Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

Religious Particularity & the Cultural Canopy - Beyond Glib Pluralism - David Goa w/ Brad Jersak

“YOU ARE GODS” – A COIN FROM HART’S TREASURY – Reflection by Bradley Jersak

 David Bentley Hart, YOU ARE GODS: On Nature and Supernature 
(Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 2022) – Reflection by Bradley Jersak

Based solely on repetition in every one of David Bentley Hart’s books, articles, lectures, and podcasts, his most scathing condemnation of any opposing argument is that it’s incoherent—i.e., confusing, incomprehensible. Given this savant’s comprehensive genius for language, philosophy, theology, history, mythology, literature, music, and baseball (a shortlist of his expertise), it’s not inexcusable if he seems to be the offender-in-chief of incoherence. But bear with me (and him)…  

HART’S UNINTELLIGIBLE PATOIS

In his efforts to reteach peons the English language, Hart’s penchant for using precise, inaccessible, archaic, and invented vocabulary can seem self-defeating, if not self-indulgent. That’s aside from the dozens(?) of foreign languages he can use.

But I want to learn from him, so I keep track of words and ideas he thinks I should know. I’m reading You Are Gods: On Nature and Supernature right now. I’ve recorded the following terms for further study since I could only guess what they meant and wouldn’t dare define, much less use in polite company. Please, repeat them aloud:

These are just from the Introduction and Chapter 1: dessicating, repristinated, recrudescence, fustian, theogonic, contrapuntal, fugal, pleonasm, patiency, goetic, leporine/leporinity, rapitude, ship of Theseus conundrum, mereological, deictic, patois, asperous, necrophile, adventitious, velleity, cyclophoria, inchoate, conduced, irrefrangible, aetiological, proleptic, incommiscible, quiddity.

Even my spell-checker was bewildered by seven in the list! But so what? My omniscient cell phone is within arm’s reach. Using a dictionary isn’t just time-consuming; it’s educational—learn or do not! If discovering new words and new ideas is not your thing, Hart’s not your guy and theology is not your passion. Far better to bypass this gibberish about God and get right to talking directly to God. And please pray for us while you’re there.  

HART’S INCOHERENT OPPONENTS

Hart’s assaults on opponents’ ideas and reasoning can also feel convoluted, but from my vantage point, that’s largely because he’s right—whether their logic is incoherent or morally repugnant (Hart’s other big slam). His main targets, Calvin/Calvinism and the Manualist or Two-Tier Thomism are a case in point.

I’m not so sure the sane man is to blame when diagnosing a disorder. Sometimes the doctor must enter the fantasy world of his patients to beckon them out. Remember how the prisoners in Plato’s cave of delusion ridiculed their newly freed companion when, compelled by love, he returned from the sunlight back into their world with good news. He was judged as deluded and disoriented, when really,… well, you get it.    

HART’S INCOMPREHENSIBLE TOPICS

But aside from their disagreements, Hart and his interlocutors are debating topics that can seem obscure, irrelevant, and a bit silly all on their own. Eye-rolling is not always out of order. Yet Hart’s concerns may also have pastoral consequences, especially where the gospel has been perverted by errors (e.g., eternal conscious torment, limited atonement, original sin) and the flock suffers spiritual abuse under toxic teaching. So, what he does kind of matters, if indirectly, even to the casual ‘believer.’

That’s where we rely on the patient souls who will wrestle through his words, debates, and topics (and even enjoy it) to bring back a sample coin from his treasury. Distilling Hart can be as hard as understanding him, and when one presumes to interpret him, the odds of misrepresenting him are high. Nevertheless, I occasionally dare to give it a go because he’s worth it and so are those who can’t read him. I can bear the guilt of saying it wrong. Or better, I’m happy to offer an imperfect reflection that makes sense to me.

For today, I’ll share just one coin, but it’s good and important. I hope readers find it helpful. If so, credit to Hart. If not, my bad.

ON “FINAL CAUSE”  

 In You Are Gods, David Bentley Hart advances five premises (p. xvii), the first of which reads,

“The sole sufficient natural end of all spiritual creatures is the supernatural, and grace is nothing but the necessary liberation of all creatures for their natural ends.”

The essays in his book expand on this thesis, which, once you see it, shouldn’t be unseen.

To begin with, let’s take a moment to learn about “final cause.” The Greek philosopher Aristotle thought about different ways we talk about “cause.” He named four types of cause in our world:

• Material cause: that from which something is made. The material cause of a wooden chair is the tree from which it is crafted.

• Efficient Cause: the agent that interacts with the object to change it. The efficient cause of the chair is the carpenter, who makes the chair what it becomes.

• Formal Cause: the essence or form of a particular object that makes it what it is. This would be like a blueprint or design that makes a chair a chair instead of a table.

• Final Cause: the ultimate end (telos) or purpose of the object, what the object is made for. The final cause of a chair is to be something we sit on.

I want to focus on this fourth type of cause. The wonderful thing about “final cause” is that the end goal of a thing actually causes its creation. Chairs allow for sitting, they don’t create sitting. The desire to sit causes and creates the chair! That’s how the end can cause the beginning.

Now let’s take a living thing, like an acorn that grows into an oak tree. The final cause of the acorn is… the oak tree! That is, acorns are created to produce and become oak trees. And so oak trees cause acorns so that acorns grow to maturity as oaks. It’s like the ultimate purpose or end of a thing (the oak) is calling what it causes (the acorn) to become what it will finally be.        

Further, Aristotle taught that the ultimate purpose or telos of a thing (the oak) is already somehow internal to what it has caused (the acorn). That is, the properties of the oak tree are already there in that little acorn, intrinsic to it. We now know this to be true from DNA and genome studies. The longevity of an oak tree is already baked into the DNA of the acorn.

ON “NATURAL ENDS”

What Aristotle called the “final cause” is, therefore, also the “natural end” of that thing. The natural end of an acorn is the oak. The end is there in the beginning, so that acorns don’t magically become something else… they become what they were always to become by nature.

Now Hart turns to spiritual beings, such as people. What is your natural end as a spiritual being? To discover this our final cause, we look to the Scriptures. Paul says that we are being “transfigured from glory to glory into the image of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 3:18). Peter says that we are “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). John says that when Jesus appears, “we shall be like him” (1 Jn. 3:2).

