"lead us not into the coming birth pains.."

Both images from the Andrew Perriman post on What does Jesus mean when he teaches his disciples to pray “lead us not into temptation”?

"The Temptation of Anthony"

Austin Farrrer on "probable tracks" of Jesus' temptations: subversion of Paethon and temple tantrum connections

hotel in Israel

Austin Farrrer , though apparently "one of the most profound and prophetic theologians of the twentieth century"  (so back cover says!) was new to me....but the price was right on one of his books (1.50):  "The Triple Victory: Christ's Temptation According to St. Matthew."

As one with a special interest in the temptations of Jesus, literary structure of Matthew, I wouldn't have resisted the testation to buy it at double the price (:

Come on..NO reviews on Amazon US or Amazon UK (He was British)?!...

"His activity in philosophy, theology, and spirituality led many to consider him the outstanding figure of 20th century Anglicanism. -Wikipedia

Turns out he was  well-respected by C.S. Lewis,and had an intriguing solution for the synoptic problem.  Wiki calls him a "maverick."

 I like him already...even if/especially if he is sometimes wrong (:

Even in the preface,  Frederick Borsh partly agrees with accusations  of  Farrer's sometimes fanciful flights into literary structural analysis, midrash and typology.  But he defends him as being  very thoughtful, creative..and ahead of his time as far as redaction/compositional criticism etc.  "He may have seen too many typologies, but he was not wrong in understanding that biblical writers often thought in typological categories.  This keen awareness pays particularly rich dividends in his study of Christ's temptations." (p. 2)

He does well, as does Donald Kraybill, in seeing many links from the temptations  to the rest of Matthew's gospel.

I haven't read enough for a review yet, so I'll  just

1)ask if any are familiar with this work

2)quote this:

Satan's insinuation...contains a hidden poison: "If you are the Son of God..If you cannot or dare not, what sort of divine Son are you?"...

Jesus declines..not because it is wicked..but because it is wicked to make a willful use of spiritual power...

"throw yourself down"...The suggested action is so utterly useless in itself, it can have one purpose only:.."Jump and find out; if you won't jump you can't really believe it."

...Christ refused to do what Phaethon did [doubt his paternity].  But could he have even thought in those terms? We may give a double reply.  First, though Christ did not think that God was an inhabitant of Jerusalem, he took the sanctity of the holy place with complete seriousness  He can, indeed, be  said to have pulled his own death on his head, by taking the law into his own hands and cleansing the temple from trade.  Second, we must say that in dreams or visions symbols become realities...

..It would be absurd to claim any sort of certainty for the suggestions we have advanced.  We cannot be sure what paths of association Christ's visionary thoughts, as St Matthew represents them, follow out.  Yet our guesses are not valueless.  They were the sort of lines along which a devout Jewish imagination ran; and the exercise of working out probable tracks and junctions in the movement of such a mind puts us in sympathy with the author we are trying to understand..  Chapter IV

"My Phone is My Fig Leaf"

"My Phone is My Fig Leaf:
A timeless tale of technology and temptation"
 by Jenna Perrine:

My Phone is My Fig Leaf

A timeless tale of technology and temptation./JENNA PERRINE

Some old stories are told anew every day. Here's a sobering one from Jenna Perrine. -Paul

Now technology was more crafty than any other creaturely wisdom that the Lord God had made.

It advertised an hourly question to the woman,

"Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

And the woman said to technology, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

But technology tweeted to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.

Vulnerable.

Seen.

Judged.

Compared.

Measured.

Objectified.

Susceptible.

Powerless.

Scrutinized.

They knew that the world was now watching them. Judging them by obscene standards of creativity, fitness, intelligence, wit, beauty, attractiveness, and wealth.

They knew that there were infinite arguments to be fought, lost, and won on everything from politics to cookie recipes.

They knew that there were opinions to be shared, people to build up, and people to be torn down, Youtube videos to be made viral and critiqued by any measure of preference or whimsy.

They knew that there were blogs to be written, on any issue of fancy, statuses to be scribed both witty and mundane. Comments to be added, pored over, and coveted.

