Wednesday Ballot

Lots of people are going to vote on Tuesday. I am not. I have decided to wait until Wednesday to “cast my ballot.”

Among the reasons people will cite for voting are concerns about particular issues, and how each candidate lines up with their own positions. Many will vote for McCain, based on their views of abortion. Some will vote for Obama, due to his stance on the war in Iraq. Individuals will vote for various senators or congressional representatives based on similar criteria, or more likely on name recognition, or how well an incumbent has brought home the bacon. The fight over the billy-club of the state, the privilege of employing force for one’s own interests, will commence relatively peacefully, through the voting process. While comparatively this process is to be commended, we could have warlords fighting in the streets over such power, yet the effectiveness of voting is also in question.

Voting is hailed as the definitive political action for most individuals. It is the only time they participate in the political process, and they thus consider it an enormous responsibility. Unfortunately, the process of voting has the actual effect of making their voices meaningless. Due to the aggregation of votes, the bundling of issues by candidates, and the secrecy of ballots, voters communicate virtually nothing to the candidates they elect. First, due to the secrecy of the ballot, the elected candidate will never know how anyone voted. He will never have a reason to care what any particular voter thinks. Second, due to the bundling of issues by candidates, voters who favor one candidate on some issues but another candidate on other issues will not have a way to communicate their actual concerns. Successful candidates will merely throw all their votes in a bag together as supportive of their overall agenda. Finally, the calculus of large numbers in respect to voting renders each individual vote virtually meaningless. Gordon Tullock and Walter Williams, among economists, cite this as the reason they will not vote. They say that if no one else voted, they would, because then their vote would count.

So I have decided that I will instead spend the time I would have spent driving to my polling place, standing in line, and driving back to school again writing a few letters to the people who will be elected. Call this my Wednesday ballot.

I will make the letters generic enough to be applicable to whichever candidate is elected. I will write about the issues which I think are most important and most closely related to the office each politician is set to occupy, and I will be able to “unbundle” any set of those issues to particulars, demonstrating the relevance of each. My vote will be specific, personal, and intentional. The amount of information communicated in this way will far surpass even that of several hundred election-day ballots.

Finally, the chances that the elected candidate will read a hand written letter from me are much greater than the chances that they will consider my vote. I will have the opportunity to explain how I feel about things, what I think is rational, the unintended consequences of most political actions which concern me, and they will know who it came from.

The morning after election-day I will mail in my Wednesday ballot. Anytime we can communicate specifically and personally to people in positions of power, our voices will heard so much the louder. I find this a much more important way to be involved in the political process, and much more effective.

Don’t forget to vote – on Wednesday.

Author Bio:: Nathanael Snow is a Ph.D. student in Economics at George Mason University. He will not be voting on Tuesday

School for Conversion (Minneapolis): Dec 12-14

Missio Dei will be hosting a School for Conversion on December 12-14.  The School For Conversion offers theological education and practical formation for the sake of conversion into a new way of life. Based in Christian communities of neo-monastic discipleship, SFC facilitates study directed toward the creation of new community and creative expressions of God’s kingdom in the abandoned spaces of society.

We can host about a dozen people, so space is limited. Go here to register.

Radical Subordination: Wives Submit to Your Husbands!

“Wives submit to your husbands.”

Growing up, this seemed to be one of the least understood statements in the bible, right after women being admonished to be silent in church and to wear head-coverings when praying, of course. Bringing up these verses in my relatively modern, evangelical mega-church always produced vague responses and confused expressions. Usually, with a little bit of embarrassment, there was some basic acceptance that men just have to be in charge, maybe because men’s maleness somehow represents God better (that’s why the priests were always male right?), or because, in spite of all anthropological research showing the contrary, men just really are better at being in charge and women really do kind of just want to have and nurture babies (but not really of course… I mean women CEO’s are ok), or maybe it is just an arbitrary command and we follow it because God tells us to… That statement is usually made with a bit more confidence, and garners more respect from me, but I think that all these explanations represent a fundamental misunderstanding of what Paul is saying in these verses.

It is often thought that Paul is simply reinforcing the power structures and gender roles that have existed since the rise of stratification and empires, that he is telling rebellious women to remain in their place. Really what Paul is doing though, is encouraging a radical subordination that reflects Christ nature and helps them be a better witness to that nature, in their society.

