thoughts on "consumptive church"
Nate Myers // Dec 5, 2007 at 1:09 pm
No Wes, Josh specifically said the gospel. The Gospels contain our central instruction on the gospel, but they do not contain its fullness.
The gospel is the good news that God has come to redeem us and model and give expectations about what it means to be fully human and live for what we’ve been created for.
Which is where Deuteronomy comes in, and the reason why I quoted it, because it carries a concern that is consistent from Old Testament to New; care for the widowed and the oppressed (including foreigners in your lands) and the marginalized, invest in them to the point that it destroys your comfort zone.
The Gospel message is not, I repeat NOT about changing one’s life. It is, as Josh highlighted, about changing everything, which includes my life. But my life’s only important as it finds its place in God’s redemption of the whole picture.
And the confession “Jesus is Lord,” Wes, means Caesar (or Presidents Bush or Putin or whoever) is not Lord. Which understandably ruffled the feathers of the surrounding establishment. Jesus is Lord means our primary citizenship is in the kingdom of heaven that exists (in an incomplete way) here on earth; made up of those living into God’s will.
#
Josh // Dec 5, 2007 at 1:11 pm
nate. you said it extremely well. so well that i don’t even have anything to add. thanks for sharing. that’s a blog post in of itself.
wes. nathan is right. paul’s constant use of the phrase jesus is lord is a deeply political, economic, and social statement. if you’re reading nt. wright and some of the new perspectives on paul like you said, you’re probably quite familiar with this idea of jesus as lord being an extremely subversive statement not only to caesar, but the whole of the roman empire.
as for specific gospel messages. first of all when i say gospel i’m talking about the kingdom of god. and not 4 books. but since jesus is situated in those 4 books, then i’ll share some passages.
and since you don’t want something from the law, perhaps we should look at The Expounding of the Law passage, also known as The Antithesis to the Law passage. this passage is situated in the middle of the sermon on the mount. which one could argue is highly political, economic, and social in nature. by calling into question and critiquing not only the mosaic (read religious) way but the larger culture’s way of dealing with adultery, oaths, divorce. essentially throughout the whole sermon on the mount jesus is flipping everyone’s understandings of these things on end and showing how subversive his interpretation of them really is.
but let’s look at The Expounding of the Law passage. in a culture that was highly militarized, built on the back of violence, and where retribution was not only the norm, but justified under both mosaic law and roman law . . . jesus makes some extremely interesting statements about turning the other cheek and going the extra mile.
in the case of the extra mile . . . most interpret this as we should do nice things for people. what jesus was saying is that, rome has the “right” to demand that you carry a soldiers pack if he should ask. but instead of just carrying it the required mile which was demanded, you should carry it two miles. sounds easy enough. but to carry it more than the 1 mile that was mandated by law, would get the soldier in trouble. you had to take it a mile willingly. but you couldn’t do two miles without getting rome in trouble. so for someone to carry it two put the soldier in a rather awkward place. 1) it exposed the shallow nature of the roman law in the first place. and 2) it forced the soldier to make a political decision. accept the gracious gift of having his pack carried an extra mile thus violating roman law and embracing the generous theme of the kingdom of god. or to submit to the roman law and deny the generosity of the kingdom. effectively boxing him in to make a decision about which kingdom he would give allegiance to.
same for the turn the cheek bit. the text actually says that if someone hits you on the “right” cheek, turn to them your left. at that time you couldn’t touch an “unclean” person with anything but your left hand. so to strike someone on the right cheek meant you had to back-slap them. to then turn your other cheek to them after they slapped you with the back of your hand would be a political statement. you were exposing the violence of the empire. to give them your left cheek would mean they would have to punch you with that same “left-hand” or to back slap you with their right hand, thus declaring you clean by touch. it was a defiant act that again forced the hand of the empire.
effectively what both of these stories were saying is, fine . . . you can hit me . . . you can make me carry your pack. but it means nothing to me. i don’t do it because of roman law. i don’t do it because i’m supposed to. i don’t do it out of fear of violence. i do it because of the political nature of the kingdom of god that sees no power in what you do. it’s not that you don’t exist. it’s just that you don’t have any power over me. because you’re an empty politic. an empty kingdom.
one more example below.
