I share the lecture on my blog because reconciliation is a popular subject, but one that is usually discussed with more sentimentality and emotion than moral and ethical insight. This certainly appears to be true regarding racial reconciliation. I hope my observations will open new opportunities for serious reflection and engagement about the issue amoang people of faith, but especially among Baptists who make up the largest population of Protestant Christians in the United States.
REPENTANCE, RECONCILIATION, AND BAPTISTS—
A RETROSPECTIVE AND LESSONS FROM OUR HISTORY
©Wendell
Griffen, 2015
2015 T. B.
MASTON LECTURES IN CHRISTIAN ETHICS
LOGSDON SEMINARY
HARDIN-SIMMONS
UNIVERSITY
ABILENE, TEXAS
MARCH 23, 2015
President
Hall, Dean Williford, Dr. Baker, members of the Logsdon Seminary community,
members of the T.B. Maston Foundation Board, T. B. Maston Young Scholars,
sisters and brothers:
Thank you for inviting me to be with you
for the 2015 T.B. Maston Lectures. I was
more than mildly surprised and pleased when Dean Williford contacted me last
year and inquired whether I was “available and amenable” to present the
lectures this year.
I
am a bivocational Baptist pastor of New Millennium Church, an almost six-year
old congregation in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Each Lord’s Day the people of New Millennium affirm who we are and our
purpose with the following words.
We
praise and worship God, together.
We
petition God, together.
We
proclaim God, together.
We
welcome all persons in God’s love, together.
We
live for God, in every breath and heartbeat, by the power of the Holy Spirit,
as followers of Jesus Christ, together.
In
that spirit, I was delighted to accept Dean Williford’s gracious invitation to
be with you and I thank God for the honor you have extended by inviting
me. I also am grateful to Dr. Larry
Baker and Ms. Peggy Gammill for their assistance in arranging my visit.
Dr. Ray Higgins (Coordinator of
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship of Arkansas) has come from Little Rock to attend
these lectures. Ray has been a
tremendous blessing to me as a friend and colleague in ministry. I understand that Ray Higgins and Dr.
Emmanuel McCall of McAfee School of Theology in Georgia may have somehow influenced
you to consider inviting me to be the lecturer this year. I thank God for their gracious recommendation
and pray that my observations and comments will not cause the Holy Spirit or them
to be ashamed.
Several years ago I met Bill Jones
(Chair, Board of Trustees, T.B. Maston Foundation for Christian Ethics) at the
Baptist Conference on Sexuality and Covenant that convened at First Baptist
Church in Decatur, Georgia. Bill gave me
a copy of Both-And: A Maston Reader that is part of my personal library
and shows how a white Baptist courageously and humbly confronted societal and
global injustice through the lens of the gospel of Jesus. Thank you, Bill, for your work with the
Maston Foundation, and I thank your fellow trustees and others whose generosity
allows your work to continue.
The title of my remarks this evening is Repentance,
Reconciliation, and Baptists-A Retrospective and Lessons from Our History. I intend to briefly reflect about the way repentance
figures in how Baptists understand human salvation. Then I will recall our struggle to apply that
understanding of repentance to societal oppression and injustice. Lastly, I will refer to an event from
relatively recent history to illustrate how Baptist views about repentance and
racism impact our ability to present the gospel of Jesus in ways that are
coherent and compelling concerning racism as well as sin of sexism, classism,
imperialism, militarism, and techno-centrism.
Tomorrow morning I will speak about Repentance,
Reconciliation, and Baptists—Re-Imagining and Embracing the Subversive Gospel
of Jesus in the 21st Century.
I will offer suggestions for Baptist engagement—denominationally,
academically, congregationally, and personally, concerning social ethics
drawing on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s call for “a radical revolution of
values.” And I will suggest that by
re-imagining and embracing the gospel of Jesus in that “subversive” way Baptist
followers of Jesus will be inspired to confront racism, sexism, classism,
imperialism, militarism, and techno-centrism. Although I consider these to be
prevalent and entrenched causes of oppression today, I will conclude by
affirming why I agree with my dear friend and brother from South Africa, Dr.
