Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

A Sacramental Approach to Ecology - Symposium

DRAFT PROGRAM for discussion purposes only in advance of the event DRAFT PROGRAM for the Saturday (Oct 7) in Northwest Auditorium:

Note that we have left room on the afternoon panels for interested faculty from GENV and PHIL to participate on the roundtables

“A Sacramental Approach to Ecology”

10am-12noon: short presentations (15min each)

Archbishop Lazar: Opening Remarks on Romans 8 and our conference topic

10am: An Ecumenical Discussion on the Responsibility of People of Faith

David Goa: A Sacramental Approach to Ecology — An Orthodox View Ron Dart: A Sacramental Approach to Ecology — An Anglican View Chris Morrissey: A Sacramental Approach to Ecology — A Catholic View

11am: Listening to Prophetic Voices in the Christian Tradition

Kimberly Franklin Jennifer Doede Erica Grimm

12noon-2pm: break into small groups over lunch to discuss conference themes 2pm-4pm: reconvene in Northwest Auditorium

to have roundtable discussions & reports on lunchtime conversations

2pm Roundtable #1

Report on Lunchtime Discussions, with Introductory Remarks by Brad Jersak

3pm Roundtable #2

Christian Hope and a Sacramental Approach to Ecology 4pm Concluding Remarks: Archbishop Lazar

Poster clip art:

https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB165upOFXXXXcHXVXXq6xXFXXXo/Nordic-Modern- Minimalist-Animals-and-Forest-Clip-art-Poster-Picture-A4-Art-Print-Canvas-Mural- Living.jpg

Theological Existence Today: Identity Politics and the Gospel - by Michael Hardin

“’I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one comes to the Father, but by me.’ (John 14:6.) ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. . . . I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will be saved.’

Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.”

~ The Barmen Declaration

The thesis of this essay that Progressive/Liberal Protestant[1] ‘Christians’ must eschew all retaliatory violence if they claim Jesus as Lord, applies mutatis mutandis to the Evangelical tradition.[2] For 30 years I have challenged the theological model of that tradition in nine books and numerous essays. These books have been lauded by notable Progressive Christian leaders. This is the first essay where I have examined the Progressive Christian view. It should not be supposed that I am an Evangelical except in the Barthian sense.

This essay raises a theological question. This question arises in the sphere of the ‘ecclesia’ as the conversation around which it began: a discussion of the character and message of Jesus of Nazareth. Now, the examination of a tradition does not eo ipso entail rejection of that tradition, nor does it imply that there are not significant race issues plaguing American Christianity. The author is well aware that certain readers will remain unaware of these authorial ‘recognitions’ and may misread both the intentionality of the author and the thread of the argument. However, if there is to be real conversation and not just one-sided intellectual colonization, this issue, among others, must be addressed within the sphere of the ‘ecclesia.’ In the church there is one Lord and external voices (‘natural theologies’) have no authority here.

Followers of Jesus are in a unique position to blaze a trail through the American culture wars. The conversation cannot be one sided; listening must be done by all, healing nurtured by all, and faithful witness to Jesus lived by all, Evangelical and Liberal/Progressive. As I have watched this conversation develop, I know of some who listen carefully on all ‘sides.’ Listening is crucial in order for the pain of the present to be exorcized. It is the manner by which the Christian fundamentalist deals with their pain in relation to the Gospel and the Lord they claim that is addressed here. As Denny Moon said, “sin is the destructive way we handle our pain.” If the Liberal/Progressive wishes to know why their message falls on deaf ears to their ‘other’ Christian members of the Body of Christ, rather than excoriating  the ‘other’ as blind, they might look to the way that discourse is conducted by the vocal minority within their movement which causes alienation. This is a difficult topic to address in the sphere of the ecclesia, dangerous to navigate and fraught with both peril…and promise.

American Protestant Christianity is at a crossroads. In all its forms, conservative and liberal, Evangelical and liberal/progressive, an old question looms large and, by and large, the solution that is being arrived at is the exact same position of Jerusalem Christianity and its identity politics, a politics the Apostle Paul observed and critiqued  as the most significant issue facing early Christianity. Identity politics in both its racial and national forms has plagued Christianity from the very beginning. It is not a theological solution but a theological problem.

Download Identity-Politics-and-the-Gospel-3

[1] This essay only engages Protestantism in the United States.

