Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

Q&R "Why are you no longer an Evangelical? How about the Charismatic gifts?" Eric Janzen

Question: Which of your beliefs has changed that made the label “Evangelical” no longer correct for you?

This is a difficult question to answer in brief. However, I shall make an attempt. I will preface this by saying that I consider myself, in part, an Anabaptist who is on a slow pilgrimage toward the Orthodox Church. However, I admit I am in the desert, so to speak, on a journey between lands. I really enjoy it here and am in no rush.

It is also worth noting that I have retained the core elements of Anabaptism: Jesus as the very centre of faith, Jesus is the revelation of who God is, social justice and peace as inseparable from the Gospel, the importance of learning and discipleship in community, non-violence, and loving others generously—to name a few. Meanwhile, I have attempted to divest myself of the Evangelical elements and influences that invariably crept into the churches I attended as a youth.  

I no longer believe that God is like Zeus. By this, I mean I no longer believe that God is an enraged deity who harbours a barely restrained hatred for His creation. I believe that Jesus Christ is God and reveals exactly who God is and what God is like: God’s very core essence is Divine Love.

I no longer believe that God was punishing Jesus on the Cross as a substitute for the punishment He wanted to pour out on humanity in an enraged, murderous fit of wrath. This an unworthy depiction of the Creator God who is Love and who wants to restore humanity to a complete and peaceful wholeness of mind, body, and spirit.

I believe that in the Incarnation, Life, Death, and Resurrection, Jesus Christ revealed the full reality of who God is and what God is like. I believe that Christ overcame Death and Sin thus restoring to humanity the ability to be restored to God in an unhindered, completely open and free relationship. Because of this, we are invited to be transformed and transfigured as the image and likeness of God within us is freed to become like Christ.

Jan Zwicky's "Once upon a Time in the West" - Review by Ron Dart

Jan Zwicky, Once upon a Time in the West: Essays on the Politics of Thought and Imagination (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2023).

I lived for a couple of years in the young 1970s in northern Norway and Switzerland. I spent time in Norway with the mountain Sami—this was a period when Arne Naess (Norwegian mountaineer, Spinoza scholar and founder of deep ecology with Delores LaChapelle) worked closely with the Sami to oppose the large dam projects. Naess lived in Austria from 1933-1935 and was involved, when there, with the Vienna Circle and Wittgenstein. When I was in Switzerland, I took in the Swiss mountaineering tradition and soaked myself in the writings of Renaissance scholar Jacob Burckhardt (complicated history with Nietzsche), Hesse and Heidegger. I have been fortunate to spent time at Heidegger’s Hut in southern Germany  (Todtnauberg) and Nietzsche’s home in Sils Maria. I mention this the simple reason that each of these thinkers were focused and preoccupied with the dilemma of the West and its seeming deterioration and decline, its lemming-like stampede to a cliff’s edge, its hyper and unanalyzed addiction to the vita activa and its opposition to the vita contemplativa—such are the legitimate and focused concerns of Jan Zwicky’s recent probes and beauty of a book, Once upon a Time in the West, “Once”, “Time” and West” the target, the suggestive and classical fairy tale sequence not to miss.    

Once upon a Time in the West is divided into 14 reflective and meditative chapters, the personal and philosophical woven together on a finely textured tapestry of thought and insight. The initial chapter, “Auden as Philosopher: How Poets Think” is the golden key that walks the attentive reader into this bounty of a book, two ways of seeing and the consequences for the West of taking one path or the other: “Auden’s Poetic Epistemology” versus “The Epistemology of Baconian Science.” Bacon was somewhat more sophisticated than his detractors make him out to be but the ‘novum organum,” when pushed too far, conceals much what Zwicky’s read of Auden-Coleridge unconceals—this is a chapter worthy of multiple slow reads.

Q&R: "The Tree of Knowing Good from Evil" - Bradley Jersak

^Question

<sup>I just finished Bradley Jersak's June 4, 2023 article: "The Devil...from the Arche." My wrestle is then how the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil could exist in Eden if there was no sin yet. If sin originates with humankind, what was the serpent in the garden? Neither the tree nor the serpent were "created" by humankind.

I am just an unschooled follower of Jesus who loves how relentlessly our triune God loves all of his creation. He's been deepening my awareness of His loving character daily as I wrestle and am humbled daily by my hip being left out of joint.</sup>

^Response

^{These are good questions from your close reading of the passage and some common sense observations. Well done.}

^{First, remember that the story of Eden was not written as factual history but as a poetic parable of the human condition, describing what we all experience.}

^{This is the question of genre. When interpreting the Bible, it is critical that we read poetry as poetry, parables as parables, visions as visions, letters as letters, legends as legends, history as history, etc. But if we forget that and read inspired myth (which is an important way truth is revealed) as if it were ancient history, we will miss the truth the myth was revealing.}

^{Legged Serpent - Ishtar Gate}

^{In this case, we have the story of a man called (literally) 'man' or 'human,' a woman called (literally) 'life,' a tree called 'life' and another tree called 'knowledge of good and evil' and then a talking serpent with legs (at first), like the ones on the Ishtar Gate of Babylon that Daniel would have seen... now on display in the Pergamum Museum in Berlin).}

<sup>What does the serpent represent in the story? It is the wily voice of temptation, the impulse to question God's wisdom, the suggestion that we can be gods without God. Later, Jesus will be confronted by this same temptation, resist and overcome it.