In general, we don’t seem to get that. It seems people think about this issue in one of these ways: A) people still view it as God’s dictation on who should be in charge (how power is distributed in God’s kingdom, which is ultimately oppressive to women), B) people don’t know how to view it, so they uncomfortably water it down basically saying that they think women are equal in value but men should still have most of the power (or maybe they just don’t really know what they mean), or C) they believe men and women should be fully equal, but that Christian women are not yet free or equal in our society so they should fight for that and try to attain it (men should help too, but can’t be counted on because they benefit from the status quo). All of these views completely ignore the ethic of submission and subordination which is proclaimed in the life of Christ and Paul’s writings.

Even when it stares us in the face, as in Ephesians 5 when immediately before the statement that wives should submit to their husbands Christians are called to submit to one another, and husbands are called to practice agape love towards their wives. In Colossians 3 (and this is expanded on in Ephesians as well) children are called to obey their parents, but then parents are reminded to not provoke their children. Slaves are called to obey their masters right before the masters are called to treat the slaves as brothers and sisters in Christ. Throughout scripture we are reminded that Christ humbled himself, taking on the nature of a servant, and we are to do the same.

The cross isn’t simply a weapon for sacrificial killing, it represents the ultimate acquiescence to the powers of oppression and death that rule this world in order to rob them of their power. Only someone with complete freedom and authority (someone within the Godhead, which is specifically Christ of course, but also us, as we partake in his divine nature), can submit to mocking and the cross without any sense of being coerced or ruled by these powers. Because the cross itself was influential in coercing people to be ruled by the empire, the fact that someone was able submit to death on the cross and rise again three days later, proving his defeat of it, we as Christians (alive in Christ, taking on his nature, and being imitators of him, with his resurrection as the first-fruits and promise of ours) are able to live knowing we are completely free of the power struggles and tools of oppression in this world.

This freedom is the context for Paul’s discussion on men and women’s roles in the church. Often, Christians look to the epistles for easy answers on how to live morally. Like the rich man, who hopes he’s secured eternal life by following the ten commandments, we miss the whole purpose of the Paul’s guidance about men and women when we enforce rules without an understanding of the purpose and underlying ethic that supports his teaching. This is the problem I’ve seen most in discussions on gender in the church. I’ve rarely heard pastors or teachers address the verses within the context of the entire passage it is situated in, let alone look at its role and purpose within a distinctly Christ-like worldview.

What is more frustrating to me though, is the way I’ve seen Christians who disagree with the traditional view ignore Paul’s teaching in this area and essentially use the critiques and perspectives of secular feminists, orientated in a worldview in which economic and coercive power define who is equal and free or not. I think that perspective is useful and important for Christians to understand, but we can not use it to develop morality or to combat inequality within the church. We are called to be imitators of Christ, and Christ turned the powers of this world on it’s head, making the first, last and choosing to forsake his power in order to lay down his life. He subordinated himself to the powers, allowing them to kill him on the cross, but doing this also gave him the opportunity to show the superficiality of these kinds of power, their ultimate inability to direct history.
From this perspective, Paul’s teaching makes perfect sense. It is orientated in the kind of freedom that makes battling the gendered powers on their terms ridiculous. Just as slaves are encouraged to submit to their masters, fully free women are encouraged to be silent in church, or to submit to their husbands, for the sake of their witness to the gospel in that culture. Men, on the other hand, are encouraged to lay down their lives for their wives, loving them as Christ loved us (who remember, made himself nothing, taking on the nature of a servant). This is something unheard of in that culture, and also reflects the same ethic of radical subordinancy the women are called to live in.

So what do we do with this? I’m not really asking this question rhetorically, because I’ve had a hard time answering it. In fact, as a female, this part of this essay is hard to write. I’m not particularly good at laying down my rights and life for those around me, and I’d guess that if I ever marry I will naturally be the more outspoken and domineering one in the relationship. As such, I’m tempted to continue to proclaim the radical beauty of submission and ignore the need for change in the church in regards to the way we view women and their roles. I’m even tempted to say women should accept submission with joy, as a unique way of being Christ-like, but again that doesn’t address hundreds of years of church-sponsored oppression (and besides, as I’ve said above, I barely submit, let alone know what it might mean to do so joyfully!). Ultimately, I find it a bit ironic that I, after affirming my own position of submission, would then be telling men how to behave, but here I go anyway…

I think the practical application of Paul’s teaching is ultimately an equalizer, but in the opposite direction that feminists often propose. Instead of women gaining power, men are called to ultimately give up their power. Instead of women being brought up to the status as also “in charge,” men are called to voluntarily consider women as themselves, and thus give up their life and position for the sake of women. This doesn’t directly challenge the status quo. That is, men are not told that they don’t have authority, but it subverts it because men no longer have the means of coercion that would “put women in their place.” Basically Christian males should be the feminists in the most explicit way, not so much Christian females.

