Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

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?  

"AND" - Our Common Humanity, Racial Diversity & Overcoming Racism - Felicia Murrell with Bradley Jersak

IRPJ.org hosts Felicia Murrell (with Bradley Jersak)

Felicia Murrell (she/her) is the Author of Truth Encounters
She is also a Copy Editor/Proofreader, The Bee Company www.yzcounsel.com

Felicia and Brad discuss:
* our common humanity & the beauty of racial diversity
* fusion vs. homogeneity (whether by assimilation or segregation)
* race, racism (vs. prejudice), and systemic racism
* seeing race as a construct without practicing erasure
* what is 'Black'? color, culture, shared history
* critical race theory: its history, how it's weaponized & used as a distraction
* learning to hold fear and anger rather than repressing, fixing, or being ruled by it.
* overcoming racism with love rather than inverting power
* self-giving love and power with
* the legacy of Howard Thurman (Jesus and the Disinherited)

RESOURCES

Howard Thurman, Jesus & The Disinherited (Beacon Press)

Dr. Barbara Holmes, Crisis Contemplation: Healing the Wounded Village (CAC Publishing) https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1623050553/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tpbk_p1_i0

Dr. Barbara Holmes, Race & The Cosmos (CAC Publishing)

Rhonda Magee, The Inner Work of Racial Justice: Healing Ourselves and Transforming our Communities through Mindfulness

Q&R: How Naive Violence Fantasies Endanger Your Family - Brad Jersak

QUESTION

Recently, I had been reading David W. Bercot's insightful book, The Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down. 

 

Our backstory: My spouse and I used to be "Preppers" and besides food, water, and other emergency supplies, we and all of our friends stocked up on guns and ammo. We claimed we were not doing it out of fear but to be wise and to have enough to share with others. In the past several years, I now see it as future-tripping and religious rationalization.

 

Apparently, the attitude among many conservative "Christians" is our need to fight for the right to bear arms and to be ready to defend property, self, or in these times, fight in a revolution.

 

For several years, I have been coming to terms with loving and blessing and forgiving my enemies. But a few chapters in Bercot's book, he shows via the scriptures that Jesus and Paul were nonresistant and never retaliatory. They never took up the sword or defended themselves verbally or physically.

 

My heart can believe Jesus functioning like that but we are having a hard time picturing ourselves acting without aggression if we found someone breaking into our home or doing some evil act against us. Any thoughts you care to share?

RESPONSE

Great question. There are a few ways to think about this.

 

I'll let Brian Zahnd address it briefly via a blog post. We think about this together a lot. https://brianzahnd.com/2014/07/hitler-invaded-house/

 

I would also recommend two other resources that show how preparing for violence is the real naive idealism versus Jesus' instructions, which are actually the higher realism:

 

Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers - https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1tm7j16

 

John Howard Yoder, What Would You Do? - https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/12887640

 

I also respond to the question here: https://www.ptm.org/q-r-christ-in-violent-world-brad-jersak

 

What I mean by the naivety of violence versus the realism of non-violence is this:

Au-Delà des Excuses à la Va-Vite, et de L'atténuation de la Culpabilité - Bradley Jersak

AU-DELÀ DES EXCUSES À LA VA-VITE, ET DE L'ATTÉNUATION DE LA CULPABILITÉ

BRADLEY JERSAK
Trans. Andre Lefebvre

Dire que "je suis désolé" peut être une bonne chose, et même être nécessaire.

Mais comme le dit mon ami Paul Young, qui a lui-même survécu à des abus en série dans l'enfance, "Dire qu'on est désolé peut parfois dériver et emprunter des voies nuisibles".

Je trouve utile l'approche de l'amende honorable (réparation) adoptée par les programmes anonymes (12 étapes), et j'ai remarqué qu'ils font une distinction entre présenter des excuses, et faire amende honorable :

"Considérez les amendes honorables comme des actions qui démontrent votre nouveau mode de vie [...] alors que les excuses ne sont essentiellement que des paroles. Lorsque vous faites amende honorable, vous reconnaissez et alignez vos valeurs avec vos actions en admettant vos erreurs et en vivant selon vos principes."

