Reading Yoder

Christian Attitudes, Ch. 3

2010-02-25T10:50:00.001-08:00

In this chapter, entitled “The Pacifism of Pre-Constantinian Christianity”, John Yoder examines the nature of the Church’s attitude toward war and the state up to the end of the second century. Yoder’s reasoning for giving a thorough account of the early church’s view on war is not, contrary to the usual assumption about the free church’s attention to the early church, that the early church is the ethical normative position from which to start. Instead, Yoder argues that the early church’s position and view of war and the state is important for us to understand because this community of faith read and interpreted scripture in the context in which it was written. This means that the ethical paradigms and moral norms that come out of this early Christian community arise out of a firsthand encounter with texts and traditions that were written at that same time.

Yoder identifies a three-fold dynamic to the early Christian rejection of warfare. The first part of this rejection stems from the early Christian rejection of idolatry. There were overt practices of pagan worship, within the Roman military institution; practices that the early Christian could not participate in on account of their allegiance to Christ’s Lordship. The second part of the early Christian rejection of war relates to the rejection of oaths, as commanded by Christ. Yoder helpfully notes that the swearing of oaths was part of a cultic practice, with the oath formula invoking pagan deities. Also, the Christian rejection of swearing oaths had everything to do with their new-found freedom in Christ, which they were not permitted to hand over to someone else in a binding oath. The oath, in this view, was seen as giving one’s allegiance to someone other than Jesus Christ. The final aspect of the early Christian rejection of war relates to their abhorrence of bloodshed. It is Caesar who sheds blood, but for Christians, as for Jews, blood includes the sacredness of life. Yoder is careful to note that the early Christian rejection of war does not stand or fall on any one of these reasons alone. In fact, the early Church did not develop a systematic moral theology regarding the ethics of war. Nevertheless, Yoder argues that these three parts formed a coherent position in the early Church.

Yoder spills most of his ink, in this third chapter, on the early Church understanding of and relation to the Roman government at the time. Yoder notes that the early church had no reason for rejecting the existence of a Roman state. In fact, the early Church held to the teaching of Jesus to ‘give to Caesar what is his’ and also to Paul’s teaching in Romans 13, in which the state is viewed as an instrument that God brings into order through providence. Yoder notes that some shifts begin to occur in the late second century. Second or third generation Christians, who never experienced persecution, began to understand their surrounding society as less hostile, and so they became less critical of the Roman authorities.

The fourth century brought with it what Yoder calls a ‘creeping empire loyalty’. Christians still refused to participate in violence and war, the swearing of oaths, etc, “but the church was moving in that direction.” (50) A key part, in my view, is that Yoder notes the early Church’s acceptance of the national boundaries of the Roman Empire as the ‘borders of the world’. Prior to this, the Church saw the entire known world as part of its mission field; yet with increasing loyalty to Rome, the early Church began to associate the borders of its mission field and its identity with the Roman borders. Yoder notes that a lot of this change in perspective connects with the increasing numbers of Christians that operated in the upper echelons of Roman culture and politics. This change in social location also affected the ‘insides’ of the Church, especially in terms of its willingness to discipline the body according to earlier moral guidelines. This chapter offers a more careful analysis of what really changed between the situation of the early pacifist church and the church that was willing to ‘grab the reigns of political history’ after Constantine.

Christian Attitudes; chapter 2

2009-06-18T22:20:00.000-07:00

Refining Our Typology on the Ethics of War
"My concern is to increase the clarity and objectivity of the historian's analysis." Rejecting the notion of an un-biased objective approach; Yoder nevertheless is a hound for tight logic and objective criteria of judgment and analysis. Instead of poorly interpreting events in order to fit them cleanly into simple categories, Yoder chooses to clearly dilineate the typologies represented by varieties of groups of thought. In this chapter, Yoder examines the different types of thought regarding the ethics of war and peace. He names four basic types: 1) the blank check, 2) pacifism, 3)Holy War, and 4) the justifiable war. Yoder uses 'justifiable' as the title for the common Just War theory because it was never thought that war was just but only more or less justifiable given the other options. War was always a lamentable activity, but under certain circumstances it was thought, by some Christians, to be justifiable. Of course, the rest of the book complicates these four neat typologies. In his book Nevertheless, Yoder spends a lot of time looking at a whole variety of pacifisms based on a religious outlook. Nevertheless, these four major types appear throughout history, according to Yoder. He helpfully notes that the three non-pacifist streams of thought come from different socio-political and spiritual origins. The blank cheque approach coming from Aristotle who speaks about the state being its own master. The Holy War position stems from the OT figure Joshua; in this tradition, it is the Lord who is a warrior and calls his people to battle for the sake of his honor and glory. The justifiable war tradition stems, in Yoder's view, from Cicero and the Latin legal tradition in which justice is measured by certain objective criteria. These three origins have, in certain times, become blurred together in a kind of theological-political synthesis. Yoder places Augustine within this context in which blank cheque, just war and holy war language all find a suitable place. Beside this stream of non-pacifist thought runs a pacifist stream of Christian theological tradition with its roots in the teachings of Jesus and Martin (of Tours?) than Waldo through to the Anabaptists and Quakers. Although, for most of the book, Yoder looks most carefully at those who argue for a justifiable war tradition, the holy war and blank cheque models are always in the background - mostly because this is the usual default position of a society that doesn't carefully articulate its moral thought on the justice of warcraft.

Christian Attitudes; chapter 1

2009-06-18T22:08:00.000-07:00

Introduction
Yoder begins his book by reminding us, his readers, that this book comes out of his work in teaching a course on the subject at Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries. The lectures were delivered mostly to Mennonites studying for ministry. This book aims to be a work of historical theology - that is, a history of ideas. Yoder, right from the get-go, is honest about his bias as a pacifist Mennonite. But instead of seeking a way beyond to some cleaner objectivity, and also avoiding the pluralists acceptance of complete incommensurate diversity, Yoder seeks to deeply engage the history of ideas of those he happens to disagree with. Yoder's reading of the history of ideas regarding war, peace and revolution is an attempt to read, as charitably as possible, those accounts of Christian moral thought; for Yoder, "the corrective for bias is to engage in a process of testing by conversing with people who hold another view." (22) As it becomes clear in the final chapter, Yoder is attempting to do something that most theologians and ethicists refuse to do nowadays; and that is to take one's interlocuter's theological position seriously in their linguistic world and moral consciousness.

New book!!

2009-05-12T13:23:00.000-07:00

I just bought the newly re-edited book Christian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution by Yoder. It was just published by Brazos Press. I plan on journaling my thoughts and responses while reading it this summer. I'm so excited, like a kid with a new toy.

a precarious peace...

2007-12-08T22:17:00.000-08:00

In this book Chris has offered a truly 'final' reading of Yoder. Huebner concludes that Yoder's theological (non)methodologism is best described as patience and embodied as non-violent witness. Also, in observing Yoder's non-sectarian "ad-hoc" dialogical engagements, Huebner has "ensured" that the actual particular context and content of Yoder's work is somehow secondary to the style with which Yoder approaches theological engagement. Huebner has offered us Yoderology when Yoder himself was concerned with theology, Jesus, the Church, etc...

