Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

Impassibility and Love - St Anthony the Great, with Q & A

Saint Anthony the Great

God is good, without passions and unchangeable. One who understands that it is sound and true to affirm that God does not change might very well ask: how, then, is it possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good, becoming merciful to those who know Him and, on the other hand, shunning the wicked and being angry with sinners.

We must reply to this, that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, because to rejoice and to be angered are passions. Nor is God won over by gifts from those who know Him, for that would mean that He is moved by pleasure. It is not possible for the Godhead to have the sensation of pleasure or displeasure from the condition of humans, God is good, and He bestows only blessings, and never causes harm, but remains always the same.

If we humans, however, remain good by means of resembling Him, we are united to Him, but if we become evil by losing our resemblance to God, we are separated from Him. By living in a holy manner, we unite ourselves to God; by becoming evil, however, we become at enmity with Him. It is not that He arbitrarily becomes angry with us, but that our sins prevent God from shining within us, and expose us to the demons who make us suffer.

If through prayer and acts of compassionate love, we gain freedom from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him change, but rather that by means of our actions and turning to God, we have been healed of our wickedness, and returned to the enjoyment of God’s goodness. To say that God turns away from the sinful is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind (St Anthony the Great, Cap. 150).

Q & A

Brad Jersak:

Vladika, might I say it this way: Impassibility can be hard to grasp if we think it means God cannot feel and therefore cannot not love. Rather, God IS love. His immutability and impassibility ensures that he cannot be constrained by externals to be other than love.

Lazar Puhalo:

The impassibility of God means precisely that He is love and, being God, does not change from love to any passion or emotion, but His only sense or feeling is love. It is tricky to avoid saying His only emotion is love, because emotion is a purely human concept and cannot apply to the Divine. He IS love and does not become what He is not nor experience feelings and emotions that are contrary to His Being.

I would express it this way: Christ is an expression of His co-suffering love, for which the Word became what He was not in that He became human, but at the same time He did not become something contrary to His being, because Christ is the express image of God's love for humanity.

Brad Jersak: 

In God's divine impassibility, I take it that he could only suffer 'in the flesh' through the Incarnation. That is, God seems to enter a state of passibility [only] by assuming a human nature and [only] in his human nature. But there I have taken a step from 'in the flesh' to 'in his human nature,' because even now, Christ continues to be the eternal God-man (fully human and fully divine) -- continues somehow to identify with a glorified, incorruptible, but nevertheless human body (yes? no?). So the question is whether an incorruptible, divinized human Christ is passible or impassible. That is, since Christ remains fully human even now, does he continue to be able to co-suffer with us, or has passibility been expunged even from his humanity?

If God is compassionate (lit. co-suffering), is there a sense in which it is Orthodox to affirm co-suffering (even prior to the Incarnation) in God's nature (I'm thinking of Psalm 102(103), etc. What are the bounds of a revelation of compassion alongside a doctrine of impassibility?

Father John Behr:

One really needs to understand ‘impassibility’ as being ‘unconstrained’ - we cannot force God to do something, he cannot be moved (from without), but he is certainly capable of moving (whatever that might mean for divinity): “he so loved his world that …”

And our guarantee that this is indeed so is in fact Christ, about whom Moses is already speaking.

Response to Peter Enns' Interview on Jersak's 'A More Christlike God' - Michael Hardin

"Jersak’s book, A More Christlike God, is a direct challenge, a gauntlet thrown down, to the Janus-faced God of Evangelical Christianity." - Michael Hardin 

A rather longish response on Peter Enns interview with Brad Jersak on his new (and most excellent) book A More Christlike God: http://www.patheos.com/…/the-need-for-a-more-christlike-go…/

I find it striking that there is such a knee jerk reaction from the Evangelical community to books like Brad Jersak's A More Christlike God. One would think that a community that calls itself after the 'evangel' , the good news, would really seek to actually have good news. If there is one thing I think can be said about the past fifty years of theology is that the Augustinian/Calvinist default position has been challenged as to its presumption, a presumption that the 'Evangelical' alone has the 'biblical viewpoint' or engages in 'biblical theology.' Jesus has thankfully returned to modern theology as the lens by which we read Scripture, tradition and experience.