L'approche par amende honorable, adoptée par les communautés de rétablissement, permet d'éviter certains pièges courants dans lesquels j'ai moi-même trébuché. Parmi ces pièges, j'ai fait l'expérience des erreurs dommageables suivantes lorsque j'ai présenté des excuses :

1. Lorsque j'ai utilisé le mot "désolé" comme un moyen de manipuler les sentiments des gens à mon égard.
2. Lorsque j'ai utilisé le mot "désolé" comme une expression d'apitoiement sur soi.
3. Lorsque j'ai utilisé le mot "désolé" pour contrôler la conversation et l'issue de tensions ou de conflits.
4. Quand j'ai utilisé "désolé" pour essayer d'obtenir un "désolé" en retour de l'autre.
5. Quand j'ai utilisé le mot "désolé" pour essayer d'obtenir le pardon de ceux qui sont en colère contre moi.
6. Quand j'ai utilisé le mot "désolé" pour éviter l'examen de conscience, le repentir ou le changement réel.
7. Quand j'ai utilisé le mot "désolé" comme un mécanisme de défense ou un bouclier de déni.

Je pourrais continuer. Ce ne sont que sept des erreurs que j'ai commises. Ce sont des erreurs sociales que les colons du Canada et des États-Unis continuent de commettre avec les nations indigènes et ceux réduits en esclavage par les colons, surtout dans nos célébrations nationales du 1er et du 4 juillet, lorsque notre gratitude fait abstraction du coût payé par ceux pour qui notre arrivée est devenue si tragique.

Je dois/nous devons apprendre à relier le mot "désolé" avec le mot "affliction" ... ainsi, je reconnais que j'ai/nous sommes responsables d'avoir causé une profonde détresse, et je deviens/nous devenons disposés à supporter et à ressentir du chagrin pour nos actions, et nous voulons sincèrement réparer les choses.

Que pourraient provoquer mes amendes honorables quand les torts que j'ai/nous avons causés ne peuvent pas être facilement réparés, et risquent même de ne pas être pardonnés par ceux que j'ai offensés? Au lieu d'élaborer un déni, une attitude défensive et des fausses excuses, je peux/nous pouvons commencer par assumer ma/notre propre responsabilité et apprendre à vivre mes/nos amendes honorables.

À quoi pourrait ressembler le fait de vivre nos amendes honorables dans le cas des révélations de 2021 sur les tombes non identifiées des enfants autochtones, qui ont souffert des horreurs dans des pensionnats administrés par l'État et le clergé? Voici une clé pour vivre nos amendes honorables: nous ne décidons pas tout simplement des sacrifices qui ont un sens pour nous. Nous devons demander à ceux qui ont subi ces préjudices de décider cela et de nous en informer.

Une *véritable* réconciliation ne peut pas consister "d'excuses platoniques", sinon cela devient une autre offense que les colons imposent AUX peuples des Premières nations pour masquer leur propre culpabilité et manipuler les résultats. Une réconciliation ne peut certainement pas éviter de faire face à la vérité (et à la colère et au chagrin) du traumatisme générationnel des survivants. Et il ne faudrait surtout pas que ce soit un autre processus que nous "colonisons" juste pour rétablir le statu quo.

Nous pourrions au moins faire une prise de conscience: le Centre national pour la vérité et la réconciliation a été créé au Canada. Extrait de leur site:

Le CNVR sensibilise les Canadiennes et les Canadiens sur les profondes injustices infligées aux Premières Nations, aux Inuits et à la Nation métisse lors du retrait forcé des enfants de leur famille pour les placer dans les pensionnats indiens, ainsi que sur les mauvais traitements généralisés subis dans ces pensionnats.

Nous préservons la mémoire de ces violations des droits de la personne et encourageons la poursuite de la recherche et des apprentissages sur les séquelles des pensionnats indiens. Notre but consiste à honorer les survivantes et les survivants et à favoriser la réconciliation et la guérison en nous appuyant sur la divulgation de la vérité.

