My wife and I are non-smackers of our children.
This is a reasonably controversial thing to be amongst Christians. And, I have to say, most people who were adults now (in Anglo-Saxon countries anyhow) were smacked as children - and most without any ill effects.
Our 'philosophy' is really just pragmatic: we think it is more effective not to smack and to discipline by other means. So, we are happy to say smacking might work for someone else but not for us. I have to say it is really useful to have such a policy in place for those times when you really get mad...
Any thoughts?
Monday, July 31, 2006
A more attractive photo of Freya!
I realised that that first photo had a kinda squashed look. She really is prettier than that!
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Still more on Article II
It is worth pointing out that the Article - along with many creeds of course - omits any reference to Jesus' life and teaching - his obedience and his prophetic office in other words.
And yet there is a significant biblical emphasis on this aspect of Jesus' work - even in Paul, who seems to emphasise the cross/resurrection more.
Is this indicative of tendency in the tradition to instrumentalise the humanity of Jesus - ie to make it a matter of utility , that he is purpose built (purpose-driven?) for the passion?
And yet there is a significant biblical emphasis on this aspect of Jesus' work - even in Paul, who seems to emphasise the cross/resurrection more.
Is this indicative of tendency in the tradition to instrumentalise the humanity of Jesus - ie to make it a matter of utility , that he is purpose built (purpose-driven?) for the passion?
Monday, July 24, 2006
More on Article II
Though both approaches to the person of Christ - from above and from below - can claim scriptural warrant, their deficiencies are significant. Is there some alternative approach? It seems to me that thinking exclusively from above or from below is unsatisfactory, and not quite a reflection of the Biblical record. The important insight is that if we see the work and the person of Christ as a unity we will perhaps avoid the difficulties that beset the two positions.
TF Torrance writes:
the proper theological procedure we adopt in Christology is not to understand the Person and work of Jesus Christ by approaching him either from below or from above, but from below and from above at the same time, for it is in the light of what we learn from below that we appreciate what derives from above, and in the light of what derives from above that we really understand what we learn from below […] we apprehend both together.
Further, we might ask whether the whole assumption on which the “above/below” debate rests is a good one; namely, that there is a sharp gulf between time and eternity. We could certainly conceive of other ways of relating the two.
TF Torrance writes:
the proper theological procedure we adopt in Christology is not to understand the Person and work of Jesus Christ by approaching him either from below or from above, but from below and from above at the same time, for it is in the light of what we learn from below that we appreciate what derives from above, and in the light of what derives from above that we really understand what we learn from below […] we apprehend both together.
Further, we might ask whether the whole assumption on which the “above/below” debate rests is a good one; namely, that there is a sharp gulf between time and eternity. We could certainly conceive of other ways of relating the two.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Article II: Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.
The identity of Jesus of Nazareth is an issue of continuing interest and controversy, both within and without Christianity. As NT Wright puts it: “who was Jesus?” and “so what?” - these remain challenging questions to answer. In the contemporary context of pluralism, traditional Christology comes under particular assault because of the scandalous suggestion that he might be so related to the God of the universe at the level of being that he represents the only real opportunity of knowing the true God. How can he have been genuinely God and genuinely human at the same time without either of these descriptions being compromised in one way or another? Can we say with Paul “God was in Christ”; and what might we mean by it?
The problem is twofold. Firstly, the human, historical Jesus has been the subject of frenetic scholarly argument over two centuries. It remains a real question to challenge us: what can we know, if anything, of Jesus’ earthly life, and how should we understand his mission? Some have decided, given the plethora of reconstructions of the life of Jesus, that there is no way to access the real Jesus, no knowing the truth about his human life. Albert Schweitzer wrote in 1906, after reviewing a century of scholarship that the best we could hope for in Jesus is a subjectively experience of one unknown:
He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the task which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.
