DISQUS

Hey, that's my cousin. Quit making fun of him. He's a good guy.

Hey, that's my cousin. Quit making fun of him. He's a good guy.

I have one. A nun gave it to me as a gift. I know there is the marketing Jesus sort of situation around it. But it was so cheesy, it tickled my funny bone. When she gave it to me, I giggled like you did when you decided to name your thing Christarchy!

Akary and I like to push the button and make it say the Jesus sorts of things. He's got a really buff body but I suppose that's better than a sickly weak looking Jesus.

I have one. A nun gave it to me as a gift. I know there is the marketing Jesus sort of situation around it. But it was so cheesy, it tickled my funny bone. When she gave it to me, I giggled like you did when you decided to name your thing Christarchy!

Akary and I like to push the button and make it say the Jesus sorts of things. He's got a really buff body but I suppose that's better than a sickly weak looking Jesus.

Hey, that's my cousin. Quit making fun of him. He's a good guy.

Hey, that's my cousin. Quit making fun of him. He's a good guy.

I have one. A nun gave it to me as a gift. I know there is the marketing Jesus sort of situation around it. But it was so cheesy, it tickled my funny bone. When she gave it to me, I giggled like you did when you decided to name your thing Christarchy!


Akary and I like to push the button and make it say the Jesus sorts of things. He's got a really buff body but I suppose that's better than a sickly weak looking Jesus.

Mark
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not personally accusing you of arrogance but I find this is the secular critique leveled at anyone who radically defines two kingdoms and defines strong limits to engagement in/with the other. I’m surprised if you haven’t run into it yet.
I pay taxes. I give of my resources to the poor. I give and invest in others out of my abundance or my poverty to everyone, without consideration for what kingdom this person is in (using your terms). Part of the reason for giving is to demonstrate the incarnational abundance of God’s kingdom and the free nature of its gifts, so those who are not yet a part of that kingdom can be compelled to switch kingdoms. However, for the things kingdom people need, generally those who wish to subvert the empire, they refuse to be supported or nourished by the “abundance of the empire” so to speak. This would include refusing medical insurance generated by the government, government program handouts and helps. I think the intent of this is to live out the belief that the empire’s gifts are not free nor are they gifts—they tempt us into allegiance.
On an interpersonal level, we would say someone is arrogant if he/she had a mode of operation whereby they only gave to others generously and received nothing offered in return. If I can help and support you but refuse anything you might want to “freely” give to me, I am non-verbally saying something about myself and what I have with respect to you and what you have. Nothing that you can give me will sustain me—however, what I give is what you need. I’m beginning to see Christ’s radical assertions behind this mode of engagement. But what do we say to the accusation of arrogance?
I hope that was clearer.
Abigail

Mark
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not personally accusing you of arrogance but I find this is the secular critique leveled at anyone who radically defines two kingdoms and defines strong limits to engagement in/with the other. I’m surprised if you haven’t run into it yet.

I pay taxes. I give of my resources to the poor. I give and invest in others out of my abundance or my poverty to everyone, without consideration for what kingdom this person is in (using your terms). Part of the reason for giving is to demonstrate the incarnational abundance of God’s kingdom and the free nature of its gifts, so those who are not yet a part of that kingdom can be compelled to switch kingdoms. However, for the things kingdom people need, generally those who wish to subvert the empire, they refuse to be supported or nourished by the “abundance of the empire” so to speak. This would include refusing medical insurance generated by the government, government program handouts and helps. I think the intent of this is to live out the belief that the empire’s gifts are not free nor are they gifts—they tempt us into allegiance.

On an interpersonal level, we would say someone is arrogant if he/she had a mode of operation whereby they only gave to others generously and received nothing offered in return. If I can help and support you but refuse anything you might want to “freely” give to me, I am non-verbally saying something about myself and what I have with respect to you and what you have. Nothing that you can give me will sustain me—however, what I give is what you need. I’m beginning to see Christ’s radical assertions behind this mode of engagement. But what do we say to the accusation of arrogance?

I hope that was clearer.

Abigail

Mark
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not personally accusing you of arrogance but I find this is the secular critique leveled at anyone who radically defines two kingdoms and defines strong limits to engagement in/with the other. I’m surprised if you haven’t run into it yet.
I pay taxes. I give of my resources to the poor. I give and invest in others out of my abundance or my poverty to everyone, without consideration for what kingdom this person is in (using your terms). Part of the reason for giving is to demonstrate the incarnational abundance of God’s kingdom and the free nature of its gifts, so those who are not yet a part of that kingdom can be compelled to switch kingdoms. However, for the things kingdom people need, generally those who wish to subvert the empire, they refuse to be supported or nourished by the “abundance of the empire” so to speak. This would include refusing medical insurance generated by the government, government program handouts and helps. I think the intent of this is to live out the belief that the empire’s gifts are not free nor are they gifts—they tempt us into allegiance.
On an interpersonal level, we would say someone is arrogant if he/she had a mode of operation whereby they only gave to others generously and received nothing offered in return. If I can help and support you but refuse anything you might want to “freely” give to me, I am non-verbally saying something about myself and what I have with respect to you and what you have. Nothing that you can give me will sustain me—however, what I give is what you need. I’m beginning to see Christ’s radical assertions behind this mode of engagement. But what do we say to the accusation of arrogance?
I hope that was clearer.
Abigail

It seems interesting if you categorize the implications of anarchy—at least the points you’ve got listed above. Basically, those modes of interacting with the state where kingdom people give of their own volition to those in the other kingdom—this is acceptable. Yet those things which the state gives to kingdom people—kingdom people reject. Generally, on an interpersonal level, this is simple arrogance.