[2] Germane to this essay is the problem known as the ‘curse of Ham’ which originated in late antique and early medieval Jewish circles, and formed a crucial argument for slavery in America among conservative Southern Christians. It is this destructive interpretation which is still taught in Sunday Schools in Conservative Protestant churches. I recall ‘learning’ it when I became an Evangelical Fundamentalist in 1975. A decent historical survey can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham.

Response to Derek Rishmawy's Review of Zahnd's "Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God" by Matt Larimer

As a father of seven, a full-time minister, and a part-time farmer I have to work very hard at finding time to read.

I hesitantly put down my copy of Ephraim Radner's Brutal Unity, in order to read Brian Zahnd’s Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God. I say hesitantly because I have stated before and continue to believe that Brutal Unity may be the most important book for the church in this generation. However, Radner may now have some competition, not from SITHOALG, which is powerful and much needed, but from the firestorm of conversation it has generated between different traditions within the church. I thought it would only take me a few days to read, since SITHOALG is a short book, but then came the review. That's right, in the furthest reaches of the blogosphere and twitterverse it has come to be known by those two words alone, The Review. I follow an extremely eclectic group of people on twitter and my feed was filled with love and hate for Derek Rishmawy’s review. Derek pointed out many things that I had thought myself while reading and I agreed with much of what he had to say. That being said he also made some fairly egregious mistakes, but none were as offensive as the length. My goodness, Athanasius completed his masterwork On the Incarnation in just a few more pages than it took Rishmawy to review a two hundred and seven page book. I had to download the PDF and print it from our church computer just to make it through. So, along with responding to Derek’s criticisms this article is a plea for a restoration of dialectic brevity.

If you’re anything like me when you read John 3:18, “whoever does not believe is condemned already,” your mind probably assumes that John is referring to atheists, agnostics, or adherents of other religions but that would be a mistake. Most atheists that I have spoken with do not believe BECAUSE what they heard was not the gospel. I agree with Derek’s final sentence that the gospel really is at stake. And he was right that many of Jesus’ parables and teachings do describe wrath and judgement. What he failed to point out, however, is that Jesus’ harshest rebukes and threats of judgement and wrath were reserved for religious leaders who had prayed and thought deeply about what God is like. Many of those leaders had heard the true gospel. The Holy Spirit had revealed to them the infinite depth of God’s love and mercy, but they rejected it. Yes, Jesus says that those who mistreat the poor will experience God’s wrath but the New Testament overwhelmingly points out that it is those who claim to be teachers and mislead people about God’s true nature that will experience the most severe punishment. After all, it is the son who has spent the most time with his father, in the parable of The Prodigal Son, who experiences the most pain at the party.

Take another parable Derek mentions, The Vineyard Owner and the Wicked Tenants, where the vineyard owner clearly represents God the Father and the wicked tenants represent the men and women God has entrusted to care for his kingdom. It is the wicked tenants who experience the wrath of the owner of the vineyard, not the owner’s son. The owner’s son experiences the wrath of the tenants not the wrath of his father. This is important because it highlights the fact that Rismawy’s theology actually comes up short under the microscope that he is trying to use in order to criticize Zahnd. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is actually the view that does not take sin seriously enough.

Yes, men and women will experience the natural consequences of their sin in this life, as Derek and Brian agree, but it is only in the Orthodox system, that Zahnd supports, where sinners experience the consequences of their sin in the next life. Reformed theologians would have you believe that Christ takes the personal punishment “for specific crimes by specific sinners against specific victims” on the cross, but they have a very difficult time explaining what that punishment is. We already agreed that it isn’t the natural consequences of our sin because will all continue to experience those even after coming to faith. And when pushed about whether they believe Christ took the punishments of sinners, as they believe the punishment will be (actual rejection by God and separation from his love) they deny that as well. It is only in the Orthodox system that we see that Christ has not taken the punishment of the Father but that we all must face the final judgement.

When someone in this life becomes aware of the truth of God and experiences the pure power of his presence their reaction is much like Isaiah during his encounter described in Isaiah chapter six, or the queen in George McDonald’s Lilith when the slow worm buries itself deep within her bosom. God’s glory reveals to us the reality of our own nature and the pain associated with that revelation would be unbearable if it weren’t for God’s presence. You see this is the reality of God’s wrath in the next life. When we cross over and experience the beatific vision (Orthodox not Catholic version, no time to distinguish or we would end up with a twenty one page review) it will be an almost unbearable agony for some and an almost unbearable ecstasy for others. It will be ecstasy for those like Lazarus, agony for those like the rich man, and possibly unbearable for those who claimed to be teachers and led men and women astray. Please let me explain, someone who was born into sin, never heard the gospel, and committed horrendous atrocities meets God face to face they will weep and gnash their teeth as they realize the depth of their sin. But it will be like nothing compared to men and women who heard the gospel, who felt the pull of the Holy Spirit calling them to change their minds, and yet they refused.

