The Concept of Covenant

'It is possible for Christians to esteem the Bible wrongly and equate the Bible with God. But it is not possible for Christians to esteem the Bible too highly. Every word in every sentence in every proposition or command or question in the Bible is inspired by God, authoritative, trustworthy, true, useful, and aids our joy in God. Despite their differing interpretations on some matters, Christians of various theological stripes in all ages have believed wholeheartedly in this previous sentence. My hope is that emerging Christians are not departing from it.'

The above quote can be found in the following book review: http://www.joshharris.com/2007/12/new_book_why_were_not_emergent.php

This quote alienates me. It’s not a big deal because I really couldn’t care less, but it’s still a problem because there is a significant amount of people who aren’t prepared to be excommunicated from their tradition, especially on account of something as miniscule as failing to hold to the nonsensical doctrine of Inspiration.

There are people who have grasped the most crucial elements of Christianity (I would define these as Love/Restoration/’Kingdom’) and refuse to hold to the humungous belief structures. There are, in actuality, significant amounts of people who used to hold to the latter (myself included), who have found it necessary to utterly discard the latter on account of discovering the former.

Three weeks ago on October 18th 2009, I set up covenantdaw.ning.com.

I immediately wrote a proposition to begin the discussion. In retrospect, it’s actually a lot more neat than it should have been. I want people to realize that the conversation is messy enough for their contributions to be crucial and valuable.

*****

The following is a proposal. It is not established. It is not decided.

Covenant began as the question, ‘What should the church look like?’

Covenant is an answer.

Not necessarily the answer, but its our answer.

Covenant answers, ‘Love.’

Covenant rejects love that requires a certain collection of beliefs. Covenant rejects love that requires return.

Covenant began as the conviction that God extends love without imposing a certain perspective on truth, even without imposing a certain perspective on God.

There are people all over the world living the way of love and suffering that Jesus taught us to, and the only thing dividing us from them is the arrogant notion that we have the truth and they don’t.

Christianity is proud of its separation from the other religions that pursue love.

Covenant is sick of it.

Covenant is an inter-structural support network, consisting of humans striving to love, accept, and support each other beyond religion, beyond personality, beyond distance.

Covenant exists for the holistic restoration of this world, and especially the restoration of the powers of this world – humanity.

Covenant is not a structure. It is an ideal, a purpose.

The first obstacle to Covenant is that the above is a collection of beliefs.

Covenant acknowledges that the notion that beliefs are not necessary is in fact a belief in itself, and is thus self-contradictory.

Covenant could include a statement of faith such as the following:

‘A distinction must be made between the pursuit of love, and Covenant.

Though love requires no beliefs, Covenant requires two.

1. Covenant consists of people who believe that love wins.

2. Covenant consists of people who believe that no other beliefs, other than these two, are necessary to be a part of this movement.’

Rather, Covenant chooses to acknowledge that it is a conduit of brokenness, a conduit of contradictions, just as the world beyond it.

Covenant consists of the people who strive to love within and through this world’s brokenness.

The above is a proposal. It is not established. It is not decided. It is my thoughts on direction.

Thus far, Covenant is a conversation.

*****

This is justifiably ridiculed. There is simply nothing practical about it. But for me, giving up this ideal is not an option, because it’s essentially an attempt to express who I am and what I can’t help but stand for.

I can throw away the name ‘Covenant’ and I can forfeit any opportunity of networking with other people who would strive for a family of unconditional love and I can make myself very, very alone (with the exception of my gorgeous fiancee).

But I can’t let go of my personal struggle for the heart of what I currently call Covenant.

Phase III: Establish Jesus' death as substitution rather than participation.

The following speech was given at the Assembly of Antichrists, on the 30th of October 2009. This is Part Three of the fourteen-part series, THE BIBLE 2: HOW TO BURN CHURCH.

(The speech began with the congregative reading of 2 Timothy 3:16, which was then repeated until the spiritual manifestations became too disruptive)


Settle down everyone.

I beg you all to brace yourselves.

We are about to summarize the enemy’s Gospel.

I apologize for any trauma that may be caused. Please calm yourself. Purge your mind of aggression. Meditate on something happy.

