The new site has the same URL as the old site, but some readers may have subscribed at http://jayguin.wordpress.com rather than http://oneinjesus.info. If so, the subscription would not be automatically redirected.

If you received this post via Twitter, Facebook, an RSS reader, or email and didn’t get my latest post this morning called “TheoBloggers — Bug Removal Update,” please resubscribe to http://oneinjesus.info to keep the posts coming.

If you have questions or problems re-subscribing, please post it at the new site.

Liminality

“Liminal” is used by anthropologists and others to speak of the state of mind of an individual or community when they transition from one reality to another. As the Wikipedia says,

The liminal state is characterized by ambiguity, openness, and indeterminacy. One’s sense of identity dissolves to some extent, bringing about disorientation. Liminality is a period of transition where normal limits to thought, self-understanding, and behavior are relaxed – a situation which can lead to new perspectives.

We go through this state after a marriage, divorce, or the death of a spouse. We Alabama football fans went through this when Coach Bryant died. Southern Cal fans are going through this now that their team is on probation (I’ve been there).

The American church has been in liminality ever since the Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools and it became clear that the old Constantinian consensus — the alliance of church, culture, and state  — was ending. Of course, the blows to the church’s sense of normality have been continuous ever since.

The result has been ambiguity, indeterminacy, and disorientation. The church has spent 1,500 years in league with the government and, perhaps more importantly, the prevailing culture. As a result, the church has struggled to find its footing. Do we seek a return to the alliance of church and state? Do we classify the government as the church’s enemy? How do we even do church in this new world?

This has led to the Church Growth Movement, which often devolved into American marketing — branding of churches, turning pastors into celebrities, and efforts to meet “felt needs,” such as the felt need for a mocha latte on the way to hear the alternative rock Christian band next to the church-league basketball court and free weight room and yoga clinic.

Then there’s the house church and new monastic movements seeking to flee the institutional church. And the missional movement, seeking to send the church out into the world to do not only evangelism but also good works in the form of soup kitchens and halfway houses.

Indeed, in last 30 years or so, there’s been a succession of “how to” books on how to do church in the new world, with each effort seeking a truer, better Christianity. And, in fact, a lot of good work has been done as we vacillate toward a new, better consensus through a slow process of successive approximation.

Each book, each seminar, and each movement adds an element of truth that had been missing. And so it would be foolish to claim that To Change the World is the end of the process. We don’t have the perspective to make such a judgment — and surely there are truths yet to be added. But it’s clearly a major step forward — and a bigger step the most of the others. Why?

What’s right about the book

* To Change the World is built on a solid theology. It’s not just the Great Commission, but the Great Commission re-envisioned to see “all the world” in more than geographic terms. We must go not only into the slums but also the graduate schools, not only to homeless shelters but art museums. We have to grow up and stop being scared of the cultural elite and reclaim Christianity’s place at the cutting edge of art, music, science, architecture, philosophy, etc.

Christianity thus must be both conservative and progressive (neither term being used in the Church of Christ senses). Christianity is conservative in that it preserves the Biblical teachings, including the scriptural understanding of man and right relationships. Christianity is progressive in that there is no better framing story or metanarrative in which to find solutions to the problems of all men.

Christianity offers much more than a ticket to heaven at death. It offers a better way of being and relating right here and now, and thus a better understanding of the human condition. And a better understanding of the human condition leads to better sociology, better art, better science, better everything.

* To Change the World gives a better understanding of how to live as a Christian. The traditional evangelical view of how to live is (a) be moral and (b) tell your neighbors about Jesus. And those are true but incomplete. The Church Growth Movement and many other “how to” teachings of the last several years work within that narrow framework — friendship evangelism, Barnabas parties, meeting felt needs, slicker marketing, etc. — some good ideas, some not so good, but all taught within that framework.

The missional perspective correctly adds to the mix the necessity of doing good for the weak through food programs, Celebrate Recovery, and many other excellent and much needed initiatives, showing the love of Jesus in practical ways that go far beyond “come worship with me.” The change is toward going into the world to lift up Jesus through works of service. But the missional approach offers little guidance on how to live outside the church-world. What is our mission in our spare time, on weekends and holidays. What about 8 to 5?

Just so, the neo-Anabaptist perspective correctly urges to us work hard to build the church into the community God intends for us to be, and to so offer the world a preview of heaven. If the church really lived the Sermon on the Mount and 1 Cor 13 internally, it would offer an alternative community showing what Jesus offers. And this is right and good, but says nothing about 8 to 5.

The Christian Right and Left pursue holy ends through governmental means, and so take us in entirely the wrong direction. We have to reject their methods while retaining many of their goals. Both are right to call us to be active in standing up for the defenseless: the unborn, the poor, and the discriminated against. And yet neither addresses how to live — only how to vote. They share a sadly narrow perspective on what Christianity is about.

As long-term readers know, I’m a big advocate for the missional approach to Christianity and for building up the church as the neo-Anabaptists envision — and for fleeing the search for political power. But the “faithful presence” perspective adds some much needed thoughts –

1. While it’s not much taught in the churches, the Bible is clear that part of God’s goal for his church is for us to become like God.

(Eph 4:24 ESV)  [P]ut on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

(Eph 5:1 ESV) Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.

To be like God has profound implications.

2. It means sharing in his generous common grace, doing good for the just and the unjust.

(Mat 5:44-45 ESV)  44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

(Luk 6:27-28 ESV) “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,  28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.”

But “doing good” is more than evangelism and traditional acts of benevolence. It could be as simple as serving on the board of education and doing good for all the students, not just the baseball team your son plays on or the honors classes where you daughter attends. Or running a business for the good of the employees and the community, as well as the customers.

We so want to compartmentalize our lives that we can’t even imagine how being a Christian businessman or professor would be different from a secular businessman or professor. At least part of the difference is the call to use all your gifts to bless others — lost and saved.

3. It means being creative — in everything — and recognizing the image of God even among non-Christians, indeed, even in the enemies of Christianity. God is creative, and therefore we draw others closer to God as we exercise our own creativity in constructive ways.

