Notes on The Bill Henson Case

 

For overseas readers, Australia has been the scene of a controversy over the public display of the works of artist Bill Henson. His photographs depict pubescent boys and girls (some as young as 12) in various states of undress. These are 'arty': that is, it is quite clear that Henson is not producing what would normally be called 'pornography'. The context is different, and he is a recognised artist. However, the media and the public and some politicians have been outraged by various details of the case. Henson's paintings were even at one stage confiscated by the police! (I hasten to add I haven't seen the full photographs, not the least because I don't want to look at them on the internet!)

Well known anti-censorship campaigner David Marr has rushed into print with a book on the case, which I shall be endeavouring to read as soon as I can. He opines in the Sydney Morning Herald here. His tone is relentlessly superior, of course; but then he is also right to expose the way a kind of blind outrage has played a large part in the controversy. Not to mention the way in which politicians have jumped in to condemn Henson with a feigned indignation.

But I can't help feeling that Marr is blind to the depth of feeling surrounding this case in the general public. Our bodies and our sexuality is precious, and we human beings are vulnerable. It is a truism to say that the adolescent is especially vulnerable. We perhaps have freedoms to choose what we see, but we also ought to exercise our right to restraint. And we ought to exercise that right from time to time as a community: it just won't do to keep repeating individualist mantras here. Sometimes we ought to feel free as a community to say that our commonly-held standards have been transgressed – there is no need to feel anti-intellectual or philistine about that. Members of the community have no greater right to transgress our commonly agreed norms just because they claim to do so as high-brow and sophisticated artists than do pornographers.

A few years ago I was invited to be on a panel discussing the film Romance which was being shown after the OFLC had originally banned it. It introduced by Margaret Pomeranz with a kind of 60s defiant liberal speech about how this moment was a significant victory for freedom of speech. I think actually banning the film was counter-productive – more people saw it because it had been banned than would have otherwise. My one thought on seeing the film however was that 'the emperor has no clothes': it just wasn't a very good film, for all the pious liberal clap-trap that proceeded it. It was a movie that as a mature society we could have decided was deeply degrading.

What I think a Christian has to add to this discussion is an insight into human nature. I know that my human nature is divided against itself. I think this is true of every instance of human nature (bar one). I know that, while I am able to articulate good things, and that I am able to say what is right and wrong at a pinch, that I still do and think and say the wrong thing. I know that part of doing the right thing is avoiding temptation as much as possible – and the law can help me here. I know that if I can get away with something or do something in secret, I will be tempted to try it - at least once. At the same time, I know that this will be detrimental to my spiritual and personal well-being.

David Marr might be able to look at pictures of naked young boys and not feel himself compromised, or stand back and aside from the sexuality on view. If so, then I applaud him for his maturity and his ability to switch of the part of him that responds darkly to these images. I don't think I could do the same looking at naked girls: and, the thing is, I don't think I am alone in this. I would rather not have these images on my mind, and I would rather these images were not on the minds of others in the community. I think his trust in human nature is naive.

Perhaps banning the works is the right response: I usually tend to think censorship is not good, just from a pragmatic point of view. But in this case, I would see nothing wrong with a considered response from the appropriate people acting on the community's behalf which decided to carefully classify and restrict (at least) or even ban the works in question. This is what the OFLC does, and does with wide community acceptance.

Older Triplex Munus post, for interest

http://mpjensen.blogspot.com/2007/01/words-of-jesus-in-red.html

Biblical 'data'... no more!

Every now and again I catch myself using the language of 'biblical data'. That is, I suggest that some or other conclusion can be drawn 'from the biblical data'.

I think this language, while not strictly speaking wrong, is badly misleading. And I hereby resolve not to use it!

How come? Well, 'data' is a word that comes to us from the world of scientific empiricism. It implies a set of raw, uncollated information that lies dormant until the scientist can put into some sort of order and therefore draw conclusions. Or, 'data' is a list of entries of unfiltered informationinto a computer programme which then has operations performed on it to turn it into something meaningful.

