1

KINGDOM OF GODS UNDERSTANDING OF POWER A BRIEF SURVEY1

Let me begin this theological reflection with a story of young Jyoti from the city of Bangalore, Indias premier IT hub. Jyoti looked like an early teenager, simple and innocent looking. After a brief few minutes into the conversation I understood she was already married. I enquired who her husband was. She pointed to me another young, playful boy across the street. The story soon unfolded. It was a story of a migrant family in the heart of Bangalores vegetable mandi who were forced to marry off their young daughter, robbing her of all future choices to become a young proud woman who enjoys fullness of life. Jyoti was a school drop-out. She could not go to school as a married woman. It was a matter of shame. Before we could do much, she disappeared into nowhere; she left the area with her family (husband & possibly others). She just simply became another statistic; one of the million young girls who was married off early, a young adolescent mother who gave birth to another malnourished child, an abused wife, an unskilled illiterate, a below poverty line person and on and on. Rabbi who sinned (John 9:1). Jyoti or her parents or.? One day when Jyoti sits outside her street home in busy Bangalore and thinks of God will she know there is a loving, living God? How will Jyoti know that there is a community called the church, which knows about this living, loving God?

By Jayakumar Christian, National Director World Vision India; a paper delivered at the 2 th Lecture on the 12 September 2013 at the Jubilee Memorial Bible College.
th

nd

P.T Chandapilla Annual

12 September 2013

KINGDOM OF GOD AND MISSION Theology (Churchs beliefs) was always meant to be a study of the ramifications of the rule of God (Kingdom of God motif2); ramifications in the lives of the Jyotis of India. Within the Churchs theology, the study of the Kingdom of God occupies a pivotal place.3 Evangelicals over the years have studied the Kingdom of God motif with great passion. Study of the Kingdom of God is fundamental to the study of missions (Costas 1982:91). The Church in many ways is the instrument, witness and the custodian of the Kingdom.4 Our . . . vision of the future molds and determines the content of our mission (Samuel 1987:148) and the Kingdom of God is . . . the hub around which all of mission revolves (Verkuyl 1979:175). The Kingdom of God was central in Jesus ministry. It was the very purpose for His coming (Lk 4:43) and . . . His preaching and His miraculous healing are signs of the Kingdom (Sider 1993:51). The Kingdom of God that Jesus preached was . . . multidimensional and all encompassing (Arias 1984:xv). As Leonardo Boff points out in When Theology Listens to the Poor, the Kingdom of God is . . . all - embracing, proclaiming the deliverance of every human and cosmic reality from all sin - from the sin of poverty, from the sin of starvation, from the sin of dehumanization, from the sin of the spirit of vengeance and from the sin of the rejection of God (Boff 1988:2). The Kingdom of God deals with all of society. It impacts all aspects of human life (Arias 1984:xv). Hence this paper to understand the ramifications of the Kingdom of God on the mission of the Church in a nation that is bleeding, fractures, filled with oppression, hopelessness and skepticism especially on its margins; among the marginalised. As someone who is blessed by the ministry of Chandapilla uncle over the years, I have always been blessed by his simplicity, sincerity and steadfastness to the call with which God had called him. He ministered well and finished well. He impacted many young

According to Jurgen Moltmann, theology was never preoccupied with the task of proving the existence of God. It primarily focuses on discerning the various ramifications of the rule of God. (1981:191); bk: The Trinity and the Kingdom, 1981 Scholarship on the Kingdom of God includes the contributions of Johannes Weiss in 1892 (Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God 1971), Albert Schweitzer (bk. Quest for the Historical Jesus, 1910) of the consistent eschatology school, Rudolph Bultmann who attempted to bridge the gap between NT and the subsequent generations, C. H. Dodd who presented the realized eschatology (The Parables of the Kingdom 1935), Kummel and George Eldon Ladd with their contributions regarding the already and not yet explanations of the Kingdom of God (Kummel in Promise and Fulfillment, 1957 and George Ladd in The Presence of the Future, 1974), Norman Perrin (Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom, 1976) and Amos Wilder (Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel, 1971); Perrin and Wilder's contributions were mainly using the perspective of language and symbols in the study of the Kingdom of God (Willis 1987:53-54). George Ladd in The Presence of the Future, (1974:262), has a very helpful survey of the various aspects of the relationship between the Kingdom of God and the Church in Chapter 11. In this chapter he suggests that the church is not the Kingdom while the Kingdom creates the church. On the other hand the church witnesses to the Kingdom, is an instrument of the Kingdom and also serves as the custodian of the Kingdom of God (262ff).
4 3