Le Centre national pour la vérité et la réconciliation (CNVR) est chapeauté par un Cercle de gouvernance. Le Cercle est formé de survivantes, de survivants et de représentantes et représentants de l’Université du Manitoba et d’autres partenaires. La majorité des membres du Cercle de gouvernance font partie des Premières Nations ou sont Inuits ou Métis.

Le Cercle de gouvernance est guidé par un Cercle des survivants, ainsi que par des aînés et des gardiens du savoir.

La mise en place de ces structures a été essentielle pour veiller à ce que les survivantes, les survivants et les partenaires se trouvent toujours au cœur même du CNVR et pour que le CNVR honore et fasse respecter le droit et les protocoles autochtones.

~ Eugene Arcand, No 781, survivant des pensionnats et membre du Cercle des survivants, Nation crie de Muskeg Lake.

En tant qu'immigrant canadien de troisième génération, je crois qu'il est à tout le moins de ma responsabilité d'explorer les 94 appels à l'action lancés et gérés par le CNVR... et au lieu d'un moment de silence une fois par an, je peux parcourir ces appels à l'action et m'informer ensuite de nos progrès auprès de mon député provincial et de mon député fédéral. Je peux également investir du temps à visiter ces liens dans le cadre de ma contribution à faire amende honorable, cherchant à comprendre, et apprenant à mieux écouter.

• Rapports et conclusions de la CVR
• En savoir plus sur le NCTR
• Explorez nos collections sur la page d'accueil du NCTR
• Explorez nos expositions
• Trouvez des ressources pour les étudiants et les éducateurs

"Désolé" ne dit pas vraiment grand-chose. Mais je le suis, désolé. Aujourd'hui, je suis présent à la tristesse des autres.

Je reconnais avec gratitude que je vis sur le territoire traditionnel et non cédé du peuple Stó:lō.

What Is GOD Like? Response to critics from a white children's author - Brad Jersak

What Is God Like? 

story by Rachel Held Evans and Matthew Paul Turner

illustrated by Ying Hui Tan

 

My response to this children's book is simple:

Thank you. Buy it for the children in your life.

 

My response to certain critics:

Some critics of this book have made a BIG deal of how inappropriate it is for white children's authors to illustrate their books with BIPOC children. Something about co-opting, something about exploitation, something about having no right to appropriate BIPOC characters for a book by white people.

As a white children's author, I employed an illustrator who generated three characters for my first book, Children, Can You Hear Me? Jesus ended up looking too much like me, and the children represented two bullied children--one because of weight shaming and the other for her poverty. The complaint I heard was that the characters were white. The people and the environment looked like they came from the neighborhood where my illustrator lives. My critics were right. I should have asked for more racial diversity.

I agree. It is very expensive for a self-published author to illustrate a book over again from scratch, but I was willing to do it. My plan was to have a middle-eastern brown Jesus, a rural African boy, and an Asian girl from inner-city Bangkok. But I ran into several roadblocks:

First, while in China and in Thailand, I was told by Christian nationals that if the book included a Black child, I should not expect to sell it to Asians. The racism I encountered was overt and presented as a factual reality to consider. I hope that does not represent a broad consensus, but it was the message I heard repeatedly. Then, when a Mongolian publisher licensed the book, I asked if we could hire a Mongolian artist to redo the illustrations appropriate to their people and culture. My rep. presented it to the Mongolians, who declined. They loved the illustrations and asked if they could distribute it 'as is.' I was disappointed but that was their preference. Okay.

Then, a representative from Africa approached me and asked if I'd consider employing an African artist to recreate the illustrations for their context. I was keen to do it, but when the sample artwork came back, the Jesus character was impossible to use. No smile. No life in his eyes. It communicated everything that screamed 'aloof and non-relational.' I was reminded just how good my illustrator, Ken Save, was at creating living characters, full of expression, whose emotional vividness transcended color. 

In the end, I decided I'd just let it go and create a new book, titled Jesus Showed Us. My illustrator, Shari-Ann Vis, used Eastern and Ethiopian Orthodox icons as models with a Jewish-brown Jesus and a more racially and ethnically diverse set of characters. Apparently, it resonates. But is that allowed?  