They knew that there were deep recesses in their heart, the potential for great loneliness that could be satiated instantaneously in a moment of weakness by an online conversation or a pornographic image.

They feared rejection in the deepest parts of their soul and they desired to be proactive against it. They feared that their nakedness would be laughed at, loathed, ignored … so they thought of ways to forge a new face, present a different personality, imagine another image than the one they'd been given. They sought control over how they were perceived, took a carving knife to what the outside world could see and cut out any hint of blemish, unhappiness, or weakness.

They sought control over how they were perceived, took a carving knife to what the outside world could see and cut out any hint of blemish, unhappiness, or weakness.

They smiled in every photo. Shared only their most prideful and boastful moments. Contributed to a frivolous high society of online mirth.

They felt such fear that they believed their nakedness should be scorned, stuffed, and hidden from the eyes of all. So they suffocated it into silence, peered at only in the moments they could hide in the blackest of nights hoping to finally be unseen from the world.

They knew they had no friends on Facebook, no followers on Twitter, and no Instagram account to speak of.

And so they sewed fractured fragments of self esteem together and fashioned for themselves smartphones.

And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God

behind the screen of their smartphone,

behind the screen of their laptop,

behind the screen of their tablet,

among the online profiles of Facebook,

among the pins of Pinterest,

among the tweets of Twitter,

heads bowed not in prayer but towards a screen,

hands fervent not in worship but in typing keys,

eyes consumed not with glory but with the ridiculous,

thoughts pondering not whatever is lovely but whatever is popular.

But the Lord God called to the man,

(even though he could plainly see him, behind the photoshopped image, sarcastic comments, and polished profile,)

and with great sadness and wrath said to him, "Where are you?"

And after finishing a text message, the man lifted his head from the screen and he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.

I was afraid because I was alone at a coffee shop, and I checked my email for the fifth time.

I was afraid because I was nervous to start a new conversation, and I browsed my newsfeed on Facebook.

I was afraid because I was insecure in the presence of my friends, and I spoke digitally to one that wasn't present.

I was afraid because I was sexually unsatisfied and lonely, and I sought solace in pornography.

I was afraid because I was seen by the world, and I bred a false image digitally.

I was afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself."

He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"

The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "Technology, the creaturely wisdom deceived me, and I ate."

The Lord God said to technology,

"Because you have done this,

cursed are you above all creaturely wisdom

and above all ways to spend ones time;

into unreality you will go,

and falsehood and exaggeration you will eat

all the days of your advertising.

I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel."

To the woman he said,

"I will surely multiply your pain in image bearing;

in pain you shall find self esteem.

Your desire shall be for your husband to be captivated by only you,

and the power of where his eyes look shall rule over you."

And to Adam he said,

"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife

and have eaten of the tree

of which I commanded you,

'You shall not eat of it,'

cursed is vulnerable intimacy because of you;

in pain you shall strive for it of it all the days of your life."

To them he said,

"You will idealize yourselves through social media, then feel rejected at your most idealized. You will crave to be accepted at your very least.

Your misrepresentation will breed deep misery. You will personally bear great burden for perpetuating false impressions digitally.

The closer someone is to you physically and geographically, the worse social media will be for your relationship."

Disclaimer: This is intended to be a thought provoker, an indictment of technology in a dissatisfied and comparative culture. I hope you enjoy. This is not intended to be a slam on the use of all or any technology (that would be rather ironic given my platform to post this). I hope you can discern where to draw the line.

How has the social media boom satisfied your loneliness?

How has it left you wanting?

How have you been tempted to manipulate your online presence to be less than vulnerable, honest, or naked?

How can we redeem social media to be a tool of honest connection?