A.Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, p.401
Rudolph Bultmann wrote in 1926:
I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus…
R.Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p.8
Secondly, there is a philosophical problem: if we start, as most modern theology has done, with what we know of the human Jesus, how can we begin to speak meaningfully of the eternal Christ, the Son of God? The problem runs the other way, as well: if we start with statements about the eternal or transcendent, how can we proceed to connect those to the temporal and immanent? Since the philosophy of Immanuel Kant in the late 18th Century, this issue has deeply vexed theologians.
The identity of Jesus of Nazareth is an issue of continuing interest and controversy, both within and without Christianity. As NT Wright puts it: “who was Jesus?” and “so what?” - these remain challenging questions to answer. In the contemporary context of pluralism, traditional Christology comes under particular assault because of the scandalous suggestion that he might be so related to the God of the universe at the level of being that he represents the only real opportunity of knowing the true God. How can he have been genuinely God and genuinely human at the same time without either of these descriptions being compromised in one way or another? Can we say with Paul “God was in Christ”; and what might we mean by it?
The problem is twofold. Firstly, the human, historical Jesus has been the subject of frenetic scholarly argument over two centuries. It remains a real question to challenge us: what can we know, if anything, of Jesus’ earthly life, and how should we understand his mission? Some have decided, given the plethora of reconstructions of the life of Jesus, that there is no way to access the real Jesus, no knowing the truth about his human life. Albert Schweitzer wrote in 1906, after reviewing a century of scholarship that the best we could hope for in Jesus is a subjectively experience of one unknown:
He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the task which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.
A.Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, p.401
Rudolph Bultmann wrote in 1926:
I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus…
R.Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p.8
Secondly, there is a philosophical problem: if we start, as most modern theology has done, with what we know of the human Jesus, how can we begin to speak meaningfully of the eternal Christ, the Son of God? The problem runs the other way, as well: if we start with statements about the eternal or transcendent, how can we proceed to connect those to the temporal and immanent? Since the philosophy of Immanuel Kant in the late 18th Century, this issue has deeply vexed theologians.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
A prayer for a new child
Sent to me by a friend:
O God, who dost renew all life on the face of the earth and dost reveal to human parents the mystery of thy creative work in the birth of a child, enable this couple, and all who found families where children grow, to express the tenderness of divine love, the innocence of divine community and the authority of divine instruction; that each new generation may have wherewith to seek thee, and all history resound to thy praise, until the coming of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.
O God, who dost renew all life on the face of the earth and dost reveal to human parents the mystery of thy creative work in the birth of a child, enable this couple, and all who found families where children grow, to express the tenderness of divine love, the innocence of divine community and the authority of divine instruction; that each new generation may have wherewith to seek thee, and all history resound to thy praise, until the coming of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Values continued
talk of ‘values’ is reductive and selective, inevitably. ‘Values’, as we have seen, tends to indicate a conservative expression of conformist and traditional aspirations: diligence, ‘a fair go’, self-reliance, integrity and so on. However, the set of values labelled as ‘Christian values’ very rarely includes the kind of challenge to the status quo that Jesus himself modelled, as the Old Testament prophets had before him. There is nothing prophetic, we might say, about ‘values’ (which is where Brendan Nelson’s use of the word ‘comfortable’ should set off alarm bells). Cultural critic Guy Rundle writes:
The elite schools are multimillion-dollar educational entrepreneurs, whose attachment to the religion is now simply a form of thematic branding, a bit of spiritual swoosh.
He is speaking of the Melbourne scene, where various high-priced schools have doggedly fought off the intervention of the churches in their affairs while retaining a nominal link – a keeping up of appearances. His comment would not be fair to the schools I know in Sydney. But it is true that talk of ‘values’ tends to reduce the Christian affiliation of schools to a mere badging of middle-class aspirationalism. The language of ‘values’ robs the gospel of its counter-cultural edge. Though it will be popular with potential customers/parents, it offers an emaciated moral vision. Parents want their children’s selves realised, fulfilled and actualised; but Christ calls us to die to our selves.
The elite schools are multimillion-dollar educational entrepreneurs, whose attachment to the religion is now simply a form of thematic branding, a bit of spiritual swoosh.
