I am interested in compiling a reading list of works to do with 'theological interpretation of Scripture. It is a growing field of theological investigation. What's exciting about it is that biblical studies and systematic theology are ending their turf war over who can and can't read scripture.
Can you add to this list? (Francis Watson's works are an obvious addition).
Scripture's Doctrine and Theology's Bible: Howthe New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics ed Marcus Bockmeuhl
Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice by Daniel Treier
The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings ed Stephen Fowl
Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible ed Kevin Vanhoozer
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Pommies
My good friend Sam gave me a fascinating book called Pommies - England Cricket though an Australian Lens.
It is an analysis of why the English game continues to fail at the elite level despite its massive player pool and the ardent following of millions of fans. And the author lays the blame squarely at the feet of the 18 counties who engineer the administration of the game for their own interest. They run the game not in the interest of the public, but as a private members club. So, they sold the TV rights to a pay-TV operator for a truckload of money that was then siphoned off to the counties (who cannot pay their own way because no-one wants to watch them play). They continue to play international matches in venues that seat less that 25,000 people, driving ticket prices up and thereby excluding ethnic minorities - who LOVE their cricket - from the game. Whenever change is mooted, 'tradition' is cited as a counter-argument. What the book makes apparent is that 'tradition' is really only code for 'self-interest'. The huge number of cricket fans who are not members of the MCC cannot get in to the ground to see a Test Match and now cannot see the game on TV either. And the national team continues to falter in performance.
Of course, I was fascinated to compare the C of E, with which there are many parallels. The C of E is theoretically run for the benefit of the entire nation. But because in fact it is run as a private members club, the property and resources of the church in fact are being used for the benefit of those who are members. And the fewer of those there are, the nicer it is for those who remain. And a far amount of theological reasoning and invented traditionalism is produced to bolster this special interest. 'The parish system' is one such tradition, whereby the boundaries of the parish are seen as sacrosanct and unviolable borders on the basis of some reference to the incarnation (John Milbank keeps saying this for some weird reason). Parishes which ARE doing a good job at connecting to the community are penalised and the funds distributed to failing parishes with incomptent and disinterested clergy (Granted, some of this is funding parishes in poorer areas: but certainly not all). Bishops aren't interested in changing a system that serves their interests very well - after all, it elected them! And the people of England continue to be completely alienated from the church whose mission it is to serve them.
But the C of E is an easy target... I think all church institutions - even Australian ones! - could ask the questions - 'is tradition really just being used to mask self-interest?' 'whose interest is actually being served by the status quo?' 'how much subsidy is being given to bolster, not the needy, but the mediocre (whose mediocrity is actually a spiritual disease)?' 'Is this institution being run for the benefit of members, or for the benefit of the community'?
It is an analysis of why the English game continues to fail at the elite level despite its massive player pool and the ardent following of millions of fans. And the author lays the blame squarely at the feet of the 18 counties who engineer the administration of the game for their own interest. They run the game not in the interest of the public, but as a private members club. So, they sold the TV rights to a pay-TV operator for a truckload of money that was then siphoned off to the counties (who cannot pay their own way because no-one wants to watch them play). They continue to play international matches in venues that seat less that 25,000 people, driving ticket prices up and thereby excluding ethnic minorities - who LOVE their cricket - from the game. Whenever change is mooted, 'tradition' is cited as a counter-argument. What the book makes apparent is that 'tradition' is really only code for 'self-interest'. The huge number of cricket fans who are not members of the MCC cannot get in to the ground to see a Test Match and now cannot see the game on TV either. And the national team continues to falter in performance.
Of course, I was fascinated to compare the C of E, with which there are many parallels. The C of E is theoretically run for the benefit of the entire nation. But because in fact it is run as a private members club, the property and resources of the church in fact are being used for the benefit of those who are members. And the fewer of those there are, the nicer it is for those who remain. And a far amount of theological reasoning and invented traditionalism is produced to bolster this special interest. 'The parish system' is one such tradition, whereby the boundaries of the parish are seen as sacrosanct and unviolable borders on the basis of some reference to the incarnation (John Milbank keeps saying this for some weird reason). Parishes which ARE doing a good job at connecting to the community are penalised and the funds distributed to failing parishes with incomptent and disinterested clergy (Granted, some of this is funding parishes in poorer areas: but certainly not all). Bishops aren't interested in changing a system that serves their interests very well - after all, it elected them! And the people of England continue to be completely alienated from the church whose mission it is to serve them.
But the C of E is an easy target... I think all church institutions - even Australian ones! - could ask the questions - 'is tradition really just being used to mask self-interest?' 'whose interest is actually being served by the status quo?' 'how much subsidy is being given to bolster, not the needy, but the mediocre (whose mediocrity is actually a spiritual disease)?' 'Is this institution being run for the benefit of members, or for the benefit of the community'?
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
My Charles Taylor article in SCE
The December issue of Studies in Christian Ethics is out, and with it my article entitled:
" ‘In Spirit and In Truth’ - Can Charles Taylor help the Woman at the Well find her authentic self? "
Studies in Christian Ethics 2008 21: 325-341.
If you would like to read a copy, let me know (with your email address, if I don't already have it) and I can send you one. Or at least the first 25 of you.
" ‘In Spirit and In Truth’ - Can Charles Taylor help the Woman at the Well find her authentic self? "
Studies in Christian Ethics 2008 21: 325-341.
If you would like to read a copy, let me know (with your email address, if I don't already have it) and I can send you one. Or at least the first 25 of you.
Here's the challenge
In the Sydney Morning Herald today:
Did it occur to anyone that the decline in people reading the Bible might have something to do with it being a lousy read ("Confession: fewer know their Bible", September 10)?
The Bible says lots of things, few of them clearly, all of them open to different interpretations, and many of them irrelevant to a post-industrial world. Add to this that it is a series of compounded translations many times removed from the original, and no doubt some translations have been corrupted through the ages by self-interested power-mongers.
Ian Waters Surry Hills
And here's Greg Clarke weighing in.
Did it occur to anyone that the decline in people reading the Bible might have something to do with it being a lousy read ("Confession: fewer know their Bible", September 10)?
The Bible says lots of things, few of them clearly, all of them open to different interpretations, and many of them irrelevant to a post-industrial world. Add to this that it is a series of compounded translations many times removed from the original, and no doubt some translations have been corrupted through the ages by self-interested power-mongers.
Ian Waters Surry Hills
And here's Greg Clarke weighing in.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Viva
My Viva is tomorrow.
Yes, that's right, I am having a viva for a thesis on martyrdom on September 11. Someone thinks this is funny, no doubt!
Yes, that's right, I am having a viva for a thesis on martyrdom on September 11. Someone thinks this is funny, no doubt!
Monday, September 08, 2008
Slavoj Zizek - On Violence
In trying to think about divine violence lately I disovered Slavoj Zizek's latest offering, Violence: Six Sideways Reflections.
As always, it is a brilliant roller-coaster ride of a book. Zizerk skewers all kinds of lazy thinking in Western culture. He has a severe critique of religion and theism, but he also says this:
Science and religion have changed places: today, science provides the security religion once guaranteed. In a curious inversion, religion is one of the possible place fro which one can deploy critical doubts about today's society. It has become one of the sites of resistance. p. 70
Possibly, but Zizek also argues that only atheists can be truly ethical, because only an atheist will do something because it is right, rather than because it pleases the deity, or to earn a reward. This is an old critique which actually has its basis within the Christian tradition itself (see the 17th century Quietists, for example).
As always, it is a brilliant roller-coaster ride of a book. Zizerk skewers all kinds of lazy thinking in Western culture. He has a severe critique of religion and theism, but he also says this:
Science and religion have changed places: today, science provides the security religion once guaranteed. In a curious inversion, religion is one of the possible place fro which one can deploy critical doubts about today's society. It has become one of the sites of resistance. p. 70
Possibly, but Zizek also argues that only atheists can be truly ethical, because only an atheist will do something because it is right, rather than because it pleases the deity, or to earn a reward. This is an old critique which actually has its basis within the Christian tradition itself (see the 17th century Quietists, for example).
Friday, September 05, 2008
Driscoll's three questions
‘What do people want to have more than anything else?’
‘What are people most afraid of?’
‘What do people make sacrifices for?’
Great questions to ask...
‘What are people most afraid of?’
‘What do people make sacrifices for?’
Great questions to ask...
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Churchman - Equality
Oh, and in other news, I notice the second in my 'The Christian Revolution' series has been published in the latest edition of the Churchman 122/3 "The Christian Revolution: 2. Equality".
Mission and Theology
I posted this back in 2006 - but I think it is relevant to the Driscoll discussion, so I'll give it another run:
In his (in other ways very annoying) book Recovering the Scandal of the Cross Joel Green asks what I think is very good question: what would happen if theology took the mission of the church seriously?
It’s a good question because it inverts our expectations. We ordinarily imagine that mission ought to take theology seriously: if only we get our thinking about mission right, we say, then we will mission more effectively. We believe I guess in a priority of theory over praxis. The problem with this view is ineffectiveness: revivals are not usually begun in the academy, you may have noticed. There is a tendency for theory to be closed to the questions people are actually asking; to be abstract and unrelated. There is a resulting insensitivity to the different cultural contexts in which mission takes place.
On the other hand, I guess there are some of you who can already sense the artificiality of this: you have already been out there presenting the gospel and living it, and seeing lives changed and people won for Christ. Having to come and sit and think about it seems quite futile: it’s already going on! The problem with this view, I suggest respectfully, is pragmatism. Pragmatism means that we become like advertisers hawking products: we will do anything for a sale, including distort the message out of shape, perhaps casting aside or hiding uncomfortable parts of the scriptural teaching in order to fit in with the culture of context. Perhaps, rather than be insensitive, we may even accommodate our culture so that we lose our Christian distinctiveness.
This is why Green’s question is a good one: because theology needs to realize the urgency of mission! Theology must not be indulgent or merely speculative. It bears the responsibility of explaining a gospel which is for everyone to everyone. And on the hand, those engaged in mission have the weighty responsibility of speaking and acting in and with truth. Mission needs to heed the voice of theology!
And so, from both perspectives, there needs to be a turn back to the sources of theology in the scriptures. Mission must remain faithful to its source in scripture or it will be unable to address cultures - it will only reflect them. If theology takes the mission seriously, not only could theology be forced to rediscover its own deep scriptural resources, so also mission could be reinvigorated by the work done in the thinking about it. We need to trust our Bibles perhaps more than we do: there is more in them of more universal relevance than perhaps we realize. We need to trust perhaps less our ability to read cultures: remember this is a notoriously difficult art. Paul’s method in Corinth is perhaps instructive: he determined not give the Jews the miraculous signs they claimed, not the Greeks the sophistry they demanded: but determined to know nothing among them but Christ crucified no matter how culturally insensitive this may have seemed.
In his (in other ways very annoying) book Recovering the Scandal of the Cross Joel Green asks what I think is very good question: what would happen if theology took the mission of the church seriously?
It’s a good question because it inverts our expectations. We ordinarily imagine that mission ought to take theology seriously: if only we get our thinking about mission right, we say, then we will mission more effectively. We believe I guess in a priority of theory over praxis. The problem with this view is ineffectiveness: revivals are not usually begun in the academy, you may have noticed. There is a tendency for theory to be closed to the questions people are actually asking; to be abstract and unrelated. There is a resulting insensitivity to the different cultural contexts in which mission takes place.
On the other hand, I guess there are some of you who can already sense the artificiality of this: you have already been out there presenting the gospel and living it, and seeing lives changed and people won for Christ. Having to come and sit and think about it seems quite futile: it’s already going on! The problem with this view, I suggest respectfully, is pragmatism. Pragmatism means that we become like advertisers hawking products: we will do anything for a sale, including distort the message out of shape, perhaps casting aside or hiding uncomfortable parts of the scriptural teaching in order to fit in with the culture of context. Perhaps, rather than be insensitive, we may even accommodate our culture so that we lose our Christian distinctiveness.
This is why Green’s question is a good one: because theology needs to realize the urgency of mission! Theology must not be indulgent or merely speculative. It bears the responsibility of explaining a gospel which is for everyone to everyone. And on the hand, those engaged in mission have the weighty responsibility of speaking and acting in and with truth. Mission needs to heed the voice of theology!
