Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

Magic Genie or Heavenly Father? by the Felicia Murrell

I'm not sure if people realize that coercing others to Jesus by praying prayers that essentially sics the devil on people to lead them back to God only creates bitter Christians who are motivated into a religion by fear of punishment. 

 

God never wanted to be Jesus-the-Magic-Genie who would erase trouble from our existence (ref. John 16:33). And He doesn't need to use sickness, accidents, chaos or any other form of destruction to bring people to Him.  If you stop and think about it, what's appealing about a God like that anyway? 

 

You have a very REAL heavenly Father who loves you. His love is enough to woo you. It is His loving-kindness, His goodness that draws men to think differently about Him. 

 

When we rightly represent who God is, we lead people to a God of love who is passionate about people; a God who wants to embrace each person. A God who wants to enter into a relationship with you. 

 

He's no three-wish Genie but He's the One I want with me in the highs and the lows; the thrills and the mundane because I can trust His love for me. How do I know this? 

 

I certainly didn't learn it from orphan-spirited Christianity. I know because He pursued me with His kind intentions and comforted me with His love. Because He first loved me, it compels me into relationship with Him.

 

Don't be fooled. Love doesn't look like punishment. There is no sickness, accidents, chaos or destruction in love. These things are not an "act of God." 

 

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has convinced us that people have to be punished in order to do better. It's time to uproot this tree and all of its fallacies from our thinking.

Grief Doesn't Know - Joni Miller

Grief doesn’t know it is grief.

It doesn’t know what it’s producing…it just IS.

You’re trying with all your might to get out of it, to get away from it...but it’s not like that--it’s in your story now. So, you must find ways to not have ITcontrolYOU…your thoughts, your sight, your speech, your heart, your soul…or it will turn what little light you have left into darkness. You’re already surrounded by darkness…you don’t need to be enslaved in the abyss where there’s no way out.

Thought…instead of having IT define YOU…YOU define IT-put it in its place as a piece of your story. Don’t let it BE your story. Don’t let it consume you.

Honestly, some days this all works better than other days and some days it’s back to the edge of the abyss. But when it does work it’s a small, yet significant movement forward on the journey. Desperately trying to move forward.

Grief doesn’t know it is grief

It tramples over people, ideas, conversations and relationships...moving slow and steady then running ahead. It has no course or path. It can be like a machete in the jungle of earth just trying to get SOMEWHERE…ANYWHERE BUT HERE… where it hurts constantly.

In the process of trying to survive it may take down a few trees, bushes, flowers…it loses sight of the tall grass and just swings-broad strokes, never meaning to hurt, bruise or dismantle…

just meaning to breathe…

                    one good breath…

                                              please.

Grief doesn’t know it is grief

It can be a tomb of isolation, an erupting volcano or a broken faucet-a constant drip...drip…drip…drip…

One is not worse than the other…it’s all grief.

It doesn’t apologize for its withdrawn identity, its outbursts or its constant battle with dripping because it doesn’t know that it IS. It gets caught in its own circle of pain so that it only remains true to itself...never to leave the circle.

Time is the only thing that has a chance at giving grief “eyes” …a way to see past the hurt and actually look out at the surrounding environment--the devastation…the reality. Time is a way out.

…and it’s a way in. Once turned inward, if all that’s there and all that is left is anger, fear, anxiety, darkness and morbid hatred for everything and everyone…it will be a frightening reality.

But what if…

there is a chance…a whisper…a seed…a hope that has been planted through the course of time, so that when grief looks inward it will see a small, microscopic beginning of life…a birthplace of courage.

This is something to build on.

A way to continue the journey.