12 September 2013

th

3 lives, including mine. I was also a student of Aunty Chandapilla in the Sunday School. It is their lives that laid the foundation for my own life and relationships. An overriding theme in uncle Chandapillas life was his radical understanding of power; always upsetting status-quo. He often dared to take radical positions in life. He was truly a prophet who called attention to the need for the church to live out the Kingdom of God; beyond classroom theologising. At this occasion I would like to examine the theology of the Kingdom of God as it relates to our understanding of power two themes that were central to uncle Chandapillas life, I reckoned. We will first briefly look into a few foundational aspects of Kingdom of God before understanding the ramifications of those theological motifs for constructing a theology of power, for the church.5 In a bleeding and fractured society such as ours with hopelessness & skepticism it is critical for us to understand and address various forms of abuses of power. The Church must demonstrate and bring to the table an alternate understanding of power and communicate there is hope for our nation, more particularly for victims of power abuse - those on the margins of our society. Let me offer the following as defining aspects of the Kingdom of God as the starting point of our conversation (for your further enquiry). A student of scripture will surely recognise that the contours of the Kingdom of God involve the following: The Kingdom of God 1. is theocentric, 2. opposes all other kingdoms, 3. focuses on the reign of God, not just the realm 4. is relational, 5. is political, 6. focuses on the inner, 7. is redemptive in its intent, 8. demands a response, 9. redemptively biased toward the marginalized, and 10. reverses status-quo. Based on these foundational understanding of the Kingdom of God, I would like to place before you certain fundamental parameters for redefining power ramifications of the Kingdom of God. The person Jesus Christ stands at the centre of any study of the Kingdom of God. Expressions of power in Jesus ministry were totally different (Prior 1987:13). His power

This survey, as mentioned earlier is limited in general to a review of contemporary evangelical scholarship. The purpose of this particular survey is to set the parameter for the main purpose of this part of the study, namely to understand the Kingdoms understanding of power.

12 September 2013

th

4 was different from the worlds understanding of power. 6 Jesus understanding of power was also different from the Old Testament perception7 and the Judaic perception of power. From the perspective of the OT and Judaism, the biggest surprise about the NT view of power is the type of power exhibited by the Messiah. Under the domination of Rome, the covenant people looked for an heir of David who would deliver them through a display of military and political might . . . But Jesus marshaled no troops and attained no recognized political office. This does not mean that Jesus was apolitical, but that He transformed politics (Bromiley 1986:928).

