khora: mapping the theological contours of the canadian experience

Critiquing Weaver, Grimsrud and the Non-Violent God Movement

This article came across my inbox, and I found in extremely helpful.  While I don't agree with everything in it, I think it is a helpful piece of writing and reflection on the nature of atonement and a good critique of the non-violent God/atonement camp.

Enjoy!
Download the_strange_case_of_the_nonviolent_god_dintaman.pdf

Follow up to Church Politics

A colleague of mine at CSRS, Stephen Snobelen, who teaches the history of science at Kings College in Halifax and directs the Newton Project Canada sent a response to the first of my sermons on Christians and political engagement.  It is an incredibly insightful response, full of great questions.  A few of his points have led me to begin writing a paper on a "middle way" posture for evangelicals to adopt on the homosexuality question.

I've excerpted portions of his response below that I think are very helpful to reflect upon:

I guess the only question I would have is, where you would place the moral message? Just as it is clear to me that the Mennonite tradition going back to the days of the Radical Reformation has correctly emphasised the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and has rightly echoed the voice of the Hebrew Prophets on such issues as social justice, it is also clear to me that the Hebrew Prophets and the Gospel teachings emphasise a moral message as well.

The challenge, it seems to me, is presenting the moral message as well in a way that is unnecessarily abrasive and, if possible, even constructive.

Now, I imagine there are Mennonites, including evangelical Mennonites, who believe that homosexual practice is outside the scope of biblically-prescribed sexual morality. Recognising the distinction between constitution homosexuality (which doesn’t appear to be addressed in the Bible and thus not specifically condemned) and homosexual practice (which many exegetes do believe is censured), how might an evangelical who wants to affirm what he or she believes to be biblical morality develop a via media between the confrontational folk you refer to and the abdication of the need to affirm the prophetic voice of the Bible? (Three texts from the prophet Jeremiah that condemn the sin of adultery among the Judahites can be found in Jeremiah 7:9, 23:14, 29:23, for instance).

And how does a Christian successfully distinguish between matters of biblical exegesis relating to morality that is applied within the community and the obligations of a Christian to be loving in secular society?

Furthermore, what does a Christian in academia do when he or she regularly hears his or her beliefs mocked and condemned? Speak up or keep quiet so as to avoid rocking the boat, as it were?

Another thought: it is true that some more conservative and reactionary Christians make statements and claims that appear intolerant; but what of the increasingly hostile and nasty claims made by secular opponents of Christianity? Should we not challenge these as well?

Yet another: should a more tolerant or liberal Christian uphold the right of his or her more conservative Christian counterparts to adhere to forms of morality that are increasingly out of step with secular society?

One more: if Christians follow the lead of secular society on moral and other issues rather than letter our lights shine in a positive way or being “salty”
as you put it, have we not abdicated our responsibilities to the Gospel and become “the world”? What then is the point of being a Christian?

Although I certainly am quite sympathetic to the message of your talk, I do believe that the concerns raised by the evangelical you critique have some validity, as does the concern over the right of a person from a faith community to hold a particular view of morality (other than nasty views that lead to, say, child abuse and such). Are you saying these aren’t major concerns or merely that they are not the *central* concerns?

Response to Stephen Boissoin

Because Stephen Boissoin chose not to leave a contact email address, I am writing a public response to his comments on my weblog post on the 22 of January.

I want to thank Mr. Boissoin (from now on I will refer to him as "you") for responding so promptly to my sermon and for taking the time to read it and post a lengthy reply.  I have several things that I think are important to say in response to your comments.

Firstly, you say that my critique of your letter was unfair because I did not understand the context in which it was written.  Now, I certainly agree that context is important.  However, when a letter to the editor is written to a public newspaper I assume that you are opening your thoughts to public scrutiny.  I also assume that in writing a letter to the editor that you will make the situation clear and understandable enough to a general audience not familiar with your situation.  I think it was completely justified for me to comment upon this letter and not at all unfair because I was not fully apprised of your situation.  Had I been commenting on a piece of your private correspondence, then I would have had to tread more sensitively.  And certainly, I welcome the opportunity to more fully understand your position, and I hope that we will be able to have a continued dialogue.