A place to cultivate…

                            to start to live...to give…to love

                                                                     to begin a beginning…

                                                                                      

joni miller*pages from my journal- {journal entry-3/17/18}

©Joan Miller, UBP

A Response to Michael McClymond’s Theological Critique of Universalism - Robin A. Parry

A Response to Michael McClymond’s Theological Critique of Universalism - Robin A. Parry

 

I. Introduction

 

Michael McClymond’s majestic two-volume work The Devil’s Redemption: A New History and  Interpretation of Christian Universalism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018) is a landmark work in the study of Christian universalism, one of the most significant analyses and critiques of that tradition ever published. It is stunning in both the breadth and depth of its research. As such, no academic attempt to engage universal salvation in a Christian context can afford to ignore it. While I find the theological critique inadequate to the task of undermining Christian universalism per se (as I shall argue below), there is a lot in McClymond’s book, including his critiques of various specific universalist theologies, with which I concur.  

 

The central thesis at its heart of the book is very simple: Universalism does not arise from biblical or Christian theological instincts, but is an alien import that first emerged and flourished in heretical gnostic sects and was subsequently planted into Christianity by Origen. The modern revival of universalism from the late seventeenth century onwards similarly drank deeply from the wells of esotericism, especially from the poisoned well of Jakob Böhme, whose heterodox theology lies somewhere behind many, perhaps most, modern versions of universalism (DR, 22). Thus, despite the Christian language with which universal salvation dresses itself in an attempt to appear at home in the church, its origins and underlying theological structure are, according to McClymond, antithetical to orthodox Christianity. He hopes that once we see the dubious origins of the universalist idea, in both its ancient and modern versions, we will be enabled to see why it is so problematic.¹

 

CLICK HERE to continue reading Parry's full response 

 

NOTES

 

1. Thomas Talbott thinks that McClymond is in danger of falling foul of the genetic fallacy, the fallacy of dismissing a view on the basis of its questionable origins. Some of McClymond’s arguments do teeter on the edge of this fallacy, but within the overall context of the book the attempt to expose the allegedly dubious origins of universalism function as part of a cumulative case, standing alongside other arguments that seek to engage the theological case directly. So I do not think McClymond guilty of the genetic fallacy even though there were times when I was reading the book that I felt he was on the brink.

No Shadow of Turning: Refections after reading Paul Young's 'Eve' - Felicia Murrell

 

Felicia Murrell

After reading Eve, by Paul Young, I find myself trying to put into words a reality Father impressed upon my heart.

If there is no darkness or shifting of shadow and Father and I are face to face, I see no darkness at all. The only way I see a shadow is if I, in my own choosing, turn my back on the light that is still being emitted. The only way I see darkness is if something blocks the light.

As I pondered the thought, I realized this revelation is as true about my relationship with people as it is about my relationship with Father.

When people wrong me, wound me, frustrate me, irritate me (insert any negative emotion), in my heart, I turn away and in the turning, I'm no longer seeing that person through the light of the strength and beauty of our relationship OR through the light of Father's love and what He believes to be true about them.

It is there in that place the accuser of the brethren comes alongside with his whispers to cause doubt, mistrust and disconnection to grow in our heart toward the other person. And as we continue to turn our faces away from light, the lies of the evil one are strengthened and empowered with our agreement and judgment toward the other person.

However, when we choose to remain face to face despite discomfort, our eyes remain clear and our whole body is filled with light. In that place, we can see the truth of brokenness - ours and theirs - without expectation or demand of repayment for something they have no capacity to give us. Drawing strength from grace and vulnerability to see beyond the brokenness and character defects to the person’s True Self, created in God’s image and love as He loves.

I understand now why God has no illusions. There are no shadows to create them.

Felicia Murrell

 

Guest Post: A Biblically Faithful Response to Same-Sex Marriage - Matt Hyam

Editor's note: While not all Clarion authors agree on the subject of same-sex marriage, I've posted Matt Hyam's paper because it is an attempt in good faith to present a serious response for those churches and denominations struggling to move beyond ideologies and biases back into a close and careful reading of Scripture. This seems essential given that some denominations seem to be composing policies with little concern for scholarly engagement.  