Definitions of power in leadership literature vary although there are some common themes. Max Weber (18641920) defined 'power' as the 'possibility of imposing one's will upon the behavior of other persons' (quoted in Galbraith The Anatomy of Power (1983:2). Yukl in Leadership in Organizations (1989) suggests that power is 'an agents potential influence over the attitudes and behaviors of one or more designated target persons (p14). James McGregor Burns defines power as the 'possibility that one actor within a social relationship will be able to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests (Leadership 1978:11). Donald E.Messer points out that power is a neutral term. He suggests that the negative connotations which are popular are seen when power is used for control and examples of positive use of power are when it is used to serve others (Contemporary Images of Christian Ministry 1989:104). Dennis Wrong suggests that "Power is the capacity of some persons to produce intended and foreseen effects on others (Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses (1979:4). Wrong then goes on to suggest that any definition or description of power must deal with five issues. They are intentionality (intended or foreseen as against unintended influence), effectiveness (successful or failures in use of power), latency (dispositional or the tendency to use power as against episodic or specific behavioral acts), asymmetry and balance in power relations between the power holder and the power subject and finally the nature of effects produced (1979: 4-17). Hersey and Blanchard in Management of Organizational Development (1988) defined power as the 'influence potential' - the resource that enables a leader to gain compliance or commitment from others (p202). Galbraith in The Anatomy of Power distinguishes between three instruments of power. They are the condign power which wins submission by the ability to impose an alternative to the preference of the individual or group; there is an overtone of punishment in this definition. Then the compensatory power wins submission by affirmative reward. And finally the conditioned power which is exercised by changing belief through persuasion, education or social commitment (1983:4-6). In the Bible the Hebrew words for power are Hayil, Hazaq, yad and the Greek words for power are Dunamis and exousia. The basic meaning of the Hebrew Hayil is strength from which comes the derived meaning of army and wealth. Wealth is often related to power and Hayil occurs with that meaning 30 times. The adjective hazaq is used 57 times in the OT and 23 times in the NT. It refers to strong hand and most often to God's power as in the Exodus. The Hebrew Yad refers to the human hand performing the normal work functions. In the NT the Greek words exousia or dunamis is used. The Greek exousia means either conferred or derived authority, indicating the right to do something (Matt. 21:23-27). The Greek word dunamis implies ability (II Cor 8:3) or strength (Eph.3:16) or powerful acts (Acts 2:22). (Myers 1987:844). Dynamis most often denotes the ability to carry out an action, but it can also refer to an act expressing power or to a supernatural being with great power. (Bromiley 1986:927). In the NT dynamis is found 118 times and relatively frequently in the Pauline writings; there is no use of the noun in the Johannine writing. In the synoptic gospels when used it denotes the power of God, the heavenly power and the power which brings salvation to completion (Brown NIDNTT 2:1976:603). The words for dominion in Hebrew are masal(Job 25:2) or meluka (Ps.22:28) or memsala (Ps.145:13)(meaning God has supreme dominion) or Rada (Gen.1:26,27) (meaning human stewardship of natural order and political power of monarch) or salat (Ps.119:133)(meaning control of sin over human lives). The words for dominion in Greek are kratos (I Tim. 6:16)(meaning God's dominion) or kyrieuo (Rom. 6:9,14)(meaning control of sin over human lives or as in Eph.6:12 meaning an hierarchy of angels) (Myers 1987:290). Authority is another word in the Bible that communicates use of power. The Hebrew words used are raba meaning be great (Prov.29:2) or toqep meaning validity as used when Esthers ratific ation of the letter from the King. In the NT the Greek word exousia is used to mean valid inner authority (to teach Mk.1:22; to forgive Mt.9:6; Mk.2:10; Lk.5:24) and to judge (Jn.5:27) (Myers 1987:108).
7

12 September 2013

th

5 When Jesus came onto the scene the perception of power was no more the same. He redefined it. In Jesus, power was the . . . totally unexpected laying down of His life in apparent weakness, giving Himself into the hands of His enemies, human and superhuman. At no point is the difference between the concept of power in the Old Testament and new so pronounced. Here, in what represents the greatest paradox and surprise of all time is discovered - the supreme demonstration of power (Powell 1963:117). Jesus understanding of power included rather strange symbols and practices. They included the towel and wash basin, the servant and the cross. The cross was that decisive criticism of the worlds understanding of power. Jesus crucifixion was more than the death of a noble man; it was the ultimate act of prophetic criticism (Brueggemann 1978:91).8 The cross redefined the very concept of power and made powerlessness an authentic expression of power.

Brueggemann in The Prophetic Imagination (1978) develops the argument that the prophets in the Bible were involved in prophetic criticism and imagination. He then goes on to point out that "[w]ithout the cross, prophetic imagination will likely be as strident and as destructive as that which it criticizes. The cross is the assurance that effective prophetic criticism is done not by an outsider but always by one who must embrace the grief, enter into the death, and know the pain of the criticized one (Brueggemann 1978:95).

12 September 2013

th

6 KINGDOM OF GOD & POWER

With the foundational theological motifs outlined earlier and Jesus radical demonstration of Kingdoms understanding of power, let me off er you some starting points to construct our theology of power. Let me place before you for the church to construct its own theology of power. They are, 1. Kingdom power redefines history, 2. Kingdom power affirms relationships, 3. Kingdom power is based on Truth, 4. Kingdom power challenges the principalities and powers, 5. Kingdom power affirms that power belongs to God.

