Continuing to unclog my blogging backlog, here are some thoughts on chapter 4 of Molly Worthen's, Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism. Reviews of previous chapters include:
Introduction
Chapter 1 (Birth of Neo-Evangelicalism)
Chapter 2 (Evangelicals on the Edges)
Chapter 3 (The Strivings of Christianity Today)
Now chapter 4, "Reform and Its Discontents."
This chapter finishes the first section of the book, "Knights Inerrant."My take-away from this chapter is that "evangelicals" like Mennonites and Nazarenes didn't fit neatly with Reformed "neo-evangelicals" like Henry and friends.
John Howard Yoder features as the prominent Mennonite reaction to neo-evangelicalism in this chapter. Yoder apparently was no moral model. In fact, his life seems to have been an anti-type of his theology. He is best known for his advocacy of non-violence, yet he was an abusive personality. The fact that his thinking was the opposite of his life suggests there may be something redeemable in it.
His words to C. F. H. Henry are worth quoting:
"Your ultimate criteria are your idea of reason... in theology the chances are great that they will get in the way of Christ as the only source of knowledge" (75).
Worthen concludes, "Yoder had hit on the crux of the divide between Reformed evangelicals and many other evangelical traditions." For Mennonites, "discipleship more than dogma, was the the primary way to follow Christ" (76).
The neo-evangelical and a fundamentalist worldview, according to Worthen, were making great strides in churches like those of the Mennonites and the Nazarenes. I have noted to myself that is it incredibly easy to make a pre-modern into a fundamentalist, and I fear it of my own time. You take someone who knows little of reading the Bible in context and sprinkle historical scholarship on them in a threatening way.
So I picture it being in the 50s. Scholars like Harold Bender in the Mennonite tradition and H. Orton Wiley in the Nazarenes walked these careful political lines. The Mennonites strove to make sure that their belief in pacifism did not get displaced in the middle of crises like Vietnam. They strove to strengthen their own institutions so that their ministers did not become allured of mainline institutions. They strove to maintain the importance of experience in the Christian life. The neo-evangelicals largely ignored them.
The Wesleyan Theological Society was founded as a Wesleyan version of ETS and was very neo-evangelical in its founding. Interestingly, Nazarenes did not feel very welcome at first. In the words of one Nazarene theology professor in 1967, "A 'Wesleyan' society should make Holiness its main point and not get involved in this fundamentalistic shibboleth of inerrancy" (92). Things have changed dramatically since then as WTS underwent a broadening something like Fuller did.
If the Mennonites strove not to lose distinctives like pacifism, Nazarenes fought to maintain elements like social justice amid outside influences. Mildred Bangs Wynkoop clarified the nature of holiness in terms of love and, in my opinion, provided important language to translate the doctrine of holiness into terms that would speak to a new generation.
By contrast, Reformed fundamentalism threatened to sever the link between personal piety and social justice, as it still does today. William Greathouse led a "back to Wesley" movement to try to get Nazarenes back in touch with their theological roots. These efforts would spill over into thinkers in the Free Methodist and Wesleyan Methodist church as well.
Restorationist and Pentecostals are briefly mentioned. Influenced by Reformed presuppositionalism but remaining on the periphery. Influenced by worldview language but on the periphery. Treating Scripture as a compilation of ideas and objective facts was the neo-evangelical way. There was a great fusion of elements in each tradition going on in the mid-twentieth century.
Another element in the midst (and I'm not really sure what makes this chapter hold together) is the fact that a lot of budding young scholars in this time period ran off to Europe to do their doctoral work. Yoder went to Basel to study with Barth. Paul Jewett at Fuller ran off to study with Emil Brunner at Zurich. George Ladd and Dan Fuller went to Basel. "Evangelicals who spent time at Basel and other European universities usually did not convert to more liberal forms of the faith, but they sometimes revised their views of biblical inerrancy and eschatology" (80).
It is interesting that this same phenomenon was taking place in England when I did my doctorate in the 90s. British universities neither had the biases against conservatives that a lot of American universities did, yet they were not as biased against liberals as a lot of American evangelical institutions were. In short, there was a freedom to British universities in the 90s to have faith and yet explore ideas freely as well.
My sense is that the era of conservatives running to Europe for education has slowed down significantly. Part of it is the fact that the market for experts in biblical studies, theology, and church history has dried up. I think there are also more and more accessible doctoral programs here in the US. The British universities of the 90s were doing very well with part-time doctorates, with the allure of going to Europe. But American institutions are catching on or dying.
I think I'll leave the chapter with that. It was a chapter full of emotion for me. I am thankful for the opportunities I have had to study with some truly great minds and to think through ideas with anyone who was interested. I used to say I would "teach" (or at least banter together) for free if I had some other means of supporting my family.
Yet people don't pay for what some teacher wants to say, even if the teacher thinks they need to hear it. People pay to hear what they want to hear. Institutions that forget this fundamental dynamic die, IMO.
