3 Christian Perspectives on War: Just War Theory, Christian Pacificism, and Active Peacemaking, Part 1

Reading through the reports today I came across an article on America's thoughts about going to war with the Muslim country of Syria. A deplorable government to be sure, committed to torture and human atrocities, oppression and tyranny by both the father and his son for decades:

 

Syria has been under Emergency Law from 1963 to 2011, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens. Its system of government is considered to be non-democratic.^[7] Bashar al-Assad has been president since 2000 and was preceded by his father Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1970 to 2000.^[8]

 

Syria is a member of one International organization other than the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement; it is currently suspended from the Arab League^[9] and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation,^[10] and self suspended from the Union for the Mediterranean.^[11]

 

Since March 2011, Syria has been embroiled in civil war in the wake of uprisings (considered an extension of the Arab Spring, the mass movement of revolutions and protests in the Arab world) against Assad and the neo-Ba'athist government. An alternative government was formed by the opposition umbrella group, the Syrian National Coalition, in March 2012. Representatives of this government were subsequently invited to take up Syria's seat at the Arab League.^[12] The opposition coalition has been recognised as the "sole representative of the Syrian people" by several nations including the United States, United Kingdom and France.^[13][14][15]

 

- Wikipedia

 

Another article to help understand Syria's current state of affairs and areas of conflict was found here:

 

Elizabeth O'Bagy: On the Front Lines of Syria's Civil War: "The conventional wisdom—that jihadists are running the rebellion—is not what I've witnessed on the ground."

 

A Divided Syria

Hence, in the following piece Johnathan Merrit provides three avenues for societal response: (1) the Just War Theory as proposed by Thomas Aquinas in his day of Medieval government; (2) Christian pacifism as resulting from the Anabaptist experience of purgings in 16th century Europe; (3) and a new theory going under the name of Just Peacemaking. This latter response I found to be the most intelligent and worthy of consideration. It responds according to the degree made necessary:  Just Peacemaking supports the prevention of war through nonviolent direct action and cooperative conflict resolution. It is not intended to be a substitute for just war or pacifism, but rather a supplement and corrective (further reading on this topic may be found through provided links below).

 

The last article I've supplied is from Frank Schaeffer's intensely critical piece directed towards the American media's handling of President Obama's resolve to not commit American troops so immediately into the position of global enforcer and preventionist. Frank provides stiff support for the president's actions even though it could have been more easily interpreted as a lack of action based upon political expediency as I did. Still, it requires the American public's support for, or against, its military involvement in regional conflict. And I suspect, if given the choice, Frank, like myself, would likewise explore the third alternative of "Just Peacemaking" before too hastily marching to war with America's sons and daughters into regional conflicts where there are too often no winners.

 

And so, it is with deep prayer and sincerity of heart that healing would come between the Muslim nations within their tribes and nations, even as it would come with America and the West. If we are to enter into any kind of global cooperation and synergy then all wars and hostilities between nations must cease. From Somalia to Egypt, from America's urban centers to Europe's class conflicts, from Russian, China, the Mid-East, and Indonesia. But to so simply focus on peace must first require us to place our focus on justice and liberty, however it is worked out, so that power and wealth learns abeyance to the needs and rights of all men everywhere.

 

R.E. Slater

September 4, 2013 

 



Supporters of Syrian President Bashar Assad gather in Damascus’s Bahrat Square
Courtesy of FreedomHouse (http://bit.ly/17lre46)



 

On Syrian conflict, three Christian perspectives

http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/09/03/on-syria-three-christian-perspectives/

 

by Johnathan Merrit

September 3, 2013

 

The Syrian civil war has become a humanitarian hell. More than 100,000 are dead, images of a state-sanctioned chemical weapons attack have evoked a global protest, and most Western leaders agree that Syrian President Bashar Assad is an all-around bad guy. But enacting another bloody and expensive war against an unstable Middle Eastern country, particularly one with the backing of Russia and Iran, is something many Americans have little stomach for.

 

So which position should Christians support?

 

Traditionally, Christians have viewed war through one of two lenses. Those who hold to just war theory believe that war is often right if the violent conflict meets certain criteria. This is the view held by most Catholics and conservative Protestants. On the other hand, Christian pacifists believe that violence is incompatible with a faith that is patterned after the one who blessed peacemakers and urged his followers to “turn the other cheek.”

 

But in recent years, a third view called just peacemaking has gained traction among some Christians. It has been promoted by evangelical theologians Glenn Stassen and David Gushee, and supports the prevention of war through nonviolent direct action and cooperative conflict resolution. Stassen and Gushee point out that just peacemaking theory is not intended to be a substitute for just war or pacifism, but rather a supplement and corrective.

 

Below are position statements on the Syrian conflict from Christian thought leaders representing each of these perspectives:

 

 

Just War Theory

Russell Moore, President of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission

 

The first principle of a just war, that of a just cause, has been met in this case. Assad’s regime is lawless and tyrannical, and rightly provokes international outrage. That said, there are other principles missing here, both to justify action morally and to justify it prudentially.