I'd love to hear your thoughts. - Jenna

Jenna Perrine is a soon-to-be graduate of Moody Bible Institute, from Belfast N.Ireland, and an aspiring advocate for soul care and mental health within the Church.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/parse/2014/march/my-phone-is-my-fig-leaf.html

"One great encouragement to sin is an absence of wonder"

"Original sin is one of the more plausible concepts in the Western Christian package, corresponding all too accurately to everyday human experience. One great encouragement to sin is an absence of wonder.  Even those who see the Christian story as just that--a series of stories--may find sanity in the experience of wonder: the ability to listen and contemplate.  It would be very surprising if the religion, so youthful, yet so varied in its  historical experience, had now revealed all its secrets."
  -last paragraph (p. 1016)  of  Diarmaid MacCulloch's "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years." -emphasis mine

--
Related MacCulloch posts:

• The "Lord's Prayer" does NOT say "daily bread"..yada..This is NEWS?
• 15th century painting of Jesus with a basketball discovered
• The Violet Burning sends an unshaved pastor to the mall to convert his epistemology

temptations: leaping their scattergories and not to be listened to...and feeling hunger/beauty as pain

Among the interesting takes Anne Rice weaves into her "Christ the Lord:   The Road to Cana" account of Jesus experiencing the temptations in the wilderness is that she seems to suggest a "cross-mingling" (synesthesia?) of the temptations.

I have spent so much time with students on the taxonomy of the individual "testations" (see chart below, and these links : Timelines and Testations: Jesus, Sexonomics and Facebook  

 and The three testations of Jesus (and us): different takes on defining them)

that Jesus experiencing

hunger during the temple temptation got me thinking about how temptations can comingle/cotempt:

.. I stopped short at the edge of the parapet of the Temple, the Temple in Jerusalem, under the huge sky, and above the enormous crowds of those who wandered in and out of it. I was standing on the pinnacle. I was looking down into the vast lower courts.

The sounds and scents of the crowd rose up in my nostrils. I felt the hunger so deeply it was a pain. And out on all sides lay the rooftops of Jerusalem while the people swarmed below in its tangle of narrow streets.

"Look on all this," he said beside me.

             (read the whole chapter here....even though it claims a copyright, not sure it's a legal site, if Rice wants me to remove the link, I will) .

For fun...and to learn something, the other night  I had students fill in some blanks in a non-graded "pop quiz".  I knew the results would be intriguing...and you can see which answer caused me to literally LOL..when I included this "fill in the blank":

  Every temptation, at heart, is about __________.

Would anyone put "power?"  (yes!)
  If i had clarified "Every temptation of Jesus," would anyone have put "to operate out of his divine nature and not his human nature?

a few answers:

• forgiveness
• power
• selfishness
• choice 
• desire
• "I don't listen to The Temptations"

But of course, that last answer may well be profound..if all temptations (and all of life...and according to string theory, all of the universe) are sound- based and maybe sound-activated.  See Webb's "The Divine Voice"!

Also..

I also love Jesus' line in Rice:

 I felt the hunger so deeply it was a pain.

It connected me to two lines in  Rice's delightful "Called out of Darkness: a spiritual confession":

• "It's important to stress here  that my earliest experiences involved beauty...things which evoked such profound feeling in me that I often felt pain. (6)
• "I remember thinking, tiny child that i was, that this was so incredibly beautiful that it hurt me"(16)

I love so much that Jesus was human.

A I asked the same class:

"The Bible says that Jesus was able to do miracles because He was ___________"

Check out there answers.

Note again a brilliant offbeat answer (by the same person who doesn't listen to The Temptations"):

I was hoping at least one would give the best answer.

Hardly anyone ever does..

Look up the Scriptures (or the third question here) if you're wondering...

'"________keeps us alive with hope" (fill in the blank)

"Lament keeps us alive with hope
           when the temptation is to surrender to a defeated numbness."
-Brian J. Walsh, in a discussion of Bruce Cockburn's "Humans" ("If Bono is right, and Cockburn is a psalmist, then Humans is a collection of psalms of lament" ) in terms of Bruggemann and the psalms.  Pp. 116-17, Kicking at the Darkness: Bruce Cockburn and the Christian Imaginination

The three testations of Jesus (and us): different takes on defining them

Various thinkers from early in church history through today have categorized/collated  the three core  temptations (testations) of Jesus  into grids/taxonomies. (See previous article: Timelines and Testations: Jesus, Sexonomics and Facebook, and other posts tagged "testation below.