And so, from both perspectives, there needs to be a turn back to the sources of theology in the scriptures. Mission must remain faithful to its source in scripture or it will be unable to address cultures - it will only reflect them. If theology takes the mission seriously, not only could theology be forced to rediscover its own deep scriptural resources, so also mission could be reinvigorated by the work done in the thinking about it. We need to trust our Bibles perhaps more than we do: there is more in them of more universal relevance than perhaps we realize. We need to trust perhaps less our ability to read cultures: remember this is a notoriously difficult art. Paul’s method in Corinth is perhaps instructive: he determined not give the Jews the miraculous signs they claimed, not the Greeks the sophistry they demanded: but determined to know nothing among them but Christ crucified no matter how culturally insensitive this may have seemed.
Driscoll skewers Sydney
Reports have filtered back to me about Mark Driscoll's session with Sydney ministers at St Andrew's Cathedral. Sounds like potent stuff. Mike Jolly reports here on the 18 points of critique Driscoll levelled at us. Hearing criticism is a great opportunity of course, and it will be interesting to see how the debate goes from here. I don't buy the whole Driscoll schtick, but, boy, he has courage.
From my point of view, the most interesting and telling of the critiques was no. 13: "There us a lack of missiologists. Your theologians are poor missiologists. You need more missiologists that evaluate culture and be missiologically aware."
Ouch. But, yes: I think that it is imperative that theology and missiology relate themselves better. Not of course so that missiology completely overwhelms theology, but so that theology is actually true to its own evangelical nature. There's work to do...
From my point of view, the most interesting and telling of the critiques was no. 13: "There us a lack of missiologists. Your theologians are poor missiologists. You need more missiologists that evaluate culture and be missiologically aware."
Ouch. But, yes: I think that it is imperative that theology and missiology relate themselves better. Not of course so that missiology completely overwhelms theology, but so that theology is actually true to its own evangelical nature. There's work to do...
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Christian God not an introvert
John Webster's essay on aseity is one of the highlights of the Engaging the Doctrine of God collection. This caught my eye:
‘…it [aseity] indicates that God’s originality and fullness constitute the ground of his self-communication. He is one who, out of nothing other than his own self-sufficiency, brings creatures into being, sustains and reconciles them, and brings them perfection in fellowship with himself’. (p. 108)
That is, God's self-sufficient and self-determining nature is of the kind that is the basis for his great acts of creation and redemption - his determination to have others and to dwell with them. No introvert, this God.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Engaging the Doctrine of God
The doctrine of God it seems to me is an increasingly contested and increasingly important area of dogmatics. Actually, that seems like a silly thing to say - isn't it always?
A great collection of essays has been released, edited by Bruce McCormack, under the title Engaging the Doctrine of God. What I have read so far has been of very high standard - stimulating and very interesting.
Particular high on my list are the essays by John Webster and Henri Blocher, followed by an excellent one by Don Carson on 'The Wrath of God'. McCormack, as the editor of the book has allowed himself twice the room of everyone else, and I haven't yet tackled his piece. NT Wright has a piece, though it is rather light on footnotes and sounds very derivative of his other stuff - not a fresh piece of research it seems to me.
What is interesting is that there is a tension between those authors who are committed to classical theism (Helm, Crisp, Carson) and those who want to modify it without falling into open theism (McCormack, Blocher, Stephen Williams). And, as always, Barth is the point of depature...
A great collection of essays has been released, edited by Bruce McCormack, under the title Engaging the Doctrine of God. What I have read so far has been of very high standard - stimulating and very interesting.
Particular high on my list are the essays by John Webster and Henri Blocher, followed by an excellent one by Don Carson on 'The Wrath of God'. McCormack, as the editor of the book has allowed himself twice the room of everyone else, and I haven't yet tackled his piece. NT Wright has a piece, though it is rather light on footnotes and sounds very derivative of his other stuff - not a fresh piece of research it seems to me.
What is interesting is that there is a tension between those authors who are committed to classical theism (Helm, Crisp, Carson) and those who want to modify it without falling into open theism (McCormack, Blocher, Stephen Williams). And, as always, Barth is the point of depature...
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The theological task
Alistair McFadyen (I have been re-reading his work for reasons that will become apparent after September 11 ;-) ) writes this of the theological task:
The theological task...has two poles: to understand and critically reflect upon Christian doctrine, tradition and history on the one hand, and the social, cultural and intellectual world in which we are living on the other. Christian reality is always nbound up with its social world, and that is one very important reason why, even when the theologian is attending to the understanding of faith through its past, theology should always involved critical reflection on the wolrds of which the Church is and has been a part. These are not two tasks but dual elements of a single task... (The Call to Personhood, p. 10-11).
I think this is one way of saying that theology has a missionary calling.
The theological task...has two poles: to understand and critically reflect upon Christian doctrine, tradition and history on the one hand, and the social, cultural and intellectual world in which we are living on the other. Christian reality is always nbound up with its social world, and that is one very important reason why, even when the theologian is attending to the understanding of faith through its past, theology should always involved critical reflection on the wolrds of which the Church is and has been a part. These are not two tasks but dual elements of a single task... (The Call to Personhood, p. 10-11).
I think this is one way of saying that theology has a missionary calling.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The 'family' - a sketch
Just a sketch... The family:
consists of two types of bond -
1 - the 'natural' bond (parent-child, sibling), and
2 - the promise bond (ie, marriage, adoption)
A third type of bond is that which occurs when two people are linked through a third person: so, for instance, my mother-in-law and me. Never promised anything towards her, nor she me, but, through my wife, there is a bond. There is a mediating relationship of promise that makes it a bond. However, these are often (as with step-children) a tricky relationship, because they have neither blood nor promise. (I am not speaking personally - my mother-in-law was delightful). Witness what happens in the case of divorce: the in-laws are left in an awkward position, with the mediating relationship removed, even though they may feel quite affectionate towards one another. Or, the mediating relationship becomes the shared children/grandchildren, which, I suppose is a 'natural' bond.
The family is also: a group which, at least ordinarily contains more than one generation and is at least in principle inclusive of both genders. Thus it says something about our vulnerability and diversity as human persons, and our need for mutual assistance and multiple points of view. Also, families are built because human beings are vulnerable to the ravages of time...families allow for the preservation and development of traditions, cultures, habits, ways of life, and the securing and stewarding of resources.
Its purposes/functions? = protection, security, growth and education, companionship, sharing of pleasures and pains.
SO, can there be a 'defective' family? where there is a relationship lacking one of the types of bond, there is a 'defective' family, though there still may be the functions of a family being carried out. An orphanage, for example. You and your flatmates. A de facto relationship may imitate this bond - and there may private undertakings and promises which seal the relationship - but there is the risk of invalidation in the lack of a formal commitment from the partners.
On the Family - 4
Question 9 Do you believe Australia's low attendance to Church in comparison with our population has contributed to our 'family values' and if so, why?
Our church attendance is low compared to a country like South Africa or the USA, but higher than Britain's and certainly higher than most countries in mainland Europe. Decline in church attendance has been parallel with decline in all kinds of social involvement since the 1960s - decline in political party membership, sports clubs, RSL clubs, newspaper readership, scouting groups and so on. So we perhaps shouldn't read this shift as merely a religious one - it has a broader social context. Australians have a great suspicion of authorities and institutions, which I share. And many Australians came to the country in the first place to begin a new life away from these things. So, the mainline churches have never had quite the moral authority that they have had even in the UK.
It is still the case that upwards of 50% of Aussies still maintain that they have an affiliation with a church - so there is still a strong if residual connection to the churches present it must be said. On the whole, even though they aren't great church attenders, Australians stick to a very Christian-influenced view of what family life should look like ideally. We are very socially conservative, something you tend to forget if you live in the inner west of Sydney as I have most of my life! It interests me that Kevin Rudd was very firm that he was not about to liberalise Australias policies on gay 'marriage' for example... and that this made him electable.
As an afterthought, I am not sure that the US, with its very high church attendance rates, shows an appreciable difference in family values in terms of statistics! Their abortion rate is very high, for example.
Question10 How useful do you believe discussing family values and morals are in Church?
Well, as always, it depends what you mean. If the church forgets its message is one of forgiveness and redemption, and falls for the trap of trumpeting moral values all the time, then it is a disaster. It just confirms people in their complacent self-righteousness, or reminds them of how far short they have fallen. But if, as fellow forgiven sinners, we seek to help one another carry the burden of living lives with one another - having and raising children, seeking to live pure and faithful lives, supporting single and married people - the discussing these matters is extremely useful. It is addressing difficult matters that most of us have to confront sometime or other. For example: what do the infertile couple do? Should they have IVF - and what should they do with the embryos they don't use? Where can the single mum find support for herself and her kids? Is it possible to remain faithful to the same person for a lifetime - and if so, how? What if I fail? Churches have to, and are, talking about all those things because they are the stuff of life. Sometimes they get the tone wrong, as it turns out. Sometimes people hear them through their previous negative encounters with churhces and church people, and this makes for hurt and misunderstanding. But church have a responsibility to keep discussing these things together.
Our church attendance is low compared to a country like South Africa or the USA, but higher than Britain's and certainly higher than most countries in mainland Europe. Decline in church attendance has been parallel with decline in all kinds of social involvement since the 1960s - decline in political party membership, sports clubs, RSL clubs, newspaper readership, scouting groups and so on. So we perhaps shouldn't read this shift as merely a religious one - it has a broader social context. Australians have a great suspicion of authorities and institutions, which I share. And many Australians came to the country in the first place to begin a new life away from these things. So, the mainline churches have never had quite the moral authority that they have had even in the UK.
It is still the case that upwards of 50% of Aussies still maintain that they have an affiliation with a church - so there is still a strong if residual connection to the churches present it must be said. On the whole, even though they aren't great church attenders, Australians stick to a very Christian-influenced view of what family life should look like ideally. We are very socially conservative, something you tend to forget if you live in the inner west of Sydney as I have most of my life! It interests me that Kevin Rudd was very firm that he was not about to liberalise Australias policies on gay 'marriage' for example... and that this made him electable.
As an afterthought, I am not sure that the US, with its very high church attendance rates, shows an appreciable difference in family values in terms of statistics! Their abortion rate is very high, for example.
Question10 How useful do you believe discussing family values and morals are in Church?
Well, as always, it depends what you mean. If the church forgets its message is one of forgiveness and redemption, and falls for the trap of trumpeting moral values all the time, then it is a disaster. It just confirms people in their complacent self-righteousness, or reminds them of how far short they have fallen. But if, as fellow forgiven sinners, we seek to help one another carry the burden of living lives with one another - having and raising children, seeking to live pure and faithful lives, supporting single and married people - the discussing these matters is extremely useful. It is addressing difficult matters that most of us have to confront sometime or other. For example: what do the infertile couple do? Should they have IVF - and what should they do with the embryos they don't use? Where can the single mum find support for herself and her kids? Is it possible to remain faithful to the same person for a lifetime - and if so, how? What if I fail? Churches have to, and are, talking about all those things because they are the stuff of life. Sometimes they get the tone wrong, as it turns out. Sometimes people hear them through their previous negative encounters with churhces and church people, and this makes for hurt and misunderstanding. But church have a responsibility to keep discussing these things together.
Monday, August 25, 2008
On the Family 3
Question 7 How do you believe another seven sins, added by the Vatican, will benefit 'family values', if at all?
No, not really. I think it will be profoundly irrelevant.
Question 8 What is the Church doing to encourage parishioners to attend Church and follow the moral family values of the Christian faith?
I must add that I don't speak for something called 'the Church', but as member of A church which is in league with many others. Different churches are doing many different things to encourage people to come, and not just attend church, but join the family. So, for example, services are much more relaxed and informal on the whole than they used to be. Also, we recognise that people from a diversity of life stages will be coming to church and we try hard to welcome them - by having excellent children's programmes, for example. The aim is not to have people follow the 'moral family values'. Christians don't preach any such thing. The Christian gospel is about becoming a disciple of Jesus: which means belonging to him, and trying to be like him and follow his teachings. This of course has its ramifications for our family lives, as it does for all other aspects of our lives. Different churches that I am aware of are running groups for divorcees, as well as marriage courses, pre-marriage courses and parenting classes.