I think both complementarianism and egalitarianism get at this, but fall short in different ways. Complementarians make the mistake of believing that somehow men and women are so fundamentally different that female submission and male dominance are somehow “natural.” Egalitarians make the mistake of ignoring the ethic of submission in an attempt to make co-masters.

I will finish this up by giving one very small, practical example of how Christian males could begin to truly love their wives and sisters in a radical way, a way that literally reflects a “dying to self” for the sake of women. It would be interesting, if, as a small step forward, men began to be more careful of the way they speak to women and in the presence of women. Many sociological studies have shown that men tend to use more domineering language. They tend to interrupt more, to neglect to qualify statements (instead stating their opinions as facts) and to generally talk more than women (obviously all men do not do this, and some women do… I’d probably fall in the later category for example). This may not seem actively violent or coercive, but it arises from a history of violence and oppression against women and is thus a way our society tries to rob women of their dignity while maintaining male power at the expense of female freedom. I call this a true “dying to self,” because it is the way males often learn to speak, a manner of speaking that our society values, and probably seems very natural and integral to their identity.

On the other hand, females are taught deference. They learn to qualify their statements, not to interrupt, and to seek agreement instead of opposition (males tend to say “I disagree” much more readily, for example). Females may need to be asked questions, or prompted to speak in many situations. I prefer the feminine style of speech, not because I naturally use it (I do to some degree, but have also easily used masculine language), but because it gives deference to the other speaker. It doesn’t undermine the other speaker’s voice or ideas that way masculine language does. It considers others before itself. Christian men, in order to practice a dying of self, an agape-love towards females, would do well to use the feminine style more often, and to actively invite and consider females’ ideas both in private and public gatherings, especially in arenas that remain male-dominated even as they proclaim equality, such as in the emergent church conversation. We should not consider it good for women to assert their authority or voice, instead we should consider it good for us to submit to one another in Christ. Men, laying down themselves for women, and women practicing a radical submission, as Christ models for both of us.

Author Bio:: Sarah Lynne is a Floridian currently braving Minneapolis winter. She graduated from Webster University with a major in Anthropology and a minor in International Human Rights, and lives in Missio Dei’s Clare House with some friends.

JM Jargon

Words are often identity triggers, determining polarity and sorting one’s audience by which affiliations they do or do not share. Jesus Manifesto is terribly guilty of this; the nomenclature of empire, the issues of discussion - often economic and political - and almost as importantly, what is not discussed, or what is passed over.

Much of this has been reflexive. There’s no scarcity of Christ-centered publications that extol the family, express concern over ethical dilemmas involved with homosexuality or horror over the traumas of abortion. In an attempt to capture the imagination of an audience alienated by other eddies of our spiritual stream, many of the writers of Jesus Manifesto have focused on the fringes of culture and society, really as a way to push back against some of the assumptions about life, society and politics that have been foisted upon them, often by the conservative (socially, theologically, politically) majority.

With that majority possibly becoming a (still strong) minority within the United States (and Canada? I was surprised…) let’s make something clear. Because so many of us came from such myopic conservative roots, there is a strong impulse to distance ourselves from the trunk that once sustained us. But there are many, many similarities across all vistas of the Lord’s kingdom, and sometimes we find our perspectives closer to Focus On The Family than Sojourners. So be it.

But much of this is lost in the language. When a well-intentioned post, such as several of my own, drops terms such as empire, anarchy, radical, as well as a half dozen or so of other terms that require decryption (neo-monastic, emergent, communal, the poor), we often are closing the doors to those that don’t fit our little niche, simply by the language we choose. In a sense, this is why political speeches are so neutered; they are intended to be all things to all people. But letters, such as much of the christian bible, are to a specific individual or community and can afford luxuries that others cannot.

In addition, some of us use language as a shield, in an attempt to keep our lives from appraisal. If we just talk right, our day to day decisions need not mean anything, especially on an internet forum with an alias.