#
Josh // Dec 5, 2007 at 1:14 pm
sorry it got too long.
2 stories in matthew juxtapose against each other and help us in our thinking. matt. 22:15-22 and matt. 17:24-27. shane claiborne in irresistible revolution and walter wink in the powers that be speak to the dynamic interplay going on in these two separate stories.
matt. 22 is where we get “give to caesar what is caesars” when the religious elite hand jesus a coin with caesar’s image on it and ask him who it belonged to. and matt. 17 is where jesus tells peter to pull a fish from the waters edge and take the coin out of his mouth and pay the temple tax with that.
the coin in both stories is the denarius, which was minted solely for tax purposes. it bore the image of caesar on it and had inscriptions and symbols proclaming the divinity of Caesar.
so in the first story jesus tells them the coin is caesars. it has his image on it. so it must be caesars. so give to caesar what is caesars. and in doing so develops the relationship between jesus and the state. the state may have the coins. it may demand the allegiance. but just because caesar’s name is on the coin doesn’t give him the power over life. an image doesn’t demand allegiance.
this story would have been built off of the backs of matt. 17 with the fish and the coin story still fresh in the minds of his followers. the authorities come to find out if jesus pays the temple tax. peter immediately says yes and pays it. later on jesus tells him to go down to the waters edge, pull out a fish, and you’ll find a coin in the fish’s mouth.
this was a lesson to his followers that you can pay caesar his tax to avoid trouble and to show your allegiance, but never forget who has the power to create life itself. the power to create a coin in a fish’s mouth. it’s not that jesus was opposed and antithetical to the state. but rather he existed on another plane altogether. he saw the frivolity of the state. it’s lack of real power. the only power it had was because god gave it power. so it wasn’t an issue to give to caesar what is caesars because what is caesars is god’s.
jesus could have easily said just pay the tax. or forged a relationship between “church” and “state”. but instead he made the point that the “state” only has power because of god.
that’s a political statement.
and i’m not sure how you couldn’t look at the cross and see that as a political statement. choosing to die non-violently instead of rise up in violence to oppose the oppressor? the cross is the most political of all.
...
Nate Myers // Dec 6, 2007 at 11:27 am
Getting back on topic, there’s a question of centrality here that Wes touched on that really sets the context for me of why Josh’s thoughts here are so important.
Put simply, you could answer the question, “Why is the church consumptive in nature?” with the answer “because the individual (evangelizing, converting, and equipping) is the audience of worship.”
That’s why I almost completely disagree with you, Wes on your comment that
“If I don’t change myself first good luck on getting anything else changed. It is what the gospel is all about a persons relationship with Christ from changing “my” ways to Christ ways.”
No, the gospel is all about God, and the character of this God who has created something beautiful, it has turned against him to selfish human-centered ways, and he in his steadfast love is redeeming and reconciling that creation to himself.
If the gospel is all about individuals and their relationship with God, a picture emerges of a world (God’s world!) fragmented by individualism and individualistic pursuits that can’t be corrected by others because “it’s my relationship with God, and I’m not subject to anyone but God and his Word.” This is, as a foundation, terribly naive, because any individual’s interpretation of God’s Word (or collection of like-minded individuals) is flawed and more informed by their experience than anything else.
But if the center is God and God’s counter-cultural, God-embracing, obedient, radically loving, radically forgiving, revolutionary kingdom that is retrieving the creation that has fallen into disrepair, denial, and darkness; well now we’re talking!!!! And this is one that challenges my understanding and the understanding of people most like me to consider that maybe our perspective isn’t the only one; and so we submit to the voices of the church from around the globe and the reality that their perspectives are just as valid as ours. Sure, Scripture is the foundation, but the interpretation of Scripture as to how it informs our foundation is a messy process.
