Disqus - Latest Comments for MichaelCline

Re: The Empire and the Gospel

MichaelCline — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:08:49 -0000

Whew, it's been awhile JM. Hope everyone is doing well in this community that has both nurtured and challenged me over the last year or so. Sorry I've been so distant.
Maria, I understand your discomfort with the term "empire." It might be the #3 word used on this site (right behind "the," and "I"). And definitions for what is empire and what is not abound, which makes it all the more difficult to know how to feel about the term when it is used in particular contexts.

I personally favor the definition given in Colossians Remixed by Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat (they may have borrowed it from elsewhere): "Empire are totalizing by definition...Empires are [1]built on systematic centralizations of power, [2] secured by structures of socioeconomic and military control, [3] religiously legitimated by powerful myths and [4] sustained by a proliferation of imperial images that captivate the imaginations of the population."

We tend to focus on 1 and 2, but it's 3 and 4 that really oil the machine and are unconsciously served in the lives of so many. And I think it's 3 and 4 that this website tends to name, which is why there is often a pushback by many readers (which isn't a bad thing in itself). It's far easier for some people to admit that the U.S. maintains control through military might. It's when we point out the consumerist impulse that owns our imaginations and is legitimized on Sundays that people get really uneasy.

Re: Red Letters: Living a Faith that Bleeds

MichaelCline — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:54:13 -0000

Wow, those are some serious accusations being levied in those links. Thanks for the heads up. It would indeed be odd to think the CEO of a company involved in such human rights abuses would plug a book about social justice and protecting the disenfranchised. If you don't mind, I'll pass your comment along to the author Tom Davis, just to see what he has to say. He may be as unaware as I was.

Re: The Style of Subversion: An Introduction

hewhocutsdown — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 10:10:36 -0000

You gotta love the yuppy and the hippy and everyone in between. Peace to you two :)

Re: The Style of Subversion: An Introduction

MichaelCline — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:56:47 -0000

I always found my own fascination with the "hipster"/ "radical" crew a bit odd. I certainly don't look the part. I don't use the cool words or the cool products (which are actually not "cool" right? I don't know, I can't keep up when being not-cool became the cool). In private conversation with Mark, I tended to lament my non-hipster status, wondering how the JM readers would take my picture with my beautiful wife in my pressed and collared button-up. If I met Mark at a local grunge cafe, should I dress down (which for me was jeans and a t-shirt), or will that not even work, and the locals will smell the yuppy from a mile away.

At some point, I just got over it.

Thanks for this look into your heart Mark. We all have a lot of introspection to do, but it will only take us so far. And displaying that heart for others to look at has to be the only way around this "hipsterdom" that we've created.

Re: Gandhi Was Wrong

MichaelCline — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:20:12 -0000

Wow Brandon, this is just beautiful. N.T. Wright's eschatology, a bit of Hays "Moral Vision" language, and the dismantling of Western individualism while deconstructing a quote from Ghandi--I don't know how you did it, but you did.
Now if only I could find a way to dial all this down into something to present my sunday school class this week as we study Colossians 1:9-23.

Re: Happy St. Elizabeth’s Day!

MichaelCline — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:28:04 -0000

Oh yes, a good old fashion blog attack.

Mark, seriously, grow up already. Jonas is going to need a mature dad.

In the meantime, thanks for the blog site hit Consta(n?)tine. We love angry traffic.

Re: Preaching Peace Conference

MichaelCline — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:55:01 -0000

Wow, San Fran has stacked the deck. Too bad no one can afford to fly out there. :(

Re: Happy St. Elizabeth’s Day!

MichaelCline — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:52:56 -0000

This is different than the Saint Elizabeth of Hungary I take it? I googled St. Elizabeth after seeing you gmail status and got nothing but reference to St. Elizabeth of Hungary, who is celebrated sometime in November I believe. Her story is quite compelling as well and really fits nice with the passions of JM.

Re: Welcome Brandon Rhodes!

MichaelCline — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 08:32:57 -0000

What a great choice! And to think I was able to hold this job for even 6 months with guys like this floating around the site. Looks like I'm getting out at just the right time. :)

Congrats Brandon and feel free to show me up at every turn. You are bringing an awesome set of skills to this community.

Re: Daughters and Sons

Maria Kirby — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:02:47 -0000

The kitchen is a more powerful place than you might imagine. It's next to foot washing. It's nice to see more men entering into domestic ministries.

