Clarion: Journal of Spirituality and Justice

Following Comandante Jesus - Bob Ekblad

Excerpt from Bob Ekblad, Guerrilla Gospel: Reading the Bible for Liberation in the Power of the Spirit,(Burlington: People’s Seminary Press, 2018), p. 1-4, 6.

Following Comandante Jesus

I joke with former gang members involved in Tierra Nueva’s ministry about how Jesus is our comandante, which is Spanish for military or guerrilla commander. He’s the one who calls the shots, instructing soldier disciples in the trenches of warfare to advance the movement as an unprecedented and truly life-giving insurgency, to win over inhabitants, neighborhoods and people groups of the world for the kingdom of God. These friends are used to gang shot-callers or are themselves shot-callers. But they are tired of living in fear, grieving beloved homies killed in drive-by shootings, and spending years of their lives serving long prison sentences. We love that Jesus is an outsider, on the hunt for recruits, eager to go out on missions. We love that he gathers with his confidants in the mountains or in boats, on foot or on the move from town-to-town, stopping along roadsides, visiting people in homes, teaching and healing crowds along the way in fields or synagogues, on beaches or in the wilderness.

Talking like this about Jesus gets us excited. We’ve all seen too many casualties of the fast life of both legal and illegal workaholism, drugs, alcohol, and poverty, gang violence and domestic violence. We’ve had enough of relationship breakdown, children taken by Child Protective Services, incarceration, premature death by suicide, homicide, overdose, and different illnesses.

Many of us know firsthand the life-restoring benefits of Jesus’ saving help and want to see others benefit too. Being part of a movement of true liberation compels us, giving us a new reason to live—and perhaps even something to die for.

Mount Moriah / Trusting Christ with a Departed Child - Mike Richardson

Mount Moriah 

What is it of promises that make it hard to let them go?

Are they so utterly convincing

In their arrival before we are prepared

To take another step in relationship?

Or is the preparation what we so misplace our trust in?

 

Must all promises be honey-coated and milk-dipped?

Must all journeys be from strength to strength,

And known for their final destination,

That we might know we have got there,

And that we finally belong to somewhere?

 

But what of sacrifice, and leaving things behind?

Farms and friends, hopes and ambitions, minded

Like sheep that stray on the pastures of possibility.

Is it the vision of what might be

That captures us in fear or in desire?

 

What was invested in this son of my old age,

A promise that he might be the future?

Someone to inherit all my hopes and dreams

Sacrificed to prove that love

Can resurrect and be so empty of my flesh?

*  *  *  *  *

When I was 34 my second daughter Rachel was born dead. I was in full-time ministry and had just been in an accident where I suffered a compressed fracture of the spine, though fortunately, the spinal cord was unbroken. I was in bed in hospital under strict orders not to move, lain flat on my back. The one thing I remember feeling above every human emotion was the tangible presence of God’s grace. My wife needed to feel that too as she had to carry Rachel to full term, which amounted to a month.

Listening to one of Brad Jersak's Q&A sessions on death, hell, atonement, I found some answers that I had long hoped for but could not categorically say were certain. I received a scripture from an internal voice saying, “I will wait for you in the land of the living,” which I interpreted as Rachel waiting on the other side of death.

Having worked through the unexplained deaths of co-workers and being called to ministry through several means, one of which was the Keith Green memorial concert, I had laid aside the question why as not being one I could answer for the present. I was, as John Wimber said, change in God’s pocket, though I still feel that is a very human perspective and not God’s (I’m still learning).

At the autopsy report back the doctor said that Rachel had a herniated diaphragm which had allowed the organs of her body to prevent the heart to grow fully and this distressing situation had caused the brain some damage. Whether this was congenital or from the accident in the car we cannot know. However, as I listened to St Macrina's analogy of being pulled through a narrow opening like a rope to allow the mud to be separated from one’s soul a fresh insight came to me:

It was clear that Rachel would not have been able to survive with her condition, the body she then was about to inhabit was no longer fit for purpose. On the outside, she looked fine but inside she was reportedly in bad shape. It seems she opted for heaven and Jesus, in his mercy and trusting in our response, took her to himself. I felt more confident than ever that that was why I received that verse and the profound sense of grace while I lay on the bed. We cannot know in full but we can be sure in the Holy Spirit that God is good. We remain sojourners until that day.

Hell... and How to Get There - Brian Zahnd

(This is chapter 6 of Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God. I want you to have it. Share it freely and widely.)