4. It means sacrifice. This is the essential theme of the Cruciform God series. Theosis (becoming like God) is kenosis (imitating the self-emptying of Jesus on the cross). Indeed, one of the most common errors in contemporary “how to” Christianity is the omission of sacrifice from our theology. There is no suffering in voting for the right candidate or lobbying for the right bill. There is little sacrifice in building up the perfect community of Christians.

But to be like God, you have to be willing to submit to the cross for people who hate you. And this means, at least, that we should be willing to be faithful no matter the cost — and that we don’t market Jesus as having a low, low cost available, on sale now, with interest-free financing, all for the price of an immersion in water!!! No, Jesus was a terrible marketer –

(Luk 14:26 ESV) “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

You’d think the Son of God, possessor the Spirit without measure, would be a better salesman than that! You see, sacrifice and service are very nearly the definition of what it means to live for Jesus.

Hunter proposes an approach he calls “faithful presence within.” He summarizes the idea in “two essential lessons” –

The first is that incarnation is the only adequate reply to the challenges of dissolution; the erosion of trust between word and world and the problems that attend it. From this follows the second: it is the way the Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ and the purposes to which the incarnation was directed that are the only adequate reply to challenge of difference.

In other words, the church has to live the life of Jesus for the purposes of Jesus — and nothing else will do.

Hunter builds his case on the nature of God (which is always a good place to start your theology). He points out that –

• God pursues us.
• God identifies with us. He knows our joys and he knows our sorrows, and both touch him.
• God offers life.
• God is characterized by his sacrificial love.

This is God’s own faithful presence. And notice: to God, we are the “other.” We are the enemy that he loves enough to die for. (This is one of the most profound things I’ve ever heard.) And God doesn’t hide from us or seek to impose his will on us through coercion — even though his coercion would be for our own good. Rather, he wants to be chosen by us.

And we are called to be like God.

• We must pursue others.
• We must identify with others. We must know their joys and know their sorrows, and both touch us.
• We must offer life.
• We must be characterized by our sacrificial love.

And we must, of course, treat each other at least this well — and we don’t.

Therefore,

• we must welcome the stranger — in the church, individually, and within the secular institutions where we can.
• we must work with all our heart — at our jobs, in church, in our families — (Col 3:22 ESV) “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men.”
• we must be fully present and committed in our spheres of social influence — acting as God is. “[C]reate conditions in the structures of social life we inhabit that are conducive to the flourishing of all.”

Contrary to the evangelical/fundamentalist way of thinking, it’s not true that “tasks in the world have little if any significance of their own but are instrumentalized on behalf of narrow spiritual ends.” In other words, we must escape the attitude: why make music unless you ask for a commitment to Jesus at the end?

Contrary to the “relevant to” perspective, we must offer more than high standards of ethical behavior. Merely being a good person is not “distinctively Christian.”

Contrary to the “purity from” perspective, it’s not true that “[w]ork and social life outside the church have little or no significance beyond their function to provide for one’s needs.”

Instead –

the call of faithful presence gives priority to what is right in front of us — the community, the neighborhood, and the city, and the people of which these are constituted.

The Great Commission

“Go into all the world” is not only about geography. It’s also about all segments of society. Therefore, “the church should be sending people out in these realms–not only discipling those in these fields … but mentoring and providing financial support for young adults who are gifted and called into these vocations.”

Of course, if Christians join the culturally elite, it will be tempting to abuse the power that comes with their status. But all leaders have power. The key is in teaching a scriptural theology of leadership that converts leadership into servanthood — and the willingness to risk it all for Jesus.

In short, faithful presence in practice is the exercise of leadership in all spheres and all levels of life and activity. It represents a quality of commitment oriented to the fruitfulness, wholeness, and well-being of all. It is, therefore, the opposite of elitism and the domination it implies.

It is also the antithesis of celebrity … .

Hunter advises –

The practice of faithful presence, then, generates relationships and institutions that are fundamentally covenantal in character, the ends of which are the fostering of meaning, purpose, truth, beauty, belonging, and fairness — not just for Christians but for everyone.

Why should Christians have a larger obligation to the world than evangelism? Hunter offers two reasons –

• Christians cannot demand for themselves what they would deny others. Whatever rights we want, we must grant to all.
• The viability of Christian faith and the possibility of sharing that faith depend on a social environment in which faith — any faith — is plausible.

Here’s a quote to remember –

The proof of [fundamentalism's] nihilism is its failure to offer any creative achievements or constructive proposals for the everyday problems that trouble most people.

Hunter’s proposed assault on worldliness is –

a bursting out of new creation from within it. To the extent that Christians have any influence and exercise leadership in whatever sphere of life they inhabit, to that extent Christians have a covenantal obligation to actively and concretely realize faith, hope, and love in all that these ideals mean.

In the workplace, we must ask,

What do employers owe to their employees besides a payment for services? What do businesses owe customers besides a product or service for a fee? …

Further, in the visual arts, literature, and music, the first challenge is to simply demonstrate a commitment to excellence in aesthetics (the theory of art) and in the production of artifacts [works] of art generally. … The obligation among artists who are Christians is, among other things, to demonstrate in ways that are imaginative and compelling that materiality is not enough for a proper understanding of human experience; that there is a durability and permanence as well as eternal qualities that exist beyond what we see on the surface of life. … In the news media and academia, the challenge begins by creating resources and space for the pursuit of knowledge and understanding that are protected from the enormous pressure of partisan politics (which makes knowledge a tool in the quest for power) and commercial interest (in which the worth of knowledge is gauged by its market value).

Finally, Hunter offers some examples. I’ll repeat just one (buy the book) –

Three college classmates from a large state university started a magazine that showcased “signs of life in music, film, and culture.” Avoiding the aesthetic and moral squalor often depicted in rock ‘n’ roll magazines, the magazine celebrated musical quality and promoted cultural products that ennobled the human spirit. It has grown to having today over 100,000 subscribers — the third largest music magazine in the United States.