1. Kingdom Power redefines History If we look at any situation where power is abused we will often find that that interpreted history which is remembered and shared among the marginalized is systematically distorted, by the powerful to perpetuate powerlessness. The powerless in our society are often victims of their own interpreted, remembered and shared (common) history; Jyoti has no options because of the family in which she was born. The God of the theocentric Kingdom of God is interested in history; mission follows His initiative in history. As Christopher Wright points out (in his inquiry on the relevance of Old Testament ethics for today) God acts first and calls people to respond . . . God takes the initiative in grace and redeeming action and then makes his ethical demand in the light of it (1983:21). Kingdom power affirms that God is active in history and He is the lord over history. In the Jewish and Christian tradition this act of God in history and his lordship over history was symbolized by the belief in the hand of God (Weber 1989:29). This belief is a declaration, that history is the . . . arena in which God fulfills His purposes for humans and in which the history-forming power of God is shown (Powell 1963:11). Therefore, Kingdom power affirms God was active in history and sees in history the history forming power of God. We are called to be a remembering community. Kingdom power affirms that history must be viewed from Gods perspective . History is not simply the story of the winners nor the story of victims. There are several important implications of this affirmation of Gods action in history, for the mission of the church. Mission of the church must involve enabling the nation and the marginalised to re-read history from Gods perspective. The Church must proclaim that the power, powerless and the marginalized are not victims of their history. In fact God is also active in their personal histories, leading to fulfill Gods purposes in their lives.
12 September 2013
th

7 Mission of the church must involve enabling the powerless to reimagine their future based on an understanding that history is really Gods story. The victims of power abuse are often denied any role in writing their history books; they become tools in the hands of the history makers of the world. However, Gods action in history opens up the possibility of even the powerless imagining the future anew. The future need not be a mere extension of their distorted version of history. Walter Brueggemann calls it the prophetic imagination that must precede any concrete response (1978:45). This imagination is now a possibility for the every human being because it is Gods reading of history that is going to finally shape the end of time. In this task of imagination the prophet of God provides the leadership. It is the vocation of the prophet to keep alive the ministry of imagination, to keep on conjuring and proposing alternative futures to the single one the king (referring to the kingdoms of Israel particularly King Solomons time) wants to urge as the only thinkable one (Brueggemann 1978:45 emphasis added). A word of caution. The Church must however remind the nation that the existence of a history forming God is also a reminder that it is God who redeems and not our history. History will not produce the Kingdom (Ladd 1974:56). The powerless need not be slaves of any particular understanding of history, for history is powerless to bring the Kingdoms purpose to fulfillment. Only, God acting in history, can cause the Kingdom of God to be realized.

2. Kingdom Power Affirms Relationships The Kingdom of God affirms relationships. It seeks to build and is always relational. Considering the question of relationships in the Kingdom, there are two aspects that must be considered. Kingdom power always affirms relationships by building community. Kingdom power expresses its commitment to relationships by affirming the inclusive nature of the Kingdom of God. Community is integral to our theology of the Trinitarian Kingdom of God. When Kingdom power is expressed it always creates community. However, the worlds power as Charles West points out in The Concept of Power in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Study Encounter, 1975), . . . cannot create community. It is always in tension with the power of the servant, the power of love and of the finer aspects of justice (emphasis added, 1975:8). Kingdom power, in its commitment to being relational, goes beyond to build community. In the Kingdom we takes priority over the I (Anderson 1982:169).9 Further, in the
Ray Anderson develops the idea of co-humanity and the covenant as a theological paradigm to understand the authentic person hood. He suggest that all our brokenness and alienation has much to do with our belonging. Our believing comes out of our belonging and individuality was not the original intention of creation (1982: 161-170); bk: On Being Human: Essays in Anthropology.
9

