Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

The Spiritual Meaning of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity: A Social-Critical Commentary - Bradley Jersak

The Spiritual Meaning of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity:
A Social-Critical Commentary

Bradley Jersak 
in conversation with David Goa

 

THE “PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY” 

The “perpetual virginity of Mary” is one of the major Marian dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, claiming that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin ante partum, in partu, et post partum—before, during, and after the birth of Christ.

The tradition appears as early as 120 A.D. in a document called The Protoevangelium of James [4,7], which details Mary’s childhood, time in the temple, betrothal to the elder Joseph, and establishes a backstory for her ‘ever-virginity.’ 

The church fathers affirmed this last detail of the narrative, embedding it in the tradition through their works across the first centuries. Cf. Origen, Commentary on Matthew 2:17; Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew 1:4; Athanasius, Discourses Against the Arians 2:70; Epiphanius of Salamis, Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6; Jerome, Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19, 21; Didymus the Blind, The Trinity 3:4; Ambrose of Milan, Letters 63:111; Augustine, Holy Virginity 4:4, Sermons 186:1, Heresies 56; Cyril of Alexandria, Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, 4; Leo I, Sermons 22:2.

For modernists (especially Bible-only Protestants) and postmoderns, it is easy to dismiss and disdain the perpetual virginity of Mary, especially when we’ve seen it used as a magical idealization that undermines her humanity, the sanctity of women's bodies, childbirth, sexuality, etc. When misappropriated in that way (maybe even very early), the perpetual virginity of Mary stands to gnosticize Mary, and women, and sex, and in fact, is also very anti-men if we think carefully about what it's saying.

Further, this Latin preoccupation with her literal-magical virginity gets tied to their ancient blunders on original sin (via Augustine) and more recent corollary mistakes (e.g., the immaculate conception of Mary), an entanglement that I believe paints them into an unfortunate corner.   

A SOCIAL-CRITICAL INTERPRETATION

But I also want to take a more nuanced read—a spiritual and social-critical understanding—of the tradition. The early church taught Mary’s perpetual virginity (1) inside pseudo-James’ broader theological-mythical narrative (part of her betrothal to Joseph as an elder guardian of the girl raised in the temple until puberty) and (2) for what might be important theological or anthropological reasons (for them), even if the Protoevangelium wasn't factually historical (an altogether untroubling mystery for Orthodox Christians). That is, the presentation of Mary to the temple, for example, we proclaim and celebrate to be true, but without a necessary commitment to it being factual.

I might have been tempted to say the same of the virgin birth (a la my friend Pete Enns), except that I’m inclined to see the Gospels presentation of the virgin birth as a foundational, historical, Christological event: the Incarnation of the Son of God. The virgin birth is a statement about the hypostatic union of Christ’s divine and human natures, begotten of the Father in eternity and born to a human woman in time.

The follow-up question then, is not so much whether Mary's hymen was ever broken, but rather, what truth is being preserved in the *imagery* of her perpetual virginity? Was it actually necessary? Why did they think so? Instead of trying to figure those questions out from scratch or doing another deep dive into the fathers, I called my godfather, David Goa, whose insights I must credit while not blaming him for heresies I may introduce.

VIRGINITY AS UNDIVIDED FULLNESS 

David Goa first of all asks, “What is the meaning [not the definition] of virginity?” He regards virginity as a powerful prophetic Jewish-Christian symbol that resists the persistent cultural notion that a woman's identity as a human is framed by her relationship to a man—to her father or to her husband. And that to lose either could mean (let’s imagine 80% odds) that she might end up as a 'woman of the night' or the victim of 'unbidden favors.' This was (and is) a cruel social condition that continues today, especially if you watch what happens to Indigenous women who are alienated from the First Nations community and move into the cities of Canada. 

Against this, 'virginity' becomes a social-prophetic statement of a woman’s human integrity, of undividedness, of fullness, of plethora (from the New Testament πλεθω (pletho). Specifically, it insists that women participate fully, in and of themselves, in the pleroma of their humanity, without reference to a male. Their human identity and integrity are as great as that of any man.

Goa pointed out that this social-critical element is one of the most extraordinary teachings to come out of the early church, anchored firmly in the Gospels, where we only see women (except for John) at the Cross, first at the tomb, and not numbered with the unfaithful disciples. When we read the Gospels, we’re confronted with stories around the Mother of Christ, or the Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, the woman at the well (St. Photina), and more. This would surprise us more if we recognized that no other ancient text demonstrates so clearly how women play this role or are treated in this way. In what way? In the fullness of what it is to be a human woman. Virginity then, according to David, is a statement that this fullness is not contingent on the ‘covering’ of a male (not even Joseph).