Hell…and How to Get There
Brian Zahnd

My dad was in the process of his slow dying. Dementia had rendered this intelligent and articulate judge nearly as mute as the Sphinx. He had broken his arm in a fall and I was sitting with him in the hospital. Since conversation with my dad was nearly impossible, I had a book with me, Abraham Joshua Heschel’s The Prophets. Abraham Joshua Heschel was a Polish-born American rabbi, theologian, philosopher, and social activist who worked with Martin Luther King Jr. and lent his prominent voice to the civil rights movement. It is remarkable that a Jewish rabbi’s writings have been so influential among Christian ministers, theologians, and laypeople around the world. The preeminent Christian Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann has often cited Heschel’s influence on his own work. Everything I’ve ever read from Heschel has shown him to be a thoroughly God-saturated soul, a kind and wise sage of the highest order. Rabbi Heschel was so immersed in the Hebrew prophets that he became one — a modern-day Jeremiah marching arm in arm with Dr. King across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, in brave defiance of entrenched racism. Recalling his participation in the Selma March, Rabbi Heschel said, “I felt my legs were praying.” Heschel’s whole life was a kind of prayer, and I have the highest admiration for this man of God, just like I have the highest admiration for my dad. For some reason my dad was often confused for a well-known rabbi. Maybe because he looked vaguely Jewish but more, I like to think, because of his kind and wise bearing. In many ways L. Glen Zahnd was not unlike Abraham Joshua Heschel.

So there I was sitting at the bedside of my dying father reading The Prophets. My mind was occupied with thoughts of life and death, God and the prophets, wisdom and kindness, how we ought to live our lives, and how L. Glen Zahnd and Abraham Joshua Heschel were great examples of men who did it right. Shortly before midnight I left my father’s room to go home. The hospital corridors were quiet and the lights were turned low. It was an ambiance that matched my pensive mood. I entered the empty elevator, pushed the button for the ground floor, and watched the doors close. At that moment a thought erupted from some fundamentalist outpost in my brain asking this disturbing question: “Is Abraham Joshua Heschel in hell?” I uttered my reply instantly and out loud with more than a hint of indignation: “What would be the point of that?!”

CLICK HERE to continue reading

Why do we ask humans to deny race? Felicia Murrell

When God created colors, He never asked of pink to deny the fact that it is pink or red to stop being red. The uniqueness of each individual color blends together to give us the beautiful rainbow we enjoy.

The same request was never made of the stars. No demand was placed on them to surrender their individuality or stature and when placed together, we get to view brilliant constellations.

 

So why then, do we ask of humans to deny their race? If God only wanted people to look one plain way, He would have never dispersed Noah's three sons into different regions of the world where they would establish distinct cultures and practices and the environment and surrounding conditions would effect the color of their skin and the shape of their noses. If He wanted us to all sound the same, He would not have stopped the building of the Tower of Babel. 

 

I have Hispanic friends, Indian friends, Chinese friends, Caucasian friends, African friends, Black friends, Polynesian friends, etc. I don't want to see through people. I want to really see them for who they are. Race is as much a part of who we are -- our history, our culture, our experience - as our soul and spirit. 

 

In my opinion, to see all of who a person is and celebrate the totality of that person is to see through God's eyes. People say God can't or doesn't look on flesh and yet Jesus is fully man. So does God veil His eyes when He looks at His Son who is seated at His right hand? 

 

God sees all of you and He celebrates your uniqueness and individuality. Just as the individual colors blend together to make a rainbow and the stars join together to make constellations, all of who I am connects with all of who you are and together we make up the human race. 

 

It isn't denial of my skin tone that brings about this effect. It's the celebration of our diversity that does. 

 

"How good and pleasant it is when brethren dwell together in unity! For there the Lord commanded the blessing - life forever." Ps. 133:1,3

Welcoming and Becoming Strangers and Aliens - Bob Ekblad

We have spent the past ten days with Sub-Saharan African migrants in Egypt and Morocco—most of whom are undocumented. Spending time with these vulnerable and courageous people has refreshed our perspective on life and faith.

I share these thoughts on migration and immigration in response to disturbing news articles I’m reading about anti-immigrant rhetoric in the USA and Europe--and hope to dissuade people of faith from any collusion with negative attitudes and the promotion of restrictive policies.

This past Sunday I preached at an underground church made up or largely undocumented African immigrants living in Morocco. Morocco is now the preferred crossing point for Africans seeking to enter Europe—though many have no choice but to seek passage via war zones like Yemen, or failed states like Libya.

