Tag Archives: Rome

How does the Kingdom of God unfold?

18 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by in Theology

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , ,

How does the Kingdom of God unfold?  In other words, how does God bring about God’s reign, right here and right now.

This isn’t a new question.  The Romans believed they were carrying out the gods’ commands.

In addition to ownership of resources, military force, and working relationships with the elite, emperors secured their power by claiming the favor of the gods. Their imperial theology proclaimed that Rome was chosen by the gods, notably Jupiter, to rule an “empire without end.” Rome was chosen to manifest the gods’ rule, presence, and favor throughout the world.

(Source: The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide by Warren Carter, pg. 7)

If this argument sounds familiar, it is because it is.  Substitute in America for Rome and Jesus for Jupiter.  There are even Christian pastors who are pretty good at preaching this type of gospel.  It’s a message of comfort to wrap Jesus in the flag.

But is it the unfolding of the Kingdom of God?

Maybe God does use nations to unfold God’s Kingdom and reign.  I think there are some good examples of this.  But I also don’t think God really cares much about our imaginary lines drawn on maps separating people from one another.

I also have trouble with the idea that we are special compared to other people in other places and different times in history.  I don’t buy the idea that God has been waiting around until just this time and place for us to show up to carry out God’s will.  I think God is always active throughout history in a variety of places.

How does the Kingdom of God unfold?  One person at a time, but in many places, and across time.  It’s like a ripple effect that once one person is touched by an encounter with God, it reverberates out from that person.  This is how God always works.

 

Funeral in advance

28 Friday Apr 2017

Posted by in Society, Theology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

This week at the seminary was Academy Week – we get to hear several speakers come and talk about a variety of topics.  One of the speakers talked about Revelation and how it wasn’t about predicting the future so much as being written in opposition to the Roman empire – you know, the empire that was crushing people in the known world, that promoted the idea that peace came through crushing one’s enemies, and that everyone must bow and worship Rome.

At any rate, the speaker went on to tell us that a good part of Revelation is actually a funeral for Rome.  It’s the idea of insulting Rome by showing that if it continues on the path it is heading, it will lead to its own demise and death.  And so Revelation is a funeral pronouncement on Rome and everything that goes with it.  It’s also casting an alternative – the reign of God and everything that goes with it.

This got me thinking about the idea of writing a funeral in advance.  It’s a powerful notion.  The whole idea of writing a funeral in advance is a direct smack in the face of whoever/whatever the funeral is for.

It got me wondering, who or what would I write a funeral for in advance?

That’s not an easy question.

Maybe it would be for partisan politics.  The message would be that if partisan politics continues on its path, then it will inevitably lead to its own demise and death.  The power that parties seek will be the same power that crushes them.  But there is an alternative.

Maybe it would be materialism.  The message would be that if materialism continues on its path, then it will inevitably lead to its own demise and death.  The stuff that materialism seeks will finally just bury us alive.  But there is an alternative.

I think you get the idea.

What would you write a funeral in advance for?

Jesus would vote for my candidate

03 Wednesday Aug 2016

Posted by in Humor, Politics, Society, Theology

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

ballot-woman.png

How would Jesus vote? For my candidate of course. So there. Now that we all know that the Divine One supports my way of thinking, you all better get in line, or else.

Seriously though, how would Jesus vote in 2016 America?

That’s a fun game isn’t it? I usually see this type of post as we approach elections — this year is no different. I have read theologians make arguments as to why their preferred candidate is the morally superior choice.

I hear arguments that state that Jesus would vote for the Democrat because that party has supposedly cared for the poor through their policies and Jesus had a special place in his heart for the poor. He preached about people doing things for the poor. Democrats are typically opposed to the death penalty — Jesus would be too. Yes, Jesus would be a good liberal Democrat.

Then I hear arguments that state that Jesus would vote for the Republican because that party is opposed to abortion and Jesus would be against abortion because abortion is killing an innocent person. Republicans are for “family values” — however you want to define that murky term. Clearly Jesus would be for love of family over government any day right? Yes, Jesus would be a good conservative Republican.

Oy vey! Enough already. Stop trying to make Jesus something that he never was — An American in the 21st century. He was a Middle Eastern poor guy (and yes, still the Son of God) that never had the opportunity to vote and wouldn’t have understood the concept. His entire life was lived in a region that was under occupation by a ruthless empire. No one in that region had a concept of rights as we understand them, had a say in who was to rule over them, or had any legal way to express their opinions directly about the rulers of the times (unless they didn’t mind being killed for expressing their displeasure).

