“In Sum: To be human is to be in conflict, to offend and to be offended. To be human in the light of the gospel is to face conflict is redemptive dialogue. When we do that, it is God who does it. When we do that, we demonstrate that to process conflict is not merely a palliative strategy for tolerable survival or psychic hygiene, but a mode of truth-finding and community building. That is true in the gospel it is also true, mutatis mutandis ("things being changed that have to be changed”), in the world.” (pg. 13 Body Politics)
Author John Howard Yoder’s concludes the first chapter of Body Politics (“Binding and Loosing”) with a wonderful summary statement that is obvious to me after 10 years of church ministry, yet is a wonderful reminder. The timely reminder simply states that as people of faith we will disagree or have conflict with one another. Yoder’s statement has a lot of credence when we look at the early church and its various faith/social disagreements that occurred with regularity. Much of the New Testament – Gospels, Acts, Epistles -are dealing with conflict between people of faith. In addition, a broader view of scripture including the Old & New Testament it is easy to see the continual conflict between God and humankind as well as continual conflict between the people of God amongst themselves along with its enemies.
In addition to scripture, our church history is also a witness to conflict – The Great Schism 1054, 16th Century Reformation, 17th Century Age of Reason/Enlightenment and today's Postmodernism to name a few. This isn’t meant to imply that all denominational or congregational disagreements are of the same merit, some disagreements are indeed frivolous. But the fact remains as Yoder indicates, conflict amongst the people belonging to God is to be expected and seen as a complimentary necessity in maturing and growing the body (and individually) into becoming more like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Our Lord speaks clearly of the model in Mathew 18.
One could argue that if people of faith within the church are predominately “agreeing” amongst one another (or in our church relationships) we are most likely avoiding mature conversations of substances in the name of so called “peace”. In his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. embraced a two-tiered definition of peace, arguing that negative peace is the false assumption that where there is no outright conflict, struggle or war that there is peace and unity. However Dr. King correctly noted that having no war doesn’t mean you’re not a prisoner of fear or a prisoner of hate. Such tension or unspoken secrets remain though silenced (often with the threat of force). Far too often this is how we function in church and in this life. Dr. King challenged that our goal or our desire should be towards positive peace that constitutes justice, truthfulness and honesty that will result in conflict but over time will produce true unity as Jesus prayed in John 17 within the brotherhood and sisterhood of Christ.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Anabaptist Theology in Face of Postmodernity - Quote Summary
Much of the theology of Western Christendom has accommodated violence and war, and has done so in such a presumed universal fashion that even peace churches barely recognize it. ("Anabaptist Theology In Face Of Postmodernity" pg. 68)
From my perspective as an Anabaptist who affirms peace as part of the full Gospel message of Jesus, Weavers book and specifically these words at first glance are easy to affirm. Indeed, a quick historical look one would be hard pressed to disagree with Weaver’s assessment that the Christian Church is a place that “accommodates violence and war”. According to Weaver it is because of this misunderstanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that that we who represent the historic peace churches are in desperate need of a fresh theological starting point beyond those articulated by the Constantine influence Reformers. All of whom it is important to note, according to Weaver have misappropriated the Gospel message of peace. As a result, we who value the peace understanding must be “set apart” in search of a purer theology that organically originates from the soil of peace.
However a second glance of Weavers book, I admit I am somewhat troubled by his overall message. The first reason is that he segments the message of Jesus only to be understood in the light of the New Testament and more specifically the Gospels. It is almost as if the rest scripture, specifically the Old Testament is null and void (this has been tried before in history). It is obvious to me as to why he doesn’t speak into the Old Testament. It is in the OT that we find God along with violence and war, all of which for us Anabaptist is a challenge to reconcile. In no way am I implying that our peace understanding cannot be resolved within the OT, it surely can, but his lack of reflection into the OT and to a lesser extent the Epistles is major oversight on his part. Secondly, portions of his book is spent suggesting that the early founders of Anabaptist as well as modern Anabaptist theologians co-opted a ”theology in general” approach which has left us today with a tainted or weaken gospel of peace. I would suggest his that his “purity logic” in rejecting the “theology in general” when applied to Jesus himself is invalid. Jesus Christ said himself said that:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17 (NIV)
Here we find Jesus just prior in the Beatitude’s speaking words of peace, reconciliation, restoration, etc in the midst of religious leaders who deemed violence as the norm and says in essence that I am not bringing you something “new” rather I am “fulfilling” or perhaps “clarifying” what you misunderstood. Jesus didn’t throw away the “theology” that came before his earthly dwelling; rather he built upon it and redefined it for the entire world to see. Neither did Jesus limit his earthly ministry to peace, his ministry include amongst other things healing, discipleship, prayer and service. Weaver in my estimation dares to “violently” throw away those theologians who have come before him all in the name of peace. I find it rather ironic that the “Prince of Peace” chooses to hold onto the Law and the Prophets (or fulfill), some of whom were outright violent and war mongers, yet Weaver deems this approach as “ecclesiological ambiguity.” Do we do away with the OT as easily as Weaver suggests that we do away the Protestant Reformers?