The Scriptures are not in this sense 'data'; nor is the theologian in the position of the scientist or the computer. There two particularly important reasons (at least) why this is the case:

a) the Scriptures are writings which already have a large degree of interpretational activity going on within them. The writers of the Bible are not presenting to us 'just the facts': they are unafraid to admit that this is their 'spin' on things.

b) the language of 'data' prevents us from seeing the sequential, historical nature of the Scriptures. Each piece of scriptural 'data' is not of equivalent standing to the next. It has its place in the testimony of the scriptures to the God of Abraham who is also the God of Jesus Christ.

Martyrdom, discipleship and the triplex munus

I wrote something a while back on this here.

As Christ's body, the church continues or extends his work - so the prophetic/priestly/kingly classification is still useful. Though, it must be said, they need careful exposition in terms of mission.

Bavinck on the munus triplex

Some stirring Dutch stuff:

"…Christ, both as the Son and as the image of God, for himself and also as our mediator and saviour, had to bear all three offices. He had to be a prophet to know and to disclose the truth of God; a priest, to devote himself to God and, in our place, to offer himself up to God; a king, to govern and protect us according to God’s will. To teach, to reconcile, and to lead; to instruct, to acquire and to apply salvation; wisdom, righteousness, and redemption; truth, love, and power – all three are essential to the completeness of our salvation. In Christ’s God-to-humanity relation, he is a prophet; in his humanity-to-God relation he is a priest; in his headship over all humanity he is a king. Rationalism acknowledges only his prophetic office; mysticism only his priestly office; millennialism only his royal office. But Scripture, consistently and simultaneously attributing all three offices to him, describes him as our chief prophet, our only [high] priest, and our eternal king. Though a king, he rules not by the sword but by his Word and spirit. He is a prophet, but his word is power and really happens. He is a priest but lives by dying, conquers by suffering, and is all-powerful by his love. He is always all these things in conjunction, never the one without the other: mighty in speech and action as a king and full of grace and truth in his royal rule."

Some Thesis 'bits'

Just so I can have something here for people when they say 'what did you say in your thesis', here are some sentences which sum it up well:



"Christian discipleship means giving one's self over to a divine designation, even if that means suffering and death."



"Christian martyrdom is merely the working out in a particular circumstance of the identity in which individual Christians participate."



"...no account of identity can be theologically adequate that does not acknowledge the crucial significance of temptation ... and providence."



"The crowning of martyrs is...a divine rather than a human business."



"The focus in Christian martyrdom is...on the vindication, rather than the innocence, of the martyr."



"...the act of renunciation is performed as a witness to, and in imitation of, Christ; and thus involves the martyr in a close identification of himself with this other self, emerging fro his union with Christ."



"In a critical gesture, then, the self-as-martyr testifies to the provisionality of human systems of security relative to divine providence."



"Truth and love are the non-negotiables, not pain."



"...martyrdom is not merely a stance of eternal dissidence; it is a witness to the rule of God in Christ."



"...the followers of Christ are authorised to manifest his powerful and universala rule by means of communicative and persuasive acts of witness."

Eusebius on the Three Offices

Now, Eusebius is not everybody's favourite theologian/church historian. He is widely regarded as an Arian, and in cahoots with the Emperor Constantine - a little too sycophantic to worldly power perhaps? The idea of the 'three offices of Christ' comes from a person who had a rather ready eye for formal and hierarchical arrangements. Nevertheless, as you can see below, he is determined to ground Christology in the whole Bible, and the 'three offices' helps him to do that with quite a degree of explanatory power. The meaning and significance of Christ lies in the history of Israel which prefigures him:

Eusebius H.E. 1.iii

Chapter III. The Name Jesus and Also the Name Christ Were Known from the Beginning, and Were Honoured by the Inspired Prophets.

