I just posted some new pictures from a recent trip with some friends to the Pacific Coast out on the peninsula. They can be found here:
http://www.cabematthews.com/photos/mora
And here:
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2458108&id=7915777&ref=mf
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
The Non-Violent Jesus of Revelation
I just posted the following comment on Kim's Faith and Gender blog. Her post is in response to a blog post by Mark Driscoll that can be found here.
You're right. The street-fighting Jesus is not in the Gospels. But I have to break something to Mark: he isn't in Revelation either.
In Revelation it turns out that the victorious lion is a slain lamb, and when Jesus rides in to battle he has a sword, as Kim rightly pointed out, only it's a sword that is coming out of his mouth. His sword is the word of God.
There is war imagery in Revelation to be sure; many first century Christian communities felt besieged and attacked and so this imagery makes sense here. But it's always twisted a little, showing that this war is very much not conventional. For instance, it doesn't make sense for a victorious general's robe to be soaked in blood - to be soaked in blood like that is an image of defeat, because whose blood is it going to be but yours? And yet the victorious general riding into battle is wearing such a blood-soaked robe. This is not conventional warfare imagery, but subverted warfare imagery - imagery to transform and supersede conventional warfare.
The victorious lion is the lamb that was slain. That's the scandal of the New Testament, and perhaps of all human history. The lion defeats his foes by the way of the cross, not by the way of the sword.
I think Mark is right: Jesus could beat him up. The gospel (expressed perhaps too simply) is that he absolutely won't.
Also, it should perhaps be pointed out that pornography, something I believe Mark takes a strong stance against, is also very good at reaching men from 18 to 34. I think in that case also it's important to wonder with Mark why this demographic is drawn to such things. But to then colonize your doctrine of God with such things is problematic at best. Why are we to reject pornography but embrace the UFC? Why is sex bad in pornography but violence is great when it comes to the Octagon? Who gets to decide what's good and where?
If the answer to that last question is "Jesus" then I think there is a much better case for Christians to be skeptical of violence in all forms than there is for us to be skeptical of things like pornography.
You're right. The street-fighting Jesus is not in the Gospels. But I have to break something to Mark: he isn't in Revelation either.
In Revelation it turns out that the victorious lion is a slain lamb, and when Jesus rides in to battle he has a sword, as Kim rightly pointed out, only it's a sword that is coming out of his mouth. His sword is the word of God.
There is war imagery in Revelation to be sure; many first century Christian communities felt besieged and attacked and so this imagery makes sense here. But it's always twisted a little, showing that this war is very much not conventional. For instance, it doesn't make sense for a victorious general's robe to be soaked in blood - to be soaked in blood like that is an image of defeat, because whose blood is it going to be but yours? And yet the victorious general riding into battle is wearing such a blood-soaked robe. This is not conventional warfare imagery, but subverted warfare imagery - imagery to transform and supersede conventional warfare.
The victorious lion is the lamb that was slain. That's the scandal of the New Testament, and perhaps of all human history. The lion defeats his foes by the way of the cross, not by the way of the sword.
I think Mark is right: Jesus could beat him up. The gospel (expressed perhaps too simply) is that he absolutely won't.
Also, it should perhaps be pointed out that pornography, something I believe Mark takes a strong stance against, is also very good at reaching men from 18 to 34. I think in that case also it's important to wonder with Mark why this demographic is drawn to such things. But to then colonize your doctrine of God with such things is problematic at best. Why are we to reject pornography but embrace the UFC? Why is sex bad in pornography but violence is great when it comes to the Octagon? Who gets to decide what's good and where?
If the answer to that last question is "Jesus" then I think there is a much better case for Christians to be skeptical of violence in all forms than there is for us to be skeptical of things like pornography.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not be Ordained for Ministry
Kim George emailed this link to me, and I found it amusing, witty, and insightful:
Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not be Ordained for Ministry
Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not be Ordained for Ministry
Some Thoughts on What's Changed Since the Last Time I Blogged
It has been since December, and there has been significant movement in my life since then. Here are a few of those movements, briefly articulated as a way for me to step back into the blogosphere with these new convictions as a starting point of sorts.
1. Christian theology must be ethical. Jesus' teachings must be lived now, in this life, and they aren't some kind of unrealistic moral standard to prove we are all sinners. We are all sinners, but Jesus' teaching are still what we aspire towards today.
2. This (perhaps obvious to some) realization has led me to another conclusion: If I am to follow Jesus I must be against violence in all forms. As such, I'm a pacifist now. If I follow a God who preached love and forgiveness for enemies and neighbors alike, who taught us to turn the other cheek and that those who live by the sword die by the sword, who ultimately allowed himself to be brutally murdered while praying for his murderers' forgiveness, and who we call Prince of Peace, I am by necessity unable to justify taking the life of another.
3. But also to be true to this God I must recognize another important theme in God's self revelation through Christ. Namely, I cannot be passive, but must be active. To follow Christ is to do things: healing the sick, caring for the poor, setting captives free, and actively standing up against the violence of those who would do harm to others, whether those others are my friends or my enemies.
Those three are a helpful starting point, but it should be said that they are in no way an attempt at being comprehensive, as I've left out much that has remained largely the same. For instance, the resurrection went unmentioned, though that remains a central presupposition of mine, and in many ways I think I see these three things through resurrection eyes. I also left some things out that have changed, but get off my back; this is only a blog.
1. Christian theology must be ethical. Jesus' teachings must be lived now, in this life, and they aren't some kind of unrealistic moral standard to prove we are all sinners. We are all sinners, but Jesus' teaching are still what we aspire towards today.
2. This (perhaps obvious to some) realization has led me to another conclusion: If I am to follow Jesus I must be against violence in all forms. As such, I'm a pacifist now. If I follow a God who preached love and forgiveness for enemies and neighbors alike, who taught us to turn the other cheek and that those who live by the sword die by the sword, who ultimately allowed himself to be brutally murdered while praying for his murderers' forgiveness, and who we call Prince of Peace, I am by necessity unable to justify taking the life of another.
3. But also to be true to this God I must recognize another important theme in God's self revelation through Christ. Namely, I cannot be passive, but must be active. To follow Christ is to do things: healing the sick, caring for the poor, setting captives free, and actively standing up against the violence of those who would do harm to others, whether those others are my friends or my enemies.
Those three are a helpful starting point, but it should be said that they are in no way an attempt at being comprehensive, as I've left out much that has remained largely the same. For instance, the resurrection went unmentioned, though that remains a central presupposition of mine, and in many ways I think I see these three things through resurrection eyes. I also left some things out that have changed, but get off my back; this is only a blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)