Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

Just War, Just Deserts, Just Hell - Wayne Northey

There is an arresting statement about God in I John 4:8: Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. “God is love” is an essentialist statement about God: who God is in God’s essence.

There is also an arresting call to Christians in Ephesians 5:1 & 2: ¹Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children ² and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

The family trait of a Christ-follower is love: God’s essence is love; so should Christ-followers’ essence be love. “Following God’s example” means being “imitators of God” (in the original), who is at the core “love”. 

What does this love look like?

What it does not look like is the kind of “justice” practised by the Pharisees. Translations often use the term “righteousness” for the Greek word dikaiosune, that above all is a relational word, and thus best translated as “justice”. “Relational” that is: towards God (theological), towards oneself (psychological), towards others (sociological), towards the creation (ecological), towards the cosmos (cosmological). Matthew 5:20 states: For I tell you that unless your righteousness [justice] surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

What love does look like is seen throughout the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 – 7, and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6. In a word: “love” looks like justice. Which as we’ve seen is God’s essence and should be that of all who aspire to imitate God through the atonement effected by Christ.

This moves us into the realm of the Two Greatest Commandments. Here is Matthew’s rendition (Chapter 22:36 – 40): “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’^{[a] 38} This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^{[b] 40} All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

But this is the admonition of the writer of Ephesians 5:1 & 2: live a life of love. And incidentally, Jesus’ call in the Two Greatest Commandments is the hermeneutical “overacceptance” of the entire sweep of Scripture theologically towards the essentialist revelation of God as love. (“Overacceptance” in the theatre “indicates an improvised reframing of the action of a drama in light of a larger story one wants to tell (Samuel Wells in Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics (2004), p. 65).”) The larger biblical story wanted to be told is: God is love. And God’s followers should fully imitate that love too.

There is a kind of inexorable Gospel logic that moves from love of neighbour as litmus test of love of God to love of enemies as litmus test of love of neighbour to enemy-love as litmus test of love of God.

CLICK HERE to download the rest of Just War, Just Deserts, Just Hell

Wayne Northey has been a forerunner in restorative justice and the author of the novel, Chrysalis Crucible

On the Banality of the Righteous - Lazar Puhalo

Mark Bowden, in his endorsement of Cullen Murphy's God’s Jury, invites our attention to the fact that "we need to be constantly reminded that the most dangerous people in the world are the righteous, and when they wield real power" we see the real pathology of the "righteous."

It is not only the ISIL righteous destruction of some of the world’s greatest and most valuable cultural artifacts because they are pagan – the Puritans in Britain did the very same thing, only they destroyed Christian artifacts, not pagan ones. Barely a week ago, some righteous Orthodox Christians in Russia also decided to destroy some artifacts which they considered "incompatible with Christianity."

One is reminded of the reply of the Caliph to the entreaties of John Philoponus to spare the great library in Alexandria: "If the books substantiate the Koran, they are unnecessary and must be destroyed. If they do not substantiate the Koran they are worthless and must be destroyed." The torture chambers of the Inquisitions, which devised new ways to make burning at the stake infinitely more painful, and more long lasting, than had ever previously been known, was commanded and operated by the righteous. Oh, not that the priests or bishops did any of the "hands on" torturing, no that would have soiled their hands (in addition to their souls), and the twisted, pathological mind of these righteous-ones cleared its conscience by having lay people carry out the actual performance of the evil.

How Should Christians Respond to Violence - Chuck McKnight

What is the proper response to violence? In an increasingly violent culture, this is a question we must all ask ourselves. And as Christians, we must answer this question in a way that is not only practical but also faithful. It isn’t just a question of what “works” to reduce violent crime; it’s also a question of how God has called his people to live. In what follows, I will offer my own convictions, though I readily admit that fellow Christians will differ in their responses to this sensitive subject.

I can think of no better place to start—for this or any other issue—than with Jesus. So let’s begin by considering what he has to say on the subject.

How to be sons of your heavenly Father

When asked about the greatest commandment in the Law, Jesus replied, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37–40).

Jesus does something radical here. He doesn’t simply list the most important commands—he reframes the entire Law in the light of one basic mandate: love. Love is the reason for every command God has given.

This concept is so important that all three Synoptic Gospels include a similar account (see Mark 12:28ff and Luke 10:25ff), and in the Gospel of John, Jesus narrows it down to just the second half. “This is my commandment: that you love one another just as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this: that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:12–13).

Jesus essentially says that love of neighbor (or “one another” or “friends”) is how you show love to God, and he defines that love as sacrificing yourself for the sake of others. This echoes what he said in the parable of the sheep and goats, “as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me” (Matthew 25:40). And such love of God via love of neighbor fulfils the Law, as Paul and James would later confirm (see Romans 13:8–10, Galatians 5:14, and James 2:8).

But “who is my neighbor?” This question was posed to Jesus in Luke’s account cited above. Jesus responded with a parable. And in this parable—we call it “the good Samaritan”—Jesus cast the most unlikely of characters for the role of neighbor. Jews hated Samaritans. They viewed them as the lowest of the low. Yet this is who Jesus said to love.

But that’s not all Jesus taught. He didn’t merely say, “Love the neighbors you don’t really like.” He also said, “Love your enemies.”

