Search

Bo Sanders: Public Theology

updating & innovating for today

Open Search
Category

Kingdom

>Jesus is not Violent

> When we talk about God as Christians we are not talking about a generic conception of God. As Christians we believe in a very specific concept of God, one that was most fully revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. 

 For people that believe in Jesus and call themselves Christians, I think that it is important that we get something strait: Jesus was not violent. That is the first proposition. The second theory flows out of that: since Jesus was not violent, maybe his people should not be violent either. 


I know that there are those who will object. Some of them will even point to verses in Scripture. I will try to look at each of the objections that I hear as best I can as quickly as I can.
Old Testament
I think that it is important to recognize that we are not GOD-ians, or Spirit-ians. We are Christians.We would take our cue from Christ.

Here is my concern: Every time some Christian wants to be violent and can not find a way in Christ to justify it – they reach back into the Old Testament in order to do so. This is a bad way to read the Bible.  Sometimes, when christian ministers speak, it almost comes across as if Jesus never came.  When I say “Jesus was not violent” you can’t just jump backward and say “In the Old Testament God…” That is not the right way to do it.

Turning over table in the Temple
Whenever I say that Jesus was not violent, almost without exception the first thing someone says is “what about when he cleared the Temple?”  In passages like John 2:15, Jesus makes quite a ruckus in the Temple – driving out the animals that were for sale and turning over the tables of the money changers. 
I would just point out three things: A) it was the only time that he did something like this. It was an exception. B) he did not harm any human or living thing. He cracked a whip and turned over tables. C) this act was in protest of those who had made religion big business, profiting from the vulnerability of others. 
So often I hear this verse used to justify supporting violence and ironically it is by those who have made the christian religion big business and make a handsome profit off of it. That should tell you something.
The Book of Revelation

in chapter 19 of John’s Revelation you hear this: 

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:  KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS

Somehow this becomes permission to be violent to other countries and to people of different backgrounds or persuasions. 
The error is threefold:


1. To derive doctrine from apocalyptic literature in difficult at best. The very nature of the genre is poetic, fantastic, and explosive. It really should not be read like the rest of scripture. I am firmly convinced that each genre should be read in ways that are appropriate to the nature of that genre. The Histories of the Hebrew Testament, the Psalms, the Prophets, the Gospels, the Epistles (or letters) and the Apocalyptic all need to be read in distinct ways.     


2. To miss that his sword is a non-sword – it is his Word !  I call this “the problem of jesuSword”  and though it can be confusing, it’s important to see that it is not Jesu’s Sword  but Jesus’ Word !!   What brings the nations to submission is not a sword but Jesus’ Word – or the word of the Word (if you prefer). To miss this is to miss the point all together. It is to think that the Romans did the right thing is nailing Jesus to the cross. It is to miss that Jesus was killed unjustly and the injustice pains the heart of God.  There is poetry in that Jesus told Peter to “put away” his sword (jJohn 18:11) and said that if his kingdom was of this world that his followers “would fight” (John 18:36). The implication is that his kingdom’s power does not originate with this world* and therefor his followers will not fight. 


3. Some people justify violence by saying “Jesus even said that he came to bring a sword”   but think about the whole sentence… what did he say? 

Matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—   37 Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

 Here is the important thing: swords were meant to guard families. To protect me, my things, and those close to me! Jesus says that his sword it to divide up families – and I think he was being ironic !!  Because  in his day swords were actually for defending one’s family – for guarding me and mine. In this sense, Jesus’ “sword” is an un-sword… or an anti-sword. It does the opposite of what human swords are used for.  Jesus’ sword is not for defending family but for dividing family. Jesus did not come with a human sword but the opposite!! 