Hunter wraps up with a passage from Jeremiah –

(Jer 29:4-7 ESV)  4 “Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon:  5 Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce.  6 Take wives and have sons and daughters; take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease.  7 But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”

The Jews were in exile in Babylon — ruled by a wicked king in a pagan culture. Rather than seeking to control the government or to escape into an insular community, God said to “seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile … for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”

We are to live as resident aliens — strangers — in America and the world, but not in ghettos. Rather, we work for the benefit of the land where we live — as aliens but aliens who love “the strange land” where we now live because God put us here. We long to live with Jesus, but in the meantime, we serve Jesus by serving others where we are.

But, of course, we don’t become Babylonians! We are both together with the Babylonians and apart from them. We serve, but we serve as God’s people.

Hunter recommends that we remove ourselves from politics altogether — not because Christians may not participate because we need time to “learn how enact [our] faith in public through acts of shalom ….”

He concludes asking,

Will engaging the world in the way discussed here change the world?

This, I believe, is the wrong question. the question is wrong in part because it is based on the dubious assumption that the world, and thus history, can be controlled and managed.

You just have to do the right thing and leave the results to God.

The third and final essay in the book is “Toward a New City Commons: Reflections on a Theology of Faithful Presence.” This is where Hunter moves from critique to prescription.

I’m going to backtrack a bit. Hutson ends Essay 2 with a discussion of “Jesus and ‘Social’ Power,” which forms much of the basis for Essay 3. Hutson reviews the life and teachings of Jesus and concludes –

[T]he spirit that animates worldly power — whether held by individuals, social groups, communities, institutions, or social structures — naturally tends toward manipulation, domination, and control. Rooted in the deceptions of misdirected desire, it is a power that in its most coarse expressions would exploit, subjugate, and even enslave. …

It is this power and the spirit that animates it whose sovereignty Christ came to break.

Jesus, however, broke the monopoly of this kind of power, demonstrating the possibility of a new kind of power, having at least these four characteristics –

First, his power was derived from his complete intimacy with and submission to his Father. …

[Second is] his rejection of status and reputation and the privilege that accompanies them. …

[Third,] he endured [those degradations] willingly because of his love for fallen humanity and for his creation more broadly. ..

[Fourth] the social power exercised by Christ was the noncoercive way in which he dealt with those outside the community of faith.

One of the consequence of framing discussion of power in political terms is that it removes the discussion from the power that operates in everyday life. It is perhaps an unintentional strategy of avoidance of what most people deal with day in and day out. Discussions of political power focus attention on those people and structures with whom the average person has little to do.

And, again, amen. Voter registration drives and lobbying efforts don’t have much to do with how to treat our neighbor across the street or on the other side of the tracks. And they are easier than dealing with those other people. And this brings us to Essay 3.

Hunter believes that the two biggest cultural challenges to the church are what he calls “difference” and “dissolution.” The problem of “difference” is the challenge of the church dealing with those outside our God-given community. The problem of “dissolution” deals with the nature of the Christian witness. How do we teach truth to a world that denies the existence of truth?

Difference

The modern world is different from even the recent past in the degree of pluralism the ordinary person experiences daily. We used to live in fairly homogenous communities with shared values and culture. This is no longer true for most of us. My youngest son brings home Hindus, Muslims, Catholics, lapsed Buddhists, nominal Communists, and atheists from school — right here in West Alabama. He doesn’t live in the world I grew up in!

In such a world, it’s hard to be a Christian, because there are few “plausibility structures” that continually affirm the rightness of the choice. When the papers, TV, and teachers rarely speak well of Christianity, it’s hard to feel assured of one’s opinions. This makes “faithfulness difficult and faithlessness almost natural.”

Dissolution

We live in an age where all truth is questioned and there is no final arbiter of which truth is true. Scholars have come to pursue doubt for its own sake. For example, when the President speaks, half the country doubts him no matter what he says. We don’t trust the government, the media, big business, the political parties, or major personalities. “Trust no one” is the mood of the times.

In such a context, it is difficult to imagine that there is a spiritual reality more real than the material world we live in.

Hunter next considers three possible approaches to cultural engagement: “defensive against,” “relevance to,” and “purity from.” Now, there is truth in all three — but none is enough. A Christianity defined by defensiveness will fail to truly seek and save the lost, but will rather seek to transform the world around it into a safe place for Christians. Worse yet, defensiveness turns the world and the lost into the enemy — rather than Satan and worldliness. And as in true in politics and sports, defense is all about seeking power over the other.

“Relevance to” is found both in theological liberalism, the seeker-church movement, and some within the emerging church. Relevance to modern needs is, of course, legitimate, provided the solution is a Bible-based theology rather than the pragmatism of the marketplace. You see, the need may not be for slicker brochures in the church lobby and coffee bars in the church building. It may just be a return to true Christianity.

“Purity from” is also a scriptural concern — unless we consider the world so fallen that we need to flee the world. Of course, some aspects of the world should be fled from, but we aren’t allowed to leave the world — not yet, not ever. Rather, the story of the Bible is preparation for God coming to the world, not our leaving the world.

An alternative way

[H]owever inadequate or pitiful the church may seem at times (and may, in fact, be), where the scripture is proclaimed, the sacraments administered, and the people of God continue to seek to follow God in word and deed, God is at work; the Holy Spirit is still very much active.

Hunter then gives examples of some astonishingly good and sacrificial works by Christian. But if such great things are happening, what’s the problem?

The problem is that these initiatives represent just a fraction of the potential within the church to bear witness to the love, grace, mercy, and truth of Christ. … What has been missing is a leadership that comprehends the nature of these challenges and offers a vision of formation adequate to the task of discipling the church and its members for a time such as ours.

Amen. If half the energy expended on politics had been converted to serving others — through food banks, environmental restoration efforts, missions, church plants, reaching out the neediest in society — the church would be vastly more effective at changing the culture. And Hunter is exactly right to blame the leaders.