 Below, the Kraybill reference is "The Upside Down Kingdom," Nouwen's is "In the Name of Jesus" , and Scazzaro's is "Emotionaally Healthy Spirituality." (HT Len).
 The last two are a bit more ancient..




Note also that

some suggest a specific responses for each:

• Nouwen: relevant (contemplative prayer), spectacular (confession and forgiveness), and  ruler (theological reflection); 
• The monastic vows money (poverty), sex (chastity), and power (obedience)

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If that was helpful, see my previous post which includes the two crazy charts below 

Kindle is not God

I know you know that..but since we bibliophiles/Kindlephiles can be tempted..

I thought you might get a kick out of this:





Scot McKnight posted a prayer on his blog; a great prayer that should be prayed, but I couldn't help chuckle at the  unintentionally funny (and convicting) opening line...must be read carefully, so do click the link to get the context!: (:

Almighty God, kindle, we pray.... (continued here)

PS: He could've prayed to a Kindle Fire, that would totally make sense, too..

misundertaking spiritual warfare: reading in context and in (anabaptist) communitas

 “If we are going to grow up into Christ we have to do it in the company of everyone who is responding to the call of God.” (Eugene Peterson)



On the seemingly neverending list of "misundertaken" scriptures (especially due to
              verse-itis ,

              not reading in context,
       

                                        and reading through Western lenses)..


 How many times have you heard

"greater is he who is in you than he who is in the world?"

...and you KNEW that

• the "He who is in you" is...of course, Jesus?
• the "one who is in the world" is...of course, the devil?
• the "you" is ...of course, the individual believer?

Read  1 John 4...in context, and get back to me.

The first two questions are partly true.
For example, simply reading the previous verses (unheard of!) suggests the primary answer to #2: "This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."  The devil is mentioned nowhere in the context.

It's the third question I'd like to focus on.
I wish everyone could read biblical Greek and Hebrew.
But speakers of language like Spanish GET the idea of a plural "you."
In fact, you should learn spanish JUST to read 1 John 4:4:

Ustedes, queridos hijos, son de Dios y han vencido a esos falsos profetas, porque el que está en ustedes es más poderoso que el que está en el mundo.  link, context

"Greater is he who is within you all" doesn't do it justice.
Just ask anyone from Texas.  "How are y'all doing?" usually means a single 'you".
To ask about a group, it's "y'all of y'all."

I sometimes suggest to Spanish speakers that  the "singular plurals" of the Bible are almost like an
"Ustedes va" --a grammatically incorrect phrase, the "you" is plural and the verb is singular--  a community as one, not one (individual) as the community as English forces us to think.

On the singular plural, see A Crash of Rhinos...a Committee of Buzzards.


It is ironic and should be obvious that one of the groups we can learn the most about spiritual warfare is Anabaptists/Mennonites, nonresisitants and pacifists!  How do folks who don't "do war" actually "do war" with the devil.  Secondly, they GET community/communitas.  I was privileged to spend a week in community (ahh)  studying spiritual warfare and worldview with a great Mennonite Brethren scholar, Paul Hiebert.
I may upload some of his notes.  There are also at least two helpful related resources:

• Swartley, Willard, ed. Essays on Spiritual Bondage and Deliverance (Institute of Mennonite Studies, Vol 11.
• Direction: A Mennonite Brethren Forum, Vol 29, No. 2 (online here )which includes an article by Hiebert (here)

-------------
Not to mention....okay I will... that high up on the list of misunderstood scriptures is the "spiritual armor" of Ephesians 6: "take up the shield of faith," which we usually read as addressed to an individual.
But it's addressed to a group/church...grammatically and theologically. 

