Mending Fences & Finding Grace:
Regarding Christology and Divine Agency in Yoder’s Thought
Mark Thiessen Nation
“Inheriting John Howard Yoder”
May 25-26, 2007, Toronto Mennonite Theological Centre
First let me express my gratitude for being invited to speak at this conference. And my appreciation to Jonathan Slater and Allan Rudy-Froese for the papers they presented. It is exciting to see a new generation of scholars seriously engaging the important work of John Howard Yoder.
Let me begin by responding to Jonathan’s paper.1 And let me say right off that I mostly agree with the basic thrust of his paper, namely: “Yoder clearly does not think his witness to Jesus Christ is incompatible with creedal orthodoxy, but this is not because these creedal statements have any kind of canonical status, nor out of a desire to be ecumenically irenic. It is rather because it is his judgment that Nicea and Chalcedon are indeed faithful to the witness of scripture.”2
I will make comments in response to three questions. First, what is it Yoder wants to affirm? Second, what is it he wants simply to relativize? And third what is it he wants to question?
First, what is it Yoder wants to affirm? He certainly signaled his commitments regarding Christology in The Politics of Jesus:
If we were to carry on that other, traditional doctrinal kind of debate, I would seek to demonstrate that the view of Jesus being proposed here is more radically Nicene and Chalcedonian than other views. I do not here advocate an unheard-of modern understanding of Jesus. I ask rather that the implications of what the church has always said about Jesus as Word of the Father, as true God and true Man, be taken more seriously as relevant to our social problems, than ever before.3
I can only imagine that various theologians, apparently with their own agendas, believe that Yoder is here being disingenuous. That is to say, perhaps they believe he only says this to keep orthodox Christians with him in his argument. However, this sort of cynical view is difficult to sustain if someone knows and is honest about a broad range of Yoder’s writings, which I can only sample here. For instance, in relation to Tertullian’s early formulations regarding the Trinity, Yoder says: “He tries to develop patterns of thought, vocabularies, and logic that permit him to say what the biblical text demands must be said: the elements of preexistence, distinctness, and monotheism.”4 Or in relation to Nicea specifically Yoder says: “The doctrine of the Trinity is the solution to an intellectual difficulty that arises if we accept the statements of the Bible . . . . [that is, if we accept] revelation in Jesus, the continuation of that revelation in the Holy Spirit, and hold to monotheism at the same time.”5 And in relation to the statement issued from Chalcedon Yoder said: “They tried to safeguard what a Christian has to say to be faithful to Jesus and still say it in the terms of the culture in which they were speaking and as answering the questions that it raised.”6 And, as he says later in this same lecture, the formulation provided “fences,” that is, boundaries suggesting the need to avoid heretical formulations regarding Jesus (and God).7 As Yoder put it in general terms in a late, 1996 essay: “I believe one can affirm the rightness of what was at stake at Nicea and Chalcedon.” More specifically he says: (1) “I have sought to give the Trinitarian heritage a friendly interpretation”; (2) he affirms the notion of an “ontological” understanding of the trinity; and (3) “with Chalcedon (451) we confirm that Jesus’ being true God is not to be separated from his being truly human”.8
I hope this small sampling of Yoder’s affirmation of the Trinity and the two-natures of Christ was clear enough to lay certain false claims to rest. But lest I be misunderstood, I also want to name two other things at this point. First, these are only relative affirmations. Second, they are relative affirmations because of Yoder’s central affirmation (and what he questions). Listen to phrases from quotes I have already given regarding the Trinity: “patterns of thought, vocabularies, and logic that permit [Tertullian] to say what the biblical text demands must be said.” Or again: “the doctrine of the Trinity is the solution to an intellectual difficulty that arises if we accept the statements of the Bible.” As Jonathan put it, for Yoder “the norm for making . . . judgments [about the creeds] . . . is the canon of Scripture.”9 As Yoder puts it in his essay, “The Authority of Tradition”: “Scripture comes. . . as witness to the historical baseline of the communities’ origin and thereby as link to the historicity of their Lord’s past presence.”10 Thus on the basis of the canon of Scripture, the “baseline” of our understanding of the Christian faith, we discern the difference between faithful and unfaithful tradition. This process of discernment is on display in Yoder’s chapters on Nicea and Chalcedon in his Preface to Theology. His analysis is detailed and nuanced as are his conclusions. But basically, as I have already suggested, he gave a relative affirmation to their fourth and fifth-century statements. But he did this on the basis of a desire to confirm his central affirmation: the normativity of the biblical witness to the two natures of Christ and the ontological reality of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