A Biblically Faithful Response to Same-Sex Marriage
Matt Hyam

Introduction

Twenty years ago, any argument about homosexuality¹ was effectively ended with the unequivocal statement that, “the Bible forbids any sex outside marriage,” and the average Christian or church did not need to wrestle with this too deeply; we were content with a vague understanding that the Bible is against it. Today, legalised same-sex marriage has meant that suddenly, churches and individuals cannot ignore this any longer and instead we must delve into the Bible to see what it really says.

Goddard states that “nobody has claimed any biblical text is affirmative about homosexual conduct and so a more positive Christian moral judgment would have to be based on other grounds than scripture,”² and to attempt this, “requires a…credible critique of the traditional account.”³ Few would disagree with this, and yet here I am, trying to do exactly that. I want to argue that the onus is not on so-called “revisionists” to critique the so-called “traditionalist” view, but on all Christians to give a good exegesis of scripture. I want to assert that much of our interpretation of the five⁴ passages in scripture, that apparently refer to homosexuality, has passed through a contemporary cultural lens and superimposed our constructs onto ancient texts.

I will look at the modern concept of homosexuality, then at these five passages of scripture, normally cited to argue against it, the creation account and ask questions in the light of current scientific understanding and I will look at what Jesus says that can provide a hermeneutical key to ascertain whether homosexuality is something that is biblically permissible. [cont'd in download]

CLICK HERE to download "A Biblically Faithful Response to Same-Sex Marriage"

Notes

1 I am going to make the assertion from the beginning that if homosexuality is permissible then same-sex marriage is, also, as the only valid environment for its expression.

2 Andrew Goddard, Homosexuality and the Church of England (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2004), 13.

3 Goddard, Homosexuality, 10.

4 I will not deal with the Sodom account in Genesis 19 as “very few Biblical interpreters think this story is about ‘homosexuality,’” David P. Gushee, Changing Our Minds (Canton: Read the Spirit Books, 2017) but rather domination and humiliation, and it does not seem a good use of the limited space to engage with it.

Are We Still Listening? Accountability Is a Virtue - Abp Lazar Puhalo

We have had some correspondence expressing dismay of the growth of atheism, and even militant atheism. It is evident that people are not only departing from religion, but that among some of them, there is a visceral hatred of religion.

An acquaintance in Ireland wrote to me that he had voted "yes" on both of the recent controversial referenda in that country, although he did not completely agree with either one. He said, “I did not so much vote for the two referendums as I did vote against the Catholic Church.”

It may be that that is why the two referenda carried. Not only is the memory of the Magdalene Sisters still very much alive, but an inordinate number of the men in Ireland were sexually abused by priests when they were children. Also, when it came to light that there is a slush fund of the mistresses and children of higher-ranking clergy, all of that added to a cynicism about Christianity in general, although it only involved one denomination.

The response from some of the hierarchy when these two referenda passed was that they had failed in the task of educating the people in the faith. It is precisely the wrong response. The response should have been, “How have our actions and attitudes destroyed the faith of so many people?”

And in fact, many of the people who voted yes on these two referenda are deeply believing Catholic Christians. Rather than lamenting the rise of atheism around the world, and blaming demons or science or something else, it would be more reasonable for every religious body to examine itself in a very harsh light and ask what it has done to drive people away from Faith.

In North America, a right-wing fundamentalist approach to Christianity has had a great deal to do with the advancement of modern atheism. Telling people that they must believe something which they know of a certainty is not true in order to be Christian is certainly not going to solve anything! Trying to turn back the tide of atheism through advocating things that are demonstrably untrue, and through threats of wrath and other types of fear, is certainly not going to solve the problem! For religious bodies to demonstrate an amorality, for the sake of a political agenda is no way to turn back the tide of atheism; it is a recipe for turning it into a tidal wave!