Thirdly I would suggest that the name in which we now self-identify ourselves is also helpful in this discussion – Anabaptist. Our name given to our forebears was given in criticism of what our accusers recognized or feared the most in the “radicals”. As “re-baptizers” the early Anabaptist understood that the whole Bible was the norm and applicable to everyday living, including baptism. I concur with Weaver that a classic Anabaptist understanding would also include that though the whole Bible is normative, we find in Jesus the perfect application of God’s desires in this life. My point is this. Weaver revisionist assertions as it relates to Anabaptist position on peace fails to recognize that our (though derogatory) namesake speaks volumes into what was the primary emphasis of the early Mennonites; re-baptism not peace. The peace position obviously came out of a people faithful reflecting on the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but we cannot ignore the obvious emphasis on baptism compared to peace at the very beginning of this Radical Movement.
Lastly I would suggest that Weaver’s assertions throughout the book regarding the Atonement under the guise of Postmodernity are borderline heresy. In my estimation Weaver struggles with the wonderful possibility that Anabaptist and non-peace theologians can come to common ground or agree to disagree on areas of theology. For Weaver, the concept that we can agree on one area of theology yet deviate on the issue of peace is beyond his grasp of appreciation. For Weaver peace is the first and final measurement of faithfulness in the people of God. I affirm that peace is a fruit, but it isn’t the only fruit of the spirit given to us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
From my perspective as an Anabaptist who affirms peace as part of the full Gospel message of Jesus, Weavers book and specifically these words at first glance are easy to affirm. Indeed, a quick historical look one would be hard pressed to disagree with Weaver’s assessment that the Christian Church is a place that “accommodates violence and war”. According to Weaver it is because of this misunderstanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that that we who represent the historic peace churches are in desperate need of a fresh theological starting point beyond those articulated by the Constantine influence Reformers. All of whom it is important to note, according to Weaver have misappropriated the Gospel message of peace. As a result, we who value the peace understanding must be “set apart” in search of a purer theology that organically originates from the soil of peace.
However a second glance of Weavers book, I admit I am somewhat troubled by his overall message. The first reason is that he segments the message of Jesus only to be understood in the light of the New Testament and more specifically the Gospels. It is almost as if the rest scripture, specifically the Old Testament is null and void (this has been tried before in history). It is obvious to me as to why he doesn’t speak into the Old Testament. It is in the OT that we find God along with violence and war, all of which for us Anabaptist is a challenge to reconcile. In no way am I implying that our peace understanding cannot be resolved within the OT, it surely can, but his lack of reflection into the OT and to a lesser extent the Epistles is major oversight on his part. Secondly, portions of his book is spent suggesting that the early founders of Anabaptist as well as modern Anabaptist theologians co-opted a ”theology in general” approach which has left us today with a tainted or weaken gospel of peace. I would suggest his that his “purity logic” in rejecting the “theology in general” when applied to Jesus himself is invalid. Jesus Christ said himself said that:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” Matthew 5:17 (NIV)
Here we find Jesus just prior in the Beatitude’s speaking words of peace, reconciliation, restoration, etc in the midst of religious leaders who deemed violence as the norm and says in essence that I am not bringing you something “new” rather I am “fulfilling” or perhaps “clarifying” what you misunderstood. Jesus didn’t throw away the “theology” that came before his earthly dwelling; rather he built upon it and redefined it for the entire world to see. Neither did Jesus limit his earthly ministry to peace, his ministry include amongst other things healing, discipleship, prayer and service. Weaver in my estimation dares to “violently” throw away those theologians who have come before him all in the name of peace. I find it rather ironic that the “Prince of Peace” chooses to hold onto the Law and the Prophets (or fulfill), some of whom were outright violent and war mongers, yet Weaver deems this approach as “ecclesiological ambiguity.” Do we do away with the OT as easily as Weaver suggests that we do away the Protestant Reformers?
Thirdly I would suggest that the name in which we now self-identify ourselves is also helpful in this discussion – Anabaptist. Our name given to our forebears was given in criticism of what our accusers recognized or feared the most in the “radicals”. As “re-baptizers” the early Anabaptist understood that the whole Bible was the norm and applicable to everyday living, including baptism. I concur with Weaver that a classic Anabaptist understanding would also include that though the whole Bible is normative, we find in Jesus the perfect application of God’s desires in this life. My point is this. Weaver revisionist assertions as it relates to Anabaptist position on peace fails to recognize that our (though derogatory) namesake speaks volumes into what was the primary emphasis of the early Mennonites; re-baptism not peace. The peace position obviously came out of a people faithful reflecting on the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but we cannot ignore the obvious emphasis on baptism compared to peace at the very beginning of this Radical Movement.
Lastly I would suggest that Weaver’s assertions throughout the book regarding the Atonement under the guise of Postmodernity are borderline heresy. In my estimation Weaver struggles with the wonderful possibility that Anabaptist and non-peace theologians can come to common ground or agree to disagree on areas of theology. For Weaver, the concept that we can agree on one area of theology yet deviate on the issue of peace is beyond his grasp of appreciation. For Weaver peace is the first and final measurement of faithfulness in the people of God. I affirm that peace is a fruit, but it isn’t the only fruit of the spirit given to us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
