Daywatch - Intercession for the New Day :: DAYWATCH JUNE 28TH 2009

Main Page

Photos

Blog admin

This Month

Month Archive

August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

Year Archive

2010
2009
2008

Main Page » Blog admin

Previous:	DAYWATCH THURSDAY MAY 28TH 2009
Next:	DAYWATCH JULY 28TH 2009

DAYWATCH JUNE 28TH 2009

by Roger Haydon Mitchell on Tue 30 Jun 2009 10:42 AM BST | Permanent Link | Cosmos

i) A reminder

Let me begin by a reminder of what we as a team of folk involved in preparing and participating in the Daywatch heard from the Lord last September when we made the transition from the weekly Nightwatch for Europe. The transition was not from a weekly to a monthly watch but from a weekly watch to a total immersion into intercession in and for the world. We shifted from standing in the gap by prayer to filling the gap as the church is re-positioned. For many of us this has been quite literal. We have rediscovered our daily work as the work of the kingdom of God, or have moved in part or in full from our ‘ministries’ as intercessors, evangelists, pastors, teachers, prophets and apostles into serving the world from within its practical need for ministry in caring professions, care for the environment, politics, business, education, agriculture the arts and so on. This monthly Daywatch material is an attempt to provide material for intercessory mindset change in our task of the ministry of the kingdom in the world. What is offered here is for prayer, reflection and practical response.

We encourage further revelation and discussion through the Daywatch blog www.daywatch.eu Please try hard to blog if you can because we want to get an online community up and running, but if not you can of course email us on admin@passion.org.uk If you email but don’t want the content of your mail to be posted on the blog please say so, otherwise we will post it there if we think it will be helpful. I have decided to give in to the desire of some to treat the blog like its just mine! There actually is a team and not just me, but obviously most of the input so far is mine. So please feel free to engage personally with me on the blog, and the rest of the team and participants can join in as and when they want and we’ll see where that takes us!

ii) Following on from last month

In May I shared some of the findings of the research that I believe God has led me in. I outlined the way in which the church has been infiltrated by empire in the course of history and has itself promoted it and still continues to do so. I outlined the way that the nation state and today’s globalised empire of war, money and media have been the outcome of the church’s ongoing partnership with empire. I stated that two things followed from this; firstly, the church is largely responsible for the mixture of blessing and oppressing that has marked the centuries of European history and become its heritage throughout the world. Secondly, the nation state and the global empire that is following on its heels today is the offspring of the church even although the world, the flesh and the devil are all over it. I emphasised that this is why we cannot give up on the nation state or the globalised empire but must embrace its territory and take responsibility for its peace.

I am not of course suggesting that we in any way affirm the empire system that the world is based on. The point is that the church as we have grown used to it is in many ways the world too. The time has come to recognise and subvert domination wherever we find it as Jesus shows us how. This month I will continue from this point by describing a way I have been developing to interact with Jesus in the world.

iii) Thinking empire

One of the results of the church’s infiltration is that the very way we think and form doctrine is contaminated by an empire approach. We have developed systems of interpretation and doctrinal formulations which we have used to dominate people rather than encouraging freedom of thought and development in relationship with the Lord together by the Spirit. As a result today’s world is understandably resistant to systematic and dogmatic statements and those who wish to communicate effectively with the postmodern world have to find another more accessible way of doing it. With this in view I have been working on a helpful hermeneutical approach (if the word hermeneutic is new to you, it simply means a tool for interpretation). This approach is known as an economy of response and I have integrated aspects of it with my own Gospel primacy hermeneutic that I have talked about before. The economy of response is basically an intensely personal way of interfacing with the Jesus of scripture, and then with the rest of culture, without importing received systems and formulae. It encourages the reader to be willing for an experimental relational yielding of themselves to Christ, first as they encounter him in the gospel text, and then as they lay down their lives together with him into all the cultural contexts life provides. It particularly emphasises the incarnation of Christ, of God become flesh, by highlighting the physical presence of Christ in the gospel text. It does this by deliberately connecting with the more sensual aspects of Jesus’ behaviour such as look and touch as well as the more familiar spoken words and takes careful note of the impact he is having on those present, including myself as the reader. The purpose is to help develop a radical Christology in which our understanding of the incarnation and the atonement are properly integrated into our life in creation and our way of being church.