At the Moroccan-Spanish border, high fences, dangerous waters and strict immigration enforcement are keeping migrants from leaving the African continent. Hundreds of thousands are blocked, settling in a foreign land. Many more are currently en route from countries ravaged by war, political impasses and poverty.

People told us of tremendous suffering in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo. “To tell people not to leave their country is like telling someone to not jump from a burning building,” a pastor from Congo told us. He and another Christian leader recounted going for days without eating in order to give what little they had to their hungry children.

The People of the Caravan are Not our Enemies - Fr. Kenneth Tanner

Howard Cook, Exodus, 1946, etching and aquatint on paper, Smithsonian American Art Museum, Gift of the artist, 1980.18.31

The political left has agendas with the Central American caravan. The political right has agendas with the Central American caravan.

Walking with Christ is about abandoning false allegiances to ideological agendas for the reality of sharing in human suffering, in order to bring food and companionship, to clothe and welcome, to sacrifice for the sake of love.

The Christian perspective begins with God’s love for the world and for all persons revealed in Jesus, the God who is human.

It’s a hard and resilient kind of love that makes no distinctions based on borders or skin color or wealth or skill or usefulness or language or beliefs or, frankly, safety.

I want to change the conversation.

These people are not our enemies. These people are not pawns in a political cycle.

The Scandal of the Cross [or Lethal Injection Table] - Brad Jersak

This week I have been pondering afresh the scandal of the Cross as I read (for probably the fifth time) an article by Wm. Paul Young titled "The Killing House." He writes about his experiences in visiting men on "death row," scheduled for execution, most probably by lethal injection. I began to imagine Christ dying on a lethal injection table, eerily similar in shape to a cross. I began playing with such images on Photoshop, superimposing the crucified Christ onto a modern execution gurney. The result felt edgy to me. Jarring enough to show my wife, Eden. She confirmed, "Too edgy." What was it that was getting under our skin? What exactly makes the lethal injection image more uncomfortable than crucifixion art? Consider and compare: 

On the left, Jesus is clothed. there's virtually no blood, no signs of beating and no evidence of torture.

And yet we felt the sting of the modern piece more deeply. Why?

 

It seems to me that what provokes a visceral response is the proximity of the lethal injection bed to our own world.

 

Indeed, both pictures represent state-sponsored capital punishment, but the edginess I feel may be about our discomfort with either (1) the fact that this crime against humanity is occurring right now, this month, at a prison near us. Or (2) we are uncomfortable with our own hesitancy to see the gospel's poignancy in anything so political as the death penalty. In a world of political polarization and justification, we'd rather reduce the gospel to souls and heaven, rather than risk muddying the lines between church and state. And fair enough, given Christianity's poor track record of political meddling. 

 

As an alternative to this graphic image, we could instead use an empty electric chair. Notice the fascinating way substituting in an empty electric chair or noose or guillotine reduces the cringe factor:

 

(1) You remove the "now" element by a few decades, since "the chair" is no longer in use. Thus, no one today is guilty or complicit in the execution. It's a thing "those people used to do." 

 

(2) You remove Jesus from the picture, leaving the connection to the reader's imagination, rather than crying out directly, "This is that."

 

In so doing, you remove the scandal--and that, I think, is problematic.

 

The Cross was a scandal, a gruesome and cruel way for the empire to terrorize an occupied majority. And yet it would become among the most intense subjects in the history of art. Everyone who claims to be an artist of renown must offer their interpretation of the crucifixion.

 

Some artists emphasized the realism of Christ's agony, but that often glorified agony rather than glorifying Jesus--some such pieces can feel voyeuristic and sadistic, yet managing to sidestep the gospel itself.

 

Other artists sanitized the scandal when they prettied up the crucifixion, or made it more abstract, or removed Christ from the rugged wood and turned it to gold. The effect is thus a strange disconnect from the skandalon of the Gospel.

 

On the other hand, Eastern icons make the same move away from realism to make a theological point. They try to communicate the Cross event as much more than just the evil work of wicked men. Christ is not merely the victim of the murderous church-state conspiracy. The truth is this: the Cross is more than a crucifixion. It represents the glorification and enthronement of the Son of God and his redemption of all humanity. So the iconographers tried (with various success) to retain the image of the cross while also introducing the victory of God into their depictions of the crucified Christ. We see this same hybrid of crucifixion hatred and cruciform Love in the Gospel of John.

