Thread by @NicolasGold1

"['The world' (cosmos)] refers to the order of society and indicates that evil has a social and political character beyond the isolated actions of individuals." Order (cosmos) "that which is assembled together well."

"Evil exists in the society outside the individual and exerts an influence upon him or her."

Mott (1982) explaining the Hellenistic view of power, "Abstract power without a concrete attachment was inconceivable." This is close to the view of Wink (1984) who popularized the view that spiritual Powers have a physical basis. 1/2

However, Wink only cites Mott's book as an endnote in volume three (1992) of his Powers trilogy, and then on a separate matter. Also, Wink never makes a connection between his view and that of Hebrew anthropology. Shame. 2/2

1) Mott has twice dismissed the idea that government is or can now be a fallen Power. He sees it as fully subjected under Christ only corrupted b/c of politics. 2) The book uses endnotes. 3) However, he notices the connection between Torah as a Power & its mediation by angels.

It's one of those times when the theologian is playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order.

Aside: If you'd like to convince fellow Christians of systemic/structural/institutional racism, note 1) the cosmos as representing the social structuring of evil, 2) Eph 2 & Rom 12 on the course and conformity of the world, & 3) sins of ignorance. 1/2

Aside: A social injustice can be like a tradition handed down from generation to generation, being blindly accepted by good-intentioned people who maintain the injustice even if they would reject its original intention. 2/2

"Social life consists of group ways of thinking and acting in which every individual participant's decisions are but a small portion of the development of the whole."

Mott notes that the hymn "Wash Me and I'll Be Whiter than Snow" is derived from Isaiah chapter 1 is about repenting from social injustice.

He notes H. Schlier's interpretation of the spiritual warfare passages in Ephesians as the great struggle between the Principalities and the Church, battling against evils within the social structure, ending in the downfall of the demonic spirits.

I'd amend/clarify the above slightly. The struggle is more Christ vs the Powers, and the Church is more the foot soldiers through whom the general subjects these Powers.

https://twitter.com/NicolasGold1/status/1338515866980413450?s=19

Believers participate within Christ as he subjects these Powers back to their original order (1 Cor 15; 1 Peter; Eph 7; Matt 10:1, 8, 38; 16:24; Mark 3:15; 6:13; 8:34; Luke 9:23; 14:27; Psalm 110; Dan 7).

Luke 7:36-50. "The point of the story is that those who are forgiven more will love their benefactors more (vv. 42-43)."

One of the flaws among those who advocate a Christianity that stands with the oppressed is that the biblical conception is one in which even the oppressors are oppressed (albeit with privilege) and the oppressed are oppressors. 1/2

Remember: Jesus' mission was to a people being oppressed by Roman enemies. Jesus taught the people, "Love your enemies, and stop oppressing the people in your community." 2/2

Mott advocates a judicial approach that shows bias towards the poor. He also suggests economic redistribution. There's a reason why (as noted above) he doesn't see government as a fallen Power, that only the politics is evil, but that it's the instrument of justice under Christ.

This book is extremely good, & Mott has valuable insights, but he errs in his methodology for achieving his just ends. The means are vital, and it speaks to our age, so I give a brief overview of the problem with using government to achieve Kingdom goals.

https://twitter.com/NicolasGold1/status/1340036833330212867?s=19

"The awareness that we cannot build a perfect society in history must not deflect us from the obligation to work for a better society."

Referencing Rauschenbusch, "Any argument mandating the postponement of social righteousness to a future era would in the same way justify the postponement of personal holiness."

"God is not asking us to build eternal structures but to accept our responsibility for God's creation. We are properly concerned about the health of our bodies even though we know the certainty of death."

Mott notes disagreement over whether the defeat of the Powers will come entirely at the end or whether Christ is carrying out this defeat now. The verb form of death being destroyed (katargeitai) is present indicative, which indicates be action in process.

"World [kosmos (in John's Gospel) refers to the organization of society on principles in opposition to God's (an ethical-religious interpretation)."

"Calvin stated that the civil government 'in some measure, begins the heavenly kingdom in us.'" (Institutes 4.20.2) And then he started executing people who disagreed with him.

"The Church is called to represent the Reign of God 'between the times.'" Wright calls this "being signposts pointing towards new creation." Solzhenitsyn & Havel call this "living the truth". Those who study Power theology seem in agreement on this point.

https://twitter.com/NicolasGold1/status/1310599591176409089?s=19

Of the Power theologians I've read, only Wink and Mott go beyond merely "living the truth", but neither go far enough in my estimation. Also, both are somewhat handicapped by their political preferences.

"Social action in service to God who is creating the Reign is not a matter of human arrogance. It is the obedient and joyful use of the powers that God has opened up to us in God's long march through the history of the peoples, and powers, and institutions that form the Kingdom."

"Our terminology should preserve the distinctions among the different tasks of the church so that our labels do not delude us into thinking that by doing one task we are carrying out another as well."

"Evangelicalism is the communication of the gospel in a way that demands a decision from the heater. The content is the Good News of the coming into history of God's Reign, centered on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."

"When revival and spiritual awakenings have been widespread, they have frequently resulted in movements for social concern and reform ... Most significant was the movement to abolish slavery."