He is speaking of the Melbourne scene, where various high-priced schools have doggedly fought off the intervention of the churches in their affairs while retaining a nominal link – a keeping up of appearances. His comment would not be fair to the schools I know in Sydney. But it is true that talk of ‘values’ tends to reduce the Christian affiliation of schools to a mere badging of middle-class aspirationalism. The language of ‘values’ robs the gospel of its counter-cultural edge. Though it will be popular with potential customers/parents, it offers an emaciated moral vision. Parents want their children’s selves realised, fulfilled and actualised; but Christ calls us to die to our selves.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Freya Louise Jensen!
Freya Louise came into the world 7/7/06 at 7.5 lbs!!
She caught us by surprise being two weeks early!
Mother and baby well.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Rowan Williams on Theological Integrity
I find Rowan Williams a fascinating if frustrating figure. He is capable of some of the most conceptually rich and stimulating theologically thinking I have read - but yet, his starting assumption seems to be that there is no speech FROM God available, and certainly not in Scripture.
Here: a couple of interesting comments from an essay called 'Theological Integrity':
'Having integrity...is being able to speak in a way which allows of answers'.
'Religious practice is only preserved in any integrity by seriousness about prayer; and so, if theology is the untangling of the real grammar of religious practice, its subject matter is, humanly and specifically, people who pray.'
Here: a couple of interesting comments from an essay called 'Theological Integrity':
'Having integrity...is being able to speak in a way which allows of answers'.
'Religious practice is only preserved in any integrity by seriousness about prayer; and so, if theology is the untangling of the real grammar of religious practice, its subject matter is, humanly and specifically, people who pray.'
Thursday, July 06, 2006
1. Faith in the Holy Trinity (continued)
The articles could have started in a different place. It is interesting that they do not begin with a statement about revelation. They do not first give an epistemological grounding of the knowledge of God before moving on to substantive expressions of what that knowledge is. Neither do they start with Christ and the incarnation, or the gospel, and work out from this point (as a 20th century theological statement might have).
However, starting with God in this way reflects the order of reality, not the order of knowledge. The starting point is the God who is the source of all things, not the nature of our access to him - even the Son is here first introduced as ordered to the Father. Jesus does not exist in or for himself - there is a priority of the Father over the Son. The Son's orientation is towards the Father.
There is no question but that this statement employs terms that are Platonic rather than distinctively Christian, as the Cyberpastor noted. Christian thinkers have since very early on found platonic terms a congenial way of expressing what they found in the OT. These terms are especially useful in speaking of God's absolute transcendence - his sheer infinity.
The question is: is this use inappropriate? Does it fatally distort the doctrine of God? If you take the first article in toto, we do see that there is in place a dialetic between God's oneness and threeness which we could certainly read as heavily qualifying those Greek terms in a distinctively Christian way. That is, the article does not stop at God's infinite distance from us, but also by speaking of Father, Son and Spirit, implies his nearness to us: and flows on into the second article, which more properly announces the coming of the Son of God into our midst.
However, starting with God in this way reflects the order of reality, not the order of knowledge. The starting point is the God who is the source of all things, not the nature of our access to him - even the Son is here first introduced as ordered to the Father. Jesus does not exist in or for himself - there is a priority of the Father over the Son. The Son's orientation is towards the Father.
There is no question but that this statement employs terms that are Platonic rather than distinctively Christian, as the Cyberpastor noted. Christian thinkers have since very early on found platonic terms a congenial way of expressing what they found in the OT. These terms are especially useful in speaking of God's absolute transcendence - his sheer infinity.
The question is: is this use inappropriate? Does it fatally distort the doctrine of God? If you take the first article in toto, we do see that there is in place a dialetic between God's oneness and threeness which we could certainly read as heavily qualifying those Greek terms in a distinctively Christian way. That is, the article does not stop at God's infinite distance from us, but also by speaking of Father, Son and Spirit, implies his nearness to us: and flows on into the second article, which more properly announces the coming of the Son of God into our midst.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
39 Articles on the 39 Articles: 1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
At this tumultuous time for the Anglican Communion (or is it now 'Federation'?) I thought it would be good to revisit our classic statement of faith: The Articles of Religion. So, today I begin a series of um, 39 Articles on the 39 Articles. For an intro you can see my earlier post 'The 39 Articles'.