 

I do not see, from President Obama, a reasonable opportunity to prevail, or even a definition of what prevailing would mean. Regime change is not the point of this action, and even if it were, we don’t yet know who the good guys are. Replacing one set of terrorists with another does not bring about justice or peace.

 

I agree with the President on the moral urgency of Syria, and I morally reject the crypto-isolationist voices that tell us, in every era, to tend to “America First” and leave defenseless people around the world on their own. In this case, though, the Administration is demonstrating neither an imminent threat to national security nor a feasible means to alleviate the very real human rights crisis in Syria.

 

Moreover, there is the very real threat to religious minority communities in Syria. How will an attack further jeopardize the Body of Christ in Syria? Could it be that an anarchic regime of al-Qaeda sympathizers could do to the church in Damascus what Jesus prevented Saul of Tarsus from doing? Those are questions worth answering, and that means the President and the Secretary of State must communicate to the country not just the moral condemnation of the Assad regime (most of us agree), but the more difficult task of communicating the moral case for American intervention in this civil war, making clear how such wouldn’t make the situation worse.

 

Saving national credibility is important but it does not make a war just. The President must use his bully pulpit to make the case that what he wants to do here is more than a symbol, a symbol that will leave blood and fire in its wake. Right now, it seems the Administration is giving an altar call for limited war, without having preached the sermon to make the case.

 

If I were in Congress, I would vote “no” on this war. 

 

 

Pacifism

Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, author of Strangers at My Door

 

The news this weekend feels to me so much like Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN in 2003. We always want to go to war for a moral reason. But as a Christian, I have to ask, “How is Assad’s violence toward innocent civilians morally different than our ‘shock and awe’ bombing of Baghdad?” When I see the images from Syria, my gut wrenches. But I don’t ask, “How could anyone do that?” because I was in Baghad in 2003. I know that we did that–and did it while we were telling our citizens we weren’t.

 

Of course, that was the Bush administration. But I cannot forget the stories I’ve heard from friends in Afghanistan about drone attacks under the Obama administration. We love drones because they don’t put US soliders at risk. But when they hit the home of a known Al Qaeda operative, they kill indiscriminately.

 

Obama is trying to maintain credibility by meeting force with force. But Jesus showed us a better way–that we can only overcome evil with good. We are in no position to do this as a nation because we’ve invested all of our resources in the overwhelming power of military machines. But these technologies cannot bring peace. Indeed, I fear our investment in them has catapulted us into a policy of perpetual war. If troop numbers are down in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the Pentegon needs somewhere else to do its business. If not, contractors would be out of business. This is a cruel economic calculus.

 

Our only hope is to refuse cooperation with a system that demands violence and begin investing our lives and resources in things that make for peace. Of course, someone will ask, “But what about the innocent victims? Don’t you care for them?” As a disciple of the nonviolence of Jesus, I have to admit that some people may die because of my refusal to fight with violence. But people also die when we fight with violence. Nonviolence is not passive. It seeks to devote our resources to a better way. In our present public policy framework, this looks like opting out. But it is not disengagement. Christian nonviolence is engagement of the most serious kind. I give thanks for small experiments like the Christian Peacemaker Teams, Muslim Peacemaker Teams, and the Global Nonviolent Peaceforce. We won’t have better options on the global stage at a time like this until we invest seriously in these approaches to intervention. 

 

 

Just Peacemaking

David Gushee, author of The Sacredness of Human Life

 

From all indications, President Obama has never been contemplating more than a relatively small punitive strike on Syrian military targets, so we are not really talking about a “war.” The question is on what basis might a punitive strike by the United States (and possibly some group of allies) be morally justified, and whether there are any alternatives that are morally preferable.

 

In the world envisioned by the official declarations and principles of the United Nations, the world community, acting primarily through the UN Security Council, would long ago have intervened in the Syrian civil war. Proven use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would certainly have triggered the condemnation of the world, and the UN would have stepped in with various steps to protect civilians, separate the warring parties, and isolate and possibly remove the Syrian regime. Sadly, we do not today live in the world envisioned by the United Nations, because power politics and alliances and resentments continually prevent the five powers of the UN Security Council from acting in concert.

 

Just peacemaking theory would suggest that the United States should first test the UN’s own principles by taking a case for rigorous international intervention in Syria before the UN Security Council. Show all the evidence. Call for the UN to live up to its own principles. Draft a strong resolution. Only if such a resolution should fail would the US have a case for going it alone. The president could say that international moral and legal norms and humanitarian concern demand international action, but failing that, the United States is acting in the stead of the international community. This is a case that could be far more effectively made after an effort at the UN.

 

But in this case, so far, anticipation of failure has led to a preemption of a UN effort. This has led the US out onto a very shaky limb. And the weakness of the President’s isolated position is reducing the likelihood that the United States (or anyone else) will end up doing anything at all. Meanwhile, civilians continue to die in large numbers, and the threshold against using chemical weapons has been breached without penalty by Syria. 



Just Peacemaking



Just Peacemaking is the product of 23 scholars across various denominations who

have collaborated annually for six years to specify the 10 practical steps and develop

the undergirding principles of this critical approach.

