I notice that Wipf and Stock have listed On Rowan Williams on their forthcoming titles list
http://wipfandstock.com/forthcoming_titles
This is a book edited by Matheson Russell from the University of Auckland and which contains essays by Ben Myers, Andrew Cameron, Greg Clarke, Byron Smith, Matheson Russell and me, among others. Oliver O'Donovan has kindly penned a foreward!
Friday, August 08, 2008
Unconditional Love?
You hear it often said that God loves us unconditionally. I guess people are trying to tie the idea of grace into God's love. And also to remind themselves that our own unloveliness is no obstacle to the love of God.
It seems to me that this is a really inadequate way to describe the love of God. The two characteristics of God's love as we encounter in the OT are his steadfastness on the one hand and his jealousy on the other. How can the two be reconciled? Well, Hosea 11 picks up some of the apparent tension in the heart of God - how can I keep loving you? how can I give you up? The two lines meet of course on the cross - where God shows that it possible for himself both to love steadfastly AND jealously. He maintains the detemined purity and sanctity of his love AND makes it possible for himself not to withdraw his own love. He reveals his own self-consistency as a lover.
I would rather say: God's love is conditional, but God meets the conditions..
It seems to me that this is a really inadequate way to describe the love of God. The two characteristics of God's love as we encounter in the OT are his steadfastness on the one hand and his jealousy on the other. How can the two be reconciled? Well, Hosea 11 picks up some of the apparent tension in the heart of God - how can I keep loving you? how can I give you up? The two lines meet of course on the cross - where God shows that it possible for himself both to love steadfastly AND jealously. He maintains the detemined purity and sanctity of his love AND makes it possible for himself not to withdraw his own love. He reveals his own self-consistency as a lover.
I would rather say: God's love is conditional, but God meets the conditions..
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Being Loved - not as easy as it sounds...
How do we respond to the love of God? Well, to modify Baz Luhrmann:
The greatest thing you'll ever learn/ is to be loved and just love in return.
At this point we make it far to complicated. It is very hard to just accept the love we are offered; we always feel like we should be giving something back. Or worse, we cannot put aside our pride.
Ephesians 5 is interesting here: if Christ takes the husbandly role of sacrificial love, what role is the church to take? She is to take the wifely role of submission: which is not much more than allowing yourself to be loved. This might be harder than we think. We have to surrender ourselves to him.
I was talking to a female friend of mine who asked me: "is it hard to relate to this as a guy, because I reckon it'd be heaps easier as a chick [her word!] to desire these kind of attributes?" It was a really good question. We are dealing in stereotypes of course, but males on the whole do find help hard to accept, let alone love; especially when there is such an imbalance in a relationship like there is with God. We like to feel we are independent, or at least contributing.
But a response to the God who dies to love you requires us setting aside our futile, petty male (or female) independence, and allowing Christ to husband us. It may seem frustratingly passive. But we need this husband more than we can ever know. Let him love you.
The greatest thing you'll ever learn/ is to be loved and just love in return.
At this point we make it far to complicated. It is very hard to just accept the love we are offered; we always feel like we should be giving something back. Or worse, we cannot put aside our pride.
Ephesians 5 is interesting here: if Christ takes the husbandly role of sacrificial love, what role is the church to take? She is to take the wifely role of submission: which is not much more than allowing yourself to be loved. This might be harder than we think. We have to surrender ourselves to him.
I was talking to a female friend of mine who asked me: "is it hard to relate to this as a guy, because I reckon it'd be heaps easier as a chick [her word!] to desire these kind of attributes?" It was a really good question. We are dealing in stereotypes of course, but males on the whole do find help hard to accept, let alone love; especially when there is such an imbalance in a relationship like there is with God. We like to feel we are independent, or at least contributing.
But a response to the God who dies to love you requires us setting aside our futile, petty male (or female) independence, and allowing Christ to husband us. It may seem frustratingly passive. But we need this husband more than we can ever know. Let him love you.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Bible Teaching?
Off on holidays for a couple of weeks tomorrow - here is something to be getting on with.
I was speaking with a prominent English conservative evangelical not so long ago, and we were talking about preaching. He had a gripe: the phrase 'bible teaching' (and the idea of 'bible churches', too). It has crept into the evangelical vocabulary to describe what used to be called 'preaching'. A church is great, we will say, because 'the bible teaching is excellent'. But, he said, the vocab change is significant: it represents a shift to a more cognitive, flat and explanatory style of discourse. The hearers will not be exhorted or edified so much as 'taught'. What's more, and perhaps more seriously, we talk less of preaching Christ, but of teaching the Bible. A subtle but significant difference perhaps?
Is this vocabulary to be encouraged, or is the English preacher right?
I was speaking with a prominent English conservative evangelical not so long ago, and we were talking about preaching. He had a gripe: the phrase 'bible teaching' (and the idea of 'bible churches', too). It has crept into the evangelical vocabulary to describe what used to be called 'preaching'. A church is great, we will say, because 'the bible teaching is excellent'. But, he said, the vocab change is significant: it represents a shift to a more cognitive, flat and explanatory style of discourse. The hearers will not be exhorted or edified so much as 'taught'. What's more, and perhaps more seriously, we talk less of preaching Christ, but of teaching the Bible. A subtle but significant difference perhaps?
Is this vocabulary to be encouraged, or is the English preacher right?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Notes on the nature and significance of community as a theological concept
Humankind was created for communion, but is everywhere divided. [1]
The human individual is, as a matter of theological datum and observable fact, made for sociality and collaboration with others in the world. ‘Community’ is a term that recognizes this unquenchable aspiration amongst people. In community with others we hold things in common rather than in private: sharing is the heartbeat of community. In community, things are communicated between two or more people.
This may of course mean material things. But community also involves the sharing of a common understanding of the significance of shared things.[2] An example is the sharing of food: in human communities the eating of meals is not merely functional, but given a representative function as well – who I eat with, and what, and when mean something. What is more, communities share in, or aspire to share in, an identity – a shared self-understanding. Various signs and ceremonies and practices mediate this self-understanding to the individuals within a community. They facilitate recognition of other members of the community.
There is then, for human community the necessity of effective communication of this identity - of ascribing significance to our shared possessions. The narration of our shared history, on the one hand, and the creation of works of art, on the other, combine to make a community a tradition that can be passed on. In this way, human community can feel itself secured somewhat against the ravages of time and the inevitability of death.
Again, this description is a matter of anthropological observation and of the way in which the Pentateuch describes the proper development of a particular human community. Community is a good that human beings need for their proper flourishing as individuals. In Scripture, however, the ideal human community is not just human. The Lord himself intends to live in community with people – to make for himself a people with whom he will dwell. Adam and Eve live with God in the garden.
Such might be a description of ‘community’ in a state of innocence. But Christian theology cannot be happy with this description as it stands. We have already hinted that another function of community is that of protection and security. As Scripture narrates it, human beings huddle together because humanity is vulnerable to nature; and because they need protection from other human beings. If there is a good in community, then it needs to be secured. There are other communities whose significations and representations may cut across the path of mine. Each community is a community among other possibly competing, possibly threatening communities. The protection of the city wall is needed – or, more effectively, the creation of a self-understanding which means that membership in community X means hatred of community Y. If I am Tutsi, I am not Hutu.
What is more, the self-communication and self-representation of a community may strengthen its bonds, and appear to benefit its members, but actually be deeply hubristic. Protection gives way to pretension. Without God, a community, whether as small as a family or as large as a nation, may develop the illusion of its own totality and sufficiency. It may come to believe in its own transcendence, and in its own destiny. The besetting sin of communities is, then, idolatry. The story of Babel (Gen 11) is offered as a restraint against just this sort of over-weening pride: the Lord scatters the people and confuses their languages in order to restrain the possibility of an idolatrous belief in the power of human community. The will make a ‘name’ for themselves, and thereby not recognise the name of the Lord from whom true authority stems. Thus, the plurality of communities is both a protection of humans from their own power-hunger and an ongoing question against the promise of human community to fulfill human longings.
In the Biblical narrative we see both God’s judgement on human communities and his determination to redeem human beings in community (Gen 12).[3] The election of Israel was both a choice for them over against the nations that surrounded them, and a sign of God’s determination to bless all the families of the earth. The torah was intended to insure that the character and actions of God were at the heart of Israel’s communal life, just as it was absent from the other nations.
The gospel of Jesus Christ marks the formation of a new community whose shared ‘possession’ is Christ himself. Unlike other human communities, this one is not marked by fear but rather love; by peace, not enmity; and by fellowship, not competition for scarce resources. In the new community, quite remarkably, a plurality of identities is included without being at the same time dissolved. Thus, though I am a citizen of the heavenly kingdom, my identity as an Australian is not erased. However, it is certainly relativised, and even transformed. I can be, in Christ, Australian in a new way, and understand Australian-ness as it might be expressed in service of the divine ruler. In particular, the coming of Christ signifies the breaking down of barriers between peoples (Eph 2), such that communities need no longer be understood as mutually exclusive of one another. Here is then the possibility of unity without the dissolution of plurality.
The gathering of this new community is for the purpose of extending God’s blessing to all peoples. Not only are the disciples of Christ called to follow after him: they are also sent by him into the world. They are not to creep unobserved into the corners of the world; Christ rather calls them to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations, ‘in Jerusalem, Samaria and to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1:8) – which activity is most certainly for the public sphere and for the public good.[4] The churches thus are rightly addressed by Peter as a diaspora (1 Peter 1:1-2): they are a scattered gathering, with a shared task of the further gathering and building of God’s community throughout the earth.
Christians are certainly enjoined to preserve and uphold the communities in which they find themselves, insofar as they are in the business of restraining and punishing wickedness and rewarding good (Rom 13). They are to honour and uphold rule insofar as it administers God’s justice. In the NT, this especially refers to retributive justice; but may fairly also be applied to the challenges of distributive justice. But Christians also continue to witness to the immodesty of the claims of human communities, by reminding human communities of the ultimacy of God’s rule in Christ. A true secularity (that is, an understanding of the divine authorization but not the divine right of forms of human power) is needed in order to break the idolatrous self-deception of communities as absolute and self-sufficient. As we have been suggesting all along, ‘community’ alone is an insufficient term to describe a good, because community itself may be perverse or idolatrous, or serve perverse and idolatrous ends. A criminal gang might provide its members with a remarkable degree of fellowship, but still be obviously a corruption or misuse of community. While human sociality is needed for human flourishing, there are forms of sociality which are in themselves destructive.
We recognize that in the late-modern world, the chief problem for many people is exclusion from the goods offered by human community. The individualism which is so characteristic of the age has resulted in the disconnection of many people from the forms of human community that they need in order to flourish. If community means sharing, it is precisely the case that some individuals are unwilling or unable to share in what is common that is most problematic – anti-human, even. However, it is also the case that access to a human community is not, in and of itself, sufficient to meet the human need.
Michael P Jensen
July, 2008
[1] W.T.Cavanaugh, “The City – Beyond secular parodies”, in John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward, Radical Orthodoxy : A New Theology, Radical Orthodoxy Series. (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 182.
[2] For this and much of what follows, see Oliver O'Donovan, Common Objects of Love : Moral Reflection and the Shaping of Community : The 2001 Stob Lectures (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2002)..
[3] not as community, but in community, note: community remains the means by which God redeems individuals.
[4] Hence the NT language of ‘light/salt of the world’, or the ‘royal priesthood’ of the church.
The human individual is, as a matter of theological datum and observable fact, made for sociality and collaboration with others in the world. ‘Community’ is a term that recognizes this unquenchable aspiration amongst people. In community with others we hold things in common rather than in private: sharing is the heartbeat of community. In community, things are communicated between two or more people.
This may of course mean material things. But community also involves the sharing of a common understanding of the significance of shared things.[2] An example is the sharing of food: in human communities the eating of meals is not merely functional, but given a representative function as well – who I eat with, and what, and when mean something. What is more, communities share in, or aspire to share in, an identity – a shared self-understanding. Various signs and ceremonies and practices mediate this self-understanding to the individuals within a community. They facilitate recognition of other members of the community.
There is then, for human community the necessity of effective communication of this identity - of ascribing significance to our shared possessions. The narration of our shared history, on the one hand, and the creation of works of art, on the other, combine to make a community a tradition that can be passed on. In this way, human community can feel itself secured somewhat against the ravages of time and the inevitability of death.
Again, this description is a matter of anthropological observation and of the way in which the Pentateuch describes the proper development of a particular human community. Community is a good that human beings need for their proper flourishing as individuals. In Scripture, however, the ideal human community is not just human. The Lord himself intends to live in community with people – to make for himself a people with whom he will dwell. Adam and Eve live with God in the garden.
Such might be a description of ‘community’ in a state of innocence. But Christian theology cannot be happy with this description as it stands. We have already hinted that another function of community is that of protection and security. As Scripture narrates it, human beings huddle together because humanity is vulnerable to nature; and because they need protection from other human beings. If there is a good in community, then it needs to be secured. There are other communities whose significations and representations may cut across the path of mine. Each community is a community among other possibly competing, possibly threatening communities. The protection of the city wall is needed – or, more effectively, the creation of a self-understanding which means that membership in community X means hatred of community Y. If I am Tutsi, I am not Hutu.
What is more, the self-communication and self-representation of a community may strengthen its bonds, and appear to benefit its members, but actually be deeply hubristic. Protection gives way to pretension. Without God, a community, whether as small as a family or as large as a nation, may develop the illusion of its own totality and sufficiency. It may come to believe in its own transcendence, and in its own destiny. The besetting sin of communities is, then, idolatry. The story of Babel (Gen 11) is offered as a restraint against just this sort of over-weening pride: the Lord scatters the people and confuses their languages in order to restrain the possibility of an idolatrous belief in the power of human community. The will make a ‘name’ for themselves, and thereby not recognise the name of the Lord from whom true authority stems. Thus, the plurality of communities is both a protection of humans from their own power-hunger and an ongoing question against the promise of human community to fulfill human longings.
In the Biblical narrative we see both God’s judgement on human communities and his determination to redeem human beings in community (Gen 12).[3] The election of Israel was both a choice for them over against the nations that surrounded them, and a sign of God’s determination to bless all the families of the earth. The torah was intended to insure that the character and actions of God were at the heart of Israel’s communal life, just as it was absent from the other nations.