Perhaps, in the future, Huebner will explore theology in the "clearly" framed Yoderian (non) methodology "secured" in his book. To a book that foundationalizes Yoder's non-foundationalism, I express gratitude for the conversation, even as I regret the sense of closure on Yoder's work... a kind of closure that is elsewhere expressly rejected by Huebner himself.

Polyglossia

2007-06-26T09:26:00.000-07:00

Herald Press have just begun a new series of books with the called Polyglossia: Radical Reformation Theologies.

Here is what they say about the series:

A series intended for conversation among academics, ministers and laypersons regarding knowledge, beliefs and the practices of the Christian faith. Polyglossia grows out of John Howard Yoder's call to see radical reformation as a tone, style, or a stance, a way of thinking theologically that requires precarious attempts to speak the gospel in new idioms. It is a from of theological reflection that blends patient vulnerability and hermeneutical charity with considered judgment and informed criticism. The books in this series will emerge out of conversations with contemporary movements in theology, as well as philosophy, political theory, literature, and cultural studies.

The first book in the series is Chris K Huebner, A Precarious Peace: Yoderian Explorations on Theology, Knowledge, and Identity. Here is the blurb:

A Precarious Peace poses a formidable challenge to mainstream accounts of Christian pacifism. In place of an approach which seeks effectively to implement and distribute a peace whose content is known in advance, Chris K. Huebner develops a radical understanding of peace that interrupts and puts into question many of our most deeply held convictions, including much of what is offered in the name of peace.

John Howard Yoder developed an understanding of "non-constantinianism" and a vision of Christian discipleship as involving a cultivation of a "readiness for radical reformation." This book explores the possibility of a specifically Mennonite theology, problems of knowledge, and questions of identity from a peaceable perspective of unpredictable gracious gifts given and received rather than a violent longing for possessions owned or territories protected.

This book presents an interpretation of Christian pacifism that turns upon the call to live out of control. Key conversation partners include Rowan Williams, John Milbank, Karl Barth, two Mennonite grandmothers, Canadian cinematographers, radical reformation, and most of all, John Howard Yoder.

I received my copy of the book today and will be sure to post a review when I have worked my way through it, at first glance it definitely looks like a book worth reading carefully.

Discipleship and Political Responsibility

2007-05-25T12:51:00.000-07:00

Shawn over at Lo-Fi Tribe has a post on Yoder's Discipleship as Political Responsibility here. It is worth checking out.

Body Politics

2007-05-11T02:51:00.000-07:00

Over on the Perth Anabaptists website they have posted a full synopsis of Yoder's Body Politics. You can find this here (pdf file).

Nevertheless 12

2007-03-30T13:18:00.000-07:00

Chapter 9 - The Pacifism of the Virtuous Minority (p. 77-83).

The regenerated do not go to war nor engage in strife. Spears and swords of iron we leave to those, who, alas, consider human blood and swine's blood of well-nigh equal value.
Menno Simons, 1539.

Yoder begins by stating that since Constantine it is "normal reflex in everyone's ethical thought to assume that, when we ask about right behavior, we are seeking a standard to apply consistently to all people" (p. 77).

The pacifism of the virtuous minority calls this axiom into doubt. Whilst Yoder does not use the phrase the approach of the virtuous minority is that stands in contrast to the 'ethics of the lowest common denominator' that is that which the approach Yoder gives to Constantine represents. Yoder is quick to point out that the virtuous minority approach is not necessarily a sectarian one; examples can be found throughout christian history within mainline Christian practice. Yoder demonstrates this tendency by reference to the "evangelical councils" in Roman Catholicism:

Within Roman Catholicism there is the ancient tradition of the "evangelical counsels." These guidelines hold up before people the call to a level of morality distinct from that of merely keeping the law. Poverty and loving one's enemies are things that not everyone has to do, but it would be fine if some did. All are invited to live at this level, but not all are expected or required so to live (p. 78).

Although it is an the higher-calling mentality is present in many christian traditions - even if only implicitly in some cases. Yoder cites protestantism in this regard - it is perhaps not surprising that Yoder draws attention to believers' Church ecclesiology in his discussion.

the believers church, constituted of adult members who have joined the community by their own choice, holds that all Christians must be committed to full discipleship. But it is not meaningful to expect the same quality of life from others who have not made that commitment, and therefore improper to seek to enforce it for others. Non-Christians cannot equally draw upon the resources for forgiveness and regeneration, the guidance of the Spirit, and counsel of fellow believers. Christianity is for everybody; but Christian ethics is a normal, natural expectation for Christians (p. 79).

The Axiom
Underlying the pacifism of the virtuous minority is is the understanding that "morality finds its context in a freely covenanted response to the call of God" (p. 79-80). By freeing morality from a universal ethic then one can see an action as good in itself and distinguishable from universal principles; a moral act is determined by its quality of conformity to the goodness of God. Yoder continues that only "if we recognize that ethics is not generalizable are we free to use in a wholesome way the concept of virtue, of good that is intrinsic to certain kinds of action or character" (p. 80). In this mould violence is a vice to be avoided and nonviolence a virtue to be cultivated.

Shortcomings
Yoder argues that one there is one serious flaw in this virtuous minority approach, this being its triumphalist and sectarian emphasis. A minority can easily become irresponsible. It is often the case that the minority group"approve by implication, for most people, the very position [it] rejects for [itself]" (p. 81). This can lead to a situation whereby the special status of the virtuous minority can keep the rest of society at peace with its own ethical compromises.

This problem can be also be seen in the rise of denominational pluralism and the epistemic ambiguity concerning truth that this may be said to have brought about. Concerning this phenomenon Yoder writes concerning Christian pacifism since the 1930s that nonpacifists

have been willing to concede to the pacifists a prophetic or vocational role. Nonpacifists grant this recognition on condition that pacifists accept always being voted down by those who have to do the real (violent) work in the world (p. 82).

Yoder summarises this criticism of the pacifism of the virtuous minority with the observation telling conclusion that it "agrees that a position faithful to the gospel cannot be practiced within real life" (p. 82).

Nevertheless
There are however points to commend this approach.

i) The New Testament vision of the Church was a minority morality, whenever the church seeks to live in missionary nonconformity this will likely be the case.

ii) This minority position avoids a puritanical approach that seeks to impose a standard they do not have the resources (material and spiritual) to achieve.

iii) This approach can be beneficial in gaining a listening audience. Yoder cites Dorothy Day's witness at Vatican II as evidence of this.

Nevertheless 11

2007-03-11T11:10:00.000-07:00

Posted by Richard.

Chapter 8: The Pacifism of Utopian Purism (p73-76).

There is no way to peace: peace is the way.

