love and power are not scales 2

Revelation celebrates not the love of power, but the power of love.
Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, p 126

This quote is actually part of an excerpt in a recent previous post. I've taken it out here, though, because it's started to remind of some thing from roughly a year ago. A bit from Chalke and Mann's book "The Secret Message of Jesus".

Willard Waller, an American sociologist, spend his life studying people in order to gain an understanding in of the complex interplay that goes on in human relationships. Though he wrote many research papers, his life's work can be summed up in two simple statements:

1. In any relationship one person loves more than another

2. The person who loves the least in any relationship has (the) most power and conversely, the person who loves most has the least power.

These two statements make up his Law of Least Love...
Chalke and Mann, The Lost Message of Jesus, p. 182

I responded to this previous. You can see, I hope, how much McLaren's quote echoes that of Chalke and Mann--that there is some kind of balancing act between love and power, an inverse balancing act if you would, wherein the more one 'loves' the less 'power' one has, and the less one 'loves' the more 'power' one has in the relationship. McLaren applies that thinking to the Divine--if the Revelation portrait of Jesus as a warrior is literally and is what will really happen, then love has lost, and power has won; thus, we must discard this view of Jesus as conquering king, and keep before us the view of Jesus one a humble donkey. We must never accept the portrait of Jesus as a warrior, on a war horse, with a sword, coming to kill his enemies and create a veritable lake of blood where carrion birds will feast.

But like the simplifications philosophers create that simply will not work in real life, so this simplification simply will not work. There is no inverse relationship between love and power. A parent is not unloving when exercising power over his or her children. A husband is not unloving in exercising authority over his family. Such authority may be exercised in an unloving way, and no doubt some will be quick to point out the abuses, but the exercise of such authority is not itself unloving; in fact, it could be argued that the real unloving act would be to abandon one's responsibilities, to not exercise the authority inherent in one's position. and to not lead.

And the claim of such an inverse relationship between love and power completely falls apart when applied to God. Yes, no doubt some would point out how Jesus laid aside His glory and humbled Himself, even to the point of crucifixion, and yes, it is something to note. As Scripture notes, God shows His love for us through Christ having died for us, even when we were still sinners. Yet even it had something to do with power, as Hebrews 2:14 states, "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil--".

Moreover, here is what Revelation says about God and power:

Revelation 4:11
You are worthy, our Lord and God
to receive glory and honor and power,
for you created all things,
and by your will they were created
and have their being.

5:12-13
In a loud voice they sang:
"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain
to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!"
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them singing:
"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power
for ever and ever!"

19:1,2a
And this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting:
"Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power
belong to our God,
for true and just are his judgments."

An awful lot there about God having power for a book that is just suppose to be about the "power of love", don't you think?

where's the respect, man?

Despite thousands of years of individual, tribal, and international bloodshed, the last century managed to produce the most horrific wars ever seen. For instance, World War I was hailed as the war to end all wars. But within less than two decades, the "defeated" enemy had rallied and was on the offensive again, bigger and bitterer than ever, and humankind had to suffer World War I part II. And who at this early stage can tell how deep the impact and far-reaching consequences of the War on Terrorism will be for all humanity.
Chalke and Mann, the lost message of Jesus, p. 127

I sometimes wonder how such people as this must feel when they run into military veterans, especially since Chalke (and perhaps Mann) is himself British. Does he see the veteran as a hero to his nation, someone who helped keep his nation from falling to the Nazis? Or does he feel unclean when around them, and in his heart would rather have been raised speaking German and raising his right arm to whomever would now be his fuhrer over having to acknowledge one who violated his dearly held principle of pacifism?

This isn't some kind of silly question, but a real one. He enjoys great freedoms because he lives in a society where those freedoms were preserved by military people, people who fought and defended, people who killed in battle and were killed. Does he honor the people who gave those freedoms for him, or does he use those freedoms to spread sentiments against those who gave those freedoms to him?

Of course, this doesn't address the ways he tries to address the issue biblically, such as his attempts were. I think I will refer the reader to the C.S. Lewis essay "Why I am not a Pacifist" for a well-thought rebuttal to Chalke's and Mann's position.

All we know is that whenever aggression is met with aggression, the beast of violence is fed and grows stronger.

Do we know that? What proofs do we have of that?

Can we really say that if we let the aggressors have their own ways, the world would be a better place? Should the people of Britain and Russia have simply laid down their arms, and let Nazi Germany take them over? Should China and all of Southeast Asia have simply resigned themselves to Japanese rule? Should South Korea have not fought against Communism from the north? Should Israel have let the Muslims run them into the sea the day after their nation was formed?