The gospel of Jesus Christ marks the formation of a new community whose shared ‘possession’ is Christ himself. Unlike other human communities, this one is not marked by fear but rather love; by peace, not enmity; and by fellowship, not competition for scarce resources. In the new community, quite remarkably, a plurality of identities is included without being at the same time dissolved. Thus, though I am a citizen of the heavenly kingdom, my identity as an Australian is not erased. However, it is certainly relativised, and even transformed. I can be, in Christ, Australian in a new way, and understand Australian-ness as it might be expressed in service of the divine ruler. In particular, the coming of Christ signifies the breaking down of barriers between peoples (Eph 2), such that communities need no longer be understood as mutually exclusive of one another. Here is then the possibility of unity without the dissolution of plurality.
The gathering of this new community is for the purpose of extending God’s blessing to all peoples. Not only are the disciples of Christ called to follow after him: they are also sent by him into the world. They are not to creep unobserved into the corners of the world; Christ rather calls them to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations, ‘in Jerusalem, Samaria and to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1:8) – which activity is most certainly for the public sphere and for the public good.[4] The churches thus are rightly addressed by Peter as a diaspora (1 Peter 1:1-2): they are a scattered gathering, with a shared task of the further gathering and building of God’s community throughout the earth.
Christians are certainly enjoined to preserve and uphold the communities in which they find themselves, insofar as they are in the business of restraining and punishing wickedness and rewarding good (Rom 13). They are to honour and uphold rule insofar as it administers God’s justice. In the NT, this especially refers to retributive justice; but may fairly also be applied to the challenges of distributive justice. But Christians also continue to witness to the immodesty of the claims of human communities, by reminding human communities of the ultimacy of God’s rule in Christ. A true secularity (that is, an understanding of the divine authorization but not the divine right of forms of human power) is needed in order to break the idolatrous self-deception of communities as absolute and self-sufficient. As we have been suggesting all along, ‘community’ alone is an insufficient term to describe a good, because community itself may be perverse or idolatrous, or serve perverse and idolatrous ends. A criminal gang might provide its members with a remarkable degree of fellowship, but still be obviously a corruption or misuse of community. While human sociality is needed for human flourishing, there are forms of sociality which are in themselves destructive.
We recognize that in the late-modern world, the chief problem for many people is exclusion from the goods offered by human community. The individualism which is so characteristic of the age has resulted in the disconnection of many people from the forms of human community that they need in order to flourish. If community means sharing, it is precisely the case that some individuals are unwilling or unable to share in what is common that is most problematic – anti-human, even. However, it is also the case that access to a human community is not, in and of itself, sufficient to meet the human need.
Michael P Jensen
July, 2008
[1] W.T.Cavanaugh, “The City – Beyond secular parodies”, in John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward, Radical Orthodoxy : A New Theology, Radical Orthodoxy Series. (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 182.
[2] For this and much of what follows, see Oliver O'Donovan, Common Objects of Love : Moral Reflection and the Shaping of Community : The 2001 Stob Lectures (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2002)..
[3] not as community, but in community, note: community remains the means by which God redeems individuals.
[4] Hence the NT language of ‘light/salt of the world’, or the ‘royal priesthood’ of the church.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Anonymous comments...
Apologies for the loss of my blogging mojo of late... can't explain it. Must be the warm weather here in England...
Is there ever a case for making commenting anonymously on blogs/discussion boards and the like?
I admit, I have done it once or twice. But, as a rule, I think it is something a Christian person would not do. I think I am committed to the view that words attach to persons, and detached from them they lose their truth - or, at least, the reader of those words loses the opportunity to evaluate the truth of the words by the character and actions of the writer. Words are of their nature personal, and by anonymity become depersonalised, and unanswerable - a status no human word should really have.
The same would hold for writing anonymous letters: what is the case for ever writing one? What circumstances would justify it? How does anonymity transform it as a speech-act?
The counter argument would be that anonymous comment allows the vulnerable and the fearful to have a voice where they might not have. But even so, I would call these exceptional circumstances.
Is there ever a case for making commenting anonymously on blogs/discussion boards and the like?
I admit, I have done it once or twice. But, as a rule, I think it is something a Christian person would not do. I think I am committed to the view that words attach to persons, and detached from them they lose their truth - or, at least, the reader of those words loses the opportunity to evaluate the truth of the words by the character and actions of the writer. Words are of their nature personal, and by anonymity become depersonalised, and unanswerable - a status no human word should really have.
The same would hold for writing anonymous letters: what is the case for ever writing one? What circumstances would justify it? How does anonymity transform it as a speech-act?
The counter argument would be that anonymous comment allows the vulnerable and the fearful to have a voice where they might not have. But even so, I would call these exceptional circumstances.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Boosters or knockers?
As Charles Taylor puts it, there are those critics of contemporary culture who cast themselves in the role of 'knockers' - ie, they have a gloomy outlook on the contemporary world and chart a decline in moral standards since the 1960s. The opposite outlook belongs to the 'boosters', who are characteristically more optimistic about the progress of humanity in the current era.
Now, it is customary for evangelical preachers to be 'knockers': they will, without fail, offer a social analysis that is very negative. In trying to contrast the biblical view to the current world view, they characteristically talk about the decline in standards, about modern individualism and so on. The contemporary world is cast as one in which something valuable has been lost.
Like Taylor, I want to say that things are more complicated than either the boosters or the knockers realise. Sociologically, I think it is inaccurate to be either optimistic or pessimistic. I think standards have changed to some degree - and in some ways definitely for the better (contrary to what you hear from evangelical pulpits).
Theologically, I want to say that human beings have not become MORE evil in recent decades - the pre 1960s past was not a golden era of human morality and we would be greatly mistaken to read it as such, or to portray the gospel as a nostalgic hankering after a society that never existed anyhow. It is right to try and discern what the particular evils of our times are: but not to see them as charting a decline necessarily.
There's more to say, but - I'd love to hear what you think.
Now, it is customary for evangelical preachers to be 'knockers': they will, without fail, offer a social analysis that is very negative. In trying to contrast the biblical view to the current world view, they characteristically talk about the decline in standards, about modern individualism and so on. The contemporary world is cast as one in which something valuable has been lost.
Like Taylor, I want to say that things are more complicated than either the boosters or the knockers realise. Sociologically, I think it is inaccurate to be either optimistic or pessimistic. I think standards have changed to some degree - and in some ways definitely for the better (contrary to what you hear from evangelical pulpits).
Theologically, I want to say that human beings have not become MORE evil in recent decades - the pre 1960s past was not a golden era of human morality and we would be greatly mistaken to read it as such, or to portray the gospel as a nostalgic hankering after a society that never existed anyhow. It is right to try and discern what the particular evils of our times are: but not to see them as charting a decline necessarily.
There's more to say, but - I'd love to hear what you think.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Genesis 12:1-3
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
What does 'blessing' mean? It contrasts so obviously with 'luck', which is the usual channel by which expect to receive good things. Blessing indicates that God is the source of good things. But it is also an act of speaking, not merely showering good things upon the person. A blessing is a promissory note, or, perhaps, an invocation of the goodness of God. It is something said, as well as something done.
Blessing all the families of the earth is the point of God's election of Abram. His purpose in selecting is to include; though this is not without its exclusionary impact either. In this key passage, Abram is singled out not only for blessing but that he might 'be a blessing', through the making great of his name. The greatness of his name seems to be part of the blessing, but also the means by which the blessing goes out to ... well, whom? God will 'bless those who bless him'. Reactions to Abraham as the holder of the divine promise and the bearer of the divine favour are a signal of how it may go for a person vis a vis the Lord.
But here, already, is an apparent tension between the universal scope of the blessing to be introduced through Abram, and the fact that not all will accept it. Through Abram, all of the families of the earth will be blessed. But, there will indeed be some who curse him, who God will curse in turn. This is, of course, a part of the blessing to Abram - his protection and vindication against his enemies. The blessing is not without its cursing: it is universal, but not all-inclusive.
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."
What does 'blessing' mean? It contrasts so obviously with 'luck', which is the usual channel by which expect to receive good things. Blessing indicates that God is the source of good things. But it is also an act of speaking, not merely showering good things upon the person. A blessing is a promissory note, or, perhaps, an invocation of the goodness of God. It is something said, as well as something done.
Blessing all the families of the earth is the point of God's election of Abram. His purpose in selecting is to include; though this is not without its exclusionary impact either. In this key passage, Abram is singled out not only for blessing but that he might 'be a blessing', through the making great of his name. The greatness of his name seems to be part of the blessing, but also the means by which the blessing goes out to ... well, whom? God will 'bless those who bless him'. Reactions to Abraham as the holder of the divine promise and the bearer of the divine favour are a signal of how it may go for a person vis a vis the Lord.
But here, already, is an apparent tension between the universal scope of the blessing to be introduced through Abram, and the fact that not all will accept it. Through Abram, all of the families of the earth will be blessed. But, there will indeed be some who curse him, who God will curse in turn. This is, of course, a part of the blessing to Abram - his protection and vindication against his enemies. The blessing is not without its cursing: it is universal, but not all-inclusive.
Gafcon and stuff
Well, GAFCON certainly got the internet buzzing with rage and outrage.
I have been pretty disappointed with Tom Wright's responses though. They are full of cheap shots, over -heated rhetoric and unsubstantiated accusations about the motives of those responsible. It is pretty clear that for him, the real villains of the piece are the conservative evangelicals in England, backed by the Archbishop of Sydney apparently, who don't share his optimistic view of the state of the CofE. He implies that the real motive for the whole thing is a sinister power agenda. So, his message is: we don't want GAFCON in England, we don't need it. The situation here (the UK) is not the same (he argues) as in the USA. The group pushing for this is very small, he keeps saying. So, why is he so worried?
I am curious as to why he takes such an isolationist view all of sudden. Surely, if there is such a thing as the Anglican Communion, the problem in the American church necessarily involves the UK church. At present, he argues, the CofE is not a church that has authorised unscriptural practices - granted. But is he so naive as to think that this agenda will not be pursued with full vigour in the next few years? Is the day when the CofE will most certainly authorise unscriptural sexual ethics really so far away?
And if you read John Richardson's report of Peter Jensen's speech in London, you will get the feeling that Tom has got the wrong end of the pineapple. Are we talking about the same speech? The one that says:
You have to find English solutions to English problems. This is not a ‘Cargo Cult’ where the Americans are going to bring the solution.
Andrew Goddard, on the other hand, seems much more measured and reasonable.
I have been pretty disappointed with Tom Wright's responses though. They are full of cheap shots, over -heated rhetoric and unsubstantiated accusations about the motives of those responsible. It is pretty clear that for him, the real villains of the piece are the conservative evangelicals in England, backed by the Archbishop of Sydney apparently, who don't share his optimistic view of the state of the CofE. He implies that the real motive for the whole thing is a sinister power agenda. So, his message is: we don't want GAFCON in England, we don't need it. The situation here (the UK) is not the same (he argues) as in the USA. The group pushing for this is very small, he keeps saying. So, why is he so worried?
I am curious as to why he takes such an isolationist view all of sudden. Surely, if there is such a thing as the Anglican Communion, the problem in the American church necessarily involves the UK church. At present, he argues, the CofE is not a church that has authorised unscriptural practices - granted. But is he so naive as to think that this agenda will not be pursued with full vigour in the next few years? Is the day when the CofE will most certainly authorise unscriptural sexual ethics really so far away?
And if you read John Richardson's report of Peter Jensen's speech in London, you will get the feeling that Tom has got the wrong end of the pineapple. Are we talking about the same speech? The one that says:
You have to find English solutions to English problems. This is not a ‘Cargo Cult’ where the Americans are going to bring the solution.
Andrew Goddard, on the other hand, seems much more measured and reasonable.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Blogging...
If you are any sort of blogger, you will have moments when you wonder about the medium and where it is all going... I admit to a faint embarassment when I admit off line that I have a blog. It is like admitting that you like to smoke... Because for some people contempt for blogs is stock in trade.
It is true that blogs contain some of the freshest ideas going... it is amazing what you can learn from reading blogs...but, also: I have never seen such undigested rubbish as I have seen on blogs. I have never encountered such nastiness as I have seen on blogs. In the old world, your average nutter was happily isolated. In the blogging world, your average nutter can actually find a whole community of nutters out there. Seeing some of the blogs that are out there reminds me that having a blog is no great achievement...
It is true that blogs contain some of the freshest ideas going... it is amazing what you can learn from reading blogs...but, also: I have never seen such undigested rubbish as I have seen on blogs. I have never encountered such nastiness as I have seen on blogs. In the old world, your average nutter was happily isolated. In the blogging world, your average nutter can actually find a whole community of nutters out there. Seeing some of the blogs that are out there reminds me that having a blog is no great achievement...
Friday, June 20, 2008
Stephen Edmonson writes:
‘These developments [ie, historical criticism et al] over the last four centuries have shut off any direct approporation of Calvin’s scriptural hermeneutic for contemporary interpreters concerned with the historical sense of the text. …it is problematic at this point to offer an historical reading of Scripture that is either unitive or generally theological, much less one that roots the unity of the narrative in a robust Christology. Calvin’s history is not our history.’
Hmm... So, what is the way forward for biblical theology? The genie can't just be put back in the bottle - can it?
‘These developments [ie, historical criticism et al] over the last four centuries have shut off any direct approporation of Calvin’s scriptural hermeneutic for contemporary interpreters concerned with the historical sense of the text. …it is problematic at this point to offer an historical reading of Scripture that is either unitive or generally theological, much less one that roots the unity of the narrative in a robust Christology. Calvin’s history is not our history.’
Hmm... So, what is the way forward for biblical theology? The genie can't just be put back in the bottle - can it?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Bible read by Aussies?
In my investigations about audio bibles it struck me that there is no Aussie audio bible available. Does this matter? Would it be a powerful thing for Australians to hear the bible in their own language? Ought it not be a key component of Connect '09?
And: who would be a good actor/reader? And, which version would you choose?
And: who would be a good actor/reader? And, which version would you choose?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Lectures - for or against?
A while back I wrote about what makes a good lecturer.
I have been thinking - and reading - again about lectures and their place in tertiary education, and especially in the preparation of Christian ministers. Most seminaries I know of have a very heavily lecture-based programme, with few tutorials or seminars, if any. In contrast to university teaching, which is usually a rather sparsely arranged timetable of lectures, seminaries crowd their days with alloted teaching hours. Partly, I speculate, this is because of a view of theology as not only a method to be demonstrated but a body of knowledge to be passed on in an authoritative way by recognised teachers. Also, theology is such a composite of disciplines - language, history, text-interpretation, philosophy - that it is hard to leave anything out of the programme, or to allow for an option-based course of study.