Abraham J Muste

Recent history in ethical thought, especially that arising from the 1960 has exhibited a greater awareness of the "Utopian" language of counterculture in the New Testament. This elevation of a primitive [as in primitive church] ethical stance is opposed against pragmatism in ethics which is, Yoder argues, often corrupted in the process of trying to achieve its ends. To illustrate Yoder gives the following example:

A society which hates its enemies and, although it says killing is wrong, punishes killers by killing them - thereby telling them that they were right - is so twisted that it is unworthy of defense. We cannot get from here to the Holy City by compromise or by calculated risks, but only by a leap of faith (p. 73).

This pacifism of utopian purism is a pacifism that rejects compromise. To those who may argue from a position of effectiveness and a result [end] orientated ethic this variety of pacifism says the "Did not Jesus say that it was when we forsake all for the kingdom that everything else will be added for us?" (p. 74).

This position is best categorised as a"purism". This should not be read as a claim of guiltlessness or perfection but rather is one which invokes the notion of the categorical imperative. Or, as Yoder puts it: "let my behaviour be governed by the criterion that I must do only that which, if everyone did it, would bring a new order" (p. 74).

The Axiom

The axiom from which this approach proceeds is that "we are all made for a city of love and that we cannot enter it through the gates of concession and compromise" (p. 74). Until this city of is realised then there can be no rest, andUtopian ideal cannot be realised through compromising in the historical contingencies of life but by "confessing a faith which makes the future real in symbolic ways today".

Shortcomings

Yoder notes that to some this Utopian purism can look "like a new form of the monastic retreat, living parasitically on the very system which it rejects" (p. 75). It can seem that this ideal society existing apart and in judgement from the presentsystem is, - rather than being a sign of a countercultural life, - a support for existing systems. Yoder writes: "do you not confirm the present system in its fallen implacability just as much by refusing to talk with it as by working with it?" (p. 75).

After All

Whilst it is true that the pacifism of the Utopian purist does involve a leap of faith Yoder argues that it should not be thought that this is just a leap that the purist minority take. War too is Utopian "both in its promises it makes for the future and in the black-and-white way of thinking about the enemy, which it assumes" (p. 76).

Nevertheless 10

2007-03-04T10:46:00.000-08:00

Posted by Richard

Chapter 7 - The Pacifism of Proclamation (p. 62-67)

As [the church] encountered this call historically, not only in Jesus’ words, but in his death and resurrection, so also the church can make this message effectual only by passing it along in her deeds of authentic witness.
- Hans-Werner Bartsch

Yoder begins my noting that most of the pacifisms encountered thus far are ones based on the rightness of an action. In particular, “the propriety of an act is seen as measured against the demands of the law, or the rightness of an act is seen is its social effects” (p 62). This approach however misses a major part of the Christian vision, that of proclamation. Specifically the “the understanding of the total Christian life as an aspect of the proclamation of the Kingdom of God“ (p. 62).

Whereas many ethical approaches are based on what is seen to be possible in the here and now the introduction of ethics based on the proclamation of the Kingdom of God offers a new possibility: “we henceforth cease to calculate what is normally, humanly feasible. We no longer resign ourselves to less than the best” (p. 63).

When turning this ethic of proclamation to the question of war Yoder concedes that in an attempt to communicate or proclaim the love of God it may be possible to argue that this could be done with a measure of force. However, it is not possible that this is done by threatening or taking their life.

The Axiom
The pacifism of proclamation is rooted in the Protestant idea that the proclamation of the Word of God “is the true motor of history and the locus of its meaning” (p. 64). Yoder quotes Hans-Werner Bartsch from Communio Viatorum 5 again at length:

The Sermon on the Plain proclaims salvation unconditionally, without respect for human possibility. Christians experienced this proclamation historically in the encounter with the risen Lord, in that through this encounter the rescuing of the lost by God’s intervention was attested. Now the church passes on this same assurance in her preaching. But just as this affirmation historically came to the church not only in the word of Jesus but in his death and resurrection, so she can pass on this proclamation with historic effectiveness only by behaviour which has the character of a witness.

The attesting of salvation is not a supplemental assignment, added as a second requirement to that of the acceptance of salvation itself only occurs in the act of the testimony which passes it on. Therefore, the church, to the extent to which she is true to the church of Jesus Christ, which names Jesus as Lord, is directed to the neighbour. The social significance of the church is given in her commission to witness, because this commission necessarily includes behaviour towards the neighbour.

Shortcomings
Yoder begins by noting that this approach in modern theological thought (Yoder cites Barth and Bultmann). However, this approach which makes sui generis demands which cannot be tested by an outsider to the faith whilst in point of fact being quite a humble position - (it denies to the theologian "the right to call God to account for the strangeness of his ways of speaking" (p. 65) - can seem arrogant, provincial, and proud.
Secondly, Yoder complains about the generality of the pacifism of proclamation. The pacifism of proclamation, as the above quotation highlights, affirms the unconditional possibility of loving one's neighbour. The problem with this, however, is that "it makes this statement without reference to case and details" (p. 66). In other words, it offers no guidance on a case-by-case basis. What is one to do in the context of a political conflict, is it always to be neutral or is one to take sides and, if so, how is one to do this nonviolently (and how in doing so does one love all neighbours on both sides).

Nevertheless/After All
Yoder does applaud however the recognition that acts of mercy and grace do have a Word dimension. Similarly all wars do convey a message and this message, often spoken by the Church, is not always consistent with the historic Word Batsch outlined.

Nevertheless 9

2007-01-06T15:51:00.000-08:00

Chapter 6 - The Pacifism of Prophetic Protest (p. 56-61).
Yoder begins by quoting Philip Berrigan:

How, the asked, could I be calm about a six year sentence for pouring blood on draft records? ... I had thoroughly considered the possible consequences before choosing civil disobedience twice - Philip Berrigan, from prison 1968.

Unlike many of the other pacifisms Yoder describes the Pacifism of Prophetic Protest is dominated less by the ethical choice of whether to go to war in a particular instance but also the desire to communicate the inequality/injustice inherent in the existing state of play. Yoder explains:

their decision about an action is not weighted only by whether as a deed it is permitted or forbidden by the law of God or love, but also what it says at a given point (p. 57).

The Underlying Axiom
Underlying this approach is the conviction that word and action are inseparable. More specifically, whatever one does there is meaning attached. Hence to merely opt not to adopt the violent approach but remain silently in the corner watching others do what one would not is itself a communication, it is not one that the prophetic pacifist would approve of, however. Prophetic pacifism, unlike the pragmatic versions discussed earlier is not primarily concerned with publicity (although there is often a good dose of this in it as well) but with a need to emphatically and publicly reject the idolatry that often underpins violent conquest.

Shortcomings
Yoder notes two main shortcomings with the pacifism of prophetic protest.

First, there is the potential for ambiguity in situations of collective prophetic protest. While the actions performed may be the same, the meanings ascribed to these actions may vary among the performers and the likelihood of misinterpretation of intentions is greatly increased by witnesses to the act. Yoder does not cite this but the debate about flag-burning is instructive (see here and here). In one context burning a flag can be to one person an expression concerning the erosion of freedom in their country, to another it is an insult. To each the intended message is lost in the process of the other person's interpretation.