In terms of the integrity of my remarks.  I certainly am sorry that you took offense, but I believe that we have a right and a Scriptural obligation to test all prophetic statements from fellow Christians to see if it is from God (1 Cor. 14.29).  This was not meant as slander or as a way to make other Christians pre-judge your remarks.  I merely was using a publicly issued statement to engage the important question of how Christians are to engage the world.  I believe I had every right to do that, and I believe that my remarks were as respectful and understand as possible, while not at the same time being untruthful.

Secondly, you say there is nothing ungracious or unloving towards anyone in your letter.  I beg to differ.  If I were a homosexual activist I am convinced that I would find your letter deeply hurtful.  I believe this is why the Alberta Human Rights Commission found against you.  As an Anabaptist Christian, I believe that we must treat all people, even our enemies, with love and respect.   While I understand that you are borrowing from Biblical judgment language to justify your approach, I wonder what role Jesus' admonish to "judge not, lest you be judged..." (Mat. 7.1ff) plays whenever we resort to this type of condemnatory language?

Furthermore, you say I take exception to your letter based on its "tone," which you feel I incorrectly inferred.  If I had done this, I can see how you could have made a complaint.  However, I was focusing on the words that you used and the intended meaning of those words.  To say that a homosexual activist is no different than a drug-dealer, pimp, and pedophile requires no interpretation to see that your intention is to name these people as threats to community, society, and innocent children.  This is inflammatory language.   Perhaps you feel justified in using it.  I think I had the right to ask the question whether or not the use of this kind of language violated the Golden Rule (Lev. 19.18, Mat. 19.19) and Christ's command to love our enemies (Mat. 5.43ff).  In my mind this is not the way you engage in dialogue in our society, and it in no way promotes the name of Christ in the world.

You name this as my "Christian version of Political Correctness."  I take exception to this.  In no way is this political correctness, a view which I find philosophically indefensible.  In fact I emphatically stated that my vision of tolerance is a theological idea rooted in the Sermon on the Mount.  This idea I gained from reading John Howard Yoder.  Specifically I stated:

The vision this passage (Matt. 5.43ff) calls us to affirm is that every human person deserves equal respect. And the reason why all people of all cultures, ideologies, orientations, etc deserve equal respect isn’t because their cultures, ideologies, orientations, etc. are equally healthy or have earned equal treatment. No. Every human person deserves equal respect because God doesn’t distinguish between people, he sends rain on the righteous and the unjust.

Another response to your letter is this idea that you felt that God ordained you to write this letter and this somehow gives you a carte blanche against criticism from other Christians.  Again, as an Anabaptist Christian I believe that God does not speak in contradiction to the Bible; and I believe that the community of believers must test all words from God (again, see 1 Cor. 14 on orderly worship).  I do not mean to derail another's ministry, I do think that your remarks need some reconsideration in light of Scripture.  I hope that people will feel bold enough to challenge me when they feel that I have gone off the rails.

Finally, as someone who holds fairly conventional beliefs on sexuality, and who belongs to a conservative-evangelical denomination with a conservative stance on sexuality, I am not really all that concerned that my children will be exposed to a pro-homosexual stance.  I believe that the best antidote to unhealthy sexual influences in the lives of my children will come from the open, honest attitude that I approach these topics with my kids, and my own modeling of what I feel healthy sexuality is to my children.  I cannot keep my children from being exposed to the negative influences of the world.   But I can prepare them and help them to make good and healthy choices.  To live in fear of the world and the agendas of people who believe differently than me I believe goes against God's intention that our lives be filled with joy and compassion.

Finally, I note that yes, as Christians we believe in the possibility of hell - that some might end up eternally separated from God.  I am sobered to think that most often when Jesus directed his words of warning about hell at people they were not directed at the sinners, but rather at the religious people who felt that they had figured out God.

I welcome further dialogue and exchange.

David Eagle
Lead Pastor, Saanich Community Church

Unfair to the theo-cons

I had a person approach me and say that I was undermining the basic message of my sermon series (charity and compassion) by "attacking" Mark Driscoll and a few others for what I felt was bad behaviour.  Interestingly, I leveled a similar charge again Gary Dann for his lecture at UVic a while back on fundamentalists and politics.

Underlying this remark (I think?) is the sense that somehow more conservative Christians are being used as an easy and politically correct target in society at large, when most of our targets have evaporated.  Should we not allow these folks their opinions while we have ours?