But, speaking from my experience as a student, I found lectures a largely very frustrating and slow way to learn, unless the lecturer was peculiarly good. It is particularly inefficient if the lecturer feels he/she has to cover everything in a particular course, because the lectures are replacing the role played by a text book. Further, a lecturing style that depends on the questions of students loses impact with large classes. And, frankly, I am not interested in the ignorance of my fellow students (and neither are they in mine!). In theological colleges, lecturers are often too nice (believe it or not!) to students and pander too much to their worst vices (especially by catering to their passivity in learning...).
So: lectures - for or against? What are lectures good for? When do they work, when do they fail? What can a lecture give that you can't get from a book in less time?
I have been thinking - and reading - again about lectures and their place in tertiary education, and especially in the preparation of Christian ministers. Most seminaries I know of have a very heavily lecture-based programme, with few tutorials or seminars, if any. In contrast to university teaching, which is usually a rather sparsely arranged timetable of lectures, seminaries crowd their days with alloted teaching hours. Partly, I speculate, this is because of a view of theology as not only a method to be demonstrated but a body of knowledge to be passed on in an authoritative way by recognised teachers. Also, theology is such a composite of disciplines - language, history, text-interpretation, philosophy - that it is hard to leave anything out of the programme, or to allow for an option-based course of study.
But, speaking from my experience as a student, I found lectures a largely very frustrating and slow way to learn, unless the lecturer was peculiarly good. It is particularly inefficient if the lecturer feels he/she has to cover everything in a particular course, because the lectures are replacing the role played by a text book. Further, a lecturing style that depends on the questions of students loses impact with large classes. And, frankly, I am not interested in the ignorance of my fellow students (and neither are they in mine!). In theological colleges, lecturers are often too nice (believe it or not!) to students and pander too much to their worst vices (especially by catering to their passivity in learning...).
So: lectures - for or against? What are lectures good for? When do they work, when do they fail? What can a lecture give that you can't get from a book in less time?
This one's better?
Monday, June 16, 2008
Things Fall Apart - a sermon on Judges 19-21
I preached this sermon at St Mary's Maidenhead, 16 June, 2008. Apologies for posting it in full like this, but it helps me to have it here. Broughton Knox famously used to begin his sermon classes by saying 'where did this sermon fail?' I think I could make several suggestions! No doubt my friends in the blogosphere will be happy to add to my list.
"I want to start by turning with you to the last verse of the passage:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.
Being able to do as you see fit, or to being given the right to determine what is right for yourself sounds great, doesn’t it? One of the most famous graffiti slogans of the May 1968 student revolutions in France – that moment in recent which has proved incredibly influential in Western culture – was it is forbidden to forbid. That could be a motto for today: to find yourself as your own moral yardstick is exactly what we 21st century people think of as maturity and freedom. It is mature because determining what is right in your own eyes is taking responsibility for yourself and your own actions, isn’t it? It is freeing yourself from having moral training wheels and riding the full size adult bike. And it is the freedom to be true to yourself, not beholden to moral standards that are imposed on you from outside – whether that is in the name of God or someone else. Ultimately, what matters is being true to your own vision of what is right and wrong – acting according to your own deeply-held convictions and intuitions, being an authentic and individual person because you answer the call of the voice within you, in your heart, and because you reject the rules and regulations that come from without, imposed on your life by others. What is right for me is right for me, in my perspective – this at least I know, whether or not it is right for you or not. This is what we want our children to learn: an independence rather than a conformity in choosing right and wrong, an ability not to accept everything there are told. It sounds like the height of civilisation.
But what is it like to live in such a world? Can human beings live like this, with every doing as he or she sees fit? In Judges 19-21 we have a ghastly reminder of what life is really like when everyone in a society becomes his or her own judge. Even a society with a claim to be the people of God himself is capable of terrible cruelty. In reality, men and women – and especially men concerning women, it seems – are only too ready to be completely barbaric, given the opportunity. No matter how enlightened are our minds, the heart of humankind is dark.
The chapter we heard read for us is just the beginning of a series of events that are a blot on Israel’s history and show that the high hopes for Israel’s future are completely in tatters. Just as last week you saw that Israel had chosen to worship God not in the way he commanded but according to their own choices, they are now choosing to determine right and wrong for themselves. Noticeably missing from this episode is … a Judge. No redeemer is sent by God to liberate Israel from her captivity to another nation, the Philistines or whoever. And this is mainly because Israel is not invaded in this episode. She doesn’t need saving from the grip of another nation; here, she is in captivity only to her own corruption.
The story unfolds in three stages. First, in chapter 19 we have the strange episode of the Levite with no name and his concubine. It starts, as you heard, with the man pursuing his runaway girl to her father’s place. And no matter what the argument was between the couple, the father-in-law and the husband seem to get on famously, and so it is with some effort that the Levite actually makes to leave to go home. And that is what causes the problem, because they are caught out on the road as night approaches; and they are somewhat afraid of seeking hospitality among foreigners in the city of Jebus. The man says (look at vs 12) "No. We won't go into an alien city, whose people are not Israelites. We will go on to Gibeah." Of course – among fellow Israelites we will be safe.
It is a horrible error of judgement – though an understandable one. The old man takes them home from the city square in Gibeah; but the mob still gathers, and demands the visitor so they can rape him. Of course it reminds us very strongly of another incident in the Old Testament – the story of Lot entertaining the angelic visitors in the city of Sodom, whose citizens also demanded that he send out the men so that they could have sex with then. Now, make no mistake: in the old story, these were pagans, non-Israelites, and this was a story that showed how disgusting and barbaric they were. And this episode is the reason that God destroys the city utterly.
What is different now? The mob in question are from Israel, and so are their would-be victims. Israel has become as bad as ever Sodom was… that is the extent of their distance from the God who had redeemed them.
And just as Lot offered his virgin daughters to the mob instead of his visitors, here too, a misguided sense of hospitality reigns: the old man offers his own daughter and the concubine as substitute victims for the Levite (vs 24). In the end it is the Levite who pushes out his concubine to mob, so that they can gang-rape her.
In the morning, there she is on the step. Is she dead at this point? We don’t know: but her humanity has been taken – utterly betrayed and unprotected by her husband, she has been treated like a piece of meat by the mob. As if to underscore that she has been destroyed as a person by this terrible night, her husband – who clearly had a talent for grand public statements – hacks her into pieces and sends her in twelve grisly packages to the tribes of Israel. And, after they got over the surprise and the smell no doubt, verse 30 explains that Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"
Well this then is the beginning of the second phase of the terrible tale; for the Israelites gather in response to the Levite’s call to work out what they ought to do about this terrible mob in Gibeah. Notice that Levite’s story tends to gloss over his own role in the death of his girl. It is self-justifying stuff – and our sympathy for him ought to drain away at this point. And so begins a terrible and destructive campaign of civil war, in which Israel, like the concubine, ends up being dismembered. There is death and destruction on a massive scale, even by today’s standards.
In this episode there is some inquiring after the Lord’s decision: but only as to which tribe is to go up first against the Benjamites (see vs 18). At the very opening of the book of Judges (1:2) is was the tribe of Judah who was to be in the vanguard against the Canaanites in winning the land. Once again, Judah is go ahead of the others: but this time, it is to their defeat.
Now this is an unexpected twist; why do they get defeated in this? Isn’t their cause right? Aren’t the Benjamites an awful crew of gang-rapists who need swift and sever justice? Isn’t the Lord behind that kind of thing? But this story isn’t as simple and straightforward as that. That Judah gets defeated here shows that in some way all Israel compromised, and that God won’t be manipulated by groups of human beings for their own purposes – especially in war.
We have to pass over the details of the civil war: it is enough to say that, like all civil wars, the consequences were devastating, the violence horrendous and the destruction enormous. The flower of Israel – all the best warriors and fighting men - are killed. By the end of the chapter, not only Gibeah but the whole tribe of Benjamin has been ruined. Only 600 men are left, even the women and children having been slaughtered in the struggle.
And now we reach the third part of the story: because the other tribes in Israel get caught in a bind here. See verse 1 - they make some rash promises – there are a few of those in Judges, aren’t there? – and then realise that they are dooming Benjamin to death. That they are hacking off one of their own limbs, because they are guaranteeing that Israel will never be whole again. And this, they realise effects them, because they will not truly be able to be Israel without Benjamin, yet they have promised not to provide them with wives. Here’s the dilemma, from vs 15ff:
15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 And the elders of the assembly said, "With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs," they said, "so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can't give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: 'Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.'
So, wives have to be found, and in large numbers… This leads to two mass abductions of women – firstly, of 400 virgins from Jabesh Gilead; and then 200 women of Shiloh are seized. This all because the Israelites are sticklers for their vows. Once again, their moral compass seems to be off: they are justifying the rape, en masse, of 600 women, because of their dutiful observance of their own promises. They have got things out of proportion... it is fair to say that here Israel is trying to do the right thing, trying to calculate the way forward through some very difficult problems. But in doing so it is coming up with some very tenuous and problematic solutions. In one sense, the behaviour of the mob in Gibeah – who are not trying to do good – is compounded by people who are trying to do good – to bring about restitution and righteousness. They only make it worse.
And so, by the end of the chapter the gap that the Lord in Israel made seems to be filled; but if you are a sensitive reader you won’t be feeling as if balance has been restored and all is right with the world and everything is tied up with a bow once again at this point. Something deeply troubling has occurred. The writer doesn’t shove it down our throats, mind you: he doesn’t have to. We can see that Israel looks as if it has completely unravelled. And so, we get to that strange ending of this blood-sodden book:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.
The results of Israel’s lack of attention to the word of God and their stubborn insistence in deciding what was right for themselves are plain to see. At this point, Israel is not different to the nations around. And we ought to pause here to remember just how contemporary this story is. It would be easy to see this story, and the other stories of the book of Judges as being part of another world. We don’t recognise the place names, and the customs. It can feel more like Mordor than here. But we can only think that with a wilful blindness to what we 21st century people are like. We think because of our technology that we are more civilised and less prone to this kind of outrageous behaviour, less willing to condone the mistreatment and rape of women, less liable to go to war for trivial or misplaced reasons. Only someone without access to a newspaper could think that this is so. The story of the concubine could have happened today. If there is anything the history of the 20th century has taught us, it is that the animal brutality of human beings is not far from the surface. As the scholar George Steiner once said:
We know that a man can read Goethe or Rilke in the evening, that he can play Bach and Schubert, and go to his day's work at Auschwitz in the morning.
Being cultured or sophisticated or educated doesn’t protect us from ourselves.
And not even being Christian does: the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, in which people hacked each other to death with machetes, involved professing Christians. In fact, before the genocide, Rwanda was called the ‘most Christian country in Africa’, with a strong evangelical church. And yet this did not prevent an orgy of murder and rape. The book of Judges serves as warning to us that being inattentive to the word of God can only lead to moral and social chaos. That moral independence we so desire, that we think is a sign of our maturity and freedom, that we think can be attained by superior education and advanced knowledge of science or even by correct and true religion, is in fact a dangerous temptation. Christians like us are just as capable of becoming blind to our faults as anyone else. Being told to look inside our hearts to discover there what is right and wrong is a frightening idea, if you know the true nature of the human heart.
So what are we to do? Let’s look again at that last verse:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.
Is this a suggestion that in fact Israel had its political system all wrong? That the answer to this chaos is to institute a centralised and powerful system of government capable of bring about some order, or exercising some decent authority? Is that what is needed?
It should only take you a minute to think through the later history of Israel to realise what a crock that suggestion is. You couldn’t have sat down in the dust, with the nation collapsed around you in the period of the exile and thought, well, yes, having a king was what we needed all along. Obeying the king who was intent on accumulating his own wealth and on providing shrines for all the other gods was not really any better than everyone doing as he saw fit, according to his own heart. What Israel really needed was not a systematic change of the style of government, but a king after God’s own heart – a ruler who would rule as God would rule, not in the interests of his own power, but for the good of all; and the people of Israel themselves needed a change of their own hearts.
This is where the book of Judges shows that it raises more questions than it answers. We can’t read it well without remembering that it is part of a bigger story – a story that tells of God’s faithfulness to his own promises as much as it tells of Israel’s repeated faithlessness. God alone fulfils his promises in this case despite of not because of his people. In fact, the two tribes that survived until the time of Jesus were… guess which? This is a huge encouragement at this point, of course: you might have thought at the end of the book of Judges that the whole Israel idea was dead and buried – or at best badly tainted. But God, the Lord of Israel, is not finished. And, he has provided for us in Jesus a king after his own heart: a true leader and Lord; and he has sent his Holy Spirit into our hearts so that we might respond to him in faith and obedience, as Israel failed to do.
We may well look around today and see that God’s people are in disarray. We can see deep uncertainty, even amongst avowed followers of Jesus Christ, as to what is right and what is wrong. We hear even Christians appealing to what their hearts are telling them over and against what the Bible plainly teaches. We are under tremendous pressure to conform to the culture around us, and in many ways we do just that. We are divided by multiple disagreements over things that are great and small. We are tempted to engineer our own solutions, or to trust in our own techniques and stratagems for building the church. And yet we need not be dismayed; because if Israel got this low and this corrupt and yet still God remained true, then we need not doubt him today.
God is working His purpose out as year succeeds year,
God is working His purpose out and the time is drawing near;
Nearer and nearer draws the time, the time that shall surely be,
When the earth shall be fill'd with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea.
"I want to start by turning with you to the last verse of the passage:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.
Being able to do as you see fit, or to being given the right to determine what is right for yourself sounds great, doesn’t it? One of the most famous graffiti slogans of the May 1968 student revolutions in France – that moment in recent which has proved incredibly influential in Western culture – was it is forbidden to forbid. That could be a motto for today: to find yourself as your own moral yardstick is exactly what we 21st century people think of as maturity and freedom. It is mature because determining what is right in your own eyes is taking responsibility for yourself and your own actions, isn’t it? It is freeing yourself from having moral training wheels and riding the full size adult bike. And it is the freedom to be true to yourself, not beholden to moral standards that are imposed on you from outside – whether that is in the name of God or someone else. Ultimately, what matters is being true to your own vision of what is right and wrong – acting according to your own deeply-held convictions and intuitions, being an authentic and individual person because you answer the call of the voice within you, in your heart, and because you reject the rules and regulations that come from without, imposed on your life by others. What is right for me is right for me, in my perspective – this at least I know, whether or not it is right for you or not. This is what we want our children to learn: an independence rather than a conformity in choosing right and wrong, an ability not to accept everything there are told. It sounds like the height of civilisation.