Some progressive Christians too often neglect (or downplay) personal virtue in favor of social change. Mott stresses that personal virtue is necessary for social change, & conditioned social behavior cannot create it. Evangelism contributes significantly to moral change. 1/2

Walter Wink argued similarly to the above. I'd note, while progressive Christians often emphasize social change but not the personal virtue to accomplish it, conservatives often emphasize personal virtue but does nothing with it. 2/2

"Bible Belt conversions resulted in no general change with respect to racial segregation nor did northern Fundamentalist conversions result in more just relationships between the classes of the industrial structure."

Mott notes that anthropological terms in the OT & Paul (body, soul, flesh) refer to ways in which the person as a whole functions. Almost all of them can be used as equivalents of "I" (Ps 84:2; 119:120; 1 Cor 6:15; 12:2). As Augustine stated, flesh means "the man himself."

Many of the sins attributed to the flesh are physical but mental or social (e.g. hatred, jealousy, strife). "Where as in Greek philosophy flesh has only a physical reference, in Scripture it has psychical aspects as well." He cites Aubrey Johnson here.

Flesh also has a social aspect, describing relationship and solidarity with others. It reveals our social nature - good & bad. A phrase like "wise according to the flesh" (1 Cor 1:26) differs little from "wise according to the world" (1 Cor 1:20).

Flesh then is "the sphere of human weakness in which the individual shares," as opposed to the sphere that is according to the Spirit. It represents the person in his or her human frailty, subdued by the values of the evil social order and controlled by the evil powers."

"Body for Paul designates the person insofar as one is part of the world & communicates w/ the world. It represents the person insofar as something can be done to one, can happen to one, or as one can act on something else. It is the person in relation w/ his or her environment."

"The concept of the body is perhaps best seen in connection with death ... Death is nakedness. The person as body has been lost." (also see 1 Cor 15:35ff)

"To die is to experience absolute solitude, to sever all connection with the world. Death implies the disruption of a whole sphere of Being, the termination of all relationships and contacts - in a word, complete isolation." (quoting Berdyaev).

The idea above conforms to the notion that death breaks/ends the solidarities of marriage, Torah, the world, and other Powers. Is this connected to the death and nakedness of Gen 3?

"In ancient Hebrew thought there was no non-bodily existence after earthly life; one continued in Sheol in a physical but shadowy form." The resurrection of the body shows "the value both of the body and the individual's relation to the surrounding world."

"For Paul the body is not the sign of our independence but is an element of solidarity."

Mott's point is that the holistic & solidarity of the person as body means that salvation is not only a "spiritual" function but involves care of the body & freedom from the forces of evil in society.

"Evangelism is the proclamation that God's Reign has broken into history; the nature of the rule of God cannot be removed from the proclamation."

Aside: Evangelicals certainly do focus on social action and always have. Progressive Christians just don't like the problems on which Evangelicals focus, and vice versa.

"Christian community is the social context for the supernatural transforming work of the Holy Spirit." Mott's point is that personality formation is strongly influenceed by society, so how Christian personality transformation by the Spirit is in the Church.

"Strategic noncooperation seeks justice through selective, socially potent forms of noncooperation."

Aside: Mott (1982) is taking great pains and an entire chapter to make the biblical and ethical case for civil disobedience against government. Times have changed.

Mott is giving a reserved, necessary, biblical analysis of all areas of the subject, including revolution and violence. He arrives at the wrong conclusion, but I appreciate the sincere effort.

His primary error is his belief that government is to be a tool of general justice in order to advance the Kingdom of God. Therefore, in doing so, he necessarily has to assent to the use of violence for that purpose. 1/2

But at least Mott recognizes that if you choose to use politics to advance the Kingdom of God you are essentially saying, "Love your neighbor, or I'll send people with guns over to your house." 2/2

Mott admits that political action will not change hearts and minds but it can force people to behave as if their hearts and minds are changed. I'm paraphrasing for effect obviously.

This is what the above tweet was reflecting. The book is great and Mott is thoughtful, but he hit an intellectual roadblock with which he seems uncomfortable but he appears unable to think beyond it and is struggling with the obvious problems of his position. He got so close ...

Finished. The book is brilliant but flawed. Mott knows what the Church needs to do missionally, he stresses the necessity of Christian personal virtue & evangelism, he wonderfully employs biblical anthropology, his analysis of kosmos is fantastic, & he's thoroughly biblical. 1/2

I've noted the book's (& Mott's) primary flaw - but his reasoning (of that flaw) is careful and worth reading. Mott's worked thru the logic of his position (& the one I hold [up to a point]). Still, fantastic book. Highly recommended. 2/2

Final thoughts: Mott follows the logic of Jesus' ethic up to a point but skirts back thinking, "That can't possibly be it." Wink understood the nature of the problem better, which is why his advocacy for government solutions was more tempered despite his progressivism.

Paul recognized the solution of the cross & (like the other apostles) worked the logic backwards from the resurrection: "okay, if X has happened then ..." But he understood Torah more than most sussed out how serious the problem was from the seriousness of the solution.

Which I think is one problem we have: we severely underestimate the problem of sin. Again, Mott understands the problem better than most, but a little more is needed.