No, not really. I think it will be profoundly irrelevant.
Question 8 What is the Church doing to encourage parishioners to attend Church and follow the moral family values of the Christian faith?
I must add that I don't speak for something called 'the Church', but as member of A church which is in league with many others. Different churches are doing many different things to encourage people to come, and not just attend church, but join the family. So, for example, services are much more relaxed and informal on the whole than they used to be. Also, we recognise that people from a diversity of life stages will be coming to church and we try hard to welcome them - by having excellent children's programmes, for example. The aim is not to have people follow the 'moral family values'. Christians don't preach any such thing. The Christian gospel is about becoming a disciple of Jesus: which means belonging to him, and trying to be like him and follow his teachings. This of course has its ramifications for our family lives, as it does for all other aspects of our lives. Different churches that I am aware of are running groups for divorcees, as well as marriage courses, pre-marriage courses and parenting classes.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
On the family - 2
Question 6 What do you believe are some of the shifts in family values since you have
become a parent while adhering to the Anglican moral code?
Well, I am not quite sure what the question is trying to get at... but I have noticed that people in the community are crying out for guidance as to how to be good parents. Parenting is an enormously fraught business, and it makes us extremely vulnerable in a lot of ways. I am amazed at the quality and the passion of discussion in magazines like 'Sydney's Child'. What I have noticed too is that while people might have a personal morality which is quite libertarian and agnostic, they are sending their kids to church schools in droves. They are somehow not happy with their kids being taught liberal values in the state system. I am not sure they are 100% signed up to what Christian and church schools are offering, but they can see that having 'Christian values' is a lot better than what the state systems are offering.
I have noticed that some parents are afraid to discipline their children at all for fear of crushing the spirit and expressive creativity of the child. We are not, I would have thought, strict parents: we don't smack our children, for example. And I am all for encouraging creativity and spontaneity in children, and allowing them to enjoy themselves. But we have encountered parents who don't discipline their children AT ALL.
become a parent while adhering to the Anglican moral code?
Well, I am not quite sure what the question is trying to get at... but I have noticed that people in the community are crying out for guidance as to how to be good parents. Parenting is an enormously fraught business, and it makes us extremely vulnerable in a lot of ways. I am amazed at the quality and the passion of discussion in magazines like 'Sydney's Child'. What I have noticed too is that while people might have a personal morality which is quite libertarian and agnostic, they are sending their kids to church schools in droves. They are somehow not happy with their kids being taught liberal values in the state system. I am not sure they are 100% signed up to what Christian and church schools are offering, but they can see that having 'Christian values' is a lot better than what the state systems are offering.
I have noticed that some parents are afraid to discipline their children at all for fear of crushing the spirit and expressive creativity of the child. We are not, I would have thought, strict parents: we don't smack our children, for example. And I am all for encouraging creativity and spontaneity in children, and allowing them to enjoy themselves. But we have encountered parents who don't discipline their children AT ALL.
Friday, August 22, 2008
On the family in Australia - 1
My answers to some questions put to me by a friend doing a uni assignment on 'family values'.
Question 1 What do you believe is the current state of 'family values' in Australia today?
From the outset I would say that I am not sure what 'family values' are, though I know what they are usually held to mean in public and political discourse in Australia - a kind of social conservatism about policies effecting domestic life. I think the terminology itself needs to be questioned and clarified, especially by Christians - and I am sorry that various Christian groups have chosen to use this terminology as medium of expression. The Christian gospel is about the free offer of forgiveness to people of all family backgrounds and none, and the welcoming of them into God's own family. Christians call each other brother and sister because they now share together the same heavenly Father. It's about following a person, Jesus Christ, rather than subscribing to a set of 'values' or principles. So if it has anything to do with family values so-called, it is in a very secondary sense.
If we mean to talk about 'the family and how it is upheld and supported': well, it is a complex picture: I think Australians are very family-oriented in some respects. As in most Western cultures, this means for us the small, nuclear family with just a few members rather than the extended family. You do hear Australians talking about 'putting the family first' and so on. But, there is a tension: we also sense that having a family is a trap, socially and economically. So, people are putting off marriage or marriage-like relationships until later, and then also putting off children. Economics plays a big part here: Australians are working harder than ever before to give their families the lifestyle they think they need - or not having a family because they think it will be too expensive.
This is actually putting a lot of pressure on families, on the one hand, and producing a generation of singletons on the other. It is much harder for families who would prefer it if one parent was able to stay at home with the kids to actually make that choice than it was even twenty years ago.
Question 2 Where do you believe we are going right/wrong in regard to these values?
Well, it depends who you mean by 'we'! Do you mean 'Australia as a society' or 'the governments of Australia'? We have lost this distinction quite a bit in our society - we expect the government to do everything for us and to engineer society to reflect and inspire our 'values'. We have forgotten that we need not wait for this to happen, or that in some respects the government has no business telling us what our family values are or are not. This is a real limiter to public discourse about the family and relationships in our society: that we can only think in terms of what is legal or illegal, and not have a civilised discussion about what we think is right or wrong (or perhaps, wise and unwise). So, importantly, we are going wrong in the way we frame the discussion in public.
Inevitably, however, I acknowledge that it is more complex than this. We do have to have divorce laws; we do have to decide what we together think 'marriage' is or isn't. We do have to make policies about work and how these will effect people trying to live in family units.
I think we as a society have lost the work-rest balance and fallen for the trap of thinking that material prosperity will bring us happiness and security. I think we have forgotten how important it is to just spend time together. It was amazing to visit regional France recently and find all the shops closed on a Sunday, because it was the traditional family day - and the parks and beaches were full! This seemed a very sensible way to live. We Australians used to be good at this: we were known for being laid back. I think we are now quite uptight. Speaking in general terms, we have lost the ability to enjoy life - which, as a Christian theologian, I think means we have lost the ability to recognise the goodness and beauty of the world God made.
Ironically, conservative governments have often made life harder for families while apparently supporting them.
Question 3 What are your personal moral values and how do these compare with that of the Anglican Church?
That's a hard question to answer, because the Anglican Church in Australia is divided into regional groups called dioceses, and each diocese is free to make its own policies as it tries to express its obedience to the Christian gospel by reading the Scriptures.
On the whole, I agree with the stance on most moral issues that my own diocese, the diocese of Sydney, takes. But I regard my personal moral values as open to change as I read and re-read and reflect on the Bible and on the life and character of Jesus. I hope that not only my personal values will be changed but indeed my own character.
And of course, it is not just a matter of having moral values, it is a matter of following Christ in what we do as well. We could do much much more, but I think the way in which we seek to support the community through welfare work and charity, and in advocacy for the poor and socially deprived, refugees and asylum seekers, and those in prison are expressions of the church's moral values to which I would wholeheartedly subscribe.
Question 4 Are there any claims that you would disallow as constituting a 'proper family'?
Again, it depends who is asking, and why. I do not have in mind a strict definition of 'proper family' - the Bible doesn't speak in these terms, and actually talks about some very unorthodox families indeed!
Most often this kind of question comes up in public debate when we are discussing what are in reality fringe or extreme cases: can a lesbian couple get public funding for IVF and so on. These cases effect a minuscule amount of people to be fair, and are quite uninteresting in terms of shaping our ethics overall. The trouble is, we tend to start our discussion of ethics for the whole community from this point and ask, 'what can we allow?' instead of saying 'what is the picture we would like to aspire to?'
I do think - and I think most Australians agree with me, religious or not - there is a special place for the ideal of a monogamous relationship of life -time commitment between a man and woman open to the welcoming of children into the world. We can have this ideal and encourage it and support it and still recognise that human life is inevitably more complicated than this. In the Bible there is a special emphasis placed on caring for 'widows and orphans' - those who do not have the security and love of a family in the ordinary sense - so already there you see a recognition that not everybody lives in a family with two parents and a number of kids. So, rather than discounting various forms of life-sharing as proper families or not, I think this particular form of it ought to be accorded a special honour in the community - as is generally
the case today.
I would be supportive of same-sex couples being afforded the same protections as de facto heterosexual couples as regards their wills, and their assets and so on, as a matter of natural justice. But I don't think these arrangements are marriages - I don't think it is wrong for the community to reserve this designation for differently gendered relationships.
Question 5 From your position in the Church, are there any types of 'families' that you
would claim to have a negative impact on society and run counter to 'family
values'?
No, not really. I think the media wants to portray the church as sounding quite panicked at this point. And we aren't! Besides which, if something is wrong, its wrongness isn't measured merely by its impact. If polygamy, for example, could turn out to be quite positive in its impact, then that wouldn't change my view on it (I'm against).
Actually, the polygamy example is interesting: most liberal/secular Australians, and particularly feminists, would be opposed to polygamy as a type of family arrangement, and would think that it ought to be illegal, or treated with extreme caution under the law. So, our community doesn't believe that in 'anything goes' as far as types of families are concerned. But what is going to give us our standards? On the whole the reason why we in the West don't have polygamy is precisely because of our Christian heritage.
I do think when parents follow their own personal and sexual fulfillment as their right over their duties to their families then we will see a generation of children who bear the scars. I think experience is actually bearing this out. The baby boomers on the whole have been dreadful parents! My experience of teaching in a relatively wealthy school was that it was very obvious which kids felt abandoned and neglected by their parents. And it was obvious which families had become afraid to say 'no' to their children too. Families with parents who are never home aren't helping, certainly. That is definitely counter to family values.
There are of course certain types of very religious families that have a negative impact on society in that they teach a hostility to the community and that it is necessary to withdraw from it.
I think, too, that when parents fail to give appropriate boundaries and guidelines to their children and their teens, then this has an extremely negative impact.
Question 1 What do you believe is the current state of 'family values' in Australia today?
From the outset I would say that I am not sure what 'family values' are, though I know what they are usually held to mean in public and political discourse in Australia - a kind of social conservatism about policies effecting domestic life. I think the terminology itself needs to be questioned and clarified, especially by Christians - and I am sorry that various Christian groups have chosen to use this terminology as medium of expression. The Christian gospel is about the free offer of forgiveness to people of all family backgrounds and none, and the welcoming of them into God's own family. Christians call each other brother and sister because they now share together the same heavenly Father. It's about following a person, Jesus Christ, rather than subscribing to a set of 'values' or principles. So if it has anything to do with family values so-called, it is in a very secondary sense.
If we mean to talk about 'the family and how it is upheld and supported': well, it is a complex picture: I think Australians are very family-oriented in some respects. As in most Western cultures, this means for us the small, nuclear family with just a few members rather than the extended family. You do hear Australians talking about 'putting the family first' and so on. But, there is a tension: we also sense that having a family is a trap, socially and economically. So, people are putting off marriage or marriage-like relationships until later, and then also putting off children. Economics plays a big part here: Australians are working harder than ever before to give their families the lifestyle they think they need - or not having a family because they think it will be too expensive.
This is actually putting a lot of pressure on families, on the one hand, and producing a generation of singletons on the other. It is much harder for families who would prefer it if one parent was able to stay at home with the kids to actually make that choice than it was even twenty years ago.
Question 2 Where do you believe we are going right/wrong in regard to these values?
Well, it depends who you mean by 'we'! Do you mean 'Australia as a society' or 'the governments of Australia'? We have lost this distinction quite a bit in our society - we expect the government to do everything for us and to engineer society to reflect and inspire our 'values'. We have forgotten that we need not wait for this to happen, or that in some respects the government has no business telling us what our family values are or are not. This is a real limiter to public discourse about the family and relationships in our society: that we can only think in terms of what is legal or illegal, and not have a civilised discussion about what we think is right or wrong (or perhaps, wise and unwise). So, importantly, we are going wrong in the way we frame the discussion in public.
Inevitably, however, I acknowledge that it is more complex than this. We do have to have divorce laws; we do have to decide what we together think 'marriage' is or isn't. We do have to make policies about work and how these will effect people trying to live in family units.
I think we as a society have lost the work-rest balance and fallen for the trap of thinking that material prosperity will bring us happiness and security. I think we have forgotten how important it is to just spend time together. It was amazing to visit regional France recently and find all the shops closed on a Sunday, because it was the traditional family day - and the parks and beaches were full! This seemed a very sensible way to live. We Australians used to be good at this: we were known for being laid back. I think we are now quite uptight. Speaking in general terms, we have lost the ability to enjoy life - which, as a Christian theologian, I think means we have lost the ability to recognise the goodness and beauty of the world God made.