But what is it like to live in such a world? Can human beings live like this, with every doing as he or she sees fit? In Judges 19-21 we have a ghastly reminder of what life is really like when everyone in a society becomes his or her own judge. Even a society with a claim to be the people of God himself is capable of terrible cruelty. In reality, men and women – and especially men concerning women, it seems – are only too ready to be completely barbaric, given the opportunity. No matter how enlightened are our minds, the heart of humankind is dark.
The chapter we heard read for us is just the beginning of a series of events that are a blot on Israel’s history and show that the high hopes for Israel’s future are completely in tatters. Just as last week you saw that Israel had chosen to worship God not in the way he commanded but according to their own choices, they are now choosing to determine right and wrong for themselves. Noticeably missing from this episode is … a Judge. No redeemer is sent by God to liberate Israel from her captivity to another nation, the Philistines or whoever. And this is mainly because Israel is not invaded in this episode. She doesn’t need saving from the grip of another nation; here, she is in captivity only to her own corruption.
The story unfolds in three stages. First, in chapter 19 we have the strange episode of the Levite with no name and his concubine. It starts, as you heard, with the man pursuing his runaway girl to her father’s place. And no matter what the argument was between the couple, the father-in-law and the husband seem to get on famously, and so it is with some effort that the Levite actually makes to leave to go home. And that is what causes the problem, because they are caught out on the road as night approaches; and they are somewhat afraid of seeking hospitality among foreigners in the city of Jebus. The man says (look at vs 12) "No. We won't go into an alien city, whose people are not Israelites. We will go on to Gibeah." Of course – among fellow Israelites we will be safe.
It is a horrible error of judgement – though an understandable one. The old man takes them home from the city square in Gibeah; but the mob still gathers, and demands the visitor so they can rape him. Of course it reminds us very strongly of another incident in the Old Testament – the story of Lot entertaining the angelic visitors in the city of Sodom, whose citizens also demanded that he send out the men so that they could have sex with then. Now, make no mistake: in the old story, these were pagans, non-Israelites, and this was a story that showed how disgusting and barbaric they were. And this episode is the reason that God destroys the city utterly.
What is different now? The mob in question are from Israel, and so are their would-be victims. Israel has become as bad as ever Sodom was… that is the extent of their distance from the God who had redeemed them.
And just as Lot offered his virgin daughters to the mob instead of his visitors, here too, a misguided sense of hospitality reigns: the old man offers his own daughter and the concubine as substitute victims for the Levite (vs 24). In the end it is the Levite who pushes out his concubine to mob, so that they can gang-rape her.
In the morning, there she is on the step. Is she dead at this point? We don’t know: but her humanity has been taken – utterly betrayed and unprotected by her husband, she has been treated like a piece of meat by the mob. As if to underscore that she has been destroyed as a person by this terrible night, her husband – who clearly had a talent for grand public statements – hacks her into pieces and sends her in twelve grisly packages to the tribes of Israel. And, after they got over the surprise and the smell no doubt, verse 30 explains that Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"
Well this then is the beginning of the second phase of the terrible tale; for the Israelites gather in response to the Levite’s call to work out what they ought to do about this terrible mob in Gibeah. Notice that Levite’s story tends to gloss over his own role in the death of his girl. It is self-justifying stuff – and our sympathy for him ought to drain away at this point. And so begins a terrible and destructive campaign of civil war, in which Israel, like the concubine, ends up being dismembered. There is death and destruction on a massive scale, even by today’s standards.
In this episode there is some inquiring after the Lord’s decision: but only as to which tribe is to go up first against the Benjamites (see vs 18). At the very opening of the book of Judges (1:2) is was the tribe of Judah who was to be in the vanguard against the Canaanites in winning the land. Once again, Judah is go ahead of the others: but this time, it is to their defeat.
Now this is an unexpected twist; why do they get defeated in this? Isn’t their cause right? Aren’t the Benjamites an awful crew of gang-rapists who need swift and sever justice? Isn’t the Lord behind that kind of thing? But this story isn’t as simple and straightforward as that. That Judah gets defeated here shows that in some way all Israel compromised, and that God won’t be manipulated by groups of human beings for their own purposes – especially in war.
We have to pass over the details of the civil war: it is enough to say that, like all civil wars, the consequences were devastating, the violence horrendous and the destruction enormous. The flower of Israel – all the best warriors and fighting men - are killed. By the end of the chapter, not only Gibeah but the whole tribe of Benjamin has been ruined. Only 600 men are left, even the women and children having been slaughtered in the struggle.
And now we reach the third part of the story: because the other tribes in Israel get caught in a bind here. See verse 1 - they make some rash promises – there are a few of those in Judges, aren’t there? – and then realise that they are dooming Benjamin to death. That they are hacking off one of their own limbs, because they are guaranteeing that Israel will never be whole again. And this, they realise effects them, because they will not truly be able to be Israel without Benjamin, yet they have promised not to provide them with wives. Here’s the dilemma, from vs 15ff:
15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 And the elders of the assembly said, "With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs," they said, "so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can't give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: 'Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.'
So, wives have to be found, and in large numbers… This leads to two mass abductions of women – firstly, of 400 virgins from Jabesh Gilead; and then 200 women of Shiloh are seized. This all because the Israelites are sticklers for their vows. Once again, their moral compass seems to be off: they are justifying the rape, en masse, of 600 women, because of their dutiful observance of their own promises. They have got things out of proportion... it is fair to say that here Israel is trying to do the right thing, trying to calculate the way forward through some very difficult problems. But in doing so it is coming up with some very tenuous and problematic solutions. In one sense, the behaviour of the mob in Gibeah – who are not trying to do good – is compounded by people who are trying to do good – to bring about restitution and righteousness. They only make it worse.
And so, by the end of the chapter the gap that the Lord in Israel made seems to be filled; but if you are a sensitive reader you won’t be feeling as if balance has been restored and all is right with the world and everything is tied up with a bow once again at this point. Something deeply troubling has occurred. The writer doesn’t shove it down our throats, mind you: he doesn’t have to. We can see that Israel looks as if it has completely unravelled. And so, we get to that strange ending of this blood-sodden book:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.
The results of Israel’s lack of attention to the word of God and their stubborn insistence in deciding what was right for themselves are plain to see. At this point, Israel is not different to the nations around. And we ought to pause here to remember just how contemporary this story is. It would be easy to see this story, and the other stories of the book of Judges as being part of another world. We don’t recognise the place names, and the customs. It can feel more like Mordor than here. But we can only think that with a wilful blindness to what we 21st century people are like. We think because of our technology that we are more civilised and less prone to this kind of outrageous behaviour, less willing to condone the mistreatment and rape of women, less liable to go to war for trivial or misplaced reasons. Only someone without access to a newspaper could think that this is so. The story of the concubine could have happened today. If there is anything the history of the 20th century has taught us, it is that the animal brutality of human beings is not far from the surface. As the scholar George Steiner once said:
We know that a man can read Goethe or Rilke in the evening, that he can play Bach and Schubert, and go to his day's work at Auschwitz in the morning.
Being cultured or sophisticated or educated doesn’t protect us from ourselves.
And not even being Christian does: the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, in which people hacked each other to death with machetes, involved professing Christians. In fact, before the genocide, Rwanda was called the ‘most Christian country in Africa’, with a strong evangelical church. And yet this did not prevent an orgy of murder and rape. The book of Judges serves as warning to us that being inattentive to the word of God can only lead to moral and social chaos. That moral independence we so desire, that we think is a sign of our maturity and freedom, that we think can be attained by superior education and advanced knowledge of science or even by correct and true religion, is in fact a dangerous temptation. Christians like us are just as capable of becoming blind to our faults as anyone else. Being told to look inside our hearts to discover there what is right and wrong is a frightening idea, if you know the true nature of the human heart.
So what are we to do? Let’s look again at that last verse:
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.
Is this a suggestion that in fact Israel had its political system all wrong? That the answer to this chaos is to institute a centralised and powerful system of government capable of bring about some order, or exercising some decent authority? Is that what is needed?
It should only take you a minute to think through the later history of Israel to realise what a crock that suggestion is. You couldn’t have sat down in the dust, with the nation collapsed around you in the period of the exile and thought, well, yes, having a king was what we needed all along. Obeying the king who was intent on accumulating his own wealth and on providing shrines for all the other gods was not really any better than everyone doing as he saw fit, according to his own heart. What Israel really needed was not a systematic change of the style of government, but a king after God’s own heart – a ruler who would rule as God would rule, not in the interests of his own power, but for the good of all; and the people of Israel themselves needed a change of their own hearts.
This is where the book of Judges shows that it raises more questions than it answers. We can’t read it well without remembering that it is part of a bigger story – a story that tells of God’s faithfulness to his own promises as much as it tells of Israel’s repeated faithlessness. God alone fulfils his promises in this case despite of not because of his people. In fact, the two tribes that survived until the time of Jesus were… guess which? This is a huge encouragement at this point, of course: you might have thought at the end of the book of Judges that the whole Israel idea was dead and buried – or at best badly tainted. But God, the Lord of Israel, is not finished. And, he has provided for us in Jesus a king after his own heart: a true leader and Lord; and he has sent his Holy Spirit into our hearts so that we might respond to him in faith and obedience, as Israel failed to do.
We may well look around today and see that God’s people are in disarray. We can see deep uncertainty, even amongst avowed followers of Jesus Christ, as to what is right and what is wrong. We hear even Christians appealing to what their hearts are telling them over and against what the Bible plainly teaches. We are under tremendous pressure to conform to the culture around us, and in many ways we do just that. We are divided by multiple disagreements over things that are great and small. We are tempted to engineer our own solutions, or to trust in our own techniques and stratagems for building the church. And yet we need not be dismayed; because if Israel got this low and this corrupt and yet still God remained true, then we need not doubt him today.
God is working His purpose out as year succeeds year,
God is working His purpose out and the time is drawing near;
Nearer and nearer draws the time, the time that shall surely be,
When the earth shall be fill'd with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Sacha Wittgenstein
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not about to make this a 'how cute is my kid' blog, but:
Sacha, aged 5, says to me the other day -
I am still thinking about it...
Sacha, aged 5, says to me the other day -
Opposite is opposite of same
I am still thinking about it...
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Audio Bibles
Hey - does anyone have any advice on audio bibles?
I would like to get one I can listen to in the car - so either one I can burn onto CDs, or one that is already on CDs.
I don't much like cheesy synth music in the background, but if that's the way it comes, so be it... NIV or ESV.
Let me know!
I would like to get one I can listen to in the car - so either one I can burn onto CDs, or one that is already on CDs.
I don't much like cheesy synth music in the background, but if that's the way it comes, so be it... NIV or ESV.
Let me know!
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Richard Muller, and the uses of tradition accounts/genealogies in theology
I have finally started reading Richard Muller's The Unaccommodated Calvin. And a scholarly work with a more authoritative tone I have yet discovered. Muller knows his stuff, and knows he knows his stuff. In a nutshell, his thesis is that Calvin needs to be understood in his own context and on his own terms, and that this yields a more complicated picture than the one we usually get. Calvin must not be accomodated to any latter-day matrix or theological system, whether Barthian or even 'Calvinist'. Furthermore, you cannot see him as utterly divorced from the intellectual context that preceeded him, even when he differed from it. And again: you can't conclude from a simple reading of the later edition of the Institutes that 'Calvin's doctrine of XYZ was...'. His writings are more complex and variegated than that. He showed more development and more subtlety.
So, is it possible to learn from Calvin, or indeed any figure from history, without the historian always blowing the whistle? Muller concludes, nicely that
A clever theologian can accomodate Calvin to nearly any agenda; a faithful theologian - and a good historian - will seek to listen to Calvin, not to use him. p. 188
But I want to know: how? Given all the caveats that Muller has laid down, is there any way of accessing Calvin for today? How would he have us do this?
Whch leads me to a methodological point. It is standard practice in theological (and some philosophical) thinking to give an account of the tradition in which you stand, and also to show how you are correcting a tradition that went wrong at point X with thinker Y. It's a rhetorically powerful move, of course. Theology does this much more than other disciplines, because it believes in continuity as essential: even Luther and Calvin were at pains to show that they were not merely innovators, for example. And yet, this is a process that is evidently fraught with danger. We can give a wry smile now at the neo-orthodox accounts of 'Calvin against the Calvinists', for example, which have been proven to be simplistic. John Milbank has been taken to task for his sloppy readings of Dun Scotus (Milbank cites Scotus as the point at which theology got it all wrong and it has been downhill ever since).
But, under Muller's method, is such a process even possible? Is it possible to narrate the tradition in the way that theologians of all colours do as a matter of course?
So, is it possible to learn from Calvin, or indeed any figure from history, without the historian always blowing the whistle? Muller concludes, nicely that
A clever theologian can accomodate Calvin to nearly any agenda; a faithful theologian - and a good historian - will seek to listen to Calvin, not to use him. p. 188
But I want to know: how? Given all the caveats that Muller has laid down, is there any way of accessing Calvin for today? How would he have us do this?
Whch leads me to a methodological point. It is standard practice in theological (and some philosophical) thinking to give an account of the tradition in which you stand, and also to show how you are correcting a tradition that went wrong at point X with thinker Y. It's a rhetorically powerful move, of course. Theology does this much more than other disciplines, because it believes in continuity as essential: even Luther and Calvin were at pains to show that they were not merely innovators, for example. And yet, this is a process that is evidently fraught with danger. We can give a wry smile now at the neo-orthodox accounts of 'Calvin against the Calvinists', for example, which have been proven to be simplistic. John Milbank has been taken to task for his sloppy readings of Dun Scotus (Milbank cites Scotus as the point at which theology got it all wrong and it has been downhill ever since).
But, under Muller's method, is such a process even possible? Is it possible to narrate the tradition in the way that theologians of all colours do as a matter of course?
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Thanks are due...
My interest in the topic of human identity – and the thought that Christian martyrdom might have some bearing on it – was provoked in the first instance by my daily encounters with the teenage skeptics that inhabited the classrooms of St Andrew’s Cathedral School in Sydney, Australia, where I was School Chaplain from 2000-03. They were adamant that they were not going to accept a thin gruel of moralism from me as an alternative to the freedom to choose who to be on their own terms. Clearly, different ways of being a self were at issue. Thanks are due to them for not allowing their resident theologian to be happy with the glib answers that came immediately to mind.