Allan Aubrey Boesak, in daring to “speak of hope.”[1]
Repentance,
Reconciliation and Baptist Thought
The major religions of the world agree
that the practice of repentance is an essential aspect of right fellowship with
the Divine and others. Biblical Hebrew
expresses the idea of repentance by two verbs:
shuv (to return) and nacham (to feel sorrow). The New Testament uses the Greek word metanoia, a compound word that joins the
preposition “meta” (after, with) with the verb “noeo” (to perceive, to think,
the result of perceiving or observing) to convey the idea of afterthought,
often expressed as a change of mind and conduct. The Bible uses the words “repent,”
“repentance,” and “repented” more than 100 times.
Throughout the Bible, repentance is expressed as a call
for a radical turn from one way of life to another because of the relationship
one has with God. In that sense,
repentance is more than sorrow or regret.
It is conversion from
self-worship, self-love, self-trust, and self-righteousness to God-love,
God-trust, and righteousness according to God.
Repentance
begins with admitting guilt for committing a wrong against God and others
(whether by commission or omission)—meaning confession. Beyond that, Scripture shows that repentance
involves turning away from the wrongful act or practice. Where the wrongful act or practice is against
others, repentance requires attempting to make restitution for the wrong done
and any injury caused by it or otherwise acting to reverse the harmful effects
of the wrong or omission.
Baptists
interpret the Bible, in fact all of life, through the life and ministry of
Jesus Christ. Jesus, like the other Hebrew prophets who
lived before him, confronted the people of his time and place concerning the
need for repentance. Mark’s Gospel
reports that “after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the
good news of God, and saying: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God
has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.’” (Mark 1:14-15; see also, Matthew 4:12-17; Luke
4:14-15). The idea of repentance for
Jesus—as was true for the Hebrew prophets before him—involved rejecting
idolatry of self and turning to (embracing) God’s vision about how we relate to
God and others.
Repentance
for Jesus and the Hebrew prophets is not optional, morally or ethically. Repentance is an ethical imperative! Any notion of human salvation that omits or
disregards the ethical imperative of repentance is inconsistent with the gospel
of Jesus.
The entire process of repentance is part
and parcel of the divine undertaking of salvation. At its essence, salvation involves the
process by which humanity is reconciled back to God in faithful love. Like everything else in salvation, repentance is a gift from God that
we either accept or reject by faith. We
do not repent on our own. Repentance is
God-inspired, God-focused, and must be God-purposed. In repentance, humans embrace the grace of
God to confess, confront, and turn from idolatry of self and to be people of
divine love, justice, truth, and hope.
Ultimately,
repentance inspires us with the mandate for reconciliation. Humans are estranged from God and one
another due to sin. But the grace of God
that makes repentance possible, no—morally and ethically required, also impels
us to perceive that sin produces estrangement.
Sin causes us to be estranged from God, our Creator. At the same time sin causes us to be
estranged from ourselves, other persons, and the rest of creation. Through repentance, we are impelled to turn
from the ethics of chaos, estrangement, and self-righteousness and embrace
reconciliation and community.
Repentance is a
faithful response to prophetic protest
The
Bible also reveals that persons and societies are called to repentance by
prophetic challenge, not internal impulse.
In Genesis we read of God confronting Adam and Eve following the Fall
and God confronting Cain after the murder of Abel. Then we read of Noah confronting his society
before the Deluge. In Exodus Moses is
the prophetic agent sent by God to confront the Egyptian empire with the
repentance imperative concerning oppression of the Hebrew population.
The
prophetic call to repentance is always an act of protest. It is an observation and objection that the
way we live violates the Great Commandment that we love God with our whole
being and love others as ourselves.
Somehow, people are inspired to recognize that people are not living as
God would have us live, meaning that our relationships are not right with God
and each other, whether because of actions we take or duties we neglect. Somehow, the Spirit of God inspires people
with insight about love, truth, and justice (righteousness) who are then impelled
to protest conditions and situations that violate the love, truth, and justice
of God. Without that protest, idolatry
of self prevents us from recognizing our sinfulness and confronting the
imperative for repentance.
So repentance does not begin with
us. Repentance begins with God whose
love, truth, and justice define the meaning of right and wrong, good and evil,
healthful and harmful, just and unjust.
God inspires people to see situations and relationships from the divine
perspective. Then God commissions those
inspired people to become prophetic protestors with God for love, justice, and
truth and confront persons and societies to confess sinfulness, return to God,
and restore what has been harmed because of sin.