"1 It is now the proper place to show that the very name Jesus and also the name Christ were honoured by the ancient prophets beloved of God.
2 Moses was the first 2 to make known the name of Christ as a name especially august and glorious. When he delivered types and symbols of heavenly things, and mysterious images, in accordance with the oracle which said to him, "Look that thou make all things according to the pattern which was shown thee in the mount," he consecrated a man high priest of God, in so far as that was possible, and him he called Christ. And thus to this dignity of the high priesthood, which in his opinion surpassed the most honourable position among men, he attached for the sake of honour and glory the name of Christ.
3 He knew so well that in Christ was something divine. And the same one foreseeing, under the influence of the divine Spirit, the name Jesus, dignified it also with a certain distinguished privilege. For the name of Jesus, which had never been uttered among men before the time of Moses, he applied first and only to the one who he knew would receive after his death, again as a type and symbol, the supreme command.
4His successor, therefore, who had not hitherto borne the name Jesus, but had been called by another name, Auses, which had been given him by his parents, he now called Jesus, bestowing the name upon him as a gift of honour, far greater than any kingly diadem. For Jesus himself, the son of Nave, bore a resemblance to our Saviour in the fact that he alone, after Moses and after the completion of the symbolical worship which had been transmitted by him, succeeded to the government of the true and pure religion.
5 Thus Moses bestowed the name of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, as a mark of the highest honor, upon the two men who in his time surpassed all the rest of the people in virtue and glory; namely, upon the high priest and upon his own successor in the government.
6 And the prophets that came after also clearly foretold Christ by name, predicting at the same time the plots which the Jewish people would form against him, and the calling of the nations through him. Jeremiah, for instance, speaks as follows: "The Spirit before our face, Christ the Lord, was taken in their destructions; of whom we said, under his shadow we shall live among the nations." And David, in perplexity, says, "Why did the nations rage and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Christ"; to which he adds, in the person of Christ himself, "The Lord said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."
7 And not only those who were honoured with the high priesthood, and who for the sake of the symbol were anointed with especially prepared oil, were adorned with the name of Christ among the Hebrews, but also the kings whom the prophets anointed under the influence of the divine Spirit, and thus constituted, as it were, typical Christs. For they also bore in their own persons types of the royal and sovereign power of the true and only Christ, the divine Word who ruleth over all.
8 And we have been told also that certain of the prophets themselves became, by the act of anointing, Christs in type, so that all these have reference to the true Christ, the divinely inspired and heavenly Word, who is the only high priest of all, and the only King of every creature, and the Father's only supreme prophet of prophets.
9 And a proof of this is that no one of those who were of old symbolically anointed, whether priests, or kings, or prophets, possessed so great a power of inspired virtue as was exhibited by our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the true and only Christ.
10 None of them at least, however superior in dignity and honour they may have been for many generations among their own people, ever gave to their followers the name of Christians from their own typical name of Christ. Neither was divine honour ever rendered to any one of them by their subjects; nor after their death was the disposition of their followers such that they were ready to die for the one whom they honoured. And never did so great a commotion arise among all the nations of the earth in respect to any one of that age; for the mere symbol could not act with such power among them as the truth itself which was exhibited by our Saviour.
11 He, although he received no symbols and types of high priesthood from any one, although he was not born of a race of priests, although he was not elevated to a kingdom by military guards, although he was not a prophet like those of old, although he obtained no honour nor pre-eminence among the Jews, nevertheless was adorned by the Father with all, if not with the symbols, yet with the truth itself.
12 And therefore, although he did not possess like honours with those whom we have mentioned, he is called Christ more than all of them. And as himself the true and only Christ of God, he has filled the whole earth with the truly august and sacred name of Christians, committing to his followers no longer types and images, but the uncovered virtues themselves, and a heavenly life in the very doctrines of truth.
13 And he was not anointed with oil prepared from material substances, but, as befits divinity, with the divine Spirit himself, by participation in the unbegotten deity of the Father. And this is taught also again by Isaiah, who exclaims, as if in the person of Christ himself, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; therefore hath he anointed me. He hath sent me to preach the Gospel to the poor, to proclaim deliverance to captives, and recovery of sight to the blind."
14 And not only Isaiah, but also David addresses him, saying, "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. A sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hast hated iniquity. Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Here the Scripture calls him God in the first verse, in the second it honours him with a royal sceptre.
15 Then a little farther on, after the divine and royal power, it represents him in the third place as having become Christ, being anointed not with oil made of material substances, but with the divine oil of gladness. It thus indicates his especial honour, far superior to and different from that of those who, as types, were of old anointed in a more material way.
16 And elsewhere the same writer speaks of him as follows: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool"; and, "Out of the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten thee. The Lord hath sworn and he will not repent. Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedec."
17 But this Melchizedec is introduced in the Holy Scriptures as a priest of the most high God, not consecrated by any anointing oil, especially prepared, and not even belonging by descent to the priesthood of the Jews. Wherefore after his order, but not after the order of the others, who received symbols and types, was our Saviour proclaimed, with an appeal to an oath, Christ and priest.
18 History, therefore, does not relate that he was anointed corporeally by the Jews, nor that he belonged to the lineage of priests, but that he came into existence from God himself before the morning star, that is before the organization of the world, and that he obtained an immortal and undecaying priesthood for eternal ages.
19 But it is a great and convincing proof of his incorporeal and divine unction that he alone of all those who have ever existed is even to the present day called Christ by all men throughout the world, and is confessed and witnessed to under this name, and is commemorated both by Greeks and Barbarians and even to this day is honoured as a King by his followers throughout the world, and is admired as more than a prophet, and is glorified as the true and only high priest of God. And besides all this, as the pre-existent Word of God, called into being before all ages, he has received august honour from the Father, and is worshiped as God.
20 But most wonderful of all is the fact that we who have consecrated ourselves to him, honour him not only with our voices and with the sound of words, but also with complete elevation of soul, so that we choose to give testimony unto him rather than to preserve our own lives.
21 I have of necessity prefaced my history with these matters in order that no one, judging from the date of his incarnation, may think that our Saviour and Lord Jesus, the Christ, has but recently come into being. "