According to Goa, the first monasteries were established for and by women, places where women had glimpsed the liberating spiritual sense of virginity. Not that they were all virgins in some medical sense, but that they recognized the pleroma of their humanity before Christ, independent of a father or husband’s chattel ownership. So, we remember this rich statement from the woman at the well: "Let me show you a man who knows who I am." This understanding of ‘virginity’ was a liberating “NO!” to patriarchal bondage.  

In that light, "virgin" does not essentially mean hymen intact; it means plethora, fullness, integrity. But instead, the doctrine of perpetual virginity, especially in Latin Catholicism, became hymen-obsessive. Among many devotees of ‘Our Lady of Guadalupe,’ even the birth of Christ could not have happened from between Mary’s legs!

Thus, perpetual virginity became a theological appendix. That is, like the bodily appendix, you can trace the evolution of its richer early use to a later, literalized, even prurient form that is no longer meaningful. But here's another and more beautiful vision:  

FULLNESS OF COMMUNION

If two people love each other and if their lovemaking is communion, have they actually lost something? Or have they simply expressed their fullness in communion? I wouldn’t say this to your average Orthodox layperson, but if James’ creative reconstruction is entirely fictional and the Theotokos and Joseph ever did make love, then it was complete, full, and in that sense, every time was the first time. There was no division in it, no alienation.

What a contrast to the way division permeates our ugliest language about sex: "Wham, bam, thank you ma'am," "a piece of ass," or the crassest notions of ‘fucking.’ I don’t mean to be course here: I’m saying that all this awful language is about alienation. David describes that horrible experience of desire for someone (and maybe their desire for you), then expressing that desire sexually, ... and immediately afterward feeling alienated, unsatisfied, reduced to ‘lousy sex.’ From this experience, we can say the opposite of virginity is not the rupture of the hymen. The opposite of virginity is alienating intercourse, for men and women alike, because the centre of these matters is alienation versus communion—that which is life-giving versus that which deepens our darkness. 

Our Christian way of saying this is that all of us are called to have the fullness of communion in everything we do and most assuredly in visceral communion. It is to say that men and women can have communion, expressed sexually, with each other in love and in joy—en-joyment—which doesn't diminish either partner’s plethora but adds to their fullness. Otherwise, it is estrangement, and it is sin (it misses the mark of union), even in the marriage bed.

On the other hand, if there is any historical reality to Mary’s perpetual virginity (as the tradition suggests), I would not regard virginity as dehumanizing to Mary any more than I do in Jesus or any other virgin—frequently shamed as nothing more than a sick byproduct of purity culture). If there is any truth that Joseph was an older man called to safeguard her as the temple had, then the scandal of her pregnancy makes even more sense to me. Or if Mary used her agency to remain a virgin, let’s not oversteer the conversation. Just as I reject the idea that literal virginity makes us more holy, so also, I reject the implication that literal virginity makes anyone less human. And in either case, we’ve missed the real point of virginity altogether. 

In conclusion, the prophetic point of Mary's perpetual virginity is, finally, NOT a theology of the hymen (a foul idea!). It is part of our spiritual theology around our human fullness, present to us IN communion—in all of our communions—including those given the beauty of lovemaking. 

CLICK HERE for PDF

Ash Wednesday II: Dante, Beatrice & the Tightrope - Ron Dart

II
Lady, three white leopards sat under a juniper-tree
In the cool of the day, having fed to sateity
On my legs my heart my liver and that which had been
contained
In the hollow round of my skull. And God said
Shall these bones live? shall these
Bones live? And that which had been contained
In the bones (which were already dry) said chirping:
Because of the goodness of this Lady
And because of her loveliness, and because
She honours the Virgin in meditation,
We shine with brightness. And I who am here dissembled
Proffer my deeds to oblivion, and my love
To the posterity of the desert and the fruit of the gourd.
It is this which recovers
My guts the strings of my eyes and the indigestible portions
Which the leopards reject. The Lady is withdrawn
In a white gown, to contemplation, in a white gown.
Let the whiteness of bones atone to forgetfulness.
There is no life in them. As I am forgotten
And would be forgotten, so I would forget
Thus devoted, concentrated in purpose. And God said
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only
The wind will listen. And the bones sang chirping
With the burden of the grasshopper, saying

Lady of silences
Calm and distressed
Torn and most whole
Rose of memory
Rose of forgetfulness
Exhausted and life-giving
Worried reposeful
The single Rose
Is now the Garden
Where all loves end
Terminate torment
Of love unsatisfied
The greater torment
Of love satisfied
End of the endless
Journey to no end
Conclusion of all that
Is inconclusible
Speech without word and
Word of no speech
Grace to the Mother
For the Garden
Where all love ends.