iv) a temptation narrative

Jesus’ encounter with the devil at the beginning of his ministry gives very clear insight into the nature of the empire systems of this world. The following is a part of a study of the temptations by means of the hermeneutic I have been describing that I have adapted from a recently completed chapter of my PhD thesis. Please interact with it and see whether you agree with my interpretation and find what else you get from it.

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to him, ‘All these things I will give you, if you fall down and worship me.’ Then Jesus said to him, ‘Go, Satan! For it is written: 'you shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ Then the devil left him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to him. (Mtt 4:1-11)

I am drawn towards the relationship between Jesus, the devil and the mountain. Jesus is submitting to the devil’s initiative and accompanies him up to a very high place. The immediate question posed is “Will I go with the devil to the mountain?” The response of the disciple will be yes, because Jesus is going with him there. Even for a more tentative reader the practical and theological implications are clearly serious. It would appear that at certain times, human beings in all their potentiality are invited to be positioned with Christ and the devil at the heart of the possibilities of power, which is today represented by the daily social, economic and moral decisions I face over the progress of the nation state and the globalised empire of the western world. It is here that the devil deliberately confronts Jesus with the sight of all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. The words used in the Greek text are basileia and doxa, basic words for monarchy and glory. Jesus is then, being invited to appraise the universal scope and reputation of empire and I am invited with him to do the same. The devil suggests that all the kingdoms of this world belong to him and that they will be conferred on the one who accepts Satan’s invitation to bow down and worship. Two moves appear to be proposed here. Jesus is being asked to accept that the worship of the devil confers authority and then to accept the transferral of the world’s empires and their glory to himself by this means. As I reach out to consider this proposal I am confronted by the clear implication that to accept the transcendent other (in this case the devil) as a sovereign exerting hierarchical power is to worship Satan. Jesus refuses the devil’s invitation with a strong dismissal accompanied by the explicitly proclaimed embrace of an alternative transcendence associated with service of the other: “you shall worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.” That a mutuality of service is in view is borne out by the final statement “angels came and began to minister to him.” By this means, I am confronted with the challenge of to whom I will make a relational surrender. I am invited to conclude with Jesus that to associate the glory of the kingdoms of this world with transcendence is to agree with the devil. So to suggest that the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ operates as a sovereign hierarchical authority over the world is to suggest that he is the same as the devil. So I am challenged that to follow Christ in his refusal to accept this necessitates the embrace of God as a radically different kind of transcendent power.

More next time!

Blessings,

Roger and team

Posted to:

Blog admin

Comments

Post a comment

Re: DAYWATCH JUNE 28TH 2009

by Roger Haydon Mitchell on Tue 30 Jun 2009 12:15 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Hi Roger,
Regarding paragraph iv) a temptation narrative, I was recently looking at comments on Tolkien's real message through the Lord of the Rings, and transcribed the following:

Lord of the rings – the main message of the book.

The nature of evil in the 20th century is curiously impersonal. It is as if nobody particularly wants to do it. In the end you get the major atrocities being carried out by bureaucrats, they don’t know what’s good and evil any more, they have gone through the ‘wraithing process’ it has become a job or a routine. You start out with good intentions but somehow it’s all gone wrong. So it’s a curiously distinctive image of evil and I should also say it’s a very unwelcome one because what it says is 'it could be you'. And under the right circumstances, or rather the wrong circumstances, it will be you. This is trying to confront something that most people would rather not confront.