Some say no. With the publication of What Is God Like? the critics are decrying white authors using BIPOC characters. So here's the double bind:

1. White children's authors should not use white characters.
2. White children's authors should not use BIPOC characters.  

Conclusion? White people should not author children's books. Or is there some third option? 

I presented this problem to a BIPOC critic who I relate to on Instagram. When I presented the double-bind they were promoting and asked for a third way, they kindly suggested that if white authors intend to create children's books that include BIPOC characters, they should create the book in collaboration with a person of color. In other words, white people should not produce children's books unless they have BIPOC collaborator.

Some might object to this idea. I do not. I love collaboration and believe that working together with those who don't look like me greatly improves the outcome. I would not see such a plan as a limitation at all. The fact that my first attempts to do so failed doesn't exhaust the possibilities. I'm thrilled to take that route.  

Ying Hui Tan

Here's the thing: What Is GOD Like did exactly that! The author(s) DID collaborate with a Malaysian illustrator, Ying Hui Tan, who brilliantly captured diversity in terms race, culture, and ability. The characters include black, brown, and white children (including a character in a wheelchair). So my question is whether Tan's ethnicity doesn't count somehow, or whether illustration doesn't suffice as collaboration. Or what? Now there's the question as to whether Asians count as people of colour or not. Depends who you ask. Or when it's convenient. I'm of the persuasion that the BIPOC brand is inclusive of brown people. Let me know who wins that debate. 

At some point, one wonders what's really going on. In the end, I've learned that listening to BIPOC voices for the last word serves me well, and when they don't agree with each other, I'm best off looking to those I already trust. In this case, I defer to Austin Channing Brown, author of the bestselling book I’m Still Here: Black Dignity in a World Made for Whiteness. Here was her generous assessment of What Is God Like?   

“This is how I want my child to be introduced to the concept of God. This is the divine presence I want my child to explore. This is the book I need for him, and it’s the one I need for me. Cuz sometimes I need to remember what God is like too."

 

Zacheus Makes Amends - Brad Jersak

Luke 19  Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. ² And behold, a man called by the name of Zaccheus; he was a chief tax collector and he was rich. ³ Zaccheus was trying to see who Jesus was, and he was unable due to the crowd, because he was short in stature. ⁴ So he ran on ahead and climbed up a sycamore tree in order to see Him, because He was about to pass through that way. ⁵ And when Jesus came to the place, He looked up and said to him,

“Zaccheus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house.” 

⁶ And he hurried and came down, and received Him, rejoicing. ⁷ When the people saw this, they all began to complain, saying,

“He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner!”

⁸ But Zaccheus stopped and said to the Lord,

“Behold, Lord, half of my possessions I am giving to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone, I am giving back four times as much.” 

⁹ And Jesus said to him,

“Today salvation has come to this house, because he, too, is a son of Abraham. ¹⁰ For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Zaccheus’ story provides an excellent demonstration of how grace transforms the heart and life of a lost and alienated human being. The tax collector and the Shepherd engage in a mutual act of hospitality described in Revelation 3:20. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. When anyone who hears my voice opens the door, I will enter and have supper with them, and they with me.” So, it was for Zaccheus. God’s grace filled his deepest longing and out of Zaccheus’ newfound sense of belonging, he was “saved”—from alienation to communion. Christ in his home, Christ in his heart—the living connection that changes us.

In Zaccheus’ case, the natural overflow of his encounter with Jesus resulted in a tangible response. He became a willing participant in his freedom and salvation, prompted by the Spirit to make amends. In 12-step recovery, making amends refers to personally addressing issues with people who have been harmed by our behavior or our treatment of them. Zaccheus had done great harm in his community. His complicity with Rome as a collections agent for the empire was a great betrayal of his own people. Indeed, he was their enemy in ways that Rome could not be.