Both evangelism and the practice of spiritual disciplines are, of course, central to the Christian life, but Scripture suggests that there is more to formation than those things. In Christ’s own words, making disciples entails “teaching them to observe all things that [he] commanded [them]. … Formation — the task of making disciples — is oriented toward the cultivation of faithfulness in the totality of life.

True formation, Hunter argues, renews all of life, and this requires a certain kind of church community –

In formation, it is the culture and the community that gives shape and expression to it that is the key. Healthy formation is impossible without a healthy culture embedded within the warp and woof of community.

Therefore, churches must be much more intentional about community formation than was necessary in the past — because we face a culture that is not supportive of what Jesus wants from us.

Shalom

Hunter sees shalom – Hebrew for “peace” — as the natural order of things God always intended, a return to Eden, and the purpose of God’s redemptive work throughout history — especially in Jesus. God not only condemns opposition to shalom, he works in history to produce shalom. He cites –

(1Pe 2:1 ESV) 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.

Regular readers know that I bring this passage up every few days. We are to live as resident aliens — but not in ghettos, hidden away from the locals, but doing such good works in the name of God that the natives — the world — glorify God.

Affirmation

Therefore, we need to offer the world affirmation — that is, recognize that there is good in the world, despite its brokenness. It’s not utterly black and evil. Some of God’s image remains. God’s image is cracked but not obliterated. Some call this “common grace.” God offers gifts to the lost as well as the saved. The good that exists in the world is from God — and the church, of all people, should recognize it.

Therefore, Christians can, in honor of God, do culture making within the world. If a Christian architect builds a beautiful building for secular purposes, he’s participating in God’s common grace — indeed, he is God’s instrument. Although the Christian is not directly kingdom building, he still glorifies God in the secular world simply by being a part God’s common grace within the secular world.

Hunter then declares,

Let me finally stress that any good that is generated by Christians is only the net effect of caring for something more than the good created. If there are benevolent consequences of our engagement with the world, in other words, it is precisely because it is not rooted in a desire to change the world for the better but rather because it is an expression of a desire to honor the creator of all goodness, beauty, and truth, a manifestation of our loving obedience to God, and a fulfillment of God’s command to love our neighbor.

This one requires some chewing. You see, if I compose a great pop tune to change the world for the better, well, that’s a bit much to ask from a pop tune. But if I compose a great pop tune out of love for the world and to honor God, then I’m no longer being manipulative and seeking to use my power as a great pop tune composer to change people. Rather, I’m acting out of a selfless love — which is the only kind of love that will change the world.

I see it this way. The idea is to not change the pop music industry into a means of manipulating people into the baptistery. Rather, it’s to express love for God and love for people in whatever we do — without regard to whether it produces baptisms. After all, if our true motivation is baptisms, rather than love, we’ve narrowed God’s love so much that we exclude God’s common grace in us. God makes in rain on the just and the unjust. We must do good for the just and the unjust.

Antithesis

Although Christians should affirm the image of God, despite the brokenness of the image, even among the lost, and even though Christians should participate in God’s common grace, the church must always be a “community of resistance.” Resistance is no mere abstraction. Rather, the church must offer an alternative way of life — not just as the church lives as the church but as Christians live in the world. Therefore, “the church and its people will challenge all structures that dishonor God, dehumanize people, and neglect or do harm to the creation.”

This life isn’t negative. Rather,

the objective is to retrieve the good to which modern institutions and ideas implicitly or explicitly aspire; to oppose those ideals and structures that undermine human flourishing, and to offer constructive alternatives for the realization of a better way.

Hunter expresses this in terms of the creation mandate –

When people are saved by God through faith in Christ they are not only being saved from their sins, they are saved in order to resume the tasks mandated at creation, the task of caring for and cultivating a world that honors God and reflects his character and glory. …

Formation is about learning to live the alternative reality of the kingdom of God within the present world faithfully. … Christians must renounce the dominant script of the world and embrace the alternative script that is rooted in the Bible and enacted through the tradition of the church.

But Jesus Manifesto is really more of an inspirational or devotional book — and I just don’t like that form of literature. I’ve read the reviews at Amazon and throughout the internet, and that seems to be the split. Reviewers who are into serious theology find the book shallow and even say things like –

As for me, I have read the first several chapters and each time I read a chapter it is hard to work up any enthusiasm for going back to read the next chapter.  It’s not that they are saying anything I necessarily disagree with, in fact much of it is spot on.  But the book insinuates that these authors are telling us something new in telling us that the Christian life is all about Jesus.

That’s how I feel. It says of lots of true and even needed things, but the authors are so focused on Jesus that just as soon as they introduce an idea, they return to doxology. And doxology is a legitimate form of Christian writing. I was just hoping for more.

But then, other reviewers say things like –

Viola and Sweet have penned a masterpiece in my opinion. They have successfully shown, through scripture, how Jesus Christ penetrates every point of life because He is life. As I read this book, I found myself at a loss for words. This review won’t do the book justice. I was challenged by this book greatly. Challenged to love Him and see Him as never before. Convicted as well. This book is about a person.

Here’s a flavor of the book itself –

Genuine church life is born when groups of people are intoxicated with a glorious unveiling of the their Lord. Jesus Christ is the only foundation upon which an authentic church can be built. Anything else would be wood, hay, and stubble. Any work that come out of from Christ is immortal. It will never turn to ash even though fire may fall on it.

The calling of every person involved in church planting, then, is to build the ekklesia upon a ground-breaking revelation of the Son of God — a revelation that burns in the fiber of their being and leaves God’s people overwhelmed, bowled over, reeling, and awash with the glories of Christ.

May God give us more people who have had a head-on-collision with Jesus, have caught a glimpse of his radiance, and as a result, can meld a group of people together with a living knowledge of their God in the face of Jesus Christ. May He raise up countless servants who can faithfully steward the divine mystery and turn it loose in this world.

If you enjoy books that encourage us to have “a head-on-collision with Jesus,” this is your book.