As a not-a-pacifists, my answer to those questions would be a strong "No!!". For Chalke and Mann, I fear it would be the opposite.

not all is forgiven

And furthermore, when it comes to the God of the Bible there is only one kind of sin in the world--forgiven sin.
Chalke and Mann, the lost message of Jesus, p. 109

This quote comes in a context of the writer writing about the parable of the prodigal son. Is the statement true, though? Is it true there is only forgiven sin in the world?

Forgiveness rests basically, then, on the atoning work of Christ. That is to say, it is an act of sheer grace. 'He is faithful and ust, and will forgive our sins' (1 Jn 1:9). On man's side repentance is insisted upon again and again. John the Baptist preached 'a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins' (Mk 1:4), a theme which is taken up by Peter with reference to Christian baptism (Acts 2:38). Christ himself directed that 'repentence and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name' (Lk 24:47). Forgiveness is similarly linked with faith (Acts 10:43, Jas. 5:15). Faith and repentence are not to be thought of as merits whereby we deserve forgiveness. Rather they are the means whereby we appropriate the grace of God
New Bible Dictionary 2nd Edition, p. 391

Something should not be believe simply because it is nice-soundin; if anything, the "too good to be true" reaction is probably a good sign that what one is hearing is not true, not to mention that it may be a scam or fleece.

Chalke's quote above has no scriptural support to it, not even in the context of the prodigal son parable. And in fact, one can find scriptures where even Jesus those who are opposing Him that they will die in their sins (John 8:21-24, reference found in 'What the Bible Teachers' by RA Torrey, p. 358).

There may be a wish that all people should be forgiven, but the wish doesn't make it so. Forgiveness of sin seems closely linked in the Bible to repentence and faith, and is not an isolated thing forced on people ("Your sins are forgiven, I don't care how you feel about it, so deal with it.")

you want me to take WHAT literally???

Pages 122-134 in "the lost message of jesus' are pretty much Chalke's and Mann's diatribe for us to become good little pacifists--you know, like Gandhi. Trying to support that, they turn to Gandhi himself, or at least the movie version of him.

Another scene in the films recounts how a young Christian Minister, Rev. Charlie Andrew...

"Doesn't the New Testament say, 'If your enemy strikes you on the right cheek, offer him your left'?"

Andrews looks rather bemused by Gandhi's sudded desire to quote Bible verses. "I think perhaps the phrase was used metaphorically."

"I am not so sure." Gandhi counters. "I have thought about it a great deal, and I suspect Jesus meant that you must show courage. Be willing to take a blow, several blows, to show you will not strike back nor will you be turned aside. And when you do that, it calls on something in human nature, something that makes his hatred for you decrease and his respect increase. I think Jesus grasped that, and I have seen it work."

The verse the movie Gandhi is talking about is Matthew 5: 39, and it goes like this...

But I say to you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite the on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Ok, so, how are we to take this?

Well, it is in the context of what is called the Sermon on the Mount. Earlier in the same chapter, the Sermon begins with Jesus' list of those who are Blessed. A bit after that, there is his list of "You have heard it said..., but I say" statements, and 39 is in one of those.

So, what are some of those things that Jesus said in the "...but I say..." statements?

Be careful about being angry without a cause, or insulting someone.

If you have lust problems, put your eye out.

If your right hand keeps getting you in trouble (considering the context, it probably means you can't keep it off other women), chop it off.

A man who divorces his wife without just cause makes her an adultress, and the man who marries her is an adulterer.

Don't make vows.

It's an interesting list. Let's look at it.

Ok, so, how 'literally' do we take any and all of these?

For example, how literally are we men to take the commands to dismember ourselves if we can't keep our eyes and hands off of women, at least in a lustful way? Usually, not very literally.

What about the one about vows? Would promises fit in there? I'm not sure, though I wouldn't doubt it. Still, we do recognize some vows. Marriage vows, for example, or those in courts. Some churches have various kinds of things they want people to commit to, or events like fasts or prayer sessions of whatever kinds that they want commitments to.

What about anger? That's usually seen more literally, though not completely. We do tend to think a spade should be called what it is.

And the divorce question is one that is very much pertinent today. I'm unsure what the general view is on that.

So, with all of this, what are we to make of the command to "turn the other cheek"? Is it metaphorical? Is it an impossible ideal? Is it to be taken literally in all situation? Is it like the commands to lop off hands and poke out eyes?

Let me give another example, from a few verse later, in 42. "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away".

How literally are we to take this command? For example, if you are watching TV and see a well-heeled faith-healer on there talking about how his 'ministry' is going to go under if you don't plant a seed of $10,000 right now and God will surely make you a millionaire and keep you from the flu this next winter if you do so, does this verse mean that you are to send $10,000 to this charlatan because you had the misfortune of watching TV when he was on asking you for it? Or if your ne'er-do-well Cousin Bruno asks you for a few thousand bucks to help fund him in his next sure-to-fail get-rich-quick scheme, are you obligated to help him?