It is very difficult for any ideological system to deeply analyse itself and find its own error, its own drift away from its original raison d’être, and turn itself back toward its original mandate. The hypocrisy, bigotry, amorality and even immorality of many of our religious bodies is certainly a serious problem.

With blatant falsehoods such as creationism--especially when it tries to pass itself off as a science and when religious bodies try to force it into the school system--or when some religious bodies seek to undermine democracy and accept immorality in the name of this agenda, then one can hardly wonder about why there is a growth in atheism, and why there is a visceral hatred of Christianity growing, not only in America, and elsewhere.

But even this is not the whole problem. When a dominant Christian body essentially advocates social injustice and denounces efforts at alleviating the suffering of poverty and instead, lobbies for the enrichment of the already extremely wealthy at the expense of the poor, this is a total abandonment of Christianity. It turns its back on Christ Himself and marks the devolution away from Christianity into a new religion of Christianism. This ideological “-ism” tied to a political and financial system has replaced the true worship of Christ and rendered Christ only a “frontman” for a religio/political cult.

What is necessary, but unlikely, is for every religious body to undergo a deep and unremitting examination of itself to see if it has any real relationship with its Founder, or whether it has just become a political movement with religious trappings and an ideological political agenda.

"Go and sin no more"? Brad Jersak

Pieter Brueghel el Viejo - Jesus Cristo e a mulher adúltera (1565)

Reading John 8 through Genesis 2-3 and the Prodigal Sons

Throughout Scripture, we see “sin” identified in a variety of ways, including moral failure, law-breaking, poor spiritual hygiene, character flaws, a fatal disease and a sinister slave-driver. And where sin (hamartia) is defined as “missing the mark,” Scripture implies the mark we’re aiming at may be morality, holiness, faith and faithfulness, love of God and each other, or the glory of God. [CLICK HERE for further background on hamartia]

In my blog post, Sin? Missing what mark? I suggested another mark: our love union with God—or RE-union (reconciliation) with God. In that case, to "sin" is to turn away from God’s love. Yes, some of those other biblically-defined marks may play into that, but let’s focus on three stories:

Genesis 2 – 3

In the Garden of Eden (Paradise), Adam and Eve walked in perfect communion with God. Theirs was the intended love-union we were all to enjoy. And then we read of their “fall.” Although the story doesn’t use the term for ‘sin,’ we read about how they turned from that union, marked by love and trust, to autonomy, self-will and as a result, shame and alienation. Their sin does not separate God from them, for he continues to pursue them, all the way out of the garden and ultimately tracks them through the Cross to retrieve them from the depths of hades. But their sin does alienate them from God, for their new, fallen instinct is to see God as one from whom they must hide in shame. In failing to trust and obey God, and by turning from God’s face to go their own way, they missed the mark of that once-perfect love-union.   

The Prodigal Sons

In Christ’s parable of the prodigal son(s), we find two sons in a similar peril. Like Adam and Eve, the younger son has left his father’s house to go his own way and do his own thing. He finds himself living in the poverty of alienation, slaving in the fields with a herd of swine. He has missed the mark of fellowship with his loving Father. But the father never stopped loving him and the son never ceased to be his father’s son. To be restored, he must return home and re-enter the joy of that parent-child union.   

Likewise, the older son finds himself slaving in another field—the field of religious striving. While he seems to serve his father’s interests and seems to obey his father’s wishes, he has nevertheless missed the mark. How so? He has left the father’s house and made his own alleged obedience the occasion for alienation from that love-union. He regards his father as unfair, someone to resent and the elder is every bit as enslaved self-will as his younger brother.