Ironically, conservative governments have often made life harder for families while apparently supporting them.
Question 3 What are your personal moral values and how do these compare with that of the Anglican Church?
That's a hard question to answer, because the Anglican Church in Australia is divided into regional groups called dioceses, and each diocese is free to make its own policies as it tries to express its obedience to the Christian gospel by reading the Scriptures.
On the whole, I agree with the stance on most moral issues that my own diocese, the diocese of Sydney, takes. But I regard my personal moral values as open to change as I read and re-read and reflect on the Bible and on the life and character of Jesus. I hope that not only my personal values will be changed but indeed my own character.
And of course, it is not just a matter of having moral values, it is a matter of following Christ in what we do as well. We could do much much more, but I think the way in which we seek to support the community through welfare work and charity, and in advocacy for the poor and socially deprived, refugees and asylum seekers, and those in prison are expressions of the church's moral values to which I would wholeheartedly subscribe.
Question 4 Are there any claims that you would disallow as constituting a 'proper family'?
Again, it depends who is asking, and why. I do not have in mind a strict definition of 'proper family' - the Bible doesn't speak in these terms, and actually talks about some very unorthodox families indeed!
Most often this kind of question comes up in public debate when we are discussing what are in reality fringe or extreme cases: can a lesbian couple get public funding for IVF and so on. These cases effect a minuscule amount of people to be fair, and are quite uninteresting in terms of shaping our ethics overall. The trouble is, we tend to start our discussion of ethics for the whole community from this point and ask, 'what can we allow?' instead of saying 'what is the picture we would like to aspire to?'
I do think - and I think most Australians agree with me, religious or not - there is a special place for the ideal of a monogamous relationship of life -time commitment between a man and woman open to the welcoming of children into the world. We can have this ideal and encourage it and support it and still recognise that human life is inevitably more complicated than this. In the Bible there is a special emphasis placed on caring for 'widows and orphans' - those who do not have the security and love of a family in the ordinary sense - so already there you see a recognition that not everybody lives in a family with two parents and a number of kids. So, rather than discounting various forms of life-sharing as proper families or not, I think this particular form of it ought to be accorded a special honour in the community - as is generally
the case today.
I would be supportive of same-sex couples being afforded the same protections as de facto heterosexual couples as regards their wills, and their assets and so on, as a matter of natural justice. But I don't think these arrangements are marriages - I don't think it is wrong for the community to reserve this designation for differently gendered relationships.
Question 5 From your position in the Church, are there any types of 'families' that you
would claim to have a negative impact on society and run counter to 'family
values'?
No, not really. I think the media wants to portray the church as sounding quite panicked at this point. And we aren't! Besides which, if something is wrong, its wrongness isn't measured merely by its impact. If polygamy, for example, could turn out to be quite positive in its impact, then that wouldn't change my view on it (I'm against).
Actually, the polygamy example is interesting: most liberal/secular Australians, and particularly feminists, would be opposed to polygamy as a type of family arrangement, and would think that it ought to be illegal, or treated with extreme caution under the law. So, our community doesn't believe that in 'anything goes' as far as types of families are concerned. But what is going to give us our standards? On the whole the reason why we in the West don't have polygamy is precisely because of our Christian heritage.
I do think when parents follow their own personal and sexual fulfillment as their right over their duties to their families then we will see a generation of children who bear the scars. I think experience is actually bearing this out. The baby boomers on the whole have been dreadful parents! My experience of teaching in a relatively wealthy school was that it was very obvious which kids felt abandoned and neglected by their parents. And it was obvious which families had become afraid to say 'no' to their children too. Families with parents who are never home aren't helping, certainly. That is definitely counter to family values.
There are of course certain types of very religious families that have a negative impact on society in that they teach a hostility to the community and that it is necessary to withdraw from it.
I think, too, that when parents fail to give appropriate boundaries and guidelines to their children and their teens, then this has an extremely negative impact.
Getting married in a church?
....was reading the bible last night. I have a bone to pick with 1 Peter 3:1-7, especially the 'weaker partner' bit and also Colossians 3:18-19. Why must I submit to my husband, but he only love me? I know I'm harping on, but for me, this really affects whether I want to be married in the Christian church or not.
Are you getting married sometime soon? ;-)
I want to start by asking some questions a little further back than the texts you raise, because that may give us some context and perspective on the issue. The questions are something like this: do you think of yourself as a follower of Jesus ? And, do you think that the Bible speaks with his authority? (you don't have to answer out loud btw) Because if you say yes to these questions then that changes everything about the way you approach the texts. And if you don't, then please don't have a church wedding in any case!
I say this because actually, the 'church wedding' question seems to represent something more significant (I could be wrong). You seem to be saying that, at least perhaps, the meaning and importance of these texts and others like them are for you determinative of whether you will continue to identify as a Christian or not at all. Is this fair?
From my point of view, if the Bible is the voice of Jesus and I am his follower, then though I expect to find some difficult, strange and counter-intuitive things in it - and I certainly do - I generally assume that the problem is with me, in my understanding or in my heart, rather than the text. I come to the text as one who knows as a first order reality the vastness of the love God has for me in Jesus, and the mercy he has shown me, a sinner and his enemy. This doesn't mean that I am not wrestling with these and other texts and trying desperately to figure out how they are God's word for me today. But it means I tend to assume that the Bible makes sense of the world and how to live in it.
This might make us two very different readers, then, though we both struggle with the text. From your point of view you are perhaps wondering if this really is for you, whether this really fits with your experience - in particular as a woman. If that is the case, then it is a pity to start here with these texts and this issue and not with the gospel itself. Decide whether that is for you, and the rest is just footnotes by comparison. You may decide that it isn’t for you: and that’s fine, but it will make for two very different perspectives on texts like these I think.
Sorry - that's a long preamble, which I hope makes some kind of sense. Let me start with 1 Peter 3. Along with Col 3 and Ephesians 5 it represents the NT's teaching on marriage: not a lot you would have to say. However, marriage itself is used as a great image of Jesus the groom and the church his bride - with one dying for the other and so on. So marriage in Christian terms is more than just a living arrangement - it is a living illustration of the gospel itself.
In 1 Peter 3 we need to take note of the whole letter and its themes. Peter is speaking to people in places where their weakness is apparent and frustrating: so, to slaves, to persecuted citizens, to wives and so on. He uses Jesus himself as his model of enduring injustice and suffering. He doesn't say 'oh, they don't have any authority at all'; rather he says 'win them over by doing good rather than being rebellious'. In particular, he is addressing the Christian wife of a non-Christian husband: her temptation might be to undermine the marriage because she has found a new Christian family. But her strategy is to be somewhat different. There is no revolution against authorities, whether masters, emperors or husbands.
BUT: there is also the verse about the weaker partner and so on. I don't think anything is being said here that isn't just a fact of life: Peter isn't saying something moral, or that women OUGHT to be the weaker partner. It is just generally true that women are more vulnerable than men, physically, and also because of child-bearing. But something crucial happens in this verse too, something that led to a true revolution: and that is, that the husbands were to honour the wives (as they were to honour the emperor interestingly) and to treat them as 'fellow-inheritors of the gracious gift of life'. In other words, here were the seeds of a transformation of the whole nature of marriage into a genuine partnership of the two in which men and women in their full complementarity (not their mere colourless interchangeability) were to serve one another.
Christian marriage is never about one partner forcing the other to submit - though in this as in many other things Christians have of course failed to live up to their own scriptures at times. Husbands are never told ‘make sure your wife submits to you’. Rather, they are told things like ‘lay down your life for her’, or ‘honour her’. I think that enormous cultural variation in practice is allowed within what the Bible says on this: but Christian marriages will always tend to the more ‘democratic’ and collaborative. Peter never condemns slavery: he doesn’t need to, because if you understand the Christian gospel slavery just melts away. Likewise, he doesn’t advocate a feminist revolution: he doesn’t need to, because where the Christian gospel is truly understood women are treated as the co-heirs of the gift of life, even though there be a physical disparity between the two. Peter’s teaching is utterly counter to his own culture on this.
As a footnote, it is not an accident that it was bible-believing Christians who fought to end slavery in the nineteenth century and who also formed the heart of the first feminist movements...
Are you getting married sometime soon? ;-)
I want to start by asking some questions a little further back than the texts you raise, because that may give us some context and perspective on the issue. The questions are something like this: do you think of yourself as a follower of Jesus ? And, do you think that the Bible speaks with his authority? (you don't have to answer out loud btw) Because if you say yes to these questions then that changes everything about the way you approach the texts. And if you don't, then please don't have a church wedding in any case!
I say this because actually, the 'church wedding' question seems to represent something more significant (I could be wrong). You seem to be saying that, at least perhaps, the meaning and importance of these texts and others like them are for you determinative of whether you will continue to identify as a Christian or not at all. Is this fair?
From my point of view, if the Bible is the voice of Jesus and I am his follower, then though I expect to find some difficult, strange and counter-intuitive things in it - and I certainly do - I generally assume that the problem is with me, in my understanding or in my heart, rather than the text. I come to the text as one who knows as a first order reality the vastness of the love God has for me in Jesus, and the mercy he has shown me, a sinner and his enemy. This doesn't mean that I am not wrestling with these and other texts and trying desperately to figure out how they are God's word for me today. But it means I tend to assume that the Bible makes sense of the world and how to live in it.
This might make us two very different readers, then, though we both struggle with the text. From your point of view you are perhaps wondering if this really is for you, whether this really fits with your experience - in particular as a woman. If that is the case, then it is a pity to start here with these texts and this issue and not with the gospel itself. Decide whether that is for you, and the rest is just footnotes by comparison. You may decide that it isn’t for you: and that’s fine, but it will make for two very different perspectives on texts like these I think.
Sorry - that's a long preamble, which I hope makes some kind of sense. Let me start with 1 Peter 3. Along with Col 3 and Ephesians 5 it represents the NT's teaching on marriage: not a lot you would have to say. However, marriage itself is used as a great image of Jesus the groom and the church his bride - with one dying for the other and so on. So marriage in Christian terms is more than just a living arrangement - it is a living illustration of the gospel itself.
In 1 Peter 3 we need to take note of the whole letter and its themes. Peter is speaking to people in places where their weakness is apparent and frustrating: so, to slaves, to persecuted citizens, to wives and so on. He uses Jesus himself as his model of enduring injustice and suffering. He doesn't say 'oh, they don't have any authority at all'; rather he says 'win them over by doing good rather than being rebellious'. In particular, he is addressing the Christian wife of a non-Christian husband: her temptation might be to undermine the marriage because she has found a new Christian family. But her strategy is to be somewhat different. There is no revolution against authorities, whether masters, emperors or husbands.
BUT: there is also the verse about the weaker partner and so on. I don't think anything is being said here that isn't just a fact of life: Peter isn't saying something moral, or that women OUGHT to be the weaker partner. It is just generally true that women are more vulnerable than men, physically, and also because of child-bearing. But something crucial happens in this verse too, something that led to a true revolution: and that is, that the husbands were to honour the wives (as they were to honour the emperor interestingly) and to treat them as 'fellow-inheritors of the gracious gift of life'. In other words, here were the seeds of a transformation of the whole nature of marriage into a genuine partnership of the two in which men and women in their full complementarity (not their mere colourless interchangeability) were to serve one another.
Christian marriage is never about one partner forcing the other to submit - though in this as in many other things Christians have of course failed to live up to their own scriptures at times. Husbands are never told ‘make sure your wife submits to you’. Rather, they are told things like ‘lay down your life for her’, or ‘honour her’. I think that enormous cultural variation in practice is allowed within what the Bible says on this: but Christian marriages will always tend to the more ‘democratic’ and collaborative. Peter never condemns slavery: he doesn’t need to, because if you understand the Christian gospel slavery just melts away. Likewise, he doesn’t advocate a feminist revolution: he doesn’t need to, because where the Christian gospel is truly understood women are treated as the co-heirs of the gift of life, even though there be a physical disparity between the two. Peter’s teaching is utterly counter to his own culture on this.