 

Well, back to my pondering. I remembered that people used to say, "If Jesus' execution were in our era, we'd be wearing jewelry that featured modern forms of execution, such as the electric chair or the guillotine." And why not? I was never sure if this was meant as a critique.

 

But in any case, that speculation has become reality!

BEHOLD, now for sale online at Etsy! Should we be disturbed? Enthusiastic?

What do the pieces below communicate? I'll that to your ponderings, but there it is.

 

I am, however, left with the powerful, haunting words of Kenneth Tanner:

"The Cross tells us from now on, no one else needs to die for the world to be made right."  

 

When you realize it's not just about you and not just about heaven - Fr. Kenneth Tanner

The moment you realize that Jesus' incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension are not just about saving YOUR everlasting soul but about saving the one human nature shared by all who bear flesh, about renewing the good Creation.

The moment you realize that salvation is not only about entering eternal life when you die but a real-as-blood participation in the divine nature RIGHT NOW.

In other words, the moment you realize that the incarnation, embodied life, cross, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus are not just about YOU and not just about HEAVEN.

THAT is the moment you LEAVE BEHIND infancy in Jesus Christ and GIVE your life and future (which no longer matters, which no longer causes anxiety) to God's saving mission for the life of the world.

That is the moment you GROW UP, remove the focus on yourself and your eternal future, and take up the self-sacrificial love of Jesus that seeks not only the eternal glory of others but that ALL PERSONS might enter the DIVINE WAY of life and love all things as God loves all things HERE and NOW.

That is the moment you become an ACTOR in Christ the human's saving mission to make ALL THINGS NEW.

That is the moment you are no longer the exclusive center of God's saving words and actions but one who bears the cross with Jesus on behalf of OTHERS so that ALL MIGHT LIVE.

That is the moment you JOIN Christ's saving purpose to restore the created order, still subject to chaos and decay because of human and the demonic rebellion.

That is the moment you cease worrying about your eternal destiny and FIND ETERNAL LIFE NOW by living a life that reveals heaven in the present moment.

This profound humility of God in Jesus Christ is not about YOU but about ALL PERSONS and is not merely about all persons but an offering that heals time, redeems nature, and brings all things once more into that unity that God—the Father, Son and Spirit—intended from before time, from before all worlds were framed.

Fear: Between Scylla and Charybdis - Jamie Arpin-Ricci

As long as humanity has been telling stories, the theme of facing risk on either side has been a theme. Expressions such as “between the devil and the deep blue sea”, and “between a rock and a hard place” have long shaped our narratives. They bring to mind impossible choices, referred to with names like “Catch-22” and “Morton’s Fork”.

Yet it has always been the story of Odysseus, guiding his ship between the deadly sea monsters Scylla and Charybdis, that has always caught my imagination. For many years I misunderstood the expression “being between Scylla and Charybdis” to mean finding a centrist path between two extremes. Instead, I have come to realize that the path between these monsters is a resistance to the binary itself. Perhaps the expression “on the horns of a dilemma” makes it more clear. Having witnessed bullfights in Madrid as a teenager, the idea of being gored by a bull makes for a profoundly visceral concept. There is no “between the horns”. The only hope lies in refusing to get in the ring with the bull.

Whether it is politics or theology, when we engage in debates that are primarily framed around the questions “Who is right?” and “Who is wrong?”, we all too often find ourselves “on the horns of a dilemma”. Why? Because such a posture requires that both “sides” engage in a fear-based “othering”, that “they” are wrong and “we” are right. “They” are bad. “We” are good. Note that I said this is what happens when we make the binary position our primary approach. I am not suggesting that there is no place for debate, nor am I suggesting that there is no right or wrong. Instead, I am pointing out the fact that such a posture is fundamentally born out of and sustained by fear.

What Would Jesus Protest? Zachary Shilston

What Would Jesus Protest? Why, as a Christian, I will not be supporting “Jesus for NZ” and may even stand against it

Next week the “Jesus for NZ” protest is coming to town. To the steps of Parliament, to be exact. If you’re moving in Christian circles, chances are you’ve heard of it. Chances are you’ve been told to come along.

It’s a stand, so we’re told, for Christianity, for Jesus. Protesting the fact that Hon Trevor Mallard, Speaker of the House, changed Parliament’s opening prayer, removing the name of Jesus.

I want to begin in humility, by acknowledging that each of us, as followers of Jesus, is on a journey in learning to listen to and follow him. Each of us must follow our own conscience and what we feel to be the leading of His Spirit. Faithful followers of Jesus can differ in how they understand the particulars of following God in certain circumstances, and I commit to loving and honoring my brothers and sisters who both choose to attend and not to attend the protest.