Second, the strategy of prophetic protest requires that those protesting have a strong sense of moral certainty. Yoder writes that "self-righteous claims to a unique prophetic authority are almost necessarily implicit when one takes such a stance" (P. 59). This moral certainty can very easily turn into a arrogance that is a type of violence towards those who are the protest's recipients.

Nevertheless
Despite the above criticisms Yoder commends the pacifism of prophetic protest for its emphasis on the "moral meaningfulness of deeds". The conformity of the majority to the practises of worldly rulers is a powerful , if unintended, support for those same policies. In an age where talk has been cheapened somewhat (not a bad thing in itself as this is because of increased freedom of speech) much of what is said is filtered out, actions however do speak.

After All
The pursuit of war is itself an act that, like prophetic protest, communicates something. And, like prophetic protest war is also open to multiple interpretations. What is different however is that in one the protest is to change policy in the other it is often to prove a point to a wholly different respondent. Therefore Yoder closes by suggesting that "To the extent to which the warlike action is successful, it can communicate to only one other public. We crush Vietnam or Iraq for the sake of what must be proved to the Chinese or the Russians or the Burmese or ourselves about the American Character" (P. 60-61).

Nevertheless 8

2006-12-03T05:27:00.000-08:00

Chapter 5 - The Pacifism of Nonviolent Social Change (p. 52-55).

The power at the disposal of a nonviolent person is always greater than he would have if he were violent. There is no such thing as defeat in nonviolence.
- Mohandas K Gandhi.

Yoder begins with the observation that within ethical systems "success" can sometimes be a considered factor. Sometimes this is a minor one assisting in choosing permissible ways of applying fundamental principles, on other occasions the effectiveness of the event is the predominant factor to be considered. The Pacifism of Nonviolent Social Change is, suggests Yoder, important for both of these ethical categories.

Taking his cue from the nonviolent experience of Martin Luther King and Gandhi Yoder suggests that their success is one that must be reckoned with for those for whom "effectiveness" is an ethical consideration (such as would not be the case for the Pacifism of Absolute Principle).

Yoder begins by noting that the ideal of the Pacifism of Nonviolent Social Change has two main advantages over violence as a tool for social change.

i) Nonviolent social change possesses a moral dignity that some may suggest violence does not. It is also one that is open to all, especially the poor and weak. This moral dignity also has a worthiness that is in fact separate from whether the act concludes successfully or not. In addition, the renunciation of violence robs the adversary and oppressor of the moral pretext for violent retaliation or greater injustice.

ii) Nonviolent social change has the advantage of not being burdened by the 'revolutionary' burden in areas such as Latin America where revolution is a less trusted means of social change because of its history of failure. Furthermore, such is the antipathy to revolution as a result of the US's anti-communist surveillance that even if the local conditions were to suggest a good chance of success for revolution North America would undoubtedly counteract. Such Resistance is not as likely in a nonviolent scenario (argues Yoder, I am not so sure).

The Axiom
The underlying axiom of this variety of pacifism is people need a good reason to refrain form violence. The history of successful nonviolent social change is evidence that this approach can succeed as well as, and possibly better than the use of violence.

Shortcomings
Yoder outlines two main shortcomings of this form of pacifism:

i) Nonviolent social change is probably only effective in situations when one can appeal to the conscience of the oppressor. Yoder refers to Gandhi's appeal to British self-respect or the civil rights leaders referring to the constitution. However, Yoder asks (p. 54) "can it be effective against sadists and brutes? Can it be effective against a regime in which oppression is carried on with a good conscience?"

ii) There is also an argument that the pacifism of nonviolent social change suffers from an ambiguity in its relation to the moral status of violence. Is violence always, or even normatively, wrong or is it to be avoided merely because nonviolence is more likely to be efficacious? This can lead to some troublesome conclusion.

If the reason nonviolence has been does because of its promised/probable success then does this still leave the resort to violence as a viable and justifiable avenue in the event of nonviolence's failure to achieve its ends. On the other hand, if the pacifism of nonviolent social change is adopted on principle (eg. violence is always wrong) how seriously should the claim of success in the attainable future be taken? In this case if it maintains the rhetoric of attainable success it could, suggests Yoder, be "an expression of selfishness" especially if practised by a particular social/ethnic/religious group.

Nevertheless/After All

Nonviolent action is often the only accessible recourse for oppressed peoples or if violent options are available it is often the only morally responsible action for a minority. It also in some circumstances has a powerful political power in opinion forming of political decision makers.

The problem of mixing the categories of 'absolute obligation' with pragmatic effectiveness is present in justifications of warfare (of intra-state violence)* as well as the pacifism of nonviolent change. Paired side by side with warfare it may well be that whatever the motivational ambiguities this type of pacifism is still preferable to warfare.

*Yoder in his closing section talks only of warfare rather the generic political violence, I think this is a mistake and clouds the issue somewhat.

Nevertheless 7

2006-11-26T13:43:00.000-08:00

In this section Yoder builds offers a second caveat to his parenthesis on Programmatic Political pacifism in addition to the brief discussion of appeasement.

B. The Sobriety of Prudential Calculation (p. 49-51).
Yoder notes that debates over war often turn out to suggest seems to disregard the negative overall consequences that pacifism can entail for s/he is committed to a policy of inflexibility even if proceeding to conflict could, in the long run, reduce the number of lives lost. The pragmatic pacifist however can engage in such prudential calculations. The pragmatic pacifist argues that the effects of violence must be included into the evaluating ethical calculation. Yoder writes that one arguing in this way can suggest that "the evil of violence corrupts even the relatively righteous intentions of the relatively less-guilty party to a social conflict" (p. 49). From history Yoder shows that the very act of violent warfare can have negative unforeseen consequences, a phenomenon that Reinhold Niebuhr described as irony.

The Axiom
Yoder (p. 50) writes that in this approach "it is axiomatic that the essence of political sobriety is coming to terms with the fact that the problem is people themselves". Noble intentions are often corrupted in their implementation, particularly in situations such as war there the implementation is devolved to numerous other individuals.

A Shortcoming
The denial of absoluteness is, argues Yoder, also prudential pacifism's weakness. The lack of firm conviction may cast doubt in the minds of some but especially when the war is seen to be likely to last only a short while and the consequences of not acting seem to be significant then prudential pacifism's power is severely reduced.

Nevertheless/ After All
In spite of the shortcomings the realist appreciation of the unintended consequences of is a profitable that mitigates against the earlier common criticism about the policy of appeasement. Every approaches consequences (both pro and anti-war) are unknown; it here then that the relevance of the prudential pacifist's arguments come into their own:

it can not be assumed to have been proved in advance of time that projected results can justify a given destructive behaviour in a game with several players. But not only in logic is the proof inconclusive. The record likewise denies everyone's pretensions to determine the course of history by pushing with all one's armed might in what one is sure is the right direction (p. 51, emphasis in original).