But the Father despises neither son. He runs to the younger son while still a long way off. And without any condemnation, he assures the older brother of his place and pleads with him to return. Henri Nouwen, in his booklet, The Return of the Prodigal Son, says,

The harsh and bitter reproaches of the [elder] son are not met with words of judgment. There is no recrimination or accusation. The father does not defend himself or even comment on the elder son's behavior. The father moves directly beyond all evaluations to stress his intimate relationship with his son when he says: "You are with me always." The father's declaration of unqualified love eliminates any possibility that the younger son is more loved than the elder. The elder son has never left the house. The father has shared everything with him. He has made him part of his daily life, keeping nothing from him. "All I have is yours," he says. There could be no clearer statement of the father's unlimited love for his elder son. Thus the father's unreserved, unlimited love is offered wholly and equally to both sons.

John 8 – “Go and sin no more”?

This brings us to the climax of the story of the woman who was caught in the act of committing adultery. As often as I share this story, I continue to ask, “Where was the man?” Why is he not also dragged in? Is he not involved in the sin? Is he part of the set-up? We know from the text that the whole scenario was a trap for Jesus, so it certainly looks like a case of entrapment for the woman as well.

Let’s fast-forward through Jesus’ saving acts—how he stoops beside her, scribbles in the dust and one by one, all the accusers leave. We pick up on Jesus’ interaction with the woman, a conversation we only know because she would have shared it 1000 times thereafter. “The day Jesus saved me!”

“Where are your accusers?”

“They’re gone m’Lord.”

“Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”

Religious legalism would and has inferred, “Go and sin no more… or I will condemn you.”

But aside from such silliness, how should we take Jesus’ statement? If he doesn’t mean, “Go be sinless,” what does he mean? He must mean something!

I have normally interpreted Jesus' words this way: “There, I’ve just completely wiped clean your record. You didn’t even repent and I forgave you. You can live as if today never happened. And you never need to go back there. I’ve given you a fresh start and a new life. What will you do with it?”

To which I imagine her reply, “I will follow you, of course! I’ll follow you forever!”

And he smiles and says, “Of course you will! Let me help you up.”

That got me to thinking: what if she did it—what if she went and sinned no more! As in never again. What? Could she or anyone live without sin? That depends what sin is! That depends what missing the mark is. That depends what the mark is.

If the mark is moral perfection, unwavering trust, perfect obedience, ritual hygiene and untainted holiness, of course she would continue to sin because we all fall short of those marks. And in that sense, she would go on sinning.

But if the mark is her love-union with Christ—his embrace of unwavering love, enduring mercy and saving grace—I suspect she never left his embrace again. I could imagine her stumbling again and again but never again hiding in shame as did Adam or slaving again as did the prodigal brothers. I could imagine Jesus’ words, “Go and sin no more,” being for her, not a legal demand but a creative command, similar to “Let there be light … and there was light!”  The love of Christ was a light turned on in the Father’s house and he knew she would never leave the house again. Or if somehow she found herself tripping again on her own humanity, she would forever orient herself towards God’s welcome, rather than fleeing from it back into the night.

In other words, sure she could “screw up,” but from that day on, it is entirely possible she would not “fail.” She could commit particular sins, but would never return to alienation and slavery to sin.

I cannot claim this for myself. But what the story does for me is reminding me of the true mark—our union in Christ to God’s unfailing love.

 

Why Did I Delete My Facebook Account? Anonymous (with Brad Jersak)

Note from Brad Jersak: A friend of mine--someone I saw as a master in effectively using Facebook for 'gospeling,' moderating productive discussions and building bridges--walked away from that social media venue. When I asked why, he wrote the following and gave permission for me to share it. I find it disturbing, not only because it seems true, but because it is a worrisome analysis of the broader culture in which "we live, move and have our being" stands at this moment. It feels like more than an invitation to exit social media with the author, but stands as a call to repent of the social constructs that Facebook amplifies.

 

WHY DID I DELETE MY FACEBOOK ACCOUNT?

Why did I delete my Facebook account? There are lots of reasons. I’ve been contemplating this for a while. Hosting conversations is damn hard work, especially when people are joining in at so many different angles. In one respect, I’m just tired. 

