I just figured out how to post a comment to the home page and not just as a comment to someone else's post. I feel quite fulfilled at having figured this out.
Here's what I taking away from this book so far: Culture imposed on Christianity. This is bad. Christianity doesn't recognize the imposition. This is bad. If we don't abandon all that we know and start over we'll never be the kingdom of God. This is bad.
I get the Constintinian contract thing, but why does he not go farther back into covenant history and address God's institutional intent in the tabernacle and the social development of national Israel? Those roots also affect the Christian sense of spiritual identity and place.
Okay, so we think we need to control everything, for instance. Where is the accounting of the creation commandment (pre-Law) that human beings are to have dominion. You have to define dominion, not ignore it, if you want to argue that it means something other than "be in charge of." He says, "Jesus called his disciples not to get hold of empire power . . . [but] to an altogether different route of bringing about the radical change of the kingdom of God--that of servanthood." Isn't true servanthood about honor and obeying the Father, which is what Jesus always did? Wouldn't the command to stewardship have an impact in the argument at this point.
I think I'm finding some of the argumentation in this book intriguing but insufficiently developed.
I love the idea (and the fact) that Christians should be like Christ at all times in all things. That that should be considered radical thinking in Christianity is certainly disappointing. Christians should think that was normal, I would think. I like the idea (and the fact) that we should be radically different than the world, living by radically different principles, values, hopes, expectations, and statutes. But does God actually expect the church to usher in the kingdom of God, or is that not His work, and we are to live within that which he establishes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Great closing question, Dale. And good observations! Good to have you posting again! I had kind of given up hope and hadn't checked for a few weeks, didn't look as though any SABA pastors were interested.
But great closing question. Certainly there is a dynamic and a dance between God establishing His kingdom and His people doing the establishing work. God sovereignly COULD choose to snap His proverbial fingers and do it all, but that would violate how He set up the system. The system was set up with people in charge... dominion stewards over His creation.
And so the redemption of that system must necessarily be the same way. That redemption ultimately begins with and "looks like" Jesus - the true man, the second Adam, the dominion steward who perfectly "got it right." And that dominion steward then told His church, "all authority has been given to me... so go make more disciples!"
The kingdom advances at His command and with the advancement of His people. He has no other plan. Redeeming the system is the goal. Moving toward a (re)new(ed) earth. But His people are not abandoned to go it alone. Far from! He sends the Holy Spirit to guide the whole adventure.
And so the kingdom advances in a dynamic... in a dance... between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit. Because of how God created the system there CANNOT be one without the other.
As for your other concerns about empire... he's anabaptist, so of course he's leery of anything government. An extreme example would be the Amish. Curiously, though, the apostles never sought such a separatist lifestyle. In fact, Paul intentionally targeted big cities! Very "in the world" - all the while preaching a "but not of this world" kingdom.
And so the tension. I affirm my Amish brothers and sisters, but I choose not to live as they do. I want to stay in the mucky trenches and keep working here. And so there's that tension between my Romans 12 calling and the Romans 13 world in which I live. That Luke 20:25/Matthew 22:21/Mark 12:17 tension.
What I appreciate about Camp's approach - as much as I likewise am a fan of Shane Claiborne and Greg Boyd - is by beginning with the kingdom (and more narrowly the church) hermeneutic and worldview first. He, like Claiborne and Boyd, are bucking against the "Christian nation" bogus concept perpetuated in many right leaning evangelical circles to this day. I too have witnessed this ra ra politics foolishness. Its not the right approach (I believe). First, lets win the nation to the cross and THEN we'll worry about the nation's laws and politics!
REV
First: I have not been getting notifications of comments so I have also been delayed in processing and following through on the discussion. Hopefully I have corrected this oversight.
Now: I don't think we have to rewrite orthodox theology in order to reorient the church to its actual ministry (and life), so . . . not a fan of Greg Boyd and haven't heard of Shane. Of course, I haven't heard of half the people making statements in and about the church these days, so my ignorance doesn't count for much.
However (love that word): "And so the redemption of that system must necessarily be the same way" I don't understand what you intend here. Just because God initiates a system in one manner does not mean he cannot reinitiate it in another manner of his choosing, so I'm not understanding your use of the word "necessarily."
And: Civil religion aside for a moment (since I think a whole lot of people simply changed figureheads with this whole Obama thing), how to Minnesota Baptist Conference churches, build the kingdom today? What kingdom do we build when we are building?
I see more buildings. I see more people. But I don't see more passion, more devotion, more sacrifice, more obedience, or more holiness. Are these not essentials in the kingdom? Is his not a kingdom of heart before it is a kingdom of behavior, and by conduct a kingdom in place?
I have a line of community agencies waiting to call and make referrals of clients for help. Few that we help find a new way of life, though many do share a warm, fuzzy feeling on account of the compassion they have received. Have we extended the kingdom by our "Jesus-like" actions and our "new" way of being Baptist? I think we have used the tools of the kingdom to further enslave the people of this world to the one who has blinded their eyes. We have deepened their sense of entitlement and reliance on others to do what God wants to do in their lives in response to faith.
Does he kingdom come when there is no change of heart, nor any "heart for God" in those who serve or in those who are served?
Dale...
Sorry I've been a bit "out of it" with this blog. Its been a blur of funerals lately. I'm back.