This is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, this is the greater strictness, and this is the wrath of the owner of the vineyard. This is the meaning of wrath in the scriptures and in the Eastern tradition, but when you are overly dismissive of half of Christian history, tradition, and theology you miss it. You miss the depth of their thinking because you never fully engage with it and Rishmawy ultimately ends up as guilty of the sin he is accusing Zahnd of committing. This is also the reason why N.T. Wright has had to work so hard at convincing Western Christianity of the basics of Orthodox Eastern Christianity. You simply can’t understand Orthodox Christianity in its fullness through cursory readings and western criticisms. You have to do the difficult work of studying Eastern theologians throughout history. The truly sad part of this entire debate is the reality that when all the i’s are dotted and all the t’s are crossed there truly is only a hairs width between Derek and Brian’s theology, but the width of that hair makes all the difference in this life and the next.

Prophetic Witness and Revolutionary Submission (Rom 13 / Psalm 2) - Bob Ekblad

Prophetic Witness of Christians before the State

The prophetic witness of Christians before the State has too often been muted by a surface reading of the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 13:1-7, with its infamous “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God” (Rom. 13:1).

Added to this are Peter’s words: ”Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right” (1 Pet. 2:13-14).

It is critical that we read these verses about submission in their larger contexts and in the light of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ missionary activity and teaching. When you also deliberately engage with other Scriptures about governing authorities, like Psalm 2 and Revelation 13, a uniquely revolutionary form of resistance emerges that can inform our action in these challenging times.

What is often missed is that Paul and Peter called followers of Jesus to submit to the pagan and brutal Roman Empire. That submission included respecting the rule of law as long as it didn’t counter the higher allegiance to Christ, honoring those in authority, and humbly accepting the consequences if disobedience was required. Jesus, Peter and Paul were all arrested, beaten, and imprisoned for their missional activities, and Paul wrote at least four of his Epistles from prison.

Brad Jersak review of David Bentley Hart's New Testament

Review of Donald Mackinnon's 'Kenotic Ecclesiology' - by Ron Dart

Kenotic Ecclesiology: Select Writings of Donald M. Mackinnon. John C. McDowell, Scott A. Kirkland, Ashley John Moyse (editors), Rowan Williams (foreword). Fortress Press, 2016.

There has been a desperate and much delayed need to read and inwardly digest the poignant insights of Donald MacKinnon. Mackinnon has been ignored for too long, curtly dismissed as too eccentric or caricatured. This tendency has led to the virtual absence of MacKinnon’s insights in the broader faith community on substantive issues. There has also been a tendency to apply the notion of kenosis to either Christology or Christian contemplative anthropology. The sheer beauty and appeal of Kenotic Ecclesiology is the way the idea of kenosis is applied to the life of the church in a post-Constantinian and post-Christian ethos.

Kenotic Ecclesiology draws from two of MacKinnon’s contributions to the “Signpost” series that was published in 1940 (the searching vision is quite pertinent today, though) and his much later mid-1960s “The Stripping of the Altars”(with its searing and relentless questioning).The “Introductions” to the three booklets in the tome by John C. McDowell, Ashley John Moyse and Scott A. Kirkland bring together, in a compact and succinct manner, the congealed vision of Mackinnon and why his “Signpost” articles and “The Stripping of the Altars” are as significant today as when they were published a few decades ago. “God the Living and True”, “The Church of God” and “The Stripping of the Altars” have a prophetic and incisive bite that holds to the core issues and will not quit until the raw and painful realities are faced into with unflinching honesty and, at times, painful transparency.