The second kind of enemy comprises those persons who, by their activities, make it difficult for the group to live without shame and humiliation. It does not require much imagination to assume that to the sensitive son of Israel, the taxgatherers were in that class. It was they who became the grasping hand of Roman authority, filching from Israel the taxes which helped to keep alive the oppression of the gentile ruler. They were Israelites who understood the psychology of the people, and therefore were always able to function with the kind of spiritual ruthlessness that would have been impossible for those who did not know the people intimately. They were despised; they were outcasts, because from the inside they had unlocked the door to the enemy. The situation was all the more difficult to bear because the tax collectors tended to be prosperous in contrast with the rest of the people. To be required to love such a person was the final insult. How could such a demand be made? One did not even associate with such creatures. To be seen in their company meant a complete loss of status and respect in the community. The taxgatherer had no soul; he had long since lost it. When Jesus became a friend to the tax collectors and secured one as his intimate companion, it was a spiritual triumph of such staggering proportions that after nineteen hundred years it defies rational explanation. (Howard Thurman, Jesus and the Disinherited, 83).

As alarming as Jesus’ overture of friendship would have been to his disciples, his opponents, and to Zaccheus’ victims, no one was as staggered at the taxman himself. As Paul would say, “The kindness of God leads to repentance”—defined not as self-loathing or as a mere change of mind, but a reorientation of a life. Conversion from self-centeredness to the real-life expression of other-centered love. And this is where Zaccheus’ amends (and ours) come in. Zaccheus’ amends were substantial. Since he lays them out before Jesus, let’s call his intentions a proposal.

• First, he assesses his wealth in relation to the poverty he been complicit in creating. He decides to make amends to his community by giving half of his possessions to the poor.

This reminds me of a friend who made a habit of stealing from the church where she volunteered in order to pilfer money for her addiction. Years later, she needed to make amends to the church, not because they needed her money or would repay individual donors, but as a way to participate in her grace-transformation. She first apologized to someone in authority, then they worked out a plan for her to make restitution, whether by service or repayment.

• Second, with what remained of his wealth, Zaccheus identified specific people who he had extorted. He did not simply say, “Sorry, folks. I really messed up. But I’ve cleared it up with Jesus and I’m forgiven now. So, we’re all good now, right?” Rather, he actually calculated how much he had squeezed from them, repays them, and adds 400% interest. Why so much?

I can think of two reasons. First, Zaccheus sees that the harm he caused exceeds the cash he’d taken. The cost of his sin to those he’d robbed had compounded. What had they lost in potential income, time lost, additional hardships, and emotional impact? Real reparations take the toll to the whole person and their family into account. Rarely do we do that outside of civil lawsuits, but Zaccheus did so without being sued. Why? This speaks to our second reason for his generosity. The law may demand proportional amends: eye-for-an-eye, dollar-for-a dollar. But grace motivates us to pay forward the generosity we’ve received. So Zaccheus calculous went beyond the harm he had caused to the “how much more” grace he had received. The 400% was measured by the superabundant mercies we experienced. Principles

• An amends demonstrates that we own what we have done. No blaming. No sidestepping. Yes, there are reasons for our misdeeds, but when these are shared in an amends, they come across as excuses and justifications. Zaccheus names his sin: extortion. NOT “I was just doing my job” or “The Romans made me do it.” Instead, “I did this. I did it to you. That was wrong.” Amends are strictly about cleaning up my side of the street, even if those we wronged have also wronged us.
• An amends demonstrates that we recognize the harm we have caused. It should also include listening to those we’ve harmed to hear what they experienced. Zaccheus may have known that he extorted someone and impacted their financial stability. But he might need to hear how his actions also humiliated them, hardship to their family, and introduced fear and hatred into their hearts.
• Amends are NOT about extracting forgiveness from the other so we can feel better. Those we hurt may be years away from the healing they need to release us, if ever. Those we harm have experienced broken trust that may or may not ever be restored. Our amends need to be a unilateral expression of sorrow for the harm we caused, not contingent on any response, including forgiveness or reconciliation. We may hope for that, but must not use our amends with those expectations. Otherwise, we’re still guilty of manipulation.

This is why it’s good to submit our amends as a proposal to a mentor or sponsor before delivering them. When I make amends, I run it by my sponsor first to examine it carefully for ways I might justify, minimize, or manipulate. Just this morning I heard a lawmaker who was expected to apologize for a public racist slur directed at a colleague. It was horrid. There was blame-shifting, self-justifying, both sides-ism, and the horrid phrase, “IF I offended anyone…” He needed a course in Amends 101 and a chat with Zaccheus.