One can, if one so chooses, spend an inordinate amount of time seeking to claim a heritage that traces itself back through the Reformed tradition to Augustine and if one is avant garde argue that one is in fact 'in line with the early fathers.' The question that gets begged is whether this trajectory itself has already been compromised. So for someone to say, Irenaeus is the first great biblical theologian (as Mr Shepherd does) is disingenuous for it assumes that the apostolic churches and figures were themselves not models of how to read Scripture. In other words, Jesus is our model for how to do a biblical theology and in this hermeneutic trajectory is followed in the New Testament especially by Paul (especially in his later letters), the writer of the Gospel of Luke and both the evangelist and the redactor of the Fourth Gospel, not to mention the incredibly subversive writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

George MacDonald's Influence on C.S. Lewis - Ron Dart

Ron Dart discusses George MacDonald's influence on CS Lewis. What was it about MacDonald that led Lewis to attribute every page of his own work to the inspiration of MacDonald?

Dart responds to the incredulity of John Piper, who (in an interview with Tim Keller) said that when he read MacDonald say he had 'turned in loathing from the God of Jonathan Edwards,' he 'felt stabbed' -- mainly because of Lewis' acknowledged dependence on MacDonald. Keller responded, "I’m not sure he (George MacDonald) was a Christian" and again, "I don’t consider George MacDonald a Christian author."

Ron Dart, much better acquainted with MacDonald, Lewis, their work and their thought, presents a different perspective take on MacDonald and the reasons for Lewis' appreciation of him.

Was CS Lewis an Evangelical? - Ron Dart

The Hallowing of Hell - Caleb Miller

The belief at the very heart of christianity is the incarnation of Jesus. The light of the world, steps into the darkness and the darkness is transformed by his light. Note that I didn’t say the darkness was merely dispelled or disbursed. It is transformed. 

 

There’s a teaching within the Orthodox church that essentially states that there’s nowhere Jesus goes that doesn’t get transformed into the holy of holies by his presence there. 

 

I wonder then, what are we to do with hell now that Jesus has not only defeated it, but also given it by the means of his presence transforming light. His light was and is not like a twinkle light from a tree that bears his birthday candle. His light is rather like the power of the sun contained in human form. 

 

If there’s really nowhere he goes that can’t be transformed, then it necessitates a rethinking of even the most dark and fearful places. It necessitates a rethinking of all that would seem to be disciplinary, all that would seem to be retributive, and all that would seem to be dark. 

 

 

There’s nowhere that could possibly be a part of the human existence that he hasn’t taken part in, played the role fully, and made a part of his own experience. There’s nowhere that could possibly have fallen outside his reach as his light grew brighter and brighter. The light of the cosmos lights all that exists. The eternally preexistent one shines light into the darkness, and the darkness is “overcome” or “transformed”. 

 

Jesus said that we will all be salted with fire...but salt is good…so keep salt in yourselves. He’s talking about fire. The context even looks like he’s talking about “the” fire. But this is pre-cross. This is before Jesus’ light has entered the darkness and the depths of our hatred and violence. This is before the harrowing of hell so brilliantly penned by St. John Chrysostom. 

CONTINUE READING

"Would We Have Been Friends": Piper/Keller contra Lewis/MacDonald by Ron Dart

Would We Have Been Friends? John Piper/Tim Keller contra C.S. Lewis/George MacDonald

I’m not sure he (George MacDonald) was a Christian.

—Tim Keller 

I don’t consider George MacDonald a Christian author.

—Tim Keller   

            I turned with loathing from the God of Jonathan Edwards.           

—George MacDonald 

I quietly closed the book—I was just stabbed.

                           —Piper’s reaction to MacDonald’s rejection of Edwards.                                                            

There are three dialogues about C.S. Lewis worth the watching between John Piper and Tim Keller. The initial and longer dialogue ponders the “Influence of C.S. Lewis” on the lives of Piper and Keller (it’s just over 10 minutes) and the second and shorter dialogue reflects on “When (Seemingly) Opposites Meet” (a few seconds more than 5 minutes). The dialogues are not particularly profound or far reaching, but both men agree that C.S. Lewis (when read and understood within their framework and worldview) is a substantive Christian academic and thinker. It is the third and final interview in which Piper and Keller’s Neo-Calvinist colours are abundantly revealed and their misread of the fuller catholic Anglican way of Lewis clearly brought to the fore.

