Talk:John Howard Yoder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't it a copyvio to have such large sections of text by Yoder sampled here? --Jacquelyn Marie 04:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If the section is under copyright, yes. I'm not sure who added it or when, so I'm not sure of the status. KHM03 10:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining changes

I am echoing the concerns expressed by Rbj (talk • contribs) in an edit summary that fairly massive changes have taken place here with no discussion and no edit summary. At the very least an edit summary should be used to give the experienced editors here some idea of what has been changed and a brief reason. Immediately below I am including the {{summary}} template that is often used to on user pages as a reminder:

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_guidelines: "Don't include copies of primary sources: Don't copy lengthy poems, speeches or other source text into Wikipedia. Consider placing them in Wikisource if you need to." Hay4 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yoder's Sexual Misconduct

Please, someone, tell me why his "misconduct" is relevant? Hay4 23:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you take this argument to the John F. Kennedy entry? Why don't you take it to the Martin Luther King entry? You don't, because you know you're wrong, and you're only making this into an issue because you're terrified that your idol could possibly have made a mistake. Well, he did, and the reason it's relevant to this specific entry is that Yoder and the Church provided an excellent example of the Yoder theology in action during the reconciliation process. What this ends up becoming is a celebration of Yoder's triumph over a personal ethical failure, through the application of his brilliant theology. I think it's time for you to accept that the greatest of men make mistakes. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a womanizer. Mahatma Gandhi was a racist. Get over your hero worship. Separate the man from his work. A fair and rational look at John Howard Yoder shows us that this is relevant information because of the way that he, the Church, and the women involved handled the situation.

And I would just like to add, you need to stop acting as if his misconduct isn't corroborated. It is. By a number of sources. That's the real reason you edited it down. You're just trying to discredit it.70.168.137.34 04:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Jono11

--> I edited it down because it's not significant and probably shouldn't even be mentioned. By allowing the controversy to be mentioned at all is a huge victory for your camp. I think that you're unfairly overlooking the fact that the information I allowed to remain leaves no doubt that Yoder considered the allegations of misconduct to be true. Hay4 06:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore your more infantile accusations and address the argument that the reconciliation process is somehow noteworthy. (Before I begin, rest assured that I don't think that Yoder was "brilliant." I don't even agree with most of what he wrote.) The examples you list of Kennedy, King, Ghandi (and I'm not sure you understand what racism means), et al are distinguishable from Yoder's case because Yoder was not a public figure or a political leader but simply an academic. He was well-acquianted with a circumscribed number of texts and he wrote about them. It's that simple. I don't understand how his private sexual conduct figures into any of his ideas. I can see that this is an emotional issue for you, but you only embarrass yourself by spouting moralistic nonsense in a serious academic context. BTW, exactly how is this matter an example of an "application of his brilliant theology"? I think that is the crux of your argument yet you whizzed right by the point when you should have expounded on it. I'll give you another try. Hay4 06:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, scary college student can say "infantile." Look, Yoder was a very public figure. He is THE Mennonite scholar that non-Mennonites learn about. He is our ambassador to the world, in a very real sense. And so his personal life is something to be discussed. The relevance of this issue to his work is clear. First, it's empirically shown by the fact that a major cross-denominational conference of theologians, discussing Yoder's WORK, also found it necessary to discuss his sexual misconduct. That's in one of the articles you keep deleting. Second, when we look to Jim Wallis and especially to Stanley Hauerwas, who is closely linked with Yoder's theology, both of them bring it up as specifically relating to his work and theology. The relevance is shown by three sources. With that in mind, I will be re-editing. You challenge the relevance of his sexual misconduct after removing the demonstration of relevance from the article. I feel that in light of this clear controversy and expectation of proven relevance, the article must not only discuss the subject, but must prove its relevance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.168.137.34 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't think Hauerwas is particularly pursuasive regarding anything he thinks and the conference you reference didn't go off without controversy, indicating there wasn't a consensus about the relevance of Yoder's "misconduct." Basically, your argument that his conduct is relevant is an appeal to authority that I find weak and unpursuasive. What I'm looking for is, in your words, an explanation of why his "misconduct" is relevant. If you feel so strongly about this, surely you have an argument. Let's hear it. Hay4 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you think Hauerwas was persuasive (spelled with an "e" after the "p") doesn't mean jack squat. That's your personal opinion. I have stated several times why this issue is relevant, for two reasons. The fact of the matter is, Yoder's sexual misconduct, and the aftermath of it, are relevant to his work because they are seen as relevant by pre-eminent Yoderian scholars and by his intellectual descendants. Relevance is not measured in one person's thoughts. Relevance is measured in what we see going on in the world, and since Yoder's sexual misconduct is so inextricably tied to discussions of his work, it merits mention. Not only does it merit mention, but it merits discussion. It is, as I have stated over and over and over and over and over again, an example of his thoughts on reconciliation being played out in the real world. While most philosophers and theologians simply preach their ideas and never get a chance to prove them by living them out, John Howard Yoder demonstrated his ideas through his own actions. That's the second reason why a discussion of his sexual misconduct is not only relevant, but vitally important, to the conversation about Yoder.Jono11 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You made two points above. Your first point is a repetition of your previous weak appeal to authority. I didn't find it persuasive the first time and I don't find it persuasive now. Yoder scholars disagree on whether his "misconduct" is relevant; it is intellecutally dishonest to appeal to an arbitrarily selected group of experts. On your second point, you made two sub-points. First, you simply state that relevance is not measured solely in one person's thoughts. Why? Why must a person live out his/her ideas in order to "prove" that the ideas are good? (Remember, I asked for a non-moralistic argument why this is the case.) Second, the reconciliation that Yoder underwent was basically a political move to move him from a weaker political position to a stronger one. This not the same as the kind of forgiveness he writes about. The kind of forgiveness advocated by Yoder involves forgiving without respect to calculated gain. The two cases are distinguishable. If you can make an argument that his private actions are relevant, then it would make more sense to find an instance in his life where he forgave someone that did something wrong to him when he didn't have to and where it didn't put him in a politically stronger position. Hay4 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, did John Howard Yoder really write the Schleitheim Confession in 1977? I was under the impression that it had been written years before that. And I know that Our Holy Yoder can travel through time, so I'm not disputing that he wrote it, but I don't think it was in 1977.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jono11 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

