Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

David Bentley Hart on Universal Salvation and Human Freedom

Last week Dr. David B. Hart visited Eclectic Orthodoxy and engaged in instructive conversation with folks on the “Readings in Universalism” page. Fr. Aidan Kimel, who hosts the page, skimmed through the comments thread and culled from them some of Dr. Hart’s more interesting and provocative statements, as follows:

“There is no verse in the New Testament that unambiguously threatens eternal punishment. There are three that are regularly invoked by the Hellfire Club (my fond name for those who have some emotional commitment to the idea of a hell of eternal torment), but none of them really says what they imagine it says. Conversely, the seemingly very clear statements of universal salvation number quite high (47 at my last casual count).” (10 May 2015)

“The classical Platonic-Aristotelian-Christian understanding of freedom is one in which the rational will of necessity, when set free from ignorance, wills the good end of its own nature; and perfect freedom is the power to achieve that end without hindrance. Thus God is perfectly free precisely because he cannot work evil, which is to say nothing can prevent him from realizing his nature as the infinite Good. Similarly, for Gregory of Nyssa or Gregory of Nazianzus, perfect freedom is liberation from the fetters of ignorance that constrain the rational will from seeing the Good as what it is. For Augustine, the highest freedom is the perfection of human nature in a condition of “non posse peccare.” For Maximus, the natural will is free because it tends inexorably towards God, and the gnomic will is free precisely to the degree that it comes into harmony with the natural will. And so on. Since, after all, all employments of the will are teleological–necessarily intentionally directed towards an end, either clearly or obscurely known by the intellect–and since the Good is the final cause of all movements of the will, no choice of evil can be free in a meaningful sense. For evil is not an end, and so can be chosen under the delusion that it is in some sense a good in respect of the soul (even if, in moral terms, one is aware that one is choosing what is conventionally regarded as ‘evil’); and no choice made in ignorance can be a free choice.

“In simple terms, if a deranged man chooses to slash himself with a knife or set fire to himself, you would not be interfering with his “freedom” by preventing him from doing so. You would be rescuing him from his slavery to madness. This is why the free-will defense of the idea of an eternal hell is essentially gibberish. Which, incidentally, does not break from the ‘synergist’ view. It is merely to say that the cooperation of the created will with God’s is still a cooperation–if needs be by terrible purgation–in restoring a human soul to its natural state. I think of Gregory of Nyssa deals with this quite delightfully and cogently in De anima et resurrectione.” (11 May 2015)

CLICK HERE to continue reading

Review of Brad Jersak's 'A More Christlike God' - by Ron Dart

Review: Bradley Jersak, A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel (2015) 

The Christian family is pulled in a variety of at odds directions these days: postmodernists, modernists and the classical tradition compete for faith attention. Then, there are movements such as renovare, ressourcement (Protestant and RC), charismatic, liberationist, neocalvinist and various forms of the evangelical tribe holding high their flags. Each of these different approaches to the faith journey are often about reads of the Bible, Tradition and, of utmost importance, images, ideas and existential interpretations of God. There is much sifting of chaff and wheat, burning of dross from gold in such an approach. In short, how we interpret and see God has significant implications for good or ill. The beauty of A More Christlike God is the way Bradley Jersak tends to these issues in an accessible, thoughtful and pastoral manner. 

A More Christlike God is divided into three distinct yet overlapping sections (most Trinitarian indeed) and a suggestive Appendix:

1) What is God? Competing Images of Will and Love,

2) The Cruciform God,

3) ‘Unwrathing’ God, and,

the Appendix, by way of Conclusion, ‘Some More Christlike Voices.’

There is a definite flow and momentum in the tome from ideas and images of God which are distinctly toxic and unhealthy to invitational portals that point to the way to a more gracious and suffering God who engages us in our all too human journey. There is no doubt that the violent and wrathful, sentimental or deist versions of God have done much harm and hurt.

What are the positive, creative and more constructive images of God that point the way to a more transformative approach? And, how can we be sure these images are not just fictions we are creating to serve and suit our temperaments and tendencies? – theological anthropomorphisms can be both subtle and crude – there are many ways to lose our way on such a quest.

There can be no doubt Brad has mined a rich mother lode in his pilgrimage to see and be seen by God in a more mature manner, and he has wisely so, drawn from the best of the Christian wisdom tradition in doing so. The more the curious and attentive turn the ears of their souls to the communion of the saints, the better and more refined the divine music heard. If we dare to see God through the lens of Christ, alternate reads of God dissipate like thin clouds that have no enduring substance.

