Some people seem to be able to trot out their complete doctoral thesis outline at an early stage.
This is not me. My work seems to be more evolutionary... I am try not to lose my nerve over this of course! The worst moments are when someone asks you 'so, what is your thesis on?' and nothing much coherent or convincing comes out of your mouth. Arghh!
However: here is an attempt to get my thoughts together at this stage, almost a third of the way through (!). Please feel free to chip in your two cents worth, and please excuse the academic-ese:
What kind of self is a Christian martyr? This dissertation seeks to explore and expound Christian identity via the motif of martyrdom. Martyrdom is the possibility latent in the Christian identity, for all Christians are called to the ‘witness’ or ‘testimony’ (martyrion) that might result in bloody martyrdom.[1] As Balthasar writes:
…this does not mean that every single Christian must suffer bloody martyrdom, but he must consider the entire case as the external representation of the inner reality out of which he lives.[2]
Christian baptism is a symbol of the offering of the old self over to death which is what every Christian does as an identification with Jesus Christ. It is a kind of proto-martyrdom, with its act of testimony to Christ and renunciation of the world, the flesh and the devil.[3] The martyr ‘externally represents’ the church’s way of understanding both the world and the situatedness of the self in that world. It is an understanding which the martyr shows is not merely theoretical, for in the act of offering of the body to its own destruction it is revealed as concrete. At the point of the sword, the testimony of the martyr to another reality intersects – fatally – with the material world. An analysis of martyrdom thus suggests itself as a way to understand Christian identity, both on its own terms and in comparison with alternatives.
However, we must surely be aware of how dissonant this witness is with non-theological conceptions of human meaning and purpose. Part of this dissonance lies in the inevitable association of martyrdom with the spectacle of horrendous religious violence that is the signs of our times. As the suicide bomber shows, the line between killing and dying for a cause is all too thin: to the secular mind the two are barely distinguishable as species of insanity.[4] The association of martyrdom with fanaticism, religious violence and the spectacle of suffering complicates discussion about the meaning of martyrdom as a self-narration. It is a problematic and contested discourse – perhaps supremely so. How might a discourse characterized by the notion of the ‘authentic’ self (for example) accommodate the possibility of self-abnegation to the kind and degree that the martyr demonstrates? Martyrdom – even the possibility of martyrdom – seems to be the enemy of human potential. True, it may be freely determined (though only as a form of suicide), but it is given away too cheaply; it has too little regard for the ties of family and friends; it is too committed to a notion of ‘truth’ which has fallen into disrepair...
In order to elucidate martyrdom as a way of seeing the self, this study makes use of T.S. Eliot’s martyrological drama Murder in the Cathedral (1935) as a lens by which to focus the theme. In the instance of Eliot’s literary creation Thomas we are given an imaginative reflection on martyrdom in the Christian tradition as a whole.
[1] See e.g. Mt 10:18f.
[2] Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Moment of Christian Witness, Communio Books (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), p. 22
[3] Origen makes the connection between the baptismal promises and the test of martyrdom explicit in his Exhortation to Martyrdom. Origen, An Exhortation to Martyrdom; Prayer; First Principles, Book Iv; Prologue to the Commentary on 'the Song of Songs'; Homily Xxvii on 'Numbers', trans. Rowan A. Greer, The Classics of Western Spirituality. (London: S.P.C.K, 1979), iii.17, p. 157-8
[4] As Salman Rushdie puts it:: ‘Only fanatics go looking for martyrdom.’ Salman Rushdie, Step across This Line: Collected Non-Fiction 1992-2002 (London: Vintage, 2003), p. 240
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Monday, August 28, 2006
Rowan Williams on 'Judgement'
One of the most prominent themes in Rowan Williams' theology is that of 'judgement'. He means the word in all of its senses - discretion or discernment, criticism, and in some senses, the 'final' judgement that lies ahead.
This quote is fairly typical:
part of my thesis is that the interpretation of the world ‘within the scriptural framework’ is intrinsic to the Church’s critical self-discovery. In judging the world, by its confrontation of the world with its own dramatic script, the Church also judges itself: in attempting to show the world a critical truth, it shows itself to itself as Church also.