I have been richly blessed by having, in Professor Oliver O’Donovan and Dr Bernd Wannenwetsch and more latterly Professor Nigel Biggar, teachers of the finest calibre in the field of moral theology. I am grateful in particular for the direction and stimulus given by my supervisor Dr Wannenwetsch throughout the writing of the thesis; and for his scholarly and personal example.
I would not have been able to consider coming to Oxford at all if not for the remarkable generosity of Mr Vanda Gould. In addition, he has been a source of prayerful encouragement and pastoral care to the whole family in his regular visits, emails and phone calls. I would like also to thank the Trustees of the Joan Augusta Mackenzie Travelling Scholarship, and the Principal, Bursar and Council of Moore Theological College, Sydney, for the Roberts Prize and other discretionary funds that were made available to us during our time in the UK. We have been truly blessed in this regard.
Friends new and old have been an integral part of the mostly solitary experience of writing a thesis. In particular, Kosta Milkov, Christopher Barnett and Guido de Graaff have been magnificent fellow travellers, along with Russ Dawn, Jonathan Brant, Matheson Russell and Charles Byrd. Reading new theological texts with the members of OXCAT on Friday afternoons has kept me going; and it was a joy to rediscover Calvin and more with Sam Allberry. We will never forget the welcome and support of the staff and members of St Ebbe’s Church of England. Justin Moffatt and David Höhne kept chivvying me along; Alan Lukabyo and Stephen Jacobs kept writing real letters, on actual paper. Bec Watson and Karen Beilharz sent Campos coffee beans. My sister, Anna Cox, and her husband Matthew brought me a new computer when the old one died. There were people I hardly know - and some I do - who stopped by my blog to give me helpful advice or pointed me to an overlooked reference.
My parents-in-law, Richard and Jackie Wallder, did not live to see the end of this project, though they were instrumental in it coming to pass. We miss them. To my own parents I owe an inestimable debt of gratitude. My mother, Christine Jensen, made more than one trip from Australia to keep us all going. My father, Peter Jensen, has read and re-read my work, often telling me what it was that I was trying to say when it had become unclear even to me. I don’t know what I would have done without him.
These years, though not without trials, have been happy ones for a young family. The joy of my life continues to be that I share it with my four intriguing and wonderful children, Simon, Sacha, Matilda, and our very own English rose, Freya; and with Catherine, who bore the load more than anyone, and to whom this thesis is dedicated, with love.
I have been richly blessed by having, in Professor Oliver O’Donovan and Dr Bernd Wannenwetsch and more latterly Professor Nigel Biggar, teachers of the finest calibre in the field of moral theology. I am grateful in particular for the direction and stimulus given by my supervisor Dr Wannenwetsch throughout the writing of the thesis; and for his scholarly and personal example.
I would not have been able to consider coming to Oxford at all if not for the remarkable generosity of Mr Vanda Gould. In addition, he has been a source of prayerful encouragement and pastoral care to the whole family in his regular visits, emails and phone calls. I would like also to thank the Trustees of the Joan Augusta Mackenzie Travelling Scholarship, and the Principal, Bursar and Council of Moore Theological College, Sydney, for the Roberts Prize and other discretionary funds that were made available to us during our time in the UK. We have been truly blessed in this regard.
Friends new and old have been an integral part of the mostly solitary experience of writing a thesis. In particular, Kosta Milkov, Christopher Barnett and Guido de Graaff have been magnificent fellow travellers, along with Russ Dawn, Jonathan Brant, Matheson Russell and Charles Byrd. Reading new theological texts with the members of OXCAT on Friday afternoons has kept me going; and it was a joy to rediscover Calvin and more with Sam Allberry. We will never forget the welcome and support of the staff and members of St Ebbe’s Church of England. Justin Moffatt and David Höhne kept chivvying me along; Alan Lukabyo and Stephen Jacobs kept writing real letters, on actual paper. Bec Watson and Karen Beilharz sent Campos coffee beans. My sister, Anna Cox, and her husband Matthew brought me a new computer when the old one died. There were people I hardly know - and some I do - who stopped by my blog to give me helpful advice or pointed me to an overlooked reference.
My parents-in-law, Richard and Jackie Wallder, did not live to see the end of this project, though they were instrumental in it coming to pass. We miss them. To my own parents I owe an inestimable debt of gratitude. My mother, Christine Jensen, made more than one trip from Australia to keep us all going. My father, Peter Jensen, has read and re-read my work, often telling me what it was that I was trying to say when it had become unclear even to me. I don’t know what I would have done without him.
These years, though not without trials, have been happy ones for a young family. The joy of my life continues to be that I share it with my four intriguing and wonderful children, Simon, Sacha, Matilda, and our very own English rose, Freya; and with Catherine, who bore the load more than anyone, and to whom this thesis is dedicated, with love.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Handing in, today
Today's the day I hand in my thesis.
I am sure it will be an anti-climactic feeling... and then the waiting to have it assessed...
I am sure that I will discover a typo minutes after collecting it from the printers.
But, it is finished...
I am sure it will be an anti-climactic feeling... and then the waiting to have it assessed...
I am sure that I will discover a typo minutes after collecting it from the printers.
But, it is finished...
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Princeton Seminary Youth Lectures
When I was a School Chaplain, way back in the day, I found this series of lectures on Youth Ministry just about the most stimulating thing going. I didn't always agree, but this was such a change from the usual shallow, technique-driven stuff that is around about youth ministry. Here is actual theology.
A particular highlight was this one, by Kenda Creasy Dean:
'Holding on to our Kisses: A Hormonal Theology of Adolescence'
but you can check out lectures from Miroslav Volf and Jurgen Moltmann among others.
A particular highlight was this one, by Kenda Creasy Dean:
'Holding on to our Kisses: A Hormonal Theology of Adolescence'
but you can check out lectures from Miroslav Volf and Jurgen Moltmann among others.
Billy Graham in Australia 1959
My relatives went forward at the crusades in Sydney in the same visit to Australia.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Locke's tolerance - its limits
'Promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon the atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.'
John Locke, Letter on Toleration
The father of modern liberal politics shows his true colours...
John Locke, Letter on Toleration
The father of modern liberal politics shows his true colours...
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Anne Lamott
I have been reading two wonderful books by Anne Lamott:
Bird by Bird - a terrific book about writing;
and her spirutual memoir
Traveling Mercies.
I won't review them or anything: but they are books to change your life by.
Bird by Bird - a terrific book about writing;
and her spirutual memoir
Traveling Mercies.
I won't review them or anything: but they are books to change your life by.
Keller - the Gospel in all its forms
H/T to Stephen:
an interesting article by Tim Keller from New York, on how he preaches the gospel.
He sums up:
Today there are many who doubt that there is just one gospel. That gives them the warrant to ignore the gospel of atonement and justification. There are others who don't like to admit that there are different forms to that one gospel. That smacks too much of "contextualization," a term they dislike. They cling to a single presentation that is often one-dimensional. Neither of these approaches is as true to the biblical material, nor as effective in actual ministry, as that which understands that the Bible presents one gospel in several forms.
an interesting article by Tim Keller from New York, on how he preaches the gospel.
He sums up:
Today there are many who doubt that there is just one gospel. That gives them the warrant to ignore the gospel of atonement and justification. There are others who don't like to admit that there are different forms to that one gospel. That smacks too much of "contextualization," a term they dislike. They cling to a single presentation that is often one-dimensional. Neither of these approaches is as true to the biblical material, nor as effective in actual ministry, as that which understands that the Bible presents one gospel in several forms.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Churchman article
This Summer's Churchman has hit the shelves of theological colleges and pastor's studies everywhere and it includes the first in my series of three articles entitled The Christian Revolution. This issue contains 1. Liberty.
Lee Gatiss has an interesting article on Richard Baxter, too. And Tony Wright concludes his two-parter on Death, the Dead and the Underworld in Biblical Theology.
Lee Gatiss has an interesting article on Richard Baxter, too. And Tony Wright concludes his two-parter on Death, the Dead and the Underworld in Biblical Theology.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Frightening Children?
Jason cites a very interesting quote from CS Lewis about frightening children...
Personally, I find children terrifying.
[it's a joke]
Personally, I find children terrifying.
[it's a joke]
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
In Praise of Teachers Meme
Back in September last year, I wrote a post in praise of teachers.
In it, I listed ten of my favourite teachers selected from the whole spread of my educational career (20+ years and still going...). I gave a brief explanation in each case.
Now, I am not much one for memes - but could this one work? I need your help.
Here goes:
List FIVE of your favourite teachers, and tell us what made them great. Then tag some people whose blogs you read...
I tag:
In it, I listed ten of my favourite teachers selected from the whole spread of my educational career (20+ years and still going...). I gave a brief explanation in each case.
Now, I am not much one for memes - but could this one work? I need your help.
Here goes:
List FIVE of your favourite teachers, and tell us what made them great. Then tag some people whose blogs you read...
I tag:
Monday, May 19, 2008
Why Christians are not people of principle
I read a terrific book by Stanley Fish once, called The Trouble with Principle.
That was a while ago; but for some reason I was thinking about it again this morning. Principled people - and there are Christians among them, granted - are some of the most dangerous people there are. That is: everything in moral reasoning becomes ordered to a set of ideals (or even a single ideal). That means, in practice that anything is justifiable in the name of these ideals or principles. You can invade Iraq and torture prisoners in the name of freedom, for example. In the name of fairer and better government with more integrity you can knife your political opponents in the back. Do evil, that good may result. It is (so the calculation runs) a lesser evil than the evil that may result if the ultimate good is not defended.
There is, naturally, a deal of suspicion of these kind of principles, too. What alternative is there to them is the problem - to be unprincipled?
But Christian discipleship is not the following of a set of principles. It is discipleship: it is following a master, imitation of an example (while at the same time being spiritually united to this master). It isn't a set of truths (though it is TRUE, and it trades in TRUTH, for sure) from which all else must be deduced in some process of ethical calculation. Even 'love' can't be held as a mere principle: it must be worked out in the light of the example of love given to us and worked in us.
Away then with principles!
That was a while ago; but for some reason I was thinking about it again this morning. Principled people - and there are Christians among them, granted - are some of the most dangerous people there are. That is: everything in moral reasoning becomes ordered to a set of ideals (or even a single ideal). That means, in practice that anything is justifiable in the name of these ideals or principles. You can invade Iraq and torture prisoners in the name of freedom, for example. In the name of fairer and better government with more integrity you can knife your political opponents in the back. Do evil, that good may result. It is (so the calculation runs) a lesser evil than the evil that may result if the ultimate good is not defended.
There is, naturally, a deal of suspicion of these kind of principles, too. What alternative is there to them is the problem - to be unprincipled?
But Christian discipleship is not the following of a set of principles. It is discipleship: it is following a master, imitation of an example (while at the same time being spiritually united to this master). It isn't a set of truths (though it is TRUE, and it trades in TRUTH, for sure) from which all else must be deduced in some process of ethical calculation. Even 'love' can't be held as a mere principle: it must be worked out in the light of the example of love given to us and worked in us.
Away then with principles!
Songs of Sydney - 6
Sydney, nights are warm, daytime telly, blue-rinse dawn..
At least, you won't have time to be bored...
At least, you won't have time to be bored...
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Songs of Sydney - 8
King St - well, now, this is the King St of my youth... Coles New World is now the Dendy cinema.
On King St, I'm a king...
On King St, I'm a king...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Endnote trouble shooting
Does anyone know what you do in Endnote when you want to cite a work by a Pope?
It always comes out as II, John Paul...
It always comes out as II, John Paul...
Songs of Sydney - 1
Ah, Sydney: I can already smell the dog pee evaporating from your footpaths, and the rage of the drivers of a million cars on a February afternoon, and the dust blowing in from the drought...
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The Short Abstract
Ok, we are down to the nitty gritty now, and I need help refining and clarifying this abstract. Remember, be CONSTRUCTIVELY critical and help protect my oh-so-fragile ego...
This thesis asks: what kind of self is the Christian, as it is discovered in Christian martyrdom? It will be argued that Christian martyrdom provides a coherent and compelling narration of the self in terms of the narrative of the life and death of Jesus Christ: a narrative that orients the self in hope towards the good and turns the self towards recognition of and sacrificial service of other selves. It is established (following Balthasar) that martyrdom is the external representation in the lives of some of the inner reality of all Christian disciples. A number of modern secular accounts of selfhood and identity recognize the importance of martyrdom as a key point in the conflict of the meaning of human identity. However, as is shown from the work of Salman Rushdie and Charles Taylor, these accounts do not successfully describe the self as it is revealed in Christian martyrdom. Rushdie even questions the authenticity of a religiously-construed self. The thesis then (chapters 3-6) offers a description and an analysis of self-identity as it is informed by martyrdom, in conversation with T.S. Eliot’s play Murder in the Cathedral. Christian discipleship is not the path of establishing oneself through security, pursuing the good made possible through collaboration with earthly power, making oneself an identity through action according to some ideal, or even seeking earthly or heavenly renown. Christian selfhood is (rather) narrated against the experience of peirasmo,j (temptation/testing) and with reference to providentia dei. Both themes are explained Christologically (chapter 7). Martyrdom is not a witness to the innocence of the martyr, but rather to her vindication by the divine judge on account of Jesus Christ. Finally, it is argued that the Christian self is offered to others as an act of suffering persuasion.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Augustine, our contemporary
Augustine, in giving voice to Roman hedonism, could be speaking of modern liberal Westerners:
"But the worshippers and admirers of these gods delight in imitating their scandalous iniquities, and are nowise concerned that the republic be less depraved and licentious. Only let it remain undefeated, they say, only let it flourish and abound in resources; let it be glorious by its victories, or still better, secure in peace; and what matters it to us? This is our concern, that every man be able to increase his wealth so as to supply his daily prodigalities, and so that the powerful may subject the weak for their own purposes. Let the poor court the rich for a living, and that under their protection they may enjoy a sluggish tranquillity; and let the rich abuse the poor as their dependants, to minister to their pride. Let the people applaud not those who protect their interests, but those who provide them with pleasure. Let no severe duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. Let kings estimate their prosperity, not by the righteousness, but by the servility of their subjects. Let the provinces stand loyal to the kings, not as moral guides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their pleasures; not with a hearty reverence, but a crooked and servile fear. Let the laws take cognizance rather of the injury done to another man's property, than of that done to one's own person. If a man be a nuisance to his neighbor, or injure his property, family, or person, let him be actionable; but in his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his own family, and with those who willingly join him. Let there be a plentiful supply of public prostitutes for every one who wishes to use them, but specially for those who are too poor to keep one for their private use. Let there be erected houses of the largest and most ornate description: in these let there be provided the most sumptuous banquets, where every one who pleases may, by day or night, play, drink, vomit, dissipate. Let there be everywhere heard the rustling of dancers, the loud, immodest laughter of the theatre; let a succession of the most cruel and the most voluptuous pleasures maintain a perpetual excitement. If such happiness is distasteful to any, let him be branded as a public enemy; and if any attempt to modify or put an end to it let him be silenced, banished, put an end to. Let these be reckoned the true gods, who procure for the people this condition of things, and preserve it when once possessed. Let them be worshipped as they wish; let them demand whatever games they please, from or with their own worshippers; only let them secure that such felicity be not imperilled by foe, plague, or disaster of any kind."