Paul called this transformation metamorphosis (transfiguration). The church fathers called it theosis, divinization, or deification. Their formula was, “God became human [Incarnation] so humanity could become divine [deification]… that’s right: in Christ, we are prospective “gods.” Hence Jesus striking claim that became Hart’s book title: “You are gods” (Jn. 10:34/Ps. 82:6).   

Shocking, yes, but here’s the math: Jesus is, by nature, the image of God (fully human, fully divine). You are, by nature, created in that image, and by grace, being transformed into that same image (fully humanized, fully divinized). And what you will become (your natural end) is intrinsic to who you are now. You are, in the words of Gary Best, naturally supernatural. Your “final cause” is calling you into this transformation, from acorn to oak, caterpillar to butterfly, natural to supernatural, because that is your natural end.

A NECESSARY LIBERATION

Now back to Hart’s premise:

 “The sole sufficient natural end of all spiritual creatures is the supernatural, and grace is nothing but the necessary liberation of all creatures for their natural ends.”

If I understand him, Hart is saying that as a spiritual creature, your natural end can be nothing less than supernatural. That by necessity, grace will free all creatures, all people, you and me to our natural ends, without fail. In fact, in premise 3, he says,

“No spiritual creature could fail to achieve its naturally supernatural end unless God himself were the direct moral cause of evil in that creature, which is impossible. Conversely, God [since God is good] saves creatures by removing… impediments to their union with him.”

In other words, your transformation from acorn to oak cannot not happen in a universe where God is good and not evil, because saving grace removes every impediment to that end. A God that could, but would not, so free us, would be immoral and not a savior at all.

Note too that Hart further specifies our natural end and final cause: the final cause of our supernatural end is union with God. Union with God inexorably draws humanity (and all creation) to its telos (end) where “God is all and in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). And that ultimate union is, again, intrinsic to our humanity because God has already united Godself to humanity in Jesus Christ—(1) from the creation of the cosmos, (2) in the Incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, and (3) through his Passion and resurrection.

See for example Colossians 1 (the italicized all and everything are my emphasis):

¹⁵ The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. ¹⁶ For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; allthings have been created through him and for him. ¹⁷ He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ¹⁸ And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. ¹⁹ For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, ²⁰ and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

THE HUMANITY OF GOD

Now with the words of Jesus, his apostles, and the church fathers behind him, Hart’s radical 4^th premise may resonate:

“God became human so that humans should become God [a la Athanasius]. Only the God who is always already human can become human. Only a humanity that is always already divine can become God.”

Wait, what? I was ready for the first and third elements of this premise. If our natural end (divinization) is intrinsic to humanity, then it follows that something divine already appears in us now in seed form. Hart identifies that seed as our natural desire for the Transcendent Good (even when our desires are obviously disordered). He argues that we cannot have a natural desire for transcendence unless that desire is internal to who we are—spiritual beings whose first cause is our supernatural, divinized end.

But what does Hart mean by saying “Only the God who is always already human can become human?” Very odd, right?

Yet maybe no more odd than John calling Jesus Christ “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8).

The key here is the divine humanity of Jesus Christ, the God-man—in eternity and in time. Where “through the Passion, Jesus Christ, as man, becomes that which, as God, he always is” (Fr. John Behr). As Behr teaches it, it’s not that there was an eternal "pre-incarnate Word" who was not human, then later became human. Rather, we must always start with the One Lord Jesus Christ, human and divine, crucified and risen, and then we say, “This One, the cruciform Lamb, is the eternal Word and Son of God, Creator of all things, whose image was the pattern for humanity, and in whose image, humanity is becoming.”

Why? Because eternity is not “before” anything. Eternity is not on some “before and then later” everlasting timeline. Eternity is timeless and every point in time is immediately present to the eternal now.

When Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I AM,” who is talking? The human God who descends from above time, from eternity, from outside of time. And eternity is forever indivisibly and directly united with time through the Cross. On this, see John Behr, The Mystery of Christ.

So in Hart, perhaps the humanity of God “is already” as for Behr, “As God, he always is,” as for Jesus, “Before Abraham, I AM.” The grammatical clue is the present tense of eternity (as in "Christ IS risen), the union of the eternal God to his human life in space and time, so that God always IS the human Lamb slain from both the foundations of the cosmos and outside Jerusalem, at once.

This is a Mystery. Don’t worry. Be at peace. If I sound incoherent, be gracious. I’ve been reading David Bentley Hart. We’d covet your prayers.

Revisiting Satisfaction & the Cross - Bradley Jersak

Far beyond crucifixion by execution, the Cross of Christ has, historically, generated a Good News proclamation—the gospel of God’s saving work through Jesus’ death and resurrection. That gospel was announced through a great banquet of biblical metaphors describing the means, meaning, and outcomes of the Paschal Mystery—with the Passover Lamb’s liberation from death and bondage as the central New Testament image.

In addition to the gospel message and the biblical metaphors that fill out its meaning, theologians have speculated as to WHY and HOW the Cross (both death and resurrection) saves people across time. We call the array of responses to those questions “atonement theories.” These should not be confused with the gospel as such or Scripture’s metaphors.1

SATISFACTION THEORIES OF ATONEMENT:
A QUICK REVIEW

Some of these theories use the language of “satisfaction,” a theme that recurs in some of the key Messianic texts of the Hebrew prophets. This begs the questions, (1) who was satisfied, (2) what was being satisfied, and (3) what brought that satisfaction. Some key Latin theologians opined on these questions, always narrowing the question to how God is satisfied:

Augustine – early 5^th century

Augustine describes God’s satisfaction in On the Holy Trinity, where he vehemently denies any sense that Christ’s death was required to appease the Father. He argues that the Father did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all, and so was already satisfied from all eternity. The triune God is forever satisfied by their own superabundant, eternal love, prior even to (and resulting in) the Incarnation. There was no lack in God that needed satisfaction, since God IS infinite love and cannot be diminished, but out of the fulness, God sent the Beloved Son.

Anselm – end of the first millennium

Anselm was not so sure. When he asked why God needed to become human (in Cur Deus Homo), Anselm defaulted to medieval tort law and the bygone practice of dueling for honor. He concluded that our sin had offended God’s honor and needed to be redressed. God’s honor could only be adequately satisfied by someone both divine and human. In Anselm, God’s honor was satisfied by the perfect obedience of Jesus.