I think most of us would say "No" to both of those scenarios, and can easily recognize others. I think we know that we are to use our knowledge and wisdom in determining how best to help others.

So, too, do I think the same in regards to "Turn the other cheek". Perhaps the movie Gandhi was not far off when he said it was about courage, but I don't think it was about pacifism.

Rather, it is about wisdom.

In the whole of the NT, there are three instances when interactions with soldiers are mentioned--when some came to John the Baptist for advice, when a Centurion came to Jesus to ask for his servant to be healed, and when Peter was sent to Cornelius' house as the beginning of taking the Gospel to the Gentiles.

In none of these are soldiers told to stop being soldiers. They are not told to leave the army. Nor are they told to stay in the army but not fight.

The "Turn the other cheek" text is an interesting one to try to understand, and I'm certainly open to being corrected on it. But if you're going to say that should be taken absolutely literally, I'm going to want you to send photos of yourself with your eyes gouged out and your right hand chopped off, and I'm going to ask you for all the money you got, so you'd best be ready to pony up.

the incompetent god

I couldn't help but think that is how Chalke and Mann view God, especially in the Old Testament, when I read this.

Hence, Yahweh's association with vengeance and violence wasn't so much an expression of who he was but the result of his determination to be involved with his world. His unwillingness to distance himself from the people of Israel and their actions meant that at times he was implicated in the excessive acts of war that we see in some of the books of the Old Testament. From the very beginning, Yahweh's dealing with Israel were motivated by his desire to demonstrate his love. But to a people saturated in a worldview that saw him as power, this was always going to be a slow uphill struggle

God's relationship with Israel took place in the messy and often brutal reality of their day-to-day lives, longings and ambitions. And in the ancient Near East, where war and unrestrained violence were commonplace, having a god of power on your side helped justify cruel acts of revenge towards those who wronged you. That is why, if we focus in on individual Old Testament verses and stories, it is easy to fall into the trap of seeing God as a vengeful despot...

Chalk and Mann, the lost message of jesus, p. 49

Because, really, what else are we to make of these statements? That God, who wanted His people to be nice little pacifists, had to continually come to their aid when they went a-warring? The God really didn't want them to conquer there enemies and defend there lands? And He really didn't want to have Joshua go on some kind of genocidal conquest, and had little if anything to do really with the whole Jericho incident? That He was really hoping David and Goliath could sit down for a latte and talk about...whatever preppies talked about way back when?

Poor God, He just never could get those darned people to get the idea. When He told them to go off to war, He was really telling them to stay home and write poetry?

And I'm pretty sure Chalke is calling into question the divine inspiration of parts of the Old Testament (mostly those that he disapproves of, one may conclude). He seems to be saying that the OT writers are putting words in God's mouth (and in His book) concerning those times when they went to war against people who had done them wrong.

Yeah, poor god indeed. Too weak to protect them so they could become the non-violent pacifists he wanted them to be. Too clumsy with words to make them understand that when they thought he was telling them to go to war, he was telling to not do so. So pathetic that he couldn't even keep their propoganda from getting into his word.

Such a god ain't hardly fit to trust, or worship, or even respect.

come on, at least do a bit of research

The Bible never defines God as anger, power or judgement--in fact it never defines him as anything other than love.
Chalke and Mann, the lost message of jesus, p. 63

It really didn't take much thought to see that there is something bad wrong with that statement.

Verses from BibleResources.com

Isaiah 6:3
And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

Isaiah 43:3
For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.

Isaiah 43:14
Thus saith the LORD, your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; For your sake I have sent to Babylon, and have brought down all their nobles, and the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships.

Isaiah 43:15
I am the LORD, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.

Revelation 3:7
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

Revelation 4:8
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

Revelation 6:10
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Isaiah 63:3
I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.

Isaiah 63:6
And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth

Revelation 6:16
And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

Revelation 6:17
For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Revelation 11:18
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

John 9:39
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

John 12:31
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

Romans 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Romans 2:5
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Hebrews 10:27
But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries

2 Peter 3:7
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

And this is only a small sampling of the verses I found in word searches for "holy", "anger", "wrath", and "judgment".

Chalke seems to want to take the one statement from I John, "God is love", and make it the focal point of the whole Bible. Considering all of the other things the Bible says about Him, particularly the thrice-repetitions "Holy, holy, holy", we must needs take care of taking that one statement, true as it is, and setting it up as being the thing by which God defines Himself. A far stronger case could be made for God's holiness being the thing by which God most strongly defines Himself.

But that may be scary to some people (no surprise). Some would rather have a "grandpa in the sky" who makes rules than winks when you break them, than a God who says what He means and means what He says.

And this is one thing we must avoid. It is quite proper to speak of God's love, but not at the expense of all else the Bible says about Him, and it certainly raises questions when one phrase in one book is taken from its context and made the lens through which one sees the rest of the Bible.