"It felt wrong not to swing..."

I was asked yesterday if my two latest posts were supposed to be in contrast, or if I am really that hypocritical and ironic.

Well, no, my last two post were not meant to be contrasting views of the person and message of Jesus Christ.

Yes I am often hypocritical.

And, you must understand, my more intellectual posts are either
A) B.S.-ing,
B) Regurgitated theories of other men and women,
C) musing, or
D) All of the above

but they are always earnest. *cough. Anything ironic simply uncovers my own demented state.

Now, back to the issue at hand. The two posts couldn't be contrasting simply because they aren't exclusive. Mark Driscoll speaks about Jesus triumphant return, when there will certainly be violence, holy violence, just violence. Kierkegaard proposed that the revelation of Jesus Christ we are to follow is the one that's already been. So the Jesus we are to mimic is the one who walked this earth, not the Arbiter of the Ages who has yet to come, or the ascended God-man who now sits at the Father's right hand.

And yet those two revelations of Jesus are the same being, but with different objectives. Because they are the same person, the must have the same beliefs.

Wink purposes that Jesus was not passive, but nonviolent in his approach and example of dealing with evil. Jesus was not a pushover. Look at the way he spoke to the Pharisees, His driving out of the temple, or in his parables, how awful the fates of the wicked were. Jesus is the LION OF JUDAH! However God also revealed his nature of repentance and grace through Jesus, what I see as a message that speaks of nonviolence.

I will say Wink's exegesis of Matthew 5:38-41 is something of a stretch, but anyone else have a better idea?

Grace and peace