Scot McKnight has just published a series of posts called the Kingdom Gospel.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/05/kingdom-gospel-1.html
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/05/kingdom-gospel-2.html
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/05/kingdom-gospel-3.html
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/05/kingdom-gospel-4.html
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/05/kingdom-gospel-5.html
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/05/kingdom-gospel-6.html
http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/05/kingdom-gospel-7.html

I was wondering if anyone else had thoughts about these posts, either agreeing or disagreeing.

In the Bible, mountains are often symbolic of kingdoms. Hills, in turn, are smaller kingdoms or principalities. Islands are symbols of democracies or republics, and the landless sea is a symbol either of outright anarchy or perhaps of tribal rule. Valleys are symbolic places of the weak and disadvantaged in society.

With this in mind, the biblical reader can discern parabolic meanings:

• In stories like Noah and the flood, where the flood is said to have covered even the highest mountains.
• The psalmist lifted up his eyes to the hills (mountains) in Psalm 121 in attempt to find help.
• The hills are said to melt like wax at the presence of the Lord in Psalm 97.
• The promise of the prophet Isaiah that every valley will be lifted up and every hill and mountain be made low.
• The devil tempted Jesus by taking him to “a very high mountain” and showed him all of the kingdoms of the world.
• Jesus’s bold statement about faith, where mountains would be flung into the sea at the command of someone speaking in faith.
• In the end of days, the Book of Revelation speaks of the islands and mountains “running away” and hiding.

But it is to the words of the prophets Micah and Isaiah that I would most like to draw your attention to here:

“And it will come about in the last days: The mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the greatest mountain. It will be raised above the hills, and people will stream to it. Many nations will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.’ For from Zion will go forth the law, even the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he will judge between many peoples and render decisions for mighty and distant nations. Then they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift up sword against nation, and never again will they train for war.” (a modification of the NASB version)

What is this mountain of the house of the Lord that is somehow associated with the coming of peace on earth? How can something as mighty as a mountain (which is symbolic of a kingdom) be associated with a single house? What would induce all of the nations of the world to stop fighting each other and voluntarily go up to this “house of the Lord”?

We’ll explore more about this in the coming days ahead.

Jesus said many radical things. One of the things that he said was that “something greater than Solomon is here”. Jesus said this in response to certain religious leaders of his time. These religious teachers and scribes had asked to see a visible, miraculous sign from Jesus.

It was clear in the rest of the gospels that Jesus could and did perform miracles (signs). Yet Jesus never performed miracles because he was commanded to do so by other people. If he had done so, it would have demonstrated that he had had the power but not the authority to do what he was doing. It would have shown that he was working under the authority of earthly authorities, religious or political.

To Jesus, authority was more important than power. It was the authority of Jesus that first impressed the people who had first listened to him (see Luke 4:31-32). And, later on, the direct question of authority from the religious leaders led to the puzzling response that Jesus gave back to them: A question about authority that they chose not to answer. This led Jesus to say to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” To Jesus, you must know who truly are before you can know what to do. To humanity, the natural thought process is usually reversed: in other words, might makes right. If you have the power, then others must obey you. For Jesus, this was not the way of life, … the way of love.

For the people of Jesus’ time, Solomon, the son of the great king David, was the most powerful and most wise king. Solomon reigned almost 1,000 years before Jesus. His kingdom’s boundaries were greater in extent than at any other time in the history of Israel. The capital of Jerusalem was so wealthy during his rule that silver was considered to be as though it were worthless: only gold was valuable. And, of course, his wisdom was legendary. In Jesus’ time, the authority of Solomon as a great king was unquestioned.

For Jesus, however, Solomon the king was a symbol, a shadow of something greater that would ultimately come later in history. Solomon’s reign was one of visible displays of greatness. Yet, with this story about Solomon in the common thoughts of everyone in his society, Jesus made the amazing statement that something greater than Solomon was there.

Rather than the restoration of the kingdom of Israel to the greatness of the days of Solomon, Jesus spoke of another kingdom, the eternal kingdom of God. What is the kingdom of God? Rather than answer that question directly, Jesus invites us here to think about the greatest rulers that the world has ever seen. (And don’t restrict yourself only to thinking about political rulers: think about business leaders, scientists, and others, also, who have made significant contributions for the greater good.) Then, once you have carefully considered the greatest qualities of each of these rulers and their kingdoms, then consider each of them, even at their very best, to be a mere shadow and preview of the goodness of God ruling in and through people. … And what is goodness? It is power carefully constrained under proper authority to do things that will be beneficial to others, especially the less powerful, in love. … When goodness is reflected from God into the world, then this is the kingdom of God, and this kingdom has a king.

The familiar leads to the unfamiliar. The knowledge of the best of the kingdoms of this world present a shadow and a type of the kingdom of God.

Let’s now examine and think about the first mark of the New Monasticism:

“Relocation to the abandoned places of Empire.”

In the gospels, we find three different ways that Jesus was referred to as being a son: son of David, son of Man, and son of God. As son of David, we are reminded of Jesus’ connection to the Jewish people, the tribe of Judah, and the Davidic royal house within Judah. As son of God, we see Jesus’ eternal relationship to God the Father. Yet, in spite of these two significant titles, it was “Son of Man” that was Jesus’ favorite self-referential designation.