John Calvin – early 16^th century

The Genevan reformer, John Calvin, doubled down on satisfaction as wrath-appeasement. In Calvin’s Institutes, he writes that our sin is an affront to the justice of God, whose wrath (not love, not honor) needed to be appeased—not by mere obedience, but by a punishment that fit the crime. Since God is eternal, the penal debt for human sin had to be paid out in an eternal person. It’s not enough to crucify an innocent man for half a day—the infinite wrath of God needed to be poured out in Christ’s body, soul, and spirit. In fact, Christ had to endure the tortures of eternal hell (while on the Cross) to satiate God’s wrath.

Paganizing the Gospel

If we review the trajectory of satisfaction in these theories, they drift further from divine grace into projections of angry human retribution. In The Day the Revolution Began, Tom Wright called this devolving progression “paganizing the gospel” (p. 147). He says that John’s Gospel does not say, “God so hated the world that he killed his only Son.” The gift of the Incarnation and the power of the Cross is that we see infinite Love and Light and Life come into the world out of the plenitude of God’s heart, even as it is refracted through human rebellion and violent retribution. Thus, God in Christ subverts the Cross into our salvation, but that’s galaxies away from assigning the pound-of-flesh justice to our heavenly Father.

REVISITING BIBLICAL SATISFACTION

That said, expunging satisfaction of implications of a diminishment in God’s nature or need for appeasement does not mean jettisoning satisfaction altogether. In fact, we can read its broader and more beautiful sense in two key passages that prefigure the Passion of the Christ. In fact, teasing out satisfaction in these texts magnifies the gospel message.

Psalm 22

I’ve written extensively on Psalm 22 both in A More Christlike God and online (here, here, and here,  focusing specifically on how the “cry of dereliction” (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”) is drawn from the larger crucifixion narrative described in David’s poem. And I have regularly noted how verses 22-24 explicitly proclaim of God:

For he did NOT despise or abhor the affliction of the afflicted; he did NOT hide his face from me, but heard when I cried to him.

The cry of dereliction is, therefore, not a statement of God-forsakenness, but a plea that God hears and answers, so that Jesus will say in John, “You will leave me all alone. Yet I am NOT alone, for my Father is with me” (John 16:32) But in this essay, I will proceed to the verses that follow to pick up on the satisfaction motif.

The Poor Shall Eat and Be Satisfied

In the paragraph following the prophecies of Christ’s suffering and God’s salvation, the Psalmist turns to some specific, glorious outcomes. In verse 26, who is satisfied?

²⁶ The poor shall eat and be satisfied;     those who seek him shall praise the Lord. May your hearts live forever!

These phrases anticipate the banqueting table of God to which Jesus often refers. Remember that Christ’s invitation included the poor, the lame, the blind—those sold on street corners or huddled behind hedges. He tells his disciples to compel them to attend and be filled—those hungry (body, soul and spirit) will be satisfied with good things (Luke 1:53).

All the Families and Nations Included

 But not only the poor! God’s heart is to include:

• Those who seek him (26)
• All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to him (27)
• All the families of the nations shall worship him (27)
• All who sleep in the earth / go down to the dust will bow to him (29)
• Posterity / future generations will hear and serve him (30)
• And will proclaim deliverance to those not yet born (31)
• “Saying that he has done it” (31)

“Done it.” Done what? God in Christ has secured their deliverance, prepared a banquet, and satisfied ALL families in ALL nations—whether dead, alive, or yet to live—with the bottomless cup of salvation!

Isaiah 53

Similarly, I have frequently visited Isaiah 53 (since Stricken by God? 2007) to demonstrate that it was mankind who “despised and rejected” Christ (vs. 3) and we who mistakenly considered Christ “punished by God, stricken by him and afflicted,” (vs. 4), but in fact it was our sins, wrath, and punishment he endured (vs. 5). The Lord does not “lay on him the iniquities of us all” (vs. 6) as a punishment he needs to inflict to satisfy his honor, justice, or wrath. Rather, by bearing (enduring) and forgiving our sin rather than condemning us, the Lamb slain intercedes for the transgressors (Isa. 53:12) and reconciles the world to God, not counting our sins against us (2 Cor. 5:19). In that sense, Christ’s life becomes “an offering for sin” (Isa 53:10)—a grace-gift of radically-forgiving, self-giving love rather than some retributive mechanism to meet a forensic requirement in God. I’ve also elsewhere addressed the translation disparity in Isaiah 53:10 between the Masoretic Text (“It pleased the Lord to crush him”) and the Septuagint (“It pleased the Lord to cleanse/heal him”). But now let’s pick up on the satisfaction theme once again.

Christ is Satisfied by the Offspring of His Labor

When, by grace, the Lord “poured out his life, bore the sin of many, and made intercession for us,” he effectively transfigured humanity’s heinous murder into a love-offering. Having done that,

^10b he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. ¹¹ After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

The pronouns here are tricky. Is “he” Yahweh or the Suffering Servant? YES. As God was in Christ, Yahweh is the One pierced in the Servant (Zech. 12:10). In fact, let’s deliberately refrain from disambiguation on this point. Instead, we’ll focus on satisfaction. Earlier, I denied that anything is ever lacking or diminished in God’s eternal nature, whether by our sin or any other factor. Otherwise, God’s nature (i.e., infinite love) would be subject to external powers. God would be rendered less than God. No satisfaction is necessary to restore what can’t be lacking in God.

However, God’s good creation is still unfurling toward its telos in Christ, when at the telos, God will be all and in all (1 Cor. 15:28). That mission will only be satisfied with the retrieval of every last lost coin, the rescue of every last sheep, and the homecoming of every last son and daughter. The thing lacking, in other words, is us. Only when the full number of the elect (ALL humanity) has been summed up in Christ (Eph 1:8-10) will the end of the ages come to its fulness.

With that in mind, Isaiah 53 reads the Cross from its telos (the End). At the Cross (again, death and resurrection are indivisible), Jesus Christ “sees his offspring”—the “joy set before him” (Heb. 12:2)—he will “see the light of life, and be satisfied.” Some translations include a note to say, “He will see the fruit of his suffering and will be satisfied.”