http://www.amazon.com/Schleitheim-Confession-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0836118316 I hope that link helps you. Yoder apparently translated and edited it and had the fruit of labor published. Do you know how to use google? Hay4 06:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was what we call a "joke." I'm sure Wikipedia has an entry for "joke." Or maybe for humor. You can check those out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.168.137.34 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

It wasn't funny.Hay4 07:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Everybody I know that saw it thought it was hilarious. Normally, I'd resign myself to the fact that no one agrees on what's funny, but I'm starting to suspect that you're the type of stuffy, jumped-up, strutting, pseudo-intellectual college student that patently lacks a sense of humor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jono11 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

"Everybody I know that saw it thought it was hilarious." How many people did you show? Hay4 08:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the direction that Hay4 is heading in this discussion: include a brief, well-cited paragraph, and avoid giving the topic undue weight. The opposing saracasm is noted and perhaps is why I don't find the argument for an expanded section as convincing as Hay4's more measured approach. In the current revision the whole paragraphs starting "There remains a contingent of Mennonites ..." appears to be original research and begs for a citation. In the previous version, the last sentence. "Whether Yoder's private conduct ..." has the same problem. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the second statement in my shortened version needed a citation as well. Perhaps I'll look for one if we can settle on that version. Hay4 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I remain opposed to this deliberate understatement of the importance of this event in the life of John Howard Yoder. Furthermore, the second paragraph beginning with "There remains a contingent of Mennonites..." is not original research and refers directly to a previous sourced statement. If you want me to put in another footnote with exactly the same information, when any reasonable reader would see the similarity between the phrase "a 2002 conference" and "the 2002 conference," Charles has already taken care of that. I'm more than willing to concede that the second paragraph isn't necessary, but it was included to placate Hay4.