But there’s more …

I think we can all sense this. There are strong forces at work around us, political powers that are vying for control in the interests of immediate, all-encompassing change—a quasi-Marxist ultra-woke squaring off against a quasi-Fascist alt-right in an ever-widening culture war.

Facebook lends itself to a conflict like this. The medium itself trains us out of particularity, complexity and nuance and constantly guides us to think and live in terms of collective identities and affinities, often defined along moral-ethical lines. It also amplifies the dialectic of opposites, making it seem normative in a totalizing way.

And there's this pressure to behave accordingly …

I appreciate the encouragement I've received from people concerning my Facebook "presence". To be honest, I don’t care much about my "presence" on social media ... I'm interested in what can happen between people when they seek to be attentive and thoughtful while learning to care for one another. I’ve wanted to help humanize the medium a little, to explore the complexity of experience and invite nuance and empathy across lines that divide. 

For many—increasingly it seems—this kind of approach is worse than taking the wrong side. It’s a self-protective strategy that relativizes the truth and neutralizes progress.

That makes me sad.

To be clear, I don’t think Facebook is *necessarily* more problematic than other ways of relating. 

Relating is difficult no matter the channels ...

Face-to-face is certainly different in richness and complexity, but I have no illusions of it being easier to do well. It’s just ... different.

I think Facebook holds out lots of interesting possibilities for truthing-in-love ... I’m just not sure people are all that interested to explore those possibilities in earnest.

What makes Facebook problematic is not the digital technology per se, but the way people are inclined to engage it. We make moves that hinder relationship rather than help it. Worse, we revel in them.

Of course, we often do that face-to-face too ... It’s just that the effects aren’t ramified to the same extent. They’re less contagious.

Another way to say it: A platform like Facebook heightens social responsibility in some ways while alleviating it in others. The problem is that we’re shirking responsibility precisely where the medium requires it of us.

UFV Live Forum: Pasternak's "Dr. Zhivago" with Larissa Horne, Ron Dart & Alan Cameron

Me too: A Lament - Poem by Jessica Williams

Me too: A Lament

CLICK HERE to Download audio of Jessica reciting "Me Too: A Lament"

 

Something happened. 

Something happened.

Something happened to me, too. 

 

I felt it in the collective voice of women raging. 

Why are we so afraid of women raging?

If the sea can rage then so can we.

 

Something happened.

Something happened.

Something happened to me, too. 

 

I felt it in the questions you asked her.

“But can you remember it?” And I wanted to scream. 

We all wanted to scream. NO! Stop! 

Not again. . .

 

Please.

Please.

Please.

(I’m so tired of saying please.)

 

Something happened.

Something happened.

Something happened to me, too. 

 

As I watched the good men sit in their seats,

And all the same leaders continue to lead.

Something happened to me.

 

The fog rolled in. 

I started to sink. 

The same way I did then,

-when something happened to me. 

Rethinking "The Lamb Slain from the Foundation of Human Culture" - Michael Hardin

Is the claim "We were not in existence on this earth when Jesus finished the work on the tree" substantiated by scripture or tradition? One of the lynchpins of this theological reasoning is that Christ was the ‘lamb slain from the foundation of the world’, that is, Jesus is perceived as having wrought some sort of sacrificial atoning work in God’s own self, prior to creation or even incarnation. The problem here is that if one asserts that then one must also reckon with the fact that economies of exchange have been imported into the doctrine of God from the start. In order for this atonement to have occurred ‘prior to creation’ within God’ self, then there must have been sacrificer and sacrificed. This justifies the advocates of PSA and thus makes no sense why FW (Finished Works) people would reject PSA; it is already implicitly there when they speak of Christ’s ‘work’ being finished prior to creation or incarnation. 

