I just got my copy of this classic text the other day and I plan to start in on it today. I was a bit disappointed to find out that most of the chapters are not written by Yoder. But as this is such a short read, I'm sure we'll have time this summer to get into something more substantial from Yoder's writing. Engaging John Howard Yoder's What Would you Do?
I just got my copy of this classic text the other day and I plan to start in on it today. I was a bit disappointed to find out that most of the chapters are not written by Yoder. But as this is such a short read, I'm sure we'll have time this summer to get into something more substantial from Yoder's writing. 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This doesn't have to do with the book directly, but while my mom and I were discussing this ethical issue, she made a comment based on Joan Baez writing an essay in our book.
ReplyDeleteShe stated that if a pro-choice advocate were also a pacifist, that would severely debilitate their credibility.
I was quick to respond: that's very legitimate, but an inconsistent proponent shouldn't cancel out the argument of peacemaking...and then I added that, in my opinion, there seems to nearly always be some radical inconsistency. Pro-choice advocates really stain their pacifist ethics by their virtual genocide; yet pro-life advocates are standing up for the unborn while mowing down the unrighteous. Either way, there is a disregard for some large group of people which cripples one's stated value for human life.
I thought she made a brilliant point, and it really opens up a lot of intra-ethical issues. Any thoughts?
I didn't realize you posted a comment until now - nearly a month later! Other things have been distracting me away from Yoder so far this summer, but its finally settling down now.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Curtis - both you and your mother raise valid points. In fact, I think one of the strengths of the Yoder reading is that it allows for individuals to piece together answers to these ethical issues in different ways. One might deny the legitimacy of self-defense, another pacifist might not. One may deem police action legitimate, another not. Having said this, it is always good to be challenged to live a consistent life. There are many small ways throughout the day that I am not consistent with my peacemaking ideals. I have heard John Roth say similar things. (I'm a pacifist, but I've spanked my kids ...). I think one of the primary ways we as evangelicals are inconsistent is the fact that we champion the pro-life position so rigidly, yet most evangelicals support the death penalty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHere are some of my thoughts on the Yoder reading:
ReplyDeleteThe basic value of this book is the fact that it recognizes and addresses the “What if” question. Like most apologetically writing, I think it is most effective in helping insiders feel better about their positions and identity, or help those gravitating toward a position (in this case non-violence) but whom may still have lingering doubts.
I was at first disappointed that Yoder wasn’t the one doing all the writing. I wanted to read Yoder – this giant thinker, not other persons, most of who I had never heard of. But after reading the book, I actually think it was the Yoder chapter that I found least compelling. The logical and systematic approach was not exactly satisfying, but I think it was good that he treated the question so seriously – demonstrates an attitude of, “OK, if you really want to discuss the questions, lets dissect it.” And yet, the Yoder section certainly has some good stuff. I found the issue of control and knowledge enlightening. The fact that these questions assume that we have control of the situation and have knowledge about what will happen when in most cases we wouldn’t. I think the best part of the Yoder section is the discussion of the differences between war and self-defense. Again, this gives credence to the fact that a non-violent position has shades and variances. It is possible to against war and yet allow for some self-defense.
There is also a certain compelling strength to the testimonies of these other writers, many of whom actually lived through a “what if” situation. This kind of situation will never happen to most of us, but it is challenging to think about what I would have done in some of these situations.
It was particularly challenging to be reminded of the way that being a Christ-follower loosens the bonds of family. It is easy for me to think of the bonds of nationalist being loosened, but bonds of family and friends are different! But what Yoder is arguing IS biblical, and we must be challenged to consider how our commitment to Christ needs to be stronger than our allegiance to others who are close to us.
Of all the non-Yoder chapters I found the Dale Brown chapter most compelling, I think. His is not a personal testimony, but he shows the way hypothetical questions really don’t get at the real issues of the question. He also, like Yoder, is attune to the nuances and variances that are possible among those who hold peace positions.