Mackinnon had a unique and uncanny way of threading together theology, philosophy, literature and many other disciplines. It is quite obvious why, as a teacher of Rowan William, Iris Murdoch and many other significant writers, he is the oft hidden king. But, the real contribution of Mackinnon is the way he faithfully and consistently engages the nature of faith and the tragic. Obviously, MacKinnon is much too bright to slip into a simplistic and unrealistic Christian triumphalism. And, the way he ponders the layered nature of kenosis and tragedy is rare amongst most Christian intellectuals and theologians. Tragedy, as a literary, philosophical, political and theological insight goes much deeper and further than merely a pondering of suffering. Suffering can be tragic but there is more to tragedy than suffering. The task of threading together hope, kenosis and tragedy forms the backbone of much of Mackinnon’s far reaching approach to faith. Sadly so, the church is often quite unaware of such themes and Mackinnon’s unique approach to such reaching into the hard issues. I found MacKinnon’s dialogue between Greek and Christian thought on the tragic a needful reworking on the perennial Athens and Jerusalem horn butting or varieties of synthesis. Once the tragic in Greek theatre is brought to the fore and the tensions between the Greek tragedians, Plato and Christian thought collide, deeper places are gone to that one and all must face into sooner or later. It is significant that Rowan Williams recent book, The Tragic Imagination: The Literary Agenda, deals with such a timely and timeless theme. 

The fact that Mackinnon in these three booklets of sorts touches on difficult issues where many often do not go does not mean he does not face into the way the church has often been co-opted by political and military power. Yet again, MacKinnon points the way for the church to go that does not pander or genuflect to political realism. But, in saying such, MacKinnon was no naïve idealist either. Again and again in Kenotic Ecclesiology we see the prophet MacKinnon caring so deeply for the church that he neither abandons her (as lesser souls do) nor uncritically doffs the cap to traditionalism or the establishment status quo—certainly not an easy tightrope to walk.  

I must admit I found “God the Living and True”, “The Church of God” and, crowning these two pamphlets of sorts, “The Stripping of the Altars” compelling reads that both challenge and nourish the soul, mind and imagination. But, as mentioned above, it is MacKinnon’s genius and depth, breadth and rigorous engagement with kenosis and tragedy that is his real contribution to serious theology as it ever inches into the uncertain future.

There can be no doubt that with the publication of Kenotic Ecclesiology a phoenix-like resurrection of Mackinnon is afoot, and do we dare to hope that more of MacKinnon’s writings will be brought to the frontstage to both enrich and challenge the church?

Ron Dart    

Unequivocal Christian Response to Evil: 2 Principles, 3 Examples - Brad Jersak

TWO PRINCIPLES

Principle 1 - "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20)

Call evil what it is. It is evil. It is darkness. It is bitter. Do not equivocate in naming evil. In light of the Cross of Christ, evil is forgivable --it is NOT excusable, justifiable or ignorable. Those who crucified Christ were called 'wicked' (Acts 2:23) and the crucifixion was named a 'betrayal' and a 'murder' (Act 7:52). Let us unequivocally call evil what it is: racism is evil, misogyny is evil, assault is evil, killing is evil.  

Principle 2 - "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:21) With the just desire to overcome evil comes the temptation to do so by any means necessary. Christ recognized this and forbade it. Paul recognized this and forbade it. Yes, always seek to overcome evil. Never employ 'justified' evil to do so ... refer back to principle 1. Specifically, violence, hatred and self-righteousness are evil responses to evil. "The wrath of man does not create the justice of God." (James 1:20)

The Jesus Way does not turn a blind eye to injustice. It steps into the breach to resist it. It says a clear no and 'woe' to evil. It overcomes evil.  And it does so in the Jesus Way, which means laying down the sword of violence and hate, and picking up the cross of co-suffering love and radical forgiveness. It's called a cross for a reason. But I'll leave that to your imagination.

THREE EXAMPLES

In the wake of the Charlottesville incidents, the general public impression is that Evangelical and Charismatic movements in America have been embarrassingly silent or worse, have justified and even joined Alt-Right / White Nationalist causes. At the least, they've not unequivocally offered a unified denouncement to the satisfaction of those who've watched and waited. And yet the National Association of Evangelicals (member of the World Evangelical Alliance) has offered a very clear statement HERE, condemning White Supremacy in all its forms. Well done.

That said, the 'Evangelical' brand has been so tainted by its political associations and shenanigans over the last decades that its millions of exiles and critics regard it as beyond credibility. Sadly, they may also see Evangelicalism as synonymous with Christianity. But this is too narrow. Other examples of a Jesus Way response appeared this week among the Orthodox and the Mennonites:

The Mennonite Central Committee has a reputation of consistency in on-the-ground relief, development and justice work. Their statement is typical of their thoughtful Jesus Way response to injustice wherever and whenever they see it. They exemplify the two principles. But more than that, they offer a confession of their own sin, practicing pulling the log out of their own eye first.

