Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

On Using the Cleansing of the Temple to Justify Violence - Chris Green

To those who want to use the story of the Temple cleansing to justify violence, I’d say, first, that it’s a dangerous mistake to identify “America" with Israel or the Temple with the Capital (the so-called “Temple of Democracy”).

But even if we leave that aside, I’d say, second, Jesus simply was not violent, at least not in the way some imagine him to have been. Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us Jesus drove out those who were buying and selling, overturning the tables of the clerks. John adds the detail about the whip. But the Gospels never suggest he killed or wounded—or even touched—anyone or anything except the tables. No blood was shed.  

Third, I’d say it’s a deep betrayal of Jesus to snatch this one act out of the context of his entire life and ministry. Surely what Christ did in the Temple was an embodiment of what he taught on the Mount of the Beatitudes and what he suffered on Mount Calvary—not their negation or subversion. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught us it is not enough not to murder anyone. We must not harbor even the shadow of hate toward our neighbor or utter a whisper of a curse against our enemies. On the cross, he poured out his life for those who had betrayed and tortured him, praying in his last breaths for his killers to receive a mercy they had not shown to him. In the final analysis, Jesus was killed by the powers in large part because his teachings and way of life called their authority to use even legitimate violence into question. So, in light of what Jesus said and did, and in light of what was done to him, we have to face the fact that the desire to cut this one moment out of the seamless garment of his life exposes the ugliest sin in us. 

Fourth, and most importantly, I’d say it’s vital to remember Jesus’ story is not ours to use. In fact, making use of God’s story or God’s name is the essence of idolatry, and an act of horrific violence—against God, no less, who is our neighbor. Ironically, then, if we exploit the story of the Temple cleansing as some kind of validation for insurrection (or similar violence), we are acting in the spirit of the moneychangers Jesus drove from the Temple. Like them, we are making use of holy things to justify ourselves. Of course, once we have committed to acting in these ways, we’ve already long convinced ourselves we are acting in righteous anger. But the proof is in what we do with the story of Jesus and what our actions mean for our neighbors, especially those we’re tempted to regard as our enemies. 

Origen, in his commentary on John’s Gospel, warns his readers not to take the account literally, precisely because he anticipates how their sinfulness will lead them to misread what Jesus was doing. He sees how they would use such a misreading to excuse all kinds of cruelty and abusiveness. So, Origen argues, what Jesus did was an act of divine, not human, wrath, intended to quell the anger of the mob. He then quotes Ps. 33:10, a passage which seems especially relevant in our current moment: “The LORD frustrates the plans of the nations and thwarts all their schemes.” In short, Origen holds that Jesus’ actions were intended to undo violence, not to do it.

I guess for me the bottom line is this: if we can’t see what’s wrong with using the story of Jesus cleansing the Temple to justify insurrection, if we don’t see how that story calls us to repent of violence and the glorification of violence, then our only hope is the wrath of God, the last extremity of God’s love, which may trouble us toward repentance.

In a sermon on the cleansing, St. Augustine asks, “Who are they who sell the oxen? Who are they who sell the sheep and doves?” And answers: “They are those who seek their own interests in the church rather than those of Jesus Christ.” Again, that is exactly what these folks are doing when they use Jesus’ story for their own ends. Thankfully, Jesus loves us too much to leave us to our fantasies of righteous anger and warranted violence. And the truth is, we need him to drive us out and overturn our tables.

See also:

Brad Jersak, "The so-called 'violence' of Jesus in the so-called 'cleansing of the temple"

Kenneth Tanner "On Justifying Violence with Jesus' Whip"

Not all who disagree with you are "Progressives" - Open Letter to Alisa Childers - by Joe Beach

December 7, 2020    Denver, CO

Dear Alisa,

Thank you for your service to the body of Christ. I appreciate your passion. Your work is needed. There really are enemies of the gospel out there and there really are wolves in sheep’s clothing from whom we need warning and protection.

My prayer for you is that you become much more careful as you identify those enemies. You often, it seems to me, mislabel brothers and sisters as “progressive” when, in fact, they are nothing of the sort. Again, as best as I can tell, you often label people as progressive simply because they disagree with your pet doctrines and opinions. Not everyone outside of the neo-reformed (young, restless, and reformed) camp is a progressive. Lots of the church’s very best theologians over the centuries, beginning with the apostles, would strongly disagree with your definition of the gospel (i.e. your atonement theory), your hermeneutics (i.e. your modern literalism), your eschatology (again, modern literalism with a touch of dispensationalism and Zionism), your view on the nature and duration of hell (a doctrine not mentioned in the ancient creeds because it was a matter of opinion), and on and on. I could give more examples of your bias and unfair labeling.