One way to name this is to ask: if Yoder were still living, what literature would he turn to if he wanted to articulate a contemporary Christology? I think he would likely first turn to recent writings by Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham and N. T. Wright, because they are engaging the biblical texts in relation to these issues.11 Of course because Yoder was a serious scholar, he would no doubt also consult the recent writings of H. A. Drake, D. H. Williams, and Ramsey Macmullen on the fourth and fifth century debates around these creeds.12
This leads quite naturally to the second question: what is it Yoder wants simply to relativize? To state this accurately we have to name Yoder’s repeated affirmation of what he referred to as a “high Christology”. Yoder often emphasized the extraordinary claims made for Jesus by John 1, Hebrews 1, Ephesians 1, Colossians 1 and Philippians 2. Yoder, in numerous ways, said that Nicea and Chalcedon were attempting to affirm such biblical claims regarding Jesus and the trinity. But he believed—for reasons of ecumenism, mission and his understanding of the variations of thought forms—that the specific thought forms, the specific formulations of Nicea and Chalcedon do not have a timeless, cross cultural and universal normativity. They are instructive, showing us how one culture articulated concerns that all Christians should care about. But the specific formulations are not normative now. They rather point us back to the biblical witness to look afresh at how we in our languages might articulate a confession for today—learning lessons from them that are both positive and negative. (And yes, one of those lessons is to be more attentive to the Jewishness of the biblical witness.)
And finally, what is it Yoder clearly wants to question? Importantly, this is two things. First, and in light of what has already been said: “The creeds are helpful as fences, but affirming, believing, debating for, and fighting for the creeds are probably things on which a radical Anabaptist faith would not concentrate.”13 Yet it is important—perhaps even vital today—to remember that Yoder immediately follows this sentence by saying:
Yet this gives us even less reason to join with Bishop Pike and Bishop Robinson [well-know Anglicans challenging orthodoxy at the time of Yoder’s writing] in fighting against the creeds. The creeds are part of the only history we have. It is a fallible history and a confused history. A lot of dirty politics were involved in defining the creeds, in explaining their meaning, and still more in applying their authority, but this is the history with which God has chosen to lead a confused people toward at least a degree of understanding of certain dangers and things not to say if we are to remain faithful.14
Earlier, in connection with mentioning Pike and Robinson Yoder had said: “The doctrine of the Trinity is a test of whether your commitments to Jesus and to God are biblical enough that you have the problem the doctrine of the Trinity solves.”15
******************************************
Now let me shift gears to respond to the lecture by Allan Rudy-Froese on “Looking for Grace in John Howard Yoder.” First, before I say anything else, let me say something that I do not want to get lost among the following details: too much Mennonite theology/ethics is focused only on human agency. This has been a concern of mine for some time. So, I think that Allan and I share a concern. Again, I will look at this issue in three steps. First, I will make a few comments on eschatology. Second, I will respond to the question from John E. Toews that Allan mentioned: “Where [in Yoder] is our theology of empowerment to do those things we are called to do?” And third, how might one pursue further work, as suggested by Allan’s last section?
First, Allan is certainly correct to turn to eschatology to name Yoder’s acknowledgement that human agency is not the be all and end all. Although I would state it even more boldly. And that for at least three reasons. First, it is huge in Yoder’s writings. Second it is something that is too often missed or at least underplayed in Yoder’s writings. And third, it has great relevance as we continue to draw on Yoder’s writings in our contemporary theologizing about peace and justice and conflict transformation.
Eschatology is one of the key theological themes by which Yoder signals—from the 1950s to the 1990s—that peace, Christianly understood, is not only about human agency. Yoder names this rather fully near the beginning of his writing career in his wonderful essay, “Peace without Eschatology,” in which he clearly distinguishes his own position from liberal pacifist positions which communicated that peacemaking was all about human agency. Almost twenty years later, as the culmination to his argument in The Politics of Jesus, to make sure that no one confuses his argument of this book about the social relevance of Jesus with an argument for human pragmatism, he ends with a chapter on “The Apocalypse of John,” reminding all readers that this is really “the war of the Lamb” not our war.