This is a danger, because it can quietly seal us off into a bubble of our own making, impervious to outside accountability or challenge. It also can keep us from building bridges to people that disagree with us or are difficult. The Christarchy groups can be a good start, and my wife and I have just joined some others in starting a church in our home…decentralized and non-hierarchal. But what else could be done here?

What would it take to do a series of discussions with the folks from Focus On The Family to look into how we can take an active role in the lives of the people who are looking into abortion and address some of the root causes? We should talk to Mark Driscoll, whom I respect immensely for delivering hardcore theology to new believers who have no Christian background whatsoever (and is doing a great job of it) about the rigours of studying the bible and the history of biblical commentators. Darlene Zschech’s choice to step down from the worship music scene to help support Mercy Ministries was a hard one, but her personal integrity and humility throughout floored me. There are thousands of churches and ministries out there that are our brothers and sisters, aunts and cousins. Many, many MANY of them do not agree with or are uncomfortable with the ideas presented on this site, but I think there is a place for them here as well. So toward that end, maybe that means mixing up the tone of the articles so that we don’t sound like a broken record, maybe it means tying more of this into church life. Maybe it means making a ‘read this first’ section, explaining some of the perspectives that people are less familiar with. Whatever it is, I hope to see more articles like Maria’s challenging the status quo even here, at JM.

I love this family, and I’m so thankful for all of you. Peace to you, and may God bless.

Author Bio:: Jordan & Jennifer Peacock live in Minnesota with their mischevious daughter, an are in the infant stages of learning all over again how to become the church in their small spiritual community.

On Heaven and Scarcity

I have been struggling with an issue now for quite awhile: Are systems and human institutions really the problem?

I have heard many arguments in the negative saying that government and other institutions can be a force for good in the world as much as they can be a force for injustice and evil. Let me be clear: I think there is some value to the governmental systems in our world, but they are all, in my estimation, inherently flawed.

Recently I was having a discussion about the nature of heaven and how people often assume there will be no economic scarcity in heaven. As of late, I have come to disagree with this idea because without scarcity, there is no reason to show love. For instance, if there is no scarcity in the amount of food we have, there is no reason to give or help another person. Everyone would be living in their abundance in isolation. I know this is a novel concept for some, but how does one know goodness without evil?

What is the difference between the governmental systems of today and the future heavenly kingdom in regards to scarcity? It is the unequivocal self-giving that would take place in the future heaven where everyone gives to everyone in need in the total sharing of the ecclesia and communion of Christ (that, in actuality, begins now for all Christians, because heaven begins now). The difference between now and then is that people really will care for one another instead of passing the buck. Instead of everyone explaining why it is everyone else’s fault, we will all equally share in fixing the problems in the kingdom of heaven. And through it all we will be sustained like lilies of the field by the Spirit of God in all our endeavors at all times.

Perhaps this is a new idea, but most good ideas are really old ideas. Perhaps old ideas of community, really are an idea of heaven:

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.
-Acts 4:32-35

Author Bio:: Danny is a credential student working towards being a secret agent in the kingdom in the public education system and in love with a beautiful girl named Sarah. He blogs here.

The Empire and the Gospel

I’ve been reading Jesus Manifesto for a little over a year now. I like the emphasis on ministering to the poor and living the gospel of peace and forgiveness. I like the honesty and thoughtfulness of all the writers. I appreciate that fact that the writers’ are willing to expose injustice, their suggestions for peaceful solutions, and their honesty about how difficult it is to live the gospel we preach. I like their well thought out challenges to conventional wisdom.

However, I have yet to read something that commends a governmental institution or large religious establishment. Maybe this is because Jesus Manifesto is trying to move the religious pendulum in the other direction, but I get a little queasy with the idea of painting all government with brushstrokes of violence, greed, and abusive power. I’m uncomfortable with equating my home country, USA, with an Empire that needs to be overthrown through subversive methods. I am very uncomfortable with seeing only the negative aspects of large religious institutions without complimenting the positive. I am willing to admit that my country is not perfect, that large does not necessarily mean better, that there are abuses of power happening, that Jesus’ methods of turning the other cheek and walking the second mile have largely been sidelined for glamour and prosperity messages, but that doesn’t mean that I am ready to ditch the system or set up my own church. The bias of Jesus Manifesto has motivated me to study Church history, to form my own opinions about what the past has to say about the relationship between power, money, and ministry.

