Pendulum Swing: From Faith to Social Justice

Over the past year, I have heard several people say that every 500 years or so, there is a major shift in Christianity. Constantine's reign in 306 CE marked the church moving from a fringe religion, to eventually being a state religion. The Great Schism between Rome and the East in 1054 CE left scars in the Global Church that are only now beginning to heal. The Reformation in 1517 resulted in many divisions within the Western Church. Each of these events impacted the world in huge ways.

 Many people are suggesting that we are again in a major, the most recent example I've experienced was at Mennonite Church Canada's National Assembly. During a Young Adult Event, MC Canada Executive Director made reference to this shift, and has outlined some of his thoughts on the topic here. To help navigate this shift, the national church has assembled the New Directions Task Force to look at what the future of the MC Canada will look like, and we had some good discussion during the Assembly about it.

In a recent podcast, Willard and Dan Dyck talked about the future of the church. Willard suggested that the future of the church will be one where the church engages in issues such as Aboriginal Justice and Climate Change, and I agree, the Church needs to engage with social justice issues. It needs to in order to stay relevant, but it also needs to in order to stay faithful to the people who God is calling us to be.

From the creation of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, God has called a people to show the world around us how to live differently. The Lex Talionis Law in the Torah (an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth) was a demand for equality under the law. Where other cultures allowed those in the upper classes to severely punish those in lower classes for any infraction, the Torah limited retaliation to an equitable punishment.

With Jesus, the people of God became open to all, not just the Jews, but also the Gentiles. The message was do not conform to Rome's morals, of greed, and violence, but make Jesus your King. Peace, Justice and Love became the law written on our hearts.

As history unfolds, we see a pendulum swing. From the weakness of Christ to the Strength of Constantine, from ritual in the middle ages, to faith in the reformation, etc. But we often swing too far. When the pendulum swung towards faith in the reformation, we began to lose the importance of action. Martin Luther wanted to remove the Canon of James from the Canon, thinking that it wasn't relevant to our faith. We swung to a place where faith resulted in inaction.

The Anabaptists always spoke out against this, showing how Faith in Christ requires us to love our neighbors, remember Menno's Famous quote: "True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, it feeds the hungry, it comforts the sorrowful, it shelters the destitute, it serves those that harm it, it binds up that which is wounded, it has become all things to all people." As the world realizes that faith requires action it begins to swing in the other direction. We can't just pray about an issue, being a follower of Jesus means going out and fixing it. 

However, I have cause for concern about this swing. At some point we can/will/have swung too far. Sometimes our concern for social justice becomes more important than the reason why we seek it in the first place. Sometimes I see Mennonites go from being Anabaptist to Secular Humanists. I see us as being more concerned about the ends and not the means.

I see us neglecting our prayer lives and bible readings, casting them aside rather than realizing that they are the reason we seek after justice.

My Social justice concern comes out of my love for Jesus. I care for the other because I see that they are made in God's image. We need to remember that it was the Prophet Amos, a man who was calling Israel back to following God, who said "Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!" (Amos 5:24). As we shift towards a Christianity that is a voice for the downtrodden, let us also remember that we believe in prayer and faith.

Should we let kids watch Veggietales?

I wrote the following article for the Doxa, CMU's student newspaper, it appeared in their February edition. As always, I want to encourage discussion, I welcome you to let me know where you think I've gone wrong in the comments.




Warning: The following article may feel like you just got punched right in the childhood.

If you like to talk to tomatoes
If a squash can make you smile
If you like to waltz with potatoes
Up and down the produce aisle...

Have I got some news to you.

What if Veggietales is actually detrimental to faith formation? What if Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber have played a role in making an entire generation of Christian children callous to the dark stories with the Bible. What if they trivialize the christian experience?

An example: In the classic episode: King George and the Ducky, instead of fighting in the great pie war, King George, played by Larry, Takes a bath with one of his many rubber duckies. As he finishes a musical number he notices something far a way, a little child named Thomas in a sawed off barrel taking a bath with another duck. King George must have it so he sends Thomas, to the front lines, the generals ordered to pull back and let him get the full force of the attack. At this point Nathan the prophet arrives with a flannel-graph sheet and tells him a story of a rich man who steals a sheep from a poor man. George is sad, but is given the opportunity to make up for his transgressions because Thomas miraculously survives, shell-shocked. But George gives him a royal bath, and everything is alright. Therefore learning the lesson that we need to consider others' feelings as well.

This light hearted story about a King and his love of toys, is really the Story of David and Bathsheba with any of the gory details removed from it. In fact, it sends messages that are actually harmful.