He even has a role for the religious!
City of God, II.20
"But the worshippers and admirers of these gods delight in imitating their scandalous iniquities, and are nowise concerned that the republic be less depraved and licentious. Only let it remain undefeated, they say, only let it flourish and abound in resources; let it be glorious by its victories, or still better, secure in peace; and what matters it to us? This is our concern, that every man be able to increase his wealth so as to supply his daily prodigalities, and so that the powerful may subject the weak for their own purposes. Let the poor court the rich for a living, and that under their protection they may enjoy a sluggish tranquillity; and let the rich abuse the poor as their dependants, to minister to their pride. Let the people applaud not those who protect their interests, but those who provide them with pleasure. Let no severe duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. Let kings estimate their prosperity, not by the righteousness, but by the servility of their subjects. Let the provinces stand loyal to the kings, not as moral guides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their pleasures; not with a hearty reverence, but a crooked and servile fear. Let the laws take cognizance rather of the injury done to another man's property, than of that done to one's own person. If a man be a nuisance to his neighbor, or injure his property, family, or person, let him be actionable; but in his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his own family, and with those who willingly join him. Let there be a plentiful supply of public prostitutes for every one who wishes to use them, but specially for those who are too poor to keep one for their private use. Let there be erected houses of the largest and most ornate description: in these let there be provided the most sumptuous banquets, where every one who pleases may, by day or night, play, drink, vomit, dissipate. Let there be everywhere heard the rustling of dancers, the loud, immodest laughter of the theatre; let a succession of the most cruel and the most voluptuous pleasures maintain a perpetual excitement. If such happiness is distasteful to any, let him be branded as a public enemy; and if any attempt to modify or put an end to it let him be silenced, banished, put an end to. Let these be reckoned the true gods, who procure for the people this condition of things, and preserve it when once possessed. Let them be worshipped as they wish; let them demand whatever games they please, from or with their own worshippers; only let them secure that such felicity be not imperilled by foe, plague, or disaster of any kind."
He even has a role for the religious!
City of God, II.20
Iris Murdoch
Just a note this morning:
I have been reading the excellent novels of Iris Murdoch. They are shot through with her post-God attempt to find a moral ideal, a conception of the Good that will be tenable in the contemporary world. The themes? Well, love, sex, God and death of course! What else is worth talking about? It reminds me that the best moral thinking these days is done by novelists. The narrative form is such an advantage.
I have read thus far:
The Bell
Bruno's Dream
A Severed Head (read it ages ago)
The Time of the Angels
and I am reading
The Black Prince.
Next: Henry and Cato
and then -
The Sea, The Sea.
I have been reading the excellent novels of Iris Murdoch. They are shot through with her post-God attempt to find a moral ideal, a conception of the Good that will be tenable in the contemporary world. The themes? Well, love, sex, God and death of course! What else is worth talking about? It reminds me that the best moral thinking these days is done by novelists. The narrative form is such an advantage.
I have read thus far:
The Bell
Bruno's Dream
A Severed Head (read it ages ago)
The Time of the Angels
and I am reading
The Black Prince.
Next: Henry and Cato
and then -
The Sea, The Sea.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Sin in the Life of the Believer - 3
But ... don’t forget that Paul is stern with the sinful believer, too. In 1 Corinthians 6 he reminds the Corinthians that the Kingdom of God does not belong to the rampant sinner. Ephesians 5:5 is equally strong: “For of this you can be sure; no immoral, impure or greedy person…has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” The message for the sinful Christian is not, “well, we all sin sometimes, but “stop it and repent!”
Hebrews is even stronger. On the one hand, the author enthusiastically explains how the Christian has absolutely free access into the presence of God himself through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. There is every reason to be confident of our salvation. But, he is also uncompromising about sin. “If we deliberately go on sinning” writes the author, “no sacrifice for sins is left!” To the Christian who said “I sin all the time”, he would say “Don’t!” 1 John backs him up: “I am writing this so you will not sin” he says, “but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father.”
Not bad advice, actually. Christians (well, I, at least) do love to wallow in guilt. But maybe that’s not good enough. If I am to think more biblically I might instead remember who I am on account of Christ. And I might have courage to tackle my sin (with the Spirit’s help) and kill it off. It has no place in my life, after all.
However, I still live in a warzone, for the time being. I still live life in the weak flesh, I still live under the effects of sin, I still live (for now) on the wrong side of eternity. In Romans 8, Paul tackles exactly this state of affairs. (Before you read it, cross out “sinful nature” in the NIV and replace it with “flesh”.) The Christian continues to live in a sinful environment – even in a weak and sinful body – but is now controlled by the Spirit. The Christian experiences first hand the rot of the sinful era: but also yearns with the Spirit for the future redemption of the body. Most reassuringly of all for the overwhelmed believer, there is no condemnation for those in Christ. If God is for us, who can be against us? We are more than conquerors…
Sin in our lives is a contradiction of our very identity: an absurdity, given our destiny. It isn’t who we are any more.
Hebrews is even stronger. On the one hand, the author enthusiastically explains how the Christian has absolutely free access into the presence of God himself through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. There is every reason to be confident of our salvation. But, he is also uncompromising about sin. “If we deliberately go on sinning” writes the author, “no sacrifice for sins is left!” To the Christian who said “I sin all the time”, he would say “Don’t!” 1 John backs him up: “I am writing this so you will not sin” he says, “but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father.”
Not bad advice, actually. Christians (well, I, at least) do love to wallow in guilt. But maybe that’s not good enough. If I am to think more biblically I might instead remember who I am on account of Christ. And I might have courage to tackle my sin (with the Spirit’s help) and kill it off. It has no place in my life, after all.
However, I still live in a warzone, for the time being. I still live life in the weak flesh, I still live under the effects of sin, I still live (for now) on the wrong side of eternity. In Romans 8, Paul tackles exactly this state of affairs. (Before you read it, cross out “sinful nature” in the NIV and replace it with “flesh”.) The Christian continues to live in a sinful environment – even in a weak and sinful body – but is now controlled by the Spirit. The Christian experiences first hand the rot of the sinful era: but also yearns with the Spirit for the future redemption of the body. Most reassuringly of all for the overwhelmed believer, there is no condemnation for those in Christ. If God is for us, who can be against us? We are more than conquerors…
Sin in our lives is a contradiction of our very identity: an absurdity, given our destiny. It isn’t who we are any more.
Some Perspective
A poster on Ruth Gledhill's blog shared this:
"This is to let you know the sad news that David Mohamed Ali, a Somali Christian evangelist and a long-standing member of St Matthew's, was shot dead last week by two Islamist terrorists in Badoia, Somalia, because of his Christian faith. He had been sent to Badoia by Ethiopian and Somali borderpolice, for reasons that are not clear.
David was an intelligent and gifted evangelist who thought deeply about hisf aith. For a while he ran a website for Christian Somalis. I had recentlygiven him a reference to do a Degree in Theology at ETC (EvangelicalTheological College), Addis Ababa. He was single man, aged about 35, who was based in Addis Ababa but travelled widely sharing his faith.
We thank God for his life and courageous witness, and pray for his mother,sister and other members of his family. We also pray for the Somali Christian community, that they may be comforted and strengthened at thistime when Christians are under great pressure in Somalia.
David's death comes just two weeks after four Christian teachers (2 British Somalis and 2 Kenyans) were killed in Beledwayne, Somalia."
[Ruth has been running an excellent series on persecution - really different stuff for a major newspaper. ]
"This is to let you know the sad news that David Mohamed Ali, a Somali Christian evangelist and a long-standing member of St Matthew's, was shot dead last week by two Islamist terrorists in Badoia, Somalia, because of his Christian faith. He had been sent to Badoia by Ethiopian and Somali borderpolice, for reasons that are not clear.
David was an intelligent and gifted evangelist who thought deeply about hisf aith. For a while he ran a website for Christian Somalis. I had recentlygiven him a reference to do a Degree in Theology at ETC (EvangelicalTheological College), Addis Ababa. He was single man, aged about 35, who was based in Addis Ababa but travelled widely sharing his faith.
We thank God for his life and courageous witness, and pray for his mother,sister and other members of his family. We also pray for the Somali Christian community, that they may be comforted and strengthened at thistime when Christians are under great pressure in Somalia.
David's death comes just two weeks after four Christian teachers (2 British Somalis and 2 Kenyans) were killed in Beledwayne, Somalia."
[Ruth has been running an excellent series on persecution - really different stuff for a major newspaper. ]
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Sin in the Life of the Believer - 2
So, what to do then?
One favourite strategy of Christians down the centuries has been to take a minimal definition of sin. “Lowering the bar” in other words. You define sin using a set of rules or behaviours, and then you design your life so to avoid transgressing. Live in a nice tree-lined suburb. Talk to nice people about nice things. Work hard, never offend anyone. Keep away from attractive members of the opposite sex. Go to church, pay your taxes, recycle. Do not count as sin the more alarming topography of your inner world. Thank God that you are not like other people. Neat, huh?
There are two problems with minimalism. Firstly, Jesus seems to have a maximal definition of sin. His Sermon on the Mount convicts me on the basis of my intentions as well as my deeds; and it also urges me to take radical action against sin. True righteousness is not a matter of merely avoiding sin. It is active.
Secondly, if I am to pursue the path of love commanded by Jesus, I will risk sin in my interactions with other people. Other people are so hard to love, but you can’t be loving without them! No wonder the monastics used isolation in their quest for purity.
But how does the Bible address sin in the life of the believer? It is good to remember the robust conscience of the New Testament writers on the one hand; and the severe warnings they give against sin on the other. Paul does not write to “the sinners in Corinth” but to the “church of God…to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy”. He calls the church the “temple of the Holy Spirit”, and “the body of Christ”. His strategy for handling sin in the life of the believer is to remind Christians of their radical change in status. “ Your life is hid with Christ”; “ You are dead to sin, alive to Christ”; “ you are all sons of God”; “now you are light in the Lord”; “you are not your own…you were brought at a price”; “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”; “we…have the firstfruits of the spirit”. The Christian is a home for the Holy Spirit and lives by that Spirit.
Do we doubt the power of God’s Spirit to change us?
One favourite strategy of Christians down the centuries has been to take a minimal definition of sin. “Lowering the bar” in other words. You define sin using a set of rules or behaviours, and then you design your life so to avoid transgressing. Live in a nice tree-lined suburb. Talk to nice people about nice things. Work hard, never offend anyone. Keep away from attractive members of the opposite sex. Go to church, pay your taxes, recycle. Do not count as sin the more alarming topography of your inner world. Thank God that you are not like other people. Neat, huh?
There are two problems with minimalism. Firstly, Jesus seems to have a maximal definition of sin. His Sermon on the Mount convicts me on the basis of my intentions as well as my deeds; and it also urges me to take radical action against sin. True righteousness is not a matter of merely avoiding sin. It is active.
Secondly, if I am to pursue the path of love commanded by Jesus, I will risk sin in my interactions with other people. Other people are so hard to love, but you can’t be loving without them! No wonder the monastics used isolation in their quest for purity.
But how does the Bible address sin in the life of the believer? It is good to remember the robust conscience of the New Testament writers on the one hand; and the severe warnings they give against sin on the other. Paul does not write to “the sinners in Corinth” but to the “church of God…to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy”. He calls the church the “temple of the Holy Spirit”, and “the body of Christ”. His strategy for handling sin in the life of the believer is to remind Christians of their radical change in status. “ Your life is hid with Christ”; “ You are dead to sin, alive to Christ”; “ you are all sons of God”; “now you are light in the Lord”; “you are not your own…you were brought at a price”; “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”; “we…have the firstfruits of the spirit”. The Christian is a home for the Holy Spirit and lives by that Spirit.
Do we doubt the power of God’s Spirit to change us?
An Evangelical Manifesto
H/T to Craig for this: a group of prominent Evangelical leaders in the US have released this statement, entitled 'An Evangelical Manifesto'. It is not brief - 7,000+ words - but, by golly, it is fascinating. It is an attempt to grab back Evangelical identity from its political uses in the US, and to distinguish Evangelicalism from fundamentalism. Here's a bit to chew on:
...the Evangelical message, "good news" by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative. There is an enormous theological and cultural importance to the power of No, especially in a day when Everything is permitted and It is forbidden to forbid. Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil. But first and foremost we Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything. The Gospel of Jesus is the Good News of welcome, forgiveness, grace, and liberation from law and legalism. It is a colossal Yes to life and human aspirations, and an emphatic No only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God.
There's much more, too. It needs thinking about and digesting.
Notable names amongst the signatories include Miroslav Volf, Kevin Vanhoozer, Darrell Bock, Leighton Ford, Walter Kaiser and Alvin Plantinga.
...the Evangelical message, "good news" by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative. There is an enormous theological and cultural importance to the power of No, especially in a day when Everything is permitted and It is forbidden to forbid. Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil. But first and foremost we Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything. The Gospel of Jesus is the Good News of welcome, forgiveness, grace, and liberation from law and legalism. It is a colossal Yes to life and human aspirations, and an emphatic No only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God.
There's much more, too. It needs thinking about and digesting.
Notable names amongst the signatories include Miroslav Volf, Kevin Vanhoozer, Darrell Bock, Leighton Ford, Walter Kaiser and Alvin Plantinga.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Sin in the Life of the Believer - 1
Sin is a remarkably persistent feature of the Christian life.At least, it is of mine.
Despite of all the thousands of sermons, the stirring songs, despite all the evenings spent in bible study groups, the private prayer and bible study, the encouraging words of other Christians, the evident work of God in and around me, the conventions and conferences – I still look into my heart and find there envy, lust, anger, pettiness, selfish ambition, meanness and greed. Quite a collection, isn’t it? And I have become used to seeing them there, and resigned to it. They do not shock me at all. “After all”, I tell myself, “we will always sin this side of Jesus’ return.”