On Christian Theology p. 31
What he has in mind by this term is the inexhaustible critical function that the narratives of Jesus have over the world and the church. In this sense there is a call for judgement by the church, but only insofar as it involves a self-criticism that involves giving attention to the pattern of life that was Jesus's and a recognition of the provisionality of our speech about God and its tendency to serve our ideological ends.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Slavoj Žižek Again - he's kinda fun!
Žižek writes:
Christianity introduced into this global balanced cosmic Order a principle that is totally foreign to it, a principle which, measured by the standards of pagan cosmology, cannot but appear as a monstrous distortion: the principle according to which each individual has immediate access to universality...I can participate in this universal dimension directly irrespective of my special place within the global social order. The Fragile Absolute, p. 120
Z applies this to our thinking about human rights (so-called): a set of universal principles that all of us imagine we have access to in some way. This is Christianity's idea secularised... under the Christian way of thinking, it is that which transgresses and upsets the primordial balance of things that is holy: not the ways things are as we find them. It is not our place in the global order of things that matters but rather that which undermines said order - ie, the gospel of Christ, he who calls on us to hate our mother and father etc. A funny version of 'family values', isn't it?
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Kevin Vanhoozer 'The Drama of Doctrine'
This book represents a landmark in genuinely reformed evangelical thinking about the theological task.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, who is currently Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is well known for his work on questions of fundamental theology (First Theology) and hermeneutics (Is There A Meaning in This Text?). As usual, in The Drama of Doctrine he manages to combine real creativity and a remarkable knowledge of contemporary debates with faithfulness to conservative evangelical orthodoxy – which ultimately of course means faithfulness to the scriptures themselves.
This work is occasioned by the calcification of contemporary evangelical theology and the unwillingness of church pastors to pay any attention to it at all out of suspicion and/or boredom. In answer to serious cultural, intellectual and theological challenges, evangelical theological voices have certainly been more loudly raised; but they have not been persuasive in the debate or attuned to the pastor’s weekly task of proclaiming the gospel to contemporary people. Evangelical scholars have either retreated further into fortress of Enlightenment rationalism (Carl Henry, Wayne Grudem) or given craven concession to postmodernism (Stanley Grenz). The situation into which The Drama of Doctrine is written calls for a reinvigoration of the theological task in a way which avoids both of these dire pitfalls.
The purpose of this work is to present Vanhoozer’s vision of a ‘canonical-linguistic’ theology organized around the metaphor of dramatic performance. Doctrine is not merely a set of flat propositions, but rather a dramatic direction to be performed by Christians, individually and collectively. That is to say, it is a gospel to be lived! The exposition of his theme falls into four parts. In the first, “The Drama”, Vanhoozer shows how theology responds and corresponds to the words and deeds of God and serves as ‘direction for the church’s fitting participation in the drama of redemption’ (p. 31). It is rooted in the gospel itself as its first premise. Second (“The Script”), Vanhoozer addresses the place of Scripture and tradition and how they should relate. Against the post-liberals who make scripture merely subject to the church, he wishes to affirm sola scriptura. However, he is receptive to the insight that these doctrines of scripture do describe and prescribe ecclesial practices of scriptural reading. This is the real strength of the book, in this reviewer’s opinion: Vanhoozer has offered a way forward from the intractable battles about the doctrine of scripture without conceding its constitutive and authoritative place for the church’s life. Here is at last an evangelical doctrine of scripture which does not ignore ecclesiology. With John Webster, Vanhoozer also argues that Scripture has less an epistemological than a soteriological function.
Part III (“The Dramaturge”) fleshes out the role of the theologian in the ‘canonical-linguistic’ approach to theology following the theatrical model. Vanhoozer coins the term ‘post-conservative’, a move which nods to the emphasis on communal practices in post-liberalism and yet preserves an authoritative canonical script. The theologian engages in both practices of scientia in interpreting scripture and sapientia in reading and engaging with the contemporary cultural context. The aim of the theology is to enable Christians to better ‘perform’ the Christian life as disciples of Jesus by ‘improvising’ on the script(ures). Vanhoozer here proposes a move beyond both propositionalism and foundationalism in theological method while affirming the place of propositions and foundations as necessary to theology.