 

 

 

 

The Left and Right Entirely Missed the Point of

Obama Deferring to Congress on Syria

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/the-left-and-right-entire_b_3852157.html

 

by Frank Schaeffer

September 3, 2013

President Obama has used the Syria gas attack to accomplish something stunning: He's deliberately turned back the clock on presidential military intervention prerogatives to the World War Two paradigm. Whatever happens in Congress now the president has made it much harder for future presidents to pull a George W. Bush stunt and take America into dumb wars.

 

From now on there's a twenty first century template that will be applied by the nation when we talk war: ask Congress for permission to throw America's military might around.

 

President Obama has just struck a blow for peace. The left and right are so tied up in knots trying to parse the present politics of the situation that they forget that this president thinks long term.

 

President Obama has again proved that he will leave his opponents in the dust. By using the Syria crisis as a teaching moment on constitutional prerogatives the president has extended his reach far into the future. He may have paid lip service to reserving his right to use the military with or without Congresses approval but in fact he's done the unthinkable: the president has just seriously and voluntarily curtailed presidential war making power--for a long time to come.

 

More than gay rights, more than reform of the medical delivery system, more than attempts to regulate Wall Street, more than ending two bad wars, this surprising action by President Obama will mark his presidency. His action is the beginning of the end for the imperial presidency that Kennedy, Nixon and everyone since has inexorably exploited and expanded. Gone are the days when it's assumed that presidents don't even have to pretend to listen to Congress and the American people on using American force.

 

Speaking as the father of a US Marine that was deployed in Bush's miserable unjustified wars of choice, I can't thank President Obama enough for trying to restore a little constitutional balance to America's addiction to easy wars that others pay for. Since the sons and daughters of the ruling class rarely contribute skin in the nasty "game" of war, since most Americans go shopping rather to war, this Marine's father is glad that it just got harder to send young men and women in uniform to their deaths.

 

By President Obama shocking the chattering classes with something utterly unexpected he's insulted them. Expect cynical blow back. The talkers and pundits like to think they always see into the future, know more than the president and can outsmart him. They have been proved wrong again and again, on the economy - its back - on health care - it is working and on "Obamacare" - it will outlast the crazies in the Republican Party, and now on this stunning action. They will say he's weak, vacillating, trying to blame Congress and so forth.

 

Wrong.

 

What this president's critics don't get - ever - is that President Obama thinks long range. That's why he's remained silent in the face of incessant racist-based Tea Party attacks. He knows he's winning the future by not playing to their angry-black-man stereotype. That is why he's never been the in-your-face lefty the left craves. He's playing for keeps, not short term visceral satisfaction.

 

The pundits mostly are trying to figure out the president's tactics short term on the "next war" or "what this means politically." But Syria isn't the point. Politics isn't either. Our Constitution is. What they don't get is that irrespective of the outcome now in this case, President Obama has injected an old/new note of constitutional restraint into the American war making game that is revolutionary for our times.

 

It's a very big story that the media seems to be missing by concentrating on the short term situation, Syria, and politics. The real story here isn't Syria--it is presidential power. President Obama just put our country's good ahead of his power and handed a little of presidential power back to We The People. Thank you Mr. President.

 

continued -

 

3 Christian Perspectives on War: Just War Theory, Christian Pacificism, and Active Peacemaking,

Part 2

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/09/3-christian-perspectives-on-war-just_5.html

 

J.R. Daniel Kirk: "Does Paul’s Christ Require a Historical Adam?"

http://cms.fuller.edu/TNN/Issues/Spring_2013/Does_Paul_s_Christ_Require_a_Historical_Adam/

by J.R. Daniel Kirk

Spring 2013

 

The Christian tradition has made much of Adam. We in the Western church speak regularly of the Fall of humanity that took place in Adam’s primal disobedience. Theologically, we speak of inherited sin and guilt—an original sin that renders us all complicit. We are guilty of humanity’s first great act of disobedience and enslaved to sin’s power.

 

Such theological claims derive more from our reading of Paul’s reflections on Adam than from the Genesis story itself. For many, the most significant theological reasons for affirming a historical Adam have to do not with what Genesis 1–3 may or may not teach about human origins, but with the theology of Adam that Paul articulates in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. In short, if there is no historical Adam with whom we are enmeshed in the guilt and power of sin, how can we affirm that in Christ we participate in the justification and freedom of grace?

 

The levels of freedom (or lack thereof) that many of us experience with regard to the question of Adam as a historical person is inseparable from the theology that we see bound up with him. For some, to reject Adam as a historical person is to reject the authority of Scripture and trustworthiness of the very passages within which we learn of justification and resurrection.¹ Others are concerned that to deny a historical Adam is to deny the narrative of a good world gone wrong that serves as the very basis for the good news of Jesus Christ. In short, if there is no Fall, there can be no salvation from it and restoration to what was and/or might have been.² Even more expansively, Douglas Farrow concludes that “there is very little of importance in Christian theology, hence also in doxology and practice, that is not at stake in the question of whether or not we allow a historical dimension to the Fall.”³

 

High stakes, indeed. But I want to suggest that things might not be so dire. Specifically, I want to open up the conversation to the possibility that the gospel does not, in fact, depend on a historical Adam or historical Fall in large part because what Paul says about Adam stems from his prior conviction about the saving work of Christ. The theological points Paul wishes to make concern the saving work of the resurrected Christ and the means by which he makes them is the shared cultural and religious framework of his first-century Jewish context.