So can we stop kidding ourselves into believing that Jesus would vote for either a Democrat or Republican.

If anything, Jesus would look at government with suspicion. Government in Jesus’ time was oppressive — pay your taxes or else suffer the consequences. Stay out-of-the-way of the soldiers or suffer the consequences. Careful what you say about those in charge or suffer the consequences. Remember Jesus was crucified by the Roman empire as a threat to their stability — a political execution.

There was no welfare state for the masses — government was not about serving their needs. Government existed for the benefit of the emperor. It existed to keep order. It existed as an efficient means of collecting taxes.

Jesus spent a great deal of time preaching an alternative government — the Kingdom of God. Whereas the Roman empire and its government was based on worship of the emperor and war and strength, the Kingdom of God was based on the worship of God and peace. The Roman empire and its government was interested in obtaining and keeping power, while the Kingdom of God was interested in empowering the powerless.

How would Jesus vote? No one has any idea what so ever. And you are kidding yourself if you think you do. I have a feeling though that Jesus wouldn’t be voting — ever. He’d be more concerned with implementing the Kingdom of God in place of all human governments — including the US government. He’d be more concerned with preaching a message of peace, mercy, forgiveness, and helping the poor — not worrying about what government policies were in place. Because government policies are concerned with one thing — the physical nature of poverty. Jesus would go beyond that, recognizing something government never would — the spiritual poverty that exists.

I have a feeling he’d be more concerned with changing and replacing the culture of consumerism and the enthrallment with violence that we are stuck on — we have made these into our idols. Just question either one and see what I mean — “why aren’t you buying this or that? What do you mean you don’t think we should kill our enemies?”

How would Jesus vote? I’m guessing that he wouldn’t. He’d do the same thing he did with parables. He’d be offered two options by someone trying to trap him and he would propose an alternative that was completely different. Choosing between the two options would be endorsing a broken system that he never bought in to. I’m guessing that’s what Jesus would do. And just like the Pharisees who wanted Jesus to endorse their view of the world and were sorely disappointed and then angry at him, I have a feeling there would be a lot of Democrats and Republicans would be just as disappointed and maybe even extremely angry that Jesus not only dismissed their party loyalties, but would want to change the governing structure of the nation completely. I have a feeling he wouldn’t be invited to their party conventions, not even to offer the prayer. What a party pooper!

Take up your cross…

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Society, Theology

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Then Jesus told his disciples, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

That passage of Scripture is from Matthew 16:24.

What does it mean to take up your cross?

Maybe we should start with what the cross means.  What do you think of when I say the word “cross”?  Here’s what some people think:  grace, redemption, love, forgiveness, jewelry, Christianity, God and country, and some even think of a song – “Lift High the Cross.”  It’s all very clean and neat and orderly sounding isn’t it?

Many people equate carrying their cross with a burden they carry in their lives.  Maybe a strained relationship, a thankless job, a physical illness.

But I don’t think that’s what Jesus was telling people.  That’s more like Jesus saying “pick up you heavy bag of groceries, stop complaining and follow me.”

Here’s a little context of what the cross meant in Jesus’ own time.  It was an instrument of the Roman empire used for a tortuous death.  It meant to tell a clear message to all around that opposing Rome would result in a cruel and humiliating defeat.  That’s quite a bit harder than talking about strained relationship.

Rome was everything and all powerful, in human terms.  Rome went beyond other empires in the sense that it saw itself as god-like.

Convicted criminals and those who challenged Rome would have to literally carry their own cross – the thing that would kill them and carry it through the streets, often naked, and suffer ridicule and derision from the masses watching along the way.  They also had the pleasure of knowing what the end result was the entire time.

When Jesus says take up your cross and follow me, he means be willing to die to self, literally.  Absolute surrender to Jesus – not, “well, Jesus, how about you can have me on Sundays, but not on Saturdays, that’s my day off.  And I have to leave you are home when I go to work too – my boss owns my time there.  Or when I go to school, I have to study and get good grades.  Or when I go out to the doctor’s office – I have to keep the appointment or else I’ll never get another appointment.”