The third dialogue between Piper and Keller about Lewis is called “Would We Have Been Friends?” (about 5 minutes). It is in this dialogue that some rather startling things are said about Lewis (in an appreciative way) and C.S. Lewis and George MacDonald in a more worrisome way and manner. The first two dialogues, as I mentioned above, are very much booster and cheerleading comments about Lewis. The latter dialogue is more of a knocker. Why is this case? The fact that Lewis dared to hold George MacDonald high as a mentor and teacher disturbed both Piper and Keller. Why is this so?

Piper and Keller pondered, earlier in the dialogue, how their view of the Bible (and its authority) would be different from that of Lewis—Lewis was no inerrantist—this has offended many reformed and conservative evangelicals-Lewis’ views of Jonah, Esther and Job were certainly not of the literalist and historic bent. But, there is more. Keller made it clear that MacDonald was “not just Arminian” (a nasty position for Calvinists) but “he was Pelagian” (even worse it seems). There is this tendency within the Calvinist tradition (which often equates itself with authentic and genuine Christianity) to demonize Pelagius and Arminius. The conclusion that follows is this: Calvin, and the Calvinist approach to the Bible and the Christian tradition, is the true one----those who question or oppose such a position are either not Christian or have an inadequate understanding of Christianity. The fact that Lewis and MacDonald (even more so) were not Calvinists does raise the ire and dander of Piper and Keller (and their tribe and following).

It is somewhat significant to note that there is an important form of the evangelical heritage that is not Calvinist and reformed, but the merging and linking of Calvinist reformed theology and evangelical thought has tended to dominate and define the modern Neo-Sanhedrin. Donald Dayton has given much of his life to exposing the fallacy that evangelical equals both Calvinist theology and republican politics. The fine festschrift for Dayton, From the Margins: A Celebration of the Theological Work of Donald W. Dayton (2007) is a must read for the dissenting and countercultural evangelical read of the way the Neo-Sanhedrin have defined the authentic Christian and evangelical way and marginalized those that dare to question such a read of the Bible.

The Calvin-Augustine-Bible family tree has often subordinated, distorted or misread the Erasmus/Arminian-Eastern Fathers/Pelagius-Bible line and lineage. It need not be either-or—there is a healthy polyphony in which a fruit bearing dialogue can yet occur between these two vital Christian traditions (and the different voices within each of them).   

My wife (Karin) and I met 40 years ago this summer (1975-2005) and the centrepiece of our reading throughout much of 1975 was George MacDonald’s 2 volume publication by Eerdmans in 1973 of The Gifts of the Child Christ: Fairytales and Stories for the Childlike. Needless to say, Karin and I were nurtured by MacDonald before we met and have been sustained by his writings since then. We have recently returned from a trip to the New Camaldoli Hermitage in Big Sur and Redwoods Monastery in northern California in which I was doing further research on a forthcoming book on Thomas Merton. We stopped on our way home in Portland and had a lovely and engaging meeting with Barbara Amell (founder in 1993 of the main George MacDonald journal in the United States, Wingfold). Barbara is a walking encyclopedia of George MacDonald lore, legend and publications—needless to say, MacDonald is a complex and nimble thinker.

Tim Keller suggested in the dialogue with John Piper that “Lewis was too generous” in his views of MacDonald—as mentioned above, Keller questioned whether MacDonald was even a Christian—a rather harsh position and judgemental stance to take. I might ask, by way of conclusion, if Lewis was most generous in his appreciation and affirmation of MacDonald, do Keller and Piper, in reality, really understand who Lewis actually was (other than what they think he was)? Lewis was a catholic Anglican (with all the breadth and richness that such a worldview entails), and it was such a catholicity that made him open to the best of classical thought and the inviting beauty of the compelling joy of MacDonald. Lewis and MacDonald were certainly not reformed or Calvinist even though evangelicals of a reformed bent have walked the extra mile to claim him as one of their own.

Would Piper and Keller have been friends with Lewis and MacDonald? I rather doubt it—I suspect, though, Lewis and MacDonald would not have taken the position, as did Piper and Keller, Pharisee-like, “Thank God, I am not as them”. The tent of faith is, indeed, large and expansive—it is silly, counterproductive and pointless to exclude those of good faith of which Lewis, MacDonald and Keller-Piper are part of the larger communion of saints. 

Ron Dart                    

  

Review of David Bentley Hart's 'Atheist Delusions' - by Wayne Northey

Book Review of Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, David Bentley Hart, New Haven & London: Yale Divinity Press, 2009, 253pp.

Surprisingly enough, this book is not really preoccupied with atheists (neo-atheists): a singularly boring lot when it comes to their commentaries on religion.