We can never be quite sure about the ring. Right at the start Gandalf asks Frodo to hand him the ring, and when Frodo passes it over it feels very heavy, as if either Frodo or the ring itself is reluctant to pass it over. If it is Frodo we are in a kind of Freudian universe in which Frodo does not want to hand the ring over, so subconsciously his own wishes make the ring feel heavy. In that case the source of evil is internal. On the other hand it could be the ring that’s gone heavy. If that’s the case, then the ring is actually an external power and can actually deceive you even when you don’t mean it to. If it’s just from outside you and everybody can be trusted, good people can be trusted, then there’s no real problem, is there? Anybody could take the ring - but that’s not the case. We are told that again and again. Nobody can be trusted because there’s something in everybody’s heart which is the start of the ‘wraithing process’. So the ring works both ways: in some ways it’s an external power, which is frightening and aggressive and which you’ve got to resist. In some ways it’s a sort of psychic amplifier which brings out what your own problems and weaknesses are. It’s clear that the ring is, in its way, addictive. It has got all the complexities of that state. Nobody can trust themselves. As to what people are being addicted to, it seems to me that’s really very clear: it is power. People start off with good intentions, they want the power in order to carry out the good intentions, but once they’ve got the power they won’t give it up, and the good intentions turn increasingly to bad intentions.

So Tolkien is saying that people think they can use power for good, but actually human nature is always corrupted by power of any kind - and I would say Jesus had to make the decision to refuse power, just as Paul embraced weakness in order to allow God's power to work through him, and there is always 'opportunity' knocking at our doors, as God's people - opportunity to be more important, or for church promotion. I think we must resist this daily, as Paul knew the secret of 'dying daily' to his human nature, which has a propensity to side with the devil.

God has been bringing so much clarity on this in the last 3 to 4 years in different examples, I am convinced He is gradually demolishing the empire and religion strongholds in the hearts of Christians who seek His ways.
Blessings,
Jan Lock

Re: DAYWATCH JUNE 28TH 2009

by Bob Bennison on Tue 30 Jun 2009 07:41 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Just a quick thought,
...seeing as the devil always distorts the truth in some slight way to make it almost the same as God's truth, but a bit better, "surely you will not die, but become like God".
I firmly believe that there is clearly and strongly demonstrated 'a sovereign hierarchical authority over the world' through Gods' love of the world, but it is erroneous to suggest that he is the same as the devil, no,no, no, the devil is trying to copy the way Father does things, but because he has no love, he can only offer a distorted image of rule and authority, hence, a distorted rule and dominion and a forced submission.
is that not the case? Bob Bennison

Sovereign hierarchical authority?

by Stephen on Wed 01 Jul 2009 10:21 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Hi Bob,

Nice to 'meet' you here in our formative online community. I think, if I read you right, you are suggesting that God has sovereign power over the world but that he does his dominion through loving people into his submission rather than the devil who doesn't love while exercising dominion.

I think what Roger is suggesting is that that perspective might be coloured by the invasion of our worldview by the empire idea. Are we so sure that God has a sovereignty that is based in hierarchy ('...for I am among you as one who serves')? Or is there any element of that idea that might have its origins in the empire system?

Personally I find a lot of resonance with the conclusion of Roger's analysis and wonder whether our real question here might not be "what kind of power does God have/use if it is not a sovereign hierarchical authority over the world as demonstrated by the devil and the world's empires?"

Look forward to your thoughts!

Stephen

Re: Sovereign hierarchical authority?

by Roger Haydon Mitchell on Thu 02 Jul 2009 10:48 AM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Thanks Bob for the point (I love your no, no, no to the devil) and thanks Stephen for the clarification.
I am suggesting that while God COULD exercise sovereignty based on hierarchy, he chooses to empty out his hierarchical rule or 'oversight'. This seems clear from the revelation of the life of Jesus ("Have I been with you so long and you have not come to know me Philip? If you have seen me you have seen the Father." Jn 14:9) In the previous chapter, in direct contrast to the devil's power Jesus demonstrates the Father's rule as life laid down love as he washes the disciples feet (Jn 13: 1-5). Now the Holy Spirit is coming as the comforter, encourager, friend alongside so that we can have the gift to do the same (Jn 14:16-17). In the Spirit we are called to live out the rule/kingdom of God. If God's rule is hierarchical sovereignty over people, the the way of the kingdom is hierarchical sovereignty over people, which is what Christendom has been all about. But if God's rule is life laid down loving among us, then the way of the kingdom is this self-emptying love in our daily life in the world and it is this that is the nature and basis of God's power and what being church is all about. This is underlined by Philippians 2:5-11, probably an early hymn, where the highest place in the universe is equated with the place where Jesus totally emptied himself as he poured out his life in love for us on the cross.
Looking forward to more insights on all this, Rog