Total surrender is not an easy concept for 21st century Americans to take in.  We don’t surrender. We think of ourselves as the “good guys.”  Surrender goes against everything it means to be American.

I wonder, if Jesus were to come to 21st century America, how would he rephrase the Scripture to our context?  Take up your _____ and follow me.

It’s not an easy question for Americans to answer.  Mostly because Christians in America are not like the Christians in Palestine at the time of Jesus.  Christians in 21st century America aren’t persecuted for the most part.  We’re living in a a culture that is changing for sure – going from a culture that used to tell the Christian story to one that is more apathetic to the Christian message.  It means we have to pick up our slack and laziness in telling the message – relearn how to tell the story as David Lose once said.

But what does it really mean to pick up our cross in 21st century America?  What is the 21st century version of the cross?  I’m going to leave you with these uncomfortable questions unanswered.

Exceptional or predictable?

18 Friday Mar 2016

Posted by in Humanity, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

I’m sure you’ve heard plenty of political candidates give speeches and make statements that point towards how special America is.  Maybe it’s the bluster of a candidate who will “Make America Great Again” or who are “Reigniting the Promise of America.” Or maybe it’s the promise for “A New American Century.”  Or better yet, in order to fulfill our special call maybe we’ll need the right person in charge who knows that “A political revolution is coming.”  Because you know, “Everyday Americans need a champion.  I want to be that champion.”

All of these slogans are from actual candidates running for President.  And there are plenty of other ones – you don’t have to be running for President to have a slogan like that – just a big enough ego.

Which brings me to my next point – why do we do this?  What are seeking?  Purpose?  A reason?  Does being special or exceptional make us different?  Does it mean we don’t have to suffer the same fate as other nations?  Or suffer the same difficulties and problems that other nations face?  Is it our way of deluding ourselves into thinking that we are somehow different as a people – somehow blessed by God in a special way.  Is it the political version of the Prosperity Gospel.

Brian Zahnd, a pastor I love to quote, wrote about this topic so eloquently.  You should really read his whole article.  Here’s one quote that pertains to what I’m talking about:

American Exceptionalism: The theory that the United States occupies a special place among the nations of the world and possesses a unique destiny in history.

I’ve heard it said, “American Exceptionalism is simply a fact.”

I’m sure it is.

Just like Greek Exceptionalism and Roman Exceptionalism and British Exceptionalism were facts too.

If you’re not exceptional, you’re just another nation.

The interesting thing about this, for me, is the history.  American exceptionalism is really not that special – it’s just like all the other nations who thought they were special.  Some of those nations still exist, but are no longer superpowers, some have faded into history.  At some point, so will ours.  Because nations are a human invention and temporary.  They are just lines drawn on a piece of paper (or computer screen).  The borders have changed innumerable times over history.  And they will continue to change.

Last year, my family and I lived in Europe.  And one of the things I loved about being there was the history.  I learned about it, I visited it, I took it in.  Here’s an observation that I’ve been alluding to in other blog posts – every nation that considered themselves “great” has taken up the mantle of Rome.  They’ve believed they were the heirs of Rome.  You know Rome – the great empire that ruled the “known” world.  It may be the most idealized notion of exceptionalism that humanity has ever imagined.  We idealize Rome.  It was the ultimate in power and might for so long.

We still idealize them – and not just here in the US.  Look around the globe.  Look at the Roman architecture.  Look at the use of the eagle.  Look at the structure of law.  Look at the might of militaries.  Look at the notion of strong leadership.  Everyone wants to be Rome.  This has been going on since Rome fell.  And Rome did fall.  It wasn’t too big to fail.  In fact, it was too big not to fail.  Just like every human empire that has ever existed or ever will.

But even Roman exceptionalism isn’t unique.  Rome stole the idea from the Greeks.  And the Greeks stole the idea from the ancient civilizations of the Middle East – the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and the Assyrians.  Who knows who these “great” civilizations stole the idea from.  Exceptionalism isn’t unique to America or any other “great” nation that has walked the earth.  In fact, it’s rather common and predictable when you think about it.

 

 

Siegestor arch

17 Wednesday Feb 2016

Posted by in Travel

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

The Siegestor arch is something you can’t miss seeing if you are anywhere near Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.