Just because someone disagrees with your opinions (some of which are quite debatable), that doesn’t make them a progressive. Let me be clear: there are hundreds, if not thousands, of us ordinary pastors out here who love Christ with all our hearts and have a very high view of Scripture – who nonetheless might disagree with you on many important subjects. That does not make us progressive. We may be right. We may be wrong. And you may be right or wrong. Or we all may be partially right and partially wrong. But it doesn’t automatically make us “progressive” Christians simply because we differ from some of your interpretations or opinions.

Allow me to say it another way: there are thousands of us ordinary pastors out here who fully affirm genuine Christianity. We have, for instance, an orthodox, historical, traditional Christology. We revere and honor all 66 books of the Bible as Holy Sacred Scripture. We affirm with all our hearts, without reservation, the ancient creeds (e.g. I Cor. 15:1-8, Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, etc.), and we affirm them every bit as sincerely and knowledgeably as you do. We affirm them in full awareness of what they say and what they mean. There are thousands of us ordinary pastors who sacrificially serve regular, ordinary churches full of ordinary people trying to serve Christ, follow Christ, worship Christ, honor Christ, etc., etc. But we may disagree with some of the tenets and assumptions of your particular theological camp. Again, that doesn’t make us progressive Christians.

Anyway, I just wanted to plead with you to please make a space for us types. I want to plead with you to not shoot everything that moves outside of your theological fortress. Not everything moving around out there is an enemy. Some of us are fellow disciples, brothers and sisters, who are trying to read the Scriptures in more of an ancient way, maybe more of an Eastern Orthodox way. But we are not liberals or progressives. We are traditional, orthodox, Spirit-filled, Christ-centered believers. You will actually be doing harm to the Kingdom of God and to the gospel to spend your time shooting at us. I hope that makes sense and I hope that helps.  

You often refer to the many people who have “deconverted (or deconstructed) themselves right out of the faith.” I agree with you. I see the same thing and I share your pain. I think it’s both rampant and sad. But, again, not all of us who disagree with your particular camp are on that slippery slope. Some of us remain firmly planted on the Solid Rock of Jesus Christ. And, yes, I do mean the crucified and risen Christ of Holy Scripture.

Sadly, I have sometimes heard you, and especially your guest “experts,” flippantly say that these progressive preachers really don’t worship, serve, and obey the genuine Christ – they are just faking it so as not to lose followers. Your experts also say that these preachers really don’t submit to God’s authority in the Holy Scriptures. They just do their own thing. These are very unfair judgments. These are often clear cases of slander. And, let’s not forget that all slanderers go to hell, according to the Bible (I Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-21).

Grace and Peace to you,     

Joe Beach

"Herakleitos, Aeschylus & the Jewish Zeus" - Ron Dart

P.S. It is interesting that Herakleitos was from Ephesus and the notion of the "Logos" was front and centre to Herakleitos -- and then St. John and Mary the mother of Jesus settled in Ephesus. John begins his major book with the "Logos." There is, therefore, an obvious link between Herakleitos and John, with "Logos" as the core and hub for both of them. Even T.S. Eliot begins the "Four Quartets" with 2 aphorisms from Herakleitos. 

"Postcards from Babylon: the Church in American Exile" -- documentary review by Brad Jersak

"Postcards from Babylon: the Church in American Exile"
Documentary review by Brad Jersak

“Come home. You’re better than this.”

—Daniel Dietrich, Hymn for the 81%

You had me at Brian Zahnd.

When the first seven days of 2021 had already trumped (sic) the insanity of 2020, and Christian nationalism had erupted in all manner of ‘prophetic’ blasphemies, I was neither surprised nor confused. That’s a lie. But I wasn’t bereft. That’s because I had already read the clear-minded social commentary of an actual national prophet—my friend and online pastor, Brian Zahnd. But what I pined for was that his sanity would be amplified for those whose heads are spinning. Cue the Postcards documentary.

A word about where I’m coming from. While I’m primarily known as a theologian, my Ph.D. was in political theology, exploring the intersection of political philosophy and our theology of the Cross. Politically, I’m a Canadian “High Tory” conservative who regards the entire American experiment (from far left to far right) as a violent exultation in freedom as self-will. That’s problematic for me as a Christian resident in a vassal state under the direct shadow of history’s most powerful empire.

But I don’t hate America any more than Jesus hated Rome. Indeed, most of my best friends are Americans and I find their enthusiastic hospitality and authenticity incredibly beautiful. It’s the ‘empire’ part that’s troubling—but particularly when faith is seduced by the powers “in the name of Jesus.” And that’s where Postcards is crucial. “Americanism,” says Zahnd, “is a rival religion to authentic Christian faith.” It’s an unholy harmonization of the American dream and some patriotic, nationalistic and militaristic aberration of the gospel.