• Finally, amends are lived, not only spoken. Sometimes “sorry” doesn’t help. And even a cheque just seems like payoff. Maybe you’ve fallen a thousand times and any amends will lack credibility. No matter. As Zaccheus continues to be faithful, perhaps his sincerity will prove itself. Luke must have thought so.

So beyond specific words and acts of restitution, repentance and amends are a new way to live every day. While we may make direct amends with words, those events happen inside a new life empowered by grace and a grateful response to God’s mercy. Zaccheus’ amends were a real demonstration of the inner change that was occurring—of the new man he was becoming. Summary statement: Zaccheus’ story challenges us to undergo the impact of the gospel in our lives. Salvation is far more than a personal feel-good event. Jesus invites us to living communion that generates radical transformation. In this case, it includes courageously and joyfully making and living our amends.  

The Rhetoric of Unworthiness, the Wounds of Shame - Bradley Jersak

Question:

I am a seeker investigating the Eastern Orthodox faith. My background includes membership of a very conservative and legalistic Protestant church that advocated penal substitutionary atonement, so I am encouraged by what I find in the Orthodox tradition. The theology seems so beautiful, but I am having difficulty understanding something in the Divine Liturgies of Saint Chrysostom and Saint Basil.

In the Prayer of the Cherubic Hymn, we find verses that say:

• … No one bound by carnal desires and pleasures is worthy to approach, draw near, or minister to You, the King of Glory. 
• … Your sinful and unprofitable servant, and cleanse my soul and heart of a wicked conscience. 

Before Holy Communion, we find a verse that says

• I believe and confess, Lord, that You are truly the Christ, the Son of the living God, Who came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. 

I find healing in thinking of God as a loving Father, but the above stanzas make me question that understanding of God. Can you please point me in the right direction? 

During the Trisagion, there is a verse that says,

• You have granted us, Your humble and unworthy servants, to stand even at this hour before the glory of Your holy Altar of sacrifice and to offer to You due worship and praise.

If we are children of a loving Father, then how is that compatible with thinking of ourselves as unworthy servants?

Finally, in the liturgy of Saint Basil there is a verse in the Trisagion Hymn that reads

• Your lowly and unworthy servants, 

I find that when I think of myself as lowly and unworthy, thoughts of shame come to mind. Since Christianity is about healing, this shows that I might not be understanding this verse correctly.

Response:

What a good and (ahem) worthy question. Truly worth thinking through. 

The Rhetoric of Unworthiness

As I think about the rhetoric of unworthiness, I am reminded not only of the Divine Liturgy, but of our Scriptures, and how even Jesus’ words have been misused as bludgeons. The following points are important to consider. I offer them for your consideration:

And Justice for All - the Work and Works of Wayne Northey - by Brad Jersak

Wayne Northey is among Canada's foremost activists and authors in the fields of restorative justice, prison reform, and international peacemaking. I first met Wayne in the early nineties when he was preparing me for an MCC (Mennonite Central Committee) observers trip to Haiti and Jamaica. His orientation to issues of Western political, economic, and military interference in Central and South America was a much-needed wake-up call for those who, like me, were raised on the "noble lie" of John Wayne world-police colonialism. 

Wayne's work included a long stint with M2W2, a ministry that creates one-on-one connections between incarcerated prisoners and caring folks on the outside. It's just one example of where he faithfully put his word to flesh on the ground, even while also continuing to do the historical and theoretical research required to bring a wise word to practitioners.

I speak in the past tense above, not because Wayne has departed, but because in his retirement (so-called), his focus has shifted to his written works. In addition to regular blog editorials and a magnificent novel, Chrysalis Crucible, Wayne is rolling out a substantive multi-volume series, Justice that Transforms, his collected and ongoing works specific to Restorative Justice. 