“Infallibility” in the Early Church - Brad Jersak

“Infallibility” in the Early Church 

The ‘Infallibility’ of Scripture

Current attempts to understand the ‘violence texts’ of the Old Testament in light of the nonviolent revelation of God in Christ have been renewed with vigor in recent years.

Eric Siebert (Disturbing Divine Behavior), David Lamb (God Behaving Badly), Thomas Römer (Dark God), Paul Copan (Is God a Moral Monster?), Eryl Davies (The Immoral Bible), Michael Hardin (Jesus Driven Life) and Peter Enns (The Bible Tells Me So) are among the host of scholars who address the problem of the so-called ‘toxic texts’ of the Hebrew Scriptures in an effort to read them in the light of the Father revealed by Christ. 

More recently, Derek Flood’s must-read book, Disarming Scripture, caught the attention of Gregory Boyd (who is also writing an epic tome on the topic). While I know these two teachers have much in common, Boyd took Flood to task on the question of “biblical infallibility.” He began a four-part blog critique, beginning with a post entitled “Must We Deny Biblical Infallibility to ‘Disarm’ Scripture?” Derek blogged a series of responses, beginning with his post, “A Reply to Greg Boyd’s Critique of Disarming Scripture.”

For my part, I would like to affirm both men for modeling a gracious exchange between Christians on a matter of striking disagreement. If only this were the common standard: charitable dissent without hostility. Well done, I say.

Second, to distill the exchange down to its essential feature, Boyd argued for ‘biblical infallibility’ and Flood argued against it … however, Flood rightly noted how they did not necessarily agree even on the definition of ‘infallibility,’ which could reasonably cause them to argue past each other. While the tension is in part a verbal one, I think they would both say it goes deeper than that. That is, even if they could come to a mutually shared definition of ‘infallible,’ they would still disagree as to whether the word should or should not be used as a descriptor for the Bible.

Third, this leads to a particular question that does not solve the problem, but may speak to its background. Namely, what did the early church teach about infallibility? I’ll pose the question as Derek asked it.  

Q: Would you say that the church fathers taught the "infallibility" of Scripture?

This strikes me as wrong. Inspiration yes, but infallibility? Do you know of any articles or books that deal with this (whether infallibility was something taught by the early church)? What does the Orthodox Church say? 

My response (expanded for this article):

Based in my late-coming knowledge and brief surveys of the early church fathers, 'infallible' was indeed a word they employed, but not with reference to Scripture. The 'infallibility of the Bible,' as best as I can tell, is a specifically Protestant notion, introduced as a point of leverage (under sola scriptura) in order to cut itself loose from the authority of the Vatican and from church tradition. An infallible Bible then becomes the final authority for faith and practice. Unfortunately, ‘an infallible Bible’ is often a code for ‘my interpretation of the Bible,’ and the schisms go viral.

On the other hand, while the early Greek fathers definitely speak of the 'inspiration of Scripture' they reserve the word 'infallible' for the Holy Spirit and the Spirit’s guidance as they preserved the gospel (the ‘canon of faith’ or ‘faith once delivered’ – Jude 3) and summarized it in the creeds as they convened the early councils. That is, only God himself is the infallible Subject. 

Is this Love Only for This Life? - George MacDonald

Is this Love Only for This Life? - an excerpt from George MacDonald's sermon, "Love Your Neighbour," in Creation in Christ, 303.

Jesus pleads with Judas, even in hell. "The Last Days of Judas Iscariot"

When once to a man the human face is the human face divine, and the hand of his neighbor is the hand of a brother, then will he understand what St. Paul meant when he said, "I wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren." But he will no longer understand those who, so far from feeling the love of their neighbor an essential of their being, expect to be set free from its law in the world to come. There, at least, for the glory of God, they may limit its expansive tendencies to the narrow circle of their heaven. On its battlements of safety, they will regard hell from afar, and say to each other, "Hark! Listen to their moans. But do not weep, for they are our neighbors no more."

St. Paul would be wretched before the throne of God, if he thought there was one man beyond the pale of His mercy, and that as much for God's glory as for the man's sake. And what shall we say of the man Christ Jesus? Who, that loves his brother, would not, upheld by the love of Christ, and with a dim hope that in the far-off time there might be some help for him, arise from the company of the blessed, and walk down into the dismal regions of despair, to sit with the last, the only unredeemed, the Judas of his race, and be himself more blessed in the pains of hell, than in the glories of heaven?