Toward the end of the 1980s, in his presidential address to “The Society of Christian Ethics” as well as in three other addresses and essays Yoder—in the midst of the possibility of being perceived as irrelevant and sectarian—elects to emphasize the connections as one essay has it between, “Ethics and Eschatology.” The way Yoder sometimes said this is to point to the power of the resurrection. He perhaps said it most powerfully in an unpublished 1964 lecture: “The resurrection is . . . the Nile of the Bible. . . . It is the center around which all the rest of the biblical message rotates, from which all the rest of the message draws its significance and authority, then it is also God’s word to us. . . that the center of our history is that same event.”16 In The Politics of Jesus the way Yoder states it, toward the end of the book, is: “The triumph of the right, although it is assured, is sure because of the power of the resurrection and not because of any relation of causes and effects.”17 Later, reflecting on some comments from John J. Collins, Yoder importantly adds: “To say simply, as Collins does, that ‘apocalypse is validated by the ethics it sustains’ would be a wrongly reductionistic horizontalism. It would be self-defeating, since the vision will only support the ethos if the seer considers God and the revelation to be real.”18 We must not lose the point here. Yoder has very specifically, in 1990, distanced himself from the perspective that would utilize apocalyptic or eschatological thought only because it validates a particular ethic. He refers to this approach as “reductionistic horizontalism” and instead seems to align himself with the John the revelator who “considers God and the revelation to be real”.
Now on to the second question: “Where [in Yoder] is our theology of empowerment to do those things we are called to do?” Allan’s strategy for examining this question—mostly by looking at chapter seven of The Politics of Jesus—is an inadequate strategy in two ways. First, The Politics of Jesus is a book, making a book-length argument. If one wants to ask questions about whether or not Yoder says much about divine agency in this book one should look at the book as a whole. Most obviously Yoder provides this emphasis in the chapters “God Will Fight For Us,” “Christ and Power,” and “The War of the Lamb”. The specific chapter Allan chose to focus on is intended to place the emphasis on the pervasive reality in virtually all strands of the New Testament of a call on Christians to be disciples, to follow Jesus—thus of course the accent is on human agency. But even this chapter is immediately preceded by a reminder that we act “in light of the resurrection” and followed by a chapter in which the emphasis is on “Christ and Power”.19 And among other things in this latter chapter Yoder has one section in which the central biblical text is Colossians 2.13-15, and thus the theme is God making us alive, forgiving us and triumphing over the principalities and powers. These accents might be seen to serve as bookends for the particular chapter referred to by Allan. But more than that the twin foci reflect a dialectic one can find throughout the book, a dialectic between what God has done in Christ and what we are to do as the body of Christ.
But let me return to the question Allan borrows from John E. Toews, namely: “Where [in Yoder] is our theology of empowerment to do those things we are called to do?” As I hear this challenge it is not about divine agency in general but rather is more narrowly focused on the subject of grace or individual empowerment to live faithfully. The answer to this question is less present in The Politics of Jesus, although one will find the occasional but strong affirmation of the importance of the Holy Spirit or the power of the resurrection. However, something important needs to be said here. Three times in his chapter on “Justification by Grace Through Faith” Yoder attempts to reassure readers that he is offering a corrective in this chapter and therefore not dealing with the personal or “traditional” elements of this doctrine, which he would do if he were dealing more fully with what needs to be said about justification or grace.20
One can be cynical about such comments. That is to say, again, as with his claims to have a Nicene and Chalcedonian theology, one can say that Yoder simply wants to keep orthodox Christians on board. Or one can take him at his word. Then we can test his claim. Is there anywhere in his writings where he says rather fully what needs to be said? Are there echoes of the fuller statement, perhaps even frequently, in his other writings? Are there places where he either explicitly or implicitly refutes the earlier fuller statement? The only way this sort of work can be done in Yoder’s extensive body of writings is to know his writings reasonably well.21
As far as I have determined, Yoder’s most substantial statement on this subject comes from the 1954 essay, “The Anabaptist Dissent”. And what a wonderful and full statement it is.