(Col 1:1-5a ESV) Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,  2 To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.  3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,  4 since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints,  5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven.

“Hope laid up” is means hope kepts in a safe place for future use. If they’d had layaway plans in the First Century, this is the word they’d have used. The idea is that our hope is stored up in heaven for us to be brought out for us at the right time yet to come.

(Col 1:5b-8 ESV) Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel,  6 which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing–as it also does among you, since the day you heard it and understood the grace of God in truth,  7 just as you learned it from Epaphras our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on your behalf  8 and has made known to us your love in the Spirit.

“The word of truth” is, of course, the gospel. We often think of “truth” as any proposition that is true, but the New Testament writers usually use “truth” in a very specific sense. It’s the truth in contrast to the lie that permeates the Empire. It’s the truth about Jesus, contrasted to the lie of paganism and all other pretenders to truth.

The “grace of God” is, of course, God’s generosity in the form of Jesus’ redeeming work. This grace is “in truth” because God’s generosity comes through the gospel.

“Love in the Spirit” means more than “love.” Paul isn’t just tossing in church words to sound eloquent. Rather, he means love that is prompted by the Spirit — the right kind of love, the love that God gives his people.

(Col 1:9-12 ESV)  9 And so, from the day we heard, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,  10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God.  11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy,  12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.

By now, surely the Colossians are impressed by Paul’s prayer life. He is clearly in constant prayer for a church he never visited, just because it’s a church. It’s not even in a big and influential city, and yet Paul — who was surely a very busy man — makes Colosse a routine part of his prayer life.

And Paul plainly expects his prayers to be effective. He prays for the Colossians to have knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. He prays for them to have “power” commensurate with the “might” of the Lord. This is to give them endurance and joy.

“Inheritance” is a word borrowed from the Torah. There, it speaks of the land, the Promised Land. In New Testament use, “inheritance” is shifted from the land in Palestine to the new heavens and new earth — the entire world merged with heaven for our enjoyment.

The goal, of course, is for the Christians to “bear fruit in every good work.” Some have argued that “fruit” in the New Testament speaks particularly of new converts, on the theory that fruit contains seeds and creates new plants. But that’s not the image. There is only one vine. The goal isn’t t plant new vines; it’s for the vine God planted to bear fruit — that is, to be productive of something valuable to God — “every good work.”

This is the Christian ethic. The focus isn’t on fleeing evil (although that is essential). Rather, the goal is to take us away from evil and to instead be productive members of God’s Kingdom, doing good — not to earn salvation but to accomplish his mission in us.

Notice how he combines “every good work” with “the knowledge of God.” To Paul, knowledge of God isn’t just about Bible class. You learn about God from doing good works. As Jesus taught in Matt 25, when we serve “the least of these,” we serve Jesus himself. We find the face of God in the faces of those we serve. Knowledge of God comes much more through service for those God loves than through study.

(Col 1:13-14 ESV)  13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,  14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

“Has delivered” indicates that it’s an accomplished fact. The delivery has already occurred. We’ve already been transported from darkness to light, from the world to the kingdom.

Now, “kingdom” is a big word. The word might be better translated “reign,” that is, we’ve been delivered from the land of rebellion to the land where God’s rule is honored.

Just so, “kingdom” carries the meaning of “nation.” We are no longer citizens of Rome but of heaven. God is our king, not Caesar. We’ve changed nationalities. We become resident aliens, citizens of another nation visiting this foreign land on the business of our king — who is the true king of this land as well, but whose authority hasn’t yet been fully acknowledged.

“Jesus is King” means “and no one else is.” The ultimate source of all authority and power is Jesus, and we may serve no other master. Therefore, for example, when we vote, we vote as Christians, not as selfish people of the world. We vote the ticket of service and sacrifice, as this is the nature of the kingdom.

We have redemption, which literally freedom from slavery. Paul is saying to his readers — some of whom owned slaves — that you were all once slaves and God has paid the price of your manumission. He bought you in the slave market and set your free. He paid the price.

You see, “deliver” means “cause to escape” — as in “deliverance.” Paul is paralleling the Exodus, comparing our salvation today to God’s saving the Israelites from slavery by delivering them from captivity and preparing for them an inheritance.

Slavery is a distant memory for Americans, but was a present reality in Colosse, and freemen would have been embarrassed to be called slaves manumitted by God from slavery, but that’s the idea. And just as in the Exodus, this kind of freedom means leaving one country to become citizens of another. The Israelites were no longer citizens of Egypt, but of the Promised Land. And they’d have been crazy to think of themselves as citizens both of Egypt and the Israel, serving both Pharaoh and God. God defeated Pharaoh.

(Col 1:15-17 ESV)  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.  16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him.  17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Paul now changes the subject, transitioning from our part of the story to Jesus’ role.

“Firstborn” doesn’t mean that Jesus is a created being. Rather, he is the heir apparent to the throne of God. Indeed, he is the “image” of the invisible God. We can’t see God, but have been allowed to see Jesus, and he is God’s eikon. An eikon (or icon) is a portrait or image. In a world without photography, the way you could know what the Emperor looked like was to see a bust of his head — an eikon.

Now, this is a word loaded with meaning.

(Gen 1:26 ESV) Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Mankind was supposed to be in God’s image, but we are broken images of God because of sin. Jesus, therefore, is true humanity. He is what we were always meant to be. Jesus doesn’t call us into a new way of being, but into the original way of being. He calls us back to Eden — and, indeed, our inheritance is a return the Garden, to walking once again with God and in right relationship with each other.

And so, Jesus shows us God’s essential nature, but he also shows us our own essential nature — which is an amazing thought. To be like Jesus is to be like God. And so … what is Jesus like? What is the image of God that Jesus shows us?

Paul first teaches a history lesson. Jesus was present with God at the beginning and was part of the making of the Creation. And the created order includes “thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” — all things with authority — all authority comes from Jesus. It may be abused. It may be used for sinful purposes, but no one has authority over Jesus. Rather, Jesus has authority over everyone.