Re: DAYWATCH JUNE 28TH 2009

by Chris on Sun 05 Jul 2009 04:09 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Regarding 'the reminder'

Hi Rog & all, I can hear the element of frustation that it must feel like you are a bit too much the focus of this blog at present. You articulate well the context where many of us find ourselves still in the process of a huge transition from 'ministry' to 'work' (crude shorthand by me!) In this context, those whom God has called aside to continue to minister in and validate this new landscape with theological and prophetic reflection are so vital to the spiritual health of the whole process. For those of us who feel at such a stretch just to keep in touch with the practicalities of living in this context, such inputs are a life line.

Personally, I feel glad to be part of this real and virtual community although with little capacity at this point to contribute much original thought.

Keep the faith, everyone!

Re: DAYWATCH JUNE 28TH 2009

by Cheryl on Sun 05 Jul 2009 09:50 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Roger:

I confess I am struggling a bit with what you put out. Are you equating hierarchy in human social relations with empire? It comes across as that. And due to the fact that I read evolutionary biology and psychology as well as history I find myself confused in that equation. Hierarchy is normal in human group relations of cooperation. Generally for a group to make decisions regarding the whole, someone assumes leadership. It may be temporary. It may be of little change in status except for the fact that the others become followers (at least at that moment) but it is a hierarchy, a recognized one, if only for a time (think chairman of a board vs. a CEO). Hierarchy can become institutionalized and perhaps that is what you are referring to.

When I look at Jesus I do not see someone who acts outside of hierarchy. He is still the leader. He still calls us to obedience (ie. as followers/disciples). However, what I do see is someone who upends the markers of status and hierarchy. Like so much of what he did during his ministry, he redefines the behavioural markers that tell us who is the leader and who is the follower in any one situation. Through his actions we are alerted that true, Kingdom leadership is acted out by serving others, a reversal of the usual markers of status and hierarchy. The first become last and the last become first in the Kingdom of God.

So I think I need a bit more clarity on this in terms of your own thinking. How do you perceive human social relations working in your model? What happens when decisions, real decisions have to be made (consensus, beloved of feminists for many years has been found to be quite ineffective)? What happens on a job where there are inexperienced people working alongside those with experience, especially if the job is dangerous? What does it look like to teach, to mentor others along? Love and service sound great but what does that look like in the Kingdom you are finding theologically?

I concur wholeheartedly with you that the church, institutional church, and many of us individually have been infected with the spirit of empire. There is no doubt of that. But I am not sure what you advocate instead.
Cheryl

Hierarchy

by Stephen on Sun 05 Jul 2009 11:35 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Hierarchy is definitely normal in the human experience but is it 'normative' in the gospel?

Philosophically I see God as one who empties himself out as opposed to the alternative of building oneself up. At the macro level, Jesus challenges the dominant empire and the self-interested local powers. At the micro level he is saying, 'let no-one call you leader' and 'the kings of the gentiles lord it over them... but not so among you, for I am among you as one who serves'. He seems always to be preferring the poor and the marginalised over the others and he does not let them make him king. And yet, in so doing, he is also leading us spectacularly so that we want to take up our crosses and follow him! If the greatest is least and the least is greatest, the last first and the first last, don't we therefore have to apply a fundamental critique to the notion of what we call hierarchy?

