from greg perry's lecture on ephesians:
much of Christianity is lived today "on pause". we're saved and then we simply wait for the end. but we have received the spoils of Christ's victory and it is our responsibility to share it. we must show the Lordship of Christ to all the prinicpalities and authorities of this dark world. we must show Christ's Lordship in all things. how do we embrace the imminence of God at school, in the shop and on the highways?
6 comments:
Nice thought for discussion, Matt. Here's an interview from Frontline's "The Persuaders" that speaks to the lordship, loyalty and the everyday question and is indirectly telling.
This is Frontline interviewing Douglas Atkin, a partner and chief strategy officer at advertising agency Merkley + Partners who has worked for some of the world's most successful brands, from Procter & Gamble to jetBlue.
Q: You've said that customers become believers.
A: Yeah. Not only do I make that analogy, but consumers make that analogy. An Apple user told me with a complete straight face that PC users needed to be saved. Another person said that PC users are damaged by using PCs, and they had to be brought into the fold of Apple. The homecoming at Saturn is like a tent-revivalist meeting for some fundamentalist sect more than a meeting of consumers. Consumers are using the language and expressing the kinds of attitudes and feelings of cult belonging.
One thing we do is conflict analysis groups, and what we mean by that is that sometimes how consumers feel about a brand is buried very, very deep. One of the worst questions you can ask in research is "How do you feel about a brand?," because they all simply say, "Yeah, it's good; I like it; it's a good price," and move on. What we do is work off the attitude that people will articulate how they really feel if they have to defend what they really feel. So we put two groups of people in separate rooms, in the same research facility, and they tend to be loyalists of their brands. And we tell them that they have to write a manifesto for themselves, for their group and for their brand. And of course it's the same thing, because the community and the brand often end up standing for the exact same things. And then after an hour and a half they have to spend the next hour and a half presenting it to the other group in the other room and defending it. Now, the passions can get so intense that in one group that we did for soft drinks, one character mooned the other group because he thought they were idiots and were offending his moral standards. So we create these manifesto conflict groups to unearth deep, buried attitudes to brands and feelings by putting people into a defensive situation.
Q: Do you have personal relationships with any brands?
A: Oh, yes. I'm a self-confessed Apple loyalist. I go to a cafe around the corner to do some thinking and writing, away from the hurly-burly of the office, and everyone in that cafe has a Mac. We never mention the fact that we all have Macs. The other people in the cafe are writers and professors and in the media, and the feeling of cohesion and community in that cafe becomes very apparent if someone comes in with a PC. There's almost an observable shiver of consternation in the cafe, and it must be discernable to the person with the PC, because they never come back.
Q: But you realize what's going on with your loyalty to Mac; you're conscious of the cult branding.
A: Yes. I'm one of those people who helps construct cult brands, but I'm a willing victim, if you like, of cult branding.
Q: Does that consciousness make you different than other members?
A: No, no. A lot of people we spoke to who are cult members knew exactly what was going on. There was one great guy I spoke to who was a Snapple addict who said, "We're bamboozled by the man, and we know it, and that's okay." In fact, they actually enjoy sophisticated marketing. It's a cognitive dissonance. They see that they're being manipulated, and because they know that they're being manipulated, they almost feel respected that something so intelligent and so artfully crafted is being done for their sake.
Q: That's art, not religion.
It's religion if you're creating the same response that religion creates. And religion tends to create addiction and commitment because it offers a meaning system, and it creates a sense of belonging. And more and more brands are doing that.
What spoils, then, should we be enjoying? What does the adjective "spoiled" point to. Is it "OK" to be a "spoiled" Christian, and so forth.
We should be enjoying the spoils of freedom in Christ and the responsibilities that are demanded of us as a result. Christ has conquered sin/death. As a result, I have new life… Since I have this new life right NOW, I can start living like I’m a part of the kingdom, right NOW (because I am). So we enjoy the spoils of living as a new person. Its this new way to be human that we must show forth to the world (on both a spiritual and physical front). If this means enjoying my Mac to the glory of God, I can do that. The tricky part is where my own selfish ideas of new life get mixed in and I confuse the gifts with the giver. That’s when I start living as if the spoils are the important thing rather than the display of God’s power to all people and spirits.
When are you coming back to the Tri-State Area?
To challenge you a little bit, here... Try explaining "to glorify God" without using the word "enjoy". Alister Crowley used the same phrase to justify his lifestyle. To glorify does not mean that we can do anything in a glorifying way because some things are definitively glorifying and some things are definitively not.