Nevertheless 6

2006-11-26T10:23:00.000-08:00

Part 6 of a series of posts working through John Howard Yoder's Nevertheless: Varieties of Religious Pacifism.

Political Pacifism: A Semantic Parenthesis (P. 43-48).

In this parenthesis Yoder elaborates on the previous section's discussion of the Pacifism of Programmatic Political Alternatives by offering a further discussion of two varieties of this programmatic pacifism.

1. Responsible Appeasement
As Yoder notes, the term appeasement has a distinctly negative tone, reminding us of the strategies of Neville Chamberlain for example. Yoder notes however that appeasement is integral to the life of a responsible government where negotiation and compromise is the mark of good governance.

The Axiom
Fundamental to this approach is the war is a no-win situation, war is a worse evil. Therefore, even while the sacrifices engendered by appeasement may be significant they are still preferable (so the theory goes) to the inevitable suffering that war would cause.

A Shortcoming
The shortcoming of this appraoch is that there is one type of scenario in which appeasement is not wrong (according to programmatic political standards). This is when the aggressor is not satisfied (or plain disregards) the concessions made to them and political actors responsive to majority opinion may (/will) conclude that postponing conflict was an error.

Nevertheless
Yoder highlights that the negative interpretation of the term appeasement suffers because its failure is read into history after the event. The prime example is the 1938 Munich Agreement. When we read into the term the idea of appeasement this creates it is automatically a negative one. Moreover, the appropriation of the "not another Munich" to international situations has Yoder suggests "turned out to be a singularly unstatesmanlike case of misplaced moral absolutism" (p. 48).

Nevertheless 5

2006-11-11T09:46:00.000-08:00

Chapter 4 - The Pacifism of Programmatic Political Alternatives (p. 38-42).

The only thing that's been a worse flop than the organization of nonviolence has been the organization of violence.
- Joan Baez

As the chapter title indicates this type of pacifism is one that imagines alternatives to violent solutions to domestic and international disturbances. Proponents of this approach that while imagination is required this is not a unrealistic dream but rather that the alternatives proposed are realistic, achievable and perhaps most importantly more logical than their violant alternatives. This logical mindset is highlighted in Yoder's description of this political pacifism being programmatical.

The Underlying Axiom
The pacifism of programmatic political alternatives has as a foundational axiom the conviction that whatever the scenario the recourse to violence is not a judicious choice because there are always preferable political alternatives. This type of pacifism was a major one in the lead up to the Second World War, especially through its identification with liberal protestantism through the medium of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. As a barbarity of Hitler's regime began to be appreciated it was increasingly felt that all the alternatives that such pacifists offered were an insufficient approach.

Shortcomings
Yoder contends that the pacifism of programmatic political alternatives is often guilty of a certain naivety. One of the main ways this is evidenced is in a tendency to place too much trust the trustworthyness of international leaders. A case in point, although this is not cited by Yoder is the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928. The stated aim of the pact, which to my knowledge has never been rescinded, was to renounce "war as an instrument of national policy". The trouble with such ideals however is what if some nations refuse to be constrained by such rules (in case anyone is in any doubt there have been a few breaches of the pact since 1928 by the 11 signatories!)

Yoder's second criticism is a specifically theological one. Yoder asks whether the possibility of realistic success (programmatic political alternative) should be the determining factor in a Christian ethic when the example of Jesus seems to been variance with this approach. Yoder writes (p. 40):

[Christian] pacifism needs a rootage in the meaning of the cross of Christ. The way Jesus took certainly was not a visibly effective strategy for reaching any worthwhile shortrange political goal.

Nevertheless
Whatever the shortcomings of this type of pacifism Yoder is still clear that this pacifism should be praised for its determination not to retreat into the sectarian withdrawal of other pacifisms. In short, the pacifism of programmatic political alternatives is one that encourages its adherents to 'get their hands dirty' in the midst of fractious environments prone to lead to violent conclusions. Yoder suggests that while it may be the case that this pacifism can exhibit a measure of naivety this is comparable to the same tendency in the military complex adversary and that perhaps if similar resources were put to the aid of these programmatic political alternatives then the results would likely be more than comparable in their success to the military options.

After All
Yoder follows up this line of comparison with the military complex. I am reminded of Oliver Kamm's criticisms of left-wing peace activists when Yoder writes (p. 42):

Often the nonpacifist accuses the pacifist of being optimistic or unrealistic about sin [Kamm argues therefore that they support totalitarianism]. But it is the military strategists who make the most sweeping assumptions about the righteousness of their own leaders, their capacity of their control of their subordinates, and their wisdom.

Nevertheless 4

2006-10-21T07:44:00.000-07:00

Chapter 3 - The Pacifism of Absolute Principle (p. 32-37).

Yoder begins this chapter with a quote from Lactantius of Bithynia (ca. 310):

When God prohibits killing, he not only forbids brigandage, which is not allowed even by the public laws, but he warns us not to do even those things which are legal among men. And so it will not be lawful for a just man to serve as a soldier ... nor to accuse anyone of a capital offense, because it makes no difference whether you kill with a sword or with a word, since killing itself is forbidden.

The pacifism of absolute principle in contrast to the previous example does not take context as a valid contributory factor in the decision of whether to take up arms. Rather, it takes as a revealed given that violence is not to be a valid option. Yoder cites the Catholic theologian Johannes Ude's belief that the command "thou shalt not kill is ... an absolute which admits of no exceptions" (p. 33).

The Axiom
This approach has as a foundation that humanity is not capable of saving itself but should rely on revelation for guidance. This approach can also apply for non-theists although the unquestionable moral directive will no be a divinely revealed truth but another moral source.

Shortcomings
Yoder begins by pointing out that such approaches can quickly be caricatured as naive and legalistic and its advocates as being self-righteous. This however is not really a major problem for the position because it is a problem that lurks behind all ethical positions that aim to present an ethical position to be taken by a whole community.

There are however two real shortcomings of the pacifism of absolute principle. First, the absolute principle is always transmitted through the imperfect means of human language. Yoder for example notes that " as people give and receive communication, even it it be in the name of God, the message is subject to shadings of meaning." As a result when viewed from the perspective of human appropriation the absolute principle is by virtue of differing interpretations rarely, if ever, absolute.

Second, this approach says little as to how one should act when two so-called moral absolutes collide and cannot both be maintained in the same situation such as, for example, a situation in one has to choose not to lie or not to kill.

Nevertheless
In spite of the problems Yoder is clear that the language of absolute principle "is the most reliable in social settings where it keeps the other party to a covenant from bending the rules" (p. 35-36). It is also the case that however much some ethical systems focus on individual choices the individual's beliefs have been informed by a wider context in which principles are accepted.

After All
Much ethical formulation does in practice revolve around absolutes. In war such absolutes may be "courage, comradeship, freedom, a particular preferred form of government, the direction of history, and the integrity of territory" (p 36). The consequences of these absolutes is often far more barbaric than a naive appropriation of "thou shalt not kill" would ever be. So Yoder (p 37) concludes that:

As an absolute, " Thou shalt not kill" is still immeasurably more human [another absolute?], more personalistic, more genuinely responsible than any competitive absolute: "Thou shalt not let Uncle Sam down," "thou shalt fight for freedom," or, Never give up on the ship." In the age of Abraham or Moses, the blanket prohibition of killing freed the Hebrews from the scourge of infant sacrifice. Even so today, such a person-centred absolute prohibition may well help free us from other idolatries."