12 September 2013

th

8 Kingdom, freedom is not defined as lordship but as community (Moltmann 1981:215). The Wheaton 83 Declaration commenting on Jesus attitude to power structures suggests that His was a prophetic compassion and it resulted in the formation of a community which accepted the values of the Kingdom of God and stood in contrast to the Roman and Jewish establishment (Samuel and Sugden 1987:260, emphasis added). In fact Kingdom power can only be understood in the context of a community. However, the community that Kingdom power builds is qualitatively different. It is a covenant quality community. In the Kingdom of God, the concept of community does not recognize the need for winners and losers, nor power over the powerless, nor lord over the subjects. Instead, Kingdom power is fully realized only within a covenant quality relationship (Elliott 1987:152).10 It is the Kingdom of a covenant keeping God. Covenant precedes power in the Kingdom of God. So how does this relational understanding of the Kingdom of God shape our mission? Mission will never perpetuate or exploit inequality. The Kingdom affirms that covenant is between unequal partners. Taking our cue from the covenants that Yahweh 11 entered into with Abraham, Moses and the people of Israel it appears that a covenant is often between unequals. Instead this same inequality becomes the spring board for redemptive involvement. In the Kingdom of God, inequality will never be used as the basis for relationships or for breaking a relationship or for any exploitation. Kingdom celebrates diversity without seeking to standardize. The covenant quality community transforms all relationships. There will be no need for winners and losers in the Kingdom. The mission of the church must always build (II Cor.13:10).12 In this understanding of power, the Church is radically different from the worlds understanding of power.
The relationship between the Kingdom of God and the community must be considered for a better understanding of both these motifs. Van Engen develops the relationship between the Kingdom of God and the covenant as he rethinks the purpose of the local church in God's Missionary People (1991). In The Good news of the Kingdom (1993), Van Engen suggests, "Kingdom thinking tends to support concepts of hierarchy and order. Covenant, on the other hand, tends to empower the weak and strengthen them through new relationships. The biblical idea of covenant is impossible without the broader concept of the reign of God in Jesus Christ (1993:258)." We need a fresh understanding of the covenant within the broader framework of the reign of God. This understanding has to be sought, in this case from within the context of the powerless -- those who have traditionally been on the margins of all human covenants and reigns in the world. Covenant imply several things. They imply God is a person. he is Spirit to be sure (John 4:24) but He can think, and He made plans, modified procedures as necessary to complete those plans, and felt joy, frustration, satisfaction and anger through it all. Covenant presupposed free moral agency in man. he was accountable. Covenant became the objective standard by which man became morally responsible. Thus far in the Biblical history any relationship to God was first and foremost a covenanted relationship (Smith 1981:127). Smith in What the Bible says about Covenant (1981) points out the Old Testament motif the hesed, when applied to YHWH refers to ". . . covenant keeping to the best interest of the other person. What hesed was to the Old Testament, Christ likeness was to the New. Jesus filled several words with the essentially same meaning as hesed. Love, serve, rule and submit were all redefined to mean contribution to the best interest of other (1981:381).
12 11 10

12 September 2013

th

9 Kingdom power does not seek to manipulate power. The Church is called to be a prophetic critique of the worlds understanding of power. Covenant understanding of power redefines solidarity. Mission of the church requires we be in solidarity with those we seek to reach - as being a community with them rather than a programme for them. Mission is about identification, being in solidarity with those we seek to save not merely a programme of salvation. For Jesus this meant that He clothed Himself with the very clothes that characterized the marginalized (Kamaleson, personal conversation). Born in a stable, introduced to the agony of refugees as a child, raised in the economic backwater of Galilee, Jesus, the wandering teacher, had no house of his own (Matt.8:20) (Sider 1993:63). Jesus . . .became an outcaste by choice (Nolan 1976:27). In a covenant that is among unequals such an intentional giving up is an essential part of being in genuine solidarity. Kingdom power ignores the dividing lines among people. Fundamental to the fact that Kingdom power affirms inclusion is its attitude to the barriers that divide people. As David Bosch suggests in Mission in Jesus Way: A Perspective From Lukes Gospel (Missionalia 1989), Jesus . . . refuses to recognize any social, ethnic, political, or religious barriers. In his boundary breaking ministry Jesus embraces all. In doing so, he affirms them; more importantly: he empowers them (1989:8 emphasis added) The Kingdom of God refuses to recognize barriers that divide people. Jesus refusal to endorse the barriers resulted in a transforming experience for those on the other side of the line. Mission of the church like the Kingdom of God, must go beyond challenge the dividing lines in a fractured society. Jesus went further than just ignoring the lines that have divided people for generations. George Ladd suggests in The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (1974) that Jesus, not only mixed with those on the margins intentionally but He, . . . angered the religious leaders (by) making his association with the sinners a religious issue (1974:175). For Jesus, this breaking of the lines was integral to His understanding of mission. In the process Jesus angered the leaders of His time. Here lies the cue for the church to be prophetic and healing at the same time. The inclusive intent of the Kingdom power causes ripples of transformation. Kingdom power is never self serving. Jesus after washing the feet of His disciples (John 13), did not exploit the moral advantage He had just established. Instead, He commanded them thus, . . . you should also wash one anothers feet. . . . you should do as I have done for you (v14,15 emphasis added). Jesus understood power differently. He did not exploit the moral advantage that He had established to exploit relationships and gratify Himself. Instead he suggested that there are other feet that need to be washed. Power in the Kingdom is never self serving. It always causes ripples that seek to include
th

12 September 2013

10 others. In this understanding of transformation, the powerless servant is a key agent. The powerless are not on the margins of Gods agenda for transformation.