CLICK HERE to continue reading

Who is this 'Monster God' of (Im)Pure Will? by Brad Jersak

A Quick History of the 'Monster God'

The term "Monster God" became 'a thing' in 2014 through a series of sermons, debates and blogs, and while I can't be sure of its earliest use, one will note that its popular usage is typically tagged to Pastor Brian Zahnd (Word of Life Church and a CWR columnist). It came onto my radar through a sermon in early May entitled "Death of the Monster God," a lenten sermon on Luke 23:34, 46 (Jesus' prayers to the Father) asking, "What is God like?"    


The central point of the sermon is summarized by Brian in these words:

When we look at the death of Jesus on the cross in the light of the resurrection, we are looking at our salvation. But, what do we really see when we look at the cross? Are we looking at the appeasement of a monster god through barbaric child sacrifice? Or are we seeing something else? Is the cross vengeance or love? When Jesus says, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do," he is not asking God to act contrary to his nature. He is, in fact, revealing the very heart of God! The cross is not about the satisfaction of a vengeful monster god, the cross is the full revelation of a supremely merciful God! In Christ we discover a God who would rather die than kill his enemies. Once we know that God is revealed in Christ, we know what we are seeing when we look at the cross: The cross is where God in Christ absorbs sin and recycles it into forgiveness. The crucifixion is not what God inflicts upon Christ in order to forgive, but what God endures in Christ as he forgives.

Somehow, the sermon also led to the formal "Monster God Debate" between Brian Zahnd and Michael Brown at the Kansas City IHOP. He contrasted the cruciform God who became incarnate to save us from ourselves with the monster God from whom Jesus needed to save us. Much of this is clarified in his article on "How does 'Dying For Our Sins' Work?"

Zach Hoag's Critique of the Monster God: 

1. God of Absolute Power

Minister and blogger Zach Hoag has picked up on this terminology and begun to apply it to contemporary issues in American Evangelicalism. I'm less interested in how he uses the Monster God motif in his critiques than in how he describes the Monster God's nature. Thus, I've mined two of his articles for clarity and definitions:

CLICK HERE to continue reading

Wrestling with Jacob: the Divine Dilemma - Part 4 Wayne Northey

Wrestling with Jacob: The Divine Dilemma - Part 3 Archbishop Lazar Puhalo

Wrestling with Jacob: the Divine Dilemma - Part 2 Brad Jersak

Wrestling with Jacob: the Divine Dilemma - Part 1 Ron Dart

Review of Ron Dart (editor)'s 'White Gulls & Wild Birds - by Brad Jersak

Ron Dart, ed., White Gulls & Wild Birds: Essays on C.S. Lewis, Inklings and Friends & Thomas Merton (Abbotsford: St Macrina Press, 2015). 85 pgs.

Back cover description: Books on C.S. Lewis, the Inklings, and Thomas Merton are a rare breed. This book brings together a variety of essays, from a more personal and confessional level, on the perennial relevance of Lewis, Inklings, and Merton from writers who, in many ways, have been fellow travellers on a similar pathway.

It has been said that a key aspect to cultural ‘tipping points’ is the role of those special leaders that we might label ‘connectors.’ Isolated focus groups become movements when these connectors facilitate the linking of arms across persistent divides to create relational bonds and new networks. I believe that the great writers and thinkers of the 20^th century were highly creative and extraordinarily literary; they were also connectors par excellence.

For example, while C.S. Lewis stood firmly in the Anglo-Catholic tradition, his Socratic Club drew together a spectrum that drew agnostics and evangelicals into sane and productive conversations. Thomas Merton was probably history’s premier connector between Christianity and Buddhism, introducing new and lasting levels of compassionate engagement to Buddhism while retrieving their contemplative insights for the Christian community that had regressed so badly on that front.

To Lewis and Merton, I would add Ron Dart’s name as a significant ‘tipping point connector.’ For decades, he has continually compared, contrasted and synthesized the thought of an enormous variety of spiritual figures and streams (e.g. contemplative, charismatic and social prophets); he’s introduced individuals to one another who’ve forged profound working relationships and new networks (not least of which is the editorial circle of Clarion Journal).

Now, Ron has applied these qualities to coordinating and compiling this fine little booklet of essays, White Gulls & Wild Birds, encouraging us to think of Lewis, the Inklings and Merton in one breath. This wasn’t a big surprise to me until I opened the book and found far more than I anticipated … names I would not have connected either as authors or subjects. The variety of perspectives and insights is the chief selling point and deserves to be listed:

After an introduction by Dart, we have: 

“My Journey with Charles Williams,” by Stephen Dunning

“Meeting the Mystery of God’s ‘Inexorable Love’ and Mercy in [George] MacDonald and Merton”

“Madeleine L’Engle’s Contemplative Vision,” by Joy Steem

“An Introvert’s Reflection on Merton’s Approach to Silence and Solitude,” by Matthew Stern

“Merton and Me in Merit,” by Jessica Lamb

“In the Footsteps of C.S. Lewis,” by Bill McGladdery

“Ruminations on the Inklings and Thomas Merton,” by Wayne Northey

“Our Journey with C.S. Lewis,” Daniel and Serena Klassen

“A Widening Vision” by Heidi Rennert

“C.S. Lewis’ Socratic Method,” by Tyler Chamberlain

What struck me about the book was that the various authors speak so personally. They are describing their encounters with these sages in the way that my Orthodox friends think of relating to the saints. Chrysostom’s interpretation of Paul began with a personal love for Paul, a sense of ongoing dialogue with him, and real transformation at his master’s feet. I get that sense in these essays: while the author’s are competent thinkers and practitioners in their own right, many of them unveil their experience of the Divine through their contemplative receptivity to the likes of Lewis, MacDonald, Merton and L’Engle.