Article I: Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
We begin with the radical monotheism of the Old Testament. It is easy to forget just how outrageous the claim that there is but one God is. Surely in the vast universe with all its diversity and array and all its flux and change there is room for a variety of gods. In fact, why should we believe that the tumult and struggle we encounter about us does not correspond to a divine tumult and struggle: that there isn't a chaos of gods with their special interests and foibles?
There are other spiritual beings. But none of them is divine. The one-ness of God means that all of reality has a unity too: a unity in him. It is all connected, however distant or discordant it seems: in him. His oneness also means that no religious tribalism is possible. Even as this God chose for himself a special people, he reminded them of his oneness: they could not hold him as their possession or talisman. The election of Israel was based on God's election of Adam.
The Articles emphasise the sheer transcendence of this deity and his freedom, matched by the three-fold cord of his classic attributes of power, wisdom and goodness. That he is without passions is most controversial to contemporary readers - but what this terms is meant to convey is that he is not prey to his emotions or whims. He is not irascible or moody, a victim of his own nature.
(to be continued...)
Article I: Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
We begin with the radical monotheism of the Old Testament. It is easy to forget just how outrageous the claim that there is but one God is. Surely in the vast universe with all its diversity and array and all its flux and change there is room for a variety of gods. In fact, why should we believe that the tumult and struggle we encounter about us does not correspond to a divine tumult and struggle: that there isn't a chaos of gods with their special interests and foibles?
There are other spiritual beings. But none of them is divine. The one-ness of God means that all of reality has a unity too: a unity in him. It is all connected, however distant or discordant it seems: in him. His oneness also means that no religious tribalism is possible. Even as this God chose for himself a special people, he reminded them of his oneness: they could not hold him as their possession or talisman. The election of Israel was based on God's election of Adam.
The Articles emphasise the sheer transcendence of this deity and his freedom, matched by the three-fold cord of his classic attributes of power, wisdom and goodness. That he is without passions is most controversial to contemporary readers - but what this terms is meant to convey is that he is not prey to his emotions or whims. He is not irascible or moody, a victim of his own nature.
(to be continued...)
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's linguistic theory...
"All language is metaphorical, and if we insist that particular words have only one meaning and the way we understand those words is the only possible interpretation, we have elevated that text to an idol..."
Well I am not unhappy with language being metaphorical and all... but where's the logic in the accusation of idolatry? Of course, if you undermine the authority of texts, then all you have left is... the tyranny of the bishop.
I think this is the case of someone who thinks they are being all postmodern-hip not really understanding the pomo thing anyhow.
Weird.
Well I am not unhappy with language being metaphorical and all... but where's the logic in the accusation of idolatry? Of course, if you undermine the authority of texts, then all you have left is... the tyranny of the bishop.
I think this is the case of someone who thinks they are being all postmodern-hip not really understanding the pomo thing anyhow.
Weird.
"Values"
This is from a document entitled:
National Framework
for Values Education
in Australian Schools 2004
National Framework
for Values Education
in Australian Schools 2004
In the Glossary it defines "values" by giving two quotations without any explanation:
• “… the principles and fundamental convictions which act
as general guides to behaviour, the standards by which
particular actions are judged as good or desirable.’”
(J Halstead, J and M Taylor, ‘Learning and teaching about
values: A review of recent research’, Cambridge Journal of
Education, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2000, pp 169-202);
• “the ideals that give significance to our lives, that are
reflected through the priorities that we choose, and that
we act on consistently and repeatedly” (Emeritus Professor
Brian Hill), keynote address, first National Forum on Values
Education, Melbourne, April 2004.