Close your eyes.


Jesus was killed because he was a threat to the empire.

He was a threat to the empire because he demonstrated the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God is a threat to empires because it removes their power.

It removes their power because it demonstrates that to be truly alive, you have to live beyond yourself.

Empires function by human selfishness. Empires depend on each person doing what’s best for themselves.

Jesus demonstrated that love wins. Before he died. One man lived beyond himself for restoration, and as he restored, a secret of the Kingdom was revealed.

This secret of the Kingdom is that there’s nothing more beautiful than living under it, because it’s what we’re created for.

Kingdom living isn’t demanding. It’s liberating.

God as Jesus lived this life that freed us.

I repeat. This life.

Then Jesus was killed. And we thought God had left us.

So God came back. And made it very clear. That was life.

Jesus’ resurrection was God’s definitive statement that Jesus’ way of life was victorious over the empire’s.


Now open your eyes.

I now unveil our master plan.

We are about to dislodge every ounce of power from this Gospel.

We are about to replace the entire message of Jesus with concept and celebration.

This is a big deal.

Here’s the word. Substitution.

Let me unpack that for you.


Jesus was killed because it was necessary to appease God’s wrath.

God required appeasement because all of humanity has fallen from the perfect moral code.

God required appeasement because without justice, the Divine is incapable of love.

Jesus was able to cover over all our sins because he was born of a virgin and thus bypassed the sin gene.

Jesus’ life was essentially setting up his death. The Kingdom of God was not about restorative life now, but about looking forward to an eternity of bliss.

His death created the possibility within humankind to pass a spiritual border that upgraded their souls from Hell to Heaven.

His death was the fulfillment of the prophetic ritual of Jewish sacrifice. Jews sacrificed in anticipation of Jesus, and Jews sacrificed to atone for their sins until Jesus.

Because Jesus only covered the sins of people who lived after him.


Our victory is at hand.

Our only concern is that people might think about this too much.

There are some connections between Israel and Christianity that we can’t afford to let people make.

In particular, the connection between Jewish sacrifice and Jesus’ sacrifice must end now.


In genius fashion, we’ll accomplish this not by ignoring the connection, but by distorting Jewish sacrifice down to something that fits with our Plan, which we can then use to promote the burning of church ever further.

We are going to shift the concept of Jewish sacrifice from participation to substitution.

We are going to be so thorough that Christians will be speaking of Jewish sacrifice like it was no different from pagan sacrifice.


Please turn in your Bibles to Leviticus 1:4.

‘You shall lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be acceptable on your behalf as an atonement for you.’

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the traditional beauty of this scene, allow me to depict it for you.

After the Jew had placed their fattest calf on the altar, they placed their hand on its head and watched as it was slain.

That was once their prized possession.

With their hand on the animal as it died, they identified themselves with its suffering.

At a time when meaning was communicated more with physical imagery than detailed sentences, some fraction of understanding sunk in:

This is what is necessary for restoration.

This is how my Creator has purposed me to live – alive only for my God and his purposes.

This was God’s act of parenthood.

Think. When a parent disciplines their child for making a mistake, the priority is not to make sure their child suffers sufficiently according to their mistake, but to teach.

To teach the child that it’s a mistake, why it’s a mistake, and how it can be fixed.

That’s what Jewish sacrifice did. That’s what Jesus did.

That’s why we must twist them both.


Sacrifice wasn’t new to the world.

Most nations sacrificed to their gods to appease their wrath, or to make them extra happy for increased luck.

We just need to convince the world that Jewish sacrifice was like that, instead of parenting.

‘…and it shall be acceptable on your behalf as an atonement for you.’

There’s our chance.

We’ll replace atonement with appeasement.

We’ll replace the pursuit of humanity’s restoration with the escape of divine wrath.

Jewish sacrifice becomes beautifully pagan.

Jesus’ death becomes the climax of Jewish sacrifice that means that we don’t need to sacrifice anymore.

We can be rich, comfortable, AND certain of our eternal salvation, thanks to God having done all of the work for us.

The only requirement is that we hold strictly to our beliefs, as set out very, very clearly in the Bible.