There
is no repentance, personally or societally, without the disturbance of that subversive
protest, subversive in that it asserts a different and counter-cultural version
about life, love, truth, and justice from what is the dominant narrative. God is literally Protestor in Chief
concerning our actions and attitudes that violate divine love, truth, and
justice. God summons prophetic
protestors to proclaim God’s demand that we live according to divine love,
truth, and justice and protest our failure and refusal to do so.
And
in repentance, we join God in protesting our transgressions and
derelictions. We not only agree with God
that our transgressions and derelictions are wrong and harmful. We agree to
turn back toward God in repentance to protest our sinfulness with God, and in
repentance turn away from that sinfulness toward God. With God’s help we become protestors of our
ways. We not only agree with God that
our ways require prophetic protest. In
repentance we become God’s people of protest, prophetic and subversive agents
of divine love, truth, and justice. We
never become repentant people without somehow becoming prophetic people about God’s
love, truth, and righteousness (justice).
Thus, the Hebrew prophets, John the
Baptist, Jesus and the people who followed Jesus were prophetic subversives of
repentance. They were markedly and
intentionally inspired to view life and living from the radically different
perspective of divine love, truth, and justice.
That inspiration caused Moses to confront Egyptian unjust treatment of
Hebrew workers. Nathan was inspired to
protest to David about misusing personal and political power in his
relationships with Bathsheba and Uriah.
Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were inspired to protest the
ways that power was abused to oppress widows, children, immigrants, workers,
the weak, and people who were poor.
Jesus was inspired by the Holy Spirit to protest the ways power was
abused by religious authorities to oppress rather than to liberate, to rupture
fellowship rather than nurture reconciliation, and to benefit the wealthy while
disregarding the plight of suffering people.
Baptist views
about repentance and injustice
Baptists have always viewed repentance as an inseparable
aspect of the grace of God leading to salvation. We speak about repentance as a change of
heart inspired by the Holy Spirit and conviction that our sin offends God and
violates the conditions by which we are in right relationship with God and
others. As far as I can tell,
Baptists have held this view across the centuries and everywhere Baptists have
created fellowships of believers in the gospel of Jesus.
Yet
in doing so, Baptists have stressed repentance as an aspect of personal piety,
not an ethical imperative for doing justice.
We speak, write, preach, and sing about repentance as part of one’s
personal relationship with God. But we rarely
speak of repentance as necessary for healing broken relationships between
people who abuse power and others victimized by abuses of power. This pietistic concept of repentance, however
sincerely it may be held and practiced, does not square with the way repentance
is presented in Scripture.
In other words, there is a marked disconnect
between the Biblical approach to repentance and the way most Christian bodies,
including Baptist denominations and fellowships, have understood and practiced
repentance. The Hebrew writings and the
New Testament gospels demonstrate that repentance always requires acts of
restitution and restoration that nurture reconciliation and reunion.
In
Torah, the sin offering was presented to atone for sin based on acknowledgement
of guilt. Meanwhile, the trespass offering was
presented to atone for sin based on acknowledgement of injury. The trespass
offering ritual in Torah reminds us that sin against others always involves
more than personal guilt. Sin also causes
damage, harm, and injury to relationships with others. That damage, harm, and injury is not atoned
for without voluntary and intentional conduct to repair what has been harmed,
damaged, or injured. We never repair the
harm, damage, injury or undo the oppression of sin against others by merely
making an apology.
Acknowledging
guilt is important. But acknowledging
guilt does not restore what has been wrongfully taken. Acknowledging guilt does
not rebuild what has been destroyed.
Acknowledging guilt does not heal what has been wounded. Doing those things requires more than confessing
guilt. The work of healing what has been
wounded, righting what has been wronged, and restoring what has been stolen or destroyed
requires doing justice and the ethics of restitution, reparation, restoration,
and reconciliation. Until we do these
things we have not engaged in Biblical repentance, no matter what else we may
have accomplished.
Baptists
have emphasized the need to acknowledge guilt and remorse concerning sin, but
we have consistently shown less enthusiasm about acknowledging the way sin
injures, harms, and oppresses others. We
often speak of the need for confession but resist—and some may even say resent!—the
Biblical mandate for restitution, reparation, and restoration that are the
foundation for reconciliation, meaning restoration of community.