Through reading the scriptures, I was already aware of how intertwined religion and power were in the Old Testament. Prophets were instrumental in choosing military saviors and dynasties. Kings appointed priests. Central power, secular or religious, provided a national identity and cohesion. Sometimes the religious and secular overlapped such as in King David and King Hezekiah, other times they were more separate such as Ezra and Nehemiah. Distributed power and religious practice allowed for continuity through turbulent times such as in the time of Judges, or Israel’s apostasy, or even later with Daniel and Ezekiel.
There always seemed to be a certain amount of tension between the various groups. God ordained strong leaders to call his people back to purity; God gave ordinary men a mission to call leaders back to justice. God didn’t seem particular who he used. He called a wealthy man with visions of grandeur to father his people; a stuck up spoiled brat to save an infant nation from starvation; a boy his family forgot about to unite beleaguered and quarrelsome tribes into a country identified with the God of the Universe, a powerful prophet to save a foreign widow, disenfranchised Levites to gather together oral tradition into a written testimony that constitutes large portions of our Bible, groups of poets to encourage a displaced and grieving people, persons who inherited their position of song leader to write psalms.

No matter what political entity was in power, whether heathen or believer, God’s Spirit made use of it. He used godly kings to restore his people to faithfulness. He used godly men and women within heathen governments to testify to his faithfulness and redeem his people.

The pattern I see of God working in the Old Testament is very similar to what I see when I read Church history. God used a pagan Empire’s efficient road system and general peace to spread his good news, He used the effective Roman administration and educational systems to bring order and theological rigor to the new faith. Sometimes, God spread his word through kings such as the conversion of King Olaf of Norway, other times he brought repentance through the poor and enslaved such as St Patrick. Sometimes, it was the religious who broke the power of the secular. Other times, secular power punished immoral religious leadership. Throughout, political power was important for both preserving and promoting religious faith.

When Christian communities lost political power, the Christian faith became extinct in the face of prolonged systematic persecution, similar to the ten lost tribes of Israel. Over the centuries there have been several missionary efforts to China which produced Christian communities: the Nestorian church in the fifth and sixth centuries, the Franciscan efforts during the thirteenth century, and Jesuit followed by protestant efforts beginning in the seventeenth century. The first two attempts became extinct from severe persecution. Only the external political power of Europeans and Americans allowed for the preservation of a Chinese Christian community through several centuries of intermittent persecution. Even then, the Christian community suffered local extinction in some places.

In the sixteenth century, Japan saw a Christian community grow to thirty thousand and then go extinct when political forces turn against it. In the eighth century, Christian communities in the Middle East and North Africa suffered under Islamic expansion, surviving when it was in the economic interest of the Imam to allow a degree of tolerance. Even in modern (or post-modern) times we have witnessed the difficulty of Christianity to survive severe persecution and genocide, such as in former Communist countries and Sudan.

I will admit that ministry doesn’t thrive very well with an excess of money and power; that Christian witness dies when Christians are more focused on attaining either than their Lord or their fellow man. From my brief review of historical evidence it seems as though there is a delicate balance between excess and dearth that allows for the spread of Christianity. In some ways it seems as though the pendulum swing between poverty and wealth drives the ratchet, and keeps the spirit ticking.

Author Bio:: An admirer of Jesus Manifesto, and a daydreamer with more ideas than energy, time, or money to make happen. And who sometimes wishes for the ordinary, like a clean house.

Church Innovations Survey

I think it would be very interesting if the folks who read Jesus Manifesto would share their voice on this survey that will be used to identify the most important innovations in local churches for Outreach Magazine. Usually, Outreach lists the “25 Most Innovative Churches” and it includes the usual suspects (Willow, Saddleback, Mars Hill and the other Mars Hill). If you’re like me, you’re kinda irritated by this sort of thing…but I encourage you to weigh in respectfully and thoughtfully. And, after you do that, you are welcome to come back here and share what you wrote and why.

Jesus and the Two Swords: reflecting upon Luke 22:35-38

In a recent email exchange with a serviceman named James (who has commented here a few times) asking what I do with Luke 22:35-38:

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”

“Nothing,” they answered.

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied. (for the record, this is probably better translated as “enough of that” …for more on that go here)

This passage is often bundled with Jesus’ conversation with the centurion as proof that Jesus wasn’t entirely committed to non-violence. And while the passage ought to give a pacifist pause, I don’t think it proves that Jesus thought that there were legitimate uses for violence.

