So Chris has been away from an Internet connection for a while, so I took some notes last night from our discussion about the Jesus for President book tour.
I’d like to start with a quick quote from Bonhoeffer’s Life Together.
“It is not simply to be taken for granted that the Christian has the privilege of living among other Christians. Jesus Christ lived in the midst of his enemies. At the end all his disciples deserted him. On the Cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and mockers. For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God. So the Christian, too, belongs not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the thick of foes. There is [the Christian's] commision, his work.”
Bonhoeffer goes on to quote Martin Luther:
“‘The Kingdom is to be in the midst of your enemies. And he who will not suffer this does not want to be of the Kingdom of Christ; he wants to be among friends, to sit among roses and lilies, not with the bad people but the devout people. O you blasphemers and betrayers of Christ! If Christ had done what you are doing who would ever have been spared?’”
Ouch. If you have never read Life Together and you are seeking out community, then you are sorely missing.
Ok, so with that said, here are some rough notes I took:
In regards to the Hebrew people wanting a king like the world had, God warns this king will take and take. 10% of their cattle and produce, etc. I find this to be true of people in church today. They are willing to have a hierarchy in return for 10%. They now have to do nothing and let this leader lead.
Human history is played out in the timeline of kings and presidents. God’s history is through the prophets.
In talking about how Jesus said to walk an extra mile with a Roman solider: It was actually a military infraction to do so on the part of the soldier, (trying to win over the hearts and minds, you know). I initially, thought about us walking a mile in the shoes of an al-Qaeda soldier, but…
What happens when we are the occupying force and not the occupied?
Chris (of this site) said the church today has an unwritten doctrine to be complacent with living in the occupier’s land. It is easier to be the occupier than the occupied.
You know, when you look at the Confessing Church and compare it to the churches in Germany who raised the swastika above their buildings, how is that any different than placing the American flag in churches and those of us who question the unholy marriage of church and state? Oh, I know… the Nazis made it law and the churches complied, whereas the church in America does it willingly. So as Chris (of this site) says, when we are outside of the church, then we are the occupied. And as I have been reluctant to say, but it needs saying, the majority of ‘churches’ in America aren’t the real church. It isn’t until we start threshing the wheat from the chaff will we see any type of revolution in this country.
One of the examples Chris Haw and Shane Claiborne use is of the Hebrews laying down, exposing their necks, preferring to be killed than to have Caesar’s image be brought into use in their land.
Without being too harsh, I want to go back to the Bonhoeffer quotes above. I referenced them in regards to the crowd in attendance at The Union Project. It is easy to show up in what white bread America would consider a ‘bad part’ of town, surrounded by others in ‘alternative dress’, and be ‘emergent’. But let’s be honest, how many of us would lay down in front of the president’s motorcade with necks exposed in protest of (fill in the blank)?
Shane also talked about the prophets being a thorn in the side of the king and the end result for the prophet isn’t usually a cushy mansion overlooking the Sea of Galilee. If we were thorns in the side of our president, how quickly would we be surgically removed by SWAT or secret service? So much for the king’s of this world listening to the voice of God, huh?
I commented on Josh Brown’s blog about the emergent church succumbing to marketing pressure. And I can understand Josh’s frustration and disappointment at hoping to be on the edge of something new and seeing it get sucked into the mainstream. I feel the same way about Shane and intentional community after seeing it start to pander a bit to what looks like Zondervan’s marketing demands. I may be wrong on that point, and if I am would someone correct me? But my observation comes from seeing a merchandise table with posters and t-shirts and all that stuff.
I get concerned when truth such as what Shane is saying/doing starts to turn into a movement. As soon as that happens, the marketing whores start to circle like vultures looking for their next meal ticket. What happens when intentional community becomes cool? Like Emergent, people will talk about it and not really do anything, substituting talk and image with actual actions.
I had hoped to find people we could discuss the challenges of starting intentional community in a place like rural WV. Instead, we saw what looked like a typical Sunday morning, people huddling aroung in their own groups of friends and guys trying to bag-tag each other during intermission. Maybe I had hoped too much about the event or the people who would be there. I dunno, I guess Jesus could have pulled the whole, “What’s the capital of Thailand?” with Judas before speaking to the masses. Maybe that’s why he betrayed him?
Seriously, though, if we do not start to call attention to the acceptability of merely looking the part, then we are doing one another a disservice as fellow travelers in the way of Christ. I don’t doubt for a moment that if we held each other to higher standards, then we truly would become a revolution. When Jesus berates Peter for sinking into the water it is not for doubting in Jesus’ power, but for not believing he could do as Jesus did.