 

CHRIST AND ADAM

 

Paul has an important story to tell. It is the story of God’s new creation breaking into the world through the surprising mechanism of a crucified and resurrected Christ. This conviction about the new creation being brought about by Christ provides Paul with the ground to stand on as he draws Adam into the conversation in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15.

 

One crucial dynamic of Paul’s Adam Christology is representation. Christ does, is, and becomes what we need to participate in, be, and become in order to be God’s eternal family. For this reason, Paul takes hold of the “image of God” language with which we are so familiar from Genesis 1, and uses it to describe Jesus as he stands in relation to us: “he decided in advance that they would be conformed to the image of his Son.”⁴ Christ represents who we are, and who we are becoming, as members of God’s new-creation family.

 

This representation is focused on two particular aspects of Christ’s saving work: his death on the cross and his resurrection from the dead. Romans 5 develops Paul’s Adam Christology around Christ’s death. Throughout the latter half of Romans 5, Paul outlines how Christ’s act entails benefits for many: it brings about God’s gracious gift in a manner that more than undoes the work of Adam, even reclaiming humanity’s privilege of ruling the world for God (5:15–17; cf. Genesis 1:26).

 

Similar dynamics unfurl in 1 Corinthians 15, where Adam is viewed as the progenitor of death in contrast to Christ who, as God’s new representative human being, anticipates humanity’s coming resurrection life (15:21–22). A new humanity has been inaugurated by the resurrected Christ.

 

This theological framework positions us to step into Paul’s statements about Adam. Paul is working with the stories of Israel, as told in the Old Testament, but from the perspective of someone who knows, now, that God’s great act of salvation has come in Christ.

 

CHRIST, THE LAW, AND HISTORY

 

This brings us to our central question: To what extent do we need to affirm a historical Adam in order also to affirm the saving dynamics of Paul’s Adam Christology?

 

Romans 5 presents us with what are arguably the most pressing reasons to affirm a historical Adam. There we find these striking words from Paul: 

• Sin entered the world through one person (5:12).
• Many people died through what one person did wrong (5:15).
• The judgment that came through one person’s sin led to punishment (5:16).
• Death ruled because of one person’s failure (5:17).
• Judgment fell on everyone through the failure of one person (5:18).
• Many people were made sinners through the disobedience of one person (5:19).

 

Paul is clearly appealing to both the common experience of enslavement to sin and death and the normative narratives of Israel regarding Adam to explain the reality that Christ overcomes. Moreover, the consistent point of comparison is that one person, Adam, represents the rest of humanity in coming under the guilt, the power, or the condemnation of sin.

 

One of the first questions worth confronting is whether this passage allows for various understandings of how Adam might represent humanity. Thus, for example, might there be room here, not for a physical, natural progenitor of all subsequent human beings, but for a person who was chosen by God from a developing or, at any rate, numerically numerous, human race to play the role of representative in obedience and disobedience?

 

But the question that will clamor for the attention of many is whether such a moment in which sin’s guilt and power are unleashed as the lords of humanity is required at all. There seems to have been death in this world millions of years before human beings came on the scene. Is it possible to affirm the point Paul wishes to make—that God’s grace, righteousness, and life abound to the many because of Christ—without simultaneously affirming the assumptions with which he illustrated these things to be true?

 

Writing to the Romans, Paul wished to argue that God’s people are found in Christ, and thereby cut off other possible ways of construing idealized human identity and what salvation and the people of God might look like. In claiming that Christ is (un)like Adam, Paul was simultaneously taking other options off the table. What difference might it make to our discussions about a historical Adam that Paul was claiming, “Christ, is (un)like Adam, therefore God’s people are not demarcated by Torah”? This latter statement is, in fact, the point of Paul’s argument in Romans 5 (cf. 5:12–14, 20–21). Paul’s Adam theology is an avenue toward affirming that God has one worldwide people; therefore, the specially blessed people are not defined by the story of circumcision. But he does not ask the question of whether an evolutionary account of human origins might stand within the story of God’s new creation work in Christ, and his argument is not aimed at denying such an explanation of where we came from.

 

RETELLING THE STORY OF ORIGINS

 

When the ancients told stories of human origins, it was never simply to tell people “what happened.” Instead, such narratives indicate why their particular people and their particular god played the roles of sovereigns of the world. Genesis 1 is an introduction to the covenant story of Israel, in which God promises to make fruitful Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and also multiply them (17:6; 28:3; 35:11; 47:27; 48:4). The story of Adam in Genesis is written with the latter story of Israel in mind, so that the reader can see that Israel is destined to fulfill God’s primordial promise of not only filling the Earth but also ruling over it (cf. 17:6).