First of all Bathsheba is replaced by a toy, she is literally the king's play thing. She loses all agency. She is less than human. An object to be done with as David pleased. While she doesn't have much agency in the biblical narrative, she is stripped of even the dignity that comes with being human, or even vegetable.

Secondly, Veggietales trivializes the consequences of David's actions. In the Biblical Narrative, Uriah is killed when the other soldiers pull back. He died because the King decided his wife was attractive. There is no cutesy reconciliation at the end of this story. Bathsheba is pregnant, but the child dies.

During the Nuremburg trials, Hannah Arendt watched as Nazi's talked about how they struggled getting the trains to run on time, it never occurred to them that they were the trains shipping Jews to concentration camps. She described this as the Banality of Evil. People are able to do hideous things by breaking them down into trivial things, like pulling a lever, or pressing a button.

So when a person is thrown into the lion's den and the next morning is seen eating pizza with the animals, we lose the fact that Daniel was willing to die instead of stop praying. When slurpies are being thrown from the walls of Jericho we ignore the fact that real lives were lost. We have made the harsh stories in the gospels banal. Suddenly adultery and murder are not such a bad thing because it is just a rubber ducky.

So what do we do? Obviously I am not saying that children are ready to hear every story that is in the bible. We do not let children watch an 18A movie, it is okay for children to learn the darker stories when they are mature enough to understand. When that day comes we should sit them down and talk about the dark reality that the stories have, not trivialize it within catchy musical numbers.

What do we do when the Bible is "wrong"?

The following is an essay I wrote for my "Who is Jesus?" class.

Historical Scholarship and the Church

Tim Wenger

BTS-4150

04/11/2013

            Historical Jesus study has provided a lot of benefit for the church. It has given us a better picture of who our first century Lord really was. However, in the process, scholars sometimes claim that certain stories, or teachings (or even whole aspects of his life) do not actually originate from Jesus but are themselves fabrications of the early church. This incongruity between history and the gospels could be seen as troubling for our faiths. Through primary research as well as through review of the use of secondary literature this essay will explore the benefits and problems of using historical Jesus Scholarship within the church and the impact it has on faith formation. And show that a well-rounded biblical faith is not dependent on authenticity of the individual pericopes but dependent on an understanding of the scriptures which takes into account the dynamic traditions that make up scripture, and yet is deeply rooted in the overarching message of the Bible.

Introduction of Primary Sources

            Marla Langelotz is the lead pastor at Sargent Avenue Mennonite Church in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Through an exchange of e-mails she told me that whenever she prepares preaching or teaching, she always tries to do some historical research. Sometimes this is just using a bible commentary, but when time permits she also tries to use other sources as well. She writes that if she uses “enough resources, there is usually some difference in opinion regarding some aspect of most Biblical texts.”[1][2]

            Dan Epp-Tiessen is Associate Professor of Bible at Canadian Mennonite University, also located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. While his focus is Bible, he has also taught practical theology classes such as Preaching. Dan also has experience as a pastor. I sat down with Dan and we talked about Historical-Critical analysis and the church. He too has noticed that depending on the topics and scholars he is reading that there are differences between a biblical story and what scholars say actually happened. He also notes that this occurs within the biblical narrative itself. Within the Gospels, “there are tensions in terms of how they portray Jesus, and how they portray specific incidences in his life.”[3]

            As I work with this topic, I will return to Marla and Dan as they provide insight to how Historical Jesus studies impact the church.

The Benefits of Historical Jesus Study
            While I have noted that there Historical Jesus studies might be challenging for Christian faith, it is also important to note the gift that Historical Biblical studies, in general and Historic Jesus studies specifically has been for the church.

            Biblical studies have done a lot in terms of opening up the biblical narrative for studying. Because of the historic view of biblical inerrancy, as pastors came across sections of the bible that were not easily reconcilable with each other, they would often feel as though they couldn't talk about these passages, so while the official canon remained the same, the parts of the bible that were used consistently got smaller. With the introduction of critical biblical studies in the modern era, the possibility of mistakes in the bible, and the attempt to reconcile these passages, texts previously inaccessible became open to use within the church.[4]

            Included in these previously inaccessible texts were the Synoptic Gospels. According to William E. Hull, their incongruities and lack of overt theology, meant that preachers saw them on as “historical sources for the life of Jesus” and little more. Instead they focused  on the Gospel of John and the Pauline Epistles. It was scholars who slowly retaught the church that the synoptic gospels were primarily made out of preaching materials about Jesus' life which were fashioned into a profoundly theological form.