For more on this, read the article by Brian Zahnd and me titled "Q&R: What is Satan? Who Tempted Jesus."</sup> 

^{THE TREE}

^{Now to the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." The tree in and of itself was not evil. The tree describes knowledge or discernment, sorting out or even deciding what is good and what is evil. That's actually good.}

^{Further, evil is already intrinsic as a possibility in the combination of God's command ("Don't touch") and God's gift (human agency). How so? By misusing our agency to disobey the command... Disobedience is not only possible for humanity, even in an untainted world... it almost seems inevitable. Adam and Eve are not presented as perfect (meaning mature) but innocent (as moral toddlers).}   

^{Early Christian teachers suggest that Eden's couple would eventually be given that gift (discernment) as partakers of that fruit as they matured through their walk with God. Through fellowship with God, they would receive the fruit from God's generous hand... when they were ready.}

^{The actual problem, then, was that they wanted to eat the fruit (determine good and evil) for themselves without consulting God or submitting to God's commands. They disobeyed. And human disobedience is the fatal poison that ushers death (as alienation) into the world. I see it in the news every day.}

^{THE STORY OF US}

^{Now how is this story about all of us? We are all born innocent but immature, yet at some point, we are confronted with choices about what is right. It is not only a question of whether we'll do the right thing or not. But the first question is whether we'll take our cues on good vs. evil from God or will we act out of our own self-will and choose to determine for ourselves what is right or wrong... without God?}

^{We often think we know what's best for ourselves and act as if we are gods without God. Then what happens? Things don't go so well. We stumble into shame and alienation, then project our self-loathing onto God, reshaping our image of God as angry and punitive. Someone to hide from.}

^{The good news is that the story continues. God is not like that. Even as we leave the Garden of Paradise, God goes with us and has promised to make it right through the Seed of Eve (Jesus), the One who knows and lives what is right by rejecting the temptation to radical autonomy and instead, overcomes evil through perfect submission to his Father in the second garden (Gethsemane).} 

^{The Great Tradition (ancient church) saw in the Cross of Christ both trees in Eden! First, they saw in the Cross the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil through the responses of the two thieves. One rejects Jesus (and perishes in his defiance), and the other receives Jesus (and enters Paradise). Paul will later say that for some people, the gospel is the fragrance of life and, to others, it is the stench of death. The same Love revealed in Christ can be experienced either way. How so? By turning toward the Cross in surrender or away from the Cross in self-will.}  

^{In Christ's death, we also see the Tree of Life. Christ overthrows death and alienation, and he restores life through his resurrection. He welcomes us back to Eden's Tree of Life (the Cross, which is to say, to himself) so we can partake of HIM (think of the Eucharist as the fruit of that Tree) and experience the eternal kind of life that Jesus describes as knowing God and his Son.}

^{A RADICAL TWIST: GROWING UP}

^{Before I share a radical second reading, let me just explain that there is a long Jewish tradition of biblical interpretation called "midrash," where their oral tradition read between the lines and playfully elaborated on the text to explore ethical or theological questions. Midrash would create sermons and parables from the text and apply them to contemporary concerns.}

^{To modern literalists, Midrash can be charged with "playing fast and loose" with the text, but the New Testament examples abound, with the apostle Paul leading the way. See for example, "The spiritual rock that followed them was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4) or the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4:21-31. And yes, Paul calls it an allegory.}

^{As this concerns the Eden story, there are loads of midrash to draw from, both Jewish and Christian, which I've gathered into a CWRm article, "Mary: the Second Eve." Some of these go well beyond the first author's words or intent, which biblicists find offensive. But this is the Tradition I would hope we commit to conserve and learn to emulate. My favorite modern midrash on the story, drawing together midrash from the great Jewish rabbis, is Wm. Paul Young's novel, Eve. Highly recommended! With that in mind, two examples come to mind, one old and one new.} 

^{GREGORY: GROWING PT. 1}

^{In works such as Life of Moses, the great fourth-century Cappodocian teacher, Gregory of Nyssa, discussed the inevitability of 'the fall.' He is my source on the idea of 'Adam's' (human) moral immaturity. He reasoned that in Christ, the creation of humanity will ultimately grow into the fullness or maturity or perfection God intended. But at that outset, while innocent, we were and are immature.}

^{He also saw that in our immaturity, being thrown into a world with the power to choose makes a fall inevitable. Sure, you can obey for a while. Maybe even a long while. But eventually, we're bound to stumble. Learning to crawl, then walk, then run, ride a bike, then drive a car is risky business and not one of us gets through without bumps and bruises.}