As a footnote, it is not an accident that it was bible-believing Christians who fought to end slavery in the nineteenth century and who also formed the heart of the first feminist movements...
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Is Jensenism actually Christian?
“NO SUCH THING” - A Response to an article in Quadrant by James Franklin. (Dec 2004)
Jim replied to me here.
A debate ensued on the Sydney Anglican Website
Jim went ahead to publish the article in a book of essays. I should hasten to add that since this correspondence, I have met James Franklin, who is a remarkable fellow and quite a gentleman. I still maintain that his article was misguided.
In December’s Quadrant James Franklin asked “Is Jensenism compatible with Christianity?” and claimed of Sydney Anglicans that they “fear the gospels, for the gospel message is inconvenient”. This brand of “narrow” “Bible-based” Christianity pits Paul against Jesus, he says; engages in selective reading of the Bible; and creates “an inward-looking and recent sect.”
Professor Franklin’s ungentlemanly squib does contain issues of substance, but they are concealed beneath an unfortunate tone and by his caricature of his targets. It is factually inaccurate, theologically mistaken, and biblically simplistic. Many of his objections have been standard responses to Protestantism since the sixteenth century. In this response, I will set aside Franklin’s cheap shots and focus on what I see to be the major points of contention.
There is no such thing as “Jensenism”. What Franklin describes of his opponents is true of the classic Protestant orthodoxy of Luther, Calvin and Cranmer. His quarrel is really with them. These thinkers saw themselves as cleaning the scholastic and Aristotelian dust from the face of the Christian tradition. They returned, like the humanist-trained scholars they were, ad fontes: to the sources of Christianity, to the Scriptures in the Hebrew and the Greek, and to the Church Fathers, though not uncritically. Especially, Luther and Calvin saw themselves as the heirs of the great Augustine of Hippo.
It was Augustine’s reading of God’s grace and human nature that they recaptured, in the face of the sentimentality of much medieval piety. Which takes us to the first issue of substance in Franklin’s piece: the human capacity to please God. The British monk Pelagius, spiritual guru of the Roman elite, claimed that human nature was basically good, if prone to stray. In the Pelagian scheme, Jesus Christ was offered by God as a model to guide human striving in decency.
It was a theologically preposterous and anthropologically naïve teaching; and Augustine proved decisively that true Christianity has a different tale to tell. In his time, Luther won an astonishing intellectual victory over the mighty humanist Erasmus on precisely this issue: the human will is not “free”, but rather bound in a prison of its own construction. And this is not merely a Pauline teaching: it was the teaching of Jesus himself that he had come to “give his life as a ransom for many”, implying that what people need is not moral guidance, but liberation from bondage.
Jesus encountered people who could not present a skerrick of moral decency on their own behalf. They were the corrupt and the immoral; the untrustworthy and the greedy: and they knew it. The parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, retold by Luke, is a reflection on those encounters. The story provides a typical example of Jesus’ great reversal of human expectations: it is not the upright and superior Pharisee, confident in his tribal religion, who goes to his home at peace with his God - “justified’ - but the shame-faced and desperate Tax Collector.
That human sin is an intractable problem is even the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (which Franklin cites as an example of Christ’s moralism). When Jesus says “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted”, he is echoing the words found in Isaiah 40: “Comfort, comfort my people…”. Why are they to be comforted? Not because they are the bereaved, but because they are the repentant. The punishment of exile has ended, and ancient Israel, in sorrow for their sins, are to be offered divine comfort. When Jesus says “Blessed are the peacemakers”, he has primarily in view those who seek peace with God – again picking up a theme from the second half of Isaiah’s book. (Franklin seems ignorant of the literary and historical context at this point – and yet he accuses his opponents of this!)
This teaching is no mere abstraction or fine point of doctrine: it powerfully explains the reality of human experience. History tells us that acts of human decency and generosity have been the exception rather than the rule; and that human beings are caught in an inexplicable web of which we are all the victims and the perpetrators. The Holocaust illustrates well the darkness of the human soul. If humane education or religious instruction were enough, surely Nazism would never have flourished among the Germans, of all people. It is dangerous to forget that even the best of us is capable of complicity in a great evil. This is indeed an “inconvenient” message.
Now, it is possible to dispute this reading of human nature, as Franklin does; but orthodox Christianity, following the Hebrew Bible, the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the writings of Paul, has rejected Pelagianism and its variants as unorthodox. Franklin can’t have it both ways. He cannot both claim that the Jensens are guilty of diverging from the main stream of Christianity and criticize them for holding to utterly orthodox teaching. Franklin’s Jesus is not the Jesus of the gospels or of orthodox Christianity; he is the rather limp, blond moralist of sentimental portraiture, whose message is not “good news” at all, since we human beings are unable to accomplish what he taught. Franklin’s Jesus is a threat to no-one; he challenges nothing. He affirms the smugness of the Pharisee.
But what we have said so far about humanity is merely the gloom in which the light of the world shines all the more: “the people who have walked in darkness have seen a great light.” Franklin writes: “the most unsavoury aspect of the Jensenites’ distortion of the simple message of Jesus is its concentration on sin and guilt without a compensating sense of human worth.” This is in its turn a gross and unfair distortion not borne out by any fair reading of his opponents. Sin and guilt are but the shadows cast by the cross of Jesus Christ, who died to reconcile God and people. The cross is a sign of how dire our state is; but it is also a sign of the profundity of divine love for us – which is more than a vague “compensating sense of human worth”, whatever that is: it is, in fact, a mighty demonstration of the love of God for women and men. A Christianity without either aspect is no Christianity at all. Franklin’s Christianity appears to be all Christmas and no Easter.
And to respond to this is faith. Franklin offers a lazy caricature of the Protestant understanding of faith: “…what God wants is belief in certain propositions about Jesus and salvation, and without that belief good actions are not pleasing to God.” Faith is not assent to doctrine: faith is trust in the promises of God. It is the response that Jesus himself preached for when he declared “the Kingdom of God is near, repent and believe the good news.” That human beings are justified by faith alone – a central Reformation teaching rooted in turn in the teachings of Jesus and of Paul – is to remove grounds for any ranking of human beings on the basis of alleged religious, racial or moral superiority.
Franklin contests the Protestant reliance on “Scripture alone”: only, he has no idea what it means, declaring that it means there is no place for the tradition of the Church. This was not and is not what this is taken to mean. “Scripture alone” is a slogan about ultimate authority. The Reformers never excluded Church tradition from consideration, as anyone who has read them knows. But Scripture over-ruled the Church and its traditions: later developments, like compulsory clerical celibacy, could be abandoned as inauthentic. More importantly, the corruptions of the Church could be challenged and reformed from the standpoint of the teachings of Christ and his apostles contained in the Bible. To put the Church over Scripture is to invite ecclesiastical triumphalism.
This was in fact an ancient belief: Jesus’ regard for the authority of the Jewish scriptures was in turn ascribed to his teachings and to the teaching of his apostles. The communities begun by Jesus were formed around his teachings, as Israel had gathered around – and under - the Torah; it is adherence to those teachings that defines them as his communities. A fundamental contradiction in Franklin’s account is that he wants to contest the status of the Bible for Christianity and then argue about its contents. Why should he care?
Franklin’s attempt to belittle orthodox Protestantism ultimately fails, because he has not given it a fair and dispassionate hearing. He fails in his attempt to drive a wedge between “Sydney Anglicans” and the teachings of Jesus. Ultimately, though, whether “Jensenism” is given a fair hearing or not is of small consequence: what matters is whether the true message of Jesus, the crucified and risen Christ, is heard.
Jim replied to me here.
A debate ensued on the Sydney Anglican Website
Jim went ahead to publish the article in a book of essays. I should hasten to add that since this correspondence, I have met James Franklin, who is a remarkable fellow and quite a gentleman. I still maintain that his article was misguided.
In December’s Quadrant James Franklin asked “Is Jensenism compatible with Christianity?” and claimed of Sydney Anglicans that they “fear the gospels, for the gospel message is inconvenient”. This brand of “narrow” “Bible-based” Christianity pits Paul against Jesus, he says; engages in selective reading of the Bible; and creates “an inward-looking and recent sect.”
Professor Franklin’s ungentlemanly squib does contain issues of substance, but they are concealed beneath an unfortunate tone and by his caricature of his targets. It is factually inaccurate, theologically mistaken, and biblically simplistic. Many of his objections have been standard responses to Protestantism since the sixteenth century. In this response, I will set aside Franklin’s cheap shots and focus on what I see to be the major points of contention.
There is no such thing as “Jensenism”. What Franklin describes of his opponents is true of the classic Protestant orthodoxy of Luther, Calvin and Cranmer. His quarrel is really with them. These thinkers saw themselves as cleaning the scholastic and Aristotelian dust from the face of the Christian tradition. They returned, like the humanist-trained scholars they were, ad fontes: to the sources of Christianity, to the Scriptures in the Hebrew and the Greek, and to the Church Fathers, though not uncritically. Especially, Luther and Calvin saw themselves as the heirs of the great Augustine of Hippo.
It was Augustine’s reading of God’s grace and human nature that they recaptured, in the face of the sentimentality of much medieval piety. Which takes us to the first issue of substance in Franklin’s piece: the human capacity to please God. The British monk Pelagius, spiritual guru of the Roman elite, claimed that human nature was basically good, if prone to stray. In the Pelagian scheme, Jesus Christ was offered by God as a model to guide human striving in decency.
It was a theologically preposterous and anthropologically naïve teaching; and Augustine proved decisively that true Christianity has a different tale to tell. In his time, Luther won an astonishing intellectual victory over the mighty humanist Erasmus on precisely this issue: the human will is not “free”, but rather bound in a prison of its own construction. And this is not merely a Pauline teaching: it was the teaching of Jesus himself that he had come to “give his life as a ransom for many”, implying that what people need is not moral guidance, but liberation from bondage.
Jesus encountered people who could not present a skerrick of moral decency on their own behalf. They were the corrupt and the immoral; the untrustworthy and the greedy: and they knew it. The parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, retold by Luke, is a reflection on those encounters. The story provides a typical example of Jesus’ great reversal of human expectations: it is not the upright and superior Pharisee, confident in his tribal religion, who goes to his home at peace with his God - “justified’ - but the shame-faced and desperate Tax Collector.
That human sin is an intractable problem is even the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount (which Franklin cites as an example of Christ’s moralism). When Jesus says “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted”, he is echoing the words found in Isaiah 40: “Comfort, comfort my people…”. Why are they to be comforted? Not because they are the bereaved, but because they are the repentant. The punishment of exile has ended, and ancient Israel, in sorrow for their sins, are to be offered divine comfort. When Jesus says “Blessed are the peacemakers”, he has primarily in view those who seek peace with God – again picking up a theme from the second half of Isaiah’s book. (Franklin seems ignorant of the literary and historical context at this point – and yet he accuses his opponents of this!)
This teaching is no mere abstraction or fine point of doctrine: it powerfully explains the reality of human experience. History tells us that acts of human decency and generosity have been the exception rather than the rule; and that human beings are caught in an inexplicable web of which we are all the victims and the perpetrators. The Holocaust illustrates well the darkness of the human soul. If humane education or religious instruction were enough, surely Nazism would never have flourished among the Germans, of all people. It is dangerous to forget that even the best of us is capable of complicity in a great evil. This is indeed an “inconvenient” message.
Now, it is possible to dispute this reading of human nature, as Franklin does; but orthodox Christianity, following the Hebrew Bible, the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the writings of Paul, has rejected Pelagianism and its variants as unorthodox. Franklin can’t have it both ways. He cannot both claim that the Jensens are guilty of diverging from the main stream of Christianity and criticize them for holding to utterly orthodox teaching. Franklin’s Jesus is not the Jesus of the gospels or of orthodox Christianity; he is the rather limp, blond moralist of sentimental portraiture, whose message is not “good news” at all, since we human beings are unable to accomplish what he taught. Franklin’s Jesus is a threat to no-one; he challenges nothing. He affirms the smugness of the Pharisee.