So, is God somehow satisfied in the work of the Cross? Yes. What satisfies him? By the fruit of his suffering. By seeing, in advance, the offspring (children of the Son). And this by virtue of the Father empowering the Son by the Spirit to see from the Cross the End when the fullness of his love for the world is satisfied.

OUTRO

So, do I believe satisfaction is a theme relevant to our preaching of the Cross? Absolutely, but the history of satisfaction theories requires extra care, lest we slip back into retributive models of appeasement where the Cross is insufficient for sin apart from some expression of divine punishment.

I think sometimes the issue of satisfaction resides in our fallen imaginations. We see the evil in our world and cannot imagine solutions that truly rectify human atrocities or take them seriously without some retribution. I understand that. I want that. But I'm now convinced that the part of me that demands payback, payoff, or pay-down has yet to be crucified with Christ. What I need are the eyes to see "There's wonderworking power in the precious blood of Christ" that IS the restitution for every sin and reparation for every harm... where the Almighty power is Love.

I'm now convinced there is NOTHING his blood can't wash. From the lyrics of 2nd Chapter of Acts (“Which way the wind blows”), God in Christ “TOOK the sins of sinning,” and he ain't paying them back.  So, if we’re to take up satisfaction, let it be in the mission of Christ to accomplish to the uttermost the restoration of the cosmos according to the almighty Love of God, to whom I bow for the Last Word:

“I declare the END from the beginning, and ancient times from what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose WILL stand, and ALL My good pleasure I WILL accomplish” (Isaiah 46:10).

 

Notes
[1] For details on these distinctions, with examples, see Bradley Jersak, A More Christlike God: A More Beautiful Gospel (2015).

Malice or Chalice, Jesus or Abaddon - Bradley Jersak

'Queen Mary Apocalypse’ London 14th century.

"Their king is the angel from the bottomless pit; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon—the Destroyer."(Revelation 9:11). 

I'm grieving Ukraine again today. After the latest news of escalating atrocities, two stubborn facts are feeling increasingly obvious:

• Putin can't be negotiated with. He can only be beaten. And only by massive escalation of death-dealing means. Probably nuclear war. And not one iota of that is for me to decide. My opinion on that is moot. And thank God, so are my disordered impulses. 

• Our instinct to say we MUST to use a military solution, however we justify it, did not in fact work in Bucha, at all. If military interventions are about harm reduction, it's evident that they've failed in this case. Even if the eventual outcome removes Russia from Ukraine and removes Putin from the Kremlin, military 'solutions' have already completely failed to bring anything but escalating trauma, death and destruction of lives that won't ever come back and families that will never recover. In Jesus's words, "satan cannot drive out satan" (Matthew 12:26). He doesn't say, "shouldn't." He says "cannot." Jesus knew. 

So I'm back to the "we" in "what should we do." I am not a head of state or a military commander and have no power to do anything related to foreign policy, militarization, or negotiations. That is not a "we" I am part of. The war is now a fact that proceeds without any reference to me whatsoever. Nor is it for me to say what Ukraine should do, or what President Zelensky should do. For my part, I can only speak to the Jesus-following we of who I am a part. 

 

"We" can be part of the Jesus Way movement he called "blessed peacemakers, called children of God." We are not powerless. My brother Rodney has seen this, bought a plane ticket, and his friends have funded his way to Moldova, where he is now working in refugee camps to support and heal survivors of war. My friends inside the Ukraine are alleviating suffering as best they can using only peacebuilding means that will not create a single death, widow, or orphan, despite the hell that's been unleashed around them. 

 

What can we do? As peacemakers, we continue to do the inner work of expunging malice and violence from our own troubled passions. And we can use our voices to remind Christians that killing has never been the Jesus Way. He forbade it from his followers. Death-dealing is both demonic and an observably ineffective path to lasting peace. If the Church (East and West) could hear and obey Jesus, it would begin by repenting of entangling itself with the beast and serving as its prophet of death. 

 

I can't prove this, but from his speeches, I'm now convinced Patriarch Kirill is not merely Putin's sidekick. He is actually forming, informing, and fuelling Putin's authoritarian delusions with doctrines of death in the name of "Christian" nationalism. What "we" can do is be a minority report of prophetic voices in our corner of the Church that resists adding Christian justifications to the naivety of violence among our own people. 

 

To those who say, "We need to..." followed by any appeal to be agents of Abaddon (Rev. 9:11), we can say this: We can follow Jesus or we can follow the destroyer. We can't put a Jesus patch on Abaddon's uniforms and claim to be children of God. Or so says Jesus. Pascha is coming (is it ever!). It's malice or the chalice--beware of partaking of the Eucharist with Judas' kiss. 

 

 

"How Will You Show Up?" Response to Valarie Kaur's "See No Stranger" - by Bradley Jersak

How Will You Show Up?

“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and don’t do what I say?” (Luke 6:46).
- Jesus of Nazareth 

It’s disconcerting when our discovery of God’s everywhere-present grace leads us to inaction in that grace, rather than motivating and mobilizing us to be instruments of grace in our world. "Revolutionary Love" activist Valarie Kaur calls us to find our way to “showing up.” Kaur relates what it is to "show up" through stories and lessons in her profound must-read book, See No Stranger: A Memoir and Manifesto of Revolutionary Love. It expands on the teachings she conveys on her site and in her talks. She summarizes the call to "show up" as follows:      

The only way we will survive as a people is if we show up… I believe that you are the midwives in this time of great transition, tasked with birthing a new future for all of us.

So I’ve come to ask you, how will you show up? How will you let bravery lead you? And how will you show up with love?... the greatest social reformers in history have built and sustained entire non-violent movements to change the world that were rooted, that were grounded in love; love as a wellspring for courage, not love as a rush of feeling, but love as sweet labor, fierce and demanding and imperfect and life-giving, love as a choice that we make over and over again.

Revolutionary love is the choice to enter into labor, for others, for our opponents, and for ourselves. The first practice: See no stranger. All the great wisdom traditions of the world carry a vision of oneness; the idea that we are interconnected and interdependent, that we can look upon the face of anyone or anything and say as a spiritual declaration and a biological fact, “You are a part of me I do not yet know.ⁱ

Valarie is an American Sikh who champions the transforming power of love in the traditions of Jesus, Guru Nanak, Gandhi, and MLK. I share the bare bones of her vision here because when it comes time to reconstructing or reorientating our lives, our faith, and our practice toward the Light of Love, her voice and her mission draw me deep into the heart of the Jesus Way. 