The traditional liberal thought in ethics did fail, in large part, to take sin seriously enough, and thus did tend to see the adequate ethical fulfillment of the requirements of love as a simple possibility. This sort of perfectionism contradicts both history and Christian doctrine. . . . Biblical perfectionism affirms not a simple possibility of achieving love in history, but a crucial possibility of participating in the victory of Christ over the effects of sin in the world. Obedience for the sectarian thus involves the cross, and the presence of sin has been worked into ethics, without either undermining the integrity of ethics as part of a valid theology or cheapening the work of redemption. This perfectionism of the cross is therefore not optimistic about either the world’s or the Christian’s goodness; it dares simply share the Bible’s own confidence that with God all things are possible. . . .
As the cross becomes meaningful in the New Testament only in relation to the resurrection and to Pentecost, so in sectarian ethics is forgiving grace rightly understood only in the context of empowering grace. Interpreting justification by faith as a ratification for conscious compromise with the presence of sin is what Paul calls sinning “that grace may abound”; what Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace.” The Biblical perfectionist refuses to flatten God’s goodness into mere forgiving mercy. He experiences redemption as a brand-new dimension of possibility for discipleship given the new man through his participation in the body of the risen Lord, and knowing the reality of this new life he refuses to spiritualize or to eschatologize it out of the realm of his earthly living and doing. This also is the grace of God, that we may walk in newness of life.22
The context for this essay is several fold: ecumenical peace conversations in Western Europe in the early 1950s, study at the University of Basel in Switzerland (not unimportantly with Barth and Cullman), and a projected audience of interested Mennonites who might read this essay in the first issue of a new pamphlet series, Concern, which as this first issue said, was “for a strengthening of prophetic Christian faith and conduct”.23
This quotation was quite long, so let me summarize the key thoughts. Yoder begins by affirming the need to take sin seriously joined to an awareness that embodying love is no simple possibility because of human capacity. Not only is there no reason to be optimistic about the fallen world, there is also no reason to be optimistic about Christian goodness. Because of the cross and resurrection, the coming of the Holy Spirit, forgiving and empowering grace, redemption and new life in Christ—only because of these—may Christians know the new possibility for discipleship and boldly claim that “with God all things are possible”.
A skeptic might say that this full statement is from an essay close to beginning of Yoder’s writing career. I would say two things to that. First, Jim Reimer is right to notice that there is a remarkable consistency in Yoder’s thought from the early 1950s to the end of his life.24 Usually, when he changed his mind, Yoder specifically named such shifts in his own thought or language. For instance, he would later stop the practice, reflected in this essay, of attempting to use the word “sectarian” neutrally, deciding that the word was not in our context redeemable. Second, are there any indications, explicit or implicit, that Yoder stopped believing what is conveyed by this long quote? I would answer: not to my knowledge. Are there echoes of these theological reflections later in Yoder’s many writings? I would answer: they are almost everywhere. Through only a fairly casual search, I have found more than twenty echoes of these convictions in more than ten separate writings stretching from the 1950s through the 1990s. Not insignificantly, for instance, Yoder mentions the lack of specifically Christian resources for discipleship—the Holy Spirit, regeneration, enabling grace, the power of the resurrection—in his critiques of Reinhold Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr and Constantinianism.25 This is not insignificant because, first, these essays stretch across the whole of Yoder’s career and, second, this suggests that he sees these resources as being vital to a healthy understanding of the Christian community (since he is, in these three instances, criticizing a misunderstanding of the church).
I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated that contrary to the argument of some, Yoder did have a clear sense that in fact we as Christian both need and receive “empowerment to do those things we are called to do”. But lest I be misunderstood, let me return to an affirmation I began this section with. I, like Allan, care deeply about a holistic theology—one that, among other things, acknowledges the vital need to affirm our need for God’s gracious involvement in our lives and in our world. And I agree with him that to accomplish this goal we need further work. My pointers as to where to begin would be different from his however.
First, it might help to revisit the writings of Hans Frei and Charles Campbell. I would certainly look at much of the theology that has been spawned by the approach that is sometimes called “postliberal”.26 Moreover, I would look at the vast range of contemporary theology that would claim links to Yoder and Hauerwas—perhaps especially Hauerwas for the questions Allan posed.