Showing posts with label John Howard Yoder. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Howard Yoder. Show all posts
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Force is the Exception 4
continued from yesterday
____________________
... By contrast, the earthly Jesus modeled for us what it looks like when we are out of power or it is not God's will to use what power we have to bring change to the structures of society. Of course some have argued that Jesus gave us an example for all times and all situations. They argue that Christians should never engage in violence such as war and that a person should never strike another, even in self-defense. [1] God is the one who fights for us. We are not to fight for ourselves. Even then, God's fighting is full of love for all individuals involved.
These voices are important because they are surely more correct than incorrect. The usual responses to them are also well known. "What about Jesus throwing the money-changers out of the temple?" Some have argued that Jesus only used his whip to drive the animals out of the temple court, not the people (John 2:15). [2] As honorable as this interpretation is, it seems based more on wishful thinking than the text itself (Mark 11:15).
It seems that Jesus could get "righteously angry" and act accordingly. And although this was only one occasion in an entire ministry without violence, it showed that force was an option on some level. Non-violence was apparently not an absolute for him, even though it was the default, the standard for the vast majority of cases.
Another response looks to the Old Testament, where God seems to command Joshua to obliterate whole cities entirely, including animals (e.g., Josh. 6:21). We have to be careful when applying texts such as this one, for the Old Testament is not complete in its understanding of God without the New Testament. Even within the Old Testament itself, there are often multiple perspectives to be considered. Nahum with its delight over the destruction of Nineveh must be balanced by Jonah with its concern for Nineveh. Ezra with its commands to divorce foreign wives must be balanced by Malachi's hatred of divorce.
The Christian approach to war that seems to take the whole Bible best into account is sometimes called "just war theory." It believes that war can be justified from a Christian perspective if four conditions are met. [3] First, the impending damage from an aggressor needs to be "lasting, grave, and certain." Second, every other means of putting the aggression to an end needs to have been ineffective or impractical. Next, the war should be likely to be successful. Finally, the use of force should not result in a greater evil than it solves.
These principles seem to capture the Christian spirit, where the use of force is a course of last resort. Force is never used to advance one's own territory or ambition. One always tries non-violent means to resolve situations first. The goal of war is not to devastate the enemy but to protect one's own or others.
Can one wage war and not violate love of neighbor and love of enemy? Certainly one can wage war to protect one's own people. One can wage war to protect the people of the country you are fighting. The problem is that the true intentions of a leader arguing for war will not always be clear. We often do not realize our own true intentions. Any reasonable doubt at all argues against the use of force.
Then there is the question of justice. Would a nation attack another in the name of justice, if it were following Christ's example? If the answer is simply to get back at the other nation, the answer is no. But such matters are also very complex. You may have heard the old Latin saying, "If you want peace, prepare for war." The idea is that strength is in itself a deterrent from the aggression of others.
Again, we are prone to hide our true intentions and hatefulness behind such honorable sounding sentiments. And few of us will ever be in a position to make such decisions, although we vote for those who do. For example, following just war theory, a Christian would not have supported the American invasion of Iraq. Not only was imminent danger from Iraq uncertain, it turned out to be non-existent. Even after the war, it remains to be seen whether, in the end, the resultant situation in the Middle East and the world is better than before the war.
Yet many Christians at the time almost considered it unchristian even to have questions about the Iraq War. This is an indication of the extent to which popular Christianity is removed not only from the actual example of Jesus but from Christian understandings that have been accepted since the time Christians had a voice in such matters. It calls us as believers to be much more cautious in our support of American military action in the future.
The case of World War 2 was much clearer. Hitler had shown his aggression in the most obvious of terms. It even astounds the mind for us to realize now what he was doing to Jews and others behind the scenes, things that were not obvious at the time. For nations like Britain, the question was as much one of survival as of winning. Many today even fault England for engaging in dialog too long. The most balanced position would seem to be that there are very rare occasions where Christians might support a war in the spirit of Jesus.
Of much more immediate importance to us as individuals is how we should apply Jesus' ethic to our daily lives...
[1] Some key names in this reading of Jesus include John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, and Stanley Hauerwas, Resident Aliens.
[2] Yoder, Politics.
[3] This approach is often associated with Augustine in the 400s. The current list is largely taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2309.
____________________
... By contrast, the earthly Jesus modeled for us what it looks like when we are out of power or it is not God's will to use what power we have to bring change to the structures of society. Of course some have argued that Jesus gave us an example for all times and all situations. They argue that Christians should never engage in violence such as war and that a person should never strike another, even in self-defense. [1] God is the one who fights for us. We are not to fight for ourselves. Even then, God's fighting is full of love for all individuals involved.
These voices are important because they are surely more correct than incorrect. The usual responses to them are also well known. "What about Jesus throwing the money-changers out of the temple?" Some have argued that Jesus only used his whip to drive the animals out of the temple court, not the people (John 2:15). [2] As honorable as this interpretation is, it seems based more on wishful thinking than the text itself (Mark 11:15).
It seems that Jesus could get "righteously angry" and act accordingly. And although this was only one occasion in an entire ministry without violence, it showed that force was an option on some level. Non-violence was apparently not an absolute for him, even though it was the default, the standard for the vast majority of cases.