"While we Anabaptist Christians have been willing to join other movements for justice, we have too often been slow or unwilling to join the struggle for racial justice, failing to see white supremacy as the violence that it is. As MCC, we confess and repent such hesitancy and even blindness, which exacts an ongoing physical and spiritual toll on our sisters and brothers of color and leads to spiritual and moral decay for white people."

You can read the full statement HERE. 

So too, The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the USA issued a statement condemning racist violence, xenophobia and white supremacist ideology as reprehensible HERE. They also condemn it or participation in phyletism as formal heresy, the strongest category of false teaching. They also note that a Jesus Way response is necessary:  "In this, we pray wholeheartedly for the families of those who lost their lives or suffered in these tragic events. In like manner, we cannot condone any form of revenge or retaliation by any group or individual." They call, instead, for ways of reconciliation that will overcome and "rise above any and all discrimination in our history, our present, and our future."    

CONCLUSION

When it comes to discrimination, the Church has often been the chief offender and offered xenophobia an infrastructure from which to operate. Repentance for this and a new way of being have been slow in coming and a proliferation of tragic examples are still obvious to this day. But for those who still hope to use the word 'Christian' as an adjective describing those who seek to follow the Jesus Way, we do have principles of engagement against evil and some models to follow. For both the former and the latter, we pray, Lord have mercy.

The Prophetic Critique of Sacrifice - Matthew Lynch

Francesco Hayez - "Destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem" - 1827

There’s a story I’ve often heard told about Old Testament prophets. I don’t think it’s true, but here’s how it goes.

God apparently gave Israel a sacrificial system. He asked for obedience. He asked for victims. And he asked for bloodshed. But in time, and as Israel’s knowledge of God matured, certain groups came to realize that God didn’t actually want this. A religious system that depends on scapegoats, victims, and bloodshed stands in opposition to the divine way of justice and love.

Who made this discovery? It was the radicals … the prophets. It took prophetic insight to imagine a religious world beyond sacrifice. The religious establishment was bent on its own preservation, and lacked the imagination to see otherwise.

CLICK HERE to continue reading

Dr. Matthew Lynch is Dean of Studies and Head of the OT Dept at Westminster Theological Centre (Cheltenham). 

Veneration of the Theotokos as Feminist Expression - Brad Jersak

 To feminist critics of Orthodox patriarchy, I hear you. While we have female saints, apostles, evangelists, prophets, pastors, teachers, parish council chairs, chanters and finally (after too many centuries) a deacon in one jurisdiction, it is true: we still don't ordain priests. For some, this is a line in the sand. One that delayed my chrismation for many years. One I can't change. I am sorry.

 

But there are two things I can do as an Orthodox feminist:

 

1. I could commit to rising no higher in the hierarchy than is allowed women. I could willingly make their 'glass ceiling' my own. I am praying about that. Not that anyone decides on their own ordination in Orthodoxy. Not that Orthodoxy is about power or title, but the downward mobility of servanthood. Not that I could 'advance' further anyway since my wife has chosen not to become Orthodox. So I suppose it's a moot point, but perhaps an important statement for those with objections. If your feminism prevents you from embracing Orthodoxy, you could simply commit to solidarity with the women who faithfully serve (in the ways listed above) as they do now, and more importantly expunge ambition from your heart for title and power beyond what is allowed women. Not that we're protesting. Not that we're recruiting. So, be at peace. We are.

 

2. Now this might sound cheeky, but I can also challenge my Protestant feminist friends to engage in a far more revolutionary act of feminism than they are used to--one common to Orthodoxy. Namely, the veneration (not worship) of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary). I know the standard objections, and I also know by experience that they are often based in mistaken assumptions and ignorance.

 

But here's the thing: criticisms of Orthodox patriarchy ring a bit hollow from feminists who don't or won't honor the woman who bore God the Son in the temple of her womb and whose words the Gospel records: "...from now on all generations will call me blessed."

 

St. Basil the Great (4th century)--brother and student of St. Macrina the Younger, the great (perhaps greatest) female teacher, the theologian behind 'the Holy Hierarchs' who gave us the Nicene Creed--wrote this hymn to Mary, which I gladly sing as an Orthodox Feminist. Would you?