Second, regarding sixteenth-century Anabaptism. Perhaps I would begin with Beachy’s book, The Concept of Grace in the Radical Reformation, which stems mostly from 1960. But I would probably, instead, read Yoder’s doctoral work from the 1950s, then supplement it with some of the recent writings by Arnold Snyder and most of all, for Allan’s specific questions, I would look at Egil Grislis’ many wonderful essays on the complex and richly theological writings of Menno Simons.27
Third, I would take signals from The Politics of Jesus, with some cautions. First, the cautions. Yoder may have been right rhetorically to have only named the rest of what needed to be said. The popularity and influence of the book seems to indicate as much. Nonetheless, the caution is that many—including those who see themselves as being deeply influenced by the book—too often emerge from their conversion to peace with a theologically reductionistic account of peacemaking. I often say that it is vital for those reading Yoder also to read the essays in The Priestly Kingdom and perhaps the essay, “The Otherness of the Church” if they are truly to grasp what he is about. Stanley Hauerwas is also very helpful in this. In fact, as I have said on numerous occasions, I believe Hauerwas is a timely gift to the Mennonite Church and others who have been convinced of or had their pacifism deepened through the witness of John Yoder. I am also convinced that Barth and Bonhoeffer are vital in this ongoing conversation. But the central way in which I would take signals from and deepen what Yoder was doing in The Politics of Jesus, is to see that the biblical witness is to be taken as a whole. One thing that Yoder noticed is that it is vital to close the gap between the Gospels and Paul. Writings by Daivd Wenham, Michael Gorman, David de Silva and N. T. Wright, among others, help us to see how discipleship and grace, Jesus and Paul are not alternatives but—properly understood—are in fact absolutely essentially joined.28 If we do not do such work I fear that we will misunderstand any encouragement from a professor of homiletics “that half of [every] sermon should focus on God’s grace” as a call simply to affirm contemporary cheap grace that is rampant in our churches—masquerading in many ways but usually equaling, finally, the strange mix of what Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton have dubbed, “moralistic, therapeutic deism”.29 Unless I am seriously misreading the times, I think we are much more in danger—as a Church—of being engulfed by this than being injured by the inadequacies of John Yoder’s theology.
Jonathan Slater, “Does Yoder Throw the Christological Baby Out with the Constantinian Bathwater?,” 16pp.
Slater, 14. Let me also say that I really believe there should be no need for either Jonathan’s or my lecture. To my mind these issues are dealt with thoroughly and adequately in Alain Epp Weaver, “Missionary Christology: John Howard Yoder and the Creeds,” The Mennonite Quarterly Review 74 (July 2000): 423-439.
John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 2d edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994, 102. Toward the end of the book Yoder says: “If Jesus Christ was not who historic Christianity confesses he was, the revelation in the real man of the character of God himself, then this argument for pacifism collapses.” (p. 237)
John Howard Yoder, “The Trinity and the Council of Nicea,” in Preface to Theology, ed. Stanley Hauerwas and Alex Sider. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2002, 191.
Yoder, “The Trinity and the Council of Nicea,” 204.
Yoder, “ Chalcedon and the Humanity of Jesus,” in Preface to Theology, 219. Surrounded this reference Yoder offers a detailed and nuanced discussion of both the necessity of using one’s own cultural language, as well as offering critical reflections on possible deficiencies in this case. See also Yoder’s reflections on the use of language in his “On Not Being Ashamed of the Gospel”.
Yoder, “ Chalcedon and the Humanity of Jesus,” 223. See my discussion of “heresy” in some of Yoder’s writings in Mark Thiessen Nation, John Howard Yoder: Mennonite Patience, Evangelical Witness, Catholic Convictions Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997, 93, 97, 125.
“Confessing Jesus in Mission,” 7 fn 17, 2, 3 fn3, 6, unpublished English version of this article, in author’s files; the essay is published in Dutch. The last quote in the sentence is a part of a rhetorical question: “If with Chalcedon (451) we confirm that Jesus’ being true God is not to be separated from his being truly human, can we deny the imperative of using all the available human disciplines, not only the literary ones, to know as much as we can about him?” (pp. 6-7). I would also point out that it is significant that Yoder intended this for a Dutch audience, knowing full well that many Dutch Mennonites would no longer affirm classic orthodoxy.
John Howard Yoder, “The Authority of Tradition,” in The Priestly Kingdom Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984, 69.