What is interesting here is relationship in both quotations between 'principle' and 'action', and the relationship between both of these and 'judgment' or 'significance'. What kind of moral universe does this reflect?
My gut reaction as a Christian is that 'following Jesus' doesn't really work with either of these, because it is not an 'ideal' or a 'principle' - though it is more like the former than the latter.
Of course, the question that is begged by all of this is: 'which 'values' '? Or better, 'whose'?
Friday, June 30, 2006
If Christian schools were really Christian, would anyone want to send their kids there?
I have been asked to write an article about the 'values' education debate in Australia and other Western countries.
It seems, conservative minded liberal politicians are looking enviously over the school railings at Christian/church schools and their popularity/success and wondering why it is that it is so hard to replicate in a state-run system. Left-wing liberals of course jump to the defence of the secular schools by saying, 'no, they do teach a set of common values: tolerance for example. And, um, tolerance. And compassion, perhaps.'
Two observations: the first is that the conservatives have sensed rightly that a secular vision of the state which tries its utmost for the neutrality of all public spaces is unlike to be able to find a vision of the good that can sustain a coherent education system. However: it is pretty hypocritical of them to be harping on this, since it was the economic rationalist version of liberalism that tended to promote a greed is good ethos in any case. If 'values' have disappeared, can conservative liberals really blame radical liberals?
But on the other side (second), the left has it right, too - at least they acknowledge that no neutrality is really possible. So, secular liberalism has to find a persuasive vision of the good to go with its vision of the right. However, they are always going to struggle to do this, since the crucial component of their whole understanding of human life is personal liberty from another's vision of the good.
All the while, the state seems to be looking at the church's schools and saying 'I'll have what they're having' - it seems that we know how to train children to become the members of society that others want to become.
But this is a moment of great danger for the churches and their schools. Because we will always have to ask (and I fear we don't have the courage to) - are our 'values' really Christian, or are they just blandly middle class? Are we just perpetuating the idea that Christian discipleship = a fairly acquisitive politically quiet and socially invisible suburban lifestyle? Are we enjoying providing our culture with exactly what it wants as a market and not actually promoting Christian discipleship?
If Christian schools were really Christian, would anyone (other than Christians) want to send their kids there? I think we should at least ask that question!
It seems, conservative minded liberal politicians are looking enviously over the school railings at Christian/church schools and their popularity/success and wondering why it is that it is so hard to replicate in a state-run system. Left-wing liberals of course jump to the defence of the secular schools by saying, 'no, they do teach a set of common values: tolerance for example. And, um, tolerance. And compassion, perhaps.'
Two observations: the first is that the conservatives have sensed rightly that a secular vision of the state which tries its utmost for the neutrality of all public spaces is unlike to be able to find a vision of the good that can sustain a coherent education system. However: it is pretty hypocritical of them to be harping on this, since it was the economic rationalist version of liberalism that tended to promote a greed is good ethos in any case. If 'values' have disappeared, can conservative liberals really blame radical liberals?
But on the other side (second), the left has it right, too - at least they acknowledge that no neutrality is really possible. So, secular liberalism has to find a persuasive vision of the good to go with its vision of the right. However, they are always going to struggle to do this, since the crucial component of their whole understanding of human life is personal liberty from another's vision of the good.
All the while, the state seems to be looking at the church's schools and saying 'I'll have what they're having' - it seems that we know how to train children to become the members of society that others want to become.
But this is a moment of great danger for the churches and their schools. Because we will always have to ask (and I fear we don't have the courage to) - are our 'values' really Christian, or are they just blandly middle class? Are we just perpetuating the idea that Christian discipleship = a fairly acquisitive politically quiet and socially invisible suburban lifestyle? Are we enjoying providing our culture with exactly what it wants as a market and not actually promoting Christian discipleship?
If Christian schools were really Christian, would anyone (other than Christians) want to send their kids there? I think we should at least ask that question!