Christians and ex-Christians alike would do well to sit at her feet for a season. Kaur’s learning hubⁱⁱ guides readers and educators into the practice of “revolutionary love.” Here she develops a three-fold strategy for “showing up” around the words (1) wonder, (2) grieve, and (3) fight.

To wonder is to cultivate a sense of awe and openness to others’ thoughts and experiences, their pain, their wants and needs. It is to look upon the face of anyone or anything and say: You are a part of me I do not yet know. Wonder is an orientation to humility: recognizing that others are as complex and infinite to themselves as we are to ourselves. Wondering about a person gives us information for how to love them. You can practice wonder for all others – animals, trees, living beings, and the earth. Wonder gives you information for how to care for them. Wonder is the wellspring of love.

To grieve with others is to share their pain, without trying to minimize or erase it. Grieving with others requires a willingness to be transformed by their experiences, especially those who have suffered trauma and violence. Grieving collectively and in community gives us the information to build solidarity, to fight for justice, and even to share in one another’s joy.

To fight is to choose to protect those in harm’s way. To fight with revolutionary love is to fight against injustice alongside those most impacted by harm, in a way that preserves our opponents’ humanity as well as our own. When we fight for those outside our immediate circle, our love becomes revolutionary.

If the fog deconstruction has left you feeling lost and vulnerable, I commend Kaur’s story, life, and training as a compass for the disoriented. As a teaser, I've embedded one of her inspiring talks here:     

i. Valarie Kaur, Keynote talk: “Valarie Kaur: Breath! Push! The Labor of Revolutionary Love,” Bioneers (Nov. 13, 2019). <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIrl_Ob0jvg>.

ii. https://valariekaur.com/learninghub/

“Retribution” in Isaac the Syrian

“Retribution” in Isaac the Syrian

I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. Nay, what is so bitter and vehement as the torment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is more poignant than any torment. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love . . .  is given to all. But the power of love works in two ways: it torments sinners, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend; but it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus, I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of heaven by its delectability.

[The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, I/28 (1984)]

Sin is the fruit of free will. There was a time when sin did not exist, and there will be a time when it will not exist. Gehenna is the fruit of sin. At some point in time, it had a beginning, but its end is not known. Death, however, is a dispensation of the wisdom of the creator. I will rule only a short time over nature; then it will be totally abolished. Satan’s¹ name derives from voluntary turning aside from the truth; it is not an indication that he exists as such naturally.

[The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, I/27 (1984)]

To suppose the retribution for evil acts is to be found in him is abominable. By implying that he makes use of such a great and difficult thing out of retribution, we are attributing a weakness to the Divine Nature. We cannot even believe such a thing can be found in those human beings who live a virtuous and upright life and whose thoughts are entirely in accord with the divine will – let alone believe of God that he has done something out of retribution for anticipated evil acts in connection with those whose nature he has brought into being with honour and great love. Knowing them and all their conduct, the flow of his grace did not dry up from them: not even after they started living amid many evil deeds did he withhold his care for them, even for a moment.

[ The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, I/28 (1984)]

If someone says that [God] has put up with them here on earth in order that his patience may be known – with the idea that he would later punish them mercilessly – such a person thinks in an unspeakable blasphemous way about god because of his infantile way of thinking: he is removing form God his kindness, goodness, and compassion: all the things because of which he truly bears with inners and wicked men. Such a person is attributing to God enslavement to passions, imagining that he has not consented to their being chastised here with a view to a much greater misfortune he has prepared for them, in exchange for a short-lived patience. Not only does such a person fail to attribute something praiseworthy to God, but he also calumniates him.

[Isaac of Nineveh, “The Second Part’, Chapters IV-XLI, Sebastian Brock (1995): 39, 2]

 

[1] This is the Syriac etymology given to the word ‘Satan’ (from sta, ‘to turn aside’).

CREATURE CHRONICLE Exhibition & Symposium - with Betty Spackman

 

 

 For full details and hours: 

www.bettyspackman.com

“This exhibition, which points to the complex connections between the Arts, Sciences, and Faith is an excellent tool to facilitate discussions about the future of creation in the context of posthumanism.”

John Franklin, Executive Director, IMAGO Arts

This complex new work by Betty Spackman, MFA is a 15 panel, double-sided, circular installation, approx. 24 feet in diameter and 8 feet high. The mixed media images taken from a multitude of art, science, and faith references are meant to provoke contemplation and conversation about the difficult questions of what it is to be human. From the stories of genesis to the still-being-written stories of contemporary bioscience, layers of concern and celebration are woven together around our complex philosophical debates about creation in the context of developing technologies.

Spackman is an installation artist and painter with a background in animation and visual storytelling. Her interest in narrative informs this new work that combines the stories of both science and religion, using well known art works as mediators and commentators. It presents itself as a non-linear, multi-layered storyboard to be walked around and sat inside, with visual stories to be ‘read’ or discovered, contemplated and discussed. 

This work, shown outside of formal institutional agendas, provides a safe place of meeting for diverse cultural communities to consider together our evolving ways of defining ourselves. Spackman believes all of life to be interconnected and that love, as an intellectual, spiritual and behavioural choice, in our defining narratives, belief systems and lifestyles, is the one chance of sustainability, equity and future hope for all life forms.

But ‘A CREATURE CHRONICLE’ is not only an art exhibition. It is a multi-layered community event with an accompanying symposium with over 30 guest scholars, musicians, storytellers, actors, artists, poets, and more that Spackman has invited to be part of the month-long series of talks and concerts. Some are local to British Columbia and others are coming from England, the US, Alberta, the North West Territories and Ontario.

‘A CREATURE CHRONICLE’ is part of the ‘Swallowfield Arts Series 2022’ hosted by Dennis and Jenny DeGroot of Swallowfield Farm, who use their award-winning barn for hay in the winter, and cultural events the rest of the year. The show and symposium are non-profit with all events by donation. Seating is limited - so you will need to book a seat to Panel Talks and Concerts: ccregister@shaw.ca

*** Selected Panel Talks will be livestreamed on YouTube: www.bettyspackman.com *** 

FULL 

Download CC PRESS RELEASE 2022

Fr Koslovskii (Ukrainian Catholic University, Lviv) w/ Daniel Lukas & Virginia Linzee

A conversation with Fr. Iouri Koslovskii of Ukrainian Catholic Univerisity, in Lviv, Ukraine. Please visit their Facebook page here.

