A Brief History of Upheavals – The First Century

In my last post, I introduced the idea that the history of Western society and the Church in Western society is cyclical and that, with the advantages of hindsight and distance, we can both discern and learn from the patterns that emerge. One of the rarest and most important of these patterns is the subject of the series of blog posts, the 500-year upheaval. As I discussed in the last post, every 500 years, give or take, societal shifts (technological, political, economic, and more) collide with spiritual angst caused by stagnation (encrustation) within the organized Church creating discomfort and chaos, but also a seedbed for renewal and reformation. I, and many others, believe that we are now in the early stages of such an upheaval, and in order to better understand and respond to this crucial moment, we must look back at and learn from previous upheavals.

Let’s start at the beginning (side note: many scholars, particularly Jewish scholars would argue that this pattern of upheaval is not unique either to the Western world or to the Christian Church. They would point out that the Jewish faith also experiences watershed moments roughly every 500 years. The calling of Abraham, the Exodus, the Davidic monarchy, and the Babylonian Exile all occur on a roughly 500-year cycle and resulted in both the turmoil and the renewal we have already discussed. However, for the sake of these posts, we will limit our discussion to the 500-year pattern within the Western Church). In the 1st Century, a Jewish carpenter (stonemason?) fundamentally changed our understanding of the Kingdom of God and what it means to be the people of God. The Jewish faith of Jesus’ day was deeply divided both politically and religiously, as spiritual leaders sought to respond to the identity crisis created by the fall of the Hasmonean dynasty (the last Israelite monarchy, which defeated the Seleucids, the Greeks, and ruled in Palestine for nearly 100 years until they were defeated by the Romans in 67 BC) and the rise of the Roman Empire. 

The Pharisees, the ruling party in the north, where Jesus was raised and began his ministry, employed a strategy of strict legalism with many believing that, if they could ensure large-scale obedience to Torah, they could create an environment of righteousness and holiness and, thereby, bring about the restoration of the Kingdom of God. 

The Sadducees, on the other hand, were far less “spiritual” and far more pragmatic in their approach. They held power in Jerusalem and, therefore, as stewards of the capital city and the Temple, exerted tremendous influence over the nation as a whole. However, their power was subject to the occupying Roman government. Thus, they were forced into a strategy of concession and appeasement in order to retain what power and influence they had. 

Others, known as Herodians, left behind national and religious allegiance  and unapologetically embraced the Roman Occupation in order to ride Herod’s (and Caesar’s) coattails to wealth and status. At the opposite extreme were Essenes who believed that their society had passed the point of no return and that the only solution was to flee the corrupt urban centers and build a new home in the wilderness where strict isolationism, legalism, and ritual purity (that made even the Pharisees look secular by comparison) was taught and demanded. 

All these sects (and many more) were seeking to answer the same question: how must we live in order to bring about the Kingdom of God, which, for them, was made up of two components: the destruction of their wicked and the vindication of the faithful.

Jesus of Nazareth walked into this political and religious maelstrom. A rabbi with none of the classical qualifications, his teachings were nevertheless embraced by many because, rather than focusing on strategies for bringing about this cataclysmic Kingdom, he taught about the Kingdom itself, redefining it in the most profound and beautiful and accessible of ways. While he did teach and provide the how of the Kingdom, he first painted a radical and compelling vision of the what and the why. In his vision, his Kingdom was not simply for the pious, the savvy, the influential, or the ascetic. It was also for the faltering, the simple, the outcast, and the spiritually inept. His is not a Kingdom built on condemnation but on transformation, not on judgement—though he can and will judge—but on mercy. In fact, in one of the most shocking twists, his Kingdom was not simply for Israel but for the whole world. It was perhaps this radical inclusivity and diversity of his Kingdom more than anything else that landed Jesus on a cross rather than a throne.

All this to say, Jesus of Nazareth did not simply teach another way to get to the Kingdom they all thought they knew. He redefined the Kingdom entirely and offered himself, not legalism, politics, or power grabs, as the only Way into it. He fundamentally upended everyone’s expectations, and in doing so, changed the course of history.

And, what’s more, his revolution was empowered by the very institution that crucified him, the Roman Empire. The “globalization” made possible by the Roman conquest of the known world provided an unprecedented opportunity for the Gospel of the Kingdom to spread to the ends of the earth. So, within and as a result of the social, religious, and political chaos of the day, the global church was born, and the first great upheaval transformed the world forever.