But in the life of a Christian, sin is an absurdity. In the unbeliever, sin is a symptom of rebellion against God’s authority. But the Christian has submitted to God’s authority, and received new life and has a life hid with Christ in God, and faces no condemnation. The Christian is no longer a slave to sin. Yet, sin still rides on the Christian like a stowaway. We live within a world-wide-web of evil; and despite the call to be different to it, we still log on. We still suffer the effects of sin; and we still transmit them.
Even more than suffering, the absurdity of sin leads to spiritual despair. “ I know it’s wrong and I know Christianity is true” said the high school student in my office. “But I just can’t handle life as a hypocrite and I don’t think I can give up going to parties and drinking too much. Life with a conscience is too hard.” The presence of those creeps in my own heart causes me to despair ever of overcoming them and so I give way to their power. They make everything so complicated. I feel like a drowning man.
So, what to do then?
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Ambrose on Justice
A great discovery for me has been the writing of Ambrose of Milan. It is striking how contemporary he is in charting a course between submission to the state and subversion of it. Here he is writing about justice in The Duties of Clergy (which I think he grasps in a beautifully biblical way):
The foundation, then, of justice is faith, for the hearts of the juts are precoccupied with faith; and the person who justly accuses himself constructs his justice upon good faith, for his justice is apparent when he confesses the truth. So the Lord says through Isaiah, "Behold I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone." This refers to Christ as the foundation of the church. For the faith of all believers is simply Christ; and the Church is, as it were, the form that justice takes, the common right of all. Her prayer is the prayer of the community' her works are the works of the community; her trials are the trials of the community. A just man, in sum, worthy of Christ, is someone who accepts that he is not his own. And that is why Paul insisted that Christ must be the foundation; because faith is the foundation of our works of justice, it is on him that they should be constructed.
The foundation, then, of justice is faith, for the hearts of the juts are precoccupied with faith; and the person who justly accuses himself constructs his justice upon good faith, for his justice is apparent when he confesses the truth. So the Lord says through Isaiah, "Behold I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone." This refers to Christ as the foundation of the church. For the faith of all believers is simply Christ; and the Church is, as it were, the form that justice takes, the common right of all. Her prayer is the prayer of the community' her works are the works of the community; her trials are the trials of the community. A just man, in sum, worthy of Christ, is someone who accepts that he is not his own. And that is why Paul insisted that Christ must be the foundation; because faith is the foundation of our works of justice, it is on him that they should be constructed.
1 Samuel 13-31 - 6
So the damage of Saul has taken a lifetime to undo, even though he appeared doomed from the start of his reign. Kingship has not yet proved a solution for Israel for their complaint. While Saul is not portrayed as greedy in the way Samuel feared kings would be, he is vain, lazy, rash, moody and willful. Sometimes he is just plain stupid. The narrative portrays him as to blame for his own downfall; but at the same time, there is nothing he can do to change the outcome, it seems. The hand of Yhwh is guiding events as always. In one sense, too, Saul takes the wrap for the folly of Israel in demanding a king. The wickedness of Israel in pleading for a king has had devastating effects. She has learnt a terrible lesson; the new true king had better take note, and Israel with him. Otherwise the terrible consequence of disobedience – that God would stop communicating with them – would be meted out on them too.
Was he doomed from the very start? D.M.Gunn is a scholar who thinks so, and points to the deliberate contrast between God’s instruction to Samuel to “appoint for them a king” in 1 Sam 8:22 and his later announcement that he had provided for himself a king from the sons of Jesse in 16:1. By this reading, Saul is a king who cannot succeed because he was never truly acknowledged by God as his choice in the first place. The rejection of Saul is God’s response to the people’s rejection of him. This perhaps explains why Saul is condemned for apparently trivial offences – when later we see David doing worse and surviving as king. But as the rejection sayings in 15:23, 26 insist, it is Saul’s repudiation of Yhwh that has provoked Yhwh’s repudiation of Saul.
On the other hand, there is no question but that David is the right man. He is a model of trust in Yhwh and loyalty to his anointed, although of course ironically it is he who is the true anointed. He refuses to take matters into his own hands and assassinate Saul (and Nabal); but rather trusts in the promise and intention of Yhwh who will manage events without David’s intervention. That said, he is also portrayed as decisive, charismatic and effective: brutal when necessary but also just. He is not greedy for spoil as Samuel had feared a king would be. Are there perhaps some shadows emerging in David’s character? The incident with Abigail innocently shows his weakness for a pretty feminine face. Certainly as a military figure he involved in killing on a large scale. He appears to sail close to the wind with his pragmatism when he makes friends with King Achish, and was apparently only providentially spared from warring with Israel.
Was he doomed from the very start? D.M.Gunn is a scholar who thinks so, and points to the deliberate contrast between God’s instruction to Samuel to “appoint for them a king” in 1 Sam 8:22 and his later announcement that he had provided for himself a king from the sons of Jesse in 16:1. By this reading, Saul is a king who cannot succeed because he was never truly acknowledged by God as his choice in the first place. The rejection of Saul is God’s response to the people’s rejection of him. This perhaps explains why Saul is condemned for apparently trivial offences – when later we see David doing worse and surviving as king. But as the rejection sayings in 15:23, 26 insist, it is Saul’s repudiation of Yhwh that has provoked Yhwh’s repudiation of Saul.
On the other hand, there is no question but that David is the right man. He is a model of trust in Yhwh and loyalty to his anointed, although of course ironically it is he who is the true anointed. He refuses to take matters into his own hands and assassinate Saul (and Nabal); but rather trusts in the promise and intention of Yhwh who will manage events without David’s intervention. That said, he is also portrayed as decisive, charismatic and effective: brutal when necessary but also just. He is not greedy for spoil as Samuel had feared a king would be. Are there perhaps some shadows emerging in David’s character? The incident with Abigail innocently shows his weakness for a pretty feminine face. Certainly as a military figure he involved in killing on a large scale. He appears to sail close to the wind with his pragmatism when he makes friends with King Achish, and was apparently only providentially spared from warring with Israel.
Monday, May 05, 2008
The joy of being CROSS
I was thinking just this morning how much of my internet browsing involves finding reasons to get cross. There are websites that make cross; blogs that make me cross; discussion forums that make me very cross; and so on. For example, I always read Mike Carlton of the Sydney Morning Herald not because I agree with him EVER, but because he makes me so jolly cross. And it is amazing how much emotional energy I can waste on this. Believe me, I have lost sleep over internet discussions. Real sleep! There are really valuable online debates that you can observe and participate in, but sometimes it isn't worth it all.
I am saying this not merely as a personal confession (perish the thought) but because I think I am not the only one! Being cross is a strangely addictive feeling. It gives one a sense of high dudgeon and moral outrage and self-righteousness. It gives one a sense of purpose in a strange way. By which I mean: we actually enjoy our crossness. Love it. It is a form of entertainment.
But how pathetic is it, really?
I am saying this not merely as a personal confession (perish the thought) but because I think I am not the only one! Being cross is a strangely addictive feeling. It gives one a sense of high dudgeon and moral outrage and self-righteousness. It gives one a sense of purpose in a strange way. By which I mean: we actually enjoy our crossness. Love it. It is a form of entertainment.
But how pathetic is it, really?
1 Samuel 13-31 - 5
However the story is interrupted at this point by the terrible narrative of the witch or medium of Endor. Saul enlists the help of a medium to raise the ghost of a rather grumpy Samuel. As appropriate to Torah, Saul had expelled all the witches and wizards from the land, but now he has need of one and so goes contrary to his own principles. Once again, Saul is seen to have the desire to consult Yhwh but on his terms and using inappropriate means. His consulting the spirit of Samuel is a desperate act, as he himself says. God no longer replies to him by prophets or by dreams. Samuel’s answer is doom –laden – a prophecy of the death of Saul and his sons at the hands of the Philistines.
The stage is set for the collapse of the house of Saul at the hand of the Philistines and David. However, David is prevented from making the blunder he has so far avoided ie fighting against the anointed of Yhwh. He is spared the ignominy of warring with God’s people. The other Philistine kings reject Achish’s trusted mercenary (who ironically has been lying to him all along). Thus by the providential hand of Yhwh David takes no active part in Saul’s downfall and is also kept a free force able to fight for Israel when the Philistines defeat the armies of Saul and Jonathan.
The Ziklag incident (ch.30) delays the end further. We see in this episode David the great warrior, taking command of his potentially murderous group in the aftermath of a devastating raid by the Amalekites; and organizing successfully to take his revenge. David is a man of decisive action and military ability; but he also takes great care to distribute the spoils of victory in a just way. Here is perhaps a king who will not take, take, take: but one who will give. In vs 26 David’s language starts to assume the tone of one who fights the fights of Yhwh: he speaks there of “the spoils of the enemies of the Yhwh”, as he hands over the loot to the elders of Judah.
The final scene of 1 Samuel is the defeat of Saul and the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The pathos is maintained by Jonathan’s death: we the readers are not to feel too triumphant here. The demise of this flawed king comes at the cost of defeat for Israel. Ironically, it is Saul himself who lifts up his hand against Yhwh’s anointed – perhaps this too is a false step, proving Saul a blunderer to the last. The bodies of Saul and his sons are shamed by the Philistines in the same way David had dismembered the fallen Goliath. The territories of Israel beyond the Jordan are occupied by the Philistines; and so the reign of David begins with a military complication that needs resolving.
The stage is set for the collapse of the house of Saul at the hand of the Philistines and David. However, David is prevented from making the blunder he has so far avoided ie fighting against the anointed of Yhwh. He is spared the ignominy of warring with God’s people. The other Philistine kings reject Achish’s trusted mercenary (who ironically has been lying to him all along). Thus by the providential hand of Yhwh David takes no active part in Saul’s downfall and is also kept a free force able to fight for Israel when the Philistines defeat the armies of Saul and Jonathan.
The Ziklag incident (ch.30) delays the end further. We see in this episode David the great warrior, taking command of his potentially murderous group in the aftermath of a devastating raid by the Amalekites; and organizing successfully to take his revenge. David is a man of decisive action and military ability; but he also takes great care to distribute the spoils of victory in a just way. Here is perhaps a king who will not take, take, take: but one who will give. In vs 26 David’s language starts to assume the tone of one who fights the fights of Yhwh: he speaks there of “the spoils of the enemies of the Yhwh”, as he hands over the loot to the elders of Judah.
The final scene of 1 Samuel is the defeat of Saul and the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The pathos is maintained by Jonathan’s death: we the readers are not to feel too triumphant here. The demise of this flawed king comes at the cost of defeat for Israel. Ironically, it is Saul himself who lifts up his hand against Yhwh’s anointed – perhaps this too is a false step, proving Saul a blunderer to the last. The bodies of Saul and his sons are shamed by the Philistines in the same way David had dismembered the fallen Goliath. The territories of Israel beyond the Jordan are occupied by the Philistines; and so the reign of David begins with a military complication that needs resolving.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
1 Samuel 13-31 - 4
Interestingly, David’s deviation from religious practice in the Abinadab episode is not classed as disobedience in the way that Saul’s religious deviations were. Why?
The incident of Nabal and Abigail illustrates contrasting responses to Yhwh’s anointed. Abigail’s resourcefulness and her beauty win her a husband and David and his men win provisions. This is an interesting variation on a stock rape and pillage by a maraudering band. David does not have to steal Abigail from her stupid husband. Rather he is struck down by Yhwh. Abigail’s speech to David captures in a nut-shell the presentation of David in this story, 25:30ff: “and when the Lord has done to my lord according to al the good that he has spoken concerning you, and has appointed you prince over Israel, my lord shall have no cause of grief, or pangs of conscience, for having shed blood without cause or for my lord taking vengeance himself.” The long-term benefit of a clear conscience outweighs the rash moment of anger, even when it is provoked. Nabal’s death at the Lord’s hand without David’s intervention foreshadows the death of Saul to come.
David’s alliance with the King of Gath shows the level of desperation he has reached, as he explains in 27:1. This wins David peace from Saul, but obviously puts him in an invidious position: living outside Israel and in league with her enemies. By being more than a little loose with the truth, David is able to convince Achish that he is making raids on Israelite territories, when in fact he and his men were attacking the Canaanite tribes. It seems in 28:1-2 that David will even fight against Israel, such is the trust he has won. What will happen? Will David prove to be a mercenary of questionable loyalty, happy to kill the men of Israel?
to be continued
The incident of Nabal and Abigail illustrates contrasting responses to Yhwh’s anointed. Abigail’s resourcefulness and her beauty win her a husband and David and his men win provisions. This is an interesting variation on a stock rape and pillage by a maraudering band. David does not have to steal Abigail from her stupid husband. Rather he is struck down by Yhwh. Abigail’s speech to David captures in a nut-shell the presentation of David in this story, 25:30ff: “and when the Lord has done to my lord according to al the good that he has spoken concerning you, and has appointed you prince over Israel, my lord shall have no cause of grief, or pangs of conscience, for having shed blood without cause or for my lord taking vengeance himself.” The long-term benefit of a clear conscience outweighs the rash moment of anger, even when it is provoked. Nabal’s death at the Lord’s hand without David’s intervention foreshadows the death of Saul to come.
David’s alliance with the King of Gath shows the level of desperation he has reached, as he explains in 27:1. This wins David peace from Saul, but obviously puts him in an invidious position: living outside Israel and in league with her enemies. By being more than a little loose with the truth, David is able to convince Achish that he is making raids on Israelite territories, when in fact he and his men were attacking the Canaanite tribes. It seems in 28:1-2 that David will even fight against Israel, such is the trust he has won. What will happen? Will David prove to be a mercenary of questionable loyalty, happy to kill the men of Israel?
to be continued
Saturday, May 03, 2008
1 Samuel 13-31 - 3
At the end of the story Saul appears to have forgotten the name of his court harpist: it may be that we do not have a strict chronological series of events presented here. At this point the close relationship between Jonathan and David begins. This is the tragic romance of the book: Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as his own soul. Of course we reading from our cultural perspective find the closeness of their relationship quite confronting and more than a little homoerotic. David’s relationships with the women in his life do not seem as deep or affectionate. However, we must be careful not to project our own cultural expectations back on to the text at this point. The affection between the two young men, as we readers know, complicates matters extraordinarily. Jonathan is the heir apparent. It is he who stands to lose most from the rise of David and the fall of Saul. Yet he is a model of faithful friendship, protecting David from Saul’s rages in chapter 20, and providing for his escape by the symbol of the arrow. We readers know that Jonathan is a major obstacle to the rise of this second king in Israel; which heightens the tragedy for us as we realize that these close friends must eventually be separated. What the bond between the two men ensures for us is that this civil war between David and Saul is not a struggle to be continued by their descendents. Even the man who stood to lose most saw in David the true destiny of Israel according to Yhwh’s choice.