            If there wasn't debate within the Quest for the Historical Jesus, about which parts of the Gospels interpretation of Jesus were accurate, and which were not, then we wouldn't have any of the new information about Jesus that we have discovered in recent years.[5]

            The quest for the Historical Jesus has opened up his world. There are now quests for the historical Galilee, and for the historical Judaisms of Jesus' time.[6] Scholars are constantly trying to better understand the world Jesus lived in. For Marla, it is important to give her congregants a sense of what it was like to hear and see Jesus. She writes “This, then becomes a window for me and them to view more fully the wisdom and teaching about the mystery of God and how that impacts us today”[7]

            According to Francis Watson, while it may question specifics about who the Historical Jesus was, it is also important to note that the empirical evidence the Quest for the Historical Jesus has uncovered demonstrates that at a very limited level, the Gospel is rooted in “empirical historical reality”. It is comforting to know that the Gospel is based on some empirical knowledge. There was someone named Jesus who lived in Judea and Galilee. It acts as a control as the church “seeks to portray Jesus” while Jesus is more than just an “empirical figure of history” he is “not less than” one.[8]

            It acts, according to Schwietzer, to keep us accountable to who Jesus was. As we try to interpret what the faithful response to our current contexts would be, Historical Jesus studies remind us that our response is rooted in concrete forms. If we do not pay attention to the truth about who Jesus was, and what he taught, then he becomes empty of meaning, and will only serve to  justify our own actions. Historical Jesus studies keep us rooted in the historical record.[9]

            As one anonymous editorial writes “to deny the importance of history to faith is to deny divine activity within the arena of history.”[10] If we don't believe that our faith is rooted in history, then we are denying that we believe God can be at work in the real, historical world.

            On a very pragmatic note, controversy in biblical scholarship can be good for us purely based on the scandal it creates. Even the highly controversial claims about who Jesus was, or was not, serve a purpose. The high-profile claims about the bible being wrong result in increased attention to the bible. The old adage “all publicity is good publicity”[11] comes into effect. People are interested in the claims of Christianity and have become willing to read the bible “with new eyes.”[12]

Limitations of Historical Jesus Studies

            The benefits of Historical Jesus studies aside, there are also significant challenges that they cause as well. The fact of the matter is that Historic Jesus Scholarship often says that many events did not occur as the Bible says they did. Often the claim is that the early church added them in to give authoritative answers to problems they were facing.

            However, it is very hard to determine which is which. According to Dale C. Allison Junior, there are only a few passages which could be claimed to obviously be secondary because they address post-Easter issues, and only a few that certainly go back to Jesus because it would be against the Church's self interest to write about them. The rest of the gospels are being debated about back and forth. One criteria of authenticity used by one scholar to authenticate some stories and disprove other stories, but then another scholar uses another just as legitimate criteria to disprove the first and the debate continues on.[13]

            This would be a concern if the writers had been trying to write modern biographies, however, as Dan says, “they're not, they are not first and foremost historians, they are first and foremost theologians, they are trying to inviting us to have faith in Jesus. They are not first and foremost trying to inform us about the minute details of Jesus life and so sometimes I know they tell stories in certain ways.” [14]

            Another concern that Allison brings up is that the criteria for authenticity used in Historical Jesus studies only authenticate (if it can even do that) individual pericopes. Human memory is much more general. We remember impressions, themes and motifs rather than the exact words or actions that occurred. As such we should be more concerned about whether or not the general principles of the gospel have been faithfully preserved rather than the individual stories. If the “big picture” is "wrong” then the details doesn't actually matter. Therefore if we deem the aspects of Jesus that would make him a“secular sage” as authentic, but deny that the major theme of eschatology (arguably one of the biggest themes in the gospels) is, then the Gospels do not accurately portray who Jesus was, and we can't use it to prove that he actually was a secular sage.[15]

            Dan says that we should not base our faith on the latest scholarly theories. Part of this is because they do not seem to have much longevity. “I'm old enough have seen a lot of them come and go”. And even when they stay, there “are multiple portrayals of Jesus, so which portrayal of Jesus are we going to base our faith on?”

            According to Watson, one of the biggest limitations of the quest for the historical Jesus is that it considers its own “interpretive paradigm” with reality itself. For them the only Jesus that matters is the one that is historically verifiable, and anything else is a “pious fantasy” that doesn't actually matter. It ignores the impression that Jesus' community of believers have of him since it is no longer verifiable.

