Jesus Manifesto - Latest Comments in the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jazzact13 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:56:50 -0000

I've already asked where in Romans 12 Paul calls Rome an enemy. I've even read the other post linked to in the op, and still saw nothing in it about Rome being an enemy.

--By naming America as an “Empire” we name the reality that the USA is not the Kingdom of God--

Umm, no, you don't. You could say that quite well without getting into the rhetoric of "empire" and "enemy".

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jazzact13 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:56:50 -0000

--let me remind you that (even if I thought that these passages argue for support of government) Paul called Rome an enemy in Romans 12. He names Rome as an enemy right before he argues that we ought to submit.--

I've already asked where in Romans 12 Paul calls Rome an enemy. I've even read the other post linked to in the op, and still saw nothing in it about Rome being an enemy.

--By naming America as an “Empire” we name the reality that the USA is not the Kingdom of God--

Umm, no, you don't. You could say that quite well without getting into the rhetoric of "empire" and "enemy".

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jazzact13 — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:56:50 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jazzact13 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:36:21 -0000

The point, for me, is to raise the question "who is our real enemy?"

For example, when Paul in Romans tells us that "if you enemy is hungry, feed him...", I think he is referencing something form Proverbs, which would have predated the Roman Empire.

There is also another use of enemy in Romans, when in ch. 11 Pauls refers to Israel having become an enemy of the church in regards to the gospel, though there is a strong hint in that passage that such a state was not permenant.

Some times when the NT uses words like 'enemy' or 'adversary', then it refers more to Satan.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jazzact13 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:36:21 -0000

The point, for me, is to raise the question "who is our real enemy?"

For example, when Paul in Romans tells us that "if you enemy is hungry, feed him...", I think he is referencing something form Proverbs, which would have predated the Roman Empire.

There is also another use of enemy in Romans, when in ch. 11 Pauls refers to Israel having become an enemy of the church in regards to the gospel, though there is a strong hint in that passage that such a state was not permenant.

Some times when the NT uses words like 'enemy' or 'adversary', then it refers more to Satan.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jazzact13 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:36:21 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Jordan Peacock — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:02:00 -0000

At least according to Pseduo-Dionysius, principalities and powers where levels in angelic hierarchy, and those referenced by Paul were the fallen angels of those types.

I'm not sure I agree 100%, but it's a drastically different understanding from earthly government.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Jordan Peacock — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:02:00 -0000

At least according to Pseduo-Dionysius, principalities and powers where levels in angelic hierarchy, and those referenced by Paul were the fallen angels of those types.

I'm not sure I agree 100%, but it's a drastically different understanding from earthly government.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Jordan Peacock — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:02:00 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jazzact13 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:30:14 -0000

--Was Rome an enemy to the kingdom of God?--

If you're saying we should assume that the answer is "yes", I have to ask "why would I be forced to such a conclusion"?

--The Christian definition is that person or group or thing or Power or whatever that resists the kingdom of God and, should therefore be loved.--

Where did you get that definition from?

--Our call is to love those who are flesh and blood and resist the Principalities and Powers. --

Ephesians 6
12. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand .

I would agree with you about resisting principalities and powers, but I can't agree that with this Paul is talking about governments. It would be strange language indeed to tell people to submit and then to resist.

There is at least one other passage where those words are used.

Ephesians 3
10. To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

It strikes me that the principalites and powes being mentioned have more of a spiritual basis then a physical--rulers of the darkness of the this world, spiritual wickedness, in heavenly places. That language seems more to do with spiritual then with governmental things.

When Christ was tempted, he was promised all the kingdoms of the world if he would give in to the temptation. Satan claimed to have those things and that they were his to give, and Christ did not say otherwise, but did resist the temptation.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jazzact13 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:30:14 -0000

--Was Rome an enemy to the kingdom of God?--

If you're saying we should assume that the answer is "yes", I have to ask "why would I be forced to such a conclusion"?

--The Christian definition is that person or group or thing or Power or whatever that resists the kingdom of God and, should therefore be loved.--

Where did you get that definition from?

--Our call is to love those who are flesh and blood and resist the Principalities and Powers. --

Ephesians 6

12. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand .

I would agree with you about resisting principalities and powers, but I can't agree that with this Paul is talking about governments. It would be strange language indeed to tell people to submit and then to resist.

There is at least one other passage where those words are used.