3. Kingdom Power Is Based on Truth In the worlds understanding of power, truth is the first casualty (Prior 1987:149). Truth is often defined by the winner, and the views of the losers are considered as damaged goods. The worlds power will always seek to make its own position truth (Kamaleson personal conversation 1993). It constantly seeks to absolutise itself and demands that it be worshipped. The cosmic powers also are a major force that spread lies in public places and personal lives. In the Kingdom of God, truth is foundational. While the world considers power itself as truth, Jesus reversed the relationship between power and truth. Albert Nolan points out that [t]he only authority that Jesus might be said to have appealed to, was the authority of the truth itself. He did not make authority his truth, he made truth his authority (Nolan 1976:123). There are four aspects to this issue of truth in relation to power that need to be considered. First the Kingdom power is based on Truth with a capital T. John 8:32 promises that we will know the truth and the truth will set us free. Kingdom power affirms this Truth as being foundational and locates it in the person of Jesus Christ (Jn.8:36) and in relationship with Him. Power is in the Truth that is found in the Son. This understanding of power being rooted in the Truth, challenges all other structures and powers including the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realm (Eph.3:10), who do not acknowledge the Truth. Secondly, Kingdom power is founded on a clarified understanding of self. It is founded on the truth about self. While the worlds understanding of power is built on destroying the identity of the other, Kingdom power is built on the clarified identity of every one. There are two dimensions to this truth that must be held in tension. First, it is a clarification of identity that enables me the condemned to say with confidence . . . in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us (Rom.8:37). Second, it is a clarification which enables me to say [t]herefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weakness, so that Christs power may rest on me (II Cor.12:9). Such humble acceptance of our natural powerlessness, such genuine poverty of spirit, could alone provide the springboard for true faith in a God who can make mountains move, . . . (Prior 1987:81). Thirdly, Kingdom power seeks to establish truth as a value in public life. In the Kingdom of God, truth is not only an absolute concept but is also functional. The worlds power recognizes only winners and losers and ultimately truth is banned from public life.

12 September 2013

th

11 Moltmann refers to this phenomenon as the loss of centre (19 67:307). However, Kingdom power will always seek to restore truth to its rightful place in the public arena. Fourthly Kingdom power challenges the worlds understanding of power. In the worlds understanding . . . power is produced and maintained as truth. Such power dominates both the bodies and minds of the dominated since everyone believes that this understanding of power is the truth. When dominating power is understood to be the truth it becomes the only way because it is the only officially sanctioned way of doing things (Fletcher 1992:184). The Kingdom of God calls this assumption about the officially sanctioned way of power a bluff. Finally the Kingdom affirmation that Truth is the foundation of power has cosmic implications too. In the battle with principalities and powers (Eph.6:12), Paul calls us to [s]tand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist (Eph.6:14). It is a stand where Kingdom power challenges the distortions that the cosmic powers perpetuate. So how will we apply this understanding of the Kingdoms understanding of power to the mission of the church, in India today? The church must demonstrate through her life and mission that when truth is the basis of exercise of power, the power wielder need not fear. Fearlessness (not arrogance) is the chief characteristic of one who has truth as his/her power base. Jesus opponents clearly perceived this relationship between His honesty and His fearlessness. For they told Him Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? (NRSV Mark 12:14). In some versions the phrase for you do not regard people with partiality is translated as you are not afraid of anyone. For Jesus, His relationship with the Father was the basis of all His teaching and ministry. The Church must demonstrate this fearlessness in public life.. A key expression of Kingdom power based on truth, will be redefining mission as a prophetic vocation. A prophet is one who declares the truth about a situation. Not only does he express Gods mind over issues but he also reads the issues as God would read them. The church will need to challenge the nations understanding of truth and name all lies as bluff.

