Was Jesus ushering in something new? Yes and no is probably the best answer. No, in that the Kingdom of God Christ proclaimed IS a restoration of how things were intended to be… right relationships with God, with ourselves, with one another, and with the created order.

Yes, in that God was doing something new in history in the incarnation of Christ… Jesus revealed the Father in a unique way, Jesus death and resurrection were God’s means of restoration / reconciliation of a fallen world.

I think Brian’s explanation of the kingdom of God as an alternative to the typical “5 framing stories” of civilizations does sit with “My Kingdom is not of this world” and the parables of the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God is not like a conquering army… it is like yeast. It quietly and mysteriously grows. Its teaching (think sermon on the mount) is profoundly counter-cultural in a “be strong, stick up for yourself and make things happen” kind of world.

I think in his talk Brian did do a theologian’s job… in that he painted a picture of the world in which Jesus lived, clarifying just how profoundly Jesus moved to the beat of a different drum. And I think he did the educator’s job of not tying up all the loose ends, but leaving the listeners to think about what that might mean for living out their faith in 2007. Not everyone likes that style… but I think it has merit.

That might be something you’d need BNM’s permission to do - or even his wifes. Fell his agenda - Hmmm interesting.

don’t you hate it when one little spelling mistake makes your joke hard to get on first read..

Put it this way. Gen 1 and Gen 2 tells us about God creating, and the creational order of relationships (God-man, man with himself, man-man, man -creation). When these go awry thanks to sin and evil, then the only person who can fix it is the Creator himself. Why the long church tradition of our Creator is Redeemer, Covenant God is Creator God etc etc. Redemption is the basis, means(?) of recreation.

OK feel free to improve on that - very hurried and simplistic I know.

Just thought I might get in trouble for sounding a bit Episcopalian here. I do of course mean this in a very Genesis 1 and 2 ish sort of way.

In Latin it means root… radicle is still the biological term for the central root of a young plant.

The first definitions in my encyclopedia say:

The root or roots; fundamental; far reaching; thorough; going to the root (radical change); advocating through reform.

I think in this definition… Jesus was a radical… calling us back to who we are created to be, reminding us of our fundamental purpose as servants of God and stewards of creation… reminding us of our roots.

“Radical” is often evokes the idea of someone who is highly reactionary or a zealot of sorts. But it doesn’t necessarily mean this.

We can argue about semantics… Jesus was “radical” in that he certainly moved to the beat of a different drum… Jesus was not “a radical” in the sense that he was not some kind of mad zealot trying to overthrow the Romans by force or by political deals to set up an earthly kingdom.