Thursday, June 29, 2006
John Milton 'On his Blindness'
‘God doth not need
Either man’s work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear His mild yoke, they serve Him best. His state
Is kingly: thousands at His bidding speed,
And post o’er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait.’
We moderns understand ourselves as acting subjects. What do you do?
The damaging consequences of this view of the acting self are numerous: from an instrumentality in human relationships, to a removal of the dignity of those who cannot act, who are limited in their ability to act (the disabled and the elderly in particular). Even Aristotle’s more moderate vision of a subject who is both responsive and active falls under this critique; for Aristotle cannot envisage a truly good human life without the expression of virtues through action.
But Milton, going blind, sees an alternative in Christian patience; and has 'Patience' say these words above to him.
Serving God is not restricted to the busy.
Either man’s work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear His mild yoke, they serve Him best. His state
Is kingly: thousands at His bidding speed,
And post o’er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait.’
We moderns understand ourselves as acting subjects. What do you do?
The damaging consequences of this view of the acting self are numerous: from an instrumentality in human relationships, to a removal of the dignity of those who cannot act, who are limited in their ability to act (the disabled and the elderly in particular). Even Aristotle’s more moderate vision of a subject who is both responsive and active falls under this critique; for Aristotle cannot envisage a truly good human life without the expression of virtues through action.
But Milton, going blind, sees an alternative in Christian patience; and has 'Patience' say these words above to him.
Serving God is not restricted to the busy.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Rowan Williams on Anglican Identity..
"The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible. The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place – to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the church’s life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices – with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable."
Hmm... interesting.
Hmm... interesting.
nationalism again...
Nationalism is a temptation to which the Christian churches are often prone in the modern era. Bonhoeffer locates the rise of modern nationalism in the era of French Revolution: ‘[T]he nation is a revolutionary concept’. This is hardly a novel reading: however, he makes the provocative assertion that revolutionary nationalism, which is openly hostile to God, arose partly in reaction to the political theology of Catholic Church (lacking the ‘two-kingdoms’ theology of Luther) which was unable to prevent the loss of ‘the unity created by the form of Jesus Christ’.
In the Anglo-Saxon world – and this relates directly to the situation of Archbishop Thomas in this very Anglo-Saxon of plays – the problem has been rather ‘a collapse of the church into the world’. In other words, though there is in the Anglo-Saxon world the phenomenon of a democracy based on a Christian foundation, this has not prevented severe secularization. There is a temptation to blur the distinction between ‘the offices and kingdoms of the state and the church’, a temptation to which modern Protestant Christianity has certainly (for Bonhoeffer) succumbed.[1]
In the Acts of the Apostles, the idea of national identity is not dissolved even as the Gospel spreads to the nations. The symbolic key is Pentecost. This miraculous sign comes not to Gentiles, granted, but to Jews dispersed among the nations and who are speakers of many languages. At this moment they are gathered in Jerusalem for the festival. The tongues of flame lead to the speaking in many tongues: the apostles are given the gift of speaking in the languages of those present. There is not one language that all are given to hear – the miracle is in the apostles’ mouths not just in the hearers’ ears. Peter, for his sermon on the event, takes as his text the ancient prophecy of Joel: ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people’ (2:14). If there is a reversal of Babel here, it is not in terms of a restoration of a primordial universal language. The Spirit, which makes possible the hearing of the gospel of the Son, is the unificatory principle in this event: the message, not the language, is what is held in common. Though dispersed Israel is addressed here, the rest of the narrative of the book shows how this invitation is extended to the Gentiles as well. Interestingly, Luke’s Paul does not renounce or deny his Roman citizenship and is in fact happy to use the fact that he was born to this status to gain a hearing (Acts 22:25-29).