The Kingdom suffers violence
In Matthew 11:12 Jesus says that the Kingdom “suffers violence” and that the violent “try to take it by force”.  I know that this is a tricky passage. Some people see it as saying “you have to be aggressive to enter the kingdom” but I think it is more appropriate to read it as “violent men try to seize to use for their own purposes”.  Regardless, either reading does not give us permission to be be violent and advance the kingdom of Christ “by the sword”. 
Clarification
I am not a pacifist.  I am not passive.  I am actively and passionately non-violent.  I believe that violence begets more violence. Sometime – a person who wants permission to be violent in Jesus’ name will pull out the big two examples and ask me either “what about the Nazis” or “what if some guy broke into you house and was going to rape your wife”?   These are always the big two and I will deal with them next week in “Breaking the Bell Curve”.  Suffice to say – barring those two examples, most of what we are talking about with burning heretics, Godly nationalism, and militarized violence does not primarily fall into those two famous categories. They are just all too normal human violence baptized in Jesus’ name. 
Example
Let me get down to the heart of the matter. Here is an example of exactly what I am talking about. There is nationally known pastor in Seattle, Washington who is famously quoted as saying “Jesus is a cage fighter with a tattoo on his thigh and a sword in his hand, determined to make someone bleed”. He said this in reference to the fact that he “could not worship somebody that he could beat up.” 
Some people dismiss statements like this and chalk it up to testosterone fueled, overly inflated, pumped up hyper-masculinity.  I think that there is something much deeper and much more sinister involved. I think that it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of God and the interpretation of Christian scripture. 
What is noteworthy is that in Revelation 19, the sword is not in Jesus’ hand but it comes out of Jesus’ mouth. That seems important in the poetic nature of Revelation. This sword is not your average sword. It is not in Jesus’ hand and that makes you wonder if the way in which this sword “strike down” the nations is not in bloody violence but in a kind of destruction that would happen as a result of a sword that proceeds from the mouth of God?  Let’s ask ourselves “is there something that comes from the mouth of God that radically impacts or consumes peoples and nations?”  Is there something sharp that comes from the mouth of God … something sharper than any two edged sword? 
_____
I am suggesting that we need to be open to consider at least three ideas:
1. that since that time in church history when the church rose to Roman power and began to kill people (burn, hang, and behead) what we often call Christianity has been very different than the initial vision of Jesus and the precedent set by the early church when Jesus was killed by Romans and the church suffered violence. 
2. that when groups of nationals are invaded by violent foreigners who mix commerce and religion with genocide and ethnic cleansing, that maybe the rejection by the indigenous population of the alien religion can not be called a rejection of christianity. Maybe when groups like the Native American tribes who were assaulted by European invasion were not actually rejecting what you and I would know as the gospel of Jesus Christ. 
3. that when preachers get stuff like this wrong, that it essentially changes the message and thus the addition of violence to the gospel makes it a different enough message that they are not preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ anymore but a different gospel. Maybe he doesn’t just quote this passage wrong, maybe he has Jesus all wrong.
Now usually people say “no no it is not a different gospel – it is just an adding of something to the gospel.” It is the gospel plus violence. 
But I would ask, if the example and model of Jesus and the apostles is essentially and fundamentally  non-violent, and one adds violence to it… does it then essentially and fundamentally transform the gospel into something that is then not the gospel of Jesus Christ. 
But is it possible that this preacher did not just get a detail wrong but is actually portraying Jesus wrong. That he is not just adding something to the gospel but is preaching a different gospel and thus is not preaching the gospel? 
I guess a fun example would be : if I write a book about how English is the best language and how everyone should speak English. Then someone translates that my book into French… that would be complicated. But what if they then appropriated the message and said that French was the best language and everyone should speak French… would that then be a different message?   Even if it were based on my original book, had the same title and used all the same stuff – it would be a different message.
I think that they would not just have translated my message but would have changed my message. Essentially and fundamentally they would be saying something different than I was.  They would not be promoting my same message. 
This is the exact situation that I think we often have. People use Jesus’ name, read from the Holy Book and even put crosses on the outside of their building and on their stage. It has all the markers of a Christian message. Here is the problem – it has a fundamentally different message and motives than Jesus did. It uses Roman models and methods and thus it is not in keeping with the Spirit of Christ. 
Jesus was not violent. jesuSword is not Jesu’s sword but Jesus’ word. It’s not a sword – it is an un-sword or an anti-sword.  When we miss this detail, we miss the message.
* the phrase “not of this world” does not mean that Jesus power has nothing to do with this world, but that it does not originate with this world (unlike Herod’s or Pilate’s). It definitely impacts the world and is for the world. “Not of this world” does not mean that it has nothing to do with this world and is for a “world that is to come”. It means that it is fully IN the world but that the source of its power is not OF the world.  