Saul’s envy of David grows with David’s success and fame. The women of Israel sing “Saul has slain his thousands, but David has slain his tens of thousands.” Even in the process of arranging marriage to Michal, David excels himself by returning with twice the number of Philistine foreskins as a comically grisly present for his king. In 18:28 Saul comes to the fatal realization: Yhwh is with David, and even Saul’s daughter loves him. Saul thus veers between anger and fear, with murderous consequences. From then on, David becomes a man on the run, hunted by Saul and operating as a freedom fighter on the boundaries of Israel. He never quite pursues out and out war with Saul; but he does make a tentative alliance with the Philistines, especially King Achish. In 24 and 26 we are told of incidents where David had the chance to kill Saul and yet held back, both taunting Saul with his power over him and assuring him of his respect for Yhwh’s anointed. This technique of the repetition of similar stories in the same narrative is commonly used in biblical literature: and yet critics of the old school have viewed this as sloppy editing or the presence of two traditions or versions of the same incident. However, as Robert Alter shows in his book The Art of Biblical Narrative, the repetition of two very similar scenes is a literary device the authors of scripture deploy quite deliberately.
To be continued
Saul’s envy of David grows with David’s success and fame. The women of Israel sing “Saul has slain his thousands, but David has slain his tens of thousands.” Even in the process of arranging marriage to Michal, David excels himself by returning with twice the number of Philistine foreskins as a comically grisly present for his king. In 18:28 Saul comes to the fatal realization: Yhwh is with David, and even Saul’s daughter loves him. Saul thus veers between anger and fear, with murderous consequences. From then on, David becomes a man on the run, hunted by Saul and operating as a freedom fighter on the boundaries of Israel. He never quite pursues out and out war with Saul; but he does make a tentative alliance with the Philistines, especially King Achish. In 24 and 26 we are told of incidents where David had the chance to kill Saul and yet held back, both taunting Saul with his power over him and assuring him of his respect for Yhwh’s anointed. This technique of the repetition of similar stories in the same narrative is commonly used in biblical literature: and yet critics of the old school have viewed this as sloppy editing or the presence of two traditions or versions of the same incident. However, as Robert Alter shows in his book The Art of Biblical Narrative, the repetition of two very similar scenes is a literary device the authors of scripture deploy quite deliberately.
To be continued
Black Watch
In a comment on a previous discussion, Drew alerted me to a very recent play, Black Watch. The play follows in the tradition of Journey's End, and The Long and the Short and the Tall, stage plays which described the horrors of war. Black Watch, based partly on interviews with real soldiers, does it for the current Iraq war.
Towards the end, one of the officers offers a monologue including this comment:
We in the West have failed to understand the logic of suicide terrorism. The choice to become a religious martyr is the outcome of a struggle to establish an identity in adolescence. The possibility of death, once accepted, presents an alternative idea of the self as a religious warrior. They're looking for glory, and they seem to be finding it in martyrdom. Glory, however, is something which my boys are very unlikely to emerge with. The controversy around this war means there'll be no victory parade for us... (p. 58)
I am interested that this text connects some of the themes of my study. Interestingly, the play is about the struggle for identity and an idea of self in the young soldiers on the Western side...Of course, I think Christian martyrdom evades this characterisation. This comment is revealing as to the extent that martyrdom is understood as a flashpoint... it's the possibility of death. In the West, it isn't accepted that this could present an alternative and valid idea of the self...
Towards the end, one of the officers offers a monologue including this comment:
We in the West have failed to understand the logic of suicide terrorism. The choice to become a religious martyr is the outcome of a struggle to establish an identity in adolescence. The possibility of death, once accepted, presents an alternative idea of the self as a religious warrior. They're looking for glory, and they seem to be finding it in martyrdom. Glory, however, is something which my boys are very unlikely to emerge with. The controversy around this war means there'll be no victory parade for us... (p. 58)
I am interested that this text connects some of the themes of my study. Interestingly, the play is about the struggle for identity and an idea of self in the young soldiers on the Western side...Of course, I think Christian martyrdom evades this characterisation. This comment is revealing as to the extent that martyrdom is understood as a flashpoint... it's the possibility of death. In the West, it isn't accepted that this could present an alternative and valid idea of the self...
Friday, May 02, 2008
1 Samuel 13-31 - 2
The stage is obviously set for the entry of David, the man truly after God’s own heart.Once again, the narrator comes at this important moment from several angles: his anointing by Samuel in Bethlehem, his ability as a musician and the slaying of Goliath. As we meet the shepherd boy we are told he “ruddy, and had beautiful eyes and was handsome”: he has the charismatic looks of a potential hero. That he is the least of the sons of Jesse is emphasized in 16:1-13: once again the Lord has chosen contrary to human expectation. He is anointed in this private way by Samuel, so that now in Israel there are two anointed kings, a situation that obviously needs resolution.
The David and Goliath story, which the narrator tells in detail, introduces David as a warrior in Israel. Like the boy Samuel, the boy David is able to teach his elders something about trust for Yhwh. David’s speech in 17:45ff is a paradigm for holy war. The battle is Yhwh’s: it is he who determines the victor, regardless of the disparity in power or weaponry from a human point of view. It is Hannah’s song fully illustrated once again: the theme is the same! The humble overthrows the mighty. Though his anointing is still secret and David does not appear to act out of a consciousness of being the anointed one, he has by his character displayed the attitude expected of God’s king in battle – not intimidated by enemies but rather trusting completely in the power of Yhwh. His weapon is his faith.
John Milbank doesn't like computers...
'Computers ... in so far as they impose the reign of information, are the enemies of truth and democracy. Our gaze at their screens is the constitution through watching and receiving of inherently violent transactions which in the end, when we step through their looking-glass, always involve real physical violence.
On line, therefore, we are clubbing each other to death, but invisibly, very very gradually and at a huge remove. When this process does appear, then we finally see what we collectively do, but assume that it has nothing to do with us, individually. But just as breathing is the most massive combustion, so also this slowed-down and distributed violence is actually increased violence, like a torture that is all the more torture through being long drawn-out.'
from Being Reconciled p. 37
Think about that when you next play Scrabbulous....
On line, therefore, we are clubbing each other to death, but invisibly, very very gradually and at a huge remove. When this process does appear, then we finally see what we collectively do, but assume that it has nothing to do with us, individually. But just as breathing is the most massive combustion, so also this slowed-down and distributed violence is actually increased violence, like a torture that is all the more torture through being long drawn-out.'
from Being Reconciled p. 37
Think about that when you next play Scrabbulous....
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Augustine and Calvin: do heavenly rewards spoil everything?
For Augustine love of God absorbs and reorders all other types of love; so that the one who desires the Heavenly City is driven by the vision of the holy God for which there are many benefits of course: though these are not the point. For him:
The earthly [city] lifts up its head in its own glory, the Heavenly City says to its God: ‘My glory; you lift up my head’ (Psalm 3:3). (Augustine, Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, XIV.xxxviii. )
God himself is the glory of the Eternal City; it is in the longing for and submitting to God that glory and honour are returned to the Christian. Under this way of conceiving it, the true martyr does not pursue the golden crown or the higher position in heaven; rather she testifies merely to her love of God, and seeks his honour – and in doing so, basks in his radiance.
It still might be possible, however, to see in 'the love of God' the operation of an system of exchange. Calvin, at pains to show that he agrees with Augustine, at the same time clarifies and even extends his thought by means of the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. He interprets the promises of heavenly rewards a promise that comes after the 'free covenant of his mercy' - sealed not by meritorious works but indeed by grace through faith. The assurance given to believers that theie tribulations are not in vain is given in addition to the strength to endure. Without the free bestowal of grace upon the ungodly in Christ, there is no 'crown of righteousness' (2 Tim 4:8). As Calvin writes:
...the righteousness of good works depends upon the fact that God by pardon approves them. III.xviii.5
The emphasis lies on the self-consistency of God rather than on the rendering of a due payment.
For the purposes of the present discussion this is significant because of the motivation implied: the language of heavenly reward is not used in order to motivate a self-interested desire for heavenly reward: such a thing is impossible, in fact. Rather, heavenly rewards remind us of faithfulness of God to his promises.
The earthly [city] lifts up its head in its own glory, the Heavenly City says to its God: ‘My glory; you lift up my head’ (Psalm 3:3). (Augustine, Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, XIV.xxxviii. )
God himself is the glory of the Eternal City; it is in the longing for and submitting to God that glory and honour are returned to the Christian. Under this way of conceiving it, the true martyr does not pursue the golden crown or the higher position in heaven; rather she testifies merely to her love of God, and seeks his honour – and in doing so, basks in his radiance.
It still might be possible, however, to see in 'the love of God' the operation of an system of exchange. Calvin, at pains to show that he agrees with Augustine, at the same time clarifies and even extends his thought by means of the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. He interprets the promises of heavenly rewards a promise that comes after the 'free covenant of his mercy' - sealed not by meritorious works but indeed by grace through faith. The assurance given to believers that theie tribulations are not in vain is given in addition to the strength to endure. Without the free bestowal of grace upon the ungodly in Christ, there is no 'crown of righteousness' (2 Tim 4:8). As Calvin writes:
...the righteousness of good works depends upon the fact that God by pardon approves them. III.xviii.5
The emphasis lies on the self-consistency of God rather than on the rendering of a due payment.
For the purposes of the present discussion this is significant because of the motivation implied: the language of heavenly reward is not used in order to motivate a self-interested desire for heavenly reward: such a thing is impossible, in fact. Rather, heavenly rewards remind us of faithfulness of God to his promises.
1 Sam 13-31: an interaction - 1
The second half of 1 Samuel narrates the enmeshed tales of the fall of the house of Saul and the simultaneous rise of the house of David. But both houses are enmeshed in ways that ensure that the tragedy of the fall of Saul is fully felt by the readers. David is linked to the family of Saul by marriage to Michal and by his deep friendship with Jonathan. But it is also David’s insistence that the Lord’s anointed be protected at all costs – even when he is the mortal enemy seeking to hunt him out and kill him – that serves to prevent the reader from too readily casting Saul as a despised villain. This in fact heightens the tragedy, prolonging the civil war and means that Saul has to bring about his own destruction. Of course, the secret to the whole narrative is that it is Yhwh who is sovereign over Israel and the life of her king.
Monarchy gets off to an inauspicious start in 1 Sam 13-15. From the very beginning of his rule it is clear that Saul is doomed. By 13:13 Samuel is declaring the whole thing off: using language that pre-empts the covenant in 2 Sam 7, he tells Saul that his kingdom will not continue. The air of inevitability hangs over his decline and fall from here on. The effect of this is tragic: we know the outcome of this phase of the story must end in his demise. The question for the reader is “how?”
His crimes do not appear that severe: merely filling in for a late prophet in the matter of sacrifice at the behest of the people. The dialogue between Samuel and Saul reveals a little more. In 13:11 Saul’s words suggest he felt that he was losing his grip on the people, and was responding in order to maintain his popularity. In 13:13 Samuel views the sin as disobedience of a direct command of God; and then implies that by contrast with the man the Lord is about to appoint that Saul is definitely not a man after his own heart.
Just as his anointing was a complex story told from several angles, so the reason for his decline is given to us over several episodes. We are given the story of his rash oath, of which Jonathan fell victim – a story which hearkens back to the story of Jephthah’s daughter in Judges, but with a different outcome illustrating perhaps a man of insufficient integrity; and of his sparing the Amalekite king Agag contrary to the clear command of God. By these incidents, Saul is proven to be rash and far too easily prey to the will of the people. The rejecting of Saul is more fully ratified by Samuel’s curses in 15:10-35; and symbolized terribly in the tearing of Samuel’s cloak. Saul makes a pitiful grasp for power, but it will be no use. In 16:14ff we find him tormented by an evil spirit; and he becomes prone to depressive episodes and murderous rages.
To be continued...
Monarchy gets off to an inauspicious start in 1 Sam 13-15. From the very beginning of his rule it is clear that Saul is doomed. By 13:13 Samuel is declaring the whole thing off: using language that pre-empts the covenant in 2 Sam 7, he tells Saul that his kingdom will not continue. The air of inevitability hangs over his decline and fall from here on. The effect of this is tragic: we know the outcome of this phase of the story must end in his demise. The question for the reader is “how?”
His crimes do not appear that severe: merely filling in for a late prophet in the matter of sacrifice at the behest of the people. The dialogue between Samuel and Saul reveals a little more. In 13:11 Saul’s words suggest he felt that he was losing his grip on the people, and was responding in order to maintain his popularity. In 13:13 Samuel views the sin as disobedience of a direct command of God; and then implies that by contrast with the man the Lord is about to appoint that Saul is definitely not a man after his own heart.
Just as his anointing was a complex story told from several angles, so the reason for his decline is given to us over several episodes. We are given the story of his rash oath, of which Jonathan fell victim – a story which hearkens back to the story of Jephthah’s daughter in Judges, but with a different outcome illustrating perhaps a man of insufficient integrity; and of his sparing the Amalekite king Agag contrary to the clear command of God. By these incidents, Saul is proven to be rash and far too easily prey to the will of the people. The rejecting of Saul is more fully ratified by Samuel’s curses in 15:10-35; and symbolized terribly in the tearing of Samuel’s cloak. Saul makes a pitiful grasp for power, but it will be no use. In 16:14ff we find him tormented by an evil spirit; and he becomes prone to depressive episodes and murderous rages.
To be continued...
The Anglican Thirty-Nine
But, as one closes down...
I have started a new site for the purposes of writing about and commenting on the Thirty-Nine Articles. Some of the material at first may be familiar to long-time readers of this blog. Hopefully, more progress will be made on the idea this time!
I have started a new site for the purposes of writing about and commenting on the Thirty-Nine Articles. Some of the material at first may be familiar to long-time readers of this blog. Hopefully, more progress will be made on the idea this time!
Closing down Youbook blog
The YOU project is with the publishers, and I am excited about a possible release later this year. Karen did amazing editing work. So, the blog that helped get it going is closing down. Thanks everybody!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)