 

Similarly, Paul employs the story of Adam based on his new understanding that Christ is the man through whom God has chosen to rule the world and that the churches are the people who are the fulfillment of the promise of numerous descendants. For neither Paul nor the writer of Genesis does the story of Adam exist as a standalone narrative to which later history must correspond. Instead, the convictions about what God has done at a later point in history determine how the Adam story is read.

 

New Testament scholarship over the past half century has developed the insight that the first data point in Paul’s Christian theologizing was his understanding that the cross and resurrection formed the saving act of God. In the 1960s, Herman Ridderbos argued that this fundamental conviction becomes the great act of God by which all other acts and ideas are understood.⁵ The significance of this focus on Christ is that it ripples out in all directions: not only does Paul rethink the future in light of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but he also reinterprets what came before. Thus, Ridderbos concludes that “Paul’s whole doctrine of the world-and-man in sin . . . is only to be perceived in the light of his insight into the all-important redemptive event in Christ.”⁶ A decade later E. P. Sanders concurred, claiming that Paul reasons “from solution to plight.”⁷ Because Paul knows that God has provided the solution to the problem of human sin in the crucified and risen Christ, he therefore reassesses the place of the Law, in particular, in God’s saving story. Romans 5 is one particular outworking of this.

 

Both Ridderbos and Sanders have come to the same conclusion: what is a “given” for Paul is the saving event of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The other things he says, especially about sin, the Law, and eschatology, are reinterpretations that grow from the fundamental reality of the Christ event. Recognizing this relieves the pressure that sometimes builds up around a historical Adam. Contrary to the fears expressed by Douglas Farrow, we can now recognize that Adam is not the foundation on which the system of Christian faith and life is built, such that removing him means that the whole edifice comes crashing down. Instead, the Adam of the past is one spire in a large edifice whose foundation is Christ. The gospel need not be compromised if we find ourselves having to part ways with Paul’s [perceived] assumption that there is a historical Adam, because we share Paul’s fundamental conviction that the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all.

 

Where, then, are we left, if the pressures of scientific inquiry lead us to take down the spire of a literal, historical Adam? What might it look like for us to faithfully receive Paul’s testimony not merely by saying what he said, but by doing what he did? Might it be possible that we could retell the stories of both Adam and evolutionary sciences such that they continued to reflect our conviction that the endpoint of God’s great story is nothing else than new creation in the crucified and risen [historical] Christ? For many, the cognitive dissonance between the sciences and a historical Adam has already become too great to continue holding both.⁸ We therefore have to carefully determine whether the cause of Christ, and of truth, is better served by indicating that a choice must be made between the two, or by retelling the narrative about the origins of humanity as we now understand it in light of the death and resurrection of Christ.

 

The task of reimagining a Christian story of origins for our modern era has already begun.⁹ As it continues, faithful articulation of our story will have to attempt to hold together for our day what Paul’s articulation held together so beautifully for his own: humanity as a whole, not one particular race or ethnicity or nationality of people, is the purview of God’s saving work in Christ; humanity’s final destiny has been determined by the advent of the new creation in Christ’s resurrection; and this solution in Christ indicates that the problem to be solved entails not only personal estrangement from God, but a whole world that fails to live up to the harmony, peace, fruitfulness, life, and eternality of the God who created it. Perhaps most importantly, we must not allow biology or physics or chemistry to have the last word about the destiny of humanity. The reality of our lives as creatures limited by death and decay must stand in subordinate relationship to the eschatological reality of new creation that God has granted us in Christ.

 

To accompany Paul on the task of telling the story of the beginning in light of Christ, while parting ways with his first-century understanding of science and history, is not to abandon the Christian faith in favor of science. Instead, it demands a fresh act of faith in which we continue to hold fast to the truth that has always defined Christianity: the crucified Messiah is the resurrected Lord over all. Belief in Christ’s resurrection was a stumbling block for the ancients, and it is a stumbling block for us moderns as well—and increasingly so as we learn more about our human story and the biological processes entailed in life on this Earth. We do not give up on the central article of Christian faith when we use it to tell a renewed story of where we came from. On the contrary, we thereby give it the honor which is its due.

 

 

ENDNOTES

1. E.g., A. B. Caneday, “The Language of God and Adam’s Genesis and Historicity in Paul’s Gospel,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15 (2011): 26–59.
2. E.g., C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who They Were and Why You Should Care (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 133–35; John W. Mahoney, “Why an Historical Adam Matters for the Doctrine of Original Sin,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15 (2011): 60–78; Stephen J. Wellum, “Editorial: Debating the Historicity of Adam: Does It Matter?” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15 (2011): 2–3.
3. Douglas Farrow, “Fall,” in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (ed. A. Hastings, A. Mason, and H. S. Pyper; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 233–34.
4. All scriptural citations are from the Common English Bible unless otherwise indicated.
5. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 44–90.
6. Ridderbos, Paul, 137.
7. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977), 474–508.
8. See, e.g., John R. Schneider, “Recent Genetic Science and Christian Theology on Human Origins: An ‘Aesthetic Superlapsarianism,’” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62 (2010): 196–213.
9. E.g., Daniel C. Harlow, “After Adam: Reading Adam in an Age of Evolutionary Science,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 62 (2010): 179–95.