The fourth part (“The Performance”) extrapolates the task of theology in its congregational and pastoral setting, using the doctrine of the atonement as a case study. Doctrine is something that we are invited to live out in the church and the world: “The direction of doctrine…enables us…to render the gospel public by leading lives in creative imitation of Christ” (p. 32). One of Vanhoozer’s favourite themes – martyrdom – here emerges as a disturbing sign to the church of what imitating Christ might mean. It is a rare piece of systematic theology that can address the Christian walk so concretely. Under this schema, and with his ears attuned to postmodern currents, he is able to emphasise the need for action without losing the theological reason for it. Doctrine and ethics flow seamlessly together - as of course they should.
Some features of the book serve to dampen my overall enthusiasm. First: the guiding metaphor of ‘drama’ is a well chosen development on the insights of narrative theology; but it does at points feel stretched further than it will go. In particular, the pastor as ‘director’ (Part IV) feels like a poorly chosen equivalence and smacks somewhat of clericalism. Surely it is the Spirit who directs the church. Second, Vanhoozer’s incessant quotation of other authors impedes the smooth flow of his text; and at times appears forced. He seeks congruity in quotes but not in arguments; but when he quotes someone – say, Geoffrey Wainwright on the role of the sacraments (p. 412) - who is diametrically opposed to his conclusions, it is less than convincing as an appeal to authority. Third, Vanhoozer tends to state rather than argue his case. He articulates his point with great clarity and even aesthetic flair. This is a deliberate and self-consciouslessly postmodern strategy of depending on the explanatory power of the ideas themselves to convince his readers rather than leaning on some evidence external to the subject matter. With that I have much sympathy: however, this reader felt that there may have been more for Vanhoozer to offer by way of argument. I am surprised he spends so little time, for example, on showing how the scriptures themselves demonstrate his case by presenting a word that demands performance from its readers.
However, these shortcomings should not deter potential readers. This is a courageous and timely book that exemplifies theology taking mission seriously; and should be read by pastors, students and teachers who are like-minded. Vanhoozer does not ignore or side-step the toughest questions of postmodernism. Most salutary is the call of this book for the churches to renew our communal practices. Vanhoozer shows what an evangelical theologian can achieve if he or she is truly attentive to the task of serving the church. His vision is to recapture the reformed vision of deep theological reflection as belonging to pastors and lay people, not the preserve of the academy. Here is no brittle orthodoxy; rather, we have in The Drama of Doctrine an imaginative reiteration of evangelical truth.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, who is currently Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is well known for his work on questions of fundamental theology (First Theology) and hermeneutics (Is There A Meaning in This Text?). As usual, in The Drama of Doctrine he manages to combine real creativity and a remarkable knowledge of contemporary debates with faithfulness to conservative evangelical orthodoxy – which ultimately of course means faithfulness to the scriptures themselves.
This work is occasioned by the calcification of contemporary evangelical theology and the unwillingness of church pastors to pay any attention to it at all out of suspicion and/or boredom. In answer to serious cultural, intellectual and theological challenges, evangelical theological voices have certainly been more loudly raised; but they have not been persuasive in the debate or attuned to the pastor’s weekly task of proclaiming the gospel to contemporary people. Evangelical scholars have either retreated further into fortress of Enlightenment rationalism (Carl Henry, Wayne Grudem) or given craven concession to postmodernism (Stanley Grenz). The situation into which The Drama of Doctrine is written calls for a reinvigoration of the theological task in a way which avoids both of these dire pitfalls.
The purpose of this work is to present Vanhoozer’s vision of a ‘canonical-linguistic’ theology organized around the metaphor of dramatic performance. Doctrine is not merely a set of flat propositions, but rather a dramatic direction to be performed by Christians, individually and collectively. That is to say, it is a gospel to be lived! The exposition of his theme falls into four parts. In the first, “The Drama”, Vanhoozer shows how theology responds and corresponds to the words and deeds of God and serves as ‘direction for the church’s fitting participation in the drama of redemption’ (p. 31). It is rooted in the gospel itself as its first premise. Second (“The Script”), Vanhoozer addresses the place of Scripture and tradition and how they should relate. Against the post-liberals who make scripture merely subject to the church, he wishes to affirm sola scriptura. However, he is receptive to the insight that these doctrines of scripture do describe and prescribe ecclesial practices of scriptural reading. This is the real strength of the book, in this reviewer’s opinion: Vanhoozer has offered a way forward from the intractable battles about the doctrine of scripture without conceding its constitutive and authoritative place for the church’s life. Here is at last an evangelical doctrine of scripture which does not ignore ecclesiology. With John Webster, Vanhoozer also argues that Scripture has less an epistemological than a soteriological function.