Nevertheless 3

2006-10-14T13:25:00.000-07:00

Parenthesis: Exceptions and How to Weigh Them (p 29-31).

Yoder follows on from his discussion of the pacifism of the honest study of cases is what has been considered a variant of Just-war pacifism. Yoder begins by stating that many use the term pacifism as a designation of those who reject war yet do not reject violent personal self-defence. The reasons for pacifism are varied but the reason for accepting as justifiable violent self-defence is "in this one exceptional close-to-home case a microcosm of the Just-was argument". (Note: Yoder has written a short study of this scenario in What Would You Do? which I may try to blog through soon).

This position side-steps the often cited question as to whether one would defend a close relation or friend under attack because it can be claimed that war is different, not only in scale but in kind. This is, Yoder admits, a compelling caveat entertained by noted religious leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr, Thomas Merton and Gandhi.

A Shortcoming
Yoder suggests that a shortcoming of this exception is that it can sacrifice intellectual rigour. If one's pacifism is rooted in a moral generalisation (for example: do not kill, always love your enemy) then making an exception at such a point where it "most prototypically applies".

Nevertheless
In spite of Yoder's concerns about this approach Yoder is clear that the distinction between war and personal self-defence is a significant one. If this were applied it would end war for, as Yoder notes there is very little in war that is justified in the defence of innocent individuals from direct hostile attack.

Nevertheless 2

2006-10-13T17:14:00.000-07:00

Chapter 2 - The Pacifism of the Honest Study of Cases (p 22-28).

Some decades ago war may have been an instrument an instrument which, although it was brutal, could be used to resolve intolerable international tension; but today, owing to the fact that it cannot be controlled, it has lost even this shred of utility ... It has become so colossal that it can no longer exercise any sensible function.
Emil Brunner, The Divine Imperative

This above quote, which Yoder opens this chapter with, is he argues of this second variety of religious pacifism. Elsewhere Yoder terms this approach "selective pacifism"; as the name suggests this approach is a contextual one. Every potential conflict must be weighed on its own merits. The main points of consideration are: i) the cause for which a war is fought, ii) the authority in whose name it is undertaken and, iii) the methods used. It is (I presume) this third point that has let to Brunner's pacifism.

The Axiom
The pacifism of the honest study of cases is a form of just-war thinking. The reason there is some hesitation to label this with just-war thinking in general is the tendency of for this to become in the mind of some to be the Church's sanctioning of war in general. Yoder outlines the axiom of the pacifism of the honest study of cases as follows:

every ethical decision must be made concretely. One must not sell out in advance, either to the decision made by a government in favor of war, or to an absolute principled pacifism adopted prior to the exact measurement of the exact form of war (p. 23).

The pacifism of the honest study of cases is therefore the honest appropriation of just-war thinking as a source of critical engagement with the contemporary political climate. Yoder cites recent Just-war theologians such as Emil Brunner, Karl Barth and Paul Ramsey as examples of those who have begun to critically question recent wars on the basis of this 'selective pacifism'. With the potential destructive potency of contemporary warfare Yoder argues that this approach has become more pronounced:

When we evaluate methods, certain characteristics of modern war [Yoder cites among other factors biological warfare, the nuclear threat & Carpet bombing] are leading an increasing number of persons to a negative conclusion about its admissibility ... All that has changed in recent years is the nature of the wars to which the standards are to be applied (p. 24).

Shortcomings
Yoder continues by offering what he considers to be ** shortcomings to this approach:

i) Whilst this approach seeks to honestly measure a war's justification there are no objective measures by which this can be done. For example, What constitutes a military target? How much freedom is worth how many lives? What is a legitimate? These issues are at the very heart of the considerations used to measure a war's justification and hence the lack of an answer to these questions is a significant obstacle.

ii) Yoder's second shortcoming is not a problem with the just-war approach as a theory but rather with how it is understood. Yoder's concern is that the fact of the existence of a just-war theory excuses some from applying it carefully or, as he puts it some "think the fact that there exists a doctrine of the just-war constitutes a justification of war in general" (p 25). This in spite of the fact that understood properly the exact opposite is meant, namely it is a denial that war can ever be generally justified.

iii) The pacifism of the honest study of cases falls into the trap of the equivalence of this approach to that of a 'righteous policeman'. In short, a position of authority is assumed and the only answer is to discover at what points this power can be justly exercised. The problem with this idea Yoder suggests is that the position ignores the importance of the cross in Christian ethics; the cross, argues Yoder, "stands for the serious possibility that the only fate for followers of truth or righteousness in a given situation might be crucifixion, defeat, powerlessness" (p 26).

iv) The final shortcoming Yoder lists is one external to the just-war theory and internal logic itself. Taking the view of a nonpacifist Yoder suggests that the selectivity that is key to this form of pacifism can be seen to illegitimately mix religion and politics using religion as a mere front to cover political disagreements (particularly in issues such as conscientious objection).

Nevertheless
For all the shortcomings Yoder is clear that this approach is preferable in its clear emphasis the very limited scenarios in which war can be justified. In addition, the theory is to be deemed positive in its delineation of a standard of moral judgement separate from and superior to the state. Finally, Yoder notes that the Just-war tradition is the dominant theology of war in the universal church and as such has a significant value if applied correctly if only for pragmatic values; it is the language most likely to be heard and hence responded to. Also, because it is a political theory it is useful in side-stepping accusations of unreal hopes that can sometimes be ascribed to other absolute pacifists.

Nevertheless 1

2006-10-12T09:54:00.000-07:00

This is the first of a new series working through Yoder's Nevertheless: Varieties of Religious Pacifism, Herald, (1992). Posted simultaneously here and over on my main blog. I am keen however that any comments/discussions take place here on Reading Yoder.

Chapter 1 - The Pacifism of Christian Cosmopolitanism (p 15-21)

The first variety of pacifism Yoder surveys is that of Christian cosmopolitanism (also referred to as the Pacifism of pastoral peace). Yoder sets the basic assumptions of this approach in his opening quotation of Pope John XXIII (Pacem in Terris): " The true and solid peace of nations consists not in equality of arms, but in mutual trust alone". Yoder begins his summary with the example of a Christian pastor in a small village who is naturally concerned not only for the thoughts and behaviour of his own church but also the life of the whole community.

In the event of a dispute between two members of the community (whether church attendees or the pastor will urge the parties to meet , dialogue and negotiate and ultimately to be reconciled. In going so the pastor will not necessarily seek to adjudicate between the claims but simply serve as a facilitator towards the moment of negotiation.