 

Dallas Willard: The Protoevangelical Faith of Evangelicalism, Part 1

 

 

The Many Beating Hearts of Evangelicalism

Part 1

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/09/02/the-many-beating-hearts-of-evangelicalism/

 

by Scot McKnight

Sep 2, 2013

Comments

 

Though some think they can simplify evangelicalism, as one hears at times in the media or from some group that thinks it alone is the true heart of evangelicalism, the consensus of intelligent reporting and thinking about this movement is that is a movement with many beating hearts. Many good studies have proven this, and a brief listing of the thinkers would include David Bebbington, Mark Noll, Randy  Balmer, George Marsden, and Don Dayton.

 

Add to these names the masterful sketch by Gary Black, Jr., in his fresh study of Dallas Willard, The Theology of Dallas Willard: Discovering Protoevangelical Faith (2013). There you have in that second-to-last word a tip of his hand: he will see Dallas as a “proto” evangelical. But the reason he chooses that term will await another post. Today we want to look at this sketch of the many beating hearts of evangelicalism.

 

To use a few other images: evangelicalism is a village green, big enough for all those who want to picnic but there are separate tables for different families; it’s a big tent with plenty of booths inside for all. To equate true evangelicalism, then, with being “Reformed” as some today seem to think is the way of faithfulness, fails to account for our diverse history. Gary Black masterfully sketches this diversity. So, again, there are many beating hearts — all kinds of lively and life-giving centers.

 

Don Dayton once said there ought to be a moratorium on the word “evangelical” because it can refer to historic Lutherans (German Evangelisch), it can refer to the Wesleyan movement which focused on a religion of the heart, and it can refer to the 1950s to the present day kind of “neo-evangelicals.”  George Marsden made a big point when he said it is “trans-denominational” and he’s right.

 

But Black begins with what I will call a historic heart beat: there’s a set of beliefs, not often defined specifically but clear enough in general, to say this is what evangelicals have been committed to when it comes to beliefs.  Here he sketches David Bebbington’s quadrilateral, and I would say this has become now standard form for defining evangelical beliefs. What is this heart beat?

 

1. Conversionism: evangelicals believe a person must be born again to be a Christian and that means they have made a personal decision at some time.

 

2. Activism: this isn’t so much social activism as it is evangelistic and missional activism.

 

3. Biblicism: The efficacy and primacy of the Bible is characteristics of this movement. It’s the source of theology and beliefs. Difference of interpretation is fine, but it is legitimate difference in reading the Bible. Traditions are fine but must be rooted in Scripture.

 

4. Crucicentrism: the atoning death of Jesus, the atonement (not often defined but leaning clearly toward substitutionary atonement), as well as a cruciform life. Hence soteriology is central.

 

There is dispute about which of these four is the most important, or which gets primacy … I tend to think today it is #1 while others think #3.

 

That’s the first heart beat. The second one comes from Randy Balmer’s lucid little book The Making of Evangelicalism, where we are treated to a sketch of four transitional events, and these events then define the make-up of evangelicalism. The heart beats, then, beat together and you must hear all of these beats.

 

1. Between the first and second awakenings, from Edwards to Finney, salvation went from an act of God upon a passive individual to a choice by humans who were active.

 

2. In eschatology there was a shift from more amillennial and postmillennial theories toward premillennial and dispensational eschatology, that combined with withdrawal from society and [along with it, withdrawal from] social and ecological concerns.

 

3. Fundamentalism broke away from liberalism and evangelical/fundamentalism began to develop its own institutions outside the prevailing mainline culture. Concerns with scientific evolutionary thinking was part of this.

 

4. The rise of the Religious Right formed a new heart beat: Fundamentalism withdrew from culture and society while the Religious Right re-entered the public sector with vigor and with strong theories of how America should be run.

 

Some more heart beats can be heard if one listens gathers around Neo-evangelicalism, the Baby Boomer Church Growth Movement, Post-evangelicalism, the Spiritual Formation Movement and the Emerging Church Movement. Yes, each of these groups is on the Village Green — calling others to listen and calling out others and wondering aloud what this is all about.

 

- Neo-evangelicalism stems from Carl Henry’s call for fundamentalism to quit separatism and reenter the public fray and to do so with intelligence, relevance, and evangelical faithfulness.

 

- The Baby Boomer Church Growth Movement, rooting itself in folks like Finney and Moody, sought to combine social sciences, heart felt needs, charismatic personalities, and upbeat church services to create current American mega-churches. Seeker churches then used marketing skills to make it happen.

 

- Post-evangelicalism became, if I may, a prophetic critique of the stuff going on here: too much individualism, lack of ecclesiology-and-discipleship, megachurch [gatherings] break down intimacy and fellowship, and premillennialism was insufficient.

 

- The Spiritual Formation Movement focused on spiritual disciplines, tied into personal transformation and a return to the great spiritual classics of the church: Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Larry Crabb, Gary Moon, John Ortberg… etc. This ties together psychology and spirituality into an inward transformation emphasis.