Ephesians 3

10. To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

It strikes me that the principalites and powes being mentioned have more of a spiritual basis then a physical--rulers of the darkness of the this world, spiritual wickedness, in heavenly places. That language seems more to do with spiritual then with governmental things.

When Christ was tempted, he was promised all the kingdoms of the world if he would give in to the temptation. Satan claimed to have those things and that they were his to give, and Christ did not say otherwise, but did resist the temptation.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jazzact13 — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:30:14 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Ben Robinson — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:16:26 -0000

John,

Your use of culture is ambiguous. I'm wondering if you have in the back of your mind the work of Niehbuhr in his famous "Christ and Culture". If so, I think Yoder's critique of Niehbuhr on this point is crucial. Niehbuhr (and at least the way I'm reading your comment) seems to suppose that culture is monolithic, and the task becomes how we relate Christ to already presupposed/established "culture" (that is, in your case, what are the implications for culture). That Niehbuhr seeks to relate Christ to "culture", as Yoder points out, already manifests a problem in the way the church's relation to society is understood. Culture does not stand independent and then require that we relate Christ to it. Instead, the Gospel creates a theological culture of sorts. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus open up the possibility for an alternative modality of existence.

Culture and polity are very closely entwined. But the main point of considering empires as "enemy" is that governmental structures are representative of the old order of being, which is passing away in light of the new order made possible by Jesus. The way in which governments of this world wield power is specifically rejected in Jesus' revolution of the political.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Ben Robinson — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:16:26 -0000

John,

Your use of culture is ambiguous. I'm wondering if you have in the back of your mind the work of Niehbuhr in his famous "Christ and Culture". If so, I think Yoder's critique of Niehbuhr on this point is crucial. Niehbuhr (and at least the way I'm reading your comment) seems to suppose that culture is monolithic, and the task becomes how we relate Christ to already presupposed/established "culture" (that is, in your case, what are the implications for culture). That Niehbuhr seeks to relate Christ to "culture", as Yoder points out, already manifests a problem in the way the church's relation to society is understood. Culture does not stand independent and then require that we relate Christ to it. Instead, the Gospel creates a theological culture of sorts. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus open up the possibility for an alternative modality of existence.

Culture and polity are very closely entwined. But the main point of considering empires as "enemy" is that governmental structures are representative of the old order of being, which is passing away in light of the new order made possible by Jesus. The way in which governments of this world wield power is specifically rejected in Jesus' revolution of the political.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Ben Robinson — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:16:26 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Luke — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 20:30:05 -0000

When God introduced himself and covenanted himself with Israel he used the form of the Suzerain Treaty which was the dominant political language of that era. The classic work making this point is Meredith Kline's "Treaty of the Great King."
When Jesus appears and covenants with the Church he also used the political forms and language of his day. NT Wright has done massive work in this area. Words like repent, believe, save, Christ, gospel, etc, were pregnant political rhetoric in Jesus' time, though in our time we tend to hear those terms only in a religious sense.
So the language God chose to use in calling both Israel and the Church were I think very obviously intended to convey that these new assemblies were in their very essence a challenge to existing political structures that were using that same language. Thus the "rhetoric" of both the Old Covenant and the New were provocative toward the state in an important and directed sense. Not offensive or abusive language I don' t think, but at least pointed enough that the identity of the Church as over against the state was abundantly clear.
However, as time progresses, words change and some usages just become obsolete. An empire becomes a democracy, a king becomes a president, and suddenly and seemingly irreparably, Jesus message is blunted. And that's why I somewhat enjoy the use of provocative language like "empire". It's not perfect, but It's as though someone has at least bothered to pull out a file and set to work attempting to resharpen the message of the gospel in a crucial way.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Luke — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:30:05 -0000

When God introduced himself and covenanted himself with Israel he used the form of the Suzerain Treaty which was the dominant political language of that era. The classic work making this point is Meredith Kline's "Treaty of the Great King."
When Jesus appears and covenants with the Church he also used the political forms and language of his day. NT Wright has done massive work in this area. Words like repent, believe, save, Christ, gospel, etc, were pregnant political rhetoric in Jesus' time, though in our time we tend to hear those terms only in a religious sense.

So the language God chose to use in calling both Israel and the Church were I think very obviously intended to convey that these new assemblies were in their very essence a challenge to existing political structures that were using that same language. Thus the "rhetoric" of both the Old Covenant and the New were provocative toward the state in an important and directed sense. Not offensive or abusive language I don' t think, but at least pointed enough that the identity of the Church as over against the state was abundantly clear.