Under a juniper-tree the bones sang, scattered and shining
We are glad to be scattered, we did little good to each
other,
Under a tree in the cool of day, with the blessing of sand,
Forgetting themselves and each other, united
In the quiet of the desert. This is the land which ye
Shall divide by lot. And neither division nor unity
Matters. This is the land. We have our inheritance.

On Christian Nationalism & 'the Bride of Babylon' - Bradley Jersak

Christian nationalism in any nation is what John the Revelator described as the bride of Babylon, 'the whore' in bed with the Beast (Rev. 17) ... It's an unholy alliance of would-be strongmen and whatever church cares to be bedded by them.

 

Christian nationalism is often comprised of political powers that seduce the church with a promise of moral reforms, harnessing a populist revulsion against hedonism (e.g., frequently distilled to legalized repression of the queer community) and some hated ethnic-religious other (e.g., Jews or Muslims) in order to harness and co-opt the Christian lobby as a political crony for its authoritarian and militarist goals. 

 

Here's a sample from a classic speech:

The National Government will regard it as its first and supreme task to restore to the German people unity of mind and will. It will preserve and defend the foundations on which the strength of our nation rests. It will take under its firm protection Christianity as the basis of our morality, and the family as the nucleus of our nation and our state.

Adolf Hitler, 1933    

The need for authoritarian politicians to develop a religious base is especially true when they turn to expansionist aggression. It is very difficult to send one's children off to die in battle for nationalism or freedom or oil unless one can further sell such a sacrifice to the parents as a sacred religious endeavor (cf. Brian Zahnd, Farewell to Mars). It seems to me that whether Evangelical or Orthodox believers, Eastern or Western, we have in common this Achilles' heel for Christian nationalism, even in weaker states, wherever the Cross is wrapped in their flag.

 

It's rancid and, in fact, not truly Christian at all. It's a death-dealing cult of civil religion with a thin veneer of Jesus-talk, with ethics of moralism that have nothing to do with love for neighbor, especially the most vulnerable.  

 

The good news is found in a closer reading of Revelation indicates that, as in Ezekiel and Hosea, God's heart is to cleanse his adulterous spouse of every stain so that she becomes the spotless bride! This is doable, but apparently not until she experiences the grief of her lovers' fall (Rev. 18) and hears Christ's call to 'come out' of that Babylonian alliance. Until then, she's de facto disqualified herself as a representative and servant of the Prince of Peace. 

 

It remains for me to ask how I am complicit and how I might opt out of that system without simply flying headlong into the opposite ditch. It's always easier to point at the despicable 'them' than to see our own blindspots because we forget that we can feed any ugly tendency by signing on OR by opposing them in the same self-righteous spirit. On that note, I pray this line from Lent Prayer of St. Ephrem, "Lord, help me to see my own faults and not to judge my brother."

 

Lord, have mercy.   

Your Own Personal Hell - Katie Skurja

Is there a literal hell where the depraved are punished after they die? If so, what is it like?

Is there a literal heaven where the righteous go after death? If so, what is it like?

These are rhetorical questions that have been debated by sincere people who desire to be faithful to God for centuries. Though interesting to explore various interpretations, no one knows for sure because it is all speculation, whether we want to admit it or not. Whatever it may be in the afterlife, we can see with our own eyes the existence of heaven and hell here on earth.

What if heaven and hell exist, at least in part, here on earth? What if they exist inside your own soul?

What if focusing on heaven and hell out there keeps us from attending to the heaven and hell in our hearts?

We don’t have to look very hard to see hell on earth. History books, the news channels, prisons, and psych wards are replete with examples of the various kinds of hell in our midst. Since the beginning of recorded history, there has been weeping and gnashing of teeth among humans: jealousy, hatred, murder, debauchery, and every manner of evil has been perpetrated by humans upon other humans. The machinations of hell are not limited to any person or people group; evil can and does find its way through the heart of every human. It is no respecter of persons.