Further, while the reading is at times devotional and contemplative, it’s not the Christianese kitsch or lukewarm pablum that we’ve come to despise. That said, the whole book is beautifully readable.

I would recommend this little introduction especially to those whose hearts have already been endeared to Lewis, Merton et al, just for the joy of it. But I can also to commend it to those wondering where to start and whether they’re up to the great classics of the last century. This text will serve as an encouraging testimonial ‘yea’ to diving in.

Review of Doug Frank's "A Gentler God" - by Wayne Northey

Editor's Header by Ron Dart: 

There can be no doubt that Doug Frank, in a "A Gentler God", has faced into the darker and more disturbing aspects of the North American reformed and evangelical ethos--he did so, courageously, in his earlier to me also--few have done so in quite the same poignant and evocative manner. Frank knows, in his heart and head, bones and flesh where to say No (and why) and where to say Yes (and why) to the larger faith issues (and their distortions) that press in on us. I think, in many ways, the publishing of Brad Jersak's "A More Christlike God" should be seen as a fine and fit companion read to Frank's "A Gentler God"--time tried elder meets aspiring, incisive and probing mid-stride exegete and theologian in these two must read books. I might add that Wayne Northey's, "Chrysalis Crucible", more from a literary angle, makes for a must read trilogy--an ample published and literate prophetic counterculture of sorts. Needless to say, the Sanhedrin will not be pleased by such a challenge to their questionable yet establishment reformed agenda. 

Book Review of A Gentler God: Breaking free of the Almighty in the company of the human Jesus Menangle: Albatross Books, 2010; 390 pp. 

In the Introduction, author Doug Frank describes a billboard, erected doubtless by an “evangelical” Christian, that reads "TRUST JESUS!" Frank imagines another a mile further down the road, that reads, "OR ELSE!" These capture something quintessential about evangelical belief and tone, the author, an evangelical Christian himself, claims. This is reminiscent of The Four Spiritual Laws, distributed by the millions by evangelical Christians. Its opening line goes, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” But as Hans in my novel Chrysalis Crucible (2015) rejoins: “But if you don’t buy in, God hates you and has a terrible plan for your afterlife.” (p. 401)

The reviewer also was raised evangelical Christian, and concurs. I was drawn to this book by Frank after having read his 1986 publication, Less Than Conquerors: How Evangelicals Entered the Twentieth Century. (The subtitle has changed in an updated 2009 version. It reads: The Evangelical Quest for Power in the Early Twentieth Century.)

The author adduces an impeccable evangelical pedigree that enables him to declare he is an evangelical, a son of evangelicals, as Paul claimed similarly about being a Pharisee. That already foreshadows the “bone to pick” with evangelicalism as Frank says. For of all self-conscious expressions of faith, Frank in his earlier book contends that Evangelicalism is most like Pharisaism in spirit and tone. This fact causes a “twisting in my guts” in response to the highway sign, which means “In the end, it’ll be God’s way – or the highway!” (p. 18) Frank writes:

This book is an attempt to understand the source of the twisting in my guts, and to offer hope to those who share this condition with me (p. 19).

Frank is certain of many who share a similar reaction to a “God” who is enforcer of a religious tradition that is “authoritarian and punitive (p. 19).” Frank asks if this God looks like Jesus,

Does he look like the divine Spirit whom Jesus called his “Father” (p. 19)?

The author tellingly adds:

If not – and now you know my conclusion before I begin – where in the world has he come from (p. 19)?

Frank expresses a strong pastoral concern to help liberate fellow evangelicals “- and anyone wounded, angered or alienated by their experience with a threatening God… (p. 20)” There is genuine good news in Jesus not yet heard, Frank believes, in fact “drowned out by the bad news associated with the conventional evangelical God (p. 20).” Frank wants to “clear some of the static in the religious air around us (p. 20).” 

He cites two former evangelicals, deeply scarred by evangelicalism, by a “false God (p. 22)”, the author’s contention. He hopes this book will help those so hurt. He uses the word pain, pain akin to that felt by Jesus “tormented – and ultimately hounded to his death – by the false God of institutional religion (p. 22).”

CLICK HERE to download full Book Review of A Gentler God

Review of Brian Zahnd's 'Farewell to Mars' - by Wayne Northey

A Farewell To Mars: An Evangelical Pastor’s Journey Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace, Brian Zahnd, Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2014, 208pp.

[NOTE: The copy of the book used for review was an e-book and hence there are no page numbers.]

This is an outstanding read.

The author, senior pastor of a large evangelical church in St. Joseph Missouri in his “Prelude” wishes the book well, one that just willed itself to be written, especially in light of the arrival of the author’s three grandchildren. Near the end of the book, Zahnd in fact states:

For years I had ignored this mural of peace in the Denver airport. I simply had not seen it. Just like I had for years ignored the gospel of peace in my life and preaching. I simply had not seen it. I was blind. But I’m beginning to see, at last I am waking up —waking up just in time to try and make a difference for the world of my children’s children. I suppose it is for them I have written this book.

Zahnd begins with confession of his worst sin: on January 16, 1991, he ordered pizza and with a group of friends watched the start of the Gulf War on TV, like a prize fight, which indeed it was.  He writes: “America is always right in war— I’d known that all of my life. Like many Americans, I had grown up believing that war was both inevitable in life and compatible with Christianity.”  But fifteen years later, “while I was in prayer, for no apparent reason this whole scene from a decade and half earlier played back in my mind. I had forgotten all about it. But there it was, played back in my memory like an incriminating surveillance video. Then I heard God whisper, ‘That was your worst sin.’ ” The book under review is consequently “the story of how I left the paradigms of nationalism, militarism, and violence as a legitimate means of shaping the world to embrace the radical alternative of the gospel of peace.”

