Wrath and Love as Divine Consent -- by Brad Jersak

Wrath and love as divine consent

by Brad Jersak

“God does no violence to secondary causes in the accomplishment of his ends.”[1]

In this article, I will attempt to creatively apply George Grant’s theology of the Cross or ‘divine consent’ towards a metaphorical reading of wrath back into those Scriptures that so repulsed him and Simone Weil. If God operates in the world by consent, they might have seen wrath, not as the retribution of a wilful God, but as a metaphor (as they saw power) for the consequences of God’s consent to our non-consent. That is, I will appropriate Grantean consent to ‘demetaphorise’ wrath.        
Said another way, I intend to apply Simone Weil’s ‘cosmology of consent’ to the problem of how we read ‘wrath’ in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. The texts where God intervenes with smoldering vengeance were an offense to Grant and Weil as they portray a God of personal wrath through violent force—the willful uber-Gott (my term) they rejected. Grant and Weil warn us not to literalize metaphors or personalize anthropomorphisms, only to dismiss many of those passages for speaking metaphorically. Why not apply their theology of the Cross and cosmology of consent as a hermeneutical lens for demetaphorising the Bible’s judgment narratives, and so retrieving them?[2]


And so, in the Bible, where we see or hear of God’s wrath, we are usually, actually seeing God’s nonviolent consent to the natural and supernatural forces of the world and of human freedom. God’s wrath is consent to allowing, and not sparing, the powerful consequences of these forces to take their course. We say natural and supernatural, because (a) God’s order of secondary causes extends beyond our empirical or rational categories, and (b) the natural and supernatural interrelate beyond observation or comprehension. And they mysteriously inter-relate with our own power of consent to ‘bind and loose’ (Matt. 16:19) through love and prayer, to intercede in ways that might spare someone the consequences of these ‘laws.’


The following is a Grantean attempt to do so, specifically as I would address it sermonically to Evangelicals,[3] who tend to be most entangled in literalism, though it might also be beneficial to skeptics who, like Grant and Weil, find the Bible repulsive because they too read it overly literally. I will also apply Grantean consent to model how one might preach a love above and beyond wrath, where “mercy triumphs over judgement” (James 2:13).

Nicholas Wolterstorff and George Grant -- by Henry Smidstra

In response to my review of Nicholas Wolterstorff’s book, Justice: Rights and WrongsJustice: Rights and Wrongs Ron Dart asked how this book compares to, or differs from, George Grant’s book, entitled English Speaking Justice, 1974. That will take some effort at recall, as it has been a while since I read Grant’s book. I thank Ron for asking that question in that it is making me realize the amount of work I still need to do to grasp the justice and human rights issues, especially Grant’s critique of contractual justice (contractarian, the “social contract” concept) of liberal democracy. Wolterstorff does not address the topic of the social contract. 

The George C. Nowlan Lectures - by Braeden Wiens

Braeden Wiens                        The George C. Nowlan Lectures

            George Grant has many memorable lectures but perhaps the most interesting is the series of lectures he did at Acadia University in October 1969. At this point in his life Grant was still extremely well versed in the area of philosophy and politics. Grant brings the importance of the two aspects merging as one forth throughout the lecture as a focal point. The most important aspect of politics and perhaps the most negative is the areas of ideologies and only through an understanding of philosophy can politics truly flourish.

            Grant starts the lecture off by describing the relation between politics and philosophy. This relationship is described through the practice of politics and the thought of politics (Grant, 2005). By bringing forth three questions the topic is broadened. What is thought?  What is practice?  And what is politics are three questions that bring forth an understanding of how these two areas interact. Before delving into answers it is considered by Grant to be of great importance to explain the difference between state and society. Within society there are facts that cannot be explained by the state and vice versa. Through the separation of the two and having them work functionally in a community is the true definition of the polis (Grant, 2005).

Early Grant Influence - by Braeden Wiens

Braeden Wiens                                    Early Grant Influence

            George Grant is one of the greatest Canadian philosophers to have lived.  His intricate work on what Canada was and where Canada is going has lead to incredible advancements in philosophy and politics.  However, this great thinker was no different than any other man at a young age. Throughout his publications it is apparent that there was a shift in thought that lead him to become the author and thinker that we see today. Several of his works from the 30’s on culminating in the achievement of Lament for a Nation will be looked at and the progression of development that caused this change will be looked at.  

Stephen Leacock and George Grant: Faith and Politics by Ron Dart

Stephen Leacock was perhaps the greatest English Canadian intellectual of his generation.

Damien-Claude Belanger

George Grant was Canada’s most significant public philosopher.  Graeme Nicholson

Stephen Leacock (1869-1944) and George Grant (1918-1988) were men of deep religious faith and passionate about politics. Both men were firmly rooted and grounded in the Anglican tradition, were committed to the classical Canadian conservative political vision and were prominent professors at public universities and in public life. These men did not retreat into private institutions to protect a fragile faith that could not stand up to the challenges of serious and substantive intellectual thought.

Leacock and Grant: Anglicans for all seasons - by Ron Dart

STEPHEN LEACOCK & GEORGE GRANT:

 ANGLICANS FOR ALL SEASONS

Stephen Leacock (1869-1944) is a Canadian icon, and most know him as our national court jester. Laughter does hold both its sides when Leacock’s many short stories are read and pondered. Fewer Canadians know that Leacock was a political economist, and he taught at McGill University until he retired in 1936. In fact, Leacock’s best selling books were more in the discipline of political science rather than his many collections in the genre of humour. But, fewer still know that Leacock was a committed Anglican, and, in many ways, he was the most public and best known Anglican in the history of Canadian political, literary and religious life.

Sunshine Sketches of a Little Town (1912) and Arcadian Adventures with the Idle Rich (1914) are Canadian literary classics, and it is impossible to miss Leacock’s  Anglican and political  vision in these memorable missives. Leacock never flinches from asking hard religious, economic and political questions in these tracts for the times, but his satiric and critical bite is always tempered with plenty of humour and kindness. Leacock was as willing to doubt the dogmatism of liberalism as he was the reactionary nature of much conservatism. He did, in thought, word and deed, embody a subtle and nuanced via media.

Simone Weil on 'Forgive us our debts' - trans. Brad Jersak

‘And remit us our debts, in the same way that we also have remitted our debtors.’

In the moment that we say these words, we must already have remitted all debts. This includes not only letting go of the reparation of any offences we think we have suffered; but also any recognition and gratitude for the good we think we have done. And in a completely general way, anything that we expect from people or things, everything we believe is our due, the absence of which has made us feel frustrated.

Forgiveness is letting go of every right we believe is ours in the past or in the future. First, this includes the right to a certain permanence. When we have enjoyed something for a long time, we believe it is ours, and that fate must allow us to keep enjoying it. Second, we let go of the right to compensation for all of our efforts, regardless of the nature of our effort, work, suffering or desire.