But what we have said so far about humanity is merely the gloom in which the light of the world shines all the more: “the people who have walked in darkness have seen a great light.” Franklin writes: “the most unsavoury aspect of the Jensenites’ distortion of the simple message of Jesus is its concentration on sin and guilt without a compensating sense of human worth.” This is in its turn a gross and unfair distortion not borne out by any fair reading of his opponents. Sin and guilt are but the shadows cast by the cross of Jesus Christ, who died to reconcile God and people. The cross is a sign of how dire our state is; but it is also a sign of the profundity of divine love for us – which is more than a vague “compensating sense of human worth”, whatever that is: it is, in fact, a mighty demonstration of the love of God for women and men. A Christianity without either aspect is no Christianity at all. Franklin’s Christianity appears to be all Christmas and no Easter.
And to respond to this is faith. Franklin offers a lazy caricature of the Protestant understanding of faith: “…what God wants is belief in certain propositions about Jesus and salvation, and without that belief good actions are not pleasing to God.” Faith is not assent to doctrine: faith is trust in the promises of God. It is the response that Jesus himself preached for when he declared “the Kingdom of God is near, repent and believe the good news.” That human beings are justified by faith alone – a central Reformation teaching rooted in turn in the teachings of Jesus and of Paul – is to remove grounds for any ranking of human beings on the basis of alleged religious, racial or moral superiority.
Franklin contests the Protestant reliance on “Scripture alone”: only, he has no idea what it means, declaring that it means there is no place for the tradition of the Church. This was not and is not what this is taken to mean. “Scripture alone” is a slogan about ultimate authority. The Reformers never excluded Church tradition from consideration, as anyone who has read them knows. But Scripture over-ruled the Church and its traditions: later developments, like compulsory clerical celibacy, could be abandoned as inauthentic. More importantly, the corruptions of the Church could be challenged and reformed from the standpoint of the teachings of Christ and his apostles contained in the Bible. To put the Church over Scripture is to invite ecclesiastical triumphalism.
This was in fact an ancient belief: Jesus’ regard for the authority of the Jewish scriptures was in turn ascribed to his teachings and to the teaching of his apostles. The communities begun by Jesus were formed around his teachings, as Israel had gathered around – and under - the Torah; it is adherence to those teachings that defines them as his communities. A fundamental contradiction in Franklin’s account is that he wants to contest the status of the Bible for Christianity and then argue about its contents. Why should he care?
Franklin’s attempt to belittle orthodox Protestantism ultimately fails, because he has not given it a fair and dispassionate hearing. He fails in his attempt to drive a wedge between “Sydney Anglicans” and the teachings of Jesus. Ultimately, though, whether “Jensenism” is given a fair hearing or not is of small consequence: what matters is whether the true message of Jesus, the crucified and risen Christ, is heard.
Imputation: a conversation
charles says:
the fruit of the cross is forgiveness
Steve says:
yes
charles says:
...some people contrast forgiveness and the imputation of His righteousness as if forgiveness is a merely a negative thing and the other is positive are you with me so far?
Steve says:
forgiveness is just 'getting off the hook'
charles says:
but that cannot be true; if forgiveness is real it must be positive and just be another way of saying that righteosness is credited to us etc etc
charles says:
you can't be cleansed and yet waiting still to be declared righteous
charles says:
are you with me?
Steve says:
no indeed.
Steve says:
by which I mean, yes I am with you!
Steve says:
so: even though there are very few imputation texts
it is implied in the notion of forgiveness
Steve says:
or, it is a corollory of forgiveness
charles says:
so: forgivenss is a sufficient way of talking about the effect of the cross
Steve says:
I would add union with Christ to forgiveness
charles says:
well what is union with Christ but the attrribution of all Christ's accomplishments to us?
Steve says:
well, it is much more!
Steve says:
Holy Spirit? adoption into the family of God?
Steve says:
participation in the divine nature (2 Peter)
Steve says:
life
charles says:
and that is precisely why the great Calvin begins the second part of theology with union with Christ even before we arrive at justification etc
Steve says:
(and Luther does too)
charles says:
my point is however. not that there are not many blessings through union
Steve says:
really?
charles says:
but that one of those blessings is the attribution of Christ's righteousness to us
Steve says:
got some text for me?
Steve says:
2 Cor 5 (though this is disputed)
charles says:
of course it is disputed because it proves the point!
Steve says:
well: it seems to me that the Tom Wright difficulty with imputation stems from a caricature
Steve says:
(surprise surprise)
charles says:
true ...
charles says:
start from the top: is righteousness imputed to us?
Steve says:
whose?
Steve says:
well, it ain't ours.
Steve says:
it is alien
Steve says:
so, yes
Steve says:
well, it depends on what 'righteousness' itself means of course
charles says:
does 1 Cor 1:30 help?
Steve says:
well, yes... though: can't you say
Steve says:
Christ was perfected in his obedience in order that he could be our perfect representative...
Steve says:
I mean, does the 'our' imply something actually given to us, or attributed to us?
charles says:
go back to union with Christ
Steve says:
ok. I am back there
charles says:
I presume we come into union with Christ through faith and not our own works
Steve says:
tick
charles says:
I presume eg that forgiveness redemption etc is a free gift to those who are unoted with Christ?
Steve says:
again, a tick
charles says:
i presume that this is made possible by the penal substitutionary death of Christ?
Steve says:
yes
Steve says:
though, explained carefully
charles says:
i am told in romans that although i lack any righteousness of my own i have now been creditied with righteousness
Steve says:
you are
Steve says:
credited with, or credited as
Steve says:
?
charles says:
it being on account of my faith ie the point being faith alone and not works
Steve says:
true
charles says:
am i not forced to say that this righteousness (alien) is a gift from God on the basis of the death of his Son?
Steve says:
I think so.
Steve says:
(I am not much of a Boso, to your Anselm, am I?)
charles says:
give it a break !
Steve says:
well: it depends a bit what you understand righteousness to be I guess. Can I substitute forgiveness or vindication for it?
Steve says:
as a word?
charles says:
no they are not synonyms and I wonder why we would do that in the light of Rom 4
Steve says:
well, what is it?
charles says:
start with Rom 3:19,20
charles says:
Forgiveness language works in the realm of the personal and is needed for a complete picture
charles says:
but righteousness language works in the realm of the public and legal
charles says:
thus law, accountability, sin = transgression
Steve says:
yes, all good, I mean, all bad
charles says:
bad and accountable
charles says:
therefore needing not merely forgiveness but righteousness
charles says:
hence necessarily he then talks aboiut the death of Jesus in redemptibve, sacrificial and legal terms
Steve says:
righto
charles says:
and vindicates the righteousness of God for acting in what may seem to be an unrighteouss manner
Steve says:
ah, yes, that is the brilliance of it
Steve says:
both. and.
Steve says:
that is, it is forgiveness without injustice
charles says:
now turn to 4:4-9
Steve says:
ah, I love the 'before he was circumcised' bit: it is a great rejoinder to Reformed people who want to make us all legalists
Steve says:
Abraham never observed the law!
charles says:
dont be diverted
Steve says:
oh sorry.
charles says:
if you look at his quote from the psalm
Steve says:
yes
charles says:
it covers forgiveness in the first part and righteosness in the second
Steve says:
'not count his sin'
Steve says:
= righteousness?
charles says:
that is not to have your faults counted against you is the freedom from accountability which is righteousness see 3:19, 20
charles says:
yes, righteousness is the word we are using when we think of the relationship bettween God and man (as we must) in legal or judgement terms
Steve says:
covenantal?
Steve says:
or this the point that much confusion enters?
charles says:
I think it does: I was always a bit disappointed that the NT was not more explicitly covenantal; I think that the attempt to read it in is confusing the categories
Steve says:
ooooooooooo yes
charles says:
he justifies the ungodly ie those outside the covenant without Gofd and without hope in the world
Steve says:
but 'covenant' is where Tom W smuggles in his ecclesiology of course
charles says:
true ...
(How does it finish?)
the fruit of the cross is forgiveness
Steve says:
yes
charles says:
...some people contrast forgiveness and the imputation of His righteousness as if forgiveness is a merely a negative thing and the other is positive are you with me so far?
Steve says:
forgiveness is just 'getting off the hook'
charles says:
but that cannot be true; if forgiveness is real it must be positive and just be another way of saying that righteosness is credited to us etc etc
charles says:
you can't be cleansed and yet waiting still to be declared righteous
charles says:
are you with me?
Steve says:
no indeed.
Steve says:
by which I mean, yes I am with you!
Steve says:
so: even though there are very few imputation texts
it is implied in the notion of forgiveness
Steve says:
or, it is a corollory of forgiveness
charles says:
so: forgivenss is a sufficient way of talking about the effect of the cross
Steve says:
I would add union with Christ to forgiveness
charles says:
well what is union with Christ but the attrribution of all Christ's accomplishments to us?
Steve says:
well, it is much more!
Steve says:
Holy Spirit? adoption into the family of God?
Steve says:
participation in the divine nature (2 Peter)
Steve says:
life
charles says:
and that is precisely why the great Calvin begins the second part of theology with union with Christ even before we arrive at justification etc
Steve says:
(and Luther does too)
charles says:
my point is however. not that there are not many blessings through union
Steve says:
really?
charles says:
but that one of those blessings is the attribution of Christ's righteousness to us
Steve says:
got some text for me?
Steve says:
2 Cor 5 (though this is disputed)
charles says:
of course it is disputed because it proves the point!
Steve says:
well: it seems to me that the Tom Wright difficulty with imputation stems from a caricature
Steve says:
(surprise surprise)
charles says:
true ...
charles says:
start from the top: is righteousness imputed to us?
Steve says:
whose?
Steve says:
well, it ain't ours.
Steve says:
it is alien
Steve says:
so, yes
Steve says:
well, it depends on what 'righteousness' itself means of course
charles says:
does 1 Cor 1:30 help?
Steve says:
well, yes... though: can't you say
Steve says:
Christ was perfected in his obedience in order that he could be our perfect representative...
Steve says:
I mean, does the 'our' imply something actually given to us, or attributed to us?
charles says:
go back to union with Christ
Steve says:
ok. I am back there
charles says:
I presume we come into union with Christ through faith and not our own works
Steve says:
tick
charles says:
I presume eg that forgiveness redemption etc is a free gift to those who are unoted with Christ?
Steve says:
again, a tick
charles says:
i presume that this is made possible by the penal substitutionary death of Christ?
Steve says:
yes
Steve says:
though, explained carefully
charles says:
i am told in romans that although i lack any righteousness of my own i have now been creditied with righteousness
Steve says:
you are
Steve says:
credited with, or credited as
Steve says:
?
charles says:
it being on account of my faith ie the point being faith alone and not works
Steve says:
true
charles says:
am i not forced to say that this righteousness (alien) is a gift from God on the basis of the death of his Son?
Steve says:
I think so.
Steve says:
(I am not much of a Boso, to your Anselm, am I?)
charles says:
give it a break !
Steve says:
well: it depends a bit what you understand righteousness to be I guess. Can I substitute forgiveness or vindication for it?
Steve says:
as a word?
charles says:
no they are not synonyms and I wonder why we would do that in the light of Rom 4
Steve says:
well, what is it?
charles says:
start with Rom 3:19,20
charles says:
Forgiveness language works in the realm of the personal and is needed for a complete picture
charles says:
but righteousness language works in the realm of the public and legal
charles says:
thus law, accountability, sin = transgression
Steve says:
yes, all good, I mean, all bad
charles says:
bad and accountable
charles says:
therefore needing not merely forgiveness but righteousness
charles says:
hence necessarily he then talks aboiut the death of Jesus in redemptibve, sacrificial and legal terms
Steve says:
righto
charles says:
and vindicates the righteousness of God for acting in what may seem to be an unrighteouss manner
Steve says:
ah, yes, that is the brilliance of it
Steve says:
both. and.
Steve says:
that is, it is forgiveness without injustice
charles says:
now turn to 4:4-9
Steve says:
ah, I love the 'before he was circumcised' bit: it is a great rejoinder to Reformed people who want to make us all legalists
Steve says:
Abraham never observed the law!
charles says:
dont be diverted
Steve says:
oh sorry.
charles says:
if you look at his quote from the psalm
Steve says:
yes
charles says:
it covers forgiveness in the first part and righteosness in the second
Steve says:
'not count his sin'
Steve says:
= righteousness?
charles says:
that is not to have your faults counted against you is the freedom from accountability which is righteousness see 3:19, 20
charles says:
yes, righteousness is the word we are using when we think of the relationship bettween God and man (as we must) in legal or judgement terms
Steve says:
covenantal?