Wayne has regularly contributed to the Clarion Journal since its inception in 2003 but now also hosts his own blog at https://waynenorthey.com/category/blog/. Truth be told, I (Brad) cannot keep up with the opportunity to repost that Wayne offers, but we do our best to drive traffic to his powerful site. As an unwavering conscience, he can't be cubbyholed anywhere on the culture wars spectrum, whether politically or ideologically. This means on any given week, he could be holding feet from the left or right to the fire. Last week, he had both Donald Trump and Joe Biden in his sights, offering fact-checked examples of each leader's engagement in deception and violence across the globe. After all, Wayne is non-partisan in his revulsion over drone warfare--he doesn't care if a bomb is painted red or blue, or fired by an elephant or a donkey. And he says so.

To play catch-up, the following are direct links to some of his recent pieces, often editorial responses to the work of other journalists, excellent book reviews, and a lot of cross-referenced clicks for those who are ready for the deep dive. Enjoy:

Joe Biden’s War Powers: An examination of the president’s 50-year record on U.S. militarism, the CIA, and executive power.

Empire Politician: A Half-Century of Joe Biden’s Stances on War, Militarism, and the CIA.

Prolonged solitary confinement is torture. It’s time for all states to ban it.

Almost Everything Biden Said About Ending the Afghanistan War Was a Lie.

Out of Sight / Out of Mind. 

Book Review of: Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation.

Tribes Want Medals Awarded for Wounded Knee Massacre Rescinded

Saving the salmon and Beauty: why the Gitanyow are creating a new Indigenous Protected Area; why Beauty Will Save the World

What white Christian support for Trump reveals about systemic racism: Exit polls suggest a legacy of white supremacy is still dividing the country. 

Hundreds gather to protest 13-year-old’s killing following release of body cam footage.

Everyone Belongs to God: Discovering the Hidden Christ. 

"The Gospel According to Hermes" by Ron Dart, Bradley Jersak, et al

New Book Release: The Gospel According to Hermes
Intimations of Christianity in Greek Myth, Poetry and Philosophy

by Ron S. Dart and Bradley Jersak

with Simon Oliver, Wm. Paul Young, and Abp. Lazar Puhalo

AVAILABLE NOW!
CLICK here to order from Amazon.com
CLICK here to order from Amazon.ca
CLICK here to order from Amazon.co.uk

Note: While we recognize and respect the ethical reasons why readers avoid purchasing through Amazon, but their KDP self-publishing wing has allowed independent authors (like me) and small publishing companies (like St. Macrina Press) to earn significantly higher royalties on small-run books.

Description

Tertullian famously asked, “What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?”

Perhaps the title of this work will raise the question, “What hath Hermes to do with Christ?”

Quite a lot, as it turns out, by way of comparison, contrast, illustration, and prefigurement. Hermes, herein, represents far more than a particular figure in Greek mythology. Hermes functions as a placeholder, symbolizing the legacy of ancient Greek myth, poetry, and philosophy—and also the layered hermeneutics that classical Greek education contributed to both Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Scriptures, and the development of their theology, doctrine, and ethics.

Despite the unfortunate but popular assumption of a Jewish-Greek dualism among many scholars since Adolf von Harnack, the stubborn and happy fact is that the New Testament itself already demonstrates a profound integration of the Hellenized Judaism established in Alexandria. The first Christian theologians were not contaminating some imaginary pure Jewish Christianity with Greek accretions.

Rather, our authors will propose and demonstrate the confluence of both great streams in the development of the New Testament Scriptures, patristic theology, and hermeneutics. This collection of essays is but a faint echo of Simone Weil’s formidable work, Intimations of Christianity Among the Ancient Greeks, and is certainly inspired by her insights. 