The author explains: “What I have written is at most a ‘historical essay,’ at no point free of bias, and intended principally as an apologia for a particular understanding of the effect of Christianity upon the development of civilization (p. ix).”The author says his own “beliefs” are immaterial in what he presents, though he unabashedly is Christian. With candour he says,

To be honest, my affection for institutional Christianity as a whole is rarely more than tepid; and there are numerous forms of Christian belief and practice for which I would be hard pressed to muster a kind word from the depths of my heart, and the rejection of which by the atheist or sceptic strikes me as perfectly laudable (p. x).”

The book looks centrally at the first four or five centuries of the church “and the story of how Christendom was born out of the culture of late antiquity (p. x).”  He continues:

My chief ambition in writing it is to call attention to the peculiar and radical nature of the new faith in that setting: how enormous a transformation of thought, sensibility, culture, morality, and spiritual imagination Christianity constituted in the age of pagan Rome; the liberation it offered from fatalism, cosmic despair, and the terror of occult agencies; the immense dignity it conferred upon the human person; its subversion of the cruelest aspects of pagan society; its (alas, only partial) demystification of political power; its ability to create moral community where none had existed before; and its elevation of active charity above all other virtues (p. xi).

The author calls such nothing short of a complete “revolution”:

a truly massive and epochal revision of humanity’s prevailing vision of reality, so pervasive in its influence and so vast in its consequences as actually to have created a new conception of the world, of history, of human nature, of time, and of the moral good (p. xi).

This revolution far outstrips anything else in the history of the West, yet was so unlikely an achievement.   

The negative side of Hart’s argument, he acknowledges, is the rejection of the ideology of modernity in particular “of the myth of ‘the Enlightenment’ (p. xi).”  He explains such ideology as the rejection of “irrational” religion in favour of critical reason.  Quite the contrary: “the ‘Age of Reason’ was in many significant ways the beginning of the eclipse of reason’s authority as a cultural value (p. xii).”  He indicts modernity for its inflexible dogmatisms in every sphere of human endeavour including the sciences, seeing a flight to numerous fundamentalisms.  Furthermore, the modern secular state has manifested in its very nature excessive barbarisms far worse than any of Christendom. 

Hart does not hold back:

CLICK HERE to continue reading this Review of Atheist Delusions

Review of Pamela McCarroll's 'Waiting at the Foot of the Cross' - by Ron Dart

Pamela R. McCarroll, Waiting at the Foot of the Cross: Toward a Theology of Hope for Today; Foreword by Douglas John Hall (Pickwick Publications, 2014). 

There has been, unfortunately so, a way of doing Christian theology that is more about success, glory and victory than of the cross. The theology of glory tradition, when delinked from the theology of the cross, too often panders to a politics of power—such a Eusebian like position genuflects to empires that embody and incarnate various forms of ruthless and subtle domination and mastery of the other (human and non-human).

There has emerged, gratefully so, two significant Canadian philosophical theologians, in the latter half of the 20^th century, that have dared to differ with the dominance of the triumphalist theology of glory ideology: George Grant and Douglas John Hall. Both men have made it abundantly clear that the dishonest tradition of the theology of glory distorts the depths of the suffering and vulnerable Christ: the God-Man of the Cross. The sheer beauty and rigorous probes of Pam McCarroll’s PHD thesis turned compelling read book is the way she accurately and accessibly renders the thinking of George Grant and Douglas John Hall transparent and window clear to the attentive reader---there is, in short, nothing opaque about this translucent and limpid book.

Review of Brad Jersak's 'A More Christlike God' - by Rob Grayson

Today I have the honour of reviewing Brad Jersak’s soon-to-be-released new book A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel.

“God is like Jesus.”

There has been an increasing chorus of voices making this proclamation in recent times. In my opinion, it’s been a very welcome chorus, because it’s a most necessary message.

But… for all its increasing popularity, if this message is not to become a mere soundbite, it needs to be explained, nuanced, understood in all its myriad implications, and generally shown to be the premier way of understanding what God is like.

Enter Brad Jersak.

I hold Brad in high esteem for two reasons. First, it was listening to him speak about the atonement that spurred me on to the earth-shattering realisation that God did not in any way, shape or form kill Jesus – a seminal moment in my theological journey. And second, I had the privilege of meeting him last year. The opportunity to put a name and a story to a face is worth more than many printed words on pages.