It can be a bit harder to spot heaven on earth, especially in the internet age of instant access to worldwide news. Unfortunately, uplifting stories do not make great clickbait. Driven by the mantra if it bleeds, it leads, major news outlets profit from juicy tidbits of divisive news that fan the flames of hell. Inundated by such darkness on a daily basis, it can be tempting to hunker down and pray for this life to end so that we can get on with the business of heaven.

Yet…Jesus prayed “thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven.”[i]

CLICK HERE to continue reading "Your Own Personal Hell"

[i] Matt. 6:10

Ash Wednesday (pt 1): T.S. Eliot - the Eagle Chained & Unchained - Ron Dart

Ash Wednesday by T. S. Eliot

 

I

Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
Desiring this man's gift and that man's scope
I no longer strive to strive towards such things
(Why should the agèd eagle stretch its wings?)
Why should I mourn
The vanished power of the usual reign?

Because I do not hope to know
The infirm glory of the positive hour
Because I do not think
Because I know I shall not know
The one veritable transitory power
Because I cannot drink
There, where trees flower, and springs flow, for there is
nothing again

Because I know that time is always time
And place is always and only place
And what is actual is actual only for one time
And only for one place
I rejoice that things are as they are and
I renounce the blessèd face
And renounce the voice
Because I cannot hope to turn again
Consequently I rejoice, having to construct something
Upon which to rejoice

And pray to God to have mercy upon us
And pray that I may forget
These matters that with myself I too much discuss
Too much explain
Because I do not hope to turn again
Let these words answer
For what is done, not to be done again
May the judgement not be too heavy upon us

Because these wings are no longer wings to fly
But merely vans to beat the air
The air which is now thoroughly small and dry
Smaller and dryer than the will
Teach us to care and not to care Teach us to sit still.

Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death
Pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

 

Christian Pacifism and Its Cultured Naysayers - Wayne Northey

The Problem

I have a good friend who loves the great Christian thinkers, Erasmus and his 16^th-century Anglican friends and contemporaries known as the Oxford or London Reformers, Dean John Colet, Thomas More, and Juan Vives.

My friend writes:

But, Erasmus was no absolute pacifist. He was very much the nimble, subtle and nuanced owl of his age, ever finding a thoughtful and navigating a thoughtful pathway between the pacifist doves and warlike hawks. (name and source withheld).

My friend’s assessment that such thinkers are “the nimble, subtle and nuanced owls of their age” has always struck me as passing strange. If “Teaching the Gospel Message that Jesus was totally nonviolent, and we’re called to be nonviolent too,” ¹ then aren’t exception caveats in the otherwise dovish Erasmus–he the premier 16^th-century Peace theologian–more of a departure from The Way than ‘nimble’ on The Way? And can it be denied that his opposition to church militarism² became his legacy–not nimble path-picking between doves and hawks?

My conditional “if” above is of course the nub. But as I read Jesus in the Gospels³, the burden of proof is surely on those “nimble” thinkers to explain why they seem to contradict/obviate/set aside what Jesus explicitly taught: Love your enemies–don’t you think?

What follows is not so much an argument for Pacifism as making space for a challenge to its alternative, in one’s commitment to taking Jesus seriously. It does not address the minefield of thorny practical issues of living “in, but not of the world,” which two millennia plus of Church history have brought to bold relief on this matter. Then again, neither does Jesus.

Abstract theology holds for me little appeal. So along the way, beginning with my friend, I interact with embodied expressions of Pacificism’s alternative.

Simply stated: in Jesus, if not Pacifism, why not?

Exception-Clause Footnote Theology?

I must express textual agnosticism: Search as I might throughout the New Testament, I find nowhere any Exception-Clause Footnote Theology at work that permits, let alone encourages, an end-run around this central text and theme. Do you?

Surely a nimble mind does not try to find a (convenient?) agnosticism about this theme, while seemingly ignoring that

peace [is] the heart of the gospel message and the ground of the New Testament’s unity. (New Testament scholar Richard Hays. See above footnote.)?

Whereas, one must wonder at the apparent abnegation of simply seeing this unifying theme of the New Testament!? Or have I missed something–and not they?

Mind you (intentional pun), that great thinkers such as C.S. Lewis had such “nimble” minds, one cannot deny. Perhaps though therein lies the problem? . . .

