.jpg)
***this is the original post of the blog and inspiration for the mission. its been re-published to share with our increasingly growing community***
The words revolution and rebellion or rebel and revolutionary are interchangeable to many. However, the seemingly synonymous words are almost at opposition with each other. A rebel confronts and denies an institution.
Rebellion is satire and deconstruction. Rebellion tears down walls, institutions, systems, and beliefs. Rebellion opposes. The word rebel calls to mind violence, anger, destruction, and confrontation.
Revolution is creativity and ever-expanding. Revolution constructs art and belief and relationship. Revolution creates. The only thing in common is their relationships to and recognition of dysfunction.
Jesus was a revolutionary. To simply deny or oppose something, to rebel, is in direct conflict to the concept of being a peacemaker. Revolutionaries of course criticize and embarrass the powerful, the bloated, the corrupt, but revolutions cannot be started by pacifists, in fact pacifism is sort of a rebellion too.
The American church is a place of much rebellion AND dysfunction. Its leaders build castles filled with jobs that quite possibly never needed to become professionalized and its followers have become crippled customers of social gatherings. It is also a place of rebellion. Young people think creativity and revolutionary freedom in God is wearing jeans and playing an electric guitar in church. I think the American Revolutionaries of the late 18th century would laugh at us. The leadership of churches rebel against Islam, culture, and the discomfort of diversity. They oppose, ridicule, mock, and reject these and many other groups...which is not peacemaking.
Its time for a revolution where people talking about power-hungry leaders and comfort seeking followers happens, and we're talking about tea parties in the harbor, not blue jeans in the sanctuary. Where dysfunction is challenged...with creativity and bridging through peace. This place is a discourse on a revolution that has existed in many places, for a long time, but lost itself somewhere in America, in the past 100 years.
Every week check this site for a catalyst. It can be a place to spark individual thought, conversation among friends, and most importantly, inspire revolutions. No one here claims expertise, the site is simply attempting to be one piece of the Peace Revolution that has occurred since time began and God reached out to us. Each has a role and some of us are just looking for some more people to join. Make sure to comment on posts for editorial accountability.
Sow a revolution, in peace.
Peacemaker on Twitter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
A few quick thoughts:
1) Over-generalization must be a concern, correct? And surely, to avoid over-generalizing these issues, we must look for the good as well as the bad. Revolution, or reform, or whatever word we want to use should begin with appreciative inquiry into our past. That means thinking appreciatively about the world of Jesus, the early church, the medieval church, the Reformation church, and the American church. I mean, even the 21st century American church has done some things correctly! Paradigm shifts (which is what we're going for, I think) should start with this kind of thinking.
2) Is it possible to oppose (and perhaps even reject) without ridiculing and mocking?
Along those lines, it is problemtic to group Islam with culture and diversity. Islam makes truth claims, absolutist claims, and thus should be examined and accepted or rejected as appropriate. I believe this can be done with respect and humility. The other two do not make truth claims, they just make many Christians uncomfortable.
And, as a final note, I think it is incredibly important to engage Islam, culture, diversity, politics, other worldviews, art, etc. with integrity and humility.
Wow, sorry for the long comment :-)
Thanks for being so active in the conversation. As an editorial response, its important to remember the tone of these articles are creatively motivated and as a result, must be thought of as op-ed. It would be boring to read a document compared to a thesis. In regards to #1, there is an article forth-coming talking about the history of the church during the rise of western civilization. Yes Christians have done great things in humanity, scholarship, and art, but for some reason the church confuses the Modern era with the Modern period and when you look at the ages of Romanticism, Victorianism, the Modern period, etc. the church was embarrassed by the relative progress made outside its walls. For #2, Islam is an Abrahamic religion and so it cannot be a far cry to bridge a gap of conversation that is revolutionary to the churches rejection of other religions, political entities, and social movements.
Keep the conversation going! Thanks.
Ah, it feels so good to critically engage in conversation! Often we are too intimidated to take risks, to engage in thoughtful dialogue! So thanks for that, these articles have made me think more in the last several days than I have had to since I graduated from college!
That being said, I think it is far to try to bridge a gap in conversation regarding the church's rejection of other religions. But you said in the original article that such rejection is not peacemaking. The inference is that it is therefore not of Jesus. So here is the question: is it possible to sensitively and peacefully reject a belief system that runs contrary to the way of Jesus and a belief in the triune God?