But it is a wild question. God is, and shall be, All in all. Father of our brothers and sisters! You will not be less glorious than we, taught of Christ, are able to think You. When You go into the wilderness and seek, You will not come home until you have found. It is because we hope not for them in You, not knowing Your love, that we are so hard and so heartless to the brothers and sisters You have given us.  

 

Review of Ron Dart's 'Lament for a Nation: Then and Now' - Brad Jersak

Fifty years have passed since the publication of Canada's most important work of non-fiction: George P. Grant's, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism. For those have not read it, the book was written in 1965 as a true lament (in the tradition of Jeremiah the prophet) for the death of the Canadian vision.

Grant's lament, of course, was not merely a cry of despair (or one would not write at all), but rather, functioned as a wake-up call to Canada, a nation that was losing its unique identity and becoming a vassal state of American culture -- sliding into the hegemony of liberalism that spans from far right to far left in the culture wars south of the border. In part, the lament achieved its goal in triggering a resurgence of Canadian nationalism, but its echo needs to be heard again, more now than ever.

Ron Dart, Canada's leading active Grant scholar, has written a booklet revisiting these themes, entitled Lament for a Nation: Then and Now (American Anglican Press, 2015). In a series of insightful essays, Dart explores the relevance of Grant's urgent message for us today. These essays include:

• George Grant: Lament for a Nation and Red Toryism
• Lament for a Nation: A Jeremiad for our time.
• Allen Ginsberg and George Grant: Howl and Lament for a Nation
• Sheila Grant and Lament for a Nation

Dart's little booklet displays his usual genius for synthesizing and applying Grant's work in political philosophy within his larger worldview of the primacy of the Good vis-a-vis our delusions of freedom as autonomous willfulness (a la Nietzsche). Canadian readers who have not picked up Grant's Lament would benefit in acquiring it along with this helpful guide. 

Reclaiming Christianity for Christ - Lazar Puhalo

Why Did George MacDonald "turn with loathing from the god of Jonathan Edwards"? Ron Dart

In an interview between John Piper and Tim Keller, Piper quotes George MacDonald as saying, "I turn with loathing from the god of Jonathan Edwards." This leads Keller to question whether MacDonald was a Christian. Why would MacDonald say such a thing of this American hero of the Great Awakening? What was it about Edwards' Calvinist God that caused MacDonald to react to strongly? Ron Dart examines MacDonald's Calvinist roots and his connection with the Anglican scholar, F.D. Maurice, who played a role in liberating MacDonald to a new way of seeing God.

Monsters and Enemies - Nietzsche and Wendell Berry

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

— Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

If you are not to become a monster,
you must care what they think.
If you care what they think,

how will you not hate them,
and so become a monster
of the opposite kind? From where then

is love to come—love for your enemy
that is the way of liberty?
From forgiveness. Forgiven, they go

free of you, and you of them;
they are to you as sunlight
on a green branch. You must not

think of them again, except
as monsters like yourself,
pitiable because unforgiving.

— Wendell Berry, Enemies

Was George MacDonald a Christian? - Ron Dart refutes Keller's claim that he was not.

Ron Dart critiques and refutes the claims of Tim Keller, who in an interview with John Piper, questioned whether George MacDonald was a Christian.

SPEAKING OF CREATION - by B.K. (Bev) Mitchell

Editor's note: Dr. Mitchell is Professor Emeritus, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta.

SPEAKING OF CREATION

Seeing Creation as the Dynamic, Multifaceted Work of a Loving God, who is also our Father

INTRODUCTION

This series of essays is written with Christian students in mind. Even in this new millennium tens of thousands of university students find little support in their home church, family or community for dealing with the intellectual challenges to their faith that they will encounter in the modern, secular university. Worse, those in Bible schools and Christian colleges will often still find reactionary curricula that want to explain away, debunk or simply ignore established evidence gained by the last hundred years of recognized scholarship. As a lifelong Christian, and an experimental biologist with more than thirty years research and teaching experience in a major secular university, it saddens me to have to acknowledge the truth of the sentences that I have just written.

This series of essays is offered in the hope and with the prayer that some students will find herein some intellectual and spiritual footholds that will help them come to a combined understanding of faith and science that is a blessing to them. All truth is from God, so we are most content when the truths we know, regardless of their source, fit together to form a consistent world view. So, humbly, these essays are presented to help you find a worldview that is a blessing to you, so that you may better bless others.