 

- Emerging Church: here his focus is McLaren, Pagitt, Jones, et al… and sees a gradual emphasis and move into postmodernity’s impact on the faith, on the church, and on the need for local church ministries.

 

The heart beats reveal evangelicalism is in flux and there is a profound re-aligning of spiritual values for many who were nurtured into evangelicalism.

 

All of this sets up Dallas Willard’s theology… wow, exceptional survey and it is worth buying this book just for the survey. And the book now gets going!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Past Series Links:

 

Dallas Willard: The Protoevangelical Faith of Evangelicalism, Part 2
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/09/dallas-willard-protoevangelical-faith_5.html

 

 

 

 

 

The Impracticality of Thinking that Tradition and Conservatism Must Never Change

I was sent this article over the weekend by a friend, and after reading it, thought that it promoted the kind of intellectual environment that we have been promoting here at Relevancy22 these past several years. Not many articles ago this past month (August 2013) I was saying these same things and more. And so, I wish to add Dennis Bratcher's voice with mine own to let the reader know that within the ivory towers of conservative Christianity there must be space made for present-era dialogue lest error and lost proceed apace to the church's harm.

R.E. Slater

September 1, 2013

"But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you

leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it

to a torrent of change."  - G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (chpt 7)

"I think a lack of courage among many leaders to address these issues in the past is one

of the factors in the consequences we are reaping today in the militant conservatism

seen in some organized groups...."  - Dennis Bratcher


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Change and Conservatism

http://www.crivoice.org/changeconservatism.html

by Dennis Bratcher

March 26, 2013

In many areas of the American religious scene, there are increasing conflicts between younger idealistic post-moderns who advocate changes in the Church and traditionalists (of any age) who want little or nothing in the Church to change. While the roots of this conflict are complex, related to shifts in culture, fresh ways of thinking, and changing technology, it is not especially a new problem. Even Jesus ran into opposition from traditionalists who tried desperately to hold onto traditions while he advocated reforms to both ways of thinking and practice.

One difference today is that new communication technologies accelerate the agitation for immediate changes to institutional structures and established ways of doing things, inconsistencies between theological ideals and practice, or even traditional ways of thinking. And that creates an impatience with the rate of change. The danger this produces within the Church when combined with postmodern ways of thinking is a risk of destructive fragmentation as younger church people give up on the traditionalists as outdated and irrelevant, and the traditionalists give up on the younger people as abandoning the Faith.

In many cases, both traditionalists who want the status quo, and advocates of change, have the best of motives. Many traditionalists see changes as threatening the truth of God, and understand that the stability of that truth within the Church is threatened by change. Yet, I have talked to many twenty-something and thirty-something Church people and pastors who sincerely desire changes in order to better express the Faith in a culture that has significantly shifted how it views the world and life in the past twenty years. So the problem is not just a "right" and a "wrong" side. The issue is how do we live together as people of God without continually fragmenting into groups dominated by self-interest rather than united as the Body of Christ.

Some say that we just need to trust the grace of God, that he will work it all out. And yet others rightly note that historically change has not come to the People of God without intentional effort. Certainly, God's grace can change anyone. But there is a truth in Andy Warhol's comment, "They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself."

I am totally convinced that a large part of the task, even the calling, of ministers and church leaders today, especially in more conservative/traditionalist contexts, is to facilitate change in a constructive, positive way. It is not change for the sake of change but more a matter of relating Faith to a changing world. Otherwise, the way we express our Faith will be rooted in the traditionalist structures associated with an earlier time and place, and be more a testimony to our own past than a witness to other people in the present and future.

In some sense, that was a major part of the teachings and ministry of Jesus, as he called people to move out of the security created and protected by their traditionalism, and embrace a newness that was really the heart of who they had always been beyond their self-imposed insulation (for example, John 13:34, 1 John 2:7-8, 2 John 1:4; the story of Tevye in The Fiddler on the Roof is a good example of such tensions). It is risky, as Jesus well illustrates. And it takes time and patience. But that is the reality of the Church in which we live and minister today.

G. K. Chesterton wrote:

But all conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone you leave it to a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must be always painting it again; that is, you must be always having a revolution. Briefly, if you want the old white post you must have a new white post. [Orthodoxy, chapter 7]

In other words, if we do not openly and lovingly address the problems inherent in unbridled and unexamined religious conservatism/traditionalism in a rapidly changing world, we leave people to the mercy of cultural and historical changes without adequate intellectual and spiritual resources to deal with them. Rather than preserving the Faith, such conservatism will inherently deteriorate the Faith.

For example, I think a lack of courage among many leaders to address these issues in the past is one of the factors in the consequences we are reaping today in the militant conservatism seen in some organized groups (see Neo-fundamentalism). Some of these groups try to purge educational institutions and churches of any who suggest or advocate any kind of changes to ethical standards (such as suggesting that total abstinence from alcohol is an ethical choice not a law of God), who offer any alternatives to traditionalist interpretation of Scripture (such as supporting women in ministry), or who suggest that science and religion can be compatible (the old creation versus evolution debates).