22

>Real Christians

>

 In this edition: Women’s Voices,  Real Christians and the conversation continues around those 4 (now 5) verses. 
Women’s’ Voices:  My friend Brittany Ouchida-Walsh was in the newest Emergent Village newsletter  [link] with a GREAT reflection about voices that have silenced for far too long.  She has an immense insight about things. She also offers quotes that help you see things from a different angle. On her website, I found this one that  I thought I would pass along: 
     “So every pregnant mother enacts the communion words, ‘Take, eat, this is my body; drink, this is my blood.'” – Jean Shinoda Bolen
Real Christians: I got a note a couple of weeks ago that said ‘I have always divided churches into two categories : Bible believing and Not.’  This person went on to say really insightful things about their experiences and how their perspective has been challenged. 

    This got me thinking. Why DO we divide churches into those two camps?  Jesus doesn’t. 

Jesus says that at some point he is going to divide people up into two categories – but they are not based on believing the Bible – it will be based on how you treated other people (Matthew 25:31-46).  

    Why don’t we spit churches into Christ-behaving and Not – if we are going to split them up at all ?  My thought is that if we are going to introduce new categories – like “Bible-believing” and “Not” we should at least be required to integrate them into the categories of Christ. 

    Since I hate either/or  in/out  us/them two-categories (whether you call them binary or dualism or whatever)  here is my solution:  We make a chart that has 1 big square divided into  4 smaller squares. Across the top we put “Bible-literally” and “Not”. Then down the side we put “Christ-behaving” and “Not”.

    This will allow us to acknowledge that there are at least 4 types of Christians: those who take the Bible literally and behave like Christ,  Those that take the Bible literally and don’t behave like Christ, Those who don’t take the Bible literally and behave like Christ and Those who don’t take the Bible literally and don’t behave like Christ. 

    That would be more helpful (and more accurate) than this either/or thing that we do now.  I just think that at minimum we should use the categories and criteria that the Lord did  (a.k.a. the Sheep / Goats), even if want to integrate them into some criteria that we are after. 


The Conversation: My buddy Tim (a missionary) read my treatment of those 4 verses that we do the swap for [link] and said (basically) ‘that was great – but now that we know what they don’t mean, maybe you could throw out some suggestions of what they do mean…’ 

So I took up the challenge [link] last week and added a 5th verse for fun (Romans 10:9).  Here is Tim’s follow up note and my responses:  
Thanks for taking up the challenge my friend. Basically I like and agree with everything you’ve said.  
Let me respond to some of the thoughts: 
  1. 1)the governmental system stuff that you talk about is RIGHT ON.  When I read “Jesus for President” for the first time a lot of my impressions or ideas about this stuff was re-inforced, especially the Caesar is Lord issue. 
Shane Clairborne’s book “Jesus for President” [link] is one worth reading.  I would also put Warren Carter’s  “The Roman Empire and the New Testament” [link]  WAY at the front of my reading list if I were you. 
  1. 2)I still believe acknowledging the resurrection is a huge challenge for us but is essential in understanding God and being a Christian.  Even if our implications of the resurrection are a bit nuanced, for me, I still am with Paul in his ideas in 1 Cor. that without the resurrection of Christ we are left with a nice ethic but lacking the meta-physical power which sets this apart. 
    No doubt.  I am with you there.  I think that if you are going to be a Christian you have to have SOME belief in the resurrection – otherwise you are left with , as you say, a nice Ethic. 
    NOW – having said that… I have to clarify something. I have heard two good possibilities for the Resurrection that keep one squarely within the “ I believe” camp.  The first is called the ‘Empty Tomb’ camp and  is not really in need of any explanation. The second is called the ‘Presence’ camp and it holds that the Resurrected Jesus was the Presence of God whether or not there was a literal empty tomb.
    I know that this may sound weird to readers who are coming from a more conservative background – but you have to understand that for the last couple of hundred years in many Western churches (from Europe) there is a foundational belief in Enlightenment principles (like science) that you have to prove things. Since you can not prove the Resurrection and we don’t see many (or any) these days, then some have abandoned the literal Resurrection all together and other have had to kind of put it on the back shelf as simply a part of the tradition (the faith handed down).   
    This “Presence” approach allows believers who are coming from a more European perspective to reclaim the Easter story without abandoning or attacking the denomination or tradition that they came from – and I want to make room for them  in the conversation. 
    Now some people may jump and say “no that doesn’t count” but the more I have looked into it , the more I think that it qualifies as belief in the Resurrection.  Just keep two things in mind:
A) whatever kind of a body that Jesus had after the resurrection could walk through walls and stuff (John 20:19 for example). That body was not limited by physical space and time though it had physical properties.  
B) whatever the Apostle Paul encountered on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9)  was not a physical  body and yet it was certainly the Resurrected Christ. 
    I think that this is an important point to make because we are not having this conversation in a vacuum. It has been dominated for 400 years by Enlightenment Europeans who were working off of there own frameworks and agendas. So I do not think that we should allow them to control the conversation.  We need to address 1) scripture and 2) reality as we now understand it … in order to address our desire for a Big Tent Christianity and also to try to qualify as many believers in Christ as want to be qualified.  
 