CLICK HERE to continue reading

The Jewish Scriptures - Brad Jersak

In recent years, biblical studies scholars and theologians, among others, have begun to regard the term "Old Testament" as problematic in terms of both political correctness and interfaith dialogue. While a number of alternatives have been floated, the most dominant option has come to be the "Hebrew Bible" or, more accurately, the "Hebrew Scriptures," since the Bible is really a late invention of the printing press.

But as an Orthodox Christian, I find this latter term just as troublesome, for a few reasons. Overall, I find its categories to be too narrow, historically and theologically.

First, for first-century Jews (Christian or not) the Scriptures were not entirely in Hebrew. While the rabbis would eventually narrow their sacred canon to the Hebrew books of the Tanakh (the Torah, Nevi'im, and Ketuvim), the Scriptures of Jesus's day included Greek books not preserved in Hebrew (cf. the LXX). To reduce the Jewish Scriptures to 'the Hebrew Scriptures' (as the Protestants have) is to exclude a huge swath of books that first-century Jews (including Jesus and his apostles) embraced as sacred scripture. The later reduction by Jewish rabbis and Protestant theologians does a disservice to those Jews who held the first two books of Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, and Greek sections of Esther and Daniel as holy Scripture.

To the great rabbis of their day, calling those books 'Apocrypha' and treating them as secondary would be a nonsensical anachronism coined in retrospect by those who had taken scissors to 'God's word.' 

Second, for those willing to acknowledge the reality of Jewish Scriptures written or preserved in Greek, then we ought surely to include 'the New Testament,' because it tells the Jewish story in essential texts of the Tanakh that forecast a 'New Covenant' with the Jews (e.g., Jeremiah 31-33) and a promised deliverer (i.e., the Messianic Son of David).

The New Testament is a collection of Jewish Scriptures written by Jewish authors about their Jewish Messiah, addressed first of all to Jewish readers and their converts (included as prophesied in the Abrahamic covenant and the prophecies of Isaiah).

While those Jews who did not identify Jesus as their Messiah would reject the New Testament witness, one way that Christians today can resist our habitual supersessionism and Greek-Hebrew dualism is by not contrasting the Hebrew Scriptures with the Greek New Testament. Rather, I propose that Christians consider referring to the Jewish Scriptures (LXX and NT inclusive) or, as Jesus and the NT writers did, simply "the Scriptures."

For Christians who worship Jesus Christ as God's Son, Israel's Messiah, and the world's Savior, the entire Bible is a cohesive drama of redemption culminating in God's restored and extended covenant. For Christians, it should not be a big leap to include all the books of the first Christians Greek and Hebrew Bible (the LXX), nor to acknowledge that all our* books are fundamentally Jewish Scriptures (from Genesis to Revelation). 

 

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew - Call for Peace in the Ukraine

Address by His All-Holiness
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew
after the Divine Liturgy
on the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee

(February 13, 2022)

Call for Peace in Ukraine

* * *

Honorable Consuls General,

Beloved children in the Lord,

On this Sunday, dedicated to the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee, marking the entrance to a period of penitence, fasting and ascetical struggles as preparation for the Holy and Great Pascha, we are called to fervent prayer with all our hearts for the preservation of peace in Ukraine. Indeed, the possibility of a new war in Europe, resulting from the escalation of violent rhetoric and militarization of the borders between Russia and Ukraine, should be unequivocally opposed. We call for enduring peace, stability and justice in the region. Peace is a matter of choice and must be shared by all the forces engaged in this extremely complex and sensitive geopolitical context. The duty of us all is to pray for and actively contribute to a peaceful resolution of conflict situations and to the unconditional respect and protection of human rights and dignity. Human conflict may very well be inevitable in this fallen and broken world; but war and violence are certainly to be opposed with every fiber of our being.

The ancient Greeks spoke about “peace” (“εἰρήνη”) as a condition “exceedingly rich and immensely fruitful” (“βαθύπλουτος καὶ βαθύκαρπος”). They adored peace as a goddess, depicted with her son Plutos (“Wealth”) in her bosom. Closer to our times, Benjamin Franklin reminded us that “there never was a good war or a bad peace.” War can appear sweet only to those who have not experienced it (“γλυκὺ δὲ πόλεμος ἀπείροισιν”). Indeed, if we allow our hearts and minds to freely express themselves, without any fear or passion, they will certainly not speak in favor of war, but they will unequivocally praise peace.