Dale wrote: 'Does he kingdom come when there is no change of heart, nor any "heart for God" in those who serve or in those who are served?'
Jesus one day came upon 10 lepers. They begged for healing. He healed them. One came back and fell at His feet. "where are the other nine?" Jesus asked.
Jesus teaches His followers to give without any thought of reward, payback, kickback, promotion, etc. Just give. And if the one we bless comes back, praise God. If not, we (and God) might be saddened, but even so we were faithful, so praise God!
Humanly I hear your frustration. Indeed, western Europe is much of what you're describing: entitlement, social welfare, all your needs taken care, therefore no need for God. The poorest of the poor worldwide continue to be the ones drawn to Jesus the most.
Ironically, the more we bless and help others improve their lives, feed the hungry, visit the sick, etc... at a certain point many of those are cured and continue on with life as if God once again does not matter. I agree this is sad.
As for the essentials of the kingdom, yes, passion and energy and evangelism and discipleship and right beliefs and right actions and yes yes yes to all that. AND buildings, structures, committees, I agree - barf! Those things are useful only if they accomplish the mission of the kingdom. In my experience they hinder more than help. So I empathize with you hugely Dale!
And as for why God couldn't redeem/re-initiate the system in a radically different way... it seems to do with His character and His faithfulness. Thats why I used the word "necessarily" - perhaps it was a bit strong, but to me its akin to "God CANNOT break a promise." SOmeone might take an afront to that and say, what do you mean, He's God! He can do whatever He wants! In that SENSE, sure, but it would never happen. God says (and demonstrates) that His character is utter and total faithfulness. If He promises, it WILL happen. God is the God of the constant. He doesn't change the law of gravity every couple decades just to spice things up. Physics remains physics. Moral law remains moral law. True, He can suspend the laws if He so wishes (raising the dead, walking on water, etc) but these are the great exceptions (hence signs and miralces!) and not a normal flow of life. God seems to relish the constants.
Among those constants are - horribly! - the ongoing presence and existence of demons. Seriously... what other purpose does the kingdom of darkness have?! Demons are unredeemable, their fate is sealed already. So with a guaranteed destination of hell, why not just wipe them all out? Yet God does not. It seems to be "necessary" (there's that scary word again) as part of the system He created. He's not going to violate the rules and constants of that system.
ANd so here we are back to humans again. Created to be the stewards. We're the bosses of earth who reign in His place. 'Cause thats how He set up the system. And then we foolishly squandered that authority and gave it to Satan and his crew. Yuk! And so "necessarily" that system is now being redeemed... first in Jesus as THE image of God and true Adam and then in us, who are being conformed to His image, who are building that re-creation, that restoration, that reign of God (kingdom) once again.
I don't know WHY Dale, but it seems observationally correct. It seems necessary for some reason for God to not do something like destroy demons, be sovereign with all conversions (and not rely on the dynamic of human evangelism), change gravity every couple years, have water freeze at ten below, etc. Not sure why. Just is. And GOD doesn't make mistakes or do things hap-hazardly. He's always intentional. So things are necessarily the way things need to be. EEEE-GADS! I'm beginning to sound like a seven point Calvinist!
The Formerly Arminian REV (ha! just kidding! wink)
Hey guys! I love your line of conversation, and thought I would add my 2 cents worth.
Dale wrote: "Have we extended the kingdom by our "Jesus-like" actions and our "new" way of being Baptist? I think we have used the tools of the kingdom to further enslave the people of this world to the one who has blinded their eyes."
I too can connect with your frustration. I have seen many of the same situations that you reference. However, I think that 'justice & mercy' as it is often called is in and of itself a Kingdom way. Sometimes it is described as a means of evangelism (and I am goign to talk about that very thing on Sunday) and in so doing creates a thought that we do things for people so that they will accept Jesus. So when they don't accept Jesus (or over and over again the people we help do not take the next step of faith) we become discouraged in our well doing.
It seems that Jesus' understanding of his mission of the Kingdom included justice and mercy in the long line of prophetic calls to live rightly with all.
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-19)
All of that being said, it does seem to be helpful to live out this aspect of the Kingdom in our post-modern age.
Here's the deal. i think we have to stop thinking of building the kingdom in or with someone else and start realizing that the mercy, justice, faith, and obedience builds the kingdom in us, and that that is Christ's intent all along.
I'm rarely frustrated in the doing, only in the "result" or lack thereof. So perhaps there needs to be a separation between "evangelism" as a Christian essential, and "good works" as a Christian natural. In other words, we do the works of Jesus because we have been made (and are being made through faith) into the image of Christ, but we proclaim him because we have been commanded.
What do you think?
Hey Dale...interesting thought. I say "yes." (How's that for a postmodern answer!)
I'm not sure that the distinction is really there, however. Jesus "commanded" us to go and make disciples, and he "commanded" us to love one another. Jesus "instructed" us that whatever we do to the least of these we have done for him, and he "instructed/informed" us that we would be his witnesses.
He also promised that if we do what he commands that we would stay in his love, and he would be in us / we in him / they in us.
So...are the commands of God different than the life of God? Or said differently, are there things that Jesus commanded us to do that would not also flow naturally from a fully transformed heart?
Thoughts?
Post a Comment