  1. 3)I completely agree with the fact that being saved doesn’t mean simply getting a ticket to heaven.  This is horrible theology, a terrible reading of John 3, and frankly a very limited understanding of Jesus.  That being said, I don’t think that these texts necessarily oppose someone going to heaven after they die, I just don’t think that heaven is the central idea or even the goal in these selected texts.  
    Good clarification.  I certainly do not want to get rid of heaven after you die. My only point was that this is not the central concern of these texts.  I think that reading them in such a way dishonors them and misses the point. 

  1. 4)With you on the wide gate, on the thirst for power, on the love of violence, etc. 
    It has actually gotten to the point that over the last three years I have become suspicious that Jesus is nothing more than a hood-ornament on the Cadillac of Empire for many christians. Jesus said  Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? …”   
    I am planning a post leading up to Christmas to ask “Why do you think Jesus came ?”.  Modern Christianity  seems to have reverted to a form of nationalism, superstition, and greed … I honestly think that it is almost as if Jesus never came.  It would be no different if we just took all of the Greek & Roman mystery cults (denominations) and slapped Jesus’ name on them – as a title – but kept the basic framework, priorities, and behaviors without much alternation.  
    This is what Dallas Willard calls “Vampire Christians” – who want Jesus for his blood and little else. So little of what we do is based on Jesus – he is not even an Ethic for much of the western world. He is just a hood ornament on the giant machine of consumerism, military violence, and colonialism.  It’s almost as if Jesus never came and never said the stuff that he said and did the things that he did.  We often put “Christian” in the title and then do exactly what we would have done otherwise and when somebody says ‘I’m not sure that is Jesus’ way’ we say “in the Old Testament” or we say “in the Constitution”.  

  1. 5)In the John 14 passage I think you’ve said some important things.  These verses are definitely part of a conversation and shouldn’t be proof-texted (just like any other verses that we do this with).  I definitely don’t think that the primary purpose here is restrictive, that is, against other people.  However, I don’t think it doesn’t inherently create some restrictions by nature of the uniqueness of Christ.  What I mean is, even if you interpret the “way of Christ” differently (not as a ticket to heaven but as a lifestyle), you are still asserting that someone is following this way in order to access an intimate relationship with the father.  So, for me, to use your example, if a Hindu hates Jesus or the idea of Jesus, it is still problematic for me.  I definitely have friends, and maybe you’re in this category, who I love and respect, who believe that Jesus is the way in spite of the fact that the people who are seeking religion don’t acknowledge him.  In other words, his power supersedes ignorance.  Of course this is possible and God can do and does do more than we understand.  But personally for me it’s too risky to leave someone in a situation, knowing and experiencing nothing of Jesus and hoping that as a spiritual person they have this intimate relationship with the Father (we can just leave heaven out of it, no problem). Does that make sense?  
    Yeah. That is good. I think that the Way of Christ is the best thing in the world. I believe that the Jesus Way is better than every other.   Which is exactly why we need to stop quoting “I am the way” as a proof-text for why other religions are not going to Heaven.  All I am saying is : that is not what that verse is about.  We love to say “Jesus is the way” and this may or may not be connected to actually doing it Jesus’ way. 
Sorry to go on and on and on but basically this is the fundamental reason why I am in France in spite of the fact that people are cared for better than the States, there are fewer poor, most people are pacifists, green, etc.  In other words, in many ways they are advancing the kingdom.  But when I speak with them there is emptiness in the act, a void in spite of the heart for others, and a need for Christ to be central.  Sure we might talk about heaven at some point, but I’m certainly not leading with that.  I’d rather talk about the way of Jesus, but I need to talk about it, even if they’re Muslim, Hindu, atheist whatever.
    I love that you are there.  I love that you follow the way of Jesus.  I love that you want people who already do so many good things to do them with Jesus’ heart. That is awesome. I am with you 100%. 
    I think that you have real insight in the North American situation where so many who claim to follow Jesus don’t do those things.  
Great post, thanks for taking the time to do it and for offering solutions.   Appreciate you!
   Oh no , the pleasure is all mine! Thanks for the thoughtful response (and the challenge) . I am SO glad that you are doing what you are doing.
0