Barth: 'Jesus Christ the Mediator'

In a brilliant few pages from CD IV/1 (pp. 122-128), Karl Barth identifies the problem with the traditional way in which theology has treated the 'person' of Christ as a separate item to the 'work' of Christ:

This schematism seems logically very illuminating, and didactically useful. At a first galnce it may even seem unavoidable...Yet it is not really calculated to enable us to expound the actual subject-matter...

He goes on to complain that the NT never has a 'Christology' as such set apart or abstracted from what Christ did among men and women. So, he goes on:

We hasten to explain that the being of Jesus Christ, the unity of being of the living God and this living God and this living man, takes place in the vent of the concrete existence of this man. It is abeing, but a being in a history. The gracious God is in this history, so is reconciled man, so are both in their unity. And what takes place in this history, and therefore in the being of Jesus Christ as such is atonement. Jesus Christ is not what He is - very God, very man, very God-man - in order as such to mean and do and accomplish something else which is atonement. But His being as God and man and God-man consists in the completed act of the reconciliation of man with God.

The climax of his argument? His being as his One is His history and His history is this His being.

It's a great point. But perhaps he has been too harsh: of necessity theology makes distinctions but that doesn't imply separations. It treats ideas in their turn, because it is just hard for most of us to think of more than one thing at once!

The Triplex Munus - Christ's Threefold Office

John Calvin in the Institutes II.xv.1:

Therefore, in order that faith may find a firm basis for salvation in Christ, and thus rest in him, this principle must be laid down: the office enjoined upon Christ by the Father consists of three parts. For he was given to be prophet, king and priest.

This is the famous triplex munus, the 'threefold office' of Christ, which has been used by Reformed theologians ever since as a way of describing and classifying Christ's work. Like Calvin's three uses of the law, it has the status of a powerful description of the way scripture hangs together, though it does not arise from an explicitly scriptural use. And that is what makes it a useful piece of theological thinking, so long as its provisionality is recognised. As is quite common, Calvin himself was not the orginator of the triplex munus - but he is its most prominent exponent.


Richardson & Bowden comment:

This (ie, triplex munus) has the advantage of bringing together three important strands of the biblical tradition. It does, however, tend to break up the unity of soteriology, choosing three categories at the expense of others (e.g. shepherd, saviour and servant), and scarcely takes adequate account of the extent to which the OT categories are transformed through Christ – their fulfilment is also in an important respect their abolition.

