guys who worked hard to keep their faith intact while the Greeks propagated their culture everywhere. If it wasn’t for the Pharisees, who knows, orthodox Judaism may have been lost to Hellenism.

Eugene Peterson, the author of the Message Bible says that if Jesus was looking to align himself with a group, it would have been the Pharisees, grassroots, common people.

Where the Pharisees wanted to divide and define life by what was sacred and what was not, Jesus’ very presence collapsed their system of religious boundaries. The sacred became the secular and vice versa.

Jesus makes this claim on our lives: to follow Jesus means to give your life in every way. There is no part of you or your life that is separate from God. Yet, we still like to exclude God from our daily lives.

The same as the Pharisees, we hide behind our religion.

We think as long we go to church, serve on a committee, teach Sunday school, sing in the choir; we’ve fulfilled our allegiance to Jesus.

Jesus’ call to put our allegiance in God’s Kingdom means orienting our entire lives, our jobs, families, and careers, and even our church around him. It’s not the separate and definable Law that interests Jesus, but the living relationships of loving God and neighbor.

Does your life reflect the Kingdom of love and justice?

Another group that murdered Jesus was the Sadducees. The Sadducees were the affluent and aristocratic types, they were the priestly class.

For the Sadducees, what got Jesus killed was their nationalism. Because of bad theology, the Temple had become the single sign of God’s presence for Israel, therefore God was on their side. It was the Jewish hope that the Messiah would come and destroy all of Israel’s opponents.

Somehow Gods kingdom had become reduced to a single location, a single theology. The Sadducees forgot that Israel’s existence was not for themselves, but for others, for God to bless the world through.

A few weeks ago, one of our countries most important leaders said:
“The United States is the Last Great Hope of the World.”

The same as Caesar’s claim as Prince of Peace and Lord of Lord, and the Temple’s claim on God’s presence, we tend to make nationalistic claims reserved only for Jesus.

And the reason we do this is we don’t trust that Jesus’ ways are the best ways. We say we believe in Jesus as our Savior and Lord bringing in Jubilee, but we trust our nation for our salvation and freedom.



For Jesus, the means did not justify the ends because in God’s Kingdom, the means become the End. The final eschatological hope, the hope Israel had been waiting for, of God’s final Jubilee came through Jesus’ ministry of healing, forgiveness, reconciliation, enemy love, service, and self denial.

To follow Jesus means pledging allegiance first and foremost to God’s kingdom: a Kingdom here but not yet. We tend to put our trust and salvation not in Jesus’ ways (which by the way we’d rather ridicule), but in our nation’s way, the pursuit of the American dream.

Which last great hope of the world do you truly trust?

Another group couldn’t stand the means of Jesus. This group always justified their means with their ends.

For the Zealots, what got Jesus killed was their propensity toward violence. This was the group, inspired by the Maccabean revolution and filled with deep passion for the Jubilee -for freedom and restoration, that fervently worked to bring in God’s reign by overthrowing Rome.

Jesus’ mission statement from Isaiah 61 is remarkable for not only what it includes, but also what it excludes. Jesus says the Spirit is on him to preach the Gospel, proclaim freedom to the captives and release the oppressed (important to the zealots), and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

Then he stops, and rolls up the scroll, certainly stealing the thunder from anyone with a tendency toward violence in the room. See in Isaiah, that final sentence reads:

To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD
And the day of vengeance of our God;

Obvious enemy love and forgiveness wouldn’t go over to well with this crowd, it may even get you thrown off a cliff. Jesus trusted this commitment to nonviolence all the way to the cross.

Do you pledge allegiance to a Kingdom where the means are the ends?

Many other names and ways of approaching life could be mentioned, both 1st century and 21st. Ultimately though what lead to the cross was Jesus’ ways for bringing about the Way.

For Jesus, the means are the ends. The kingdom had come and is coming. NO nation, church, or religion has the absolute right to claim God on their side.

The Kingdom shows up in glimpses when we feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison. The Kingdom reveals itself when we find our lives intersecting with God’s life in the world.

Jesus was killed for fulfilling his mission statement- for creating a movement of people within Israel and beyond who trusted his ways over the worlds.

What got Jesus killed was his call for allegiance not to God’s Kingdom, but God’s way of bringing about that Kingdom:
For the same reasons Jesus was killed in the 1st century, we mock him in the 21st-

“If anyone wants to follow me, he must pick up his cross and deny himself.”

A Culture of Anti-Materialism

The problem with our culture of consumerism is that it leans toward the power of docetism. Consumerism is never the drive to gather and store up our goods, it is the drive to replace our current goods with something else. Consumerism in essence denies material reality by always pointing beyond the product toward images and the insatiable desire to be clean, fresh, new, healthy, young, bold, smart, funny or whatever else we are told we are lacking.

