What is Church? Post 2.0

Many moons ago, I began exploring this topic of "what is the church." I want to continue this series. Before I discussed the idea of the church as found around the "Eucharist table." Today, I want to explore Jesus' first use of the term "ekklesia" found in Matthew 16 and 18 using a comment I wrote to Scot McKnight on his blog because he is exploring the differences between church and kingdom.

"I have some questions that I’ve always wanted answered regarding this topic. Each pertain to my understanding of Matthew 16 and the correspondence of ekklesia (the word we mis-translate "church") to kingdom. Is it possible that Jesus uses ekklesia as the political organization that rules over the kingdom?

"In Matthew 16:18, Jesus asks his small band "who the Son of Man is?"– a phrase with a lot of political meaning if taken from Daniel 7 (where the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days where he is given authority over all peoples). Then Jesus takes it a step further asking them who they think he might be–- obviously implying that he may be such a figure. Peter then really crosses the line–- "You are the Christ/Messiah" (the one who will free us from the empire), "the Son of God" (a title given to Caesar).

"Interestingly, this whole scene takes place right outside of Caesarea, the political capital of Rome in that region. Isn’t ekklesia used in the Roman empire at this time to describe the local group of powerful citizens of the Roman empire that meet together to discuss town business? Isn’t Jesus stating that he will build his own ekklesias, as opposed to Caesar’s ekklesias? Then Jesus says that he will give the keys/authority of the kingdom to this little band of followers. Then two chapters later, Jesus addresses the process of how to handle disputes in this new ekklesia– a new non-Roman ekklesia.

"It seems to me that the ekklesia is a local government of the new kingdom that serves the new Caesar-- Jesus Christ. Basically, they make decisions and settle disputes in their region of the kingdom. Just as in the Roman empire, most people were not citizens, but this local group of citizens made decisions affecting the non-citizens around the city/town."

Those were the thoughts that I put on Scot McKnight's blog. Here are some other thoughts about Matthew 16 that I have. It is possible that Jesus wasn't giving much thought to Rome and Caesar. Jesus was probably speaking Aramaic rather than Greek and Son of Man could be more in reference to its use in Ezekiel-- basically he is the prophet-- this is in keeping with the disciples response to the question-- "Jeremiah, Elijah, or one of the other prophets"-- Jesus being near Caesarea is probably near the "gates of Hell" where idolatry to the god Pan took place at the mouth of a cave near Caesarea. Instead of ekklesia, he would be making reference to qahal, the cultic/worship assembly of OT Israel. In this way, Jesus will build in his own worship assembly that will challenge the idolatry of the contemporary situation. However, this would still be a very political statement, especially with the after comments about kingdom, keys, binding and loosing, etc.

Without Sin Can There Be A Jesus?

I've been reflecting the past few days on Karl Marx. The Communist Manifesto makes a lot of assumptions (many of them false). One of the worst assumptions is that once the people revolt against the elite, all will take care of itself. The assumption is that the people as a collect are pure.

The thing that stood out to me is that Marxism is defined as counter to the empire system. In fact, without the existence of the empire elite, you really can't define Marxism. (I'm sure someone will find a way to disagree with that statement.) This got me thinking about Christianity. It too seems like a counter system/counter story. It emerges in the shadow of the Roman empire's imperialism and at the inspiration of Jewish revolutionary thought. In the midst of a moral majority of Pharisees, Christianity proclaims forgiveness and acceptance (dare I say tolerance as well). In the midst of a movement declaring revolution by a violent messiah to come, Jesus comes preaching peace and reconciliation.

Also, in my own experience I find that Jesus often only makes sense with the sin story as a backdrop. Perhaps this is the reason why radical Christianity seems to really take hold of people who do not grow up in it. It is their counter-story to a different reality.

However, I do want to make another comparison to Communism. Does the Christianity of Scripture only serve as a counter-story with no real plan for society once the counter-story becomes reality. Looking at history, this definately seems to be the case. Looking at the Bible, I would doubt such a thought. Which is more true... the playing out of the teaching in real life or the idealism of the teachings itself?

Theologically Confusing

If you look over at my side bar, you'll find a theological worldview quiz results. I think I completely confused this quiz wizard... it had a really hard time placing me. It even gave me a tie-breaker question at the end that made me Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. The real results were 61% Evangelical Holiness, 61% Roman Catholic, and 61% Emergent. To tell the truth, I was really suprised at such results... I figured it would call me Emergent, Neo-orthodox, and Liberal as my top three. Where I most confuse these quizes is with my insistence that Scripture must be taken very, very literally while also saying that scripture is very human and not inerrant, while also saying that scripture must be taken as completely authoritative, while also saying that the world was not made in seven days. Also, I placed a huge emphasis on holiness in the survey while also placing a high degree on church tradition, academic knowledge, etc. Thus.... this quiz didn't know what to do with me. Mostly because I refuse to accept its categories and definition of words. Am I an arch conservative? An arch liberal? A confused fence-rider... or perhaps I'm actually near the center. I think I will take the quiz again and see if I get the same results.