Greg Boyd’s Take: Two Swords are Enough

Greg Boyd has done an ok job interpreting that passage non-violently…but I don’t think his argument is completely satisfying. Greg argues:

I think a close look at the passage reveals Jesus’ purpose. Immediately after telling them to buy a sword (Lk 22:36) Jesus says, “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”(vs. 37). To fulfill prophecy, Jesus had to be viewed as a transgressor. He had to at least appear to be a political revolutionary to the Jewish authorities for them to feel justified in arresting him. His cleansing of the temple a few days earlier was probably calculated for the same effect. So, to fulfill the prophecy and to provoke the Jewish authorities, he had to have enough weaponry to justify being viewed as a law breaking revolutionary.

While I agree, I typically don’t find “Jesus did X so he could self-consciously fulfill prophecy” a good enough argument. Furthermore, while it certainly makes sense that Jesus needed to give some semblance of being a political revolutionary, I am fairly confident that he could have gotten crucified without appearing to endorse violence. In other words, Jesus’ nonviolent revolution was sufficiently subersive alread to warrant the death penalty. I see no need to add some weapons as props to push his enemies into arresting him.

Greg Boyd’s take is one of the better ways of interpreting this passage. Some folks dismiss this passage as a later insertion by those who want to legitimize violence. On the other end of the spectrum are those who believe that this passage legitimizes self-defense.

Enough of this!

Jesus knows that things are going to go down. He knows that, in a little while, his disciples will be outlaws. And so, to prepare them for the coming reality, he reminds them of an earlier time.

He reminded them of when they were sent out with nothing, yet they lacked nothing. But now, things were going down, so he asks them (rhetorically, I believe) to carry a purse or bag, and for them each to carry a sword.

Jesus asks them this because the words of Isaiah 53:12 must be fulfilled: “And he was counted with lawless people.” One could use this reference to someone indicate, as Greg Boyd does, that Jesus needed to appear to be with brigands in order to facilitate his arrest. But it seems best to take the reference as a foreshadowing of the fate that is to come. In other words, the carrying of the swords doesn’t fulfill the prophecy…rather, Jesus tells his disciples to carry swords because the prophecy is about to be fulfilled. That is a subtle yet important distinction.

Taking Jesus literally, they inform Jesus that they already have two swords among them. Jesus seems to find this exasperating, since he cuts the conversation short by proclaiming “enough of this.” It seems that the disciples, yet again, are missing the point.

The words with which Jesus concludes do not mean that two swords are enough…the Greek doesn’t require this translation and it doesn’t really make sense. Two swords are profoundly insufficient against the soldiers who are on their way to arrest Jesus (Luke 22:47ff).

During the arrest, the disciples ask if they should use their swords and one of the disciples (elsewhere we learn that it is Peter) pulls out one of those swords and uses it—and gets rebuked for it. So, clearly, this whole conversation about swords doesn’t indicate that Jesus intended for his disciples to use swords.

So, what’s going on here? Jesus tells his disciples to each have a sword…they feebly respond that they have two already…Jesus gets frustrated. And later, when he’s arrested, Jesus rebukes Peter for using one of the two swords that they already had.

What’s the point? Why does Jesus tell them to have swords? Given the context and Jesus’ larger teachings on nonviolence he was trying to make a larger point that his disciples were too obtuse to get. Which is why he told them “Enough of this!”

Jesus is being ironic. It is the only thing that makes sense of the passage. Jesus, on his way to being arrested, knows that the time of trial has come. And in order to prepare them for the hostility that is to come, tells them, in effect, to posture themselves for war.

But they take Jesus literally, still unable to interpret the words of their Master in a way that fits with his overall teaching on the Kingdom of God. Jesus’ words mustn’t be taken as justification for armed resistance or self defense. Rather, he is calling his disciples to face the coming confrontation boldly, doing revolution in the way he taught them. Jesus taught them a peaceful way to resist the Enemy. Paul’s teachings on resisting the powers (rather than flesh and blood) aren’t his innovation—they flow out of the teaching of Christ. Yet here, in this passage, at this point in the story, the disciples still don’t get that.

At any rate…it seems clear to me (whether you read this as simply Jesus fulfilling prophecy so that he can fulfill Isaiah 53 or you see Jesus as being ironic) that this passage simply cannot be used to legitimize self-defense. That isn’t the point…and the context actually refutes that point.

Not The Religious Type

I’ll admit, I wasn’t terribly keen to read this book. The title (Not The Religious Type) and the sub-title (Confessions Of A Turncoat Atheist) had me moaning inside: “please, not another tale of struggling with God for five minutes before surrendering to cliches”. It’s all well and good if people find tranformation like that, but I don’t particularly find it revelatory or an enjoyable read.