Hosts: Daniel Lukas, Virginia Linzee

Fr. Iouri shared situation updates and his perspectives on the war and the Ukrainian churches with students from IRPJ.org (the Institute for Religion, Peace and Justice / St. Stephen's University, Canada). For those committed to peacebuilding, our first tasks are to listen and to pray, so we're very grateful that Fr. Iouri would give us time to do both. 

 

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

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.   

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). 

 

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 Bright Daybreak of Peace and Brotherhood" (MLK) - Bradley Jersak

"I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word."
                                                               - MLK in the s/Spirit of Jesus

Reading/listening to Martin Luther King Jr. and his daughter Bernice (who writes and speaks in the same spirit), the relentless, cruciform love they preach is never about the passive acceptance of injustice to keep the pseudo-peace with people who look and live like me. Rather, they teach me to identify love with overcoming evil through active, nonviolent resistance to external oppression, inequity & exclusion and to internal enslavement to fear, deception & hatred. Their interpretation of Jesus is best verified by its proximity to the Cross and its deliberate recollection of the Exodus.

To my white brothers and sisters, whatever we say on MLK Day to honor his memory will no doubt appear to be performative virtue-signaling as if “ally” were some identity we can claim for ourselves. I accept that. We did that to ourselves. But let us at least avoid making our engagement blatant hypocrisy by co-opting the man’s own words to oppose his call to the work of justice—which included public opposition to all death-dealing via racism, war & executions. Better to at least remain silent in the guilt of our complicity. But far better still to hear and heed God’s voice through his Black prophets—and not merely one token day per year.

While we brag or complain about our 'deconstruction,' consider their gospel, forged in the furnace of Egypt, Babylon, Rome, and America over many millennia. While our cultured despisers cheer the end of faith in the West, I would ask, "Since when did Black faith not count? And why would we hope for and serve in its erasure? How “progressive” is that?" Rather, Rev. Thurman and Rev. MLK’s “religion of Jesus” (the gospel of nonviolent justice and anti-othering love) is, for me, a (final?) beacon of the Jesus Way amid the church’s broader meltdown. They have my full attention.

Bruce Fisk with Bradley Jersak - Israel, Palestine and Engaging Christian Zionism

Dr. Bruce Fisk of NEME (Network of Evangelicals for the Middle East) joins Bradley Jersak (Dean of Theology & Culture, SSU / IRPJ) to discuss Israel, Palestine and Engaging Christian Zionism. 

Among the questions we discuss:

1. LIFE ON THE GROUND: What can you tell us about life on the ground in Palestine? 
2. POLITICS: What is the policy of the state of Israel in the occupied territories
3. THE WALL: What? Why? What are the real and perceived threats re: terrorism that generate Jewish fears?
4. THE US: What role does the US play? Are they an honest broker? 
5. CHRISTIAN ZIONISM: What is Christian Zionism? Key beliefs? 
   How do they (ab)use the Scriptures to make their case?
   What has been the impact of Christian Zionism on Palestinian Christians? 
6. BIBLICAL JUSTICE: The Hebrew prophets seem to connect Jewish relationship to the land on two contingencies (1) treatment of the stranger and (2) NOT making military alliances with foreign empires.
7. ANTISEMITISM: When drawing attention to the injustices, there's the threat of being labeled anti-semitic. How do we avoid the perils of anti-Semitism while also addressing concerns regarding human rights, biblical exegesis, and even the Gospels themselves.
8. SOLUTIONS: situation feels hopeless. I see the powerlessness of oppressed people. Is there hope? Have you seen paths to productive dialogue and reconciliation?

 

The Mystery of Christ – John Behr’s Systematic Hermeneutics by Bradley Jersak

The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death – John Behr’s Systematic Hermeneutics by Bradley Jersak

Students of Fr. John Behr learn to frown at any systematic theology that begins with “God” or “Revelation” (as so many do) without reference or logically prior to the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and his Passion. He’s taught us to always begin with the Lamb crucified and risen, for the One enthroned on the Cross IS the image of the invisible God and the Alpha and Omega of divine revelation.

Further, Fr. John teaches students to beware of imposing anachronistic categories back into the Patristic era as we try to make sense of their work. That is, we stumble when we ask, “What did Irenaeus or Athanasius say about ______________? Why? Because we tend to fill in that blank with some theological container that only came to be later. Instead, we need to practice the discipline of simply asking, “What did they say?” Then we read what is there, on their terms, without retroactively cramming their words into subsequent doctrinal cubbyholes.   

That said, it does not follow that Fr. John’s body of work omits a systematic approach. And for those who read him or study with him, it’s helpful to know how his contribution is ordered or organized. Specifically, his ‘systematic’ is hermeneutical … or perhaps apocalyptic (in the sense of ‘unveiling’). I confess that I would not have inferred his system without his help, but I’m grateful to convey it to others. It is all there in his beautiful little book, The Mystery of Christ, which ensures that our theology begins where it ought—at the Cross.

Each chapter title in that book corresponds to a guiding question, which is his hermeneutic:

1. “Through the Cross” – What we're talking about?
2. “Search the Scriptures” – How we're talking about it?
3. “For this were we created” – Who is the 'we' who is talking?
4. “The Virgin Mother (Virgin Church)” – In what context are we talking?
5. “Glorify God in Your Body” – To what end are we talking?

I commend readers to review The Mystery of Christ to discover Fr. John’s response to each of those questions. Suffice it to say, his systematic hermeneutics revolve around an unveiling of the Cross of Christ, the axis mundi of our theology, our worship, and indeed, of the cosmos.

On the Great Flood (2021) - Bradley Jersak

ON THE GREAT FLOOD (2021)

In retrospect, documentaries may call it ‘the Great Submersion’ or ‘the Sumas Prairie Deluge.’ It has already been identified as the most costly natural disaster in Canadian history. I’m referring to the catastrophic flooding that we have experienced around my city (Abbotsford, BC) through the final week of November 2021. After high winds and a historic downpour across southern BC (our November monthly rainfall fell in under 48 hours), rising waters either submerged or shattered all the highways out of the port of Vancouver, cutting off supply chains to the interior.