Re: Daughters and Sons

MichaelCline — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:50:41 -0000

Not to toot our own horn (because we have tons of examples where we have done just the opposite), but I'm proud of my denomination for being so "pro woman." The Wesleyan Church was one of the first to ordain women for vocational ministry and just this past week, we elected our first ever female General Superintendent (long overdue).

I guess I write this in order for my sisters to take heart...we don't all think you belong in the kitchen.

Re: The Election and Our Election

MichaelCline — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 09:01:25 -0000

Brandon, great article. There are some really heavy sentences in here that should make us all stop, think, and maybe even pray. I love the way you used "election" language (and in my Arminianism, I'm glad you didn't go too far into the definition--"election" is a word my camp likes to bypass) :) .

I'd agree with my non-voting brothers below me here. I got a little self-righteous when you called me a Pharisee...oh wait, maybe that's the problem. You nailed me. But, even though I disagree with some of those "prolonged pot-shots," I'm glad you wrote this article and that we could get it up on JM because our readers have already heard long arguments from the non-voting crowd. Mark, myself, and a few others have already written that viewpoint to death. So thanks for being willing to represent a more middle ground and give a lot more people a platform to shake their heads with.

Re: Protesting the RNC?

MichaelCline — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 08:50:14 -0000

It's just too easy. Too easy to carry a sign and march around shouting various anti-war (and let's be honest, in this case, it would be anti-republican) slogans. I'm thinking this is a little like the post I wrote about being faithful to the Kingdom on Memorial Day in local traditional churches. While hijacking the service by detuning the piano might protest the usual civil religious activity that occurs, it's a bit too easy to actually be effective. There has to be this creative tension we live in when "protesting."
With that said, I think the first way we protest the war in Iraq is to personally renew our commitment to nonviolence, and encourage our brothers and sisters who have been baited into military service to pursue conscientious objector status. We could also protest the war by consuming less stuff from the mega-corporations that fuel the countries interests to go to war, and instead invest in peacemaking like that being done by Christian Peacemaking Teams. This isn't easy. It downright sucks sometimes. But I'm weary of any "protest" that doesn't cost us something.

Re: Behold the Man: the Passion as Coronation

MichaelCline — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:29:53 -0000

Glad that you've found a moment with Jesus Manifesto where God can speak to your current situation. Sorry it is so painful. And thank God we serve a Master that knows that kind of hurt.

Re: Behold the Man: the Passion as Coronation

Ted — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:45:09 -0000

Having pondered this some more, let me add this: with all due respect to Tim LaHaye, the "glorious unveiling" is not the revelation of Jesus Christ, Buttkicker, but the unveiling of the true kingdom. The weak shame the strong, not in a Revenge of the Nerds kind of way, but precisely in their weakness. The persecuted reign with Christ. The meek inherit the earth. Servants are leaders. Janitors rule the world, one dirty toilet at a time (okay, that was self-serving, but you get the idea). I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but Revelation uses the language it does to confirm, not negate, the message of the Cross.

Re: Behold the Man: the Passion as Coronation

Ted — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:10:36 -0000

That's an excellent question. Denny Weaver deals with this in The Nonviolent Atonement, and though some of the book overstates the case, I think, how he deals with Revelation is worth the read.

In sum, cribbing from Weaver and others without holding them responsible, I think Revelation is part and parcel of the same reversal or inversion; to put it bluntly, these things mean something different when applied to a dead guy (a resurrected and ascended dead guy, sure, but we're not talking "mostly dead" here, and again I want us to sit with that). Not incidentally is it the lamb who is worthy to open the scroll.

Re: Behold the Man: the Passion as Coronation

MichaelCline — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 07:51:59 -0000

Good questions Nathan and a solid response from Ted. Thanks for the food for thought.

I'm trying to put myself more and more in the shoes of those who believe differently than I do and bring a different hermeneutic to their faith and to the Scriptures. So I'm going to ask a question that I think many in this "other" group could be pondering:

Ted, what do you do with the imagery of Jesus in Revelation in light of your understanding of Jesus' nature as revealed in the Cross? Doesn't Revelation's language tend towards a Mark Driscoll, "Jesus is strong and will eventually crush those who turn their backs on him," interpretation?