Steve says:
or this the point that much confusion enters?
charles says:
I think it does: I was always a bit disappointed that the NT was not more explicitly covenantal; I think that the attempt to read it in is confusing the categories
Steve says:
ooooooooooo yes
charles says:
he justifies the ungodly ie those outside the covenant without Gofd and without hope in the world
Steve says:
but 'covenant' is where Tom W smuggles in his ecclesiology of course
charles says:
true ...
(How does it finish?)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
James K.A. Smith on evangelicalism
James Smith has an interesting, though I think debateable, post over at the Immanent Frame. He claims to be offering a theological reason why a sociological definition of evangelicalism should be prefered.
The argument amounts to:
1) theological definitions of evangelicalism can be too narrow (so, emphasise the division with Catholics).
2) theological definitions can be too broad (so, include Pentecostals). Smith talks of 'the demographic sleight of hand that enfolds Pentecostals, charismatics, and the explosion of “world Christianity” under the label “evangelical.” '
To which I say, 'well, perhaps, but neither of these constitutes an argument against the use of the term evangelical as a theological definition per se. If some people want to misuse the term then it is certainly worth discussing. But it just doesn't follow at all that the whole business of theological definition should be given up as a bad job. (This, by the way, is what Smith says is a 'theological argument' in favour of a sociological definition...)
Smith's suggestion is that 'evangelical should be seen to represent a tone. So, he says:
'evangelicalism represents a contingent style, a sort of accent within Christendom'. Yet, when he describes this accent or tone, Smith is (it seems to me) full of contempt for it:
It is a distinctly modern, post-Reformation configuration of Christian discipleship that engendered practices and institutions which closely mirrored the development of what Charles Taylor describes as “the modern social imaginary”—a focus on individual salvation, a valorization of the autonomy of the local congregation, an entrepreneurial spirit that fueled ambitious programs of church and parachurch expansion, a kind of Christian materialism that generated its own markets, and other distinctive features.
In effect, Smith denudes evangelicalism of its theology and reduces it to a set of practices... which is the way all sorts of post-liberals are reading doctrine/theology these days...and why so many young American Protestant thinkers have recently become Roman Catholics perhaps.
There's more to say, but enough for now.
The argument amounts to:
1) theological definitions of evangelicalism can be too narrow (so, emphasise the division with Catholics).
2) theological definitions can be too broad (so, include Pentecostals). Smith talks of 'the demographic sleight of hand that enfolds Pentecostals, charismatics, and the explosion of “world Christianity” under the label “evangelical.” '
To which I say, 'well, perhaps, but neither of these constitutes an argument against the use of the term evangelical as a theological definition per se. If some people want to misuse the term then it is certainly worth discussing. But it just doesn't follow at all that the whole business of theological definition should be given up as a bad job. (This, by the way, is what Smith says is a 'theological argument' in favour of a sociological definition...)
Smith's suggestion is that 'evangelical should be seen to represent a tone. So, he says:
'evangelicalism represents a contingent style, a sort of accent within Christendom'. Yet, when he describes this accent or tone, Smith is (it seems to me) full of contempt for it:
It is a distinctly modern, post-Reformation configuration of Christian discipleship that engendered practices and institutions which closely mirrored the development of what Charles Taylor describes as “the modern social imaginary”—a focus on individual salvation, a valorization of the autonomy of the local congregation, an entrepreneurial spirit that fueled ambitious programs of church and parachurch expansion, a kind of Christian materialism that generated its own markets, and other distinctive features.
In effect, Smith denudes evangelicalism of its theology and reduces it to a set of practices... which is the way all sorts of post-liberals are reading doctrine/theology these days...and why so many young American Protestant thinkers have recently become Roman Catholics perhaps.
There's more to say, but enough for now.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Bernard of Clairvaux, on loving God
John Calvin's favourite twelfth century writer (and there weren't many on his list), Bernard of Clairvaux understood very well the fullness of what our love for God should be:
Admit that God deserves to be loved very much, yea, boundlessly, because He loved us first, He infinite and we nothing, loved us, miserable sinners, with a love so great and so free.
Admit that God deserves to be loved very much, yea, boundlessly, because He loved us first, He infinite and we nothing, loved us, miserable sinners, with a love so great and so free.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Theology as repentant humility...
Theology is an act of repentant humility…This act exists in the fact that in theology the Church seeks again and again to examine itself critically as it asks itself what it means and implies to be a Church among men…The Church, too, lives under the judgement of God, as does the world. So, it cannot be otherwise but that the Church must critically examine itself, not according to its own wishes and standards but according to the standard which is identical with its basis of existence which is God’s revelation, which, concretely, is the Holy Scriptures. It is this constant and ever-recurring necessity and demand for self-examination of the Church by the standard of the divine Word which is the peculiar function of theology in the Church.
Karl Barth, ‘Theology’ in God in Action (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1936), pp. 44f
Karl Barth, ‘Theology’ in God in Action (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1936), pp. 44f
Seitz, Barth and some notes on Blessing
From C. Seitz, Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture pp. 147-52
'Blessing is the language of God's address to humanity's forfeit.'In Genesis 1:28, blessing is tied up with expansion and spreading out.p. 148: '...whatever is marring God's creative intent, be it rebellion in the Garden, murder, evil human imagination, or projects for overextension and totalitarian unity, God is planning a different way forward, which he means to protect and superintend. Election is the means by which sinful creation receives the blessing originally intended for it, for all nations and people. Mission understood in OT terms, then, is the address of blessing to the deficit and forfeit brought about by rebellion in its many forms.'
p. 149: 'Blessing will come through election, and mission - God's word of blessing to the nations - will be the means by which God uses Israel to accomplish this in a special way vis-a-vis all peoples.'As von Rad notes, blessing concerns Abraham first, but then also includes those on the outside who adopt a definite attitude toward this blessing.God's blessing of Abram is a repeat of the charge to humanity in creation... it involves Abram getting what the race sought in tower building.... it also entails blessing for others.
p. 152 'If blessing is the means by which God restores and brings into proper relationship the families of the earth, it remains the case that he uses Israel for this purpose in ways neither Israel nor the nations fully comprehend. What is required of Israel is faith and obedience to the pronise, which constitutes its only ground of existence in the world. Obedience to this promise allows blessing to occur, but it does not ensure it.''for the church rightly to speak of 'mission'...it is necessary to comprehend the logic of key OT notions of blessing''Blessing' is drawing on God's goodness...and receiving it... it is the good God extending his goodness to the creation, filling the creation with his goodness...
Karl Barth 'In all its otherness it is predestined to receive the divine good which has been revealed and communicated. This is what is ordained for man in the primal decision of the divine decree. the portion which God willed and chose for him was an ordination to blessedness. For to be able to attest the overflowing glory of the Creator is blessedness. God will man and elceted man with the promise of eternal life. Life as a witness to the overflowing glory of God is eternal life...' CD II/2 p. 169
But...
'Man was willed and chose by God with his limitations, as a creature which could and would do harm to God by the application, or rather the misuse, of its freedom. the danger-point of man's susceptibility to temptation, and the zero-point of his fall, were thus included in the divine decree.' II/2 p. 169
'Blessing is the language of God's address to humanity's forfeit.'In Genesis 1:28, blessing is tied up with expansion and spreading out.p. 148: '...whatever is marring God's creative intent, be it rebellion in the Garden, murder, evil human imagination, or projects for overextension and totalitarian unity, God is planning a different way forward, which he means to protect and superintend. Election is the means by which sinful creation receives the blessing originally intended for it, for all nations and people. Mission understood in OT terms, then, is the address of blessing to the deficit and forfeit brought about by rebellion in its many forms.'
p. 149: 'Blessing will come through election, and mission - God's word of blessing to the nations - will be the means by which God uses Israel to accomplish this in a special way vis-a-vis all peoples.'As von Rad notes, blessing concerns Abraham first, but then also includes those on the outside who adopt a definite attitude toward this blessing.God's blessing of Abram is a repeat of the charge to humanity in creation... it involves Abram getting what the race sought in tower building.... it also entails blessing for others.
p. 152 'If blessing is the means by which God restores and brings into proper relationship the families of the earth, it remains the case that he uses Israel for this purpose in ways neither Israel nor the nations fully comprehend. What is required of Israel is faith and obedience to the pronise, which constitutes its only ground of existence in the world. Obedience to this promise allows blessing to occur, but it does not ensure it.''for the church rightly to speak of 'mission'...it is necessary to comprehend the logic of key OT notions of blessing''Blessing' is drawing on God's goodness...and receiving it... it is the good God extending his goodness to the creation, filling the creation with his goodness...
Karl Barth 'In all its otherness it is predestined to receive the divine good which has been revealed and communicated. This is what is ordained for man in the primal decision of the divine decree. the portion which God willed and chose for him was an ordination to blessedness. For to be able to attest the overflowing glory of the Creator is blessedness. God will man and elceted man with the promise of eternal life. Life as a witness to the overflowing glory of God is eternal life...' CD II/2 p. 169
But...
'Man was willed and chose by God with his limitations, as a creature which could and would do harm to God by the application, or rather the misuse, of its freedom. the danger-point of man's susceptibility to temptation, and the zero-point of his fall, were thus included in the divine decree.' II/2 p. 169
What need is there of theology?
…there is [among Biblical scholars] an unwillingness to accept the existence and the significance of theology as a discipline in its own right. One of several roots of this unwillingness is, perversely, the popular Protestant insistence on sola scriptura. When one has the Bible, what need is there for the subtleties and sophistries of theology?
Francis Watson, Text and Truth, p.4
Well, quite. I don't think it is a good understanding of sola scriptura that leads to this difficulty though...
Francis Watson, Text and Truth, p.4
Well, quite. I don't think it is a good understanding of sola scriptura that leads to this difficulty though...
Thursday, August 14, 2008
More on the Second Chair
The Leading from the Second Chair book I was talking about lists three paradoxes of second chair leadership:
Subordinate-Leader - because assistant leaders are leaders, but also followers at the same time. There is responsibility given, but it is given according to set boundaries.
Deep-Wide - the assistant leader often has a specialty, but is often also called to be a utility player in the church organisation. And so, the assistant pastor has to be able to think in terms of his/her contribution to the whole church or organisation as well as develop his/her own patch. In fact, the demands of the whole might mean that the patch become overgrown or untended somewhat.
Contentment-Dreaming - the second chair leader can feel that their dreams are now continually being frustrated because they are subordinated to the dreams of another. And yet, without that freedom to dream, the second chair leader can become stale.
I wish the book had addressed some of the more tricky (and believe me, real, from what I hear) situations. How can the assistant minister help the senior minister who is underperforming, or depressed, or evidently lazy? What if he is treating the laity poorly? What about when you sense that the senior minister is feeling threatened? How can the second chair leader 'manage up'? To what degree is our obedience actually a spiritual discipline, as opposed to merely a matter of being an employee?
And, furthermore, how can senior ministers get the most out of their assistants? What does it take to lead a team of ministers? Why are we so bad at it? Who is actually good at it, and why?
Subordinate-Leader - because assistant leaders are leaders, but also followers at the same time. There is responsibility given, but it is given according to set boundaries.
Deep-Wide - the assistant leader often has a specialty, but is often also called to be a utility player in the church organisation. And so, the assistant pastor has to be able to think in terms of his/her contribution to the whole church or organisation as well as develop his/her own patch. In fact, the demands of the whole might mean that the patch become overgrown or untended somewhat.
Contentment-Dreaming - the second chair leader can feel that their dreams are now continually being frustrated because they are subordinated to the dreams of another. And yet, without that freedom to dream, the second chair leader can become stale.
I wish the book had addressed some of the more tricky (and believe me, real, from what I hear) situations. How can the assistant minister help the senior minister who is underperforming, or depressed, or evidently lazy? What if he is treating the laity poorly? What about when you sense that the senior minister is feeling threatened? How can the second chair leader 'manage up'? To what degree is our obedience actually a spiritual discipline, as opposed to merely a matter of being an employee?
And, furthermore, how can senior ministers get the most out of their assistants? What does it take to lead a team of ministers? Why are we so bad at it? Who is actually good at it, and why?