I don't feel that one paragraph, fully discussing the nature of the misconduct and the relevance that it clearly presents to Yoder's theology and work, is undue weight. It's a rare example of a philosopher getting a chance to prove his ideals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jono11 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

"I remain opposed to this deliberate understatement of the importance of this event[.]" This sentence contains no information. The way you describe the previous representation of the event already presupposes that one should be opposed to it. What I am looking for is a reason that my version of the controversy is understated. As far as I can tell from your above post, you simply assert that the controversy allowed Yoder to "prove" his ideals but you don't describe how the controversy is related to anything he wrote or why we should care that he personally "proved" his ideals. Even if it was necessary to have his ideals "proven" (which is far from certain), there is no necessary connection between Yoder's ideals and Yoder's life. It could very well be that Yoder came up with wonderful ideas that others have since "proven." Hay4 09:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I use "prove" in the sense that he proved his ideals were his ideals, not just something he jotted down and made a buck off of. One of the most frequent critiques of philosophy and theology is that thinkers rarely act upon what they write about. Yoder answers this critique. You obviously don't want to be convinced that Yoder's actions were connected to his theology, so it won't matter that two of the most influential radical Christian theologians, Wallis and Hauerwas, intellectual cousins to Yoder, have already made this argument. It won't matter that I argue that Yoder's submission to discipline was, in fact, an example of him living out the theology of reconciliation, which applies both to offender and victim. None of that will matter to you, because you've already decided that his submission to discipline was purely political. That is unadulterated speculation on your part, not corroborated by any source, if there could even be a source for such a thing, and the idea that you are trying to shape this article based on your own speculation runs directly counter to an academic approach. Charles and I have done nothing but provide evidence and sources to back up our claims.

First you claimed that the allegations were just a rumor, so we provided evidence that he had submitted to discipline. You said it wasn't enough, so we provided evidence that he had admitted to it. Then you said it wasn't relevant, so we supplied evidence that two separate thinkers saw his theology played out in the aftermath of his sexual misconduct, and that a conference of Yoderian scholarship, a conference that can probably be seen to represent contemporary Yoderian scholarship, included a specific discussion of his sexual misconduct, which also demonstrates relevance. You then retreated into argumentative jargon, a classic tactic of the kid who took a couple philosophy courses, when he's backed into a corner. You have not brought one source into this entire discussion, not one rebuttal of the relevance of Yoder's sexual misconduct, while Charles and I have been able to back up all of our claims. I struggle to understand how this can still even be a debate.70.165.102.178 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Jono11

First, I never claimed that the allegations weren't true. I said that given what is publicly known, it could very well be that Yoder was taken advantage of. This continues to be a possibility. When you provided evidence that Yoder had characterized his conduct otherwise, I became convinced that alternate theories of his conduct shouldn't be taken into consideration. Second, you keep pointing to some conference in which people walked out in protest as an indication that Yoder's private conduct is relevant. One group thought that Yoder's private conduct was relevant to his work and one group disagreed strongly enought to walk out. I'm not sure why you see this as some sort of victory for one single point of view on Yoder's private conduct. Perhaps you'll explain that one to me. (Actually, you won't because you can't.) Third, you seem to think that pointing to the opinions of backwoods thinkers like Hauerwas and Wallis is tantamount to providing evidence that something is true. Generally speaking, pointing to someone else's conclusion on a matter is not evidence of anything; it is simply a failure to think and reason for yourself. Moreover, one could read their words on the matter as simply a reflection on the controversy rather than an argument that taking into account Yoder's "misconduct" is a necessary part of understanding his thought. (Nobody outside the insular world of "believers" takes either of these two guys seriously. Hauerwas may have gotten some attention in the press, but you won't find any non-believer reading his works, period. I don't even think that Wallis is an author.) Fourth, how can you take yourself seriously when you write asinine things like "One of the most frequent critiques of philosophy and theology is that thinkers rarely act upon what they write about." This is hilarious and telling. While a writer's life writ large is not irrelevant to his work, the works of academics are rarely if ever primarily critiqued on account of their more nefarious, real-life activities. For example, Martin Heidegger was a Nazi and is still widely taught in universities throughout the world. Critiques of his work almost never mention his war-time sympathies. It's becoming obvious to me that you're not very intelligent and that you're not very well educated. I think that in some of the more fundamentalist quarters (like your own) people might criticize thinkers primarily by pointing to the way in which they lived their lives, but these are simply narrow-minded moralistic condemnations that no non-believing, serious-minded person would care about. Finally, I didn't say that Yoder's public apology was purely political. I characterized it as an event that made him politically stronger. Thus, what he did was of a different quality than living out the principles of offering forgiveness. I conclude with this message: you do not respond to reason so I will bow out of the conversation. Enjoy your mediocre life. Hay4 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did imply that the misconduct was fictive, by your usage of quotation marks around the word. That's a very clear implication.