The inauguration of the church does not therefore mean the dissolution of the nations. This is how the promise to Abraham that ‘all nations will be blessed through you’ (Gen 18:18; Gal 3:18) comes to pass in preaching of the apostles. This means an engrafting of the nations into Israel: an offering of membership in the people of God extended to the whole globe (Rom 9-11; Eph 2). John of Patmos seems to imply that nations maintain their identity even in the eternal vision, where they bring their glory and honour (21:26), and receive healing from the leaves of the tree of life (Rev 22:2). Around the great throne is gathered a multitude visible to the seer as ‘from every nation, tribe, people and language’, singing the song of the salvation of the Lamb (Rev 7:9). However, insofar as the nations (and their kings) are ranged against the Lord and his Son, they are utterly defeated (Rev 19:15-16; see Psalm 2). The martyr, therefore, does not witness against all national or tribal identifications per se, but to their relative, penultimate significance.
Thomas Beckett is actually given back to England as her martyr (or at least to Canterbury) – and seen as a focus of national pride. Eliot's play itself is a demonstration of English ownership of this martyr, even in the 1930s. This is an ambivalent side of the story: the ‘having’ of martyrs and saints by various locales perhaps fosters the very kind of tribalism that the martyr dies to avoid. However, there is a sense in which Thomas’ rejection of Englishness as an absolute makes a godly pride in Englishness possible. In addition, the telling and re-telling (or rather, re-enacting) of the martyr’s tale stands as a rebuke to a certain form of nationalism – as evidence of its self-destructive consequences.
This is of course in marked contrast to the use of martyrology as a way of establishing the rightness of my cause and my identity as a victim: this is what suicide bombers do...
[1] ‘Heritage and Decay’ in Bonhoeffer, Ethics, p. 103-33
In the Anglo-Saxon world – and this relates directly to the situation of Archbishop Thomas in this very Anglo-Saxon of plays – the problem has been rather ‘a collapse of the church into the world’. In other words, though there is in the Anglo-Saxon world the phenomenon of a democracy based on a Christian foundation, this has not prevented severe secularization. There is a temptation to blur the distinction between ‘the offices and kingdoms of the state and the church’, a temptation to which modern Protestant Christianity has certainly (for Bonhoeffer) succumbed.[1]
In the Acts of the Apostles, the idea of national identity is not dissolved even as the Gospel spreads to the nations. The symbolic key is Pentecost. This miraculous sign comes not to Gentiles, granted, but to Jews dispersed among the nations and who are speakers of many languages. At this moment they are gathered in Jerusalem for the festival. The tongues of flame lead to the speaking in many tongues: the apostles are given the gift of speaking in the languages of those present. There is not one language that all are given to hear – the miracle is in the apostles’ mouths not just in the hearers’ ears. Peter, for his sermon on the event, takes as his text the ancient prophecy of Joel: ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people’ (2:14). If there is a reversal of Babel here, it is not in terms of a restoration of a primordial universal language. The Spirit, which makes possible the hearing of the gospel of the Son, is the unificatory principle in this event: the message, not the language, is what is held in common. Though dispersed Israel is addressed here, the rest of the narrative of the book shows how this invitation is extended to the Gentiles as well. Interestingly, Luke’s Paul does not renounce or deny his Roman citizenship and is in fact happy to use the fact that he was born to this status to gain a hearing (Acts 22:25-29).
The inauguration of the church does not therefore mean the dissolution of the nations. This is how the promise to Abraham that ‘all nations will be blessed through you’ (Gen 18:18; Gal 3:18) comes to pass in preaching of the apostles. This means an engrafting of the nations into Israel: an offering of membership in the people of God extended to the whole globe (Rom 9-11; Eph 2). John of Patmos seems to imply that nations maintain their identity even in the eternal vision, where they bring their glory and honour (21:26), and receive healing from the leaves of the tree of life (Rev 22:2). Around the great throne is gathered a multitude visible to the seer as ‘from every nation, tribe, people and language’, singing the song of the salvation of the Lamb (Rev 7:9). However, insofar as the nations (and their kings) are ranged against the Lord and his Son, they are utterly defeated (Rev 19:15-16; see Psalm 2). The martyr, therefore, does not witness against all national or tribal identifications per se, but to their relative, penultimate significance.