            There therefore becomes a division between faith and history, often distinguished as the difference between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History. However, according to James D.G. Dunn it is important to distinguish between fact and data. All historical knowledge we have is data interpreted. The data may reflect the facts, but not necessarily the past is inaccessible to us today and so  the closest we can do is interpret and infer from the knowledge that we have. This means that we really don't have any access to who Jesus really was, we just have the Historian's Jesus, what they have reconstructed from data. This is why there are so many different “Jesuses” derived from the Quest for the Historical Jesus. In Fact, the historian who claims that they have found the true Jesus has in fact made a faith claim from their own interpretation of the data, it is therefore less consequential that there is a Christ of Faith and a Jesus of History, because the Jesus of History is in fact a Jesus of faith.[16]

Truth

This leads us to the question is the bible true? Most Christians would like the bible to be true, that things happen the way the bible depicts them as happening. As John Rogeson says, the fundamentalist argument, that you “have to accept the whole of the Bible as accurate or reject it entirely” does seem to  have some merit. Choosing certain parts over the other to be accurate does seem to be eisegesis, or putting your own meaning into the text.[17] However,  As I mentioned before, the importance is not whether or not the individual passages reflect historic fact, but rather it is important that they represent Jesus properly.

            Dan has two simple questions we need to ask as we read the biblical story “what are the biblical writers trying to say? Why did they tell the story this way and what are they trying to say with it?”[18] If those are the questions we are asking ourselves then we don't need to be worried about whether or not an individual passage is authentic because we understand that the biblical writers are working with literature.

Can We trust the bible's description of who Jesus is?

            From the impression Jesus left on the disciples, Dunn argues, we can “discern the 'shape' of the one who made that impression”. Even with the church adding content, we can trust that this content is in line with the impression that Jesus left on them. This impression is not objective, it is based on faith. It is the impression that was left on the fisherman and tax collectors that turned them into disciples and apostles. It left a mark on them and it is to them we trust to learn about the Jesus of faith.[19]

 Dan recognizes that  “the church in it's wisdom has decided these are the books of the bible that it will regard as it's testimony to Jesus... so that's the stuff that I will work with”.

            As we examine the Gospels, we realize that the evangelists were willing to modify the text to their own needs.[20] This shows that the tradition was a “living tradition”. On the one hand the impression that Jesus left on them is still discernible, on the other hand it spoke in different ways to different people depending on the situation.[21]

            Rogeson  writes how we probably have authentic teachings of Jesus within the Gospels, but that   over time they have been added and expanded to, not because the biblical writers are falsifying the historical record, but because they are trying to help the reader understand who Jesus was. They were adding interpretive comments to clear up some of the aspects of Jesus where their impression of him add to what Jesus said.[22]

            Allison argues that we find “certain themes, motifs, and rhetorical strategies” attributed to Jesus on a wide variety  sources. It is here where we find who Jesus really is.[23] For him, any image we create for Jesus has to be derivative of the Synoptic image of Jesus. Matthew, Mark and Luke's image of Jesus is the most accurate image because they are the source in which everyone else's images of Jesus derive from[24]

The Pastoral Challenge

            When Marla began serious Scriptural study, she too was surprised to learn some of the historical-critical research's findings.  For her, the scholastic research has challenged her concept of truth she learned that it was okay to not have all of the answers. And that she and others “could be wrong”. She describes her view of scripture as being “a story of how people have experienced God.  This is a very comprehensive, but not complete picture.  It is 'spirit breathed' in that God's spirit is in the lives of those whose stories are told and those who do the telling.”[25]

            This lead her into considering whether or not she was “leading people astray” by challenging their deep-rooted beliefs. Because her congregation has an older population, it seemed “almost cruel” to introduce them to a lot of her findings at such a late point in their lives. Instead she has “erred on the side of gentleness”.[26]

            This doesn't mean that she is not keen in helping her congregation ask deep-rooted questions about faith. This can be seen in her sermons where she tries to ask questions that provoke thought and yet maintain faith in others.

            She takes a different approach within a Bible Study context where she is able to offer alternative view points. This is because it is a context of conversation where people can argue with what she says, and has resulted in very positive conversations even with older members of her congregation.