However, having said all that, I also want to share why I will not be supporting it. I do this not to attack my brothers and sisters who do, but rather to start a conversation about what it means for us to follow Jesus in our society. I hope that if you disagree with me you are willing to be open to listening to what I have to say, but also to sharing your thoughts with me. I hope we can both learn, and that conversation on these things can bring us closer to Christ.

I ‘ve named this post What would Jesus protest? The reason I used this title is because I believe there are things about the “Jesus for NZ” protest that Jesus would not protest for. I am going to talk about two things that I do not think Jesus would protest for that this protest majors on.
1.) – I firmly believe that Jesus would not protest to maintain a religious ritual
2.) – I firmly believe that Jesus would not protest for cultural Christian domination of society.

The Dark Night - Sarah Van Diest

Click here for "God in the Dark"

“For a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you” Isaiah 54:8.

The dark night of the soul is the phrase running through my mind – the sense of the Light having left. An Absence is present. And perhaps that is the way to see what I cannot see: as if there is an obstruction confounding my senses and telling me God has vanished, when all along he remains. The starless night is the alternative, one where stars had only been imagined and never were real at all.

That is a dark night indeed and one I’ve wandered into for moments, or days, or do I dare admit, even longer? That is the night where God has never existed at all, where light is an illusion and only darkness is real – more like a black hole of the soul, that is.

Whatever it is, I fear I have been made thin. I had thought faith and perseverance would reap meatier stuff. Not that I have walked in perfect faith and all-resolute perseverance, but steadily and with good will. Entering such emptiness, entering such a sense of abandonment, at this point along the journey is, well …it is unexpected.

I still pray. I still incline my ear. I still read the words he gave us and play them over in my mind when the darkness is its greatest and envelops more than just my mind, but my heart, too. There is a torture in these moments and I still run to the only Father I’ve ever known to be faithfully present. But the room where he and I would meet feels empty now. His chair has grown cold.

At times my eyes, the ones that truly see, feel as if they are closing. It’s as if a sleep is overwhelming them. The call for rest entices them. They have strained to see in the dark night for so long and they are tired.

But the thought occurs to me just now that the dark night of the soul is to some degree a falsity. The feelings associated with it are not false, but the darkness itself perhaps is. The reasoning which leads me here is this: even if God has abandoned the soul, for whatever reason and for whatever period of time, I do not believe the soul to be inherently darkened, as some do. Some say we are born full of evil; sin embodies us before we breathe our first awkward breath. We are the personification of darkness, in the eyes of some, until we find the light and love of God. I do not believe that.

If what I believe about our natural state is true, that we are created in the Imago Dei, and therefore are “good,” or even on those days when I can hardly fathom the reality of a deity and my perspective on man is as humanistic as it comes, then how can I seriously entertain the idea that my soul offers no light? I cannot. Because even the humanistic perspective, with its ever-evolving, always promising bias, shines man in a good light.

The dark night of the soul at some point must surrender to light, even if it is the soul emitting its own.

Magic Genie or Heavenly Father? by the Felicia Murrell

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Grief Doesn't Know - Joni Miller

Grief doesn’t know it is grief.

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

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

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

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

Grief doesn’t know it is grief

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

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

just meaning to breathe…

                    one good breath…

                                              please.

Grief doesn’t know it is grief

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

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

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

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

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

But what if…

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

This is something to build on.

A way to continue the journey.

A place to cultivate…

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

                                                                     to begin a beginning…

                                                                                      

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

©Joan Miller, UBP

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

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

 

I. Introduction

 

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

 

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

 

CLICK HERE to continue reading Parry's full response 

 

NOTES

 

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

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

 

Felicia Murrell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Felicia Murrell

 

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

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

A Biblically Faithful Response to Same-Sex Marriage
Matt Hyam

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

3 Goddard, Homosexuality, 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Go and sin no more"? Brad Jersak

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

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

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

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

Genesis 2 – 3

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

The Prodigal Sons

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

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

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

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

John 8 – “Go and sin no more”?

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

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

“Where are your accusers?”

“They’re gone m’Lord.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

WHY DID I DELETE MY FACEBOOK ACCOUNT?

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

But there’s more …

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

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

And there's this pressure to behave accordingly …

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

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

That makes me sad.

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

Relating is difficult no matter the channels ...

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

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

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

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

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

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