For instance, we can't glorify ourselves and God at the same time. We glorify Christ even as we are in Him, at the right hand of God. If the glorious one lifts us up, we are truly saved. We are lifted into favor, not heirarchically, but before the face of the Almighty for Whom there is no competition or challenger.
We glory in Christ alone and then recieve his benefits accordingly. I understand that it is the natural result, but it is therefore a necessary consequence of "glorify" and not a synonymy.
"Spoils" means to rob goods by force. More specifically, it was to strip the armour and weapons from a slain enemy. What goods did Christ rob that were not already his? The plundering and pillaging of the OT was the wrath of God on sinful societies. The people of God were not to come into a culture and take over where they left off - adopt the ways, customs, habits, idolatrous living. The city was to be recentered. They were to reclaim the land and repurpose its resource, putting the "spoil" back into the Temple, the God with us.
Further, did Christ steal something back? Are we commissioned to take back what is rightfully ours? If so, what is rightfully ours? The possessions and inventions of men? How can something fashioned after the priorities and interests of men, without regard for God, be neutral in their purpose? If they are not neutral, how are we to understand Romans 1:29-34 and passages like this: Ezekiel 44:28 - "This shall be their inheritance: I am their inheritance: and you shall give them no possession in Israel; I am their possession." Are we to claim the idolatries as spoils or claim that they were spoils and idolatrous?
Wasn't the first sin to use what was given in a way other than that which was purposed? Or rather, use what was not given and repurpose it? The simple question is, do we then move into Babel? Or do we destroy all those things erected against the knowledge of God or invented as a means against his end? 2 Corinthians 10:4-6.
I understand victory talk, but it is not the gifts and the Giver that get confused, typically. It is that the "gifts" are confused. What is the gift of God to his people? Yes, He freely gives us all things as things, but to tear down and build up what has been pillaged. The take back the spoils, to orient them again rightfully. To redeem what has been whored, from the impositions and manipulations of fallen man.
Why does God constantly ensure that his people do not confuse that He gives Himself in the context of all things not all things in the context of Himself - that leads to practical pantheism - the idolatrous worship of God.
We have to be careful that we aren't simply a "spoiled" church, I believe. The world would want to injure us in respect of our true character, especially allowing us over-indulgence and undue lenience. The earth is the Lord's and everything in it. Yes. But to glorify God is to reorient everything, refashion and reclaim it in a way that its original function is retained, His Temple is built, His Body, made strong. All resources must go into that until there is no longer any night, for He will be our Light.
Really interesting topic for conversation, Matt. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I've really enjoyed reading this blog. Keep it up.
P.S. Your family is beautiful.
Watch Match Point - the movie.
I would like to know what anonymous meant by saying, "Try explaining 'to glorify God' without using the word 'enjoy'"? Is he or she saying that if we are enjoying anything else, such as our mac, we then are not glorifying God? One very important way we enjoy God is by enjoying his creation. The idea that we can seperate glorifying ourselves and glorifying God is un Biblical. At first it sounds Holy but can also seem gnostic as though we can seperate the creation from the creator. The real strength of Anymous's point here was that, "some things are definitively glorifying and some things are definitively not." Thus, if I say i am glorifying God by enjoying porn than I have a problem. Pornography is a distortion of God's creation. However, If i say i am enjoying GOd by enjoying my wife whom God has blessed me with and she is being blessed then I am indeed glorifying God and self. Isn't this part of our union. The essence of Jesus' high preistly prayer seems to get at His being united to His father and his people being united to Him which also unites us to the father. Answer, then, how can I be united to God and glorifying myself while not at the same time be glorifying God? THere is only one reason for this hypothisis - sin! Thus to enjoy the creation is perfectly well stated.
It seems like the original quotes use of the word "spoils" is a phenomological use rather than scientific. I am borrowing language from Dr. Collins. To put it another way, a poet often says the same thing as a theologian with different words. Dorothy Sayers gives the example of "beautifully flowing water along the bank of the river," rather than "H2O at such and such coordinates. " As in all exegesis we are to search for the author's actuall meaning. He is making the point that we live as thought this world isn't ours, which is also ironically what anonymous wrote as well - or so it seemed.
This is good discussion and forces us all to examine our understanding of theology in the context of our daily lives.
Post a Comment