The author not only believes in Jesus in an “orthodox” way, he believes in Jesus’ ideas in a “radical” way. For that is who Jesus is, when it comes to the political: radical.  When we fail at embracing Jesus’ political ideas, we inevitably recruit him in support of the (national) status quo.  The author claims this has plagued the church since the fourth century.  The church forever (almost) has separated Jesus from his ideas. 

Regardless, claims Zahnd, Easter changed everything! We may consequently change everything (about how we think about violence). The author did!

God is not opposed to nations, but God is opposed to empire. Why? Because Jesus alone is Lord (Emperor), and his “Empire” is the Kingdom of God that alone rules. 

In Chapter 2, Zahnd contrasts the private personal salvation gospel with Jesus’ politics.  He works with the idea, drawing on Jewish scholar Emil Fackenheim’s book To Mend The World of “tikkun olam—“repairing the world.” Tikkun olam is the idea that although the world is broken, it is not beyond repair— that it’s God’s intention to work through humanity in order to repair his creation.”  Fackenheim talks of a 614^th commandment in the Torah: “Thou shalt not give Hitler any posthumous victories.”  The author calls us to “A Christian understanding of tikkun olam [which] is that God is restoring all things through Jesus Christ.”  He adds several Scripture references where this is precisely the claim.  He critiques by contrast what many Christians “embrace [namely] a faulty, half-baked, doom-oriented, hyperviolent eschatology, popularized in Christian fiction (of all things!), that envisions God as saving parts of people for a nonspatial, nontemporal existence in a Platonic “heaven” while kicking his own good creation into the garbage can!”

Zahnd calls us to deny Cain as founder of civilization (based on murder) by being our brother’s keeper. Human civilization is ever founded on murder; God’s kingdom on love (of neighbour/enemy).  

CLICK HERE to download Full Book Review of A Farewell To Mars

The Show Must Go On - Azariah France-Williams

The Show Must Go On 

Cynthia could hear the sound of car doors slamming and the chirp of vehicles as they were locked. She followed the sound of feet shuffling up the stone stairs as she made her way to the door. Within the first knock, Cynthia opened the door and greeted her guests with a smile.

Her visitors don't give a second thought to the temperature of her flat, Cynthia’s idea of a literal warm welcome. They simply filed in and took their preferred seats in the sitting room.

Cynthia, a woman in her late 60s, had been the churches’ favourite Sunday school teacher until her recent retirement. She had taught most of the members of the church and even some of their children. Therefore, she held a place of prominence in their hearts. This group, of a dozen or so fervent Christians, gathered weekly in her flat on the housing estate. Charles, the church’s small group leader, had felt directed by God to use Cynthia's place as a mission hub. Several years previously, he had shared a vision he had of pricks of light shining from every home. Charles and Cynthia worked together to encourage the group in the Word, sing songs celebrating Christ's victory over sin, and pray with conviction for the depraved nation, not to mention, eat Cynthia's delicious homemade fruitcake.

A couple of months back, a new family moved in to the flat next door. People usually minded their own business within the complex, yet when Cynthia witnessed the neighbour’s son, an overweight 13 year old sobbing in the stairwell, she couldn't ignore him. Cynthia had lost her husband to cancer soon after they had emigrated from Jamaica 40 years ago. She never remarried but she became a sort of surrogate mother and grandmother to those around her. She asked the parents of the young boy if he could join her Bible study group. Their only response was a disinterested, “if he wants to go, we won’t try to stop him. 

His name was Shaun. He was a self-possessed young man and, initially, preferred to watch the group from the edge of the room. Cynthia steadily won a bit of Shaun's trust with each passing week. She sat beside him and answered all the questions he had about the group and the man they all discussed, Jesus.

During the last meeting she had witnessed a breakthrough; Shaun had spoken up during prayer requests. He expressed worries he had about his parents’ marriage. Cynthia was delighted at his courage. The group looked to Charles to hear his response. He patiently listened before encouraging Shaun to accept Jesus as his Lord and Savour and pray the sinners’ prayer, which Shaun attempted. Tears welled in Cynthia’s eyes as she smiled at Shaun. Charles then began to pray a comforting prayer in which he said, “God will work all things together for good to those who believe.” Shaun was saved.

Tonight, as the weekly session was drawing to a close, the group began to sing their final worship song. As they sang, the sound of a muffled argument came from the walls of the flat next door. It was only a mild distraction at first, but as the voices rose louder it was obvious that Shaun’s parents were having a serious row. The music stopped and Cynthia put her arm around Shaun. His body was stiff with shame and growing rage. The force of the argument intensified and Shaun's mother could be heard screaming. A series of thuds were followed by silence. Everyone in the room felt as if the walls had disintegrated.

All eyes were on Shaun. Charles held a beatific smile and signalled for the music to begin again. Within seconds, the entire group, including Shaun, sang loudly over the screams, which had begun again.

  

“Perichoresis and the Personal Experience of Kenosis" Aimilianos of Simonpetra

Excerpt from Aimilianos of Simonpetra, The Way of the Spirit (Athens: Indiktos, 2009), 32-39

Knowledge of God is something I acquire through possession, through ownership: it is something that belongs to me. It is a knowledge based on communion of the heart and intellect (nous). At such moments, the intellect is submerged within God and contemplates God from within. That is the heart’s communion with God.