--

Related:

• your body is not the temple/don't worry about God's ...
• quiz: how many times is 'pastor' mentioned in the NT?  
• Born again....and again...and again....this morning

Reading Rohr with Bono: half-naked elevation, necessary decadence and life-giving drink with the devil (without moving in with him)

This astonishing section  (and astonishingly nowhere online until I hit "publish") of Richard Rohr's book, "Adam's Return: The Five Promises of Male Initiation" 
below deserves to be read slowly, prayerfully, carefully....

and soundtracked to U2;
and with the following for context and contexture:

1)Thoughtful U2 fans will recognize  resonances of 1990s U2 (especially "Elevation" and "Mysterious Ways" as well as famous/infamous Bono quotes  about Catholic Carnival,   flesh/spirit, "a drink with the devil," incarnation, joy, beauty, sex  etc etc)  all over this reading.  See "Elevation leads to Vertigo 2.0,"  and blogs by  Beth Maynard  Tim Neufeld  for more).

 Bono, as  the extraordinary theologian Miraslov Volf  himself has said, is an "extraordinary theologian (of grace)".

 One almost wonders if the man and his "elegant wife"  in the last paragraph are not actually/  literally Mr. and Mrs. Paul  "Bono" Hewson; it is all so Bono/esque.
At  least  wonder how many "amen"s  a reading of a random line of this text would solicit from Bono.

2)Please don't hear what Rohr is NOT saying.  Don't write him off as a heretic.  Read well.
 Example: the concept of flirting..sometimes literally... with the line (flirting with the line, itself) as a spiritual discipline/"necessary training."

3)The book is on the topic of "male initiation," so the male/man language is not intended to be sexist.
It should be considered/read on the flow of the whole book.  Buy it yesterday, and buy one for Bono and wife.

Enjoy:

Do you  think  St. Francis really stopped being the king of the parties?  Do you think David of the dance, the psalms, the harp and the many women ever stopped being erotic?  Could Rumi, Kabir, Tagor or Hafiz  have possibly written their sacred poetry if they were not sensuous and sensual men? Did St. Phillip Neri  really stop telling jokes and drinking wine?  Did Mozart ever stop having fun?  Did the cloistered contemplatives not know joy?  I don't think so.  They just moved joy and pleasure to the highest level, which is the highest definition of a mystic.  The contemplative, or saint, is the most refined and highest level of the lover archetype.

It is strange that the West has largely created cultures of conspicuous consumerism when it took as its ultimate hero and God figure a  poor and simple man.  You would think our God figure would be Dionysius or Pan.  Why do most Eastern or Native peoples of the world  consider the West to be greedy and materialistic?  Why do we produce such a high rate of physically addicted people?  Why is the search for affluence and pleasure our main concern?  Could it be because we have not blessed the good side of joy and pleasure?  Now it comes back and bites us from behind.  When I consciously seek a certain amou8nt of creature comfort in my life, I find that it satisfies me, and also will never satisfy me.  That is a very life-giving and creative tension to live in.

I  do not find the same kind of approach and avoidance attitudes toward pleasure in Hindu countries. among most Jews, and surely not among Native peoples.  The lower part of a man was not paid his dues or given legitimate permission in Western Christianity.  As many say, sexuality and sensuality is our ever-recurring and "unhealed wound,"  Like petulant schoolboys, we Christians sneak all the fun we can at the expense of underdeveloped countries, our neighbors, and the health of our own bodies and souls.  We feel duly guilty about it all, but we usually don't stop.  We priests deny ourselves sex, but then we insist on four-star hotels and restaurants.  Carnival in Catholic countries became a necessary decadence to justify receiving the ashes the next morning.  Something has not come to balance inside us, and we remain schizoid.   We go to the outer world for our daily pleasures, but we  seldom allow them to bring us to God, or even to ourselves.  We remain split.  Flesh is bad and Spirit is good in our terrible dualism.  Yet the Christian religion is supposed to be incarnation-a love affair between flesh and Spirit.  It  is really quite strange.