Well, there's a yes-no answer here.  Yes, theo-cons (a great term coined by Stephen Harper himself to describe socially conservative voters with a theological justification for their social conservatism)  have a right to make their points heard.  They are right to put them out their as their opinion on various matters.  But, my feeling is that these are not merely private or personal opinions that they are advancing, but rather these opinions have implications for people who hold opposing viewpoints (e.g. restoring the Judeo-Christian heritage of Canada).

And because these opinions implicate you, I and others, I believe we have a right and an obligation to challenge them.  I am trying to do that in a respectful way by asking some questions and appealing to our shared Scriptures.  But, nonetheless, I think there is better and worse ways of approaching these issues and I have as much a right as anyone to advance my thoughts on the subject.  And yes, as a preacher, I am paid to implicate others in my suggestions.  And, I hope that others will also weigh my own words with the same level of respect by exchanging reasons and appealing to the Scriptures with intellectual vigour.

Church Politics: Christian Responsibility in the World

January has seen the launch of a boat-rocking sermon series that looks at the role that Christians play in society.  I am looking specifically at how Christians think about engaging their culture, or how we should be "in, but not of the world."  The first two sermons have been preached and you can download the podcasts of those sermons from the church's website here>>.

In the first of the two sermons I take direct aim at a number of what I think are unhelpful ways in which to engage culture, one by Mark Driscoll, one by Stephen Boissoin, and one by Canadian Family Action Coalition.  Then, I develop three pillars, built on important Scripture texts, that I feel are fundamental to Christian engagement in the world. 

In the second sermon, I spend some time unpacking what I feel is at the heart of Paul's theology: the cross, and specifically the cross as the agent of the destruction of the dividing wall between people.  I spend a great deal of time meditating on Jesus' as our peace/peacemaker, and then go on to look at how Deut. 24, and its focus on gift might effect how we engage society.

In the past I've been criticized for not taking a clear stand.  Well, in these sermons I do.  I take on the unthinking devotion many Christians have towards both ultra-conservative right wing values; and towards so-called "dominionist" theology.

This whole sermon series is dedicated to The Centre for Studies in Religion and Society at the University of Victoria.  It was there that I became convinced that this series needed to be preached and we as a church needed to talk about these issues.  It also was done in response to the perceived inadequacy of the Gospel, Culture, Church conference by our denomination as an attempt to do what people felt was lacking at that conference.

Obama's Victory Speech

If you haven't had the chance to watch Obama's speech (see below) following his decisive victory in Iowa, then it is well worth a look-see.  I am continually amazed by Obama's phenomenal rhetorical skill.  He appears to be using no notes and no prompters, but he delivers a clear, carefully thought through speech. 

What impressed me most about this speech, and about Obama's message in general is that it does not trade in catch-phrases with hidden meanings (e.g. "protecting families in America" = anti-abortion), and it has real content.  He lays out some clear, understandable ideas that you can actually imagine a politician doing - things like ending the occupation of Iraq, working with other global leaders, and tackling climate change.  For me, this marks an important shift in political rhetoric - a shift away from "covering-your butt by uttering vague, but inspiring phrases that don't commit you to anything."

On a bigger level, I also am encouraged to hear two major themes emerging from his address.  One, the more aggressive stance against the role of corporate interests and the wealthy; and two, a strong message of reconciliation - reclaiming peoplehood in the midst of bitter divides.  Both of these ideas seem absolutely essential at this point in time in American, and dare I say, North American politics.

Which leads me to wonder who Stephen Harper will/is reacting to this change in the climate of American politics.  I have long been critical of Harper's seeming parroting of Bush's political strategy (e.g. deligitimating the int'l community on climate change, being pro-pro-Dalai Lama, openly criticising Iran, giving corporations and the wealthy a large break in taxes, running a very tightly controlled and managed political image, muzzling dissenting voices, etc.).  I wonder if Harper will keep this general strategy up going into an election, or if he will change his tune.  I think that Obama's popularity must be making Harper nervous about the upcoming election, knowing that many Canadian's are generally inclined to the message that Obama presents.

A little christmas humour

Gotta love country music...from George Canyon's Country Christmas.

Download daddys_beer.mp3

Thursday Afternoon Heresy

I was reading a piece of PR from a mission agency where the director stated that he was thankful:

For the privilege of sending teams to least reached regions of the world to plant churches and impact communities.