I was happily mistaken.

Dave Schmelzer is not a breath-takingly stellar writer but he unveils truths and explores ideas with a simple matter-of-factness that belies their depth and potency. He’s honest about the fuzzy space between atheism and agnosticism, and explores the simple grace of an almost-failed class leading towards a spiritual epiphany.

The whole read is relatively seamless, and it’s especially useful in the language it employs; I have quoted it time and again to explain concepts and concerns that I have to those who are concerned by misunderstandings wrought by the more radicalist lingo oft employed elsewhere on JM. Let me share a couple examples.

The most bizarre and enlightening portion of the book is where Schmelzer is quoting pop psychology guru (his words), Scott Peck. Peck breaks down emotional/spiritual development into four stages. The criminal/infant stage is where selflessness is a foreign concept and boundaries must be enforced. Stage 2 is rule-based; case examples being most churches and/or the military. The third stage is described as rebellious - the questioning of the rules in stage 2, institutionally typified by the university. Here’s what really struck me, and I’ll quote Schmelzer here:

“A fascinating and unexpected corollary…is the observation that stage 3 is spiritual advancement from stage 2. And yet there’s every possibility that - if you belive in such things - in stage 2 you’ll go to heaven and in stage 3 you’ll go to hell…Peck’s theory explains the contempt stage 3 folks often feel toward the stage 2 faith they’ve left behind, that strange brew that often comes out something like, “I don’t believe in God, but I’m still more spiritually advanced than you are.”

The fourth and final stage is what is deemed the mystical stage; a realization that many of the rule-based ideas where correct, but in a very different and deeper sense than they realized before - and it’s driven by questions and exploration, not answers and stagnation. This is not to say that all truth is fleeting but that there is a sense in which it is fluid and one must seek it.

There are several other gems, well worth the price of the book, in discussing the current tone of discussion coming from modern atheists and the distinction between personal spirituality and the culture one finds themselves in. But perhaps the most common jewel is the most overlooked - the constant reflection on relationship. Many of the arguments for different ideas later in the book fall flat or incomplete as written, until one takes into account that this is not an autopsy being discussed, but a relationship that is somewhat inscrutable to those outside and indescribable to those involved…and the joy and hope that pours out is the better testament, anyway.

Author Bio:: Jordan & Jennifer Peacock live in Minnesota with their mischevious daughter, an are in the infant stages of learning all over again how to become the church in their small spiritual community.

Rhythms of Loving Resistance

This is originally the ending of part three of my series on “the Style of Subversion” to God’s Kingdom? I’m republishing it as a stand-alone piece because I want it to be more accessible to those looking for practical ways of embracing the Kingdom.

So…what does it actually LOOK like to embody an alternative? How do we lovingly resist the Powers as we invite people to move into God’s Kingdom? This is a big question. For all the books Brazos Press puts out, very few deal with practical realities. The recent books about New Monasticism and the works of folks like Shane Claiborne help scratch that itch, but still more work needs to be done in imagining tangible realities. Here’s an introductory list of practices/activities/experiments that help develop a communal life of loving resistance. If two or more people were to engage in the following sorts of things together as a regular practice, it would go much further than a mountain of rhetoric and challenge the status quo more than voting:

1. proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ
2. tithe relationally
3. discerningly engage in civil disobedience
4. confess your sins to one another, and proclaim forgiveness
5. live communally
6. establish regular rhythms of prayer with others (here’s a nifty and free resource)
7. thoughtfully participate in the Lord’s Supper
8. be family with people that are in a different socio-economic and/or ethnic situation than you
9. get in the way of violence
10. plant a garden (for extra credit, practice guerrilla gardening)
11. spend less money
12. spend justly
13. or just don’t spend money at all
14. ride a bicycle or take the bus
15. draw attention to the sins of society
16. lovingly challenge the sins of the Church
17. invite strangers to dinner
18. have a guest room open to those in need
19. practice mutual submission
20. read Scripture in community and struggle together to put it into practice
21. practice communal discernment
22. embrace a sense of place in ministry
23. learn the stories of marginalized people…especially your brothers and sisters in the developing world
24. pray for political authorities
25. share good things with the poor
26. give the wealthy (including yourself) an opportunity to divest of their wealth
27. remember, in all things love

Next Page »