Allow me to refer to a famous example
from recent memory, 1995 (twenty years ago).
During the 150th anniversary of the Southern Baptist
Convention messengers in Atlanta, Georgia adopted an eloquent resolution on
racial reconciliation. The resolution
admits that slavery played a role in the formation of the Southern Baptist
Convention. It admits that Southern
Baptists “defended the right to own slaves, and either participated in,
supported, or acquiesced in the particularly inhumane nature of American
slavery.” The resolution also admits
that , Southern Baptists “… later… failed, in many cases to support, and in
some cases opposed, legitimate initiatives to secure the civil rights of
African-Americans.”
The resolution goes on to admit that
racism “has led to discrimination, oppression, injustice, and violence …
throughout the history of our nation.” The resolution laments that racism and that
“historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter
harvest… has separated us from our African-American brothers and sisters.” Thus, the resolution resolves to apologize to
“all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and
systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we
have been guilty, whether consciously (citing Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously
(citing Leviticus 4:27).
I
do not question the sincerity of the messengers in Atlanta who adopted that eloquent
expression of collective guilt and remorse for racism, slavery, discrimination,
and other oppression related to racism toward African-Americans. Yet, it is striking that the messengers
resolved to “ask forgiveness from our African-American brothers and sisters,
acknowledging that our own healing is at
stake (emphasis added).” The resolution is conspicuously, and I might
add suspiciously, silent about healing the damage, injury, and harm suffered by
African Americans because of more than 250 years of slavery, another century of
legalized segregation, and continued systemic practices and policies that are
the legacy of that tragic history.
Respectfully, let us contrast that
resolution with an experience from the life of Jesus that South African
theologian Allan Aubrey Boesak addressed in the book titled Radical
Reconciliation: Beyond Political Pietism
and Christian Quietism, which Boesak co-authored with Curtiss Paul DeYoung
(Orbis Books, 2012). Allan Boesak
draws on the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-9), the chief tax collector who
lived in Jericho and was both extremely rich and hated because he superintended
an oppressive tax collection regime.
Zacchaeus not only received a stipend
from the Roman authorities for collecting taxes. He took a percentage of whatever his agents collected. If tax collectors in general were hated by
the people, Zacchaeus, as chief tax collector, was hated most of all. Allan Boesak remarks that Zacchaeus chose a
tree perch for a chance to see Jesus not merely because he was short in
stature, but because being in a tree was the safest spot for him given how much
he was hated and alienated from the people that his tax collection regime
oppressed for the Roman government.
As we know, Jesus invited himself to
dinner at the home of Zacchaeus, that notoriously oppressive and wealthy
man. We have no transcript of their
dinner conversation, but whatever transpired between Jesus and Zacchaeus
inspired the chief tax collector to divest himself of half his wealth and add
that “if I have defrauded anyone of anything I will pay back four times as
much” (Luke 19:8). Boesak points to
Zacchaeus as instructive about ten things that are required to make repentance
and reconciliation genuine, workable, and sustainable.
First, Zacchaeus acknowledged his personal complicity in and
benefit from a system of oppressing others. Boesak
writes that Zacchaeus did not “try and defend himself by arguing that he had to
make a living, that this was merely his job, or that he had a family to look
after. He knew that he unjustly
benefited from oppression and suffering.”[2]
Second, reconciliation requires both remorse and acknowledging
that the victim of oppression has a right to righteous anger. Boesak adds
“my victim also has a right to restitution—it has nothing to do with my
magnanimity, it is all about justice. It
is acknowledging my victim’s pain as a result of what I have done, and making
it right with acts of justice.” [3]
Third, reconciliation is not merely spiritual, but produces restitution—meaning
real and tangible gains for victims of oppression. Pledging to give half of his possessions to
the poor and pay back four times whatever he had stolen was not a symbolic
gesture. It was an act of restitution
required in order make repentance result in justice, rather than merely an
assuagement of guilt. Restitution is always
substantive, never symbolic. According
to Boesak, “Without restitution, reconciliation is not possible.”[4] Otherwise,
we are proponents of the cheap grace that Dietrich Bonhoeffer debunked so
persuasively in The Cost of Discipleship.