We speak out because the way of Jesus is obtainable. We speak out because the church has dumbed us down to be satisfied with merely seeing Jesus as a substitution for our sins. We speak out because Jesus also came to teach us how to live and pass on grace and love as we now know it. We speak out so that others may learn to speak out. We speak out for revolution.
June 27, 2008 at 6:21 pm
its a very good point that the cyclical nature of revolution is that yesterday’s revolution becomes today’s mainstream. perhaps thats reason enough to rethink the nature of revolution and how we go about it? a revolutionary revolution? does that even make sense?
June 27, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Yeah, I see what you are getting at and I see it initially three ways.
First, what goes mainstream probably isn’t what started out as the revolution in the first place. Generally the masses didn’t go for it at first and it is then forced on them. Or it is made more palatable by losing some of the aspects that that put it too far out on the fringe to begin with. And in the case of Jesus and christianity, I think we can see that happening within a hundred year span.
Second, anything that starts out as a revolution or on the fringe is making a statement about the current mainstream. Generally, that statement is saying the mainstream is wrong. It is trying to replace or fix the mainstream. That is what I was getting at in my post about reformist or revolutionary. Is the fringe trying to fix or replace the current model? If that is the case, then it will, by default become the mainstream.
Finally, you have a culture that is so whipped up into being ‘extreme’ or ‘cutting edge’ that anything fringe or revolutionary is gobbled up by the marketing monster ready to make a buck on the next ‘big thing’. It is this option that so concerns me with the church today. Just as you saw alternative worship services become part of the marketing plan of churches, so you see home groups, slick tech-savvy presentations, and now a tinge of the Emergent. I’m sure intentional community will make its way in there as well.
Maybe to some extent it is authentic, and maybe to some extent it is good. But mostly it is the church trying to hold on to its market share. The church in years past would banish people with thoughts like those of Shane or the Emergent crowd. Or throw them on the rack, or toast them over an open fire.
Now they use marketing, no reason killing off your tithe base, you know?
So, there has to be another way. And there is. The way of Jesus. He didn’t come in with reforms to fix a broken temple system. Just as we shouldn’t be trying to fix or replace the mainstream. We should be taking a whole other path. One that is narrow. Some will follow and we should be a voice in the wilderness, but not at the expense of leaving the path. That is revolution that will never go mainstream.
-Mike
July 1, 2008 at 10:50 pm
[importing this comment to the right post]
[comment from ded]
uhh…not to be contentious, but what if the revolution has already occurred?
God has already provided the revolution: the keys of hell and death have been taken from Satan. Those who live accordingly are way past the nonsense of the institution.
I don’t think the mainstream church will respond to revolution anyway. It has for centuries learned how to avoid dealing with the revolution.
July 1, 2008 at 11:01 pm
ded,
For the record, I agree with you about the church and living past the institution. But for sake of the discussion…
Does this mean the mainstream church isn’t the real church?
It may seem like I’m always looking for a way to stick it to ‘the church’, and I will admit, I do struggle with those thoughts. However, I see what I came out out, I know its destructive power and I want as many as possible to start to open their eyes as well.
July 4, 2008 at 11:52 am
I go back and forth on this issue. I have come to regard the mainstream church not as a false church but more like a nursery. Or maybe as a hothouse for potted plants. These plants are alive and whether or not they are fruitful enough to be harvested is not up to me to decide. What’s more, many folks (dropping the plant metaphor)there are naming Jesus as Lord, which the Bible says can only be done by the Holy Spirit. So I scratch my head and seek to be at peace with all men as directed in Romans.
Outside of the hothouse life seems more real and meaningful, and I will always help anyone questioning the system to sort out their thoughts. If anyone hears God calling him or her out, they will have to decide to respond or not. I can encourage that.
But all of this is just me. I am not suggesting this is The Way to deal with the institution.
July 4, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Funny you say it is like a nursery. My big discussion with Jen on my protesting in front of the church post lead that way as well.
July 8, 2008 at 3:51 pm
True, Wesley was greatly influenced by Pietiests (both Moravians & Salzburgers), especially the Moravians. However, his break with them was not political but theological. He very much liked their community, but he thought that they had some flaws in their thinking regarding assurance.Whereas Calvinists and Moravians believe the imputation of righteousness of Christ is Holiness & Sanctification, Wesley believed it was merely justification & forgiveness. Wesley felt that the Moravians confused conversion with perfection (entire sanctification).
Essentially, Wesley thought they (the Moravians) had the ordo salutis out of order.
An excellent reference for Wesley is Kenneth Collins’ book, the theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace. Or The Scripture Way of Salvation: the Heart of John Wesley’s Theology, also by Collins.
By the way, I’m now reading and enjoying Jesus for President.