We firmly believe that there is no solution possible to preserve and guarantee peace outside the path of dialogue, which abolishes the conditions that lead to violence and war. Peace comes from mutual respect and cooperation. Within an environment of growing uncertainty with regard to human affairs, the word of the Church has to be a clear message of reconciliation and peace, of love and justice, of brotherhood and solidarity.

We call upon all parties involved to pursue this path of dialogue and respect for international law, in order to bring an end to the conflict and allow all Ukrainians to live in harmony. Arms are not the solution. On the contrary, they can only promise war and violence, sorrow and death. As our beloved brother Francis, the Pope of Rome, recently said: “Let us not forget: war is madness.” All Church ministers, all representatives of religious traditions, all those in position of authority, all people of good will, each one of us, should call for a peaceful resolution of this dangerous escalation of words and means that weight heavily and ominously upon the head of the Ukrainian people. Silence and indifference are not an option. There is no peace without constant vigilance. Therefore, we are all “sentenced” to peace, which means, destined to the permanent struggle for its establishment and defense.

May the God of love and peace bless you all!

Jury Nullification, Enlightened Conscience & Spirit-Led Interpretation—Richard Murray

This is a term worth knowing— “jury nullification.” It basically means a jury has the inherent power to nullify the legal guilt of any defendant when they sit in judgment. 

Simply put, they don’t have to convict, no matter how much the evidence points to the defendant’s guilt. 

Where I practice law, I have to argue this very carefully. While the jury has the inherent power to transcend the facts and find any defendant not guilty, lawyers are not allowed to DIRECTLY tell the jury they can. We can hint at it, but we can't specifically argue it. 

The way I indirectly present it to the jury is to say that juries have what the law calls an "enlightened conscience," which is one of the first terms we learned during law school. I tell them if their consciences are wavering and unsettled about finding my client guilty, they can and should follow their enlightened conscience. I tell them their hearts process facts along with their minds, and not to just rely on their intellect but their hearts and guts as well.

I believe this same dynamic applies to interpreting Scripture. We can nullify the dead letter of Scripture when our consciences cry out “NO!” Our consciences, as Origen said, are the divine chambers of justice which prompt the truths of God in their purest form. 

I have been told on more than one occasion that I am teaching error because I say we should follow our Spirit-quickened consciences when reading Scriptures (not to mention following them as well when we do most anything else). 

One person commented to me, “You lost me at saying we should follow our Spirit-quickened consciences.” The person went on the say that only the Bible is authoritative and our consciences have nothing to do with determining the truth of it. 

Can what this person said possibly be true? 

Well, it makes some sense to first see what the Scriptures actually say about the human conscience. It’s amazing the literalist who corrected me by claiming that “only the word of Scripture is to be used to determine truth” doesn’t even know that the Bible repeatedly encourages us to use our human consciences to bear witness with the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. 

“I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit....” Romans 9:1

“For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience....” 2 Corinthians 1:12

Scriptures reveal that the conscience can be good in the sense of blameless, clear, clean, and pure (Acts 23:1; 24:16; 1 Tim. 1:5, 19; 3:9; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 13:18; 1 Pet. 3:16, 21). The conscience can be cleansed, cleared, perfected, purified, washed, purged, and sprinkled clean (Heb. 9:9, 14; 10:22). 

But, having a cleansed and purged conscience then allows us do what? In other words, WHAT exactly IS the purpose of a clear conscience? 

Here is an astounding truth. In the Old Testament imagery of the Temple, we find prophetic shadows of our “inner beings” under the New Covenant. The New Testament certainly exhorts us to penetrate and apply this symbolism to our lives today, here, and now.  “Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?” - 1 Corinthians 3:16.

Simply put, our conscience is our “inner high priest” which has been sprinkled and anointed by Christ to enter into His Holy of Holies which resides deep within each of us. 

It is with our consciences that we access, penetrate, exchange, and then express the Testimony of Christ. The conscience, then, is a crucial spiritual organ. God wants us to find our Spirit-quickened consciences when we read Scripture, not lose them.  

Some people LOSE their sensitivity of conscience when reading the Bible. They deaden themselves to mercy, goodness, and love by embracing the "dead letter" reading of OT wrath, OT cruelty, and OT hostility. Paul warns us not to let this happen in 2 Corinthians 3. 