Locally, the Nooksack River in Washington State overflowed and gushed north into Canada, and has spread east as far as Chilliwack, BC. The torrents knocked out major dikes and turned Sumas Prairie into a giant lake.

I’m writing from my home, grateful that my house is dry, our power is on, and our cupboards are full. We live just a few blocks up the hill from the huge evacuation zone and were personally spared. But we’re wringing our hands and grieving with friends and family whose homes, barns, and farms have been overwhelmed and damaged, now only accessible by boat. So I wanted to post this blog for the sake of those who’ve been worrying, praying and asking about us. We’re okay. Others are not.

A FEW WORDS ABOUT NATURAL DISASTERS

     Natural disasters are not 100% natural

When you hear about a natural disaster, there’s often more to the story—a human angle worth examining. For example, until a century ago, Sumas Prairie had been Sumas Lake, formed by receding glaciers about 8000 years ago. The Sema:th peoples settled around the lake as early as 400 BC, and a large community still lived there in the 1840s. The tribe lived in a symbiotic relationship with the environment, adjusting to its constantly shifting shoreline, and harvesting a wide range of fish and wildlife by net fishing and traps.

Then came European homesteaders, who began claiming the region for themselves, immigrating in large numbers in the early 1900s. They didn’t like Sumas Lake’s swampy wetlands, frequent floods, and mosquitoes. But they saw great potential for ultra-fertile farmland by creating dikes and pumping out the water. Patrick Penner (Abbotsford News) writes, “Sumas Lake was drained and the Vedder canal was built in the early 1920s, using a pump station to divert the lake’s in-flowing rivers for irrigation and allowing European farmers to access the fertile soil. It was described as an engineering marvel at the time.”

That farmland became the most fruitful in the nation. Tulip fields, berry orchards, and vegetable crops produce an Eden-like abundance. Amid the crops, the valley floor is dotted with barns—home to thousands of cattle, pigs, and millions of birds (chickens and turkeys). The area is a massive source and supplier of produce for human consumption.

The downside is that when you try to impose the human will upon the environment instead of living within its limits and rhythms, risks need to be assessed and blowback during extreme climate conditions is inevitable. In that sense, it’s the conditions we construct and the risks we take that cause the disaster. It does no good to shame or blame the visionary builders or current inhabitants. I have beloved friends and family members who’ve made their lives and livelihoods in that space. And I’ve enjoyed the fruit of their labor and generosity. What I feel is empathy. We grieve with them as they face loss and devastation, and we’ll work together to repair the damage and restore normalcy.

That said, an important footnote: when we describe the current flooding as a natural disaster, it’s also important to pause and consider how, for the First Nations people, the initial catastrophe was actually the loss of their land, lake, and livelihood (without consultation or compensation). I take this moment to gratefully acknowledge that I live in the traditional and unceded territory of the Stó:lō people.

     Natural disasters are not ‘acts of God.’

You may be familiar with the fineprint on insurance forms that exempts insurance companies from compensating homeowners due to ‘acts of God’—e.g., earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, etc. Those who live in flood plains or on fault lines may still be able to obtain insurance but only at much higher premiums and deductibles. That makes sense. No argument here. But I’d like to push back at the theology for a moment.

The belief that God sends the cataclysmic ‘forces of nature’ to demolish human civilizations is an ancient worldview, founded on the assumption that God is the all-powerful cause who micromanages the universe. And the Bible will often present that impression, even though it does so poetically more than the biblical literalists realize. But still, the language of Scripture does ‘go there’ at times, describing God as directly responsible—the one who ‘sends’ floods or droughts or plagues or enemy armies. And this worldview persists to this day—not only assigning hurricanes, tsunamis, and pandemics to the will of God, but actually imagining that God is their architect. And since God is righteous, just, and holy, he would only unleash his death-dealing ‘acts of God’ as punishment for evildoers. The next step is for the righteous people to determine who the evildoers are and to begin pointing the accusing finger of blame.

Jesus simply didn’t see it that way. In Luke 13, he denies that you can determine whether one is righteous or unrighteous by whether a building collapses on some and not on others. In John 9, he denies that you can assume someone’s sin (one’s own or their parents) is the cause of a disability or disease. It doesn’t work that way. Then how does it work?

I would propose the following: God is ultimately responsible for all of creation as its Creator. That is, behind natural law and human freedom is the God who created all things and in whom they live, move, and have their being. Natural law submits to its own design and humanity exercises its freedom. God doesn’t micromanage gravity nor does he inhibit human agency. We call these ‘secondary causes.’ God ‘consents’ to these secondary causes, even while participating in them by grace through willing human partners who image (verb) God’s care for the world and for one another.

To use an analogy, the manufacturer of a car is ultimately responsible for producing the vehicle, but if the vehicle malfunctions through misuse or there is a crash through driver error, the manufacturer is not directly to blame for the crash unless proof of culpability is established. If we transpose that picture to the natural world, yes, God is ultimately responsible … and ultimately good, because through natural law, God has created the conditions for life. And through human freedom, God has created the conditions for love. But the shadow side of nature is that which makes space for life can also take life (such as this flood). And the shadow side of human freedom is that it can turn from love. But in the midst of the rubble, God is with us. The calamities we experience are NOT signs of divine abandonment. Rather, God is with us in our mess, embodied especially in those who serve and help and rescue. As I’m writing this, I can hear rescue helicopters flying overhead, on their way to deliver help to those who need it. I’m aware of those operating excavators, trying to repair the breach in the dike. I can hear sirens, getting emergency aid to someone a few miles from my home. Others are racing between homes and farms in their boats, assessing damage so we know what’s needed next. The military is here with hundreds of other volunteers, walking the dikes, shoring up weaknesses against the flood. They are all extending themselves as real caregivers, some well beyond the call of duty.

And that, I would argue, is a real act of God.