Part III (“The Dramaturge”) fleshes out the role of the theologian in the ‘canonical-linguistic’ approach to theology following the theatrical model. Vanhoozer coins the term ‘post-conservative’, a move which nods to the emphasis on communal practices in post-liberalism and yet preserves an authoritative canonical script. The theologian engages in both practices of scientia in interpreting scripture and sapientia in reading and engaging with the contemporary cultural context. The aim of the theology is to enable Christians to better ‘perform’ the Christian life as disciples of Jesus by ‘improvising’ on the script(ures). Vanhoozer here proposes a move beyond both propositionalism and foundationalism in theological method while affirming the place of propositions and foundations as necessary to theology.
The fourth part (“The Performance”) extrapolates the task of theology in its congregational and pastoral setting, using the doctrine of the atonement as a case study. Doctrine is something that we are invited to live out in the church and the world: “The direction of doctrine…enables us…to render the gospel public by leading lives in creative imitation of Christ” (p. 32). One of Vanhoozer’s favourite themes – martyrdom – here emerges as a disturbing sign to the church of what imitating Christ might mean. It is a rare piece of systematic theology that can address the Christian walk so concretely. Under this schema, and with his ears attuned to postmodern currents, he is able to emphasise the need for action without losing the theological reason for it. Doctrine and ethics flow seamlessly together - as of course they should.
Some features of the book serve to dampen my overall enthusiasm. First: the guiding metaphor of ‘drama’ is a well chosen development on the insights of narrative theology; but it does at points feel stretched further than it will go. In particular, the pastor as ‘director’ (Part IV) feels like a poorly chosen equivalence and smacks somewhat of clericalism. Surely it is the Spirit who directs the church. Second, Vanhoozer’s incessant quotation of other authors impedes the smooth flow of his text; and at times appears forced. He seeks congruity in quotes but not in arguments; but when he quotes someone – say, Geoffrey Wainwright on the role of the sacraments (p. 412) - who is diametrically opposed to his conclusions, it is less than convincing as an appeal to authority. Third, Vanhoozer tends to state rather than argue his case. He articulates his point with great clarity and even aesthetic flair. This is a deliberate and self-consciouslessly postmodern strategy of depending on the explanatory power of the ideas themselves to convince his readers rather than leaning on some evidence external to the subject matter. With that I have much sympathy: however, this reader felt that there may have been more for Vanhoozer to offer by way of argument. I am surprised he spends so little time, for example, on showing how the scriptures themselves demonstrate his case by presenting a word that demands performance from its readers.
However, these shortcomings should not deter potential readers. This is a courageous and timely book that exemplifies theology taking mission seriously; and should be read by pastors, students and teachers who are like-minded. Vanhoozer does not ignore or side-step the toughest questions of postmodernism. Most salutary is the call of this book for the churches to renew our communal practices. Vanhoozer shows what an evangelical theologian can achieve if he or she is truly attentive to the task of serving the church. His vision is to recapture the reformed vision of deep theological reflection as belonging to pastors and lay people, not the preserve of the academy. Here is no brittle orthodoxy; rather, we have in The Drama of Doctrine an imaginative reiteration of evangelical truth.
Friday, August 18, 2006
www.youbook.blogspot.com
I need your help. I am planning to write a book (I hate saying that). The book is entitled YOU, and it is about being a human being but put theologically, or christianly. It is aimed at the 'popular' end of things, so it is meant to be easy to read but provocative as well. I want my readers to be challenged about who they are and what their lives are on about. And ultimately to commend Christ as the concrete example of human life well lived. Without it being a brainstrain to read...