>Wide is the Road

>

Sometimes you read a passage of scripture and assume that you know what it is talking about.  Here is one of my favorites:

Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
    I use to think I knew what that verse meant.

    But then I found out that “Caesar is Lord” was something that people confessed in the time and around the area in which this part of the Bible was written. It turns out that hundreds of years before Jesus was even born that Caesars were given titles like Son of God, Savior of the world, King of Kings, and many other that would be familiar to anyone who has read the Christmas story. 
    That is the funny thing – I am always saying that all content happens in a context and this is a great example!  Jesus is Lord was not created in a vacuum.  It was ‘borrowed’ from an actually saying and converted (as it were) to a political statement of subversion and disobedience .  Following Jesus is political rebellion. 
    The writers of Scripture took the famous titles used for Caesar and then ascribed them to a peasant from the backwoods !  They were saying something.
    I also found out some other stuff – like believing in God raising anyone from the dead was a real issue both for the Jewish mind ( Sadducees / Pharisee spit.  see: Acts 23:8 ) and also for the Greek / Roman mind (see the Gnostic / Docetist split).  So to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead was really to view reality and physical / meta-physical things in a definite way. 
    To believe that God raised Jesus from the dead is to say “there is more to reality that simply what I can see”. This is rooted in history (and a historical event).
    Thirdly, as I have talked about before – being saved doesn’t just mean that your soul is going to heaven after you die.  Salvation in the original exodus motif is liberation from an oppressive Empire (Egypt at that point). Later when Israel had settled from it’s wanderings, it took on a ‘chicken in every pot’ sort of ‘everyone should have enough’ societal component.  Then, in Christ salvation became a transformational understanding of covenant. It was covenantal and it included all humanity. Later through church history salvation took on a Church/State component.   Recently salvation started to change into an Enlightenment understanding where salvation was of an individual. 
    I’m not making a statement about those transformations.  I just wanted to point it out, for the purpose of our passage.  
    So what those three elements come together to mean is: the government systems of this world are not my master (Jesus is Lord) , and there is more to reality that just what you can see (Jesus was raised from the dead) – that understanding then enables you to walk the way of Jesus (to be saved). 
    That is quite bit different than “I prayed a prayer one time, and I mentally acknowledge that a long time ago God did something powerful and so now,  the part of me that is not my body will go to heaven after I die.”  
Lets get to those four verses 
Matthew 7
13  Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
    We talked before about the danger of swapping out ‘wide gate’ for hell and ‘narrow path’ for heaven.  No – Jesus was saying that the roads of the empire (the system ) are made wide and made smooth. They are the roads of the masses. They are the road of commerce. These wide roads lead to walled cities that have wide gates because that is the way that most people live.
    They are contrast to the roads made by indigenous people. When Rome makes roads, they bring a legion of soldiers and make a road capable of hauling their carriages. They did this so that the Roman Legion could get to even the furthest region of the Empire and put down any rebellion or uprising with swift and massive violence. The saying was “Rome makes a desert and calls it peace.”  
The Roman roads were made for and by the military (this is how empire works) and then commerce was able to utilize the road to export their business to the far corners of the empire. 
    Jesus was contrasting roads made for and by the military with those made by walking. Indigenous roads were smaller – like glorified walking paths that had been improved on. They led to much smaller towns with smaller walls and thus smaller gates. 
    Jesus wasn’t saying “Many people are going to hell and that is easy to do (the wide road) but only a few are going to heaven (the narrow gate)”.   
    Jesus is saying  Many people live by the law of empire with military violence and colonial commerce. Don’t walk that obvious road – it leads to destruction. As Jews we have a path that is made by our people – it may look small and humble but it leads to life. Rome’s way is popular and most participate – God’s way is a backroad and not many choose to take it.
John 3:3
Jesus says to this religious professional “no one can see kingdom of God,unless you are born again.”  (or born from above)
    Jesus was not saying “you must have an internal individual experience so that after you die the part of you that is not your body can go to heaven”.  Jesus is telling a man who had the public position of being religious “You have start again – you have to approach it like a child – you have to be vulnerable … like a baby” 