And if we’re going with the second picture (God and God’s kingdom as central) over the first (the heart of the individual), which we should because it’s deeply Biblical and the first one isn’t, then I find where I as an individual find my place. And that place is right alongside others in God’s kingdom committed to discipleship and love in Christ’s example.
You see what I’m saying? You and I are not not important, we’re just important only as a part of the whole that we’re participating in.
That sort of perspective should immediately change the focus of our worship off the individual as audience (which leads to a consumptive church) to God as audience (which leads to a participatory church). And in directing worship to God, we get to talk about what right worship includes. Which, Biblically speaking, ranges from singing and praying and Bible study to glasses of cold water and clothes for the unclothed and healing for the sick and caring for the needs of foreigners among us (a very relevant reminder for Christians that should guide the way we think about the current immigration dispute in the US).
And that should alter an approach like yours following;
“This is where the emergent church loses me. You guys do a great job about the environment, oppression, the jacked up church, but you avoid holiness and following Christ’s commandments. Your do a great job of addressing half the problems but I don’t see the other side of things.”
Other than that being a sweeping stereotype that’s simply not true when you look more deeply into the wide spectrum of those who identify with “emergent” concerns, it underscores that you are coming from the opposite extreme an “emergent” could occupy. For you, holiness is represented in pious ways (singing, prayer, attention to individual relationship with God, Bible study) that neglect the call to “love your neighbor” in practical ways that inform the pursuit of holiness just as much as personal piety.
So while “emerging” types could be tempted to overemphasize social justice concerns at the expense of personal piety, they, in the most basic sense, are bringing a corrective to an incomplete picture of the pursuit of holiness that should inform and guide followers of Jesus to deeper faithfulness and holiness. Bringing balance to the Force, so to speak.
So be careful with your confident pronouncements on what is “holy” or “faithful” or “the point of the gospel.” I think Josh is right, holiness touches on everything ranging from what are often labeled as “liberal” concerns to “conservative” concerns. That’s why we need a good dose of humility, a good set of ears to listen before speaking, and a desire to pursue truth together; only then will we be wise in the ways of God and His kingdom.
No Wes, Josh specifically said the gospel. The Gospels contain our central instruction on the gospel, but they do not contain its fullness.
The gospel is the good news that God has come to redeem us and model and give expectations about what it means to be fully human and live for what we’ve been created for.
Which is where Deuteronomy comes in, and the reason why I quoted it, because it carries a concern that is consistent from Old Testament to New; care for the widowed and the oppressed (including foreigners in your lands) and the marginalized, invest in them to the point that it destroys your comfort zone.
The Gospel message is not, I repeat NOT about changing one’s life. It is, as Josh highlighted, about changing everything, which includes my life. But my life’s only important as it finds its place in God’s redemption of the whole picture.
And the confession “Jesus is Lord,” Wes, means Caesar (or Presidents Bush or Putin or whoever) is not Lord. Which understandably ruffled the feathers of the surrounding establishment. Jesus is Lord means our primary citizenship is in the kingdom of heaven that exists (in an incomplete way) here on earth; made up of those living into God’s will.
#
Josh // Dec 5, 2007 at 1:11 pm
nate. you said it extremely well. so well that i don’t even have anything to add. thanks for sharing. that’s a blog post in of itself.
wes. nathan is right. paul’s constant use of the phrase jesus is lord is a deeply political, economic, and social statement. if you’re reading nt. wright and some of the new perspectives on paul like you said, you’re probably quite familiar with this idea of jesus as lord being an extremely subversive statement not only to caesar, but the whole of the roman empire.
as for specific gospel messages. first of all when i say gospel i’m talking about the kingdom of god. and not 4 books. but since jesus is situated in those 4 books, then i’ll share some passages.
and since you don’t want something from the law, perhaps we should look at The Expounding of the Law passage, also known as The Antithesis to the Law passage. this passage is situated in the middle of the sermon on the mount. which one could argue is highly political, economic, and social in nature. by calling into question and critiquing not only the mosaic (read religious) way but the larger culture’s way of dealing with adultery, oaths, divorce. essentially throughout the whole sermon on the mount jesus is flipping everyone’s understandings of these things on end and showing how subversive his interpretation of them really is.