 

"All of creation rejoices in you, O full of grace: the assembly of angels and the human race. You are a sanctified temple and a spiritual paradise, the glory from whom God was incarnate and became a child; our God, existing before all ages. He made your womb a throne, and your body more spacious than the heavens. All of creation rejoices in you, O full of grace. Glory to you."

 

In singing "glory to you," we do not steal glory from Christ. We are praying that Christ would glorify his mother, as promised to all the saints (in Romans 8) and acknowledging that, in fact, he already has, to our great joy. For she is the firstfruits of all those who willingly bear Christ in this world, with the prayer “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word d.”

 

Some will no doubt remind me that it's one thing to venerate the dead while marginalizing the living. I completely agree. We should NEVER marginalize any living woman. And to that point, Mary is a living woman--we believe in the resurrection. So how is it that feminism critiques Orthodox patriarchy (as it should) while marginalizing the greatest living (still) woman in history? I can think of no greater misogyny--or irony. It's too easy to despise the all male priesthood while refusing to join them in venerating the mother of God Incarnate. It feels like a case of needing to pull the plank from one's own eye.

 

Yes, singing and bowing and kissing an icon of the Virgin Mother is uncomfortable to those who've been conditioned to believe it is an act of idolatry rather than an expression of deep affection and appropriate honor that I offer my own dear mother. So, for conscience sake, I can be gracious: my Protestant feminist friends need not participate. It is enough that you would pray for us--for God, in his mercy, to open our eyes to our misogyny, as we do for you. But be aware that your Orthodox friends take this form of feminism--veneration of Mary and all female saints--ver seriously, including especially the feminist Patriarchs among us.     

 

P.S. Here is an interesting article from a female Orthodox preacher (Frederica Mathews-Green) on the topic of Female Ordination. 

Review of Brian Zahnd's "Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God" - by Rob Grayson

Today I have the privilege of posting some brief thoughts on the latest new book from Brian Zahnd, titled Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God, published by WaterBrook and released on 15 August.

Those who have followed my blog or my Facebook posts for any length of time will be no stranger to Zahnd. A veteran pastor of 35 years’ standing, in recent years he has become a prolific and increasingly important voice for those who tire of dogmatic fundamentalism and its ugly implications, but who are unwilling to simply throw in the towel and walk away from the faith altogether. As a result, Zahnd is at the forefront of a rising tide of prophetic voices whose mission is to help Christians and non-Christians alike rediscover – in the words of the book’s subtitle – “The Scandalous Truth of the Very Good News”. (I have previously reviewed two other books by Zahnd: A Farewell To Mars and Water to Wine).

In a way, Sinners bears some similarity with Zahnd’s previous book Water to Wine: Some of my Story, in that it starts with what he once believed as a zealous young Jesus freak and tracks his theological trajectory from there towards a much broader, deeper and more beautiful faith. The key difference, though, is that where Water to Wine was essentially a biographical narrative that served as a framework for Zahnd’s theological growth, Sinners is unashamedly a work of theology – by which I mean that its focus is theological, not biographical, and it is structured into broad theological topics, including some “hot potatoes”.

CLICK HERE to continue reading

Barriers to Grace and the Christian Orientation - Kenneth Tanner

“Woe to you, leaders of the church, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." Matthew 23:13

Just a reminder that erecting barriers to grace—closing the door of our churches in the face of any person, and we do this in all sorts of ways—is a serious sin.

People can tell if our *disposition* toward them is not one of genuine invitation and unconditional regard. They can hear "this is not your house" in our words and tone. They can see it in our eyes. They can tell when we stop listening with an open heart to their experiences.

The unwelcome vibe we give off can only be converted to one of love when we recognize that God has already *acted* and that these actions have related every person to God in two irrevocable ways:

God is the creator—the fashioner—of every person. He loves them not less than human parents love their children but in the same way God loves himself and all things! There is no degree or measure in God's love.

God in Jesus Christ has become human, taken on flesh and contingency and pain and hunger and loneliness and anguish and the entire human condition. In Jesus Christ God is the human brother of every other human.

So God is their creator and God is their brother.

This is the Christian's orientation toward all including those who approach the church. God has acted already to relate himself to this person. They belong as much as we do. Theirs is the kingdom.

Fire, Fury and Frankly, Folly - Kenneth Tanner

"[North Korea] will be met with fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen before."

