Thank you for this lovely and honest reflection, David. I too admire John Philip Newell a great deal and his courage to take a stand that reflects his true self and vision of the Sacred. Makes me take a hard look at my own vocation and how it stacks up against my ever evolving theology. Not an easy task to say the least.
Love the Dara Knot image David - out of the seed grows the mighty oak. Certainly heard that a time or 2 in church basements. And I also love your response to Lida about doing what you can to effect change - kind of think globally act locally mentality. Native Americans just know what’s up. I don’t overthink my recovery but I do think here and there about reversing a multigenerational curse whenever I get antsy
About reversing a multigenerational curse—I think that’s what sobriety can do. We can say, I can keep living this way, but I’m just creating a legacy of death—this is what I will hand on to my children.
Or—we can turn and seek life. We can pass life down to the next generation.
We move forward by doing what is true and right in our little corner of the world, and by witnessing to the truth, especially to our children and grandchildren. I know that's a big motivator for me--I want them to be able to say I spoke up.
In renouncing his ordination, did Newell reject the Church and the theology that it has developed or did he reject Christianity more broadly?
If the issue is ecocide and the destruction of the earth, one could argue the Church has acquiesced or participated in the perversion of God’s custodial mandate. If so, Newell’s rejection of the Church and his ordination makes sense.
If the issue is a warped theology of “chosen” versus “condemned”, that really can’t be laid at the feet of the Church. The God of the Bible set that cornerstone in his design of the entire biblical narrative long before the Church was born. On this issue at least, it seems Newell is not just breaking with the Church but with the biblical narrative more broadly.
I think Newell sees those two things--the sacredness of every human being, and the holiness of the Earth--as two sides of one coin. That you can't hold to an exclusivist view of humanity and still hold for a sacred earth--the ramifications of that kind of domineering theology will eventually catch up to you.
And as for the Bible in all this--it's true that we can find the "chosen-vs-condemned" theme in both the Testaments, but it's also true that many Hebrew prophets overturned that dynamic and announced that Yahweh-God embraced all people and all nations, and that Israel's "chosenness" was not--as many haughtily assumed--an exclusivist prize for the lucky/happy, but that Israel had been chosen to suffer for the sake of that united world under God, and to take the message of chosenness to all the nations.
And of course in the New Testament, there are the same "chosen-vs-condemned" passages, but now an onslaught of other passages where the whole notion of salvation-for-the-special-ones is forcefully upended.
All to say, what matters--always!--is a hermeneutic built on that truth. As we all know, people can use chapter and verse to support any thesis or proposition--to bolster the most wicked understandings of the Bible, or to open up a more humane and life-giving reading of it all.
And in this regard, the church is accountable. As Newell shows in his book--as has been demonstrated elsewhere a hundred times over--many segments of the early church chose that kind of a life-giving, universalist hermeneutic. And certainly in Eastern Christianity there developed a very different view of sin, of human nature, of how human beings are meant to live on Earth. So--in that sense--yes, the church can be accountable for how it teaches on these issues.
Oh my gosh David. This is very powerful. I’m right in line with this - with your thinking, but still have much to explore. I firmly believe that until we see ourselves all connected to each other and to this fragile earth, we will not cease going backwards as a society and as stewards of our planet, the creation. I will have to get his book. I am still envious of your time on isle of skye though - I am longing to visit there. And love that Native American idea of always thinking about the seventh generation. Thank you for this today.
Wow.
Thanks David. … and then some.
Thank you for this lovely and honest reflection, David. I too admire John Philip Newell a great deal and his courage to take a stand that reflects his true self and vision of the Sacred. Makes me take a hard look at my own vocation and how it stacks up against my ever evolving theology. Not an easy task to say the least.
Thanks, Susan--not easy, but in these days, critically important.
David, you hit every nerve in my body. This is what I believe but I don’t know what to call it. Thank you. Gloria
Let’s just call it common sense.🙂
Love the Dara Knot image David - out of the seed grows the mighty oak. Certainly heard that a time or 2 in church basements. And I also love your response to Lida about doing what you can to effect change - kind of think globally act locally mentality. Native Americans just know what’s up. I don’t overthink my recovery but I do think here and there about reversing a multigenerational curse whenever I get antsy
About reversing a multigenerational curse—I think that’s what sobriety can do. We can say, I can keep living this way, but I’m just creating a legacy of death—this is what I will hand on to my children.
Or—we can turn and seek life. We can pass life down to the next generation.
Whoops I meant what you said to Marilu!
Thank you for sharing David, this is very powerful and I fully agree. How to move forward when literally everything seems to be moving backward..
We move forward by doing what is true and right in our little corner of the world, and by witnessing to the truth, especially to our children and grandchildren. I know that's a big motivator for me--I want them to be able to say I spoke up.
In renouncing his ordination, did Newell reject the Church and the theology that it has developed or did he reject Christianity more broadly?
If the issue is ecocide and the destruction of the earth, one could argue the Church has acquiesced or participated in the perversion of God’s custodial mandate. If so, Newell’s rejection of the Church and his ordination makes sense.
If the issue is a warped theology of “chosen” versus “condemned”, that really can’t be laid at the feet of the Church. The God of the Bible set that cornerstone in his design of the entire biblical narrative long before the Church was born. On this issue at least, it seems Newell is not just breaking with the Church but with the biblical narrative more broadly.
I think Newell sees those two things--the sacredness of every human being, and the holiness of the Earth--as two sides of one coin. That you can't hold to an exclusivist view of humanity and still hold for a sacred earth--the ramifications of that kind of domineering theology will eventually catch up to you.
And as for the Bible in all this--it's true that we can find the "chosen-vs-condemned" theme in both the Testaments, but it's also true that many Hebrew prophets overturned that dynamic and announced that Yahweh-God embraced all people and all nations, and that Israel's "chosenness" was not--as many haughtily assumed--an exclusivist prize for the lucky/happy, but that Israel had been chosen to suffer for the sake of that united world under God, and to take the message of chosenness to all the nations.
And of course in the New Testament, there are the same "chosen-vs-condemned" passages, but now an onslaught of other passages where the whole notion of salvation-for-the-special-ones is forcefully upended.
All to say, what matters--always!--is a hermeneutic built on that truth. As we all know, people can use chapter and verse to support any thesis or proposition--to bolster the most wicked understandings of the Bible, or to open up a more humane and life-giving reading of it all.
And in this regard, the church is accountable. As Newell shows in his book--as has been demonstrated elsewhere a hundred times over--many segments of the early church chose that kind of a life-giving, universalist hermeneutic. And certainly in Eastern Christianity there developed a very different view of sin, of human nature, of how human beings are meant to live on Earth. So--in that sense--yes, the church can be accountable for how it teaches on these issues.
Did not Jesus come so that any and all would have a pathway to salvation thus eliminating the human designations of chosen and condemned?
Yes, that is what Jesus came for. But we have never much wanted to accept that message. Now, Newell says, we can't afford to keep denying it.
Oh my gosh David. This is very powerful. I’m right in line with this - with your thinking, but still have much to explore. I firmly believe that until we see ourselves all connected to each other and to this fragile earth, we will not cease going backwards as a society and as stewards of our planet, the creation. I will have to get his book. I am still envious of your time on isle of skye though - I am longing to visit there. And love that Native American idea of always thinking about the seventh generation. Thank you for this today.
Yes, I think you'd really like the book--in typical Celtic fashion it revels in the awe of the whole created order.