It’s “son of man” that suggests Jesus’ descent and connection to Adam, the biblical first man. Since we are all Adam’s children, Jesus with this title is also suggesting his connection and relationship to all of us. Taking a closer look at the four gospels, when Jesus used this term to refer to himself, the majority of the time it was in the context of some type of movement, such as coming, going, sending, or handing over. It’s in the incarnation of Jesus that we see the Son of Man, the one who uniquely joins and identifies himself with human beings, coming into the world.

Jesus made it plain that he was only doing here on earth what he saw his father doing. His time here with humanity was about representing the specific interests of his father here on earth. These interests and the representation thereof is called the kingdom of God. Jesus relocated himself from heaven to earth in order to be the perfect ambassador for God’s kingdom here in this world.

Jesus expressly stated that he had come for those who were truly in desperate need: the blind, the sick, the poor. Those who lived on the margins of society were those closest to his heart. (The ten lepers who lived in the no-man’s land between Samaria and Galilee were a good example, and there were many others.)

As followers of Christ, we have been commissioned by Jesus to be his ambassadors here on earth. As Jesus relocated himself in the most dramatic way possible (from heaven to earth and then on to the cross), so now we are each called to move ourselves by his spirit and in his love out to a lost and needy world. We are called to go to the abandoned places: the areas that have been largely forgotten and overlooked by the societies around us.

The term of abandonment strongly suggests the orphaned nature of humanity. For once upon a time, our progenitors Adam and Eve had a face-to-face and unblemished relationship with God their father in Eden. When they were cast out of that garden for their failings, so were we.

Where are these abandoned places? Most of them are right around the corner of your heart. They are the inner cities of the U.S.; they are places of grinding rural poverty in the developing world; they are the orphans on the streets and the widows waiting to die. Each one is precious, created in the very image of God. Each one needs to be blessed, loved, and encouraged by God’s representatives in flesh and blood here on earth.

The term “Empire” could be interpreted in many ways. I see this as, biblically, pointing to the kingdom of darkness. As followers and ambassadors of Christ, we are called to shine the light of Christ into the dark places of this world. When we do, the light overcomes the darkness and the spiritual prisoners are set free. Their freedom comes in changing their alliances from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God.

The Saddleback (Church) Civil Forum of the two major presidential candidates just occurred in the United States. The forum occurred inside of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. The forum was not a presidential debate. (For those of you outside of the U.S., face-to-face presidential debates are held in October and not in August.) Rather, this televised event consisted of two consecutive and separate interviews of Senator Barrack Obama and Senator John McCain by the popular pastor and author Rick Warren. Mr. Warren asked each senator the same series of questions, and each senator was interviewed for about one hour. Mr. Obama went first, while Mr. McCain waited offstage in some kind of closed area where he could not receive any advance knowledge of the upcoming questions. Because Senator McCain’s answers were shorter, Mr. Warren was able to ask him a few extra questions.

I watched the entire forum from beginning to end. On the positive side, I do appreciate the way that Mr. Warren allowed both of the candidates to give fairly detailed answers to questions without interruption (something that is increasingly rare in the American political process). I also appreciated the contrast in responses to the same set of questions by each candidate. Mr. Warren also appreared to be non-partisan, not favoring one candidate over the other.

On the more critical side, I didn’t like Mr. Warren’s last question to each candidate. Others may disagree, but this question was basically asking each candidate to publicly justify what Mr. Warren and his church were doing with this forum. Perhaps this is little harsh to say but I think that this is like inviting someone to a party and then asking him or her, at the end of it, to publicly state to the other guests why the host of the party is such a good host.

And since Rick Warren brought it up via this final question, I would like to discuss here why I do not support this civil forum. Why?

1.  Quite frankly, I don’t see such a forum as having any biblical basis. In the Bible, I do see prophets confronting evil leaders, apostles (“sent ones”) sharing their faith with rulers, and I also see capable advisers raised up to give advice to kings and even serve as high-ranking appointed leaders directly underneath those kings (like Daniel and Joseph, for example). I even see prophets ratifying (anointing) the selection of a king, as per God’s choice (like Samuel and Saul). But I do not see any biblical pattern for serving as arbiters, gatekeepers, or kingmakers regarding the selection of the kings of this earth.

2.  Jesus said that his kingdom is not of this world. Yes, as ambassadors of Christ, followers of Jesus should be prepared, as appropriate opportunities present themselves, to serve in love the rulers of this world, if they ask for the aid, assistance, and counsel of Christ’s followers. True disciples of Jesus are also very much interested in the causes of social justice and real care and concern for their surrounding communities. That said, the Bible clearly says that our citzenship is in heaven. The view of the gospels is to live in the kingdom of God here and now in the world and thus change the world around us with God’s love. In contrast, Jesus did not say to change the kingdoms of this world via manipulating the mechanisms of those kingdoms. (Rather, Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.)

3.  Mr. Warren started his forum by saying that “faith is just a worldview”. Faith in Jesus Christ is anchored in eternity, and the word of God stands forever no matter what happens here in this world. Faith is an “eternal-view” and not simply a worldview.

4.  If followers of Christ actively arbitrate the process of selecting the kings of this world, then the world will be resentful and angry with his followers when things go wrong, as they inevitably will to one extent or another. Even worse, if the selected kings make immoral or evil decisions, Christ’s disciples in the world will appear as being complicit or hypocritical. Followers of Christ should not seek to interfere with the processes of king-selection, just as followers of Christ do not want the world to interfere with their life and work in this world.

What do you think? Do you agree or disagree?