            Whenever she teaches, she has to make a decision about how much to share. For her, the historical “truth” (read Dunn's “Fact”), doesn't change the importance of the story, or the reasons why it is being shared. The meaning of the story can be far more important then the mere details of the story.[27]

            Dan similarly argues that when he is preaching, his goal is to how can he “preach in such a way that God changes the lives of the hearers,” he still uses historical critical methodology as he prepares his sermon, but it is not the focus of said sermon. Instead he is trying to “create and shape faith and to foster both a hearing and an experiencing of the Gospel”.[28]

            When Dan teaches adult Sunday school, again he uses the biblical-critical scholarship to shape his content, but he is not outright saying “these texts are inaccurate” instead he draws the class into a discussion about the writer's context, what they are trying to accomplish, and in doing so he teaches them to think critically about what they are reading.[29]

            When I talk to students taking first year bible courses where they are first introduced to Historical Critical Scholarship, they often talk about the class challenging their “Sunday School faith”. Both Marla and Dan suggest that best way to work with this is to use age appropriate content.

            When children are younger and unable to It is important that we teach children them the basic biblical story,  some of the implications and to encourage their faith. As they develop more refined senses of right and wrong truth, it then becomes possible to encourage them to consider a “bigger understanding of faith” that goes beyond the literalistic readings of scripture.[30]

            Marla notes that we do not give children enough credit, and that they can actually handle questions better than adults can, and so we should allow ensure that teachers know that they don't have to give them “clear answers”.[31]

            Dan places the onus on Sunday school teachers as models of “respect for the biblical text” and to subtly model “that we don't read all biblical texts literally” but he is “not critical of Sunday School teachers for not teaching our children historical-critical methodology. That's not what Sunday School should do.”[32]

                        Marla, agrees that it is high school age that we can teach youths to engage critically with the text. The problem, in her experience is that it is exactly the same time that these children no longer attend church regularly. It is hard to build relationships, and encourage thoughtful reading of scripture when they are not attending.[33]

Conclusion

            As a pastor it is important to ensure an integrity of the biblical text. To ignore the fact that there are legitimate questions about the veracity of the biblical narrative would be a great disservice. By ignoring the questions that scholars and congregants have about whether or not the stories really happened, we would only be increasing the gap between the doubt in the mind of the believer, and the mystery that is living as part of God's kingdom. By engaging these questions, we free ourselves from the traps that arise when we limit our understanding of God.

            Biblical Scholarship pushes us to ask questions, but we need to be careful to ensure that we are also asking the right questions. Instead of asking about whether or not an individual story happened, we  begin to ask questions about why the biblical author is telling the story the way he does, what is the major lesson from the story, what does it tell us about the Christ of faith.

            And yet we must take the critical lens that biblical scholarship gives us and turn it back on itself. It works well for individual pericopes, but it misses broader themes and motifs that are perhaps more integral to the authenticity of the bible than the veracity of individual stories.

            It would not do to hide these findings from the church, but both Marla and Dan show a sophistication in their delivery of it. By getting congregants to think critically, the congregants themselves become the catalyst for creating stronger faiths that are not bound to the black and white thinking of modernity. It is no longer the all or none of fundamentalist thinking, but rather a more dynamic view of understanding what is important and what is not. It is a redirecting of priorities from liberalism to seeing the Jesus as the early church saw him, alive and Dynamic.

            People's faiths are developed at an early age, if it is one built on a rigid structure of either/or thinking, then it will continue to be so through to their old age. If however, a dynamic faith is modeled from a young age, and it is possible to engage them through their youth, then it is possible for Biblical Scholarship to become an important aspect of your faith, informing it, but not becoming the foundation of it.

Reference List

Allison Jr.  Dale C.. “The Historians’ Jesus and the Church” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, 79-95. Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2008.

Dunn, James D G. "On faith and history, and living tradition in response to Robert Morgan and Andrew

Gregory." Expository Times 116, no. 1 (October 1, 2004): 13-19. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 2, 2013).

"Editorial." Interpretation 57.2 (2003): 115. ProQuest. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.

Rogerson, John.  “The Gifts and challenges of Historical and Literary Criticism” in The Bible in Pastoral Practice, edited by Paul Ballard and Stephen R. Holmes, 121-134. Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2005.

Schweitzer, Don. "A theological significance of the quest for the historical Jesus." Touchstone 25, no. 2

(May 1, 2007): 23-34. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed

November 2, 2013).

Watson, Francis. “Veritas Christi: How to get from the Jesus of History to the Christ of Faith without Losing One’s Way” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, edited by Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, 96-116. Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2008.

Bibliography

Hull, William. E. “Preaching on the Synoptic Gospels” in Biblical Preaching, edited by James W. Cox, 169-194. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983.

---

[1]Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.

[2] See Appendix A

[3]Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23^rd, 2013.