– A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, ed. Alan Richardson, John Bowden



Abolition? Hmm...

Warfield on the call of the example of Christ

Here's BB Warfield, the Princeton great, in full flight on the example of Christ and its call on his disciples:

He did not cultivate self, even His divine self: He took no account of self. He was not led by His divine impulse out of the world, driven back into the recesses of His own sould to brood morbidly over His own needs, until to gain His own seemed worth all sacrifice to Him. He was led by His love for others into the wolrd, to forget Himself in the needs of others, to sacrifice slef once for all upon the altar of sympathy. Self-sacrifice brough Christ into the wolrd. And self-sacrifice will lead us, His followers, not away from but into the midst of men. Wherever men suffer, there will we be to comfort. Wherever men strive, there will we be to help. Wherever men fail, there will we be to uplift. Wherever me succeed, there will we be to rejoice. Self-sacrifice means not indifference to our times and our fellows: it means absorption in them.

B.B. Warfield, The Person and Work of Christ, p. 574

Christ 'for me'

I am starting with Yr 2 Doctrine Moore Theological College tomorrow on a part of the course entitled 'The Person and Work of Christ'. I thought I'd get a famous piece of Bonhoeffer into circulation - this from his 1933 Christology lectures. You have to remember the political circumstances, of course:


"Christ is Christ not as Christ in himself, but in his relation to me. His being Christ is his being 'pro me'. This being 'pro me' is in turn not meant to be understood as an effect which emanates from him, or as an accident; it is meant to be understood as the essence, as the being of the person himself. This personal nucleus itself is the 'pro me'. That Christ is 'pro me' is not an historical or an ontical statement, but an ontological one. That is, Christ can never be thoughtof in his being in himself, but only in his relationshop to me. That in turn menas that Christ can only be conceived of existentially, viz. in the community... It is not only useless to meditate on a Christ in himself, but even godless."

So: Christ cannot besomething or someone remote from us or he is not Christ... The very nature of Christ's mission (check Peter's declaration of Jesus' title) is for others in a suffering way.

Basics of Verbal Aspect

One of my new colleagues, Dr Con Campbell has just published his new book Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek .

I am looking forward to hearing more about why Con reckons verbal aspect makes such a difference. This is how he reads the current consensus in linguistics:

• aspect is more important than tense and must be reckoned with
• aspect holds the key to understanding the Greek verbal system
• There are at least two aspects in Greek: perfective and imperfective
• Debate about aspect must come to some kind of resolution as quickly as possible
• Greek grammars and NT commentaries need to update and come to grips with the new playing field
• Responsible exegesis of the Greek text must incorporate aspectual sensitivity

Unresolved, however, are the matters of temporality and tense, and the issue of the number of aspects.

What the best college teachers do

Well we have arrived in sunny Sydney. For those not in the know, I am about to resume teaching Doctrine at Moore Theological College here in Sydney. Having now travelled to and fro upon the earth, I remain convinced that, pound for pound, it is a world-class college in which to pursue training for ministry. Working among these colleagues is a amazing privilege. But teaching such students is sublime - they want to learn! Crazy, huh?

So, in preparation, I have been reading up on pedagogy. The most inspiring book I have found to date is Ken Bain's What the Best College Teachers Do . It is a good book because it focuses not on classroom techniques but on the attitudes that great teachers have towards the process of learning. The insights of the book are numerous: for example, that students are less motivated to learn by extrinsic factors such as exams and assessments and most motivated to learn when the intrinsic value of the subject is itself the motivation.

That is not to say that these educators settle for a kind of 'learning for learning's sake' philosophy: not at all. They are also concerned to connect what the teach to 'real' life.

Furthermore:

Highly effective teachers design better learning experiences for their students in part because they conceive of teaching as fostering learning. Everything they do stems from their strong concern for and understanding of the development of the students. They follow few traditions blindly and recognise when change in the conventional course is both necessary and possible. (p. 67)

Innovation, but not for its own sake, in other words.