Others FIND their consciences when reading the Bible. They instead deaden themselves to OT wrath, OT cruelty and OT hostility by embracing Jesus' indwelling Spirit and personality as God's complete goodwill toward mankind.

In this challenging day of combative rhetoric and conflicting posturing, let’s find and follow our consciences to find the tender tone of Christ.

Nahum: Faithful Prophet with a Fatal Flaw - Kelvin Redmile

Nahum: Faithful Prophet with a Fatal Flaw (as they all had).

Kelvin Redmile

Nahum was a faithful prophet who saw the “word of the Lord” come true - but how and in what way did it come to pass.

Let’s read the book from the end to the beginning so we are reading the prophecy not only in the light of Christ but with the benefit of hindsight. And hindsight is a wonderful thing.

The conclusion of the prophecy describes what Assyria was like and what its desolate condition is now. This violent oppressor has had a taste of its own medicine. How quickly Assyria forgot the grace of God granted to them in the days of Jonah only a few decades earlier. We too can forget his mercy and forgiveness so easily.

Look at the Assyrians brokenness and iniquity: 

1. Bloody Violence of every kind – ruining and wasting not only the earth but people
2. Sexual immorality, violence, and abuse
3. Liars and deceivers.
4. Robbers and looters

Sounds like the evil empire Babylon in Revelation. Much to mankind’s shame – Assyria is too much like the worst we see in mankind today.

But notice too how the book pictures humankind incurring a self-inflicted fatal wound from which it cannot recover. The resulting death means the end of everlasting cruelty. Is this not the grace of death? God bans Adam from the tree of life so that through physical death, he would eventually escape from the wound he had inflicted upon himself.

Here is my prayer for today on reading Nahum.

“O Lord, remove the Nineveh, the Assyria in me and set up a New Jerusalem in my heart.”¹

Free Speech, Hate Speech, Public Discourse & Protest - Bradley Jersak

Political Editorial by Bradley Jersak

Free speech

Credit: Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs Twitter

The ancient roots of ‘free speech’ emerge from the rise of democracy in Athens, where a conviction arose that leadership change could and should occur through elections rather than via violence or coercion. From those seeds grew the practice of meaningful public discourse on public matters and with that, the development of strategies of persuasive rhetoric as the nonviolent armory of speech.

More recently, the modern ‘free speech’ movement was birthed in England, where Parliamentary proceedings were secretive, and journalists of the day lobbied for the right to report, even minimally, on what was being debated and decided. Until then, such reporting was illegal and punishable, at times even by death. 

Proponents of free speech then and now know that free speech is costly speech. To exercise free speech in nations and societies where it is regarded as a criminal activity rather than a human right makes journalism a risky and noble vocation.   

From these backstories, we derive an important definition of ‘free speech’—"the ability to speak meaningfully about public affairs in the public square. The purpose of free speech is to enhance public discourse.”¹ 

Hate speech

Unfortunately, some want to expand the notion of ‘free speech’ into “I will say whatever I want, about anything I want, anywhere I want, without consequence,” ... even if it creates hatred, damage, violence, or death. As if our right to speech were absolute and unbounded. By that argument, free speech becomes ‘hate speech.’

“Hate speech is a blasphemy of free speech”² and is, in fact, an act of violence. Note well: hate speech does not merely become so when it incites violence—it is violent in and of itself because violence is “any action that undermines the dignity of any other human being”³ (and beyond humans, as well). Thus, speech that serves as an assault on human dignity and creates a threat to their freedom and well-being is not ‘free speech’ at all—it is ‘hate speech.’

In Canada, we recognize that Holocaust denial is a form of‘ hate speech,’ forbidden in our classrooms, even when it doesn’t incite violence. Why? Because our culture has recognized that it does not meet the requirements of ‘free speech.’ It does not enhance public discourse under Canadian law. Rather, we see how it undermines Jewish dignity, security, and freedom. Thus, creating boundaries around hate speech is not so much censorship of ‘free speech,’ as it is the rigorous protection of ‘meaningful public discourse.’ Hate speech damages public discourse and diminishes the costly sacrifice by which free speech came about and what it hopes to achieve.   

Mischievous Speech

‘Mischievous speech’ is a subtle but dangerous form of hate speech. It may include ‘gaslighting’ to instigate a violent reaction or ‘dog whistles’ as a call to arms among radicals through suggestive lingo, stoking hatred and signaling permission to transgress other's rights. It is verbal vandalism in the name of pseudo-freedom.