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Volf on divine violence
Here is Miroslav Volf, a pacifist himself, on why Christian nonviolence actually needs the vengeance of God to be coherent (not to mention Biblical):
My thesis that the practice of nonviolence requires a belief in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many Christians, especially theologians in the West. To the person who is inclined to dismiss it, I suggest imagining that you are delivering a lecture in a war zone...Among your listeners are people whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers have had their throats slit. The topic of the lecture: a Christian attitude toward violence. the thesis: we should not retaliate since God is perfect noncoercive love. Soon you would discover that it takes the quiet of a suburban hom for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence corresponds to God's refusal to judge. In a scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die. And as one watches it die, one will do well to reflect about many other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind...
Exclusion and Embrace, p. 204
My thesis that the practice of nonviolence requires a belief in divine vengeance will be unpopular with many Christians, especially theologians in the West. To the person who is inclined to dismiss it, I suggest imagining that you are delivering a lecture in a war zone...Among your listeners are people whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned and leveled to the ground, whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers have had their throats slit. The topic of the lecture: a Christian attitude toward violence. the thesis: we should not retaliate since God is perfect noncoercive love. Soon you would discover that it takes the quiet of a suburban hom for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence corresponds to God's refusal to judge. In a scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, it will invariably die. And as one watches it die, one will do well to reflect about many other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind...
Exclusion and Embrace, p. 204
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Leading from the Second Chair
Now, as one who is returning to the task of preparing other for ministry, I was intrigued to read recently a book called Leading from the Second Chair. It was put into my hands by my friend Ed Vaughan from Crinken parish in Dublin.
It is a very annoying book in several ways. It uses Joseph as a kind of model 'second chair' leader, which is just an annoying way to use the Bible in my book. It is based on interviews with American ministers, who tend to give very sunny and pragmatic descriptions of their ministries.
But I think it really touches on an issue for many ministers I know of: and that is, working as the assistant or the second in charge is really tough, and it is increasingly hard to find a leader-assistant relationship that works really well (in my experience). And they do have some good (and not just practical) advice.
Why is this relationship so fraught? Is it the pride thing? Is that leaders expect to be popes-in-their-own-parishes? Are we unable to live out submission in practice? Is there too much expectation of independence? Is it because the model we have was worked out when assistants were regularly in their early 20s, whereas now assistant ministers are often 30+ (and would be getting increased responsibility in secular work?)
Personal testimonies warmly received, but be careful with names and identities please.
It is a very annoying book in several ways. It uses Joseph as a kind of model 'second chair' leader, which is just an annoying way to use the Bible in my book. It is based on interviews with American ministers, who tend to give very sunny and pragmatic descriptions of their ministries.
But I think it really touches on an issue for many ministers I know of: and that is, working as the assistant or the second in charge is really tough, and it is increasingly hard to find a leader-assistant relationship that works really well (in my experience). And they do have some good (and not just practical) advice.
Why is this relationship so fraught? Is it the pride thing? Is that leaders expect to be popes-in-their-own-parishes? Are we unable to live out submission in practice? Is there too much expectation of independence? Is it because the model we have was worked out when assistants were regularly in their early 20s, whereas now assistant ministers are often 30+ (and would be getting increased responsibility in secular work?)
Personal testimonies warmly received, but be careful with names and identities please.
Psalm 133 - The sweet taste...
The idea of unity is guaranteed to produce nausea in the tummies of our secular neighbours. All their lives have been conditioned, like Pavlov’s salivating dogs, to pursue individualism at all costs; to celebrate differences rather than the similarities; to speak as “I” not as “we”. The jewel in the crown of western democratic liberalism is: the freedom of the individual - in ethics, in religion, in economics. And capitalism thrives in this environment, as the consumers individualise their requirements and every person becomes a niche market: left handed, left leaning Lebanese lesbians from Lilyfield; or gardening grand-dads from Gordon. Living in community with other people is a compromise, a necessary evil rather than a joy. Even in families, fragmentation is in evidence: the latest family cars have headphones and separate CD’s for each seat – so you can have the Wiggles in one seat and Wagner in another. How sweet our freedom! How pleasant! As Jean-Paul Sartre said “hell is other people”.
This fear of community arises from a very real fear that the individual may be squashed by the bulldozer of conformity; that social institutions and bureaucracies may process us according to generalisations and expediencies; that power in human hands may be coercive or even abusive; that the bullies may rule the playground. There is something theological about this point – ultimately the oneness of God is held to be at the root of totalitarian or repressive forms of social order.
But cast off God as a source of unity and you will replace it with another. One of the ironies of western culture is that the more we claim to be free the more we are enslaved. This truth was beautifully captured in that moment from Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, when Brian looks out of his window at the masses of his followers and says “ you are all individuals” and they reply as one “Yes- we are all individuals”. If you have ever been to a high school on mufti day, you will know what I mean: released from the shackles of uniform, the students all turn up dressed exactly the same – all bare midriffs (girls) & baggy jeans (boys). How sweet and good our freedom!
This is not the vision of Psalm 133. One of that famous series of Psalms called the Songs of Ascents – the songs of '”goings up” – it celebrates the meeting together of the people of God on the Summit of God’s holy hill. This little haiku of a Psalm is an extra ordinary outburst of joy at the presence of others. It is delicious when the family of God lives together as one – it is one of the best things in life!
In fact, it is so good, it is like……..it is like………..
Well, the Psalmist produces two of the more bizarre similes, of the oil and of the dew. They are a pair of strikingly sensual and liquid images, aren’t they? And they invite us to contemplate just exactly HOW they are like the sweet unity of brothers and sisters.
What about the precious oil? Vs 2 unfolds in a away that reflects the slow trickling of oil itself, from the head to the beard on to the collar. The fragrant sweet oil of priestly anointing was poured on the head of Aaron back in Exodus, when Moses lovingly prepared the Tabernacle and the set up of the cult of sacrifice. Commentators argue about whether it is the beard or the oil that flows down over the collar – but that doesn’t matter a great deal, really. The point is that it is a picture of richness & delight.
Vs 3 compares the togetherness of the brothers and sisters to the den of Hermon. Hermon is a mountain in lush Syria that is covered daily in heavy dew. But this dew of Hermon is falling here on the hills of Zion – hundreds of kilometres to the south. How can this occur, the dew of fertile Hermon watering the arid slopes of Zion? Only by the blessing of God could it happen; only by grace flowing down from the Lord could there be an overflow of life together, “life forevermore” in the presence of God himself.
The two images have in common a verbal idea; a motion downwards: the word yrd is repeated – the oil is flowing down, down, down; the dew is flowing down, dropping gently from the sky. The blessing of God – that beautiful delicious unity, that preciousness togetherness – flows down from the Lord himself. It’s fluid, isn’t it? The anointing of he priest symbolises God’s determination to live with his people…who have now a means to live with him. The enriching dew is God’s blessing on the place he meets his people. As Shakespeare said of mercy “it droppeth like the gentle rain from heaven.” The song of going up is really a song of coming down. Sweet life together is only possible because of the coming down of God into the midst of his people – they share an address. It is a miracle of the first order.
This flowing down of God’s blessing of life together we experience not in the cult or the temple or the Aaronic priesthood, but by the coming of the Holy Spirit. This spirit is poured into us in order to unite us, as Christ’s body, as the temple of the Holy Spirit. As Ephesians 4 puts it: “There is one body and one Spirit, just you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is above all and through all and in all”.
It is a far cry from the splendid isolation of modern life. The family of God is constituted from on high and brings delight, deeply involved with one another.
But can we say that our experiences of life together is sweet? Do we know the sheer pleasure in life with each other expressed in this psalm?
If not, it could be because we try to impose visions of our making on the community of God’s people. It could be that our ideals are not his, at all. It could be that we want a unity of our ascending and not of God’s descending. It could be that we haven’t understood life together as a great blessing of God himself, a great realisation of his real presence among us by his spirit dropping down on us from above. It could be because we have not entered into common life with other Christians as thankful recipients but as demanders.
In our enthusiasm we may create conformities that we have nothing to do with the fellowship created by the Gospel. We may impose cultural or generational or gendered expectations on the people of God that are entirely our own. We may demand that people be unified to our programme, agree with our views to the minutest degree and conform to our plans for them. This is not the flowing down unity of Psalm 133; or of Ephesians 4. We forget that the whole basis for our unity is not a human category that we all belong to o a human work, some demographic we have in common, but Christ: as I am one with Christ and you are one with Christ so are we one with each other. And the basis for that is of course as forgiven sinners: that is really the thing we have in common.
Let us make our passion to pursue the gentleness and forbearance that enhances unity.
What issues threaten your oneness in Christ? Perhaps that is something only you can answer. However, some of the issues that are common in churches are:
1 – disagreements about the aesthetics of church, from the music to the colour of the carpet. These matters we have to handle with great care and mutual generosity because they arouse such passions. And yet they are actually relatively unimportant.
2 – disappointment at church not meeting your needs. This may be a genuine feeling of hurt at the way other people or even the minister have behaved; or it might reflect real feelings of spiritual dryness that aren’t being met in the church community. We need to be careful about these feelings: they can be real and powerful, but it is worth asking – are our expectations wrong? Are we expecting to meet more than a group of forgiven sinners?
3 – feelings of spiritual inferiority. Sometimes it feels as if the other people at church are streets ahead of me spiritually: their bible knowledge is amazing, they actually do a quiet time, they are serene and patient. And yet once again we need to remember we are united as forgiven sinners who have been reconciled to the father in Jesus. Even the most apparently spiritual person is only that.
But how delicious is the taste of unity among brothers & sisters!
How great it is to receive prayerful support & encouragement. How sweet it is to be appreciated as a contributing to the community, How beautiful it is to receive a freezer full of meals when your baby is born. How pleasant to be able to kick around issues in an atmosphere of trust. How sweet to know that I can receive help when I need it from a fellow believer without condescension. How great to know that others want me to succeed in serving God. How wonderful to sing like we do, together. How beautiful to share meals together. How great to know that God has rescued other sinners as well. These things come to us flowing down from above: they are unity that is a gift from God.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
The Sola Panel | How new will the new creation be?
I have been participating in an interesting (I think) discussion on 2 Peter 3 and eschatology over at the Sola Panel, found here:
The Sola Panel How new will the new creation be?
Two features of discussion are frustrating: on the one hand, the use of Tom Wright as a bogey man (though the original poster says he didn't intend this, this is certainly how some of the posters have run with it) - 'if Tom Wright believes it, it must be suspicious'. This is no way to have a serious discussion about an important issue.
On the other hand, I think at one point we reached a consensus that discontinuity/continuity are a false alternative, and that the proper biblical/theological picture is both of a destructive judgement and a remarkable renewal - but then people kept on insisting that no, there is NO continuity between this creation and the new creation. This despite all the other texts (Rom 8, Col 1 and others) that do teach continuity. AND in spite of a raft of conservative commentators who see that 2 Peter 3 is not utterly discontinuous (Bauckham, et al). I am not quite sure what is at stake...though for me I think that utterly discontinuous view leads to a denigration of the created order and a rather Gnostic eschatology against which orthodox Christianity has always fought...
See what you think.
The Sola Panel How new will the new creation be?
Two features of discussion are frustrating: on the one hand, the use of Tom Wright as a bogey man (though the original poster says he didn't intend this, this is certainly how some of the posters have run with it) - 'if Tom Wright believes it, it must be suspicious'. This is no way to have a serious discussion about an important issue.
On the other hand, I think at one point we reached a consensus that discontinuity/continuity are a false alternative, and that the proper biblical/theological picture is both of a destructive judgement and a remarkable renewal - but then people kept on insisting that no, there is NO continuity between this creation and the new creation. This despite all the other texts (Rom 8, Col 1 and others) that do teach continuity. AND in spite of a raft of conservative commentators who see that 2 Peter 3 is not utterly discontinuous (Bauckham, et al). I am not quite sure what is at stake...though for me I think that utterly discontinuous view leads to a denigration of the created order and a rather Gnostic eschatology against which orthodox Christianity has always fought...
See what you think.
Friday, August 08, 2008
On Rowan Williams...
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!
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!
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)