Fourth, “there can be no reconciliation without equality.”[5] By divesting himself of half his wealth and
restoring four times whatever he had stolen from what remained Zacchaeus
removed himself from the exclusive club of the wealthy in Jericho and became a
man of the people. Repentance results in
reconciliation when we divest ourselves of unjustly obtained privilege and
power.
Fifth, repentance and reconciliation involves more than
restoring our broken relationship with God but is also about repairing and
restoring broken relationships with others.
Zacchaeus didn’t merely make a private confession to Jesus that he was
wrong. He demonstrated his genuine
remorse and conversion by making a public commitment to restitution because he
recognized that was necessary to accomplish justice.[6]
Sixth, Zacchaeus didn’t treat his sin as between himself and God. Unlike David, who said at Psalm 51:4 “Against
you, you alone, have I sinned,” thereby limiting his notion of repentance to a personal
relationship with God while expressing no concern for the impact of his sin on Bathsheba
and Uriah, Zacchaeus made a public expression of remorse and shame backed by
his commitment to restitution and restoration to people harmed by his sin. [7]
Seventh, Boesak points out that when reconciliation (which is the
end result of repentance) involves “uncovering the sin, showing remorse, making
restitution, and restoring relationships with deeds of compassionate justice,
then, and only then, is reconciliation complete, right, sustainable, and
radical, because it becomes transformational.
That is its salvific power.”[8] We are not called to repentance in order to
merely experience relief from guilt. The
divine imperative of repentance works to transform us from self-worshipping
beings into God-glorifying agents of love, truth, and justice.
Eighth, genuine reconciliation not only results in personal
salvation but “brings salvation for Zacchaeus and his house.” Because of
the commitment to repentance and restitution that Zacchaeus demonstrated by
divesting himself of half his wealth (wealth derived because Zacchaeus
benefited from systemic oppression), Zacchaeus’ household, meaning his entire
circle of intimate family relationships, was “released from the generational
curse of guilt and shame that comes with exploitative, systematic relationships.”[9]
Ninth, Boesak contends that repentance and reconciliation for
Zacchaeus as a result of the experience with Jesus impelled Zacchaeus to confront his life of oppression and
self-aggrandizement as a functionary of Roman imperialism and convert to a value system focused on
divine justice rather than imperial dictates and personal perks. As Boesak puts it, “Zacchaeus switched
sides.”[10] I think this is what Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr. meant when he spoke of the need to embrace what he called “a radical
revolution of values” in the sermon King delivered at Riverside Church to
announce his opposition to the U.S. war in Southeast Asia on April 4,
1967. Repentance is more than personal
salvation, privilege, and relief from guilt.
It involves changing sides and joining God in creating what King and
Howard Thurman before him called “the Beloved Community.”
Tenth, and finally, Boesak affirms that reconciliation—which requires
repentance—produces a new identity.
Repentance changed Zacchaeus from being known as “a chief tax collector”
to being “a son of Abraham.”[11] Repentance involves the kind of faith that
not only changes how we feel. Repentance
changes us intrinsically so that we are always becoming people of divine love,
truth, and justice.
Jesus
shows us through the encounter with Zacchaeus that Biblical repentance always involves
a great deal more than making an apology.
Biblical repentance demands action to restore fellowship, heal injuries,
and recompense for harms sinners inflict that cause unwarranted suffering to
others. Repentance requires that the
wrongdoer acknowledge the holy anger of victims about what they have suffered,
not insist that victims swallow that anger to spare the beneficiaries of
oppression from discomfort and inconvenience.
What
is conspicuously and suspiciously missing from the 1995 resolution adopted by
the Southern Baptist Convention to apologize for slavery, racism, and
discrimination, is any commitment like that shown by Zacchaeus to make
restitution to the historical victims of racism, slavery, and
discrimination. Instead, the resolution
entreats African Americans for forgiveness by affirming that “our own healing
is at stake.” No commitment is affirmed,
let alone pledged, to do the healing work of justice for people whose ancestors
were enslaved, dehumanized, defrauded, terrorized, and marginalized and who
continue to suffer from that colossal violation of divine love, truth, and
justice.
Respectfully,
I contend that the 1995 resolution exposes a fundamental misunderstanding about
and misrepresentation of what the gospel of Jesus teaches about repentance and
reconciliation. If we are serious about
racial reconciliation as followers of the Jesus who encountered Zacchaeus,
Baptists and any other followers of Jesus must confront and confess the glaring
ethical difference between merely apologizing for historical oppression and correcting
the consequences of that oppression through restitution leading to
reconciliation.