However, as time progresses, words change and some usages just become obsolete. An empire becomes a democracy, a king becomes a president, and suddenly and seemingly irreparably, Jesus message is blunted. And that's why I somewhat enjoy the use of provocative language like "empire". It's not perfect, but It's as though someone has at least bothered to pull out a file and set to work attempting to resharpen the message of the gospel in a crucial way.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Luke — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:30:05 -0000

When God introduced himself and covenanted himself with Israel he used the form of the Suzerain Treaty which was the dominant political language of that era. The classic work making this point is Meredith Kline's "Treaty of the Great King."
When Jesus appears and covenants with the Church he also used the political forms and language of his day. NT Wright has done massive work in this area. Words like repent, believe, save, Christ, gospel, etc, were pregnant political rhetoric in Jesus' time, though in our time we tend to hear those terms only in a religious sense.

So the language God chose to use in calling both Israel and the Church were I think very obviously intended to convey that these new assemblies were in their very essence a challenge to existing political structures that were using that same language. Thus the "rhetoric" of both the Old Covenant and the New were provocative toward the state in an important and directed sense. Not offensive or abusive language I don' t think, but at least pointed enough that the identity of the Church as over against the state was abundantly clear.

However, as time progresses, words change and some usages just become obsolete. An empire becomes a democracy, a king becomes a president, and suddenly and seemingly irreparably, Jesus message is blunted. And that's why I somewhat enjoy the use of provocative language like "empire". It's not perfect, but It's as though someone has at least bothered to pull out a file and set to work attempting to resharpen the message of the gospel in a crucial way.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Mark Van Steenwyk — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:22:57 -0000

Was Rome an enemy to the kingdom of God?

If the answer is "yes?" In what way? Not because it was an entirely evil thing. Was Rome an enemy governmentally? Culturally? Religiously? What is the line between these things?

Who is an "enemy?" Is it an other that we seek to destroy? That is the American/French/Russian/Cuban/etc. definition of "enemy." The Christian definition is that person or group or thing or Power or whatever that resists the kingdom of God and, should therefore be loved.

Our call is to love those who are flesh and blood and resist the Principalities and Powers. That is why we turn the other cheek when struck yet proclaim a Gospel that undermines the Powers.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

John — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:07:04 -0000

My concerns are much like jazzacts. By saying that America is an "empire" and therefore the "enemy," what does that do to one's thinking on other aspects of life or society....for example....culture. There are places where culture is more of an influence over a group of people than is the state. France is one such example. Is culture an enemy of the Kingdom of God, too? Making such absolute conclusions is dangerous in my mind because it has implications on how one sees other aspects of society, like culture. All I have been trying to say is that a more nuanced analysis of this issue is needed.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Mark Van Steenwyk — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:22:57 -0000

Was Rome an enemy to the kingdom of God?

If the answer is "yes?" In what way? Not because it was an entirely evil thing. Was Rome an enemy governmentally? Culturally? Religiously? What is the line between these things?

Who is an "enemy?" Is it an other that we seek to destroy? That is the American/French/Russian/Cuban/etc. definition of "enemy." The Christian definition is that person or group or thing or Power or whatever that resists the kingdom of God and, should therefore be loved.

Our call is to love those who are flesh and blood and resist the Principalities and Powers. That is why we turn the other cheek when struck yet proclaim a Gospel that undermines the Powers.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

Mark Van Steenwyk — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:22:57 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

jazzact13 — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:17:43 -0000

Ok, how about this...

Why even worry about using the rhetoric of "empire" and "enemy"?

For example, if by "enemy" we mean something/anything that can take the place in our priorities that rightfully belongs to Christ, then while the concept may be good, the use of "enemy" may be questionable.

For example, if for whatever reason a hobby of mine, let's say chess, becomes to much of a priority for me, then whose fault is that? If I pursue a mastery of chess to the detriment of my Christian maturing, then is the problem with chess or with me?

Or maybe to use that in a living example, suppose my family becomes too high a priority. Suppose that I were to feel called to missions, but didn't pursue it because my family didn't approve. In that, perhaps fault could be more balanced, in that there would be some active striving to keep me from doing what I should do. But in the end, my failure would be my own fault.

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

John — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:07:04 -0000

Re: the Jesus Manifesto » Maintenance Mode

John — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:07:04 -0000