[4]John Rogerson, “The Gifts and challenges of Historical and literary criticism” in The Bible in Pastoral Practice, ed. Paul Ballard and Stephen R. Holmes (Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2005), 129.

[5]Don Schweitzer, “A Theological Significance of the Quest for the Historical Jesus.” Touchstone 25, no. 2 (2007),   26 ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. 

[6]Ibid., 25.

[7]Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.

[8]Francis Watson, “Veritas Christi: How to get from the Jesus of History to the Christ of Faith without Losing One’s Way” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2008), 108.

[9]Schweitzer, “A Theological Significance, 29-30.

[10]“Editorial” in Interpretation 57.2 (2003): 115. ProQuest. Web.

[11]Source Unknown

[12]“Editorial,” 115.

[13]Dale C. Allison Jr., “The Historians’ Jesus and the Church” in  ” in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage, ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard B. Hays, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans, 2008), 81.

[14]Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23^rd, 2013.

[15]Allison, “The Historians’ Jesus,” 84.

[16]James DG Dunn, “On Faith and History, and living tradition in response to Robert Morgan and Andrew Gregory.” Expository Times 116, no. 1 (2004), 14. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost. 

[17]Rogerson, “The Gifts and challenges,” 127.

[18]Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23^rd, 2013.

[19]Dunn, “On Faith and History,” 15.

[20]Ibid., 18.

[21]Ibid., 19.

[22]Rogerson, “The Gifts and challenges,”  126.

[23]Allison, “The Historians’ Jesus,”  85-86.

[24]Ibid., 88.

[25] Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23^rd, 2013

[29]Ibid.

[30]Ibid.

[31]Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.

[32]Dan Epp Tiessen, personal interview with author, October 23^rd, 2013

[33]Marla Langelotz, e-mail message to author, October 23, 2013.

A Theological Defense of Moshing

Last night I went to a metal concert, my friend is in a band called Grand Master, they were launching their EP, and had a concert with three other bands at a local club. During the 3rd band, people began to mosh. While I didn't join in immediately, Grand Master's finale was my favourite song of theirs, so I joined in for the last dance.

Moshing, for those who don't know, is a form of dancing, which is pretty physical, mostly it consists of people flailing their bodies around, pushing each other and other forms of dancing/fighting.

Now, as a Mennonite I believe that peace is a consequence of the Kingdom of God, so from the outside it would seem rather disingenuous for me to participate in it, however, I would like to posit for your consideration that moshing can be theologically justified.

First of all, yes, in some contexts moshing has been known to result in physical injury, however in general, people in a moshpit are hyper-aware of their surroundings, and very careful. If people actually do fall down, people surrounding them stop moshing, and help them up. In general if you fall you aren't going to get hurt.

Secondly, Metal music has a sense of emotionality that is missing from the world around us. We live in a hedonistic utilitarian society where's people do whatever they want and try to maximize their pleasure and minimize their pain. Previously I've talked about how it is okay to be upset, even to the point of wanting to kill babies. Metal music provides a generative outlet for people to express their sorrows, pains, anger, frustration, etc, in a way that is sub-culturely acceptable. It's okay to be angry, it's okay to be depressed, the music speaks to what you are feeling in a way that isn't trivializing it.

Thirdly, people are allowed to respond to these emotions through moshing. Moshing is a physical way to express how you are feeling, if you feel the need to push somebody, to slam all of your body weight against another person, it is okay to do that, nobody takes it personal, in fact, all they are feeling the same way and will push you back.

Fourthly Moshing is voluntary. People go to a metal concert knowing that there is a strong chance that moshing is going to happen if they don't want to mosh, then there is ample space to move away from the pit and continue to enjoy the music.

As such Moshing is an active form of community building. It is a group of people gathered together, listening to the music they feel best expresses themselves and are able to be vulnerable (showing that you aren't okay) with the people around them.


Now, there are going to be cases of people who don't live up to this ideal, people will get hurt, or take it personally, for some it might not be a healthy expression for their feelings. But I would argue that these people are not representative of those I've met in the pit, and that Moshing should be seen as a form of active relationship building

The Greatest Among Equals

The following is an essay I wrote last year about the book of Job for a class I took on Justice.

Job as Primus Inter Pares

If we take the prologue seriously, Job had it all; He had wealth, power, a good family, and friends. However, after that first chapter, he's left with nothing, and the four people who are even around him at all are just there to gang up on him. By drawing on Girard and Nietzsche, we can see that Job's friends' speeches of temporal retribution are justifications for why they have removed him from his place in society.