What, in God's green earth, does "least reached regions" mean.  Well, in technical evangelical missionary dialog it means:

[A region where] there is no indigenous community of believing Christians with adequate numbers and resources to evangelize this people group. (From the website "The Joshua Project")

I have an objection to this terminology, not least of which is because it is so deeply embedded in the culture of marketing and franchising, where the goal is to get our product out to the "least reached regions."  Beyond that, I wonder about what exactly the following passage means in light of this remark:

John 1.29:The next day he saw Jesus coming towards him and declared, ‘Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

I take the implication of this, and similar passages, to mean that there is no such thing as an "unreached person."  Jesus Christ has reached out and granted salvation to the entire world.  Our task is not to bring this salvation.  Let me say that again, humans are not the agents of salvation; nor is the church, strictly speaking, the agent of salvation.  Rather, Jesus Christ, the Word of the Father, sent from heaven at one moment in history, is in fact the agent of salvation.

I am personally tired of evangelical rhetoric that blurs the important human-divine distinction between who is actually doing the saving.  A blurred line between the two can quickly lead to neo-colonial and triumphalistic mission efforts, where we are seen to have the "goods" that those "walking in darkness" lack.

On Reading John H Yoder Again

I've just begun reading Yoder again for the first time in a long time.  This is after reading Hauerwas extensively.

My sense is that Hauerwas, because of his adoption of MacIntyre's assessment of society, has been unwilling to represent the complexity of Yoder's thought around the church's role in society. Yoder seems frustrated with Hauerwas on this point. I am also very intrigued around Barth's thinking on the subject of the church's posture towards society (which Yoder adopts). Interestingly, I think that the direction that Stout pushes Hauerwas is in the direction of Yoder/Barth. I've heard Stout very explicitly say that he thinks Barth's approach to societal engagement is extremely important for Christians to consider and represents a better way of being in the world. 

I've also just read C Carter's summary of Yoder's thought. And while helpful, I found it too optimistic and at times misleading. When he describes Yoder's ecclesiology he says that it is essential in Yoder to have a strong church/world distinction. On one level (the level of recognition of lordship), yes, that is true. On another level it isn't (Yoder affirms that Christians are also simultaneously members of the world). It seems in Yoder he has a dialectic ecclesiology, one that I've felt has been sorely lacking in Anabaptism and in evangelicalism. 

Also, Carter isn't hard enough on Yoder. His critiques often sound like affirmations. I think a major shortcoming of Yoder's work is his refusal to do many book length projects. This has lead to a certain intellectual laziness where he continually is repeating the same ideas and referring to the same Scripture passages. I wish he would have either written a Summa or published his lecture notes more systematically. And, I think Reimer is right that he is sloppy in his history around Constantianism and diaspora Judaism. I would rather Constantianism become a perennial temptation of religious people, rather than a totalizing historical phenomenon. Same with diasporism. I don't think this is ever perfectly reflected in a community, but is a trend or idea that we can live into.

But, no matter what, I don't think that Yoder's notions of the congregation's posture towards society can be easily written off or glibly ignore.  They are simply too complex, theologically suggestive, and provocative in their implications.

My Beef with Hauerwas

Someone asked me what my beef is with Stanley Hauerwas and his followers.  Here's what I said:

My argument with Hauerwas is around his unjustified and overly negative appraisal of secular, modern democracy. He has hitched himself too tightly to Alistair MacIntyre's critique of liberalism. Liberalism has become in Hauerwas a Shibboleth to dismiss those things he doesn't have the time to take seriously (just as Constantinianism often functions in Yoder). Hauerwas' most gross mistake is to dismiss even the concept of "justice" because it is a liberal idea (whatever that means). I have other beefs with Hauerwas, but that is my biggest one.

My frustration with Hauerwas' disciples is that they have a very uncharitable edge towards those with differing opinions. Also, I'm not sure that evangelically-oriented Mennonites who are already tempted towards sectarianism and societal ambivalence really need a mainline theologian reinforcing just how bad "secular liberal" society is.

The time for polarizing debate between Christians and others in our society needs to end (we don't need to argue about same-sex marriage anymore!).  We need instead dialog that builds bridges of understanding, rather than walls.   Read Jeffrey Stout's Democracy and Tradition for a philosophical outlining of my position.  Even John Yoder's For the Nations, I think pushes in much better directions than Hauerwas.