CLICK HERE to continue reading

Sedition and Silence - Jim Wallace

What has been happening since the outcome of the November presidential election has been historic: continuous acts of sedition aimed at overturning the results of an American election by the current president of the United States.

Our nation’s first president, George Washington, decided not to become a new king, but voluntarily turned his office over to a new president. John Adams then turned his office over to Thomas Jefferson after he lost an election, setting a precedent that became a bulwark of American democracy. After becoming the most “unprecedented” president in American history, Donald Trump is now trying to destroy that fundamental practice by using the power of the presidency to deny the results of an election he lost. That sedition must not be met with silence — from political leaders or from faith leaders.

There is obviously a very dangerous political lens to these actions: The future of democracy in America is at stake. But I would argue there is also a theological lens — that the growing power of a distinctive American heresy is also at play.

In the face of the president’s open efforts to erase the results of the election and defy the Constitution, we have seen cooperation and collaboration by what is now his Republican Party unlike anything we have seen in American history. Even after every accusation of election fraud has been proven false or struck down by courts (including by judges Trump appointed) and multiple recounts in several states, Trump and his media machines have continued to spread disinformation across his base and around the country.

CLICK HERE to read the full post on Sojourner

Jim Wallis is founder and ambassador of Sojourners. His book Christ in Crisis: Why We Need to Reclaim Jesus is available in paperback now. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

Jesus & the Canaanite: A Rhetorical Rebuke for the Xenophobes - Dave McFadden

The story of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28 is an unusual miracle story.¹ There is an apparent harshness and rudeness to Jesus’ words which creates an uncomfortable tension for many readers today.² Some going as far as believing “Jesus’ behaviour typifies an attitude of exclusion.”³ Perhaps for the original Matthean audience of Jewish Christ-followers, the words of Jesus were not interpreted as being quite so harsh or demeaning. Some scholars have tried to soften the rhetoric by interpreting the denigrating reference to Canaanites being “dogs” as a “homely metaphor” with the phrase meaning “little dogs” or “house pets.”⁴ Others have suggested that the Canaanite woman exposed and corrected Jesus’ prejudice against Gentiles.⁵ I do not consider any of these to be a fully satisfying interpretation of this text. Given Jesus’ practice of treating the marginalized—including Gentiles and women—with respect, compassion and dignity,⁶ I am convinced there must be a redemptive reading. Therefore, I propose a reading of this pericope whereby Jesus is verbalizing the prejudices of the disciples, not his own thoughts, to expose and rebuke their thinking. The woman was not insulted because Jesus’ words were spoken tongue-in-cheek.

Reading the text in this way suggests the main point Jesus was conveying to the disciples was that the kingdom of heaven was not restricted to the Jewish people but would include even their enemies.⁷ With its explicit inclusion of the terms Canaanite and House of Israel, it is possible that this pericope proposes a redemptive re-interpretation of the Canaanite conquest narrative in the Old Testament. Matthew already suggests in 4:24-25 that Jesus’ ministry was not restricted to Jewish regions and “great crowds” followed him from the Decapolis and beyond the Jordan. Mark 3:8 also records that “great numbers” came to Jesus from the Gentile areas “beyond the Jordan, and the region around Tyre and Sidon.” Jesus demonstrated explicitly in Matthew 8:5-13 that the kingdom of heaven was not restricted to Jews. Here, the author of Matthew records the healing of the Gentile centurion’s servant and Jesus saying, “I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness…” (Mt 8:11-12). There is a clear literary parallel between Matthew 8:11 and 15:26-27, with the image of Gentiles eating at God’s table used in both.

CLICK HERE to download & read the PDF -  Dave McFadden - Jesus & the Canaanite

Notes

1. Dorothy A. Lee, “The Faith of the Canaanite Woman (Mt. 15.21-28): Narrative, Theology, Ministry” Journal of Anglican Studies 13 (May 2015), 12.
2. J. Martin C. Scott, “Matthew 15:21-28: A Test-Case for Jesus’ Manners” JSNT 63 (Sept 1996), 22.
3. Melanie S. Baffes, “What Do We Do With This Jesus? A Reading of Matthew 15:21-28 through the Lens of Psychoanalytic Theory” Journal of Pastoral Psychology (2014) 63:257.
4. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 314-315.
5. Judith M. Gundry-Volf and Miroslav Volf, A Spacious Heart: Essays on Identity and Belonging (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1997), 23-25.
6. See for example Matthew 8:5-13; Matthew 9:10-13, 20-22; Matthew 14:34-36.
7. The writer of Matthew chooses to identify the woman as Canaanite, a member of the historic enemy of the Jewish nation, instead of Syrophoenician as the writer of Mark does (Mark 7:26).