Ours is the only religion in the world that dares to believe that God became flesh.  The only religion that chews on the flesh of God has a very sensuous, sexual symbol for the transformation of the lover; we call it the Eucharist.  Christianity says that God is Love but does not appear to really enjoy the lover.  Despite all the Bach masses, Baroque churches, incense, vestments, and luxurious art, we still made our religion into a moralistic matter instead of a  mystical joy.  Our operative God image was much more a banker, a judge, a timekeeper, or an accountant, but seldom a real lover--in any sense that the normal man understands.  Like Michal, the daughter of Saul, we despise David for dancing half naked in church (1 Samuel 6:16); we look away from Shakers, Pentecostals, and holy rollers.  Religion should be a proper and dignified thing, we think.  The hot sins for the Baptists and Catholics
are always associated with the body.  This is no religion of incarnation.

Frankly, it is the Hindu sacred poets, Sufi mystics like Rabi'a and Rumi, the Christian saints like John XXIII, Hildegard of Bingen, Franc is of Assisi, Julian of Norwich and Therese of Lisieux, or Jewish masters, like the Baal Shem Tov, Abraham Heschel, and Martin Buber who seem to have met a lover God.  The mystics of all religions know this lover God, but they are never allowed to set the tone for the ordinary Christian, Jew, Hindu or Muslim on the street.  We are all lost in law, custom and holy wars, which largely nullified any chance of a love-based ethic for any of the three monotheistic religions.  As Paul said so strongly, reliance upon moralisms makes grace impossible (Galatians 3), and it even leads to the death of the soul (Romans 7).  Moralisms keep us making lists for God instead of making love to God.

In short, if religion does not integrate and validate the sensual, pleasure-loving, erotic part of a man, it takes devious and destructive directions.  If you do not bless it and bow to it, it turns on you and controls you, as we have seen in the recent pedophile scandal.  If you bless it, it shows its limited value and longs for something higher.  The most loving men I have met, the most generous to society and to life, are usually men who have a lusty sense of life, beauty, pleasure and sex--but they have very realistic expectations of them.  The smaller pleasures have become a stairway and an invitation to higher ones, almost by revealing simultaneously their wonderful and yet limited character.  They offer a first taste but then create a taste for something more and something higher.  This is the necessary training of the lower archetype.

The true lover wastes no time in guilt and no time in gluttony either.  As Dome Bedde Griffiths said,  "Sex is far too important to eliminate entirely, and it is far too important to do lightly.  The only alternative is to somehow 'consecrate' it."  I am personally convinced this is true.  The man who took me recently to a four-star restaurant with his elegant wife, while speaking excitedly about the food making love to him, is the same man who talks passionately about refugees, injustice and Third World issues, and he has passed these passionate concerns onto his children.  He is the lover I am talking about. -Richard Rohr, Adam's Return, pp.  128-131.

Unkingdoms and "conversations that are neither polite nor free from confusion" (book review, "That Holy Anarchist")

Don't let the apparent oxymoron of "Christiian anarchist" scare you off; or cause you to call the heresy police on me (They already have my number).


Mark Van Steenwyck, author of  

"That Holy Anarchist: Reflections on Christianity & Anarchism,"  has struggled with just what to call the nexus:

Language will always fail to describe the strange relationship between the Way of Jesus and anarchistic political imoulkses.  There are some real downsides to identifying as a "christian anarchist.."  The stress naturally falls on one of the two words as though they are two separate things mashed together, unreconcilable into any cohesive whole.
I've toyed with alternative language...Even my own affinity for a phrase like "the unkingdom of God" is ofetn too confusing to be helpful in polite conversation. --p. 65 

He adds a hilarious and too true footnote to that last line that is worth the price of the book I am about to review:

"I recognize that the best conversations are neither polite nor free from confusion."

On that note, let's move directly into my (im)polite and (inevitably)confusing review of the book.

In two words:

Highly recommended.

And for a a few more words (mostly his, with my comments), read on.
My approach will be  proceeding chapter by chapter, letting you in on some of my (literal) highlights, some of the author's  one-liners that are amazingly articulate.............. and how this all has got me thinking and wrestling.

