"The story is familiar: the religious and political-military powers collaborate and negotiate and reach an elegant final solution: Jesus will be crucified as a rebel. He will be nailed to a Roman cross- the visible symbol of the Roman principality and power, the instrument of torture and execution that is the end of all who stand up against Rome.
The crush Him and His movement. And it appears that Jesus has failed.
This is the scandal of the message of Jesus. The kingdom of God does fail. It is weak. It is crushed. When its message of love, peace, justice, and truth meets the principalities and powers of government and religion armed with spears and swords and crosses, they unleash their hate, force, manipulation, and propaganda. Like those defenseless students standing before tanks and machine guns in Tiananmen Square, the resistance movement known as the kingdom of God is crushed.
But what is the alternative? Could the kingdom of God come with bigger weapons, sharper swords, more clever political organizing? Could the kingdom of God be a matter of what is often called redemptive violence? Or would that mythology corrupt the kingdom of God so it would stop being "of God" at all and instead become just another earthly (and perhaps in some sense demonic) principality or power? Perhaps the kingdom could come with the flawless, relentless, irresistable logic- a juggernaut of steamroller counterarguments to flatten every objection. Or would that mental conquest be as dominating as military conquest, reducing the kingdom of God to a kingdom of coercive stridency?
What if the only way for the Kingdom of God to come in its tru form- as a kingdom "not of this world"- is through weakness and vulnerability, sacrifice and love? What if it can conquer only by first being conquered? What if being conquered is absolutely necessary to expose the brutal violence and dark oppression of these principalities and powers, these human ideologies and counter kingdoms- so they, having been exposed, can be seen for what they are and freely rejected, making room for a new and better kingdom? What if the kingdom of God must fail in these ways in order to succeed?
Perhaps at this moment, we are getting a brief and fragmentary glimpse into one of the deepest mysteries of the kingdom of God. In this light, perhaps the death and resurrection of Jesus shimmer as the most profound sign and wonder of all, showing the scandalous truth that no human system can be trusted, that all -isms are potentially demonic and idolatrous "graven idelogies."...
What if our only hope lies inthis impossible paradox: the only way the kingdomof God can be strong in a truly liberating way is through a scandalous, noncoercive kind of weakness; the only way it can be powerful is through astonishing vulnerability; the only way it can live is by dying; the only way it can succeed is by failing?"
In my opinion, this is absolutely some of the best writing Brian has ever done. This passage will, I'm thinking, serve as a wonderful introduction to our Good Friday service...
This pasage will also get Brian imself crucified (hopefully just metaphorically). In holding up one aspect of the atonement, he opens himself to those who will look for any excuse whatsoever to tear him down.
You know, it's not that I buy everything Brian sells, and it's not as though he doesn't make me raise an eyebrow now and again (he's appearing here in PDX later in conjunction with Marcus Borg. I think he'll be the most "conservative" guy on the stage, but I think it's a dengerous thing for him to do right now... and I think giving Borg the benefit of Brian's "fame" is a mistake...) But on the atonement issue, I think we have to be free to explore different facets of it without footnoting every single sentence will all the other facets so that those who wish us ill have no openings... that's just too much work.
But there's something else at work in this book , I think. I seem to see in the ways that Brian is describing Jesus and his methodologies, some insight into how and why Brian has conductied himself these last few years...
"Instead, he climbs out on a limb and hands them a saw, in parable teasing them, in overt statement taunting them, in public demonstration inviting them to retaliate, in provocative statement tempting them to misinterpret."
At any rate, you need to check this book out. It's good. I still haven't finished the New Kind of Christian trilogy, having gotten bogged down in book 2. There will be no bogs with The Secret Message of Jesus, I'm thinking...
That's funny; I was thinking about this subject on Sunday at the Lab because everyone always looks so vulnerable, especially during singing or praying. You have this group of people allowing themselves to be soft - which is a beautiful thing - but a terrifying thing. It was especially exaggerated because someone wearing armor was there for contrast. All I could think about was how that softness would provoke a ravenous anger and hunger in the wolves of the world. I felt this vigilance, this protectiveness rise up in me that made me want to patrol the edges of the flock, to stay a dark force capable of combatting other dark forces who would try to hurt those who have given up their protection. I know I am supposed to relinquish that "duty" and join the flock, but that's a mad thing to do!!!
I agree though - use of force, dominance battles, contests of will and strength are behind EVERY evil humans commit, and when we participate in them, regardless of intentions, we become the bad guy.
Laying down our swords as the means to defeating darkness is a nearly incomprehensible concept, yet it makes sense in a poetic way - there's something harmonious and instinctive about it.
Practically, letting your wolf eyes transform into big lamb eyes begging to be eaten (from the predator's point of view) is not instinctive at all! That's just crazy talk!
Posted by: kelcifer | April 04, 2006 at 09:09 AM
That's funny; I was thinking about this subject on Sunday at the Lab because everyone always looks so vulnerable, especially during singing or praying. You have this group of people allowing themselves to be soft - which is a beautiful thing - but a terrifying thing. It was especially exaggerated because someone wearing armor was there for contrast. All I could think about was how that softness would provoke a ravenous anger, contempt, and hunger in the wolves of the world. I felt this vigilance, this protectiveness rise up in me that made me want to patrol the edges of the flock, to stay a dark force capable of combatting other dark forces who would try to hurt those who have given up their protection. I know I am supposed to relinquish that "duty" and join the flock, but that's a mad thing to do!!!
I agree though - use of force, dominance battles, contests of will and strength are behind EVERY evil humans commit, and when we participate in them, regardless of intentions, we become the bad guy.
Laying down our swords as the means to defeating darkness is a nearly incomprehensible concept, yet it makes sense in a poetic way - there's something harmonious and instinctive about it.
Practically, letting your wolf eyes transform into big lamb eyes begging to be eaten (from the predator's point of view) is not instinctive at all! That's just crazy talk!
Posted by: kelcifer | April 04, 2006 at 09:11 AM
Bob, it saddens me that you would actually consider using this book as part of official curriculum at your church. Just in reading the introduction it's clear that what Brian is presenting is not Christianity, it's neo-gnosticism. He's presenting a false gospel about a humble, marginalized, jewish peasant, not the glorified, resurrected king and creator. The idea alone that Brian has some-how managed to come up with something new, some "secret message" that for the last 2000 years we've all missed is absolutely absurd.
When did the church decide that it was no longer fashionable to call heretics what they are?
Posted by: Jon | April 14, 2006 at 11:56 AM