Anyhow, this is the plan - a bit of an experiment that mightn't work at all. I am going to publish parts of chapters at www.youbook.blogspot.com and then open it to your input and comments. Don't just sit there! Chip in your 2 cents worth! The caveat is that in doing so you assign your comments over to me to shape and use in creating a readable discussion for the purposes of the book. (I will observe every courtesy in doing so.)
And also, it is meant to be a book open to a broad readership: so you could invite people you know would disagree with it to drop by and comment. That'd be grand.
(do it NOW!)
Anyhow, this is the plan - a bit of an experiment that mightn't work at all. I am going to publish parts of chapters at www.youbook.blogspot.com and then open it to your input and comments. Don't just sit there! Chip in your 2 cents worth! The caveat is that in doing so you assign your comments over to me to shape and use in creating a readable discussion for the purposes of the book. (I will observe every courtesy in doing so.)
And also, it is meant to be a book open to a broad readership: so you could invite people you know would disagree with it to drop by and comment. That'd be grand.
(do it NOW!)
Slavoj Žižek: Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?
Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek makes an audacious defence of Christianity - since he is an atheist! He argues that the core radicalism of Christianity is sorely needed in the Europe of today to overcome violent tribalisms. He seems to get how perverse Christianity is.
‘…it is love itself that enjoins us to ‘unplug’ from the organic community into which we were born – or, as Paul puts it, for a Christian, there are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks…No wonder that, for those fully identified with the Jewish ‘national substance’, as well as for the Greek philosophers and the proponents of the global Roman Empire, the appearance of Christ was a ridiculous and/or traumatic scandal.’
The unplugging of the Christian (and her ‘replugging’ into the community of the Spirit) diminishes the demand of duty to the ‘natural’ communities to which she belongs – to the bewilderment of the natural community were such demands are absolute.
Slavoj Žižek, The Fragile Absolute - or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? ed. Slavoj Žižek, Wo Es War (London; New York: Verso, 2000), p. 121
‘…it is love itself that enjoins us to ‘unplug’ from the organic community into which we were born – or, as Paul puts it, for a Christian, there are neither men nor women, neither Jews nor Greeks…No wonder that, for those fully identified with the Jewish ‘national substance’, as well as for the Greek philosophers and the proponents of the global Roman Empire, the appearance of Christ was a ridiculous and/or traumatic scandal.’
The unplugging of the Christian (and her ‘replugging’ into the community of the Spirit) diminishes the demand of duty to the ‘natural’ communities to which she belongs – to the bewilderment of the natural community were such demands are absolute.
Slavoj Žižek, The Fragile Absolute - or, Why Is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? ed. Slavoj Žižek, Wo Es War (London; New York: Verso, 2000), p. 121
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Bonhoeffer as Martyr: Craig Slane
Craig Slane's interesting book "Bonhoeffer As Martyr" makes the case that Bonhoeffer was indeed a martyr (surprising I know, the title kinda gives it away I guess...).
This isn't obvious of course. Bonhoeffer was arrested and executed not for his explicit testimony to Christ, but for his part in a plot to kill Hitler. He was guilty in other words of attempted tyrannicide.
However, it is hard not to have sympathy with his course of action given that Hitler was exceptionally bad as a tyrant. But does he then fit the pattern of martyrdom?
Slane argues that in the 20th Century, martyrs have become 'political' - by which he means, they have often died because of their intervention in political affairs. They have testified to Jesus not by their words so much as by their actions. They have risked and accepted death for the sake of others. Thus, Bonhoeffer's case fits this expanded pattern.
But there is a certain circularity here: Bonhoeffer's case has been central to this suggested redefinition of martyrdom; and yet by this redefinition according to B's case, Slane tries to judge his case. So, of course Bonhoeffer is a martyr by these terms...
This isn't obvious of course. Bonhoeffer was arrested and executed not for his explicit testimony to Christ, but for his part in a plot to kill Hitler. He was guilty in other words of attempted tyrannicide.
However, it is hard not to have sympathy with his course of action given that Hitler was exceptionally bad as a tyrant. But does he then fit the pattern of martyrdom?
Slane argues that in the 20th Century, martyrs have become 'political' - by which he means, they have often died because of their intervention in political affairs. They have testified to Jesus not by their words so much as by their actions. They have risked and accepted death for the sake of others. Thus, Bonhoeffer's case fits this expanded pattern.