Thomas Beckett is actually given back to England as her martyr (or at least to Canterbury) – and seen as a focus of national pride. Eliot's play itself is a demonstration of English ownership of this martyr, even in the 1930s. This is an ambivalent side of the story: the ‘having’ of martyrs and saints by various locales perhaps fosters the very kind of tribalism that the martyr dies to avoid. However, there is a sense in which Thomas’ rejection of Englishness as an absolute makes a godly pride in Englishness possible. In addition, the telling and re-telling (or rather, re-enacting) of the martyr’s tale stands as a rebuke to a certain form of nationalism – as evidence of its self-destructive consequences.
This is of course in marked contrast to the use of martyrology as a way of establishing the rightness of my cause and my identity as a victim: this is what suicide bombers do...
[1] ‘Heritage and Decay’ in Bonhoeffer, Ethics, p. 103-33
Monday, June 26, 2006
Is Australia a Christian Society?
TS Eliot wrote this rather odd book (did he write any other kind?) called 'The Idea of A Christian Society' just before WWII. He saw that English society could choose to become entirely secular (which it has) or actually try to become a 'Christian' society in some way. He meant this in that the society's faith would shape its rhythms of daily, weekly and annual life and its laws and its practices. Sunday rest, for example, would probably be evidence of a 'Christian' society...
The thesis of the book has added and surprising relevance given the current challenge of Islamic theocracy.
In Australia things are of course different. In one sense we have always been secular in psyche. In another sense, you could say that our secularism is a very Christianised secularism, and that the 'mainstream' churches still have a greater hold than they do in Canada, Europe and Britain and even the US. What ever vision of the good remains in Oz in any unified sense is a baptised one. It is the prodigal child of a Christian one. "Compassion" for example, a commonly cited virtue by secular Australians - yet I heard Prof Edwin Judge once argue that compassion was unthinkable without Christianity. Compassion, generosity, forbearance and humility have been taught to us from Christian sources.
The ongoing popularity of faith schools is intriguing too: there is a general recognition from the general public that you can't educate merely out of a sense of 'right' only - you must have some sense of the good, and the neutral secular space can't offer it without becoming what it can't be. Secularism cannot deliver a compelling vision of the good that we are happy to hand on to our children.... [This despite the terrible memories that many people seem to have of Church education!]
Which doesn't really answer the question - but suggests that Australia is still only a generation away from the Christian society it may have once been.
The thesis of the book has added and surprising relevance given the current challenge of Islamic theocracy.
In Australia things are of course different. In one sense we have always been secular in psyche. In another sense, you could say that our secularism is a very Christianised secularism, and that the 'mainstream' churches still have a greater hold than they do in Canada, Europe and Britain and even the US. What ever vision of the good remains in Oz in any unified sense is a baptised one. It is the prodigal child of a Christian one. "Compassion" for example, a commonly cited virtue by secular Australians - yet I heard Prof Edwin Judge once argue that compassion was unthinkable without Christianity. Compassion, generosity, forbearance and humility have been taught to us from Christian sources.
The ongoing popularity of faith schools is intriguing too: there is a general recognition from the general public that you can't educate merely out of a sense of 'right' only - you must have some sense of the good, and the neutral secular space can't offer it without becoming what it can't be. Secularism cannot deliver a compelling vision of the good that we are happy to hand on to our children.... [This despite the terrible memories that many people seem to have of Church education!]
Which doesn't really answer the question - but suggests that Australia is still only a generation away from the Christian society it may have once been.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Flying the flag?
Hey, it is great that we made it through to the next round of the world cup. I have even bought me a cheeky gold Aussie shirt to wear in amongst the St George crosses that have swamped England.
Should I wear it to church?
(This is a 'serious' question in that I am asking 'is it appropriate to go meet with one's brothers and sisters in Christ flying the symbol of another - and divisive - allegiance'?)
Should I wear it to church?
(This is a 'serious' question in that I am asking 'is it appropriate to go meet with one's brothers and sisters in Christ flying the symbol of another - and divisive - allegiance'?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)