To your surprise, I am not going to answer the obvious question that has already tripped you up: How does he define "Christianity" and "anarchism?"  I want you to buy the book, especially to see the section where he  so masterfully does (or doesn't?)      But start here, as it may in essence answer the tenor of both questions......... let it soak in:

Bottom line:

Christo-anarchism refers not only to the insight that Jesus’ vision of the Kingdom of God has anarchic (anti-domination) implications, but also the assumption that, only by nurturing practices centered on the presence of the Living Christ, can we move from domination to non-domination, from death to life, from oppression to liberation, and from alienation to love. p, 65

Chapter 1:   Jesus and the Unkingdom of God

The author admits he is not completely happy with the "Unking" and "Unkingdom" terns he has coined.  But I can't not incorporate them into my  teaching/preaching/St. Arbuck's repertoire (as I have with Tom Fuller's  "kingdomed"), as this  gets to the heart of the book, and to Jesus shape of subversion.  It may even be an attempt to push Donald Kraybill's "upside down Kingdom" beyond downside up./

A quote that is hugely helpful to those of us who love to talk about "subversion of empire;"
a quote that I would have given anything for LO Society's  Bob Lyon to live ling enough to  add his "amen" to; a quote that reminds us how careful and prayerful we are called to be, as we practice. the praxis of subversion:

Jesus reign isn't other-worldy.  It isn't apolitical.  It's just political in a  radivally different sort of way. Rather than  taking Caesar's throne  (or any throne, including the one Satan offered him) Jesus is saying that Caesar's days are numbered.  By saying "My kingdom is not from this world" he isn't saying  "My kingdom is only spiritual. so you don't have to worry.  Jesus' Kingship renders Caesar's obsolete.  It isn't a mere "trumping" as though Jesus is simply greater than Caesar; it is an entirely different sort of kingship.  (pp12-13)

We must ask "sort," kind," "form,"  "shape"  questions a whole lot more.
I fear we don't at all.

Van Steenwyk notes that early Christians were called (at least by Tacitus
"haters of humanity" for their  subversion.
Do I need to even ask why (a very different SORT of reason) we are called  "haters of humanity" in our day, and in my country?

 Sigh..

Chapter Two: Definitions

See my earlier thoughts. But it's worth noting that "Christianity is even harder to define than anarchism." (p. 19)  and that "'anarchism' is the name given to the principle under whicha collectivity-a group of people-may be conceived without rule."  The "collectivity" language is nice, and may be another nod to Kraybill.


Chapter Three: Anarchic Impulses in Christian History

This chapter is a fascinating, concise  history  of  anarchic Christianity..  This exhaustive work has never been compiled before, let alone  presented in such a succinct summary. You will meet some  movements  you  have never heard of, but should've.

But here is an observation (p. 30) that floored me:

  "Most radical Christian groups either die out or go mainstream."

 God help us.

"We should try to learn from those groups that still exist but haven't mainstreamed.,  They may hold the key to sustainable nonconformity."

Sustainable nonconformity? 
Another phrase  worth far more than price of the book.
Question:  why doesn't that phrase compete for Christian book titles and buzzwords...compete with "purpose driven" and "12 easy steps" and "how to.."

Don't answer that.
Instead move to this provocative quote from Ched Myers.

Chapter Four: Anarchic Impulses in Christian History:

The “Fall” in Gen 1-11, then, is not so much a cosmic moment of moral failure as a
progressive “history” of decline into civilization—exactly contrary to the myth of
Progress. Its polemical perspective is plausible when correlated with various
aspects of the Neolithic “rupture” hypotheses noted above. The biblical primeval
history thus should be considered not only as “mythic memory,” but also as
perhaps the first literature of resistance to the grand project of civilization—rightly
warning against its social pathologies and ecocidal consequences.  -p. 35 in the book, and context  of Myers' article at this link

Or Vam Steenwyck's observation (following  Kraybill's taxomomy) that "In the wilderness, [Jesus} is tempted politically, economically.." (p. 39

And what is the temptation toward?

"...to assert his messiah-ship"  (p. 39)

Hey, wait! This is precisely what Western evangelicals need Jesus (and Scripture) to do.

But Jesus doesn't only not do it..

....but in a sense, doesn't even do it indirectly...