The reason the conference proves relevance has nothing to do with the people who walked out. The fact is, a pre-eminent conference on Yoderian theology had a scheduled talk about his misconduct. The fact is, those in charge of setting up an important conference on Yoder saw the misconduct as relevant.

I use Wallis and Hauerwas as justifications because they are pre-eminent in the field of liberal Christian theology. When discussing matters of liberal Christian theology and liberal Christian theologians, the opinions of these two men are as useful as the opinions of pre-eminent physicists in a discussion of physics. Your categorization of them as "backwoods" is nothing more than your ultra-rationalist bias showing through. Go read a Dawkins book and leave critical thinking to those with the capacity for it. For the record, Wallis is an author, and his book God's Politics has been very influential in the Christian left and the broader left. As for your suggestion that their words are musings, rather than arguments for relevance, read the Wallis source. It is very much an argument for relevance.

Call me asinine if it makes you feel good about yourself, but one of the oldest and most pointed criticisms of philosophers is that they sit in an "ivory tower," thinking and writing but never doing. To point that out is not asinine. Also, it's interesting that you should bring up Heidegger. Have you checked out his wikipedia entry? It has a much larger entry on his Nazi sympathies than anything I've proposed for Yoder's sexual escapades, because Heidegger did, on occasion, include the tenets of National Socialism in his writings and lectures.

It's funny for you to call me a fundamentalist. I don't even believe in a conscious God, much less a literal fundamentalist reading of the Scriptures. I'm also not judging Yoder, his body of work, or his life, on his sexual misconduct. I'm only arguing that it's relevant. In fact, if anything, I have said that his sexual misconduct makes him a stronger advocate for what he argues, and a stronger theologian. You're clearly not reading what I'm writing, because you don't really want to have a reasonable discussion.63.245.179.97 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Jono11, 5:18 pm, March 25, 2007.

My preference is for a shorter version that combines some material from each of the opposing viewpoints, which would read something like this:

From the summer of 1992 to the summer of 1996, Yoder submitted to the discipline of the Indiana-Michigan Conference of the Mennonite Church for allegations of sexual misconduct. Yoder publicly acknowledged misconduct and apologized for his actions. Upon the conclusion of the process, the church urged Yoder "to use his gifts of writing and teaching".

with the appropriate citations. (An additional source is the June 18, 1996 Gospel Herald.) The key points are:

• the timespan
• submission to the discipline process
• acknowledgement of wrongdoing
• conclusion of process and restoration

The longer version feels like it is stitched together from a variety of sources to synthesize a conclusion. The sources presented are comments of one (or few) person, which don't necessarily represent of consensus. The best source I know of that gives a comprehensive scholarly overview of Yoder is Thiessen Nation's John Howard Yoder (2006, Eerdmans) which covers that material briefly as a footnote on page 25. If we want to include a statement of the theological implications of the process, this source is superior to (it is scholarly and has stronger editorial oversight) any listed so far. Nation Thiessen's coverage of misconduct is about 0.1% of his entire coverage of Yoder in this book. The various versions presented here are between 10 and 20% of the Wikipedia article (not counting the lists at the end)! Thus my earlier concern about undue weight.

I am disappointed by arguments based on the lack intellegence or abilities of those with opposing viewpoints. If the stronger of the parties will consistently refrain from this regrettable practice, the weaker will usually follow suit. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"The longer version feels like it is stitched together from a variety of sources to synthesize a conclusion."--Yes. That's what the evidence-gathering process is. Find a number of sources and see what they corroborate.

"The sources presented are comments of one (or few) person, which don't necessarily represent of consensus."--A sentence ago, there were two many sources. Now there's not enough. Aside from that odd contradiction, can you find me sources that discount the relevance of Yoder's sexual misconduct?

Thiessen Nation also, however, in another writing that I've sourced several times, mentions the sexual misconduct as something very important to the development of Yoder, and to Thiessen Nation's relationship to Yoder.63.245.179.97 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Jono11, 5:22 pm, March 25, 2007.

What is your evaluation of my four key points for inclusion above and my suggested paragraph that incorporates parts of both of the contested versions? Are you satisfied with that wording? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)