A pretty easy excerpt to pull here that jumps out at me primarily because it echoes much of what underlies Greg Boyd's thesis in "Myth of a Christian Nation." In fact, Peterson's observation qualifies as a very succinct synopsis of it (regardless of whether Boyd's conclusion is agreed to or not).
I almost wanted to give this post the title of "Personal Power of the Holy Spirit." After all, that's kinda the point of the telling in Luke, as Peterson notes - that Jesus denies use of his power in impersonal ways and relies instead on personal, relational methods. But as I looked at that version of the title, it almost seemed to beg to be taken as an abstraction. That "personal power" was something great and fine for "the Holy Spirit" and maybe or maybe not, we'll take the next logical conclusion. That being that, since we're called to imitate Christ, the "personal power" was something we are called to imitate - as opposed to the "impersonal applications" Peterson contrasts it with. To imply that this is merely fine and well for the Holy Spirit, but we've got to somehow do it a different way ... well, let's just say I hope I'd have an audience smart enough to see the obvious flaw in that logic.
In short, Peterson highlights one of Jesus' central teachings that we don't necessarily take from the immediate context of his choice of words, or even translating a parable as told by Christ. Instead, we are to live this parable as lived out by Christ and practiced by Christ.
I'll let Peterson take it from here. As always, if there's something that sparks enough thought to pick up the book and read the whole darned thing, I heartily recommend this one.
(pg. 271-271)The second occurrence of the term "power" by Luke is in the account of Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, Jesus is tempted by the devil to command stones to become bread, to become the ruler of all the kingdoms of the world, and to prove his divinity by performing a spectacular circus truck by diving off the pinnacle of the temple and having an angel save him at the last minute. Each is a temptation that has to do with the exercise of power: power to impose his will on the creation, power to impose his will on nations, and power to become a talk-of-the-town celebrity. Each of these exercises of power could be, and with Jesus most certainly would be, good: feeding a lot of people, ruling the whole world justly, demonstrating the miraculous, ever-present providence of God to the people on the street. Jesus said no to each one in turn. Why? Because in each case it would have been power used impersonally, power abstracted from relationships, power without any engagement in love, power imposed from the outside. Each instance - and Jesus' situations of sentences from the Story each time highlight this - would have been a use of power that was ripped out of the context of the Story and therefore ripped out of the participating context of people's lives. Whatever the power of the Spirit means, bullying force isn't part of it. It is certainly not what takes place when a fuse ignites a stick of dynamite (names after the Greek word for power, dynamis). The power of God is always exercised in personal ways, creating and saving and blessing. It is never an impersonal application of force from without.
After the three great refusals to use power to do good things in the wrong way, Luke tells us this: "Then Jesus, filled with the power of the Spirit, returned to Galilee .... He began to teach in their synagogues and was praised by everyone" ([Luke] 4:14-15). We observe in detail as the narrative continues that as Jesus teaches, whether in word or act, he is always personal and relational. Jesus, employing the "power of the Spirit," is set in explicit contrast to the three depersonalized, decontextualized uses of power in the wilderness: power to help the hungry, power to do justice, power to evangelize by miracle. The moment the community exercises power apart from the story of Jesus, tries to manipulate people or events in ways that short-circuit personal relationships and intimacies, we can be sure it is not the power of the Holy Spirit; it is the devil's work. The Holy Spirit, no matter how loudly or frequently or piously invoked in such settings, is a stranger to such religious blasphemies.