Jesus is from before the Creation, but he is not the god of Deism. He continues to be active in this world. All things “hold together” because of his ongoing activity.

“Hold together” has the sense of being organized in the right way. In the Greek, “holds together” means it not only doesn’t fall apart, but it was put together right. Jesus fit the universe — and the powers — in their right places, and Jesus continues to hold it together.

Reflecting on his second esssay is an overwhelming task. There’s so much to say I can hardly say anything. Let’s see …

Now, I had already reached many of the same conclusions as Hunter regarding the Christian Right and the Christian Left. But he was ahead of me on the neo-Anabaptists. I hadn’t bought their whole agenda, but had not thought through it nearly as well as Hunter.

I do agree with much that they say (as does Hunter), but Hunter has persuaded me that their theology is missing some key elements.

I’m a fan of much of Charles Colson’s work, as well as many of the other authors that Hunter quotes coming from the Right — but I think his criticisms are entirely valid — the church must not pursue political power. It’s wrong at very deep levels. It’s the wrong goal. We are called to serve others, not to use the power of the state to force non-Christians to act like Christians.

(1Co 5:12-13 ESV) 2 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?  13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

We are not in the business of judging those outside the church. Our job is to rescue them. Fixing the culture does not make it easier to seek and save the lost. Rather, fixing the culture makes a secular, tepid Christianity easier. When we impose Christian values on non-Christians, the distinctive calling of the Christian gets blurred. You see, some of the benefits of Christian living would be realized by infusing America with a Christian culture — except for little things like, you know, salvation.

I mean, would you be excited to know that someone is working hard to create synthetic steaks? Do we really want the fake version? Why would we want to work to create fake Christianity?

You see, God thinks it’s good for the world to look very different from the church –

(Rom 1:24-28 ESV)  24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,  25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;  27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

God does not make the world behave dishonorably and shamefully, but he allows it. And this makes the kingdom and the world look very different indeed. Just so, Paul doesn’t tell the Corinthians to flee the world or to pass laws making the world behave. Rather, he commands,

(1Co 5:9-10 ESV) 9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.

He plainly indicates that Christians should associate with the immoral, greedy, swindlers, and idolators — and not try to leave the world.

Now, none of this indicates approval of sin or satisfaction with the state of the world. Rather, you just plain can’t convert people you won’t associate with. You can’t be Jesus to people if you have the sheriff standing next to you saying, “Or else!” You can’t serve the needy in the name of Jesus through the U.S. Treasury.

So it all fits together. We aren’t called to fix the culture via the government. Wrong goal. Wrong method. Nor are we called to escape into sectarianism. Rather, we are to constructively engage the world.

Now, I agree with much of the agendas of the Right, the Left, and the neo-Anabaptists. Just not their methods.

The Right is right to be concerned about values. We need to be teaching our children Christian values. We need to live those values. But we have no business demanding that the public schools teach those values because that’s the kingdom’s job. It’s not the role of government — and government cannot do it well.

Rather, we must think like missionaries and raise our kids in America just as missionaries in Romania raise their children — by teaching them a stoutly missional Christianity at home and at church.

The Right is properly concerned about abortion, because the unborn are the most defenseless of the defenseless. If the Christians won’t speak up for them, no one will. But the solution won’t be found in the courts. If we were to gain 100% evangelical control of the Supreme Court and reverse Roe v. Wade, that would only give the states the power to regulate abortion — representing a shift of control from the courts to the states. And more than half the states would legalize abortion — meaning anyone with a car or a plane ticket could get an abortion legally. The law won’t fix this one.

And the Left is right, of course, to care deeply about the poor, oppressed, and discriminated against. And it’s right to work against laws that oppress. But government has not and cannot cure all poverty. It can help those who are incapable of helping themselves — the disabled, for example — but it cannot teach a work ethic, discipline, and deferred gratification, nor can it cure broken families.

Rather, just as the Right wants the government to bring the Rapture, the Left wants the government to do its charitable giving for it — which takes away much of the moral virtue they are so proud of. While it’s good for the disabled to receive a government check, it doesn’t do the taxpayer any good. There’s both joy and virtue in giving the money yourself. And studies show that conservatives are far more generous donors to charity than the left — because conservatives correctly perceive the inability of the government to replace the church. The government does not save — from hell or from ourselves.

There’s a place for government in defeating poverty, but it’s not a sufficient solution. And the solution is much harder than lobbying.

I’m a fan of much neo-Anabaptist teaching, but I share Hunter’s frustration with the inability of the movement to articulate clear strategies for Christian living — other than what not to do. It’s urgently, desperately true that the church needs to once again be the church — but I’m not sure that pacificism and withdrawal will do that much to defeat evil in the world. In fact, that’s also a little too easy.

And, no surprise, I agree with Hunter that power is an inescapable fact of life. For example, if the Left, Right, and other segments of the American church were to ever unite, it would be the most powerful political force in the nation. And while I’m for unity, I’m scared of what the church would do with that power in its present, immature frame of mind.

Jesus had power. He had lots of power. And he didn’t try to rule Palestine or the Empire. Rather, he used his power in service to others. In fact, when he was tempted in the wilderness, the first temptation was to turn stones to bread to eat. Why would that be wrong? Well, it would have been the use of power in his own service — when he was called to live on earth as a man and yet be perfect. The power came from God for a purpose — and the use of the power for any other purpose would have been sin. Power is given to us to serve others.

The church has power — vast power that it’s barely begun to tap. It’s weakness comes from its disunity, its flawed theology, its secularism — even its lack of faith and love and hope. But the power is there — because the church channels the power of God.

(2Th 1:11-12 ESV)  11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power,  12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

God gives us his power “for good and every work of faith … so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in [us].” That’s a big, big promise. We don’t need no stinkin’ political power. We have God’s power.

In fact, it’s a letter that’s not studied that often in the Churches of Christ. It’s a little too short for a quarter, and much of its content is treated more extensively in Ephesians. And so I’ll start in Colossians.