Re: Faith Half-Mast

Cory — Tue, 27 May 2008 17:48:36 -0000

I definitely do not want to become the "holier than thou' type of person, it's just I wouldn't feel comfortable attending a church that wouldn't promote nonviolence, or at least be open to discuss it.

In the same way, i grew up in a baptist church, my parents wouldn't think about going to any other denomination because that's not what they believed. Likewise, I don't have plans to become a member of a non-peace church.

I definitely don't think I have everything figured out.

Jesus approached the religious very abruptly, and made quite a large scene...just a thought

Re: Faith Half-Mast

MichaelCline — Tue, 27 May 2008 16:02:43 -0000

And I also agree that as we listen, we should call them to repentance gently. It's the "how" of this that I'm trying to get at. Got any ideas?

Re: Faith Half-Mast

MichaelCline — Tue, 27 May 2008 16:01:17 -0000

It definitely is a fine line, and you are dancing it quite well--but I come from a background where dancing was discouraged for Christians, so I'm not sure my opinion matters much.

I guess my emphasis was on HEARING the other and giving place for the other, and not so much on agreeing with sinful activities and attitudes. I am afraid that Cory's comments could lead to a "well, we're the pure church" kind of attitude that has caused, not reconciliation and righteousness, but unnecessary splintering and finger pointing. (not that all splintering is bad). People who disagree with us on issues of war and violence are not going to be best served by being left to their own devices. If the veterans leave, they are just going to find the best civil religious organization around, not Jesus.

Re: Faith Half-Mast

markvans — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:53:16 -0000

We have to be careful not to take my next statement too far: in a way, the Pharisees were the "other" to Jesus. In other words, not all line-drawing is bad. Not all denouncements are created equal.

I'm not advocating that we become jerks to WWII vets. But at the same time, I don't think it is sufficient to merely say that we should simply listen to them with respect. Perhaps we should, but at the same time they should, gently, be called to repentance.

I hope you can see the fine line I'm trying to dance here...

Re: Faith Half-Mast

MichaelCline — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:43:31 -0000

We give a lot of lip service to listening to the "other" among us...usually meaning the oppressed or the disenfranchised. But in this case, my "other" includes WWII vets and local leaders of the VFW.

That's a little harder to swallow isn't it? We tend to want to listen to the "other" in our midst as long as they aren't the "other" that looks a lot like us but just thinks differently.

Re: Faith Half-Mast

Ted — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:53:11 -0000

I deliberately chose "realistic" for that reason -- nice catch.

You make a good point about the criteria for pragmatism; what does it mean for a given action to "work" from a Kingdom perspective? On a certain level, the ethics of the cross doesn't "work" at all, unless the goal is to get crucified. This doesn't always happen, and sometimes very good things (like reconciliation) come out of it, but to claim any control over that would be to miss the point.

Would we go too far to suggest that to take up the sword, even for the most admirable ends, is to claim for ourselves the knowledge of good and evil? To justify coercion for the sake of a recognizably noble purpose is really just that much greater a temptation. When we do that, inasmuch as we do that, we forfeit our opportunity to live beyond the Fall. Does that make sense?

Re: Faith Half-Mast

MichaelCline — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:23:37 -0000

The good ol' pragmatic response. There is something to doing what will seemingly "work," it's just that no one has proven that violence works on any real level. Of course, we'd have to define what "works" even means.

Your pastor has been sucked into Reinhold Niebuhr's "Christian Realism"...who, by the way, is one of Barack Obama's favorite philospher's.

Re: Faith Half-Mast

DC — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:35:04 -0000

I should say up front that I am not a pastor, but am just thinking out loud (in writing...um...?). I'd point to the history of Memorial Day. It started just to remember the Union soldiers (not the Confederate soldiers) who died in the American Civil War - we excluded the southern people who died in war from the moral universe. Were they not people, made in the image of God, too? We then expanded the holiday after World War I to include all soldiers that died in war or other military operation. Our dead, but not the enemy dead. "We" are worth remembering; "they" are worth killing. And just take off from there...remembering all people.

But, if you wanted to be reallllly subversive, just do a sermon "for all those who died for our freedom," and start into the martyrs, and let the sermon reveal that the kingdom you're referring to with patriotic fervor is not America, but the Kingdom of God.

If people want a patriotic rally, you might refer them to the nearest BBQ. A pulpit is for preaching the word of God and the Empire doesn't get to dictate the subject matter on any given Sunday.