Let’s take a closer look at the phrase ‘from the foundation of the world.’
John 17: 20-16 indicates that Christian unity is the unity found by accepting God’s verdict that we are all persecutors and that we stand under the love shown to us in the cross of Christ. This is indicated in two ways, first in the use of ‘doxazo’ (to glorify) which we have seen refers to the glory revealed in Jesus’ suffering and second in the phrase ‘katabole kosmou’ (vs 24). It has two potential meanings which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. ‘Katabole kosmou’ can mean from the ‘creation/foundation of the world’  (= the created reality or nature) or from the ‘false creation of the world’ (the foundation of human culture). The phrase occurs in Matthew 13.35 (as an LXX quote from Psalm 78.2), and again in Mt 25.34, Lk 11.50, Jn 17.24, Eph 1.4, Heb. 4.3 and 9.26, I Peter 1.20, Rev 13.8 and 17.8. It is foreign only to the genuine Pauline letters. The translation of ‘katabole kosmou’ will depend upon whether or not we see the ‘kosmou’ as referring to the created order or to the ‘order’ which we have created in victimage. In most cases, the ‘katabole kosmou’ refers to the founding myth of Genesis 3-4. There are two foundings, the founding or creation of God and the founding of human culture. The Johannine use of ‘kosmos’ seems to us to indicate that it is the origins of the sacrificial mechanism that is in view, particularly when we take into account the use of ‘doxazo.’ Thus ‘katabole kosmou’ in the Fourth Gospel should be understood as ‘the foundation of human culture.’

As ‘the lamb slain before the foundation of the world’ Jesus is the archetype of all victims, this is particularly true of Matt 25.34 and Luke 11.50 in the Synoptic tradition as well as Eph 1.4, I Peter 1.20 and the references in Revelation. There is no unity apart from the victim, the only question is whether that unity is unity against or with the victim. In the Johannine prayer of John 17, the unity that obtains between the Jesus and the Father is the unity given to the believers, to those who have ‘believed Jesus ‘logos’ (message). The purpose of this unity is so that the ‘kosmos’ might believe that the Father has sent the Son (17.21). Somewhere it is has been pointed out that on the road to Damascus, Jesus does not ask the apostle Paul, ‘Saul, Saul, why don’t you believe in me?’ but rather ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ It is our persecutorial or retaliatory tendency (our ‘original sin’) that is queried. Faith arises when we recognize our place as persecutors, as those who unjustly victimize and repent and take the side of the victim, thus breaking the false unity of the victimage mechanism. As long as those in Rome or Geneva or Plano, Texas insist on marginalizing others in the name of Jesus they will not bear witness to the Lamb slain from the ‘katabole kosmou’ but to the sacrificial myth and thus will never experience the unity found in the Trinity.

The point of this study is to indicate that the phrase ‘katabole kosmou’ does not refer to some pre-history before Genesis 1:1, but is a reference to the duplex of texts Genesis 3 and 4. FW proponents have erred in assuming that the work of Christ was ‘finished’ prior to space, time and history. In the Gospels, there is a real threat, a very real possibility that Jesus could go over to the dark side, to the use of retributive violence. Orthodox theology at this point makes the observation that ‘risk’ is a theological category. Jesus could have blown it on any number of occasions by giving in to the test: use violence to achieve objectives. FW advocates have a docetic Jesus: one who already in eternity past has done everything so his appearance on earth was to go through the motions and give us true information about our mislaid identities. In this theology, revelation or gnostic knowledge saves. This will always be its bane.

“Foundation of the world” is taken by Finished Works aficionados to refer to creation, and election occurs before creation (supralapsarianism). But what if instead of translating ‘katabole kosmou’ as ‘creation of the world’ we translated it as ‘the founding of human culture?’ There is a specific Greek word for ‘creation’ (ktisis). ‘Kosmos’ as a term for the broken reality of our existence can be found in the Gospel of John. The ‘kosmos’ is humanly constructed reality, it is how we live and think and believe and act. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. 