but let’s look at The Expounding of the Law passage. in a culture that was highly militarized, built on the back of violence, and where retribution was not only the norm, but justified under both mosaic law and roman law . . . jesus makes some extremely interesting statements about turning the other cheek and going the extra mile.
in the case of the extra mile . . . most interpret this as we should do nice things for people. what jesus was saying is that, rome has the “right” to demand that you carry a soldiers pack if he should ask. but instead of just carrying it the required mile which was demanded, you should carry it two miles. sounds easy enough. but to carry it more than the 1 mile that was mandated by law, would get the soldier in trouble. you had to take it a mile willingly. but you couldn’t do two miles without getting rome in trouble. so for someone to carry it two put the soldier in a rather awkward place. 1) it exposed the shallow nature of the roman law in the first place. and 2) it forced the soldier to make a political decision. accept the gracious gift of having his pack carried an extra mile thus violating roman law and embracing the generous theme of the kingdom of god. or to submit to the roman law and deny the generosity of the kingdom. effectively boxing him in to make a decision about which kingdom he would give allegiance to.
same for the turn the cheek bit. the text actually says that if someone hits you on the “right” cheek, turn to them your left. at that time you couldn’t touch an “unclean” person with anything but your left hand. so to strike someone on the right cheek meant you had to back-slap them. to then turn your other cheek to them after they slapped you with the back of your hand would be a political statement. you were exposing the violence of the empire. to give them your left cheek would mean they would have to punch you with that same “left-hand” or to back slap you with their right hand, thus declaring you clean by touch. it was a defiant act that again forced the hand of the empire.
effectively what both of these stories were saying is, fine . . . you can hit me . . . you can make me carry your pack. but it means nothing to me. i don’t do it because of roman law. i don’t do it because i’m supposed to. i don’t do it out of fear of violence. i do it because of the political nature of the kingdom of god that sees no power in what you do. it’s not that you don’t exist. it’s just that you don’t have any power over me. because you’re an empty politic. an empty kingdom.
one more example below.
#
Josh // Dec 5, 2007 at 1:14 pm
sorry it got too long.
2 stories in matthew juxtapose against each other and help us in our thinking. matt. 22:15-22 and matt. 17:24-27. shane claiborne in irresistible revolution and walter wink in the powers that be speak to the dynamic interplay going on in these two separate stories.
matt. 22 is where we get “give to caesar what is caesars” when the religious elite hand jesus a coin with caesar’s image on it and ask him who it belonged to. and matt. 17 is where jesus tells peter to pull a fish from the waters edge and take the coin out of his mouth and pay the temple tax with that.
the coin in both stories is the denarius, which was minted solely for tax purposes. it bore the image of caesar on it and had inscriptions and symbols proclaming the divinity of Caesar.
so in the first story jesus tells them the coin is caesars. it has his image on it. so it must be caesars. so give to caesar what is caesars. and in doing so develops the relationship between jesus and the state. the state may have the coins. it may demand the allegiance. but just because caesar’s name is on the coin doesn’t give him the power over life. an image doesn’t demand allegiance.
this story would have been built off of the backs of matt. 17 with the fish and the coin story still fresh in the minds of his followers. the authorities come to find out if jesus pays the temple tax. peter immediately says yes and pays it. later on jesus tells him to go down to the waters edge, pull out a fish, and you’ll find a coin in the fish’s mouth.
this was a lesson to his followers that you can pay caesar his tax to avoid trouble and to show your allegiance, but never forget who has the power to create life itself. the power to create a coin in a fish’s mouth. it’s not that jesus was opposed and antithetical to the state. but rather he existed on another plane altogether. he saw the frivolity of the state. it’s lack of real power. the only power it had was because god gave it power. so it wasn’t an issue to give to caesar what is caesars because what is caesars is god’s.
jesus could have easily said just pay the tax. or forged a relationship between “church” and “state”. but instead he made the point that the “state” only has power because of god.
that’s a political statement.
and i’m not sure how you couldn’t look at the cross and see that as a political statement. choosing to die non-violently instead of rise up in violence to oppose the oppressor? the cross is the most political of all.