^{Gregory extrapolated that for God to throw humanity into a situation where falling in inevitable, then condemning us for it would be unjust. But God is NOT unjust. God is the eternal perfection of justice, which is always restorative. So the only just response to the inevitable fall is mercy. And that is precisely what God has revealed in Christ. God-in-Christ is Mercy Incarnate. So by Genesis 3:15, the ultimate victory of divine mercy has already been announced ('gospeled') to Eve.}    

^{ANDRE: GROWING PT. 2}

^{Again, we're doing midrash here. We're not claiming authorial intent or 'the one meaning.' We're reading between the lines and playing with the text in ways that make sense of our own journey. The Bible itself gives us permission to do that by example, including Jesus!}

^{Bearing that in mind, playing with the myth, my friend Andre responded with his own radical, non-literal but relevant twist on Eden as growing up:}

^{Maybe God didn't 'send' them out. Maybe they had to go and grow up. Like a parent who knows their child has to spread their wings. Like a child who says, "I need to figure this out" or "I can figure this out"... only to come back home with a stronger ability to appreciate and love. I know that was me (although the world outside the garden I grew up in was a step up, sadly).} 

^{I gave two children, two entirely different spirits, both beautiful. And as a parent, I want them to own their journey while also valuing others. The ultimate expression of love is silently crying as they venture away, scared or excited. They're not with you but you're always with them, despite their joys or pains.} 

^{It has to be the same for God. We are made in God's image. And there's that God-shaped vacuum in all of us... in Adam and Eve or like my kids and me.}

^{It would be a tragic irony to rush into a critique or feel the need to point out how Andre's midrash departs from the literal sense of the text. That's the point of midrash. The astute student instead asks, "How is this revision of the text true? True to life? True for me?"}

^{But the advanced student will, I hope, also pick up on Andre's snot-so-subtle clues... that we may discover a connection between the Garden of Eden story and Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son(s). Especially in the actions of departure and return, and seeing these parables in our own stories as children and parents. For those who want to dive deeper, that's a good path to travel.} 

^{By the way, I would welcome students to pursue these questions with me in the SSU School of Theology and Culture. Check us out, come and play, online or in person. Here's your homework for today:}

1. ^{Compare the Serpent's temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden with Satan's temptation of Jesus in the wilderness.} 
2. ^{Compare the stories of the Garden of Eden and the Garden of Gethsemane,}
3. ^{Compare the two trees in Eden with the one Tree (and three Trees) on Golgotha.} 
4. ^{Compare the story of Eden with the parable of the Prodigals.}   

^{Watch for similarities, for differences, and most of all, how these stories are about how the Good News of Jesus meets the human condition as told in your own story.} 

Contemplation: Theoria & Theosis, Epiphany & Theophany - Lazar Puhalo

The deliberations and debates of the holy fathers with heresies are of no small moment. Why, for example, was it of such great necessity to refute Arius at Nicaea, Evtikios at Chalcedon, and Nestorius at Ephesus?

They were defending the very nature of redemption in all these cases, the purpose and nature of the Incarnation itself. When Athanasios says that "God became man so that man may become God," this is no trite statement. The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ would have very little meaning without the Incarnation.

The purpose of the incarnation was to bring to an end the alienation between the divine nature and the human nature and make Theosis the destiny of man. This could be accomplished only if Christ had taken on the fullness of the human nature, and not a portion of it only. In Himself, he brought the human nature – the fullness of the human nature –  into unity, into participation in the divine nature so that, as apostle Peter says in his epistle, we might receive the great and glorious, “exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.” (2 Peter 1:4)
     

This is why we say in the prayer, "he took our human nature upon his shoulders and bore it to the cross." Without this understanding, one could still centuries later the wondering and questioning, "Cur deus homo” and come to the monstrous conclusion that the purpose of the incarnation was to constitute a fit human sacrifice capable of assuaging God and fulfilling His "justice."

Ransoming our human nature from bondage to the fear of death, or in the words of Saint Basil the Great in his great Eucharistic prayer, "he ransomed us from the grave." Since man was held in bondage through the fear of death to the one who had the power of death, namely Satan, being ransomed from the fear of death was at the same time redemption from servitude to Satan. Christ took on the fullness of our human nature, ended its alienation from the Divine nature, and bore our human nature to the cross, ransoming it from death, thus redeeming us from bondage to Satan; a bondage into which we had fallen, being sold through sin into that bondage.

One of the problems appears to be thinking that sin is the problem rather than a symptom of the problem. The problem is our alienation from God since the mark or goal which we fall short of (`amartia) is participation in the divine nature – it isTheosis.

The holy fathers, perhaps none more than Gregory of Nyssa, call us to Christian theoria; to a new contemplation, not of the world or even just of life, but a contemplation of “being” itself. The theoria of the philosophers could result in epiphanies, but Christian theoria leads to theophany, not a mere epiphany.

Einstein relates that when he was trying to think of a way to formulate relativity while hiking alone in the mountains. He had an "epiphany" about how to formulate it. When Archimedes lept naked from the bathtub and ran shouting “Eureka,” he had experienced an epiphany. Christian theoria leads, not to an epiphany, but to theophany. Saint Gregory calls us to Christian theoria - a new contemplation of "being." And Saint Maximos would agree: we have "received" only when we have "contemplated."