This knowledge is more than theology, because together my heart and intellect think about God from within. This is, as a result, a kind of perichoresis.[1] My intellect and my heart begin to delve into what is, in a manner of speaking, the inaccessible sanctuary of God, to enter deeply into His darkness, because for us God is darkness, something unknown (cf. Exod. 20:21).[2]

There is, then, this perichoresis, and my knowledge now becomes a quest. I begin to search, to hunt. An amorous pursuit now unfolds between me and God, in the gardens, at night, during the day (cf. Song 3:12-15, 1:7, 3:1). And why do I pursue God? Because God pursues me. … 

The 'No True Scotsman' Fallacy - 'No True Evangelical' - Brad Jersak

When bombarded with a new (to me) idea via independent sources in less than 48 hours, I tend to do a double-take. I wonder if the multiplied coincidences might be providential winks from God, calling me to pay attention. Maybe. Or maybe not. But I pay attention anyway. 

So in the space of less than a day, friends and family in altogether different contexts nudged me into awareness of the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy ... I was alerted to recent examples and realized that I've often encountered it unawares. I'm recording my observations here because I think others may also benefit from recognizing this fallacy at work, especially as it pertains to faithfulness to Christ and the gospel.

from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

The 'No true Scotsman' fallacy (faulty reasoning) appeals to purity as a way to dismiss critiques in one's position or flaws in one's argument. 

The idea is that no matter what you believe or however valid the critiques against it, when challenged, you can simply move the target so that the critiques can't apply to a supposedly 'true' or 'real' example. Any evidence or examples given to verify the critique are dismissed as caricatures or 'straw men' of the 'true' version.

This kind of post-rationalization renders all criticisms invalid. It also makes the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy quite dangerous, because those who use it are no longer open to correction and become impervious to critique. That means it can also serve as a handy shield for dysfunctional movements or belief systems, especially those with a puritan bent.  

You can often sniff out the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy when you offer a critique and are charged with 'creating a straw man.'

Let's use a clear and recent example that I'll use precisely because I trust this author's motives and I am inclined to agree with him. Nevertheless ...

Thomas Kidd wrote an article entitled "The 'Evangelicals' Who Support Donald Trump." It's well worth reading, both because the author raises very important questions, but also demonstrates the fallacy I'm describing.

In the article, the author attempts to deny the claim that "so many Evangelicals" support Donald Trump. He claims that the term "Evangelical" has been co-opted by those who self-profess as Evangelicals because (i) they vote Republican, or (ii) they watch Fox News, or (iii) they identify as Evangelical regardless of their theology or church involvement. 

[In this article, I'm capitalizing Evangelical when I refer to the movement or tradition, whereas I use the lower-case evangelical as an adjective for those who might faithfully adhere to the 'evangel' -- the good news of Jesus Christ].

If I understand Kidd, his argument is essentially this:

Critique: Why do so many Evangelicals support Donald Trump?Counter argument: There's no need to panic, because 'true Evangelicals' would not support the likes of Donald Trump!

The author's argument is that true Evangelicals would not be so silly or shallow. He wants to say there is a big difference between true evangelicals (those who follow Christ) and the broader phenomenon or movement self-described as Evangelical. So far, so good. I think that's demonstrable.  

But even if I were to offer example after example of Evangelicals (in the movement) who are both evangelical (definitely believe the gospel), yet also fit the 'Trump-Fox-'Merica' or 'Duck Dynasty Christian' stereo-type, Kidd's counter-argument is that they are simply not 'true Evangelicals.' In his own words, 

It is a matter of rooting out corrupt influences which blur people’s understanding of what “evangelical” means, and more importantly, what the message of the Christian gospel is. Sorry, folks, but the gospel has nothing to do with the Republican Party, Fox News, or the United States of America. 

He advises: (i) Don't panic. (ii) Do distinguish between authentic evangelical faith and American civil religion. Excellent. And yet ... while I actually agree in principle with his last statement, the article obviously commits the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. And because it's an actual fallacy, I'm afraid the author inevitably corners himself into a wheat and tares dilemma.

First, he's created an awkward call to 'root out corrupt influences.' Awkward because I wonder who will arbitrate this 'rooting out.' Who is the 'true Evangelical' -- which is the pure remnant --that can rightfully act as judge and jury of who or what is corrupt? Who gets to determine the true definition of 'evangelical'? By what criteria is an influence considered 'corrupt'? Historically, the puritans who've thought to do so -- those confident about establishing the boundaries and dictating the rules and rooting out the impure -- well, more often than not they became the corrupting influence. Indeed, don't most of the historic heresies and modern cults begin that way? 

Nor is this a new problem ... recall the parable of the Wheat and Tares? What happens if we start pulling up what we think are the weeds? (Matthew 13:24-30) On the other hand, what happens when you don't? It appears like a double-bind where either the servants mistakenly destroy the wheat or the weeds end up choking it out. Jesus opts for the latter risk. In fact, he issues a direct warning and instruction: "No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them." He was about correction rather than exclusion (and to be fair, the article can also function that way). 