I also like what he has to say about what great teachers expect from students. They expect that every student can learn - they don't foster elitism, nor do they seek popularity by making the course 'soft'. Neither do they think they are setting a high standard merely because they pile on the work.

The Theological Interpretation of Scripture

I am interested in compiling a reading list of works to do with 'theological interpretation of Scripture. It is a growing field of theological investigation. What's exciting about it is that biblical studies and systematic theology are ending their turf war over who can and can't read scripture.

Can you add to this list? (Francis Watson's works are an obvious addition).


Scripture's Doctrine and Theology's Bible: Howthe New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics ed Marcus Bockmeuhl

Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice by Daniel Treier

The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and Contemporary Readings ed Stephen Fowl

Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible ed Kevin Vanhoozer

Pommies

My good friend Sam gave me a fascinating book called Pommies - England Cricket though an Australian Lens.

It is an analysis of why the English game continues to fail at the elite level despite its massive player pool and the ardent following of millions of fans. And the author lays the blame squarely at the feet of the 18 counties who engineer the administration of the game for their own interest. They run the game not in the interest of the public, but as a private members club. So, they sold the TV rights to a pay-TV operator for a truckload of money that was then siphoned off to the counties (who cannot pay their own way because no-one wants to watch them play). They continue to play international matches in venues that seat less that 25,000 people, driving ticket prices up and thereby excluding ethnic minorities - who LOVE their cricket - from the game. Whenever change is mooted, 'tradition' is cited as a counter-argument. What the book makes apparent is that 'tradition' is really only code for 'self-interest'. The huge number of cricket fans who are not members of the MCC cannot get in to the ground to see a Test Match and now cannot see the game on TV either. And the national team continues to falter in performance.

Of course, I was fascinated to compare the C of E, with which there are many parallels. The C of E is theoretically run for the benefit of the entire nation. But because in fact it is run as a private members club, the property and resources of the church in fact are being used for the benefit of those who are members. And the fewer of those there are, the nicer it is for those who remain. And a far amount of theological reasoning and invented traditionalism is produced to bolster this special interest. 'The parish system' is one such tradition, whereby the boundaries of the parish are seen as sacrosanct and unviolable borders on the basis of some reference to the incarnation (John Milbank keeps saying this for some weird reason). Parishes which ARE doing a good job at connecting to the community are penalised and the funds distributed to failing parishes with incomptent and disinterested clergy (Granted, some of this is funding parishes in poorer areas: but certainly not all). Bishops aren't interested in changing a system that serves their interests very well - after all, it elected them! And the people of England continue to be completely alienated from the church whose mission it is to serve them.

But the C of E is an easy target... I think all church institutions - even Australian ones! - could ask the questions - 'is tradition really just being used to mask self-interest?' 'whose interest is actually being served by the status quo?' 'how much subsidy is being given to bolster, not the needy, but the mediocre (whose mediocrity is actually a spiritual disease)?' 'Is this institution being run for the benefit of members, or for the benefit of the community'?

Lucky it wasn't based on looks, eh?

woohoooooooooooo!

The Viva went .....


well!
Thanks to those who prayed.

My Charles Taylor article in SCE

The December issue of Studies in Christian Ethics is out, and with it my article entitled:

" ‘In Spirit and In Truth’ - Can Charles Taylor help the Woman at the Well find her authentic self? "

Studies in Christian Ethics 2008 21: 325-341.

If you would like to read a copy, let me know (with your email address, if I don't already have it) and I can send you one. Or at least the first 25 of you.

Here's the challenge

In the Sydney Morning Herald today:

Did it occur to anyone that the decline in people reading the Bible might have something to do with it being a lousy read ("Confession: fewer know their Bible", September 10)?
The Bible says lots of things, few of them clearly, all of them open to different interpretations, and many of them irrelevant to a post-industrial world. Add to this that it is a series of compounded translations many times removed from the original, and no doubt some translations have been corrupted through the ages by self-interested power-mongers.

Ian Waters Surry Hills

And here's Greg Clarke weighing in.

Viva

My Viva is tomorrow.

Yes, that's right, I am having a viva for a thesis on martyrdom on September 11. Someone thinks this is funny, no doubt!