I was reviewing Arthur G. Patzia's Emergence of the Church this evening for some teaching I have to do on Sunday and came acrsoss some great quotes (though not really connected):

The rationalists pictured Jesus as a preacher of morality, the idealists as the idea of Man; the aesthetes extolled him as the master of words and the socialists as the friend of the poor and as the social reformer, while the innumerable pseudo-scholars made of him a fictional character. Jesus was modernized. These lives of Jesus are the mere products of wishful thinking. The final outcome was that every epoch and every theology found in the personality of Jesus the reflection of its own ideals, and every author the reflection of his own views. (Joachim Jeremias)

The reign of God was the focal point. Proclamation and teaching centered on it; cures and exocisms were signs of it. But what has neither been clearly seen nor probed for its consequences is that the reign of God as imminent meant the imminent restoration of Israel, and the reign of God as already overtaking Israel in Jesus' words and acts that meant that Israel was already in process of being restored. His teaching was Torah appropriate to restored Israel and requisite to perfect restoration. His wonder-working signified the restoration of Israel and effected it by restoring the afflicted to their heritage as children of Abraham. The appeal to "the sinners" likewise belonged to this context. Offering forgiveness and eliciting conversion, it was designed to restore the outcasts to Israel. This is confirmed by Jesus' repeated efforts to reconcile the righteous to this move toward socio-religious integration. (Ben Meyer)

This means that God is now asserting his sovereignty and rule over those who have accepted his message of the kingdom. Jesus' aim, according to Dodd, "was to constitute a community worthy of the name of a people of God, a divine commonwealth, through individual response to God coming in his kingdom." The Twelve were recruited to confront humanity with this reality and to form the nucleus of what would become the church.

I met Joe Boyd when I was in seminary, he was a guest lecturer, and immediately I connected with him, though we never spoke and I never saw him again. I still read his blog occasionally and enjoyed his latest post, when he discusses Gideon:

It is easy for people to see another person's gift (contribution to the body) as just another shiny thing to worship. Most church leaders are not so bold as to try to take God's role as King, though some are. Most leaders are content with just a little of God's glory, not all of it. "Just a few earrings melted into a golden girdle to remember me by." Forging just a small token of my accomplishment, my "good job," can't hurt anybody, right?

Yes, it can. This is the problem. Perhaps the greatest and most counter-intuitive task of a leader within the Kingdom of God is to reject the earrings. To turn down the mini-monuments. Truth is, if the gift is really God's anyway, who am I to worry if you dislike the gift or the person entrusted with it? Who am I to accept the glory if you like the gift?

My heart's response to this article:

Lord, you are sovereign, you are God. You created this world and called it good, yet due to Man's sin we survive in a sometimes very ugly world. This world is full of violence and all that goes against the principles that exist in your Kingdom. My prayer is that your Kingdom would expand and overtake the violence and sexual perversion that dominates much of the world. May things be on this earth as they are in heaven. I know that this is a big task, but you are a big God, whose can do more than all I could ever ask or imagine. Please act, please move, please be with those already victimized and protect those not yet affected. I ask this as one who stands humbly under the blood of Jesus. AMEN.

But in politics, money, like water, always finds a way. There are over 65 lobbyists for every single member of congress, and they will find a way to make sure their money gets where it needs to be. If money did not make a difference in the outcome, so many would not donate so much.

I don't necessarily like the analogy on the linked article, but the idea is right on. I can't say I'm surprised by anything that comes from Warren or Saddleback, but this did shock me a little:

http://www.extremetheology.com/2007/12/warrens-mulliga.html