    Jesus wasn’t being literal. You don’t actually have to be born a second time. The Bible is not meant to be read literally in places like this.  Jesus was not saying that every human being must have an experience where they realize that they are dirty sinner and repent of their sins by saying them out loud and repeating a prayer that asks Jesus into their heart. 
    Jesus is saying if you want to see what God is doing (the kingdom) then you will have to start again – don’t assume that you are already in and that you already get it. Begin again for the first time. 
John 14:6
6  Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7  If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
    As in the John 3 passage, John 14 happens in a conversation where Jesus’ dialogue partners are having trouble understanding what he is saying.  
    Jesus is talking about how his father’s house has many rooms and how is going away to prepare a place for them.  Thomas says ‘we don’t know where you are going and thus we don’t know the way’.
    Let’s be clear on this 1) This is part of a conversation  2) this conversation happened in a context where Jesus (the master) had just washed his disciples feet in act of true humility where the status quo of leadership, titles and privilege were turned upside down 3) Jesus is not talking about why there will be no Hindus in heaven. 
    Jesus is not talking about Hindus.  That is not what he is addressing when he says that the is the way to having a relationship with the Father.  And let’s be honest – while as the Eternal Son and Second member of the Trinity in heaven he would have known about Hindus – and Muslims did not even exist yet – as the incarnate Christ he may not have even known about Hindus and certainly could not have known about Muslims.  So he is not telling us why no one is going to heaven except Christians. 
    Jesus is saying “There is lots of room for many different types of people in my Father’s house – and if you want to have a relationship with the Father like I have  (intimacy and power) then you have to walk in my way with me”. 
    The irony here is twofold: 1) many preachers have used this verse to say why Hindus are not going to heaven (as well as many others)  2) while they loudly proclaim that Jesus is the way – they do not walk in Jesus’ way of servant leadership, humility and turning over the status quo when it comes to status and power. 
    Jesus isn’t talking about heaven and hell.  Jesus is talking about the Way of Christ and how that is the way that one comes to have the kind of intimacy that he has with the Father. 
We might as just address the nature of the text as long as we are looking at the text.
2 Timothy 3
15  and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    It probably goes without saying at this point – but this passage is not saying that the Bible is Infallible or Inerrant or any of those words that we insist on and call people heretics for not believing in the modern era. 
    It is simply saying that we believe that our Scriptures come from God – they are infused with God’s breath and life – that they are extremely useful for the work of the church and that  they are empowering and corrective – that they are authoritative for what God intended them. 
    In our scriptures, Adam was God breathed but not infallible (as Dan so eloquently pointed out).
______
    So if we take the five passages of scripture from today and put them all together what we come out with is :
The government systems of this world are not our master, and there is more to reality that just what you can see – understanding that enables you to walk the way of Jesus (salvation from the way of this world).
Many people live by the law of empire with military violence and colonial commerce. Don’t walk that obvious road – it leads to destruction. People who live on the fringes and margins of Empire have a path that is made by people in a covenant with God (not ruling by violence and power but instead by love) – it may look small and humble but it leads to life. Rome’s way is popular and most participate in it – God’s way is a backroad and not many choose to take it.
If you want to see what God is doing (the kingdom) then you will have to start again – don’t assume that you are already in and that you already get it. Begin again for the first time.
There is lots of room for many different types of people in the Father’s house – and if you want to have a relationship with the Father like Jesus had with the Father (intimacy and power) then you have to walk in Jesus’ way.
We believe that our Scriptures come from God – they are infused with God’s life and animated by God’s wind – that makes them extremely useful for the work of the church and that  they are empowering and corrective – That they are authoritative for what God intended them for they are inspired by God’s very revelation. 
    I know that it is tough to read a scripture again for the first time. This reading is more Jewish, it is more organic, and it is more relational. All I ask is that you consider starting over (again) and seeing if there might be anything to it.
1

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