Brad is a Canadian author and teacher based in Abbotsford, British Columbia. His active, ongoing experience in the evangelical and charismatic streams and his interest in the Orthodox Church, in which he is a confirmed Reader, give him a unique perspective on what it means to live out an ancient faith in a modern, fast-changing world. Brad has solid theological credentials and is currently part of the core faculty of Westminster Theological Centre (UK).

One of Brad’s gifts, then, is to take profound and complex theological truths and translate them into language that the rest of us can understand.

So… what are the implications of the statement “God is like Jesus”? Brad basically spends three hundred pages answering this question.

The book is divided into three parts. In the first part, “What is God? Competing Images of Will and Love”, Brad surveys predominant images of God that have held sway through the ages, drawing a distinction between those understandings of God based on sheer, omnipotent will and those earthed in pure love. He concludes this part by pointing to the fullest revelation of God we have: “Word Made Flesh: The Christlike God”.

The second part is titled “The Cruciform God”. Such terminology may be nothing new to readers of Hans Urs Von Balthasar, Jürgen Moltmann or assorted other recent theologians. But Brad goes a long way in exploring what it means in practical, twenty-first terms to say that God is most perfectly revealed in Christ upon the cross. For me, the real heart of his book is here, in chapters 7 and 8, “The Cross as Divine Consent” and “The Cross as Divine Participation”. Drawing on sources old and new, he dares to reconcile the idea of the God who is Love with the reality of pain and suffering that we observe all around us day to day. In my experience, such honesty is rare in a Christian book written for a “popular” audience. Yet, even as he confronts head on the brutal reality in which we live, Brad refuses to let go of his core thesis that God really is like Jesus – that is, he is not only sympathetic to our plight, but is deeply and personally involved in it alongside us.

In the title of third and final part of the book, Brad coins a new and delightful word that I hadn’t previously come across: “Unwrathing God”. The prevalence of the notion of God’s wrath throughout both testaments of scripture is deeply problematic to many Christians who would sincerely like to believe that God is as compassionate and forgiving as Jesus on the cross, but who can’t ignore the frequency with which this word is mentioned. Well, there’s no need to ignore it: the author sets himself the seemingly impossible task of keeping hold of the perceptible fact of wrath as referenced throughout scripture, while at the same time remaining utterly committed to the truth of the Christlike God who chose to submit to humanity’s wrath, at the cost of his own lifeblood, rather than exercise any proactive wrath of his own.

A More Christlike God is that rarest of things: a deeply theological book that an average reader can comfortably absorb without feeling at all intimated. The combination of theological sources old and new and Brad’s own exegesis and pastoral experience makes this a book that is easy to relate to, wherever you happen to be on the theological spectrum. The use of in-page callouts to define important and potentially problematic terms is a particularly nice touch. And, as I said in my review of Brad’s book Her Gates Will Never Be Shut, Brad has a gift for making compelling, hard-to-ignore points without once slipping into dogmatism. You will come away from this book with the feeling not that you have been lectured, but rather that you have just finished a richly engaging and personal conversation.

A More Christlike God is due to be released in early May. It is available to order here, and will be available via Amazon on or around 7 May.

Seeking the Peace of Jerusalem - Conference Anouncement

[From time to time we receive announcements of local events and activities that may be of interest to our readers. We forward them for your information.] 

Seeking the Peace of Jerusalem: Overcoming Christian Zionism in the Quest for Justice

Mark your calendar for the end of April 2015, for this important event. 

 

What: Seeking the Peace of Jerusalem: Overcoming Christian Zionism in the Quest for Justice conference 

Where: Vancouver, B.C., St. Mary's Kerrisdale Church 

When: 23 – 25 April 2015 

 

FOR COMPLETE DETAILS: www.necefsabeel.ca 

 

A conference examining a threat to Middle East Peace as well as encourage and inform strategies to overcome it. 

 

Christian Zionism is not a phrase on everyone's lips, but it should be. The phenomenon represents a threat not only to peace in the Middle East, but also to the very fabric of mainstream Christianity and indeed democracy itself. A growing number of mainstream religious and church-related academics, clergy and lay people see Christian Zionism exerting an increasing influence on mainstream Christian theology, and on governmental policies in North America. As well, Christian Zionist beliefs and activities continue to make lasting and just peace in the Middle East an impossibility. 