If we ignore Jesus' warning, Kidd's logic can actually turn on and turn out many of our Evangelical brothers and sisters. Like so:

1. "The gospel has nothing to do with the Republican Party, Fox News or the USA."
2. Many Evangelicals believe their faith has much to do with the Republican Party, Fox News or the USA. That is, many of my friends believe 'true Evangelicals' should and must always vote Republican; they only trust Fox News to represent Evangelicals fairly; and that America is exceptionally blessed as God's nation to display his glory, insofar as it remains faithful to the Evangelical faith.
3. Therefore, the gospel has nothing to do with many Evangelicals. [note: double-check this syllogism for fallacies of its own]. That is, the author is asserting that many Evangelicals are not evangelical. But the observable criteria is actually based not on adherence to the gospel ... rather, that they don't cheer for Trump, watch Fox or confuse the gospel and 'Merica (because 'true evangelicals' don't do that). 

I think in his defence of 'true Evangelicals,' the author may be opting for the too-easy exclusion of many self-identifying Evangelicals when, rather, they should be waking up to an alarm that something has gone desperately wrong in the American Evangelical tradition. What if The Donald IS a 'prophetic trumpet,' urgently asking, "What are you thinking!? Why can't you see through me!?" 

 

Indeed, ignoring similar alarm bells for so long may have finally put the term 'Evangelical' beyond rescue, at least in America (because Evangelical and America are two different categories, or should be). Two of my discussion partners put it this way:

Respondent 1: I'm sympathetic to what the author is trying to do, but I think the problems of American Evangelicalism are deep and well-entrenched. I don't find it at all surprising that significant numbers of Evangelicals enthusiastically support Trump... and they do! Somewhere along the way -- Cold War days, Moral Majority days, the rise of Fox News -- American evangelicalism confused Americanism for Christianity. It's not a small problem. 

Respondent 2: I guess I am trying to defend that segment of people in our "evangelical" world -- my church, your church, our families... -- That are living out the euangelion in beautiful ways and are nothing like the typical "Evangelical."  Maybe you are right... maybe the term and the majority of those who self-identify with it have morphed into "something else." Sad. [Note how the respondent must distinguish between 'typical evangelicals' and the Kidd's 'true evangelical.']  

Respondent 1: I think the term "Evangelical" has become so associated with partisan politics and the culture wars that it is beyond rehabilitation. (Except in theological circles as a technical term.) [Note how this respondent concludes that the term 'Evangelical' as it is most commonly used in America is now so different to the author's historically accurate 'true evangelical' that its common usage determines its current meaning ... and must therefore be abandoned.]   

Points to Ponder

1. Is "evangelical" as a term beyond retrieval? With its original associations with the gospel, is it too early to discard it? 
2. Have "Evangelicals" as a movement lost their way? Are they no longer truly evangelical? Where and why did they run aground? 
3. What about the many Evangelicals who remain evangelical? How might they best address their ongoing and worsening P.R. disasters?    
4. Who are the non- or post-Evangelical evangelicals? That is, in which other movements has the evangel been faithfully retained?
5. What is the evangel? Who decides? What do you believe to be the evangel? Why? If not on your own authority, whose? 

Getting the Enemy Right - Walter Thiessen

It seems to me that if we want to find any passion and determination inside of ourselves (collectively or individually), we need to have some clear and shared sense of which enemy we are really wanting to fight. If we can find a common enemy that crosses political (or theological) lines, so much the better.

What many politicians throw at us is these days is that the enemy is “terrorism” – a ridiculous, if not laughably pathetic, answer given that a) the statistical odds of being directly affected by terrorism in North America (and most countries) is minuscule and b) when we want to identify the enemy we would be better off identifying the disease (which is present everywhere) and not the symptom (which is mostly present in the places already devastated by the real enemy). Terrorist acts are the predictable effects of a much greater enemy, and that is the enemy we should be trying to track down – the enemy that has proven itself capable of continually generating fresh pockets of terrorism.

Of course it is political opportunism that has deliberately offered up “terrorism” as the replacement for “communism-as-master-enemy,” a very useful enemy that had the misfortune of falling apart after nearly a century of justifying nearly every evil imaginable. What after all (the powers-that-be seem to think) is a little genocide, assassination or economic enslavement here and there if it helped the West to protect itself from the spread of communism?

I’ll grant that communism was certainly a better suggestion as an enemy than terrorism in that it goes a couple of levels closer toward what I will soon suggest is the actual enemy. The problem, however, isn’t so much that communism was an “effect” of the real enemy (though that case could also be made), but that it was only “one example” of the real enemy. The crucial thing to remember is that all the violence and exploitation that was used to defend the “freedom” of corporate business interests reveal another example of the enemy closer to home.

In a brilliant but sobering moment, President Eisenhower in his farewell speech warned Americans about the dangers of both the “military-industrial complex” as well as the “scientific-technological elite.” This was now getting even closer to the naming of a true enemy; one sign that this is true is that his language named the enemy at work both at home and among opposing power blocs. (Never trust the naming of an enemy that is not at work at home as much as abroad.)

It’s quite possible that Eisenhower’s terms still have a great deal of currency, and I wouldn’t argue against anyone who still focused on those terms. However, when I think of today’s global corporate world, which is increasingly entangled through huge trade pacts that always sacrifice human scale (the small, local and personal) for the sake of mass global competition (and thereby always sacrificing the weak in favour of the powerful), then I think new language is now required.

So here is my suggestion, which I confess from the outset is, unfortunately, not nearly as catchy as “military-industrial complex” or the “war on terror.” I believe the enemy that we face is the “global system* of dehumanization based on exploitation, fear and violence that co-opts the participation** of masses of good people.” When it doesn’t occur directly through the exploitation, fear and violence, this co-opting takes place by cloaking itself either in inevitability or invisibility (i.e. layers of mass bureaucracy or laws and agreements that are indecipherable at any human level). There is a clear subliminal message that we are powerless to change any of this – so just submit, obey, and hope for the best. This is the enemy we need to fight, and I believe that it is an enemy regarding which we can join together across many of the arguments which divide us. (And it’s ok with me if you want to call this enemy Satan – though more accurately that probably refers to the “spirit behind the system.”)