       ...as even that would be caving into demonic temptation.

If that tripped you up "impolitely," read it again...and then read some NT Wright and get over it. (:

Yes, I believe with all my heart and faith that Jesus is Messiah.
It's clear that Van Steenwyck does, too.
But until we see that how/if he "asserted" that is a major issue, we haven't even started the important conversation: 

 "The temptation concerns  the sort of reign Jesus should we pursue."



What sort of reign and kingdom /churchdoms) do we pursue?

Do ever even think to think about asking that question?
Add it to your list, along with this one, for another random (?) example.
Gulp.

And don't get me started on the author's quote of Ellul's  (p. 44) regarding the
"intrinsic nonlegitimacy of institutions " (No, Ellul's one liners are never misunderstood as heresy(:  See this)

--

Oh, I have mentioned soundbites worth the price of the book.
The book is priceless for the insight on Jesus inaugural sermon in Luke 4.

I have long noted how "when quoting Isaiah 61, he omits that portion whuch speaks of the Lord's vengeance."  (p. 40)

That's radical and subversive enough.

But the observation  (in a footnote, no less...where many bombs are hidden): "the context makes this clear: The miracles Jesus references in his sermon involve the healing of Gentiles" (emphasis mine)

"Provocatively, Jesus seems willing to include oppressors in the kingdom."

!!
That's why Kingdom is not just upside down, but UnKingdom.

Do I include oppressors in my kingdom?
If not, what am i doing with a kingdom anyway? Time to "undo" it.


Chapter Five: Tensions

 The evangelical approach of preaching the opposite of a counterfeit is...counterintuitively.. not the right strategy:

I don’t believe that it makes any sense to say “God is such a big King that he obliterates all other kings…therefore, I’m an anarchist.” Rather, I would say “The way in which God sustains and shapes existence…and calls us to be in deeper relationship is the opposite of how Kings function…therefore, I am an anarchist.” To quote the late Dorothee Soelle:

Obedience presupposes duality: one who speaks and one who listens; one who knows and one who is ignorant; a ruler and ruled ones. Religious groups who broke away from the spirit of dependency and obedience cherish different values such as mutuality and interdependence…The main virtue of an authoritarian religion is obedience…God’s love and righteousness are less important than God’s power…why do people worship a God whose supreme quality is power, not justice; whose interest lies in subjection, not in mutuality; who fears equality?” ¹

Jesus is an unking. I worship the one who calls me friend. But I don’t think it would be accurate to say that I “obey” him in the way that servants obey masters. That is just a first step–a metaphor. Just as most green anarchists believe they should respect, cherish, and affirm nature, I am called to worship and love the source of life. Semantics? Not to me.  (p. 33)

Even in the context of trying to offer an apologetic for Christian anarchy, "The temptation is to try to force it" (p. 58.

It always is.

And it never works.

Or it does work, and that's the problem.

Could be that "trying to force it": is  a testation, and the core one, at that.

Chapter 6: The UnKingdom of God is Here:

Perhaps the highlight of the entire book for me was his suggested (not blueprinted or formulaic) practices.   They must be read slowly, and considered.   If we really catch that "to be mystics is to experience reality" (68),   we are ready to engage.

By the time you are done with this book, the author hopes you will sense

..a  shift away from seeing Christian Anarchism as a set of beliefs and ideals, as well as a shift away from seeing it as a category or a faction. Rather, I want to see it as a way of interpreting and a set of practices first and foremost. Certainly, likeminded communities are bound to network and organize around common ideals and convictions. This is important and good. But in that networking and organizing, I believe our focus should be on engaging the Living Christ.As a friend of mine once told me: “All we have to offer the world is the Presence of God.” I agree. And I believe that Presence tears down walls of alienation. And that is, in so many important ways, an anarchist project.

--

So buy the book.

Even though an early version of it is online.

                    Even though the  first four chapters are  embedded below

                                                 Buy it, at full price, precisely because, as you will find on page 3..

                                                                   "This book is not copyrighted."

!

How Christlike...and anarchistic..is that?

That Holy Anarchist