 

What does Christian Zionism mean? How do we as people of faith inform ourselves about Christian Zionism? Perhaps most importantly, if this is a heresy, how do we challenge it? The belief that Christians have an obligation to support the State of Israel and any actions it chooses to take is inherent in Christian Zionism. This belief is often rooted in a literal interpretation of scripture; it can equate the modern State of Israel with the biblical Israel and states that God gave Israel the land. 

 

The impact? An unwillingness to criticize the modern State of Israel for its continuous violation of Palestinians' human rights, and a denial of Palestinians' equal right to land and security. 

 

Seeking the Peace of Jerusalem: Overcoming Christian Zionism in the Quest for Justice, a conference convening this April in Vancouver, will address the preceding questions and suggestions for action to respond to this threat. Those actions will include B.D.S (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) and A.C.P. (Authentic Christian Pilgrimage). 

 

The conference will bring together a group of biblical theologians and activists, including Jews and Muslims concerned with justice. They will shine a light on the Christian Zionist threat, as well as encourage and inform resistance to it. In other words, education and suggested action for people of faith. 

 

Headline Speakers: The Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek of the Anglican Church, founder of the Sabeel Liberation Theology Center, Jerusalem; Rabbi Alissa Wise, Jewish Voice for Peace. Oakland; Dr. Gary Burge, Professor of New Testament Studies, Wheaton College, Chicago; and The Rev. Carmine Lansdowne, Doctoral research in decolonizing indigenous histories, Heiltsuk First Nation, Vancouver Island 

Seeking God's Kingdom Priorities - Henry Smidstra

Listening to prisoners’ stories day after day for 20 years has left with me insights into human misery and sin, as well as experiencing the shadow sides of social and political life. Listening also gave me a heightened respect for the value of the human narrators of their stories, as well as marveling at the miracles of healing, forgiveness, and transformation. Meanwhile, in dismay I watched social supports and therapeutic community and prison programs atrophy as our Canadian prison system was drawn back to medieval severity through a politically motivated tough-on-crime, law-and-order regimen. There is an interdependent chicken-and–egg relationship between legislated crime policy and the citizens of the nation. The current Canadian ruling governing power claims that getting tough on crime by severity for deterrence sake is being done for the sake of victims, and will make our streets safer. Most of the rhetoric, poorly researched and largely unconstitutional, it seems, is readily believed by the public who encourage policy makers to get tough; it takes two to tango. But really, for example, the recent shootings and gang violence in Surrey is not proof that we need to get tougher, or that we need more prisons, but rather an indictment of the authorities who for too long have stubbornly invested too much in the misguided war on drugs. Most victims still feel marginalized.

Dominant in partisan election rhetoric this year are the issues of public security regarding crime and terrorism, and economic freedom, in attempts to win voters. Public safety and economic security are certainly important issues, but, are these issues not being exploited and turned into virtual national idols? Absolute trust in coercive punishing to deter crime and make society safe for life and business is contrary to research and evidence. Purportedly conservative, most rhetoric is unabashedly rooted in liberalism’s myths of rugged “male” individualism and freedom; of self-sufficiency, autonomy, competition, winning, success, and in state power to protect the individual (and corporation) to freely pursue happiness in culture’s things.  Besides dehumanizing and trivializing the value of human life and the environment, Western culture’s quest of progress seems to lead us to more poverty, violence, and anomie. As important as economic and public safety are, they must be called back to their divinely created function to serve the commonweal, to serve especially the weakest, most vulnerable human beings of our society, as stewards of Christ’s health-giving rule for shalom. The Gospels suggest that both the state and society is looking for solutions in all the wrong places.

Jesus offers an alternative vision to modern liberalism’s state enforced epicurean pursuit of happiness. Concluding his Sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus reminds us not to be anxious about what we shall eat, drink, or wear; and reminds us not to condemn (krino) our neighbour. God’s Good way to the goods we seek is by way of seeking first God’s Kingdom and his Justice (dikaiosune): justice-in-love, not in fear, deterrence, and mass incarceration. 

The Glory of the Cross - Caleb Miller

2 Corinthians 11:30 - If I must boast, I will boast of the things which concern my weaknesses.

Only half of the picture of Jesus is presented in much of what we teach, believe, and present as “the gospel". We’ve presented a Jesus who is not only some lightweight theologically, but also is a half man, a shadow of what it means to be whole.