Ray Vander Laan explains,

In contrast to the Hierapolis, the ancient city of Colosse (or Colossae) was known for its cold water. Located about eleven miles from Laodicea, Colosse was built at the foot of Mt. Cadmus, which towered more than nine thousand feet high. Colosse was known for a purple dye called colissinus and for its many, ice-cold snow-and-rain-fed streams that rushed down from the snow-covered peak of Mt. Cadmus. People in the fertile Lycus River Valley commonly talked about this wonderful, invigorating water.

Founded several hundreds of years before the Hierapolis, Colosse’s inhabitants worshiped many gods, including Artemis, Athena, and Demeter. The city was in serious decline by the time of Paul and John because of the growth of Laodicea and Hierapolis. It is known by Christians today because Paul wrote a letter to the Colossians, which was the home of his friend Philemon, and his slave Onesimus.

Laodicea, Colosse, and Hieropolis were all near each other, in the Maeander River valley (from which we get the word “meander”), but Laodicea had become the larger city. Paul likely never visited Colosse himself. The likelihood is that Epaphras had taken the gospel there from Ephesus, another Hellenistic city in Asia Minor.

The site of the city is long abandoned, and the location has never been excavated.

It’s hardly surprising that the young church struggled given the city’s pagan culture and idolatry. It should also be noted that Asia Minor was a relatively wealthy part of the Roman Empire at the time, being on major trading routes between Asia and Europe. The cities were often very cosmopolitan, meaning they reflected multiple nationalities and multiple religions.

But Colosse was not a city. It evidently sat on top of the hill (a “tell,” or archaeological site) and couldn’t have been large. The population was Phrygian (a region of Asia Minor), Greek (Greece was not far to the west and had ruled the territory for centuries before Roman conquest), and Jews, who’d settled there during the time of Antiochus the Great (223-187 BC).

The problems confronted

Colossians is what they call an “occasional letter,” meaning it was written because of specific events, rather than being an abstract explanation of theology. It was written to deal with particular problems that had arisen in the Colosse. Pau wrote from prison in Rome, the letter likely being carried by the runaway slave Philemon. The church in Colosse met in the home of Onesimus, who owned Philemon.

The error Paul confronted appears to have been a blend of Judaism with paganism. Of course, many of the original converts were Jewish, but Jews who’d been in pagan lands for centuries. They may well have adopted a distinctive blend of Judaism blended with Greek thought.

The error elevated angels as the being through whom the Law had been given. The angels were seen as demigods and the gatekeepers of God — that is, the angels had to be appeased so that they’d permit communications with God. Obedience to the Law was a tribute to the angels, who insisted on Sabbath observance, festival observance, circumcision, and ascetic practices.

F. F. Bruce writes in the New International Commentary series,

Christians were urged to go in for this progressive “wisdom” (sophia) and “knowledge” (gnosis), to explore the hidden mysteries by a series of successive initiations until they attained perfection (teleiosis). Christian baptism was only a preliminary initiation … .

I assume when you say “show me a Christian college that …”, you’re referring to CofC Christian colleges. There is no more cutting edge university in music than Belmont; Wheaton is pretty darn good in liberal arts and philosophy; Furman does cutting edge biology research; and even Pepperdine (CofC) has quite a movie making background. And Baylor is pretty good in all of the above, plus it has very fine grad programs. And don’t forget other pretty good schools, like St. Olaf, Calvin and Trinity.

But if you’re talking about CofC Christian colleges, I wholeheartedly agree – that with minor exceptions (e.g., Pepperdine and movies), “[w]e’re all about trade schools and not about the study of God’s creation.”

I think a bigger issue I’ve never heard you touch on in all the culture war stuff has to do with evangelical Christianity’s small Jesus. So small that we have to put him in a cage to “protect” him from the secularists. Isn’t this mostly what the so-called culture war is about?

Evangelicals too often have a  picture of a Jesus that they try to sell to people, so as to persuade them (whether by logic or emotion) to “invite Jesus into their hearts” or “accept Jesus.” But Jesus is already here, there and everywhere. He and His Kingdom are all around us. He said so.  What we have to do is acknowledge what is already happening all around us. When you were converted – whether in a moment or through a process – did you not sit back and realize what God already had been doing with and through you all along?

Jesus formed “all things,” is in “all things,” and will restore “all things” to the way they were meant to be before we messed them up.

So I think the problem is we make our Jesus too small. And that makes us defensive, feeling we have to protect him from those bad secularist people. When, in fact, Jesus is HUGE. He made all things. And we don’t have to protect him.

Peter learned that lesson when he tried to protect Jesus with his sword and cut off the soldier’s ear, and then Jesus told him to put the sword down and put the ear back. Jesus wanted Peter there with him, but didn’t need his help in his insufficient, human way.

The same lesson is in Jonah. When Jonah refused the call of God to preach to Ninevah, God used Jonah to reveal himself to the sailors on the boat. God’s message was not going to be stopped by some little guy in a boat.

We can’t stop God’s will even when we, like Jonah, try. God is much bigger than us.

So for me, the whole culture war issue is misplaced. We’re fighting a war God didn’t ask us to fight, and he doesn’t need us to fight. We’ve put Jesus in a cage to protect him when he doesn’t need our protection. Instead of putting him in a cage, we need to let him loose and realize that is where he really already is anyway. Lions don’t make good house cats. When we reduce a lion to a house cat, it is no wonder that our diluted version of Jesus does not impact the world and does not align with Jesus’s plan to make all things new.

Amen.

(I guess I should mention that this is from my brother, David.)

In response to the Christian Left and Right, there has arisen a neo-Anabaptist movement, led by such theologians as Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder.

It provides a credible, even compelling, script for those who find the account offered by Christian conservatives distasteful if not dangerous and the narratives offered by Christian progressives unconvincing and irrelevant. …

[The Christian Left] is committed to a strong State and is willing to press it to realize its agenda in law and policy, while [the neo-Anabaptist movement] keeps its distance from the State, maintaining a basic distrust toward its structure, action, and use of power.