But then hierarchies are (anthropological) realities and some of them are quite beneficial (families begin in a kind of hierarchy until the children mature, for example). Actually I think that temporary hierarchies which are subject to change (like goose formations) are probably fine in lots of circumstances. Most of our work in this world provides examples of hierarchies that are at least efficient if not wholesome... and this is a not-yet-new-creation world! But this is not really our beef here, surely. As I understand it we're talking specifically about sovereign hierarchical authority. I.e. there is a difference between the recognition of contingent leadership in human relationships and the self-assumption of power over others when there are real opportunities to lay our lives down and prefer the others.

Perhaps the best window on how we should relate to hierarchy is the path to the cross. There is no sovereign hierarchical authority there. Yes, the powers do their thing but Jesus gives himself away. In so doing he summarily robs them of their power without using any of his own and presses through sin and death to be resurrected. Now that's what I want to follow, particularly when I engage in everyday life with hierarchies that are about shoring up social/political/financial authority over others.

Re: Hierarchy

by Cheryl on Mon 06 Jul 2009 01:35 AM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

I wonder if the words we use is one of the problems in thinking this through. I can't offer any alternatives at the moment - too close to bedtime and my brain has turned off. However, I do note that Paul's model of ministry and church involves folks with leadership calls and that we relate to one another, at least sometimes, through the gifts we each give into the community. Obviously, in groups of people, there are some with authority (at least temporary), some who lack certain authority, some who make particular decisions and some who don't. Even small human groups do that in order to operate more efficiently. I recall a conversation back in my younger days about leadership in the church and a host of books were written endorsing servant leadership especially for pastors (I was training to be a pastor at the time) so it isn't a new concept. Perhaps part of being given power and being in the Lord is that we do not try to hang onto power. We have it if God gives it and we are quick to walk away from it, give it up, when the time is right. It seems to me that is the very rare thing in human affairs and in the church. Just musing as we try to sort a bit of this out. I'm pretty practical so it all has to come down to earth for me.

Re: Re: Hierarchy

by Stephen on Mon 06 Jul 2009 09:40 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Definitely. I wrestle with that Einstein quote that 'if you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well enough'. And we're looking for what we don't yet fully understand so it means language is still in the process of becoming our friend! Thank God for a kingdom that comes through embracing mystery.

And I also share your practical questions. Where the rubber hits the road is the question of how then shall we live? While I love what 'servant leadership' is reaching for, it doesn't quite cut it for me on one level because it still often presupposes two classes: the servants and the servant leaders! Perhaps being a servant of God and to our neighbours in the context of the world's systems IS to be a leader? I really resonate with what you're saying about being in the Lord meaning that we should always be trying to empty ourselves of all power, choosing not to use it but rather serve instead and 'empower' others.

So it's interesting that Rog points us to the temptations of Jesus and to how we respond when we are made a 'political' power offer. We have these offers everyday in our relations with people: to use power in relationships to shore up our own position, to shore up someone else's because we want something back in return, to choose to support someone or not to reach out because of concern for our reputation, self-wellbeing etc. There are probably many more subtle choices... life is full of power play so, if we're right, this has lots of implications.

Enjoying the musing...

Re: Hierarchy

by dleigh on Thu 09 Jul 2009 04:11 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

This is a bit of a reply to this whole thread but I wanted to connect with a specific point that Stephen raised. That of the family "hierarchy". I confess that in most things I try and find a "unifying theory" so that I can feel that I have fully understood something. Not always possible of course...but I still try.

So, in that vein, I wonder whether there might be some understanding of hierarchy and servant leadership in God's design of the family (yes, I realize that that's somewhat of an arguable perspective right there). At any rate, if one takes the principle that God lays out foundations upon which we're to build in the "first things", then we could perhaps look at the nuclear family for hints to understanding authority, servant-leadership, mutual submission, etc. Some observations might be:

* leadership is a shared responsability
* leadership (who's in charge) depends on the context (role-based leading)
* leadership is life-giving
* leadership is really discipleship
* leadership has seasons
* leadership seeks and desires growth and empowering those who are being led
* leadership is sacrificial
* based on the context, ultimate responsibility rests with someone

I'm not trying to hi-jack a discussion on empire and hierarchy with a discussion on leadership, discipleship and families. BUT, it strikes me that going back to what was established in Creation and the fundamental building blocks in society (which I believe to be God-ordained), we subvert empire and oppressive hierarchy somewhat automatically by leading and discipling the way that God intended. I also see that Jesus led this way (my interpretation anyway).