Another response looks to the Old Testament, where God seems to command Joshua to obliterate whole cities entirely, including animals (e.g., Josh. 6:21). We have to be careful when applying texts such as this one, for the Old Testament is not complete in its understanding of God without the New Testament. Even within the Old Testament itself, there are often multiple perspectives to be considered. Nahum with its delight over the destruction of Nineveh must be balanced by Jonah with its concern for Nineveh. Ezra with its commands to divorce foreign wives must be balanced by Malachi's hatred of divorce.
The Christian approach to war that seems to take the whole Bible best into account is sometimes called "just war theory." It believes that war can be justified from a Christian perspective if four conditions are met. [3] First, the impending damage from an aggressor needs to be "lasting, grave, and certain." Second, every other means of putting the aggression to an end needs to have been ineffective or impractical. Next, the war should be likely to be successful. Finally, the use of force should not result in a greater evil than it solves.
These principles seem to capture the Christian spirit, where the use of force is a course of last resort. Force is never used to advance one's own territory or ambition. One always tries non-violent means to resolve situations first. The goal of war is not to devastate the enemy but to protect one's own or others.
Can one wage war and not violate love of neighbor and love of enemy? Certainly one can wage war to protect one's own people. One can wage war to protect the people of the country you are fighting. The problem is that the true intentions of a leader arguing for war will not always be clear. We often do not realize our own true intentions. Any reasonable doubt at all argues against the use of force.
Then there is the question of justice. Would a nation attack another in the name of justice, if it were following Christ's example? If the answer is simply to get back at the other nation, the answer is no. But such matters are also very complex. You may have heard the old Latin saying, "If you want peace, prepare for war." The idea is that strength is in itself a deterrent from the aggression of others.
Again, we are prone to hide our true intentions and hatefulness behind such honorable sounding sentiments. And few of us will ever be in a position to make such decisions, although we vote for those who do. For example, following just war theory, a Christian would not have supported the American invasion of Iraq. Not only was imminent danger from Iraq uncertain, it turned out to be non-existent. Even after the war, it remains to be seen whether, in the end, the resultant situation in the Middle East and the world is better than before the war.
Yet many Christians at the time almost considered it unchristian even to have questions about the Iraq War. This is an indication of the extent to which popular Christianity is removed not only from the actual example of Jesus but from Christian understandings that have been accepted since the time Christians had a voice in such matters. It calls us as believers to be much more cautious in our support of American military action in the future.
The case of World War 2 was much clearer. Hitler had shown his aggression in the most obvious of terms. It even astounds the mind for us to realize now what he was doing to Jews and others behind the scenes, things that were not obvious at the time. For nations like Britain, the question was as much one of survival as of winning. Many today even fault England for engaging in dialog too long. The most balanced position would seem to be that there are very rare occasions where Christians might support a war in the spirit of Jesus.
Of much more immediate importance to us as individuals is how we should apply Jesus' ethic to our daily lives...
[1] Some key names in this reading of Jesus include John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, and Stanley Hauerwas, Resident Aliens.
[2] Yoder, Politics.
[3] This approach is often associated with Augustine in the 400s. The current list is largely taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2309.
Tuesday, March 06, 2012
Yoder's Politics of Jesus
I skipped through Yoder's famous book today and have been discussing it in broad strokes in a couple classes. Many who come across this post may know much more about Yoder's thinking than I so I welcome refinement and correction.
I would summarize Yoder as follows. God is the one who fights for us; followers of Jesus do not fight for themselves, especially not through violence. Violence is never appropriate for a Jesus-follower. The structures of the world, the powers of the world, are usually full of evil. Our task as Christians is not to fight against the worldly powers but to give a witness by our voluntary submission to the hierarchies of a fallen world.
Yoder answers a number of objections to using the model of Jesus as a model for us to follow. He of course also argues for a certain model of Jesus (thus Jesus didn't use his whip against the money changers but to drive the animals out of the temple).
But what do you think?
I would summarize Yoder as follows. God is the one who fights for us; followers of Jesus do not fight for themselves, especially not through violence. Violence is never appropriate for a Jesus-follower. The structures of the world, the powers of the world, are usually full of evil. Our task as Christians is not to fight against the worldly powers but to give a witness by our voluntary submission to the hierarchies of a fallen world.
Yoder answers a number of objections to using the model of Jesus as a model for us to follow. He of course also argues for a certain model of Jesus (thus Jesus didn't use his whip against the money changers but to drive the animals out of the temple).
- The objection that Jesus' ethic was limited to his years on earth, an "interim" ethic before a kingdom that was going to come in force later.
- The objection that Jesus' model was for a situation in which it was not conceivable to change the system.
- The objection that Jesus only provides a model for individual response, not for government, which more appropriately turns to God the Father as a model.
- I accept the basic principles of Just War theory laid out by Augustine.
- I believe that Jesus' earthly ministry was phase one and that in the second coming phase he will not be so meek and mild
- I do believe we should work for change more vigorously and engagedly with worldly powers when we can, although not usually with violence (I support Bonhoeffer's deviation in regard to Hitler). I do accept reasonable force to protect the lives of others and, in some cases, in self-defense.
- I do think that God the Father provides a better model for governance and justice rather than Jesus when he was on earth.
But what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