...
Nate Myers // Dec 6, 2007 at 11:27 am
Getting back on topic, there’s a question of centrality here that Wes touched on that really sets the context for me of why Josh’s thoughts here are so important.
Put simply, you could answer the question, “Why is the church consumptive in nature?” with the answer “because the individual (evangelizing, converting, and equipping) is the audience of worship.”
That’s why I almost completely disagree with you, Wes on your comment that
“If I don’t change myself first good luck on getting anything else changed. It is what the gospel is all about a persons relationship with Christ from changing “my” ways to Christ ways.”
No, the gospel is all about God, and the character of this God who has created something beautiful, it has turned against him to selfish human-centered ways, and he in his steadfast love is redeeming and reconciling that creation to himself.
If the gospel is all about individuals and their relationship with God, a picture emerges of a world (God’s world!) fragmented by individualism and individualistic pursuits that can’t be corrected by others because “it’s my relationship with God, and I’m not subject to anyone but God and his Word.” This is, as a foundation, terribly naive, because any individual’s interpretation of God’s Word (or collection of like-minded individuals) is flawed and more informed by their experience than anything else.
But if the center is God and God’s counter-cultural, God-embracing, obedient, radically loving, radically forgiving, revolutionary kingdom that is retrieving the creation that has fallen into disrepair, denial, and darkness; well now we’re talking!!!! And this is one that challenges my understanding and the understanding of people most like me to consider that maybe our perspective isn’t the only one; and so we submit to the voices of the church from around the globe and the reality that their perspectives are just as valid as ours. Sure, Scripture is the foundation, but the interpretation of Scripture as to how it informs our foundation is a messy process.
And if we’re going with the second picture (God and God’s kingdom as central) over the first (the heart of the individual), which we should because it’s deeply Biblical and the first one isn’t, then I find where I as an individual find my place. And that place is right alongside others in God’s kingdom committed to discipleship and love in Christ’s example.
You see what I’m saying? You and I are not not important, we’re just important only as a part of the whole that we’re participating in.
That sort of perspective should immediately change the focus of our worship off the individual as audience (which leads to a consumptive church) to God as audience (which leads to a participatory church). And in directing worship to God, we get to talk about what right worship includes. Which, Biblically speaking, ranges from singing and praying and Bible study to glasses of cold water and clothes for the unclothed and healing for the sick and caring for the needs of foreigners among us (a very relevant reminder for Christians that should guide the way we think about the current immigration dispute in the US).
And that should alter an approach like yours following;
“This is where the emergent church loses me. You guys do a great job about the environment, oppression, the jacked up church, but you avoid holiness and following Christ’s commandments. Your do a great job of addressing half the problems but I don’t see the other side of things.”
Other than that being a sweeping stereotype that’s simply not true when you look more deeply into the wide spectrum of those who identify with “emergent” concerns, it underscores that you are coming from the opposite extreme an “emergent” could occupy. For you, holiness is represented in pious ways (singing, prayer, attention to individual relationship with God, Bible study) that neglect the call to “love your neighbor” in practical ways that inform the pursuit of holiness just as much as personal piety.
So while “emerging” types could be tempted to overemphasize social justice concerns at the expense of personal piety, they, in the most basic sense, are bringing a corrective to an incomplete picture of the pursuit of holiness that should inform and guide followers of Jesus to deeper faithfulness and holiness. Bringing balance to the Force, so to speak.
So be careful with your confident pronouncements on what is “holy” or “faithful” or “the point of the gospel.” I think Josh is right, holiness touches on everything ranging from what are often labeled as “liberal” concerns to “conservative” concerns. That’s why we need a good dose of humility, a good set of ears to listen before speaking, and a desire to pursue truth together; only then will we be wise in the ways of God and His kingdom.
posted by steph at
12:42:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home