In this reading, “the lamb slain before the foundation of human culture” suggests an implicit reference to Abel’s murder in Genesis 4. Has not Girard demonstrated that human culture originates in ritual sacrifice? Clear as bells he did. Andrew McKenna puts it this way, “In the beginning was…the weapon.” Jesus articulated this line of thought also in Matthew 23 by noting that the Jewish “canon” was bookended by murder.

Isaiah's Dream - Denver Airport Mural

Is Jordan Peterson More Luther or Erasmus? Ron Dart interview by Paul VanderKlay

Ron Dart sees similarities between Jordan Peterson and Erasmus, the "Prince of the Humanists". As we talked I began to think he's more like Luther. The Internet connection wasn't great so the sound dropped in and out. We did the best we could. Next time we talk we'll discuss Peterson and Francis Schaeffer.

First and Foremost or Amor Primus - Eric H. Janzen

Often the Lord and I visit as I walk. I’m beginning to think of my prayer walks as prayer stories and the following arose from one of those stories.

It was a clear sky and warm day as I walked home from work, praying, as is my custom, and attempting to find that place in the heart where one connects with the Spirit. Like many, I can become distracted easily from prayer. Our world is filled with distractions, from political chaos to the latest update on social media, or urgent texts from friends (that aren’t urgent at all, but when the phone ‘dings!’ we just have to see what it is!). On this particular walk, my mind was on a tangent thinking about injustice. My heart was unsettled, my mind spiraling in a useless inner tirade of anger. Every few minutes, I would remind myself that I was supposed to be praying. Yet, even my attempts at prayer were mere extensions of my distraction.

“But, Lord you don’t understand, these people are—”

The breeze picked up and the Spirit whispered, “Be still, let go, and know that I am God.”

I breathed in deeply. “Lord, have mercy on me,” I replied. “I get so caught up in all these outward things. Help me to see you…to hear you…to find my home in you.”

Never Better than Those We Oppose - Kenneth Tanner

Americans (like every other civilization) want a pound of flesh from someone to atone for what’s wrong with us all. We might not agree on who to crucify but a crucifixion is what we desire. René Girard was—is—right.

There’s a difference between self-sacrifice and demanding a sacrifice or participating in the sacrifice of someone else to appease your own sense of righteousness, a difference between laying down your own life and scapegoating.

By grace, we can oppose evil without letting contempt for certain people work an ironic similarity in us.

By the Spirit, we can oppose the evil people do and the evil people stand for and the evil people cover up but the follower of Jesus resists hatred and rage.

This calls for wisdom.

Our wisdom teaches that resentment and bitterness and rage and hatred are the seedbed *in us* of the evil we oppose when we resist racism, violence (political, sexual), tribalism...any form of darkness.

Here’s the interpretive key: We are never better than the humans we oppose.

A form of self-righteousness is the root *in us* of the evils we would resist.

Paul says we do not wrestle against flesh and blood but against dark powers and principalities.

This does not mean we do not pursue reconciliation in the truth.

We labor for justice for victims and we bestow—did I mention how radical this is?—mercy on victimizers.

We work to expose darkness. We do not excuse darkness. We don’t make peace with the darkness by shifting blame to victims. We seek the *end* of darkness.

This is a great mystery that Christians trust: the Lamb is slain for all the crucified victims of history *as well as* all who crucify.

I have in mind here Mandela and Archbishop Tutu and the way they sought to dismantle systems without destroying souls.

They understood that to dismantle apartheid *everyone* had to admit the role they played in the system.

We tend to take out a few bad actors which makes others temporarily afraid but that does not get at the roots.

In South Africa, they exchanged the satisfaction of shaming a few bad actors and made everyone testify to their role in the evil.

A world where everyone’s sense of justice is satisfied and appeased is a world where not one blade of grass is left standing.

Universal contrition and testimony tears down structures.

“The aftermath of nonviolence is the creation of the beloved community, so that when the battle is over, a new relationship comes into being between the oppressed and the oppressor.” —MLK