Comments on: A Yoderian Natural Theology

By: Andy Alexis-Baker

Andy Alexis-Baker — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:28:13 +0000

Well, it true that nobody has a definitive claim, but there are some folks who use Yoder for purposes that are alien to his own agenda. I would point out Jim Wallis, Gerald Schlabach and David Cortright who shallowly use him as an advocate of their world peace plans through police actions.

I n my view Yoder’s legacy hangs in the balance as to whether he was an advocate of pacifism or just war in that debate.

I address this in an upcoming book:

Andy Alexis-Baker. “Unbinding Yoder from Just Policing.” In Power and Practices: Engaging the Thought of John Howard Yoder, edited by Jeremy Bergen and Anthony Siegrist. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2009.

I think Doug Harink has a great essay on Yoder in the Mind Unpatient and Untamed. I just reread his essay in light of some work I am doing on Yoder’s unpublished course on missions and ecclesiology (and that work would probably correct some of what Doug says there about Yoder focusing mosly on Jewish faithfulness not God’s, which is a very valid point, but Yoder wasn’t finished :) ).

By: scott prather

scott prather — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:35:11 +0000

There is no ‘real Yoder’ to get back to – it’s what use we make of him. (That was slightly sarcastic.)
But neither the Grismund/Winks nor the Huebners/Cartwrights have a definitive claim. The point is to spend is always to spend enough time with those we’ve learned from so that their concerns to some degree become our own, and we re-state them in hopefully appropriate and even better ways.
For my money, it’s the Harinks and (more recently_ the Barbers and Kerrs that are appropriating the logic and rationalie of his work in the most fruitful ways.

By: Hill

Hill — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:29:30 +0000

Do or do not; there is no try.

By: R.O. Flyer

R.O. Flyer — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:56:18 +0000

I have no idea what any one is talking about here. Please help me understand.

By: myles

myles — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:50:01 +0000

the more I read Yoder, the more I think this is correct, Roger. Are the Ted Grimsruds and Walter Winks the rightful inheritors of Yoder, and not the Chris Huebners and the Michael Cartwrights? Hmm…

By: roger flyer

roger flyer — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:56:18 +0000

“… Priestly and prophetic roles are left uncritiqued because Yoder has little interest in such ’supernatural’, for lack of a better word, ‘mumbo-jumbo’.

I am not convinced that when Yoder says, “The cross is not a scandal to those who know the world as God sees it” he requires anything more than what one could get from a deep secular reading of Bono. Just to be provocative…”

James-Yeah…without reading a lot of Yoda, this is what I get too. Yodaians response?

By: james

james — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:33:54 +0000

“When society has been defined as the nation and social order as patriarchy, then it is no longer true that grace completes nature”

I think Halden’s near-critique was more accurate or more interesting. One never gets the feeling in Yoder that he is looking for an irruptive act other than the practice of the historical Jesus ‘back then’. Rather, we have it in us to do the same and were made to do it.

Here Yoder names the problem for the continuity of nature and grace as merely being the nation-state and the cultural practices of patriarchy. Both are within our grasp to change and would require nothing remarkable to alter (unlike what the ‘waiting in hope’ rhetoric of the apocalytic blogger implies).

In other words, Yoder doesn’t take the biological roots of human ‘nature’ seriously. It’s all cultural-political with ‘nature’ and ‘grace’ naming two temporal choices which are easily brought into harmony (in such ho-hum practices as motherhood and tilling soil).

Notice it’s only the political kingship practice (politics) that needs reform (‘It’s the violence stupid’). Priestly and prophetic roles are left uncritiqued because Yoder has little interest in such ’supernatural’, for lack of a better word, ‘mumbo-jumbo’.

By: Halden

Halden — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:24:11 +0000

I agree. It does seem, though, that he’s at least trying to include the Lutherans in it as well. And in other places in his writings I think similar things are said about the Reformed tradition.

By: ken oakes

ken oakes — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:22:00 +0000

I also like these quotations, but I do think that Yoder cannot single out “later Catholic strategy” as confusing the natural with the fallen. I take these to be a widespread error and problem within Christianity as a whole.

By: Halden

Halden — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:54:15 +0000

Yes, I certainly see that those notions are clearly present. And my comments clearly were meant to manifest plenty of reserve about making a criticism (“sound like,” “might miss,” etc.)

We just simply need to be clear that what is at stake is not just correctly seeing what “already” the case, but participating in the apocalyptic unfolding that ongoing event(fulness) that is God’s missional activity in the world in Christ and the Spirit.

And certainly I don’t think Yoder misses any of this, it just may not be completely obvious in this quote, or at least some might take it wrongly if it is read in isolation.

By: Bobby Grow

Bobby Grow — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:43:23 +0000

I didn't get the impression, from what you quoted, that Yoder was merely calling for an optical change; it seems that he provides some concrete, and even ontological changes as his examples. In other words, faith seems to be the basis of the "change;" which to me is more than a "vision change"--- albeit vision is a "symptom" of that kind of change.

By: Doug Harink

Doug Harink — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:36:03 +0000

Halden, these are wonderful quotes. But I don’t think Yoder is stuck in a rhetoric of vision: immediately following the statement about vision, he goes on to say that “suffering creates shalom,” and then names a bunch of ways in which shalom is brought about in that way — motherhood, servanthood, healing, tilling, priestly and prophetic action. In these ways the principalities and powers are indeed defeated — participating in Christ’s kingly reign through our cruciform royal actions.