12 September 2013

th

12 4. Kingdom Power Challenges The Principalities and Powers The Kingdom of God challenges the rule of Satan and Satans dominion in all exploitative relationships. It is a . . . warfare against the power of evil in all its shapes and forms (Nolan 1976:49). There are a few aspects of this conflict with the kingdom of Satan that must be considered. The conflict with the cosmic powers is an expression of the reversal the Kingdom of God seeks to bring. The announcement of the reign of God means reversals and conflict (Arias 1984:xvii) both in socio political realms and in the Kingdom of Satan (Ladd 1959:47; see also Marcella 1982:62). Jesus moved . . . to defeat Gods enemies, acting in and securing the divine sovereignty at all points (Powell 1963:81). The moment of the breaking down of the kingdom of Satan has come (Ridderbos 1962:64; Ladd 1974a:183; 1959:44) with the coming of the Kingdom. This conflict with the Kingdom of the Satan is also an expression of the theocentricity of God. The Kingdom of God that does not co-exist along with other kingdoms seeks to . . . destroy the present course of the world . . . and thereby terminat[e] all pain and sorrow, bring in salvation. . . (Kung 1967:76). In fact [i]t is indeed impossible to interpret the New Testament teaching about the Kingdom of God except against the background of a great spiritual struggle . . . The coming of Gods Kingdom means the invasion of the power of Satan and the overthrow of his Kingdom (1974:155). These confrontations with the principalities and powers are an expression of the birthing of a new order in which the Kingdom of God is supreme. The Kingdom is the new order. Jesus recognized that [b]ehind all wicked persons and twisted social patterns . . . [there] was the works of Satan and his demonic forces (Sider 1993:62). Charles Elliott tracing the corruption of power and structures and the role of the demon suggests that, [a]s long as our structures are in the grip of demonic powers, the stuff of our politics, the way power is acquired and used, will be crude as that (Elliott 1987:152). Therefore, integral to the Kingdoms restructuring presence, is its confrontation with the devil and his forces. Missional response is a battle. It is a battle with the principalities and powers. It is a battle that seeks to establish the theocentric Kingdom of God and shalom (Hiebert 1992:43). It is recognition that [a]t the heart of all these (referring to the global problems) complex difficulties is a fundamental spiritual reality. We are not just dealing with facts and figures, people and issues, but with spiritual principalities and powers (Foster 1981:164). Missional response is also a confrontation with the powers that keep them in a state of disempowerment. The radical nature of our involvement does not lie in the fact that we are involved in justice issues and empowerment initiatives. It lies in the fact that we are
12 September 2013
th

13 confronting the whole gamut of the causes of poverty including the role of the principalities and powers. Therefore, missional involvement . . . is a cosmic battle between God and Satan . . . (Linthicum 1991:96). Finally, the battle or confrontation with the devil and his forces, will require prayer and fasting. Only . . . through prayer, we as his redeemed people, reassert our God-given dominion over the world, ruling and reigning with Christ far above all authority and dominion (Eph.1:21 and 2:6). Through believing prayer, we open the door for Gods intervention in our troubled world (Robb 1993:180).13 The challenge of the principalities and powers requires the spiritual discipline of fasting and prayer.

5. Kingdom Power Affirms That Power Belongs to God The survey thus far suggested that Kingdom power will re-read history from Gods perspective, create covenant community, be inclusive, be based on Truth, and confront the principalities and powers. Each of these marks of Kingdom power have redefined the very meaning of power itself. This calls for more than a mere transfer of power to the powerless. It calls for, in the words of Alvin Toffler, a powershift where the nature of power itself is transformed. In the theocentric Kingdom of God, power will always belong to God. This affirmation is expressed in at least four different ways. First, the transformation of the very nature of power cannot happen with just human ingenuity. It has to be the result of the Spirits work among us (Elliott 1987:15). Such a transformation that will equip the powerless to know the power of the Kingdom, cannot happen without the intervention of the Holy Spirit. For it is not by might nor power, but by my Spirit says the Lord (Zech. 4:6; NIV). It is the Spirits work among us which is the source of Kingdom power. Second, the Kingdom affirms that in the final analysis it is the Holy Spirit who is the empowerer. In the Kingdom, transformation is perceived as the result of the Spirits anointing. Only with the anointing of the Holy Spirit can there be preaching of the good news, proclaiming freedom for prisoners, recovery of sight for the blind, release for the oppressed, and proclaiming the year of the Lords favor (NIV Luke 4:18,19). In Luke 4:18-19, the . . . ministry of the earthly Jesus is portrayed in terms of the initiative and guidance of the Spirit (Bosch 1991:113). Without the anointing of the Holy Spirit the rest of the Nazareth manifesto is merely an agenda for social activists. Therefore, in the Kingdoms response
John Robb in Satans Tactics in Building and Maintaining His Kingdom of Darkness in International Journal of Frontier Mission (10(4), October 1993) analyses Satans strategy for clues to answer the question as to why there are so many unreached people in the world.
13