But there is a certain circularity here: Bonhoeffer's case has been central to this suggested redefinition of martyrdom; and yet by this redefinition according to B's case, Slane tries to judge his case. So, of course Bonhoeffer is a martyr by these terms...
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Smacking: some summary thoughts
Well: thankyou everyone for the discussion! I thought I would just post a concluding reflection, trying to draw the threads together somewhat. I offered the debate without claiming to be a particularly successful or expert parent: I think I am just as frustrated and bewildered and delighted as everyone else by the whole experience!
I guess I knew already that this would be a controversial issue. Almost anything to do with parenting is. I think this is partly to do with the universality of the issue – we have all experienced the parenting of our parents, and many people are or are potentially parents. But also, it is because of the dearth of guidance available as to how to do the really difficult job of parenting. We could add to this the fact that we have so much of ourselves invested in our children: our whole vision of what it is to be a human being, or ought to be. And, we do love them, and we don’t want to think we have erred in bringing them up. It is even more sensitive than sexuality, I venture to say.
It is worth saying that this is true of this issue in the wider community, and not just amongst Christians. If you check the pages of parenting magazines you will find some of the most passionate and articulate debate about what it means to be human going around.
I raised the issue of smacking. We don’t do it, though I am not opposed to smacking per se. For me, it was a practical as much as philosophical decision. (I need to add that none of the opinions expressed in this blog are necessarily those of my wife!) I think that the following debate was marked by some confusion, because some of the proponents of smacking equated non-smacking with non-disciplining. This is far from the case: however imperfect our system might be, we certainly do discipline and rebuke our children.
The issue of the bible was raised: smackers claimed that there was ‘clear biblical evidence’ in favour of smacking and noted how little scripture was forwarded by the other side. There certainly are some strong statements in Proverbs about discipline that appear to relate to corporal punishment, for example:
Proverbs 13:24 24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. 14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
However, it was in my view rightly answered that the verses refer to discipline per se and not necessarily to the method of discipline. Further, to take the verses literally would mean investment in rods, which pro-smacking parents haven’t seem by and large to have done. On the other hand, there is no missing the very strong affirmation of the value of discipline for the child here. So: I think that corporal punishment is permitted, but not demanded at this point. (Which I think was all you were arguing for CraigS, right?)
This lack of biblical evidence leads me to another observation. On many issues on which people are looking for direct guidance, the Bible offers little or piecemeal advice. The bible is not meant to be comprehensive in these matters. But our tendency is sometimes to overstate the advice the bible gives. I think this is true on gender issues – we just don’t get that much information on being a man or a woman in the Bible, but we keep looking for it. Sure there is some guidance: but not as much as you would think, given the way we keep talking about it. Within the Bible’s teaching there are many many ways to be a man or a woman.
Likewise with parenting. One of the worst things about some Christian parenting manuals is the way in which what amounts to practical wisdom is given a quasi-scriptural authority - you know, ‘this is growing children God’s way’ and all that. You’d think Genesis was actually all about routine feeding of babies. Strangely, it isn’t. One of the worst examples of this is the way in which the life of Israel is used as a direct example for the life of Christian families without any differentiation in terms of the gospel. The notion of covenant is particularly misused in this regard.
Christians ought to be good at life wisdom, and do have the foundation for knowing all sorts of things about the world that secular people might be blind to see: but wisdom is a broad and flexible category of knowledge about the world. (This is why Solomon’s botanical manuals didn’t end up in the Bible, I imagine… though a piece of his erotica did, didn’t it?)
Which is all by way of saying: there just isn’t that much information about the issue of smacking in the Bible on which to make a dogmatic statement about it.
However: it does seem to me that a number of theological/philosophical/ethical issues have been raised by our discussion that would definitely feed in to a discussion of parental discipline.
1 - There seemed to be some differences as to what the point of parenting should be and then the role of discipline within that.
2 – Coupled to that: was childhood a thing to be enjoyed for its own sake, or is it to be seen as a preparation for adulthood mainly? Is the exuberance of childhood to be celebrated or curbed?