It seems interesting if you categorize the implications of anarchy—at least the points you’ve got listed above. Basically, those modes of interacting with the state where kingdom people give of their own volition to those in the other kingdom—this is acceptable. Yet those things which the state gives to kingdom people—kingdom people reject. Generally, on an interpersonal level, this is simple arrogance.

It seems interesting if you categorize the implications of anarchy—at least the points you’ve got listed above. Basically, those modes of interacting with the state where kingdom people give of their own volition to those in the other kingdom—this is acceptable. Yet those things which the state gives to kingdom people—kingdom people reject. Generally, on an interpersonal level, this is simple arrogance.

I have some opinions about this. And I will use psychology to support the idealistic principles taught in Mennonite circles. Granted they are not always carried out idealistically.

If you look at the stages of a child's development
http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development...
you will see that from age 2-4 transductive reasoning is the main mode of operation. That means, the child will learn case by case. Only later, will the child be able to engage in inductive reasoning, where he/she makes over-arching rules for clusters of situations that are similar in certain situations.

So, what this means is that if a parent with a child between 2-4 wants to keep that child from running into the street--the parent can either reason with him--(example: explain to Johnny that cars drive in the street and he might get hit by one if he goes there) However, this is outside of Johnny's development stage. Because the car is not always in the street. This is also a stage where the child is driven by pleasure-pain response. Therefore the child can either be detered from running into the street through the pleasure-pain mechanism of getting hit by a car. Or his parents can provide for him an alternative (less fatal) pleasure-pain learning mechanism. And this would not involve beating the child in anger.

From what I have heard in my share of sermons at the Beachy church--if someone disciplines their child in anger--they are immediately and always out of line. It is better to not discipline than to do so in anger.

The turn to a focus on metanarratives in the scriptures have done a lot in changing the landscape of what is considered theological truth.

The turn to a focus on metanarratives in the scriptures have done a lot in changing the landscape of what is considered theological truth.

The turn to a focus on metanarratives in the scriptures have done a lot in changing the landscape of what is considered theological truth.

Concerning the first item. Hey, maybe oversharing could be a passive aggresive way of say, critiquing your boss. :)

Concerning the first item. Hey, maybe oversharing could be a passive aggresive way of say, critiquing your boss. :)

Concerning the first item. Hey, maybe oversharing could be a passive aggresive way of say, critiquing your boss. :)

In my manner of expression emergent "chooses" like trees whistle and cat?s smile. I would agree to a point with your descriptors that the movement is fluid, uncontained and undefined-yet. However, there is an element of mechanical and mathematical deduction about emergent. In the sense that one can put its parents chromosomes under a microscope and determine quite a lot. Where emergent goes is a bit more determined than what most would like to sign on to. I get so weary of people thinking they are so radical and different and innovative-when its nothing more than that our consciousness simply doesn?t identify with the historical cycle where it?s all happened before Or that this innovation is reactive to that which gave it birth. I?m not disagreeing I?m adding to what you describe emergent to be.

In my manner of expression emergent "chooses" like trees whistle and cat?s smile. I would agree to a point with your descriptors that the movement is fluid, uncontained and undefined-yet. However, there is an element of mechanical and mathematical deduction about emergent. In the sense that one can put its parents chromosomes under a microscope and determine quite a lot. Where emergent goes is a bit more determined than what most would like to sign on to. I get so weary of people thinking they are so radical and different and innovative-when its nothing more than that our consciousness simply doesn?t identify with the historical cycle where it?s all happened before Or that this innovation is reactive to that which gave it birth. I?m not disagreeing I?m adding to what you describe emergent to be.

In my manner of expression emergent "chooses" like trees whistle and cat?s smile. I would agree to a point with your descriptors that the movement is fluid, uncontained and undefined-yet. However, there is an element of mechanical and mathematical deduction about emergent. In the sense that one can put its parents chromosomes under a microscope and determine quite a lot. Where emergent goes is a bit more determined than what most would like to sign on to. I get so weary of people thinking they are so radical and different and innovative-when its nothing more than that our consciousness simply doesn?t identify with the historical cycle where it?s all happened before Or that this innovation is reactive to that which gave it birth. I?m not disagreeing I?m adding to what you describe emergent to be.

Mark
It's interesting how you site the non-hierachtical authority structure of the small church making the question of women in leadership obsolete. I've observed how things naturally tend that way too. It helps us get on with the real stuff.

Mark
It's interesting how you site the non-hierachtical authority structure of the small church making the question of women in leadership obsolete. I've observed how things naturally tend that way too. It helps us get on with the real stuff.