Jesus is called “a man of sorrows, acquainted with my grief” and yet we’ve (I’ve) taught a message that says you can only be happy, only speak positively, only smile and fake it till you make it. That’s all well and good—it doesn’t work by the way—but it’s also a partial picture of Christ.

The Jesus who suffers and dies at the hands of humanity, the Jesus who sweats blood—begging to be let out of his path, the Jesus who weeps over lost friends (Lazarus), the Jesus who is “moved with compassion (empathy)”, the Jesus who presents us his vision of healing and wholeness with still-bleeding wounds in his hands and feet is tossed aside when we present only the “good half” of him in our theology.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying we should seek our own crucifixion to somehow match his suffering. But what I am saying is that we should seek our own wholeness in spite of our (ever strengthening) theologies of glory. Wholeness doesn’t always look the same as miraculous healing - though that can lead to wholeness. If we are to say that only the physically healed are whole, then the risen Jesus is not whole. His body still bears the marks of his suffering, and he wears them proudly. The marks of his suffering prove to us that there is no depth he won’t descend, no place he won’t go to lay hold of us, even when doing so means the loss of his own life.

CLICK HERE to continue reading

Thomas Sunday: The Christlike God - Lazar Puhalo

"A Revealed Gift" - Sermon by Eric H. Janzen

Jesus does not wear a top hat, red coat, and black boots. He doesn’t carry a whip with which to snap over our heads, driving us to leap through fiery hoops for his amusement. He is not a ringmaster in some unpleasant cosmic circus.

Are you relieved?

Too many of us have this image of Jesus floating around in our hearts. It is a lie we would be quick to discount if we heard someone describing him in this way. Yet, many of us carry around this misconception, allowing it to hinder our faith and our relationship with God.

Recently, I had the opportunity to teach on Matthew 11:25-30. I read the passage a number of times and felt…frustrated. It is a famous piece of scripture. Often, those can be the most difficult because they are too familiar. Jesus praises the Father for hiding the things of the kingdom from wise and learned folks and revealing the kingdom to little children instead. Not only that, but it pleased God to do so. “Why?” I wondered. He goes on to say, the Father commits all things to him and that no one knows the Father except for him. Jesus then says that those to whom he reveals God also know the Father. After this comes a wonderful invitation, but let’s leave that for a moment.

I decided I would ask Jesus about the first part of the passage. At first, all was quiet in my spirit. I wondered if I were perhaps too wise and learned to hear him speak to me on this (haha). A few moments later such an arrogant thought proved unfounded. Let me share with you what I felt him saying to me:

“I have torn down the barriers of religion that kept people from the Kingdom. The Gospel is given. It is revealed. I didn’t want people to have to have scholarly degrees and learn several languages in order to receive my message. This is why I speak of revealing my Father. I came to show the world who God is, what He is truly like. I ended the need to adhere to a System of rules and protocols in order to feel there was a chance at knowing God and pleasing Him. There is no peace in that kind of uncertainty and certainly no rest. I hid the Kingdom from those who depend on unspiritual systems attempting to make the Kingdom a matter of the Mind instead of the Heart. The Kingdom is to be open to all, from the least to even the greatest, but it is given not achieved.”

I sat back and considered what he was saying to me. He hides the Kingdom from those who adhere to systems in order to connect to God. Throughout the Gospel story, we see Jesus at odds with such people. 

Click here for the rest of A Revealed Gift

Psalm 7 - The God of Every Day Wrath - Brad Jersak

Decompressing from Brueggemann and Zahnd

As I write this piece, I am still decompressing as I return from the depths of the 2015 Word of Life ‘Faith & Culture Conference.’ I’ve experienced the heady privilege of interrogating Walter Brueggemann and Brian Zahnd for days on end. Many would regard Dr. Brueggemann as the most significant Old Testament scholar of our era. He would also probably be America’s best preacher if Bishop (my designation) Zahnd didn’t already clearly fill that role. I say this not to flatter, but to urge others who could not attend to participate through their books or the conference recordings. 

One of my most significant takeaways came through an anonymous Q & A query at the tail end of the final session. Brian Zahnd had waxed prophetic with a call away from the ‘Monster god’ of retribution to the Christlike God of the Gospels. In that context, the astute question raised was,

“What do we do with verses like Psalm 7:11-12: ‘God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day? Does not the God of love as revealed in Christ become angry with injustice?’”

A marvelous question! It somehow flipped a switch of blazing illumination in my dear friend. And Psalm 7 could not have been a better biblical source for a revelation of the precise nature of God’s wrath – and a microcosm of how that notion evolves across the biblical witness. In what follows, I will extend and expand on Brian’s brief but bright response.