Mike, San Diego
mikeatthemoment.wordpress.com
I think this explains the precise issue, rejecting a belief system, regardless of its sensitivity or peacefulness is such a non-issue. Jesus came to fulfill the law of Judaism, not reject it. There is far too much conversation regarding rebellion against "secular society" or Islam, Mormonism, any ism, or "culture" when the implication in Jesus' fulfillment of the law was that he came to DO something, not reject or oppose something. He was a revolutionary, not a rebel. In fact his main acts of rebellion were against the religious were strictly to refocus the Jewish leaders onto the actions of loving God and loving people.
ok, if we are not to "reject" religions that contradict the way of Jesus revealed in Scripture, what are we to "do" about them? i already suggested engagement...
honestly, i am a little confused about what you are trying to say here. if rejection is a non-issue, why are we talking about it? are you saying it is a non-issue (something we shouldnt even bother talking about) or are you saying it is something we shouldnt do as followers of Jesus? and what do we do about instances where Jesus says something like he does in Matthew 10:34 or Luke 12:49?
And surely we are to oppose sin...and is it not sin to proclaim any God but the triune God? Surely their are things to "rebel" against and things to "reform" or "be revolutionary" about. where do we draw these lines? any clarification would be helpful
"I've come to start a fire on this earth—how I wish it were blazing right now! I've come to change everything, turn everything rightside up—how I long for it to be finished! Do you think I came to smooth things over and make everything nice? Not so. I've come to disrupt and confront! From now on, when you find five in a house, it will be—
Three against two,
and two against three;
Father against son,
and son against father;
Mother against daughter,
and daughter against mother;
Mother-in-law against bride,
and bride against mother-in-law." -Luke 12:49
It is important to cross reference this with John 3:17-18
"And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again."
and Matthew 5:17-18
"Don't suppose for a minute that I have come to demolish the Scriptures— either God's Law or the Prophets. I'm not here to demolish but to complete. I am going to put it all together, pull it all together in a vast panorama. God's Law is more real and lasting than the stars in the sky and the ground at your feet. Long after stars burn out and earth wears out, God's Law will be alive and working."
I can see why when isolated things in this article could be confusing, but it is op-ed and creative non-fiction, so poetic license is necessary. My point has always been a creator and these scriptures show his creation continues through redemption. Unfortunately the church has made a very small conversation by worrying about small things of the world like which religion is "right" and how can we be more "seeker friendly." When the conversation is much larger, its about revolutionizing the world through compassion, action, and true subversion. I understand the theory of "drawing lines" and see the Biblical merit for it, but my point is to say, do we have time to discuss the lines with each other in the comfort of seminaries and church offices while the world crumbles? Clearly Jesus came to reject, rebel, but those can all be included in revolution, because it takes the further step of actually creating something. I suggest you read the comment on the original publication of this in the archives, they might clarify things as well. Thanks for the conversation!
"I've come to start a fire on this earth—how I wish it were blazing right now! I've come to change everything, turn everything rightside up—how I long for it to be finished! Do you think I came to smooth things over and make everything nice? Not so. I've come to disrupt and confront! From now on, when you find five in a house, it will be—
Three against two,
and two against three;
Father against son,
and son against father;
Mother against daughter,
and daughter against mother;
Mother-in-law against bride,
and bride against mother-in-law." -Luke 12:49
It is important to cross reference this with John 3:17-18
"And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again."
and Matthew 5:17-18
"Don't suppose for a minute that I have come to demolish the Scriptures— either God's Law or the Prophets. I'm not here to demolish but to complete. I am going to put it all together, pull it all together in a vast panorama. God's Law is more real and lasting than the stars in the sky and the ground at your feet. Long after stars burn out and earth wears out, God's Law will be alive and working."
I can see why when isolated things in this article could be confusing, but it is op-ed and creative non-fiction, so poetic license is necessary. My point has always been a creator and these scriptures show his creation continues through redemption. Unfortunately the church has made a very small conversation by worrying about small things of the world like which religion is "right" and how can we be more "seeker friendly." When the conversation is much larger, its about revolutionizing the world through compassion, action, and true subversion. I understand the theory of "drawing lines" and see the Biblical merit for it, but my point is to say, do we have time to discuss the lines with each other in the comfort of seminaries and church offices while the world crumbles? Clearly Jesus came to reject, rebel, but those can all be included in revolution, because it takes the further step of actually creating something. I suggest you read the comment on the original publication of this in the archives, they might clarify things as well. Thanks for the conversation!
Post a Comment