Hear Rowan Williams', Archbishop of Canterbury's words (go here to listen or read in full):

'..... far from being a materialist culture, we are a culture that is resentful about material reality, hungry for anything and everything that distances us from the constraints of being a physical animal subject to temporal processes, to uncontrollable changes and to sheer accident.''

The economics of consumption are based on a belief in progress. Thus, for example, when our country and world face the first shrinking global market since WWII, we must realize that this is inevitable and necessary. Do you really believe that we can create a market that will be ever increasing, ever profitable, ever growing?

There seems to be an ontology based on the myth of progress that produces the epistemology that says we can overcome aging, dying, sickness, disease, poverty, etc. Sure these are all well and noble pursuits (obviously some more than others), but reality doesn't seem to work this way. We must work toward solutions to the above mentioned problems, not by trying to defy the reality of the world and ecological economics, but by living faithfully within the means given to us on this planet. An ever expanding market is unsustainable. Rising tides raises all boats, good for the boat owners, and drowns all boat builders.

For every summer there must be a winter, for every birth a death. The market must shrink, it must go up and down in ways that are meaningful. Shrinking is part of the ontology of earth, the seasons, the tide, the ebb and flow. Markets, governments, and people die to make room for new ones.

Other notables from Rowan Williams "Ethics, Economics, and Global Justice:"

We are delivered or converted not simply by resolving in a vacuum to be less greedy, but by understanding what it is to live as an organism which grows and changes and thus is involved in risk. We change because our minds or mindsets are changed and steered away from certain powerful but toxic myths. ...the state that promises maximised choice and minimal risk, is in serious danger of encouraging people to forget two fundamentals of economic reality – scarcity as an inexorable truth about a materially limited world, and concrete productivity and added value as the condition for increasing purchasing power or liberty, and thus sustaining any kind of market. The tension between these two things is, of course, at the heart of economic theory, and imbalance in economic reality arises when one or the other dominates for too long, producing an unhealthily controlled economy (scarcity-driven) or an unhealthily hyperactive and ill-regulated economy (based on the simple expansion of purchasing power). But forget that tension and what happens is not stability but plain confusion and fantasy. We have woken up belatedly to the results of behaving as though scarcity could be indefinitely deferred: the ecological crisis makes this painfully clear. Implied in what has just been said is a recognition of the dangers of 'growth' as an unexamined good. Growth out of poverty, growth towards a degree of intelligent control of one's circumstances, growth towards maturity of perception and sympathy – all these are manifestly good and ethically serious goals, and, as has already been suggested, there are ways of conducting our economic business that could honour and promote these. A goal of growth simply as an indefinite expansion of purchasing power is either vacuous or malign – malign to the extent that it inevitably implies the diminution of the capacity of others in a world of limited resource. Remember the significance of scarcity and vulnerability in shaping a sense of what ethical behaviour looks like.

Patience, trust and the acceptance of a world of real limitation are all hard work; yet the only liberation that is truly worth while is the liberation to be where we are and who we are as human beings, to be anchored in the reality that is properly ours. Other less serious and less risky enterprises may appear to promise a power that exceeds our limitations – but it is at the expense of truth, and so, ultimately at the expense of human life itself. Perhaps the very heart of the current challenge is the invitation to discover a little more deeply what is involved in human freedom – not the illusory freedom of some fantasy of control.

This Ain't Your Momma's Christianity...

Merehope posts up some interesting research from church historian, Mark Noll:

First, the magnitude. In order to grasp the current situation of world Christianity concretely, consider what went on last Sunday. More Roman Catholics attended church in the Philippines than in any single country of Europe. In China, where in 1970 there were no legally functioning churches at all, more believers probably gathered for worship than in all of so-called “Christian Europe.” And in Europe (as reported by Philip Jenkins) the church with the largest attendance last Sunday was in Kiev, and it is a church of Nigerian Pentecostals. Last Sunday, more Anglicans attended church in each of Kenya, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda than did Anglicans in Britain and Canada and Episcopalians in the U.S. combined. And several times more Anglicans attended church in Nigeria than in these other African countries. In Korea, where a century ago there existed only a bare handful of Christian believers, more people attended the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul than all of the churches in significant American denominations like the Christian Reformed Church. In the United States, Roman Catholic mass was said in more languages than ever in American history. Last Sunday many of the churches with the largest congregations in England and France were filled with African or Caribbean faces. As a final indication of global trends, as of 1999 the largest chapter of the Jesuits was in India, and not as in the United States as had been the case for many decades before.

In a word, the world Christian situation is not what it was when your grandparents were born, or even when you were born.