Personally, I’m not all the way there, but I find much that appeals in the neo-Anabaptist movement. It’s certainly closer to the truth than the Christian Right or Left.

From the neo-Anabaptist perspective, Christians fail to understand Jesus at all if they fail to see him other than as he was: an agent of radical social change. …

The new humanity [Jesus] modeled also entailed a rejection of coercion and violence. … The temptation to exercise political power was always present and, in each case, he rejected it. More importantly, Jesus challenged and overcame “the powers.”

Amen.

Typical of neo-Anabaptist thought is pacificism (one place where I part from the movement). The movement rejects all forms of coercion, violent or otherwise.

Instead,  the neo-Anabaptists contend that –

central calling of the church is to be a worshipping community. It is in the preaching of the Word, in the observance of sacrament, and in the practice of praise that the church achieves its highest purpose.

Hunter argues,

There is a separatist impulse here. Within the neo-Anabaptist conversation there is some dispute over how separatist it should be. Hauerwas doesn’t want people to withdraw from the world as much as he wants people to be Christian in it. What this means is left unclear. Younger voices, however, contend that Hauerwas is not nearly sectarian enough.

Hunter points out that, like the Left and Right, the neo-Anabaptists –

make no distinction between the public and the political. …

Yoder goes so far as to argue that the only suffering that has spiritual meaning is political suffering. …

Even though the nature of politics and political action in the church is an inversion of the prevailing powers of the present age, the language of politics still provides the meaning for the public witness of the church. …

The language of politics also provides the structure for the public witness of the church. For one, the active opposition to the powers (to war, globalization, and the like) is ultimately oriented toward changing political, military, and economic policy. Thus, even when the intervention is motivated by a desire to realize God’s peace and justice, the framework of operation is still a politics of this world. …

[T]he collective identity of the neo-Anabaptists comes through their dissent from the State and the larger political economy and culture of late modernity. Their identity depends on the State and other powers being corrupt and the more unambiguously corrupt they are, the clearer the identity and mission of the church.

Here’s the line to remember:

It is, as my colleague Charles Mathewes has put it, a passive-aggressive ecclesiology.

It’s not about being Jesus as much as not being involved in the powers of this world. It’s close, but it’s not all the way there.

The church depends on its status as a minority community in opposition to a dominant structure in order to be effective in its criticism of the injustices of democratic capitalism.

As I pointed out back in the series on pacifism, much of their theory falls apart when the church ceases to be in the minority. It’s easy to refuse to govern when you are an oppressed minority. If you are 85% of the country, and if you refuse to staff the police force, you’ve left the innocent defenseless, empowered criminals, and proved yourselves very unloving.

In the writings of the neo-Anabaptist theologians, there is little good in the world that deserves praise and no beauty that generates wonder and appreciation. … [Their message] is overwhelmingly a message of anger, disparagement, and negation.

It is, of course, true that the Christian Right stands against some truly evil things in this world. The Left is right to be concerned with the poor and oppressed and discriminated against. And neo-Anabaptists are right to flee the temptation of political power and assimilation into American consumer culture. But there’s more to Jesus than politics — and we can’t define our Christianity in terms of politics. Jesus didn’t save us so we’d gain power over others using the tools of the state. And he didn’t save us to retreat from the world.

It’s entirely possible to think in terms that are neither political nor anti-political — and we miss a goodly part of the scriptures unless we do. Ressentiment is a sinful attitude, whether it’s ressentiment against secular humanism, the Christian Right, or the government. Jesus was a victim, but a willing victim. He didn’t seek redress for his suffering.

The early church wasn’t about getting justice for Jesus. Nor was it about withdrawal from the world.

And it’s entirely possible to have a public voice without having a political voice. The Right and Left need to learn that there are no political solutions for many of the problems they care about.

There are no comprehensive political solutions to the deterioration of “family values,” the desire for equity, or the challenge of achieving consensus and solidarity in a cultural context of fragmentation and polarization. There are no real political solutions to the absence of decency or the spread of vulgarity. …

The belief that the state could help us care more for the poor and the elderly, slow the disintegration of traditional values, generate respect among different groups, or create civic pride, is mostly illusory. It imputes far too much capacity to the state and to the political process.

Hunter wraps up the essay explaining power in more honest terms than we usually find in Christian literature –

Some one, some group, some institutions will always have more capacity to act than others and some one, some group, and some institutions will always have a great capacity to acquire resources than others. … Cumulatively, this means that human relations are inherently power relations. Power saturates all of social reality and unless a person lives in complete and utter isolation from others and the things they provide, it is impossible to remove oneself from the complex dynamics of power and what power provides.

Therefore, the neo-Anabaptists cannot accept powerlessness, because there’s no such thing. Indeed, a community of believers strongly committed to the teachings of Jesus would be and is a very powerful thing.

The creation mandate, then, is a mandate to use that power in the world in ways that reflect God’s intentions. …

The question for the church, then, is not about choosing between power and powerlessness but rather, to the extent that it has space to do so, how will the church and its people use the power that they have. How will it engage the world around it and of which it is a part?

I would add: Jesus rejected political power — in the sense of becoming an earthly king. So should we. But Jesus was a man of great power — and his friends and enemies both recognized it. The remarkable thing about Jesus is how he chose to use his power.

Hunter ends the essay with this astonishing statement –

What is wrong with [the Anabaptist's] critique is that it doesn’t go far enough, for the moral life and everyday social practices of the church are also far too entwined with the prevailing normative assumptions of American culture. Courtship and marriage, the formation and education of children, the mutual relationships and obligations between the individual and community, vocation, leadership, consumption, leisure, “retirement” and use of the time in the final chapters of life — on these and other matters, Christianity has uncritically assimilated to the dominant ways of life in a manner dubious at the least.

Oh, wow … and amen.

[Note: this summary skips important portions of Hunter's second essay. Buy the book.]