I'd like to get a discussion going based on the following article. I don't wish to debate what people think of Brian Mclaren, only his views expressed in this article, which I tend to agree with. Are we stubbornly using archaic concepts to explain the kingdom of God? http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=ma ... cle=060310
Jason
The Importance of Language
Re: The Importance of Language
I read his book, "The Secret Message of Jesus," where he expressed these ideas, about a year ago, I would estimate. I found the book refreshing and felt that his views of the kingdom were not dissimilar to my own, except that he used different language and metaphors. I think he may be correct, but I am still pretty stubborn about the biblical language, and am not ready to drop it just yet.
The idea of a "king" is the one that resonated to people of all cultures throughout the first 6000 years of civilization, and may contain unique content that would be "lost in translation" by our substitution of "the dream of God," or some such alternative. It is true that Satan has been able to exploit the social progress of humanity beyond the monarchy era so as to greatly neutralize the effectiveness of this monarchial image. But has he not done the same with that once-powerful image of "father"? Are we prepared to look for a substitute for this central concept of fatherhood in Jesus' teaching? I do not think we are.
Of course, there is always the possibility that the proper public perception of fatherhood could be restored in civilization by a general turning of the hearts of fathers to their children and of children to their fathers—even if this turning were only to occur within a highly visible, Christian counterculture. But we are not likely to see a return to the old concept of kings until Mr. Obama, or someone like him, is able to push through his agenda successfully.
In the meantime, I think, the providence of God has preserved the image of kingship in certain aspects of the culture—as in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, and others that depict benevolent Medieval-style (or Middle-Earth-style) monarchies. As long as there remains an interest in such stories among the movie-going public , all hope is not lost.
As for the concerns expressed concerning the male authoritarian imagery associated with kingship, which offends our modern-day mood, I am not sure that we are free to treat these as dispensable aspects of the biblical image of Christ's kingship. They may simply be among the features of the gospel that unavoidably cause offense to the rebellious.
Those are my present thoughts.
The idea of a "king" is the one that resonated to people of all cultures throughout the first 6000 years of civilization, and may contain unique content that would be "lost in translation" by our substitution of "the dream of God," or some such alternative. It is true that Satan has been able to exploit the social progress of humanity beyond the monarchy era so as to greatly neutralize the effectiveness of this monarchial image. But has he not done the same with that once-powerful image of "father"? Are we prepared to look for a substitute for this central concept of fatherhood in Jesus' teaching? I do not think we are.
Of course, there is always the possibility that the proper public perception of fatherhood could be restored in civilization by a general turning of the hearts of fathers to their children and of children to their fathers—even if this turning were only to occur within a highly visible, Christian counterculture. But we are not likely to see a return to the old concept of kings until Mr. Obama, or someone like him, is able to push through his agenda successfully.
In the meantime, I think, the providence of God has preserved the image of kingship in certain aspects of the culture—as in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, and others that depict benevolent Medieval-style (or Middle-Earth-style) monarchies. As long as there remains an interest in such stories among the movie-going public , all hope is not lost.
As for the concerns expressed concerning the male authoritarian imagery associated with kingship, which offends our modern-day mood, I am not sure that we are free to treat these as dispensable aspects of the biblical image of Christ's kingship. They may simply be among the features of the gospel that unavoidably cause offense to the rebellious.
Those are my present thoughts.
Re: The Importance of Language
Steve, I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. I've found that whenever I'm talking to someone about the kingdom of God using biblical language, I often end up wasting valuable time (theirs and mine) explaining the concepts as I go so it's hard to hit all the points I'd like to hit. Also, it doesn't sound all that unique in light of what Islam teaches (also a monarchial view). There's a great deal of social sensitivity about this kind of language due to the nasty monarchial rule of the Roman church (under a Pope king, or... lord!) for much of history so I understand when people shy away from wanting to explain God's "dream" in governmental terms. I often wonder how Jesus would teach the same message today since he was very much a product of his time, teaching through metaphors like wineskins and sheep gates. Jesus expected his listeners to understand his words plainly so he talked about agriculture and kingdoms. When people are living in an age of technology (for better or worse) I think it might be wise to adjust things as the Spirit leads, for their benefit.
One reason I suspect this is true is because I even get turned around when people use biblical language. Our church worship service often uses lyrics from the bygone era and it's distracting at times. It pulls me out of worship when we start to sing about the Lord's power and goodness, then break into archaic language using a word or phrase whose meaning is probably unknown to most who are singing it. If archaic language bothers a fairly literate person, how much more the less educated? I wonder then, how one might explain the teachings of the kingdom of God in terms that are easily relatable to modern folks? Mclaren gives a few examples but I'd probably look for other metaphors.
One reason I suspect this is true is because I even get turned around when people use biblical language. Our church worship service often uses lyrics from the bygone era and it's distracting at times. It pulls me out of worship when we start to sing about the Lord's power and goodness, then break into archaic language using a word or phrase whose meaning is probably unknown to most who are singing it. If archaic language bothers a fairly literate person, how much more the less educated? I wonder then, how one might explain the teachings of the kingdom of God in terms that are easily relatable to modern folks? Mclaren gives a few examples but I'd probably look for other metaphors.
Re: The Importance of Language
Steve wrote:
TK
I certainly agree with this. I have often said that we really wouldnt know how to deal with a King- the rules of Court, the honor, etc. But movies/books like The Lord of the Rings do give us some idea of what it would be like to serve a good King, and how we might even be willing to die for a good King.In the meantime, I think, the providence of God has preserved the image of kingship in certain aspects of the culture—as in the "Lord of the Rings" movies, and others that depict benevolent Medieval-style (or Middle-Earth-style) monarchies. As long as there remains an interest in such stories among the movie-going public , all hope is not lost.
TK