The pacifism of Christian cosmopolitanism is essentially a globalised version of the above scenario. The church is a global institution and hence its parish is likewise global. The aforementioned Pacem in Terris is an example of this approach which Yoder suggests is a common Catholic approach. Yoder sums up this approach as follows (p 17):

[The Pacifism of Christian Cosmopolitanism] does not begin with the fundamental question of the morality of war, nor does [it] attempt to decide in a given conflict which party is in the right. [It] simply says in a pastoral way that if people are ever going to get along together, squabbling is no help. This type of moral concern is an expression of the pastoral attitude of the church toward all of society, including unbelievers. In other words, it is a test and an expression of the genuine catholicity (universality) which the church claims. The church confirms, by so speaking, that it is not a national or a provincial community.

The Self Evident Axiom and Criticisms
Yoder continues by stating that this form of pacifism builds upon a "self-evident axiom" namely that cosmopolitanism requires the emphasis on our common humanity as both "a fact and a moral imperative". The pacifism of Christian cosmopolitanism acts on this moral imperative by using its position of inherited authority to influence world players to 'put down the gun and come to the negotiating table'.

Yoder does offer two reservations concerning this pastoral peace approach to pacifism:

i) this very public face of Christian witness runs the risk of presenting Christianity as a "set of moral teachings which can be understood independently of their rootage in the faith?" Also it can have a reductionist tendency, because of the emphasis on avoidance of conflict as the main goal there can be a move to sidestep real substantive moral issues for a peace understood as the avoidance of conflict by compromise.
ii) Yoder adds a second shortcoming in arguing that this approach can become superfluous when its advice has been ignored too many times or when nations have ceased to think of their enemies as belonging to the same society/humanity (therefore, the axiom cited above is undercut).

Nonetheless, despite these shortcomings the pastoral peace approach is useful as a counter to religious provincialism in which Yoder argues "a church identifies with and thereby morally absolutizes a given nation". Cosmopolitan pacifism has some of the same weaknesses as religious provincialism but where it betters it is in his catholic (ie. universal) orientation.

Broadening the base of inclusivity
In closing Yoder offers a useful argument on the rationale of this approach. Yoder offers the seemingly innocuous comment

Even the most convinced advocate of military violence still applies this inclusive "catholic" attitude within his own country. The Pentagon would not approve of having armies along both sides of the Potomac River and along every state line as the only way to keep peace among the fifty states. Such a renunciation of violence between the several provinces of a nation is taken for granted even by the military. So the real issue is not whether it is possible or wise to renounce violence within a given realm but whether the realm in question must necessarily be the nation or could possibly be a larger segment of the world.

Indeed, Yoder states that this scenario extends to some national borders (for example, USA and Canada). There is a presumption in the above examples that even though disputes between these states or countries may arise violence is not going to occur because of a recognition of their shared commonality. Christians argues Yoder should not be tied to the provincialism implied in these scenarios, they are rather "committed to positing as their homeland the larger commonality of humankind, rather than the territorial unit." (p 21).

My Postscript
There are obviously a lot of issues arising from this presentation but I would like to briefly highlight two. I take it as a significant advantage of this approach that it is clearly focused not on a sectarian withdrawal from conflicts. Its emphasis on the catholicity of the Church means that it considers "the world its parish" and therefore addresses crises as they are head-on rather than theoretically throwing stones at the greenhouse from afar but avoiding any positive actions to avert conflict. However, there is an issue (probably unavoidable) whereby the Church's ability to facilitate negotiation because of their perceived moral authority is enabled because of a history of authoritarianism that negated this very ideal. Perhaps in their contemporary role as peacemakers the church can redeem this.

While the case for catholicity may give reason for global engagement it is noteworthy that there is no appeal to the gospel of Christ, and the peaceableness inherent in it. How is the Church's approach to this issue distinguishable from the catholicity of human rights advocates saying precisely the same and similarly is it right not to adjudicate in conflicts; sometimes one does not deal with two equally wrong parties sometimes one nation's actions are more reprehensible than the other.

Preface to Theology: The Gospels (Chapter Two)

2006-04-29T15:54:00.000-07:00

In this second chapter, Yoder moves on to discuss the relation of the 'kernel' message found in the sermons in the book of Acts to the gospel narratives. Early in this chapter Yoder distinguishes between types of material that can be differentiated by their relationship to the story of Jesus.

There is the 'uncritical' or 'primitive' material "that does not involved self-criticism, analysis, self-consciousness" (p.61) This material consists of stories and sayings of Jesus gathered by persons for the sake of reporting information; their own theological bias is not as important as what they are saying about Jesus. This material reports the 'Christology of Jesus", which are things that Jesus said about himself. There is also, in this material, the "Christology of the gospels". Here the thought of the gospel writers affects how they tell the story, or at least which stories they decide to including in their version of the story.

Yoder takes a look at this 'primitive' material as a way of finding what was being said about Jesus before the 'theologians' of the early church began applying the church's Christology to new problems. Yoder organizes this material by grouping it into the different titles that are given to Jesus by himself and also by the writers of this 'primitive' material. The titles include: Son of Man, Servant, Teacher, Prophet, Jesus, Messiah/Christ, Son of God, and Lord.

The two titles for Jesus with which Yoder spends the most time is Son of Man and Lord. The former because of the amount of times that Jesus uses this title for himself. Yoder suggests that the latter title - the title "Lord" - is "more important than all of the others in the early church" (p.71) and that "this was the strongest thing that the early church could say about Jesus" (p.73)

The title "Lord" "is a position... to which Jesus has come by virtue of what happened in the death and esurrection" (p. 73) Readers of chapter one will notice how often the title "Lord" was used as a title for Jesus; in those instances there was also a connection between this title and the death and resurrection of Jesus. Yoder makes the connection between the life, the obedience-unto-death, and resurrection of Jesus and his Lordship at the right hand of God.

The Lordship of Christ is a theme that runs through Yoder's work from beginning to end. Yoder's pacifism finds its enablement in the reign of Christ. Christ's Lordship is the authority that makes movement towards unity in Yoder's ecumenism possible. And Yoder's "pluralism", his"generous orthodoxy" or his "methodological non-constantinianism" or his "non-foundationalist epistemology" is tempered by his dynamic proclamation of Christ's Lordship over the cosmos; a lordship that is jealous and generous at the same time. Yoder's comments in this chapter, especially in discussing the title 'Lord' is crucial to understanding Yoder's approach to Jesus and Christian theology in general.

Preface to Theology: The Apostles' Message

2006-04-26T11:40:00.000-07:00

I have been invited to be a contributor to this blog which I am very thankful for. Before specifically offering a quick synopsis of the short opening chapter of Yoder's Preface I will offer two brief asides.

Preface is in fact not so much a book but a collection of lecture notes from years of teaching a course at a Mennonite seminary. It is accordingly replete with recommended study questions and (admittedly out of date) source materials. If anyone out there has never studied theology (or is about to start) I think getting hold of this book would be a really good place to start as in one volume it covers some issues of biblical studies and the key period of historical theology (development of the creeds) that could be studied on their own.
On a more personal level I would offer a warning, Yoder is in a real sense a biblical theologian and as a result of a fundamentalist religious background the bible has always scared me. Therefore, in commenting on Yoder's approach to the bible please bear in mind that I am far from being adequately conversant to really critique. (I will have a lot more to say when it comes to other issues more traditionally theological topics like ecumenism and atonement- I promise)

Anyway, back to Yoder!