Each has various relevant writings, but see: Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003; Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 1998; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
I’m thinking especially of: H. A. Drake, Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Tolerance. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000; D. H. Williams, Retrieving the Tradition & Renewing Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999; Ramsey Macmullen, Voting About God in Early Church Councils. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.
Yoder, “ Chalcedon and the Humanity of Jesus,” 223. cf. Yoder, “Christ, the Light of the World,” in RP, 191. It is important to say, specifically over against those who see this as only relevant to these post-Constantinian creeds that Yoder made similar relativizing remarks about the 16 th-century (Yoder, Chalcedon, 222). Similarly: “Modern Mennonites are not committed to being faithful to 16 th century Anabaptists in any firm way. . . . The free church vision doesn’t give normative authority to the ancestors.” (Yoder, “Anabaptists in the Continental Reformation,” The Bainton Companion, 168)
Yoder, “ Chalcedon and the Humanity of Jesus,” 223.
Yoder, “The Trinity and the Council of Nicea,” 204.
John Howard Yoder, “Faith Is Resurrection,” Christian Life Week Lectures, Bethel College, January 1964, p. 18.
Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 232.
John Howard Yoder, “Ethics and Eschatology,” Ex Auditu 6 (1990): 126.
“immediately preceded” refers to the original 1972 edition of The Politics of Jesus. Now, in the 1994 edition, there is an “Epilogue” after this comment.
See The Politics of Jesus, 215 fn 2, 226, 227; Yoder had earlier said that about Anabaptism: “Anabaptism was intended in the 16 th century as a corrective. It never claimed to be more than the ‘rest of the Reformation’.” (Yoder, “The Recovery of the Anabaptist Vision,” Concern (June 1971): 22.
A powerful example of the importance of this statement is the claim by John W. Miller that Yoder was a Marcionite. Knowing Yoder’s writings I knew the claim was patently absurd. However, had I not known that Yoder addressed this directly in a foreword to a book by Millard Lind I would probably have been unable to find a clear statement of refutation from Yoder. See John W. Miller, “In the Footsteps of Marcion: Notes Toward an Understanding of John Yoder’s Theology,” The Conrad Grebel Review 16 (Spring 1998): 82-92. I sent a brief response to the journal. However, they elected not to publish any responses to the articles in this particular issue.
John Howard Yoder, “The Anabaptist Dissent: The Logic of the Place of the Disciple in Society” Concern: A Pamphlet Series 1 (June 1954): 58-61, emphasis his.
This is stated on the inside cover of this first issue.
His exact statement is: “He gave the impression of one who had never substantially changed his mind on anything.” I think Reimer did not intend this as a compliment. (A. James Reimer, “Theological Orthodoxy and Jewish Christianity: A Personal Tribute to John Howard Yoder,” in The Wisdom of the Cross: Essays in Honor of John Howard Yoder , ed. Stanley Hauerwas, Chris K. Huebner, Harry J. Huebner, and Mark Thiessen Nation Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1999; reprinted Wipf & Stock, 2005), 432.)
In chronological order see: John Howard Yoder, Reinhold Niebuhr and Christian Pacifism A Church Peace Mission Pamphlet Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1968 [original 1953], 20; Yoder, “The Constantinian Sources of Western Social Ethics,” in The Priestly Kingdom, 139; Yoder, “How H. Richard Niebuhr Reasoned: A Critique of Christ and Culture, in Authentic Transformation, 72-73 [1996].
See Paul J. DeHart, The Trial of the Witnesses: The Rise and Decline of Postliberal Theology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Yoder’s work is now in English as: John Howard Yoder, Anabaptism and Reformation in Switzerland, trans. David Carl Stassen and C. Arnold Snyder, ed. C. Arnold Snyder. Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press, 2004. By Snyder see: C. Arnold Snyder, Following in the Footsteps of Christ. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004. More than a dozen essays by Grislis on Menno were published in The Mennonite Quarterly Review and The Journal of Mennonite Studies in the 1980s and 1990s.
See: David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1995; Michael Gorman, Cruciformity: Paul’s Narrative Spirituality of the Cross. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2001 and Apostle of the Crucified Lord. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004; David A. deSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000; N. T. Wright, various writings on Jesus and Paul.
Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). See my unpublished lecture, “Salvation in an Age of ‘Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism’,” June 2006, 13pp.