A major result of recent advances in science and other scholarship is to encourage many believers to enlarge their views of God, sometimes appearing to come into conflict with traditional views. Tradition is, of course, very important, and we must make progress together with a clear understanding of what our ancestors believed, and to the fullest extent possible, why they believed it and why they expressed their beliefs as they did.

Yet, like us, they were fallible, and adjustments to our thinking will always be necessary. We really do want to have the living faith of the dead, and to avoid having the dead faith of the living.

Download the full article on Speaking of Creation

 

'Runaway Radical' - Interview with Amy Hollingsworth and Jonathan Hollingsworth

Interview with Amy Hollingsworth and Jonathan Hollingsworth on Runaway Radical, Spiritual Abuse and Hardcore Christianity – with Brad Jersak

Brad: When you sent me an advanced copy of Runaway Radical, perhaps you remember me politely telling you I’d add it to my to-read stack. Before filing it in my inbox, I made the ‘mistake’ of reading page 1. I wasn’t able to put it down after that ... I read until I had to break for sleep, then finished the book before getting out of bed again! Jonathan’s journey totally captured me. Would you please give our readers a brief summary of this book that so captivated me?

Amy: I do remember your telling me that you were a “bit buried” and then a few hours later you sent a note saying you made the mistake of thinking you could read just a little bit. Your quick and vigorous response really bolstered me because you were the very first person ever to read Runaway Radical. And the fact that your response has been replicated many times over is more than we could have imagined when we decided to tell our story.

The best and briefest summary of Runaway Radical I’ve heard is this: It’s a young man’s journey from idealism to realism to fatalism to faith.

The catalyst for the book was desperation. It was a mother’s desperate attempt to woo her son back into the land of the living. When Jonathan returned from what was supposed to be a year of missionary service in West Africa— and it was more a rescue than a return—I thought I would be so relieved and happy that I would drop the issues that forced him home. But instead the injustice kept me awake at night. I started writing a letter to the leaders of Jonathan’s church outlining the abuse he had endured from the mission agency in West Africa. My husband, Jonathan, and I met with the church leaders and their answer to Jonathan’s abuse was to swear him to secrecy. That blow was worse than the first. When I saw the toll silence was taking on Jonathan, not just on his faith but on his mental and physical well-being, I became desperate. To me the only antidote to the destructiveness of silence is to tell the truth. So I knocked on his bedroom door one afternoon (he was sleeping through most days back then) and said, “Let’s tell your story.” We started jotting down notes on a legal pad that day. 

Brad: One facet of the book was your exposure of and insight into real-life spiritual abuse in the Evangelical world. We often think of ‘religious slavery’ in terms of crusty old forms and rituals that have been gutted of meaning—wool pants on oak pews reciting who knows what in King James monotone. Yet Runaway Radical showed us how spiritual abuse can flourish in the vision-driven ministries of evangelistic movements and foreign missions. Am I being fair? What were the marks of spiritual abuse that you saw in that context? I mean, how did it work? And what were the effects?

Jonathan: I think religious slavery is especially prevalent in cause-oriented ministries. Any group that’s hell-bent on carrying out a mission at all costs runs the risk of using and abusing others to accomplish their goals. I’ve talked with so many missionaries who look back on their experience on the field and feel exploited, manipulated, and taken advantage of by those in authority over them.

In my case, I was being scammed before I even left home. After I had raised the necessary funds to live in Africa for a year, the leader of the mission organization nearly doubled my fundraising goal, claiming he had miscalculated my living expenses. This was my first indication that something was off, but I did as I was told.

Once I arrived in Africa, I discovered that a major project advertised on the organization’s website (a fully-functional kitchen addition to the local orphanage) was unusable. Many of the other projects I had been assigned either fell through or were nonexistent, yet I was forbidden from seeking out other opportunities to help in the community. In fact, every aspect of my life was under their control—what I did, who I spent my time with, and even what I said on my personal blog.

When I finally told them I’d had enough, the leader of the organization told me I was being “prideful” and I needed to think about all the people I would be letting down if I left. He booked a flight that wouldn’t leave for another month and demanded that I write a series of blog posts praising the ministry and soliciting donations in the meantime. In the end, it took third-party intervention to get me home, and the mission organization pocketed every last penny I had raised.

CLICK HERE to continue reading Runaway Radical: Interview with Brad Jersak