Mischievous speech can also be labeled ‘dangerous speech’ because it dehumanizes, intimidates, and/or increases the risk of violence against (or even by) particular groups of people based on ethnic, religious, or racial identities, etc. The difficult task in a just society is knowing where to draw boundaries around dangerous speech and public assembly that balances the need to defend free speech and the right to protest while also preserving public safety and the security of affected communities.

Limits matter. Even America's expansive first amendment does not green-light the misuse of free speech to scream ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre (when there is no fire), but one we would like to protect the rights of those who cry ‘fire’ when there is one. I'm speaking metaphorically. 

The Dangers of Infringement & Limits of Public Protest

‘Free speech’ societies recognize how important it is not to infringe on free speech or prevent people from publicly expressing their grievances, including the right to peaceful assembly where protest is not only necessary, but welcome. We are aware that censorship and suppression can inhibit pathways to resolving grievances peacefully and sometimes serves to escalate the risk of radicalization and violence.

On the other hand, free speech, strategic public protest, and civil disobedience are an art and a science that can be engaged effectively in the interest of justice, especially where we believe the powers that be are unjust, corrupt, or tyrannical (cf. Gene Sharp's works on Nonviolent Struggle).

...OR free speech (whether by heads of state or mobs in revolt) may also be thoroughly botched or even purposely shaped to devolve into propaganda, riots, looting, and assault. They deliberately manipulate and escalate crowds away from meaningful public debate into acts of hatred and hostility that polarize and destabilize democracies (by design). Nothing about that is ‘free speech.’ It is a perversion of free speech that needs to be called out and resisted by the populace, the politicians, and yes, even law enforcement (not goon squads), especially when the community and its most vulnerable are endangered.     

 

This political editorial by Bradley Jersak represent his personal opinions. They do not represent official views of other authors on Clarion or companies and ministries to whom he is contracted. 

[1] Conversation with David Goa (02-04-22). This post was inspired and informed by a conversation with David Goa, but I take responsibility for my interpretation and takeaways of that chat. 

[2] David Goa.

[3] Conversation with Andrew Klager (02-03-22).

The Cross: Power Made Perfect in Weakness - Michael McElyea

I don’t know about you, but 2021 was a year unlike any other. Much more took place in my own world than “just” the pandemic. My soul literally underwent a bloody crucifixion. With that, I pray that “I” (my egoic self) no longer lives, but Christ (Jesus Christ of Nazareth, crucified and yet Risen) lives in me. From February of 2021 until this present moment I have been fully immersed in suffering. No need to even go into details, many, many people I’ve talked to have undergone their own. Perhaps this will resonate.

I had no idea what “to do” when my world came crashing down. In a way, I still do not know what “to do”. I am learning it is ok to be human because God was. I literally felt like a man nailed to a cross crying out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” at times. What happened to the high of “tetelestai”?

I was very focused on the “finished” works of Christ. Perhaps I had a perverted image of what that all looked like and was still immersed in a form of my Pentecostal roots of triumphalism. He said it was finished. A victorious gospel. Yet I was lost. I surely did not “feel” whole or “saved”. I sat in the suffering, with God, sometimes/most times with God but ignoring God and just isolating. But handfuls of times He would pierce through that moment and arose things within me. In a strange turn of events (the wind of the Spirit will blow where she wills), I found myself, a walking dead man, encountering/re-encountering LIFE at a funeral of all places. Bizarre. But just like God. In the tomb is where He does His best work.

In and through the tomb He tramples down death by death, and upon me upon us, upon us all in the tombs, bestowing life/LIFE. That was just prior to Christmas. I have been in therapy the whole time, immersed in this thing with God, and found God/Christ is fully immersed in this with me. The scary part was I found He wasn’t the God of my Pentecostal roots per se. There was no NOW word of faith that would appear like a genie in a bottle, waving a magic wand, and BAM, breakthrough came, and all my cares are cast away. Nope. I was nailed to a cross. There, I encountered ONE nailed to a cross with me, and later paradoxically IN me, and all of my egoic “principalities and powers” met that ONE. Through grit and grime, blood sweat and tears, pain, and shame, condemnation and suffering I encountered THE ONE who entered into all of the things listed therein, with ME, in ME, and there was no BAM magic wand. There was “follow ME”.

Last Saturday 1/22/22, while sitting and reading A More Christlike Word by Brad Jersak, I had heard in my heart simply the passage John 20:22. Here is John 20:22: When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.