Girard claims that Job is a broken Idol.¹ His initial economic success results in his friends making him the "primus inter pares," or first among equals. Because he is better than them, they strive to be like him, imitating him as a model. However, this creates resentment, "why is Job the one on top and not me?" they all ask, and so they begin to loath him.²

This ties in with Nietzsche’s writing "Homer on Competition," where we read about how the Greeks had two gods named Eris, or "Strife". One was a bad Strife, which causes people to kill and fight; the other is a good Strife, one which causes people to want to be the best.³ In a polis where everyone is roughly the same, then looking at the primus inter pares (to use Girard's term) inspires you to become better because you know that you can reach that goal. This pushes everyone to go forward, working harder and harder for your goal. However, if the primus inter pares is way above you, then competition becomes pointless, if you know you will never be as good as them, you will never even try.

In the Greek polis, they had a method to deal with this, when someone got too good, they would be ostracized, as the Ephesians said when they banned Hormodor "Amongst us, nobody should be the best; but if someone is, let him be somewhere else, with other people".⁴

In Highshool, I was on the wrestling team. I fought in the Heavyweight division. In that division there were about 7 of us who would compete regularly at tournaments, and so we got to know one another. However one wrestler, Fitzgerald, was way better than the rest of us; so it was always a given that he would win the tournament. Therefore we did not bother comparing ourselves to him. Instead, we looked at the rest of the pack. At any given match we could lose or win. Yes some of us won more often than not, but there was genuine competition between us as we tried to make it to the top of the pack. I remember the first time I beat Gallant who was older and bigger than I was, I can tell you exactly what five moves I used, but I don't remember any matches I had with Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was ostracized from the group.

In Job's culture, they did not have this mechanism of exclusion, so as Job becomes more and more great/ powerful socially, there was one of two options, either let competition die, the culture around him becoming stagnant as he remained at the top, or find a reason to get rid of Job. When Job loses all of his possessions and gets sick the community uses this opportunity to scapegoat him, claiming that their total rejection of him, from his friends down to the people he would not even let watch his dogs, is because they are merely following God's will. Job must have done something to upset God, and if God has punished Job, then they should stay away from him.⁵

After Job loses his family, wealth and health and social standing, three of his friends come to him. After seven days Job opens his mouth and laments that he was ever born. His friends respond telling him that he has brought this disaster on himself, that God is punishing him for something that he did because "who that was innocent ever suffered?"⁶ According to them, God gives good things to those who are good, and punishes those who are wicked. Therefore Job must have done something to make God mad at him.

So they begin listing off things that Job has done. They think that he has not been treating the poor fairly. By charging unfair collateral for loans he's made, and being uncharitable with his actions, sending away the hungry and thirsty, he has set "snares... all around" himself.⁷ When he protests his innocence, Zophar sees this as blaspheming God. Obviously Job has sinned, or else he would not be getting punished, his suffering is proof that he has done something wrong.⁸

Girard looks at these speeches and says that this is only what's happening on the surface, that the friend's need for finding some reason that Job is suffering is in fact a means for his scapegoat process to work. Because they do not have a means to ostracize him the same way that the Greeks do, they sacralize their actions by putting blame on Job.

Job fights this, while he originally agrees with their understanding of temporal retribution, Job knows that he has not done anything worth the amount of punishment he is receiving. Over time he begins to realize that since he is innocent, he can find assurance knowing that the true God, his witness, is alive and will defend him against the "God" of mimetic rivalry and temporal retribution, even if this occurs only after death.⁹ He no longer needs his old standing in society because that is no longer the measure by which he defines success.

1 Rene Girard, “The Ancient Trail Trodden by the Wicked,” 20.

2 Ibid., 31.

3 Friedrich Nietzsche, “Homer on Competition,” 189.

4 Ibid., 191.

5 Rene Girard, “Job as Failed Scapegoat,” 191.

6 Job 4:7 English Standard Version.

7 Job 22:5-9, ESV.

8 Job 15:5-6

9 Rene Girard, “Job as Failed Scapegoat,” 202.

Concord

The following is a presentation I gave for my Theology of the Reformations Class on October 3rd. It is based on sections 4-6 of the Formula of Concord found here.