That does not mean that we must be militant in return. But it does mean that we must have the courage, and the patience, to speak the truth, to teach faithfully and lovingly, to nurture people both intellectually and spiritually, to be openly honest about who we are and who we are not, and allow God to work. We must trust God that "means of grace" includes our ministry, that God can use our commitment to people and the Church as the Body of Christ (not just an institution) to transform not only individual lives but also the corporate community.

In other words, we need both the grace of God and the commitment of people who work hard at constructive positive change while they trust that grace. Zechariah was right when he gave this word to the people concerning re-building the Jerusalem temple after it was destroyed by the Babylonians:

He said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might,

nor by power, but by my spirit, says the LORD of hosts." - Zech 4:6

But then Haggai was also right when he admonished the people that there were practical things to be done to accomplish the same project.

Go up to the hills and bring wood and build the house... - Hag 1:8

Sometimes, we must work hard to facilitate the building of the Church and the Kingdom of God.  Yet it is not all dependent on our efforts.  Our primary responsibility is to live faithfully as the people of God. Part of that may be to point out the follies of the Church, as well as to recognize our own limitations and need for spiritual growth. Part of that may even to be a prophetic voice calling for change and reform, and working as best we can to accomplish those changes without destroying or damaging what we are trying to change.

But finally, we are not responsible for the change. We can cut down the trees. But it is God who builds his temple and brings about his Kingdom (see Divine-Human Synergism in Ministry). If we do not recognize that, as either traditionalists or reformers, whatever we manage to preserve or change will not be about God but about us.

Thinking about God Makes Me Just Want to Keep My Mouth Shut

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/09/thinking-about-god-makes-me-just-want-to-keep-my-mouth-shut/

by Peter Enns

September 1, 2013

Comments

Smart people tell us that the universe is about 14 billion years old and about 46 billion light years across. Light travels about 5.87 trillion miles a year (you heard me). Multiply that by 46 billion. My calculator broke. I came up with 2.70231100992E23. According to my extensive 10 second Google research, the numbers before the E are to be multiplied by 10 to the 23rd power. I think this is what God laughing at us looks like.

It also seems that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. And if that weren’t enough, now we are told there may be more than one of them.

Add to this the fact that there are billions upon billions of galaxies in our universe, each containing billions upon billions of stars. We cannot remotely comprehend these numbers. I also hear from reliable sources that stars within galaxies are millions, billions, trillions (what does it matter, really) of light years away from each other, and similar distances exist between the galaxies themselves.



expanding universe for dummies diagram



And at the other end of the spectrum we have subatomic particles–as if atoms weren’t small enough–and string theory.

If there is a God….a higher power, a supreme being, who is behind all this, I feel we should just stop talking for a minute and…well…just stop talking for a minute.

What kind of a God is this, who is capable of these sorts of things? What claim can we have to speak for him, to think his thoughts are our thoughts? Who do we think we are, anyway?

Here’s another thing that unsettles me into silence. According to the Christian tradition, this God who does literally incomprehensible things, is also willing to get very small–to line up next to us, to know us, even love us (as the Bible says again and again).

If there really is a God like this–a God who understands and controls things so big my calculator has to use a letter to get it across, who is also a God who walked among a tiny tribe of ancient people called Israelites, who allowed them to write about him in their tiny ancient ways, and who subjected himself to suffering and death (what we work so hard to avoid), well…

I think we’re talking mystery here, people.

A God who does both. There are no words for this sort of thing. Yeah, King David in the Psalms talked about praising God because of the wonders of the heavens (Ps 19), and wondered out loud how a God who put the moon and stars in their place could be bothered by puny people (Psalm 8). But David had a limited, quaint, view of “up there.” He did not, and could not, think of “heavens” as we now have to, what with our telescopes and such.

One God responsible for the unfathomably large, who is also near us. If there is such a God….

To take this all in, as far as I am concerned, is above our mortal pay grade. Those of us who believe this kind of God exists should feel put in our place, pretty much walking around with that “I can’t believe what I just saw” look in our eye.

The Bible calls this humility and awe, which, as hard as it is to pull off, is at least something we can understand.

continue to -

Index to past articles on "Particle Physics, Quantum Science, and the Universe"

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a18

 

Preamble

 

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

 

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

 

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

 

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

 

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

 

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

 

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. 

 

Article 1.

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

 

Article 2.

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

 

Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

 

Article 4.

• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

 

Article 5.

• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

Article 6.

• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

 

Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

 

Article 8.

• Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

 

Article 9.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

 

Article 10.

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

 

Article 11.

• (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
• (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

 

Article 12.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

 

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

 

Article 14.

• (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
• (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

 

Article 15.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

 

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

 

Article 17.

• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

 

Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

 

Article 20.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
• (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

 

Article 21.

• (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

 

Article 22.

• Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

 

Article 23.

• (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
• (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
• (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
• (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

 

Article 24.

• Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

 

Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

Article 26.

• (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
• (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
• (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

 

Article 27.

• (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
• (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

 

Article 28.

• Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

 

Article 29.

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

 

Article 30.

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.