3 – What is the relationship between anger and punishment in the parent-child relationship? In fact, what IS punishment?
4 – What is violence? Is smacking violent?
5 – How does all this relate to the character of God the Father and his chastisement of Christians for their good? I am thinking of Hebrews 12:7-11 :
7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it
I guess I knew already that this would be a controversial issue. Almost anything to do with parenting is. I think this is partly to do with the universality of the issue – we have all experienced the parenting of our parents, and many people are or are potentially parents. But also, it is because of the dearth of guidance available as to how to do the really difficult job of parenting. We could add to this the fact that we have so much of ourselves invested in our children: our whole vision of what it is to be a human being, or ought to be. And, we do love them, and we don’t want to think we have erred in bringing them up. It is even more sensitive than sexuality, I venture to say.
It is worth saying that this is true of this issue in the wider community, and not just amongst Christians. If you check the pages of parenting magazines you will find some of the most passionate and articulate debate about what it means to be human going around.
I raised the issue of smacking. We don’t do it, though I am not opposed to smacking per se. For me, it was a practical as much as philosophical decision. (I need to add that none of the opinions expressed in this blog are necessarily those of my wife!) I think that the following debate was marked by some confusion, because some of the proponents of smacking equated non-smacking with non-disciplining. This is far from the case: however imperfect our system might be, we certainly do discipline and rebuke our children.
The issue of the bible was raised: smackers claimed that there was ‘clear biblical evidence’ in favour of smacking and noted how little scripture was forwarded by the other side. There certainly are some strong statements in Proverbs about discipline that appear to relate to corporal punishment, for example:
Proverbs 13:24 24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 13 Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. 14 Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.
However, it was in my view rightly answered that the verses refer to discipline per se and not necessarily to the method of discipline. Further, to take the verses literally would mean investment in rods, which pro-smacking parents haven’t seem by and large to have done. On the other hand, there is no missing the very strong affirmation of the value of discipline for the child here. So: I think that corporal punishment is permitted, but not demanded at this point. (Which I think was all you were arguing for CraigS, right?)
This lack of biblical evidence leads me to another observation. On many issues on which people are looking for direct guidance, the Bible offers little or piecemeal advice. The bible is not meant to be comprehensive in these matters. But our tendency is sometimes to overstate the advice the bible gives. I think this is true on gender issues – we just don’t get that much information on being a man or a woman in the Bible, but we keep looking for it. Sure there is some guidance: but not as much as you would think, given the way we keep talking about it. Within the Bible’s teaching there are many many ways to be a man or a woman.
Likewise with parenting. One of the worst things about some Christian parenting manuals is the way in which what amounts to practical wisdom is given a quasi-scriptural authority - you know, ‘this is growing children God’s way’ and all that. You’d think Genesis was actually all about routine feeding of babies. Strangely, it isn’t. One of the worst examples of this is the way in which the life of Israel is used as a direct example for the life of Christian families without any differentiation in terms of the gospel. The notion of covenant is particularly misused in this regard.
Christians ought to be good at life wisdom, and do have the foundation for knowing all sorts of things about the world that secular people might be blind to see: but wisdom is a broad and flexible category of knowledge about the world. (This is why Solomon’s botanical manuals didn’t end up in the Bible, I imagine… though a piece of his erotica did, didn’t it?)
Which is all by way of saying: there just isn’t that much information about the issue of smacking in the Bible on which to make a dogmatic statement about it.
However: it does seem to me that a number of theological/philosophical/ethical issues have been raised by our discussion that would definitely feed in to a discussion of parental discipline.
1 - There seemed to be some differences as to what the point of parenting should be and then the role of discipline within that.
2 – Coupled to that: was childhood a thing to be enjoyed for its own sake, or is it to be seen as a preparation for adulthood mainly? Is the exuberance of childhood to be celebrated or curbed?
3 – What is the relationship between anger and punishment in the parent-child relationship? In fact, what IS punishment?
4 – What is violence? Is smacking violent?
5 – How does all this relate to the character of God the Father and his chastisement of Christians for their good? I am thinking of Hebrews 12:7-11 :
7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8 If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9 Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10 Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11 No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it
Monday, July 31, 2006
corporal punishment
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?
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?
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)