Table of Contents

Preface: Bradley Jersak, “What hath Hermes to do with Christ?” / 7 

FROM HERMES TO PLATO 

1. Bradley Jersak, “Pushing Back: Greek Thinking vs. Jewish Thinking is a Dualistic Error” / 11 

2. Simon Oliver, “The Role of Plato in the Development of Christian Theology” / 25 

FROM HERMES TO JOHN 

3. Bradley Jersak, “Descensus: Hermes, Hades, and Christ” / 33 

4. Ron Dart, “Water to Wine, Johannine Hermeneutics, and the Alexandrian Tradition” (part 1) / 51 

5. Ron Dart, “Water to Wine, Johannine Hermeneutics, and the Alexandrian Tradition” (part 2) / 63 

6. Wm. Paul Young, “Fish Pi: Gospel of John (21) and Archimedes” (153)” / 75 

FROM HERMES TO THE PATRISTICS 

7. Ron Dart, “Heraclitus, Aeschylus, and the Jewish Zeus” / 85 

8. Ron Dart, “Augustine, the Inklings, Myth, and Hermes the Trickster” / 93 

9. Ron Dart, “Homerian Epic, Patristic Christian Tradition and Spiritual Formation” / 99 

10. Lazar Puhalo, “Nous: The Concord of Gnosis, Theoria, and Theosis” / 109 

FROM HERMES TO THE 20th CENTURY 

11. Ron Dart, “C.S. Lewis and Hermes: Greek Myth and Till We Have Faces” / 119 

12. Ron Dart, “Thomas Merton’s The Behavior of Titans – Sixty Year Review” / 127 

13. Ron Dart, “Owls, Hegel, Castalians, Classical Myths, and T.S. Eliot” / 134 

14. Bradley Jersak, “Pythagoras, Plato, and Christ: A Cruciform Cosmology of Consent” / 141 

BEYOND HERMES 

15. Ron Dart, “Servant Leadership in the Public Square: Four Markings” / 167 

Authors / 172 

Brad Jersak's "A More Christlike WORD" - Review by Joe Beach

What kind of book is the Bible? 
How should we read and interpret the Bible?
How should we tell the Bible’s story with our words and our lives?

 

Pre-order now on Amazon

These are the questions at the heart of this marvelous book by Dr. Brad Jersak. (A More Christlike Word: Reading Scripture the Emmaus Way is now available for pre-order: CLICK HERE). 

The fancy word for the art and science of interpreting the Bible is Hermeneutics. For the first twenty years of my adult life, during and after college and seminary, I devoured everything I could get my hands on regarding the interpretation of Scripture, the doctrine of Scripture, the nature and authority of Scripture, you name it. It remains one of my life’s passions. One of the things I discovered early on is that there is indeed an art to it. Some people are good at it and some people aren’t – regardless of how much academic training they had obtained. I’m not saying that learning the basic principles of good Bible interpretation isn’t important. They are invaluable. I immersed myself in studying the importance of genre, context, figures of speech, progressive revelation, redemptive trajectory, translation theory, and the editing, collecting, and canonization of Scripture. I also studied the use of Scripture in the liturgy of both the Jewish and Christian traditions. But beyond all of that, there remains an art to it. I guess you could call it a mixture of intuitive insight, Holy Spirit-led common sense, and the guiding, protecting, guardrail-like presence of the interpretive community, both past, and present. Ultimately, we interpret the Bible together or not at all. Having said that, however, there’s one more essential element to this whole enterprise. There’s something more to reading the Bible well. And that something more is what Brad Jersak’s book discusses and discovers.

In the 1980s, Clark Pinnock wrote a book entitled, The Scripture Principle, which launched me on that lifelong quest I mentioned. In the last twenty years or so, I began to encounter a cascade of writers and thinkers who were helping me understand what I now consider to be the crucial ingredient in Biblical Interpretation: that of reading the Bible through the lens of Jesus Christ. I knew in my gut that this was the right path. I learned that Jesus is the best place to start and the best place to end. I was reminded that Jesus is God’s Word in the fullest and truest sense. I was reminded that the best way to read the prophets and the poets and the apostles was to read them as Jesus taught us to read them: as being about Jesus, as pointing to Jesus, as witnesses to Jesus, as leading up to Jesus. In other words, the best way to read God’s Holy Bible is with Jesus Christ by our side: reading the Bible in Jesus, through Jesus, from Jesus, to Jesus, centered in Jesus, and beginning with Jesus. I began to learn that it is folly to journey into the Old Testament (or the New Testament) without Jesus as my guide. I committed myself to never venture into the Bible ever again unaccompanied by Jesus.