“This is the scandal of the message of Jesus. The kingdom of God does fail. It is weak. It is crushed. When its message of love, peace, justice, and truth meets the principalities and powers of government and religion armed with spears and swords and crosses, they unleash their hate, force manipulations and propaganda.”
And a few paragraphs later
“what if the only way for the kingdom of God to come in its true form—as a kingdom ‘not of this world’—is through weakness and vulnerability, sacrifice and love? What if it can conquer only by first being conquered? What if being conquered is absolutely necessary to expose the brutal violence and dark oppression of these principalities and powers, these human ideologies and counter kingdoms—so they, having been exposed, can be seen for what they are and freely rejected, making room for the new and better kingdom?”
Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, 69-70.
This was a hard teaching for me the first time I heard it. I heard that Jesus was crucified for my sins all my life. But what really shocked me, was when I discovered MLK’s death and passive resistance resulted in following Jesus. I can almost get it though. Christianity has room for something called eschatology. Eschatology is the answer to a lot of theology’s questions these days.
Let’s be honest. If MLK was killed and there was no future hope of his vindication, some might recalculate the worth-whileness of his efforts. Yet we know that we can rest in the comfort of God’s saving grace. How do we stand in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square? By resting in the grace of God. How do we struggle through apartheid in
South Africa? By resting in the grace of God. How do we understand Jim Elliot’s being murdered as a missionary? By resting in the grace of God and knowing that in the end it will all be worth it.
Here is what strikes me though. This will be telling of my eschatology and subsequent belief in the metaphysical—especially of my deep convictions that the cosmic conflict is indeed real—but at some point does the Kingdom of God not have to get violent? After all Satan is going to flare his tail between our metaphorical D-Day and V-Day (resurrection and the second coming) and I don’t suspect he’ll stop until forced to and violently so at that. So what happened? Do the metaphysical principles of the cosmos change at this point? Seems like the Kingdom has to get violent?
Let me be minimalist for a moment. Let’s suppose that God comes before the world burns up and at this point in history there are still people inhabiting the earth. Let’s also suppose that God still operates in this subversive politeness, whereby God overcomes by being passive and all that other good stuff. It seems to me that at the very least he has to tell the remaining people who choose a “soteriological no,” …”o.k. that’s fine, but I’m going to have to force you into your ontological hell (be it a friendly self-chosen isolation type hell), because I need to get one with the Eschaton.” This is still somewhat of a violent action. Is it not? It is at least a forceful action. And it seems to me that it is the type of action that McLaren and others often tend to ignore.
O.K. I’ve said enough, now for your always thoughtful responses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Erik I posted my atonement question.
carn, have you read walter wink's powers triology? i read some essays last quarter by him and others that were supplements to his triology. they were really good. he talks at length about the intended goodness, coruption, and necessary redemption of these principalities and powers in light of jesus' "third way," which is nonviolent resistance.
i would say that the kingdom does not ever have to get violent. as i read your paragraph pondering the necesssity of violence for the kingdom of God to prevail, i recalled paul's words, "death where is your sting." has the kingdom not already won in the end? our job as participants in this kingdom ought to be showing others that this kingdom has prevailed, even in areas where they least expect it. in doing this, we take part in the redemption of these powers.
that is probably all too ideological though. i tend to think that way. haha.
Josh,
I posted a reply. I suspect you won't necessarily like all of what I have to say, and I may or may not have directly answered your question. Nonetheless, I think its a good start to an interesting topic. I'd be curious to hear the intent behind the question. I think there are questions/thoughts that motivate your question, and those are always more interesting to me.
Hey friends,
I have been reading Carney's blog for a little while and thought I might as well chime in on a subject I enjoy. Here are my initial thoughts on what Josh mentioned about the need to eventually use violence in order to fully bring the kingdom, particularly in an eschatological sense. For me, the nature of this all comes down to one of Walter Wink's main points, that of "The Myth of Redemptive Violence."
I think that sometime we need to come to the realization that the political powers of this world make us believe that power rests in violence when the message of the gospel screams otherwise. Ok, well there is post #1.
David Morrow
I have a question: why is non-violence a metaphysical principle and not an ethical one? No traps here, just a question. It just seems like somewhere you may be making an implicit claim that I don't really understand. Maybe you're just working with a broader understanding of what constitutes a metaphysic. Does God's principle of non-violence have some sort of ontological status? or is it part of the fabric of reality simply because that's an ethical standard God has bound Himself to? At any rate, thanks for the thoughts.
Figure out if you have any frequent flier miles or hotel miles that can be used towards your trip. [url=http://www.mulberryhandbagssale.co.uk]Mulberry uk[/url] Now I finished grad school and have moved closer to Anastasia. [url=http://www.goosecoatsale.ca]http://www.goosecoatsale.ca[/url] Alskotmoy
[url=http://www.pandorajewelryvip.co.uk]pandora jewellery[/url] Ujxmgledm [url=http://www.officialcanadagooseparkae.com]canada goose outlet[/url] ostddfhkl
Post a Comment