Memorial to the Victims of Communism (Prague)

*I hesitated about making this plural or singular – certainly there are many systems, but increasingly these systems are all becoming entangled with one another and it may be fair to consider it as one mass network of systems. Of course, Walter Wink’s writings on “domination systems” are part of the inspiration for this perspective.

**The co-opting of the masses is a crucial aspect (in spite of the complication this adds) because no enemy is frightening and powerful enough if it doesn’t make us all participants in the evil.

Review of Johann Hari's 'Chasing the Scream' -- by Wayne Northey

Book Review of Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs, Johann Hari, New York: Bloomsbury, 2015, 389 pp.

The author is an established British journalist. In the “Introduction” he explains that his research took him “across nine countries and thirty thousand miles, and it would last for three years (p. 2).” At the end of the Introduction, the author writes:

It turns out that many of our most basic assumptions about this subject are wrong. Drugs are not what we think they are. Drug addiction is not what we have been told it is. The drug war is not what our politicians have sold it as for one hundred years and counting. And there is a very different story out there waiting for us when we are ready to hear it – one that should leave us thrumming with hope (p. 3).

I confess at the outset that so much of his material corresponded to what I have known as a longstanding practitioner in the criminal justice field. Part I is called “Mount Rushmore”. Chapter 1 is entitled “The Black Hand”. The start of the war on drugs, the first shot fired, is by Harry Anslinger, whose face would be one of three carved into a Mount Rushmore for drug prohibition. The author proceeds to tell his story, one of many throughout the book. The first scream “chased” in the drug war was none other than that of Anslinger’s own mother, who, Anslinger as a twelve-year-old discovered, was an addict. He learned his lesson from her screams: that drugs were the great “unhinging agent”. Hari writes:

When he grew into a man, this boy was going to draw together some of the deepest fears in American culture – of racial minorities, of intoxication, of losing control – and channel then into a global war to prevent those screams. It would cause many screams in turn. They can be heard in almost every city on earth tonight. This is how Harry Anslinger entered the drug war (p. 8).

We read similar accounts of how others entered the drug war: 

Download CLICK HERE to download Book Review of Chasing the Scream

3 Books on GRATITUDE - Reviews by Wayne Northey

One Thousand Gifts: A Dare to LIVE FULLY Right Where You Are, Ann Voskamp, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010, 237 pp;

Radical Gratitude, Mary Jo Leddy, Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002, 182 pp;

The Gift of Thanks: The Roots, Persistence, and Paradoxical Meanings of a Social Ritual, Margaret Visser, Toronto: HarperCollins, 2010, 458 pp.

These three publications all contain gratitude as central theme. 

The first is by an evangelical author, the other two by Catholic authors, one a theologian and activist, the other by a retired Classics professor and full-time author.  

Voskamp’s book is sustained lyrical prose, including the very layout.  It is mainly a personal journey of discovery of eucharisteo: thanksgiving rooted in charis (grace) and chara (joy) (pp. 32 and 33).  The author begins with tragedy: the accidental death of her younger sister when the author was 5 years old.  Later we learn of two further deaths from congenital conditions of her in-laws’ newborns. 

The book is full of nuggets of wisdom, both from others and from the author. She cites for instance Albert Schweizer: “The greatest thing is to give thanks for everything. He who has learned this knows what it means to live…  He has penetrated the whole mystery of life: giving thanks for everything (p. 34)”. Or “The only real fall of man is his noneucharistic life in a noneucharistic world (p. 35).”, citing Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann. 

The title comes from a dare by a friend: To name one thousand blessings.  She begins.  She smiles: “it is sort of like … unwrapping love (p. 45).”  And she continues doing so throughout.  “Practice, practice, practice (p. 56).” is her watchword.  Thanks for all things in each moment, however… whatever…

As in all the books, the author’s is a politics of gratitude too.

Rejecting joy to stand in solidarity with the suffering doesn’t rescue the suffering. The converse does. The brave who focus on all things good and all things beautiful and all things true, even in the small, who give thanks for it and discover joy even in the here and now, they are the change agents who bring fullest Light to all the world (p. 58.)

Who can deny it?

CLICK HERE for Northey's full Review of Gratitude Books

Thomas Merton: New Camaldoli and Redwoods - Ron Dart

I. Noonday Demons and Hermitages           

Most on the Thomas Merton Society Canada (TMSC) national executive had planned on doing a week retreat at Redwoods Monastery (where Merton twice visited in May & October 1968) the week of April 13 2015. The closer we inched towards commitment and arrival date, the fewer on the journey. There were, finally, only three of us (Angus Stuart, my wife Karin and myself) who arrived for the weeklong retreat.

 

I was interested, though, in visiting the Camaldoli Hermitage in Big Sur before the trip to Redwoods for three reasons: 1) there has been a lingering myth that Merton visited the Hermitage, 2) there was, also, the controversy in the 1950s about Merton longing to leave the Cistericans and join the Camaldoli monks so well recounted in Don Grayston’s recent book, Thomas Merton and the Noonday Demon: The Camaldoli Correspondence and, 3) there was Merton’s interaction and correspondence with the Beats of the Big Sur area such as Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Henry Miller, Jack Kerouac and William  Everson. I was interested in doing more sleuth work to get some further answers to my questions. So, Karin and I left our West Coast Canadian home Easter Sunday (April 5) and headed southward to California. Our trip to the Hermitage in Big Sur took us three days (stopped in Ashland/Oregon, site of one of the best Shakespearean Festivals, onwards to Santa Cruz, then to Big Sur on April 7 after a fine trekking day on some of the Big Sur coastal trails and pathways in Andrew Molera State Park and Pfeiffer Beach). Big Sur was the setting for the much acclaimed and award winning 1965 film, The Sandpiper. 