SAMSUNG CAMERA PICTURES

It’s an impressive triumphal arch.  It’s got all the things you would need to make an impression – it’s got lions being guided by the statue of Bavaria personified.  It looks triumphant.  It looks like something a successful nation would build at the height of its power.  It’s an arch that reminds a person of Rome – not the city, but rather the military might of the the Roman empire.

And it does that on purpose.  Rome has always been the “ideal.” It’s an ideal that just won’t die either.  Every nation and king after Rome that has been anything significant in the Western world and even beyond, has considered themselves to be the heirs of Rome.  Bavaria is no different.  When you walk through Munich, you see plenty of evidence of this idea.

 

Responding to People Leaving Church?

22 Thursday Jan 2015

Posted by in Church

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There seems to be a great deal of debate on the internet about how churches should respond to the decline of people leaving their pews.  There are articles, some of which I have posted on this blog, talking about the rise of the “nones,” people who are done with church for a variety of reasons.  There are lots of thoughts about how churches should respond to the exodus of people from church.  Carey Nieuwhof wrote an interesting article recently with seven ways to respond to the decline of the church.  I think he has some valid points.

While they are valid points, I would also say they aren’t right for every church.  Context is important.  What is the context of the church community?

Which leads to my point.  People have a lot of ideas on how to “right” the direction of the church so it stops losing members/gets people in the doors/gets back to its mission, etc.  I’ve written pieces on this as well.  The challenge is that there is not a single way to do this.  Nor should there be.

Here’s a little church history for you to help us with this idea.  So jump in the Tardis with me and let’s take a short trek back 20 centuries.  (trust me, I’ll keep it short)

There is this false notion that the early Christian church (1st-3rd centuries AD/CE) had a unified way in which they worshiped.  There is no evidence for this.  Not one shred of evidence for this.  If anything, the limited resources that scholars have found point to a different picture – each worshiping community did things a bit differently.  There were some overriding themes and practices – a gathering for Eucharist (there’s debate on what that meant), there were baptisms (again, debate on how that happened), and there was praying (again, more debate – I’m sure you are surprised by this. Not!).  This really shouldn’t be a novel idea – I bet your church doesn’t do the exact same things as other churches.

How the church worshiped in Rome was different from how they worshiped in Carthage and Syria, Jerusalem, Antioch, Egypt and elsewhere.  In fact all of these locations had their own versions of worship.  And that worked out pretty well mostly.  Yes, it was confusing sometimes.  Yes, there was debate on whose way was better.  But overall, everyone lived with the situation.  They adopted practices of other communities as they deemed them appropriate.

That changed with the advent of Constantine, the Roman Emperor.  He wanted unity in the church. He had an empire to control and run and the last thing you want when you are doing this is diversity – you don’t have as much control in diversity.

Ok, let’s jump back in the Tardis back to our modern times.  So how does the church respond to people walking out the door?

1. Accept that there is no nice simple universal answer to people leaving the church, except for broad brush statements like “Return your focus on Jesus.”  While true, it’s hardly an action plan with defined steps for a church to carry out.

2. Since there is no nice answers, we have to do some nitty-gritty work here and start with more questions.  Questions like “who are we as a church community?” “What is this church about?” “Why does this church exist at all?” “How is God calling us and in what ways?”  These are difficult questions that take time, self-examination, prayer, etc.  In some cases, there’s aren’t any apparent answers, just more questions.

3. We have to stop responding all the time.  Yes, you read that correctly – stop responding.  I read something a wise person wrote long ago – “you can’t lead if you are always responding.”  Responding feels good.  It shows that you care.  It shows that you value the person making the action.  It also means you never do anything to move things forward.  Yes, there are times when response is appropriate – I won’t deny that.  This isn’t an either/or thing.  And in our modern society, we’ve gotten really good at responding – think instant communication and the expectation of an instant response.  But if everyone is responding, then who is leading and what are they leading us to?

4.  What is the role of the church in your community?  It goes back to the context of the local church.  This isn’t easy work, but really anything  worth doing involves an investment of sweat, blood and tears, time, money, and life.

I believe the church has an important role in society.  I also believe that the church will look different going forward – I don’t know how, but I sense it will be different.  Everything changes over time, even the church.

Here’s what I know – when a church knows who it is, whose it is, and why – then I’m willing to bet there isn’t a focus on people leaving.  Why would you focus on that when you are being who are called to be?