12 September 2013

th

14 [t]he Spirit becomes the catalyst, the guiding and driving force of mission. At every point, the churchs mission is both inspired and confirmed by manifestations of the Spirit (Bosch 1991:113). Third, Kingdom power follows Gods initiative. God hears the cry of (Exodus 3:7,8) before he calls for our involvement. God makes the missions He invites His people to work along with Him in this awesome the Kingdom. By following the Spirit, Kingdom power affirms that missions is a pro-active response rather than a re-active response. the oppressed move first 14 in task of building involvement in

Next Kingdom affirms that all power belongs to God (Ps.62:8). Jesus affirmation that power belongs to God, reflected in His closeness to the Father (Nolan 1976:125). Taking our cue from Jesus, David Prior suggests that the . . . secret of power in the Kingdom of God is to put Jesus first (1987:87). This act of putting Jesus first then is more than a ritualistic act of starting with the sacred. It is truly an acknowledgment of our powerlessness and the affirmation that all expressions of power in the Kingdom of God have to consistently affirm the theo-centricity of the Kingdom. Therefore, in the Kingdom of God, power belongs to God. Kingdom power recognizes that it is God who takes the initiative in history and that all empowerment in the final analysis is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is imperative that the church always communicates that the Kingdom and the power do not belong to us (Elliott 1985:16). As Yoder points out, even as we verbalized the slogan power to the people we were absolutely conscious that mere transfer of power without the transformation of power does not result in transformational quality reversal (1978:33). Power is a gift of God. Kingdom power will require a closeness to the Father and dependence on the Spirit. Closeness to God is an absolute prerequisite for expressing Kingdom power. Following through the affirmation that all power belongs to God and the need for closeness with the Father, Kingdom power involves a commitment to prayer and fasting. The Kingdoms assertion that all power belongs to God is also a prophetic act. It is a prophetic act that turns the focus of the world on to the spiritual issues. The Kingdom calls attention to the need for basic spirituality that emerges from following the Spirit into mission. It is the spirituality of a God who is involved in history. Mission is spiritual (Samuel 1992:7).15 For mission . . . without spirituality cannot survive any more than combustion without oxygen. . . [it has to] be a spirituality of engagement and not of withdrawal (Costas 1982:172). Since in the Kingdom, power will always belong to God, all exercise of power will have a ring of penultimacy to it. For power in the Kingdom also affirms the theocentricity of
Christopher Wright reflecting on the place of Old Testament ethics today in An Eye for an Eye (1983) suggests that God acts first and calls people to respond. This is the starting point for the moral teaching of the Old Testament. God takes the initiative in grace and redeeming action and then makes his ethical demand in the light of it (1993:21). C. B. Samuel in his paper titled Spirituality and Social Transformation (Unpublished 1992) provides an excellent critique of what he calls as market friendly transformation paradigms. In his paper he affirms the need for a transformation model that is authentic and marked by a submission to God.
15 14

12 September 2013

th

15 God. In the Kingdom of God, the emphasis is on God; therefore, all power expressions in the Kingdom will also point to the theocentricity of the Kingdom of God. This study affirms that Kingdom power belongs to God. It is a prophetic act that builds and nurtures faith (Ellul 1988:164). It is an affirmation that exercise of Kingdom power is a prophetic act that heals the erosion of faith in any relationship. The Kingdom of God affirms that Kingdom power belongs to God and power is only a penultimate theme in the theocentric Kingdom of God.

Concluding summary Even as the church seeks to respond in a fractured and bleeding society as in our nation, it is critical that we demonstrate an alternate and a healing understanding of power. As a witness to a reign of God that is theocentric, relational, redemptive in intent and demanding a response with focus on the inner as well as the political, the church must rediscover the Kingdom of Gods unique understanding of power. The churchs own demonstration of power must be characterised by 1. An affirmation of the history making power of God, 2. Affirmation that power must build and affirm relationships, 3. A recognition that genuine power is based on Truth, 4. A challenge to the principalities and powers, 5. An affirmation that power belongs to God. The mission of the Church is to challenge the existing and exploitative understanding and abuse of power in all relationships, from the perspective of the Kingdom of God.

12 September 2013

th