The Formula of Concord

            Following Luther's death in 1546, Pope Paul III and Emperor Charles V agreed to a military solution to the Lutheran problem they were facing, by 1547 he had conquered Wittenberg's Castle Church, the building where the 95 theses had been posted in 1517.[1] Following his military victory Charles V tried to settle church matters through the Augsburg Interim, a document which compromised allowing clergy to marry and give both elements in the Eucharist but demanded they submit to Rome in other manners such as affirming transubstantiation.[2] This compromise did not sit well with either side, the pope demanding total rejection of Lutheranism which caused the Lutheran rulers to realize they would lose everything if they accepted the interim.[3]

            This led to Charles enforcing the Augsburg Interim militarily. To appease this, Philip Melanchthon was willing to compromise with Rome, writing a document called the Leipzig Interim, which would grant a lot of concessions to Rome. Melanchthon’s Followers would become known as Philipists.[4] When the Leipzig Interim failed to give him the peace he thought it would, and realizing that he was then considered a traitor by many of his people, Elector Maurice betrayed Charles and drove Imperial forces out of Augsburg. This led to the peace of Augsburg and the principal Cuius regio, eius religio (he who rules, his the religion), drawing the major conflict between Lutheranism and Catholicism to a close.[5]

            However this did not create peace within Lutheranism. The Philipists and their compromises were opposed by the Gnesio-Lutherans (Gnesio meaning “Genuine”), who argued for a closer following of Luther's original Doctrines.[6] This theological conflict was brought to a close by the work of a third group led by Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnetz. They saw that a lot of the arguing was centered around Personality Conflicts, and polarization caused by the nature of arguing.[7]

            Eventually in 1577 they signed the Formula of Concord and submitted it to Elector Augustus, spending the next three years persuading Priests, laypeople, and theologians to accept it.[8]

            The Formula of Concord is very methodical. For each Controversy it addresses, it gives a brief synopsis of the debate, ignoring mention of who said what, then gives the authors' solution to the debate in terms of Affirmative Theses and Negative theses. This form works very well because it acknowledges the merits of both sides while still being clear about what it rejects.

            The section of the Formula that we read for class develops an understanding of how actions, while unnecessary for salvation, are important to the life of a Christian. In “Concerning Good Works,” It is very careful to maintain that justification is through faith alone, but it also emphasizes that good works are necessary proof that your faith is alive.[9] This section draws James 2:17 into the discussion of Sola Fide, However the division between an alive faith, and salvation seems contradictory. If you faith is dead, shouldn’t that mean your salvation is lost?

            Then in “Concerning Law and Gospel” it distinguishes between law, that which is commanded to us, and gospel, the free gift from Jesus Christ which is “grace, comforting, and making alive”.[10] I find this division troubling because, while carefully nuanced, there is a sense in which it vilifies the law. In This context, the law is used to show how necessary grace is, ignoring the fact that the giving of the law is also an act of grace. While we were previously living in darkness, without any sort of moral compass, the law, even at its most basic- don't eat the fruit- is grace because it protects us from harm, like a mother telling a child don't touch the stove.

            In the Final section we read “Concerning the Third use of the Law.” The law is a teaching tool for those already saved. Because of the fallen nature of the world, Christians still need guidance in how to live. However, Christians obey the law with “a willing spirit... what no threat of the law could ever force from them”.[11]

            The problem is that faith in this context seems to be one of intellectual assent. If you believe in Jesus, then you are saved. That if we are saved sola fide, then we then we are automatically inclined to do good works/ obey the law.  I hold a more pessimistic view of human nature, that even after we are forgiven we will still face the temptation of sin, and that we will still fall to it. Instead, I believe that faithfulness also has an aspect of loyalty to it, that grace gives us the ability to struggle with sin, and the fact that we are struggling, even if we fall is important.

            Identity is often based in contrast to the other. Who we are is often defined by who we are not. The Protestants are not Catholic; the Philipists are not like the other Lutherans; the Gnesio-Lutherans are not Philipists. There have been literally thousands of divisions in the church since then, usually based on who they are not. The Formula of Concord is an attempt at taking some of these divisions and working in the opposite direction. It recognizes the differences in doctrine between the two sides, and works towards a common understanding, and should be applauded for what it accomplished: unity between two sides. I wonder if more statements of shared belief would be helpful in healing other divisions in the church?

---

[1] Paul Timothy McCain, “Editor’s Introduction to the Formula of Concord,” in Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 443-445.

[2] Ibid., 445.

[3] Ibid., 446.

[4] Ibid., 451.

[5] Ibid., 452.

[6] Ibid., 451.

[7] Ibid., 453.

[8] Ibid., 457.

[9] Jacob Andreae and Martin Chemnetz, “Fromula of Concord (1580)” in A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts and Introductions, ed. Dennis R. Janz (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 159.

[10] Ibid., 161.

[11] Ibid., 162.