I think we DO need to tackle our issues from both sides...that is to say, building "correctly" for the future and dismantling what is not right. We might better understand what needs to be dismantled, though, by looking occasionally back at the original models given.

Re: Re: Hierarchy

by Cheryl on Fri 10 Jul 2009 08:26 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Good comment and part of the whole of which we are obviously, many of us, trying to think through. I'll throw in another viewpoint. I just began reading Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies". It is a challenge on some the issue of hierarchy/empire and the church. According to Tainter the norm for human society over the long haul has not been much hierarchy. It has been more like you have described it - leadership, generally for the moment, based on context, etc. And it was leadership that was replaced if it failed to provide what was promised. So hunter-gatherer societies mostly fall into that category. Then agriculture is invented and cities start to rise about 5000 years ago. Then we begin to see differentiation between people in terms of class and occupation along with more and more hierarchy. As societies become more complex they also become more hierarchical. Those of us who have always lived within complex societies see them as the norm in terms of human history but they are actually quite unusual. In Tainter's definition, an empire is a complex society. So if we are trying to remove the empire spirit from the church that argues for a more simple structure, more family-like, probably smaller in numbers (mega-churches would require hierarchy). Now we have seen that approach particularly in the home church movement (or at least an attempt at it). However, the church frequently tends to mirror its society and we live in complex, hierarchical societies. I'm not sure where that really leaves us at this point but I was struck by Tainter's analysis of it all. I've just begun the book so who knows what I'll find when further along.

Obviously this is an important discussion for us as it affects the real day to day outworking of our beliefs.
C.

Re: Re: Re: Hierarchy

by Cheryl on Sat 11 Jul 2009 10:07 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Well, here is a bit more to ponder. The last couple of nights on Rachel Maddow (an American TV news commentator) she has interviewed a fellow who wrote a book called "The Family". It chronicles the religious peusdo Christian cult (I have no other way to describe it), that keeps a house in Washington DC (for tax purposes known as a church) that houses several Congressmen. The focus on this group is on gaining access to those in power across the world, lending and giving money under the table where needed because to quote the author of the book "they fetishise strength". In other words he is describing a group that has taken Christian theology and joined it with a view of empire to the extreme of supporting, over the years, several rather nasty dictators. The leaders frequently reference Hitler as a model of leadership. Very creepy and definitely the anti-model of what most of us seem to be searching for. Here is the link to the lastest clip with the bit of the sermon, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31857408 If you can't get to it Just go to MSNBC and find Rachel Maddow and then the programs for the past couple of days.
Cheryl

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hierarchy

by Stephen on Wed 15 Jul 2009 10:12 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

The last few posts have sparked more thoughts for me and hopefully I'll find the time in the next few days to distill them into a post. But, for now, this is just to say how remarkably bizarre this "The Family" malarkey is. But it's not a million miles from more 'moderate' christian positions which advocate that christians should be building influential coalitions with the powerful in order, say, to achieve bans on abortions or gay marriage. Just being (mildly) provocative!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hierarchy

by Cheryl on Thu 16 Jul 2009 02:32 PM BST | Profile | Permanent Link

Well it is a question, isn't it. Where and when do we cross the line from legitimate following of Christ into something else? One thing I've noticed about most things that cross the line is the emphasis on power, gaining it, controlling something or someone - ie. the debate around an issue, or certain sectors of society etc. Wouldn't that be a manifestation of that 'empire spirit'? I note that Jesus backed away from such power, backed away so fast and so far, he ended up on the cross - the position of extreme powerlessness. A lot of what is done in almost mainstream Christianity today seems weird or even threatening to others so when is it of God and when is it something else, and how do we know? C.