Marco's previous post said that Yoder's approach is one that centers on the primacy of Christology in theological method. This is true; however, Yoder's choice of opening chapter is interesting in that he does not specifically start with the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) which give us the 'history' of Jesus' earthly history but with the Book of Acts. In other words from the start Yoder links christology to the Acts of the Witnesses (= the Church).

Concentrating on the following passages (Acts 2:14-39; 3:13:26; 4:10-12; 5:30-32, 10:36-43 and 13:17:41) Yoder creates a list of 27 commonalities that appear in at least some of the passages before highlighting five that he suggest constitutes the core of the "primitive kerygma". These are "Jesus died", "God raised Jesus from the Dead", "This is the Promised Age", "We are Witnesses" and the call to "Repent" and "be forgiven".

Yoder then briefly discusses the sermons in Act 14 and 17. These sermons were addressed to a Gentile audience and there was other commentary on providence and creation. However, as before Yoder again suggests that the "centrality of Jesus remains" (p58).

In summing up the apostles' message Yoder (p58) writes:

It seems to be firm in this original testimony that the apostles were concerned to communicate a story and not a metaphysic. They were not argumentative about the ultimate nature of reality or about what set of words fit best to explain everything important ... They were throwing themselves completely into the meaning of the event as its witnesses and they were inviting their hearers to join as participants in the same story.

The opening Chapter of Preface is short. However, two points are of interest to me

In starting with the Apostles message Yoder is from the start involving christology in the witness of the Church (aka Witnesses). - Of course, the gospels are not disinterested objective narratives for they themselves are products of the believing community it seems to me that by starting with Acts Yoder is accentuating this approach.
Related to this point Yoder points out that even in the "apologetic" approach of Acts 17 the focus was not on abstract ideas of theology but was in essence a narrative theology. As quoted above the apostles were, according to Yoder "throwing themselves completely into the meaning of the event as its witnesses".

Preface to Theology: Introduction

2006-04-24T17:44:00.000-07:00

The following are several quotes from the Introduction to Yoder's Preface to Theology; I will also include some of my own comments of reflection on these passages.

In his introduction, Yoder explains that the material in his book is a 'preface' to Theology. He writes,

"What is the place of a preface in a book? The preface is not the same as the whole book. It is not a summary of the contents of the book. It is not even the table of contents. It is not a blurb, although it might be nearer to that. It is neither a Reader's Digest summary nor a capsule version of the book... A preface gives the reader an impression of why the rest of the book might be found worthwhile or interesting, suggesting in what attitude it would be appropriate to read it and why it was written. A "preface" describes the objective of an effort rather than simply the terrain that it covers. Its intention is in no sense completeness. It rather suggests what the reader might expect and the mood with which one might approach the study." (p.37-38)

The book is not a study of theology but a look at how the study of theology has happened since Jesus. Yoder sheds light on the meaningfulness of theological activity over time; not providing answers so much as asking how the church has handled itself as it encounters challenges.
Yoder chooses Christology as a focus for his study.

“The choice of Christology, instead of…God or… sin as a centre is not arbitrary. It was not pulled out of a hat. Part of the reason is that the earliest Christians themselves thought about Christology the most. By following that vein through history, we are never far from the issues that mattered then the most.” (p.39)

This book is classic Yoder in the sense that Yoder frequently asked questions about the history of a topic he was engaged in. He seldom, if ever, approached a topic as though it were a problem appearing out of thin air. Yoder was historically sensitive in his engagements, noticing how the theological problems we are interested in relate to how questions and issues have been dealt with, or ignored, in the past. That he wrote a “Preface” is not surprising, because it was his way of training students to think carefully about how we engage in theology and its challenges. An activity that requires a constant eye towards history and how that history can inform the present and shape the future.
That Yoder focuses on Christology is also not surprising; you could say that about all of his work in a general sense. Yoder invites his readers to take a look at the early church’s theologizing, noting that this journey will always keep us very close to language about Jesus and its implications for the rest of theology.

Practical "Youth Min" considerations...

2006-04-22T23:39:00.000-07:00

On page 404 of Yoder's Preface to Theology he writes, "To unbelieving audiences the apostles told the Jesus story. To committed audiences they talked about what it means to be a follower of Jesus." This part made me wonder if I have been doing part of my youth ministry all wrong. You see, I divide my youth group up into age categories; the "junior" youth are kids from grades six to eight, and the "senior" youth are kids from grades nine to twelve. Yoder's comments make me wonder whether or not I should have incorporated a drastically different distinction. Perhaps I should have had a 'believers' group and an 'unbelievers' group; preaching to latter group while teaching the believing group. The distinction between believing and unbelieving may seem awkward and 'harsh' in our society and in our 'nice' churches, but it may have been much more helpful in me being able to adequately address the situations of my youth. Ahhh!!! and now I'm resigning from youth ministry... can someone please tell me I didn't completely screw up!!!???

Preface to Theology: Discussing Nicea and Chalcedon

2006-04-13T21:15:00.000-07:00

I've been reading the chapters on these two councils and have found them quite helpful in seeing these dogmatic debates in their historical, very 'human' contexts. I was raised to never question the Trinity because questioning that part of faith would somehow place my own faith in great peril.
It is refreshing to read about how the early church struggled with this aspect of faith and that it wasn't crystal clear for them all; there was honest struggle about the nature of Jesus and his relationship to God. Being spoonfed Trinitarian theology since I was small, made me struggle with accepting the scriptures as legit; instead of the other way around.
Our dogmas should not get in the way of us hearing and understanding the words of scripture; they should aid us in that holy endeavour. Although I do see the usefulness of Trinitarian language in making sense of the complete canon of scripture; I wish I had been taught to read history Yoder-style instead of being told to accept the Trinity as such, without realizing the historical struggle which gave birth to its usage.
My teachers, and others, might say that it is insignificant in which way you learn about the truth of the Trinity, as long as you learn it; I would strongly disagree. I think that my earlier fundamentalist leanings stemmed from this approach to learning theology and Christian truth; namely, that Christian doctrines are taught from a list of things to know and memorize. If all of this had been taught using a historically contexualized approach, helping me to see the honest struggles with faith and text in the early church, then I would have realized that I too am invited into this historic struggle. I would have realized that the Christian faith is something that I can sink into and become engaged in, not merely accept a list of beliefs, and do's and don'ts.
Reading Yoder's Preface to Theology has given me a renewed passion to enter into this extended conversation and struggle with the church in speaking the gospel in new and fresh ways.

Join in on the conversation

2006-04-07T12:12:00.000-07:00

I decided to start a blog on my thoughts about John Yoder's writings. The following pages are my thoughts on his work in theology, ethics, ecumenism, etc...