1. Download The God of Every Day Wrath – Psalm 7

Review of Dallas Willard's 'The Allure of Gentleness' - by Caleb Miller

The Allure of Gentleness: Dallas Willard

Dallas Willard has always been an inviting author. Meaning, his books are approachable. In an age when a topic like apologetics brings up the recent Ham/Nye debate, or the stuffy, dry-aired halls of University discussion, it might seem odd that a book about said topic is called “The Allure of Gentleness”. It’s not often that a book I’m reading for review has me reaching for my highlighter and writing software so frequently. Needless to say, I was drawn in by Willard’s words. Even where my theological differences would have likely gotten the better of me and caused me to set the book aside, the gentle reminders that this is all about Jesus were so pervasive, I couldn’t help but to hang my disagreements and finish the book. There’s a little bit of a different style to the writing—I’m guessing due to various hands putting it together—but the material is unmistakably “Willard”. There’s peace and love in every chapter, and that’s enough for me to say we need more scholars with the attitude Willard carried. 

Book Review of Brad Jersak's 'A More Christlike God' - by Caleb Miller

Book Review of Brad Jersak's 'A More Christlike God' (available here).

I recently had the chance to do an early review of Brad Jersak’s latest book “A More Christlike God”. Brad is also the author of Her Gates Will Never Be Shut and co-editor (as well as writing a piece) of Stricken by God.

From the onset, Brad offers something different for the reader—that being, simplicity. In an age of overabundant theological statements, Brad manages to engage the reader from almost any intellectual background—offering much overlooked definitions for terms we may take for granted. Jersak begins laying out his systematic theology by describing the attributes of God. The simplest of statements manages to carry as much weight as the title of the book. “Through Christ, we can know God”. Sure the first thought is “get saved”, but that’s not what Brad is getting at here. "Through Christ” means by his works, his words, and his way—or in other words, literally the person of Christ is the full revelation of God. 

Not shying away from the oft asked questions about the existence of evil, how a good God can allow suffering, Brad navigates these topics skillfully, reminding the reader that the age-old questions of pain are nothing new to man. Immediately dealing with the “go-to” questions of modern Christianity (those often thrown out about rape or murder) Brad offers in a conversational way, a peace that reassures the reader, God is not the God of atrocity.  The subtle reminder that “we worship ourselves via an image of God we create out of our own temperament.”—maybe not so subtle—but oh so true. We’ve all erected an idol in our own image and called it God, be it the God of exclusion, rejection and fear, or the God of murder, rage and violence. 

CLICK HERE to continue reading

A Letter to ISIS from the People of the Cross

Review of Harvey Cox’s “How to read the Bible” - Caleb Miller

Harvey Cox, How to Read the Bible (HarperOne, 2015)

Whenever I get a book like this, I’m tempted to jump ahead to the conclusion, just so I can see if I agree with their direction. Against all my instincts, I started from the beginning, and I’m glad I did. Harvey Cox (author of The Secular City) does a service to anyone seeking to look at the Bible through 21st century lenses—and I don’t mean that in a bad sense.

In an age when Biblical literalism no longer makes sense, this book uses three common views of the scriptures to explore a richer meaning. What Cox manages with bringing the text into a new generation is a breath of fresh air. What most readers will find at the end of the journey is a renewed heart for the scriptures, and (hopefully) a new set of lenses with which to read them. Cox brings a conversation back to the Bible free of the weight of expectation or shallow understanding. 

Review of Harvey Cox’s “How to read the Bible” - Caleb Miller

Harvey Cox, How to Read the Bible (HarperOne, 2015)

Whenever I get a book like this, I’m tempted to jump ahead to the conclusion, just so I can see if I agree with their direction. Against all my instincts, I started from the beginning, and I’m glad I did. Harvey Cox (author of The Secular City) does a service to anyone seeking to look at the Bible through 21st century lenses—and I don’t mean that in a bad sense.

In an age when Biblical literalism no longer makes sense, this book uses three common views of the scriptures to explore a richer meaning. What Cox manages with bringing the text into a new generation is a breath of fresh air. What most readers will find at the end of the journey is a renewed heart for the scriptures, and (hopefully) a new set of lenses with which to read them. Cox brings a conversation back to the Bible free of the weight of expectation or shallow understanding.