CLICK HERE to download Ron's full article on Thomas Merton 

Review of Brian Gregor's 'Philosophical Anthropology of the Cross' by Wayne Northey

Book Review of: A Philosophical Anthropology of the Cross: The Cruciform Self, Brian Gregor, Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2013, 261 pp.

What caught my eye in deciding to ask the publisher for a review copy was the subtitle. I received more than I had bargained for!  At least I confess at the outset: I am not by any means a sophisticated reader in philosophy.  Brian Gregor is.  Another work that establishes that self-realization firmly is by the brilliant theologian David Bentley Hart, entitled The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth (2003).

Enough said.  With that disclaimer, I shall proceed with the review.

Chapter 1 begins with the very question of justifying religious faith through philosophy.  The question posed is:

How should philosophy approach a reality that claims to be irresolvable scandal for philosophical thinking (p 1)?

The book explores that question with a specific problematic, “whether philosophy can think the cross of Jesus Christ… (p 1) For the cross of Christ is “central to Christian faith as both a historical event and a fundamental figure of Christian discourse (p 1).”  The author writes that

Our task will be to consider how philosophical thinking can face the cross honestly, so that it is transformed by the cross rather than transforming the cross in order to fit its philosophical agenda.  We are investigating, in other words, the possibility of an authentically cruciform philosophy…  What does the cross of Christ – as both a historical event and a figure of Christian discourse – mean for thinking about the human being and what it means to become a self (pp 1 & 2)?

Several further related questions are posed “that will occupy us in these pages (p. 2)” the author avers. 

Throughout the book, “two competing accounts of human being, identity, and selfhood. (pp. 2 & 3)” will be held in tension.  The sheer particularity of the cross that “claims to be the locus of true self-understanding for the human being (p. 3).” is a scandal par excellence for Jew and Greek.  So Gregor asks: "Is the cross a reality that philosophical thought cannot adequately think? If so, what can the philosopher do with the scandalous, unsurpassable, irresolvable reality of the cross?" (p 5)

Gregor asks further, "What does the cross of Christ mean for our understanding of what it is to be human, and to be oneself?" (p 8)

Gregor’s main interlocutors will be philosopher Paul Ricoeur, but with discussions too of Martin Heidigger, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Charles Taylor.  From the theological side, Dietrich Bonhoeffer will be mainly discussed.  Bonhoeffer and Ricoeur make excellent dialogue partners for several reason, claims the author, adduced on page 8.  Søren Kierkegaard and Martin Luther are also dialogue partners, along with other Lutheran thinkers.

CLICK HERE to download the full book review of A Philosophical Anthropology

Racism and 'the Militsia' - Lazar Puhalo

Like it or not, racism is voluminous, virulent and violent in America today. Not only that, but America is rapidly descending into a harsh police state in which police forces are equipped, not as normal policing agencies, but as full armed militias. Recalling that, in Communist Yugoslavia and Romania, the police were called "militsia," and armed as military rather than police, this should be chilling to Americans as they face another election.

I did not hear this matter raised at all in the Republican candidates debate, and likely one should not have expected in on FOX Broadcasting (it is a travesty to refer to them as "news"), because FOX is comfortable with the idea of a police state. They constantly "justify" the brutal racism in which the militsia/police gun down unarmed black boys and humiliate and degrade black people on a regular basis.

It was not so many years ago that white Christians in the South would hang an innocent black man just for sport or to "keep niggers in their place." Those of us old enough to remember this so well can, perhaps, see more clearly what is going on in America today. Right wing howling about the accusation will not save a single African-American life or protect a black university professor from being treated like a suspected criminal under the most mundane of circumstances.

Will any of the present candidates address the problem? Will anyone in the Orthodox Church address the problem? Not likely. Far too many of us are concerned with depriving others of rights, not defending those who rights have been trampled upon.

Dr George Gabriel adds (in his response to my editorial)

Add to these horrors, widespread gerrymandering, redistricting of election districts to break up large black American voting districts into separate smaller ones grafted onto larger white and more distant ones to make black districts smaller, more difficult to travel to for voting. Also some states, not only in the south but even in PA and the midwest, have done this and have closed polling stations on Sundays and greatly limited the hours they are open on work days. In the south, the black churches traditionally bus their people after services to the distant polling stations. Now this new tactic by white republican governors has made voting impossible for many elderly and poor blacks. Many of these states even require IDs of elderly rural blacks in order to vote now, these are old folks who have no form of ID, not even a birth certificate, photo credit cards, bank counts. etc.

The Voting Act of 1965 (by Pres. Lyndon Johnson) secured voting rights for blacks by federal law. Now the Law is trampled upon and virtually ignored by white so-called Christians. 

I don't believe anyone in the Orthodox Church will address this problem, even though the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus is Greek Orthodox (of Greek and German descent). 

Re: the Republican Debate on Fox -- it got worse when most of the candidates began confessing their Christian faith and devotion. To his credit, however, at least Trump refrained from this ultimate hypocrisy.