Karl Barth and Conversion

A few weeks ago I blogged on the idea of conversion. Recently, I came across a quote from Karl Barth that is typical Karl brilliant:

When we convert and are renewed in the totality of our being, we cross the threshold of our private existence and move out into the open. The inner problems may be most urgent and burning and exciting, but we are not engaged in conversion if we confine ourselves to them.... When we convert and are renewed in the totality of our being, in and with our private responsibility we also accept a public responsibility. For it is the great God of heaven and earth who is for us, and we are for this God. [Church Dogmatics IV: 2, 565]

Barth reminds us that conversion is not primarily about the individual/personal but social/public. Obviously this includes the individual/personal but the end is always the community, the world, the kingdom.

By the way, does anyone know of a free place online where I can read Barth?

Everything Is Spiritual

Tonight, I watched Rob Bell's presentation called Everything Is Spiritual. Bell is such a great presenter. His ability to take highly complex theological topics and communicate them in everyday language is astounding. Not only is it good, but it is also highly practical without adding some "application" section to the end of some trite three point sermon. Bell's preaching is always an integrative whole-- no sections, points, illustrations, etc.-- it all criss-crosses and loops and connects. I have moments where I'm able to speak with such clarity and intersection-- but not everytime I get up to speak.

Nevertheless, I found myself earlier today feeling a little "Rob Bell-ish" as I discussed religion and theology with students in my youth group. I was writing on napkins, explaining gnosticism and dualism, eschatology and its relation to how people see planet Earth, feeding the poor, and sexuality, and how all of life is spiritual. I live for these moments. I wish I could do that everyday.

Just War? Just Peace?

Can war ever be just? This is a question that often is asked in the circles of people I'm around these days. I've struggled with this question for many years. Some days I am a pacifist and other days I'm nuclear annihilation; however, on most days, I find myself in the tension of both. One of the reasons for this is the state of "peace" that so many refer to. "We seek to resolve this dispute peacefully." Really? Oh, you mean you want to solve this dispute with non-violent means. So... weapons are off the table, but other methods that still create emotional and mental violence based on the use of social power are still on the table. Is such a thing peace?

Peace, in our current world, must be defined by the cross. What I mean by this is that peace requires the laying down of one's life to the hands of violence. Thus, a peaceful person is one who takes the violence of others into him-/her-self. It is not the absence of violent methods nor the use of a socially coercive method over a physically coercive method; rather, it is you and me saying, "Kill me instead." "Inflict the pain on me instead." "I will take the punishment. I will be the victim."

Branded 0.2

I have labeled this post 0.2 because I'm still in the Introduction section of the book and this is my second post on it. Turpin makes the following observations on pages 2-3:

Our desires, our self-image, our taste, our leisure activities, our surroundings, our values, our sense of efficacy, and so much more are fundamentally formed by our participation in the system of acquiring and consuming goods.... There is no way to live in the United States and avoid the powerful and relentless formation that the system offers.... Consumption is at the heart of the way that we shape our lives, ever present and ever powerful in both our conceptualization of the world and the institutions we navigate on a daily basis.

Also, about 10 years ago she began working as a youth minister with parents who held significant commitments to urban ministry and a counter-consumerist lifestyle. However, she found that their kids were very committed to pursuing wealth and acquiring "status-granting goods." Here is her response:

I had already come to recognize the strength of consumer formation in my own life, but I had been raised in suburban contexts without the influence of parents or church with strong counter-consumptive commitments. If these young people who did have strong models of counter-consumer commitment all around them still fell under the sway of consumer formation, I wondered if any young people could resist the strong formation of consumer culture.

I find her remarks to be very informative and interesting. I, too, find that teenagers easily fall into the rat race of consumerism. However, I am going to make a move that I often shy away from because it seems to be unhelpful most of the time. Obviously I think it is helpful to do it here in this case. If you take the words consumer (and its related terms from her quotes) and replace them with sin... suddenly it makes a lot of sense theologically. By the way, I often shy away from doing this because people use it as a scape goat, as a way of avoiding the specific issue (in this case our consumerist lifestyles), and as a way of beating people up. But in this case, I think it will help us understand why consumerism is so powerful.

Our desires, our self-image, ... are fundamentally formed by our participation in the system of sin....
There is no way to live... and avoid the powerful and relentless formation that the system [of sin] offers....
Sin is at the heart of the way that we shape our lives, ever present and ever powerful in both our conceptualization of the world and the institutions we navigate on a daily basis.
If these young people who did have strong models of counter-sin commitment all around them still fell under the sway of sin, I wondered if any young people could resist the strong formation of sin culture.

Theologically, this is a given. Humans are under the sway of sin. Even in communities of faith who strive to be models of a way of life that opposes sin, people are still under the sway of sinful formation. This is why conversion is so necessary. This is why every person needs a conversion experience. We can raise our children in a culture of faith-- this is good. But we must alway recognize that even with our best efforts, our children are still formed by a system of sin that infects every institution, every process, every structure, and seemingly our very DNA. In order to resist, individuals must become aware of this captivity and choose to live in opposition to it. We are able to have hope that such freedom is possible because of Jesus Christ. We follow after him, seeking to imitate him, in the hope that such a way, such a life, such a light in the midst of so much darkness, will lead us to a new me, a new us, a new world