Repentance,
like grace, is costly, not cheap. When
Baptists, who profess to believe in the authority of Scripture and the Lordship
of Jesus, treat repentance as was shown by the 1995 Atlanta resolution
concerning racism, slavery, and discrimination, we are merely being apologetic,
not repentant.
In
making this observation I do not denounce the 1995 resolution as
insincere. However sincere it may be, it
is clearly a far cry from what Jesus showed repentance to involve through the
example of Zacchaeus. According to that
example, the litmus test for repentant sincerity is not defined by how
conspicuously one apologizes for transgressions and derelictions that oppress
others. It is whether our apology is accompanied by actions that heal wounds,
confront and eliminate inequality, and honor the righteous anger of the
oppressed. Without those things, an
apology amounts to mere rhetoric.
Justice is always much more than a
rhetorical exercise. Perhaps that is one
reason Baptists are not considered prophetic concerning social justice concerns
involving racism, sexism, classism, imperialism, militarism, and
techno-centrism. For all its eloquent
sincerity, the 1995 resolution represents to Baptists and the wider world that
the largest body of Baptists considers repentance to mean little more than apologizing
for wrongfulness, and doing no more than the apologizer considers convenient.
Last June The Atlantic magazine
published a compelling article by Ta-Nehesi Coates that began with this passage
found at Deuteronomy 15:12-15.
If a member of your community, whether a
Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and works for you six years, in
the seventh year you shall set that person free. And when you send a male slave out from you a
free person, you shall not send him out empty-handed. Provide liberally out of your flock, your
threshing floor, and your wine press, thus giving to him some of the bounty
with which the LORD your God has blessed you.
Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your
God redeemed you; for this reason, I lay this command upon you today.
Coates
opened his article, titled “The Case for Reparations,” with that passage. It is remarkable that a journalist of a
secular magazine has been more prophetically forthright about the essential
relationship between reparations and social justice, using the same Bible
Baptists profess to be authoritative for our faith and practice, than has been
true for Baptist clergy, laypersons,
congregations, denominations, and educational institutions.
Until
we are prepared to become more than apologists concerning historical
transgressions and derelictions, our appeals about repentance to the rest of
the world not only will ring hollow. We will
enable the world to embrace a “cheap grace” perspective about repentance and
salvation that runs contrary to the entire record of Scripture, including the
teachings and example of Jesus.
At
best, we will be weak witnesses to the transforming and salvific work of
repentance in a world ravaged by racism, sexism, classism, militarism, and
techno-centrism. At worse, we will be
considered hypocrites. If the people who
follow Jesus are unwilling to practice Biblical repentance as displayed by
Zacchaeus concerning past and continuing harms, we should not be surprised when
the rest of the world refuses to do so and disregards what we say, sing, and
preach about the relationship between repentance, salvation, and
reconciliation.
In sum, the world needs to see us living
as prophetic witnesses who proclaim and incarnate the salvation ethic of
repentance. God calls us, through Jesus
Christ and the Holy Spirit, to embrace the radical, revolutionary, and
subversive repentance that Jesus revealed for us through his encounter with
Zacchaeus.
But not only is the world waiting for Baptists
to confront that ethical imperative as followers of Jesus in our personal,
congregational, associational, and wider relationships and witness. God is waiting and hoping that we will live as
if we understand what Jesus, the other Hebrew prophets, and the rest of
Scripture have revealed about the transforming and reconciling power of
repentance for God’s sin-scarred and broken humanity and God’s wounded creation.
Amen.
[1]
Allen Aubrey Boesak, Dare We Speak of
Hope? Searching for a Language of Life
in Faith and Politics, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2014).
[2] Allen
Aubrey Boesak and Curtiss Paul DeYoung, Radical
Reconciliation: Beyond Political Pietism
and Christian Quietism, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2012), p 68.
[4] Ibid.
68.
[5] Ibid.
68.
[6] Ibid.
69.
[7] Ibid.
69.
[8] Ibid.
70.
[9] Ibid.
71.
[10]
Ibid. 71.
[11] Ibid.
73.
No comments:
Post a Comment