It's ghastly to even suggest it but one way we would learn not to make or house nuclear weapons would be to have about half a dozen civilizational centers—across the races and religions and systems of economics and continents that divide us—turned to glass by these horrors.

All of a sudden we'd understand the enormity of the evil these armaments represent.

It would so alter human consciousness that part of being human would forever after be opposition to their existence.

We'd also, for hundreds of years, be limited in traveling to those areas and they would thus remain memorials to our folly that we would fly over and film.

It would be an international memorial holiday to stop and remember our inhumanity, and the reality of human limits in the face of material mysteries like the atom, and—God help us—where the boundary between "can" and "should" lies.

In the meantime, we have to listen to people talk about using these babels as if using them is a moral option, as if using them would show everyone what genuine power looks like.

What genuine power looks like is a feed trough for a crib, and the stars for your roof, and a towel around your waist, and a basin of water in your hands, being nailed helpless to a tree, life blood seeping from your body.

This wounded God is the power that holds the worlds in place, the energy that ignites the stars in ten trillion galaxies, the life that gives breath to every creature on earth.

Humility not arrogance—certainly not the armaments of men—is the source of all genuine strength. Humility is what the Christian worships and trusts.

The Dark Amusement of the New Nuclear Winter - Kenneth Tanner

It's darkly amusing to watch people fret over Kim Jong-un or Donald Trump possessing nuclear arsenals when it is a form of madness and sheer folly for *any* person or government to possess even one device.

Rationalizations about nuclear weapons—including all the ones we Americans live with and refuse to repent of—are a symptom of the mental illness that Christians call the fall.

Only a "god" who hates humanity and creation could inspire these abominations.

And humans partnered with the "god of this world"—with satan's hatred of the creation, his disgust at the image of God in humanity, and his contempt for the reality of God in human flesh—when we made them.

Those who designed the bombs had misgivings but they pocketed those thoughts and feelings for the sake of curiosity and the quest for superiority. They heard (as we all do) the whisper from the serpent ... "you will be like God."

Just because we *could* make them does not mean that we *should* have—much less that we should have tested or wielded them against cities of humans—but Americans (and humans) are more often than not moral pragmatists.

Not only are these devices indiscriminate by design, they destroy cities and geographies. When used en masse they level whole cultures and nations, entire continents and oceans. They are—why is this not clear to everyone—inherently evil.

The demons hate humanity because they are not incarnate; they envy the image of God in flesh and so seek to destroy us and the material creation. They goad our fallen imaginations and hearts into wars.

These devices will slay the image of God in the flesh and mar this wondrous world on a scale so much more diabolical than any previous technology of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a mercy compared to the destructive capabilities of contemporary nuclear devices.

We don't disarm or seek the disarming of nations because we have not yet awakened—as a culture, as a nation, and as a race—to the reality that these things are unholy, a participation in darkness.

This is a collective human problem—not an American or North Korean or Russian or Chinese problem.

And no one is serious about disarmament because we have also yet to face our collective need to repent for *making* them in the first place. It was wrong to cross that boundary. We ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

The human race is in collective denial that these weapons can exist and not be used again. It does not take a forecaster to predict their future employment, intentional or accidental. It is only a matter of time.

I hope I am wrong about this but it may take the detonation of one of these dark idolatrous engines in one or more of our cities for us to be covered in enough human and civilizational ashes to see the evil for what it is.

 

Editor's PS link: "24 Tweets On Nuclear War To Help You Laugh Through This Anxiety: Sarcasm is survival. (God help us all.)"

Theological Turkeys and Contemplative Deer - Ron Dart

Once upon a time in a land not so far away, there lived a large family of turkeys and many deer. The turkeys spent much of their time chasing one another, nipping into one another and making much noise with their gobbling. The deer often grazed quietly nearby, and the closer the turkeys came to the deer, the more they moved off to the shade and shelter of the cooler forest. There were moments when the turkeys chased one another into the forest and, at such times, the deer slipped round forest trees and found yet quieter places at the forest edge on higher ground.

The turkeys often hurt and harmed one another, each vying for attention and dominance, whereas the deer were content to graze together and enjoy the bounty of the canopy above and the light from both day star and the lantern of the night. The turkeys were rarely still or silent, always on the move, whereas the deer rarely made a noise and were often not seen for days at a time. When the turkeys came too close to the deer, they often bounded away to another silent space, heeding much, speaking little.

Ron Dart