Whose God? Deconstructing False Images (from Irenaeus to C.S. Lewis) - Ron Dart & Bradley Jersak

C.S. Lewis & the Last Battle: Whose Version of Aslan (God)? 
by Ron Dart

Of Heretics, Kings & Foxes
by Bradley Jersak

“One of Us” – Simone Weil, Christianity for the Spectrum - Brad Jersak

“One of Us” – Simone Weil, A Christianity for the Spectrum

I’m a doctor, but not that kind. I am a theologian, not a medical professional. I can't diagnose diseases or disorders. But having been immersed for sixteen years in a fellowship that was uniquely comprised of people who lived with a range of disabilities,* I can’t help but notice correlations between Simone Weil and our friends on the autistic spectrum. Her savant-level genius, her supernatural capacity for attention (hyper-focus), and her socio-relational awkwardness are obvious features of her journals, her letters, and biographical descriptions about her. There’s an appropriate reluctance among Weil scholars to make retroactive medical diagnoses. But what I can say for sure is that within the autistic community itself, there's agreement and recognition that she is “one of us.”

It is inconsequential to me whether or not Weil experts come to the same conclusion. Many still have trouble admitting she suffered from an obvious, lifelong eating disorder. Fine.

But of supreme importance is how Simone Weil makes Christianity accessible to autistic people. I learned this today from someone on the spectrum whose life and faith have depended on this gift. So often, the way Christianity is communicated is alienating to people with autism, and this fellow (Jonathan) was able to tell me why.

He described the language, proclamation, and expectations of neurotypical Christianity as bathed in abstract, feelings-based, social-relation concepts. For us to expect autistic people to feel and relate to an abstract God or an invisible Jesus as someone who loves them is totally alien. They simply cannot love a conceptual Saviour. Autistic people are de facto excluded by our version of spiritualized divine relationality. Such a Christianity cannot be for them.

But along comes Simone Weil. She doesn’t talk that way. She transposes our vacuous and often syrupy romantic notions of divine love into something profoundly tangible and incarnate. For her, Christianity includes real, embodied encounters where love means attention and attention is prayer. But as with many in the autistic community, Weil seems unable to meaningfully relate this love to another person on the register of [mere] feelings. Rather, love-as-attention relates to her own intense, internal sense of justice—right and wrong, what is fair and what is not. Hence her strong sense of binaries and genius for contraries.

In addition to attention, love for Weil (and autistic people) means compassion. But again, not in the sense of ‘feeling sympathy.’ Even the word empathy is too elusive, so long as we define empathy as “the capacity to feel what another feels.” That notion is still far too fleeting and vacuous, according to Jonathan. Rather, he defined compassion for me specifically as understanding that someone is suffering and choosing to do something about it—maybe even needing to do something about it. And such an understanding might transform my own sense of empathy into actual choices, where I am compelled to stand in active solidarity with those who suffer. So it was for Weil, even to a fault.

Thus, 'love' is enacted as attention and compassion on a concrete experiential plane, unfiltered by particular social paradigms but experienced through affliction. Compassion, in Weil's writings, is never sentimental. It is a real response of attention to affliction and injustice, which is what it means to “take up your cross and follow.” In that case, Weil and our autistic friends don't just see the world differently through some disadvantaged syndrome. Rather, they are prophets, issuing a call to repent from every saccharine spirituality that evades the fleshy expectations of Christ in Matthew 25 and his parable of the judgment of sheep and goats. Simone Weil, patron saint of the autistic community, and Christ himself strip away neurotypical constructs to unveil the essence of Christian faith.

Christians who are able to confess their faith as an abstraction—or cite the creeds as a dogmatic distraction—while being fully willing to turn off compassion, turn away from attention, or participate in worldly death-dealing, expose that form of Christianity as incoherent. Such Christianity doesn’t interact with the world in any meaningful way. Weil saw this and said so. So did Tolstoy (also assumed by some to be autistic).

I asked my new friend what Jesus' phrase “take up your cross and follow me” meant to him, certain that he was incapable of holding that essential Christian calling in an abstract way. He said, “No, it’s not abstract at all. To take up the cross and follow Jesus means for me (1) a personal prohibition on wealth (I can't make enough to exploit others or little enough to be a burden on others), (2) explicit devotion of time and attention to other people, (3) and willingness to take on pain and suffering for the other.” Only in that way does Christianity make sense to him and his autistic network. I thought, maybe it’s only in that way that Christianity makes sense, period. YES, said that way, he really sounds exactly like Simone Weil. And more, Weil sounds a whole LOT more like Jesus. And I thought to myself, "Sign me up. This is a faith worth living."

*Note: Not all people on the autistic spectrum would identify themselves as suffering from a disability or disorder. Many, including Simone Weil, might better describe their autism as "an adaptive common variant pathway of human functional brain development."

Mark 3 - "The Withered Hand" - Brad Jersak with Stefan Smart

Stefan Smart 
Actor and Storyteller 

BEHOLD! Productions
www.iam-mark.com

Because of Love - Stacey Chomiak (at the Bridge)

Stacey Chomiak spoke at the Bridge Church, Abbotsford, BC on Oct. 3, 2021on her journey as a gay Christian.

The event marked the Bridge's "coming out" service as an inclusive, welcoming, and affirming community of people who aspire to live out their Christian faith in love, based on their understanding of the gospel, rather than driven by ideology.

Stacey is an LGBTQ Christian Speaker, artist, author, and art director who has just written, illustrated, and published her memoir, Still Stace: My Gay Christian Coming-of-Age Story. 

Stacey and her wife Tams have been married for ten years and have two children. 

The entire service is viewable on vimeo here (see documents below video):

The service, led by Eden Jersak and Karina Loewen, included:

• A poem, "And the Table Will Be Wide" by Jan Richardson - CLICK HERE to download "And The Table Will be Wide"
  
  
• A liturgy for welcome & inclusion, with prayers for the people, adapted from St Mary's Episcopal Church, St Paul, MN - CLICK HERE to download Liturgy for Welcome & Inclusion
  
  
• Stacey's harrowing and beautiful story of how a passionate Jesus-follower 'came out' without losing her faith. - CLICK HERE for the manuscript of Stacey Chomiak's Message - Bridge Church - Oct 3 2021

Regardless of where readers find themselves at this stage in the journey, Stacey's story is essential viewing for those whom the gospel calls to empathy. Even the most ardent conservative faith communities have a "Stacey" in attendance. How might her story inform our life in Christ with them?