Friday, July 31, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Anglican Identity Master's Course at Moore
There's still time to sign up for Moore's Anglican Identities course, taught by renowned scholar Dr Ashley Null with meself assisting! Feast your eyes on this syllabus:
1. Catholic Humanism
a. The Sacramental Way of Salvation in Late Medieval England
b. Lady Margaret Beaufort and Catholic Humanism
2. John Fisher on the Penitential Psalms
3. Doctrinal Tensions
a. Competing Understandings of Salvation
b. Defence of Roman Catholicism
4. The Rise of English Evangelicals
a. The Process of Evangelical Conversion
b. Katherine Parr, The Lamentacion of a Sinner
5. Henry’s Church: 1534-1539
6. Henry’s Church: 1539-1547
7. Edward’s Church: 1547-1553
a. Edwardian Religious Policy
b. Cranmer’s Mature Theology
8. The Homilies
9. Cranmer’s Liturgies
10. The Elizabethan Settlement and Hooker
a. The Elizabethan Compromise
b. The Debate over Hooker
11. Hooker on Law
12. Hooker on the Sacraments and the Prayer Book
13. Classical Anglicanism Today
a. Is Lay Presidency authentic Classical Anglicanism for today?
b. Is the Jerusalem Declaration authentic Classical Anglicanism for today?
1. Catholic Humanism
a. The Sacramental Way of Salvation in Late Medieval England
b. Lady Margaret Beaufort and Catholic Humanism
2. John Fisher on the Penitential Psalms
3. Doctrinal Tensions
a. Competing Understandings of Salvation
b. Defence of Roman Catholicism
4. The Rise of English Evangelicals
a. The Process of Evangelical Conversion
b. Katherine Parr, The Lamentacion of a Sinner
5. Henry’s Church: 1534-1539
6. Henry’s Church: 1539-1547
7. Edward’s Church: 1547-1553
a. Edwardian Religious Policy
b. Cranmer’s Mature Theology
8. The Homilies
9. Cranmer’s Liturgies
10. The Elizabethan Settlement and Hooker
a. The Elizabethan Compromise
b. The Debate over Hooker
11. Hooker on Law
12. Hooker on the Sacraments and the Prayer Book
13. Classical Anglicanism Today
a. Is Lay Presidency authentic Classical Anglicanism for today?
b. Is the Jerusalem Declaration authentic Classical Anglicanism for today?
Thursday, July 09, 2009
The Christian Life: Hearing
For if you ask a Christian what the work is by which he becomes worthy of the name “Christian”, he will be able to give absolutely no other answer than that it is the hearing of the Word of God, that is, faith. Therefore, the ears alone are the organ of a Christian, for he is justified and declared to be a Christian, not by the works of any member, but because of faith.
Martin Luther, (Luther’s Works, vol 29, p. 224)
Hearing indeed comes only through the Word of Christ...the Apostle here (i.e. in Rom 10:16-17) emphasizes the fact that he is speaking of a Word which no one can comprehend. It can be apprehended only hearing it in true faith.
Martin Luther (Commentary on Romans, Kregel Publications, p. 152)
It is by a divine call, that sinners are made partakers of the benefits of redemption. And the influence of the Spirit by which they are translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God’s dear Son, is a vocation, or effectual calling.
Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, vol II., p. 640)
Hearing
The Christian life begins, and endures, insofar as the Christian is called by and hears the Word of God and responds in faith – itself a work of the Holy Spirit.
1. ‘Come, follow me’
Jesus called his disciples: ‘come, follow me’. And hearing his call, they left what they were doing and followed him. Hearing is the first act of the Christian life because the Christian life is a life that corresponds to the call of God in Christ. Discipleship is a metaphor for the Christian life because it indicates a type of pedagogy: hearing which results in following – and thus more hearing. And discipleship as a term reminds us of the voice of God that we have heard in Christ, his Word: This is my son, whom I love… listen to him (Mk 9:7). The word of God flourishes and produces fruit because it is planted in responsive and fruitful soil. However, Jesus teaches in parables ‘so that they may be…ever hearing but never understanding’. His teaching conceals as it reveals, obscures as it clarifies. Some hear, but do not respond. How is this possible?
2. ‘My sheep hear my voice’
Israel were the people who were called, and who followed the voice of Yhwh out of Egypt. The preaching of Deuteronomy marks them out as a hearing nation: ‘Hear, O Israel’. Yahweh is the Shepherd. To follow his guidance meant survival for Israel, the sheep. In John 10:1-21, Jesus picks up the ancient and messianic image of the sheep and shepherd. The sheep recognize the voice of the shepherd. Already there is in the true sheep an instinct to respond to this, their shepherd. That is: the doctrine of election is in view in the Christian life – the hearing of the elect is a mark of their election in Christ.
3. ‘Faith comes from hearing’: Martin Luther and the hearing Christian
Faith itself arises from hearing – hearing the gospel (Rom 10:16). Faith in this way has its own basis in the promises of God. For Luther, the emphasis on the hearing of the gospel – the powerful Word – was illustration of the passivity of the believer. Faith is only a weak, passive response, but since what it responds to is so mighty, it is powerful to save. The preaching of the gospel is the intensification of the divine call to all creation – it is the way God has chosen to bring his people to himself. Notice Ephesians 1:13-14. And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession-- to the praise of his glory.
4. ‘The call’ in Reformed theology
Reformed theologians have distinguished between the ‘internal’ or ‘efficacious’ call and the ‘external call’, to explain the way in which only some individuals respond to the universal gospel of Christ. While the gospel is a call addressed to all humankind, it is also the means by which God gathers his chosen people. The inward teaching of the Spirit is necessary in addition to the declaration of the truth to give it effect. And this further explains how faith may be ‘not of yourselves, but a gift of God’ (Eph 2:10). The language of calling or vocation, klhsij, is especially applied in the NT to the believers: ‘those who are called’ (Rom 1:7, 1 Cor 1:2, 24). The great sequence of divine actions in Rom 8:30 shows how election precedes calling: those whom he predestined, he also called; those whom he called, he also justified. By speaking thus of the internal call Reformed theologians such as Bavinck and Hodge hope to distinguish their position from the Lutheran, Methodist and Roman Catholic, who in their various ways teach that there is something by nature – however small - in a person that predisposes them to respond to the call.
5. The call to personhood
The Christian life is a hearing life – but then the true human life was a matter of vocation, too. That human life always was given in response to a divine call reminds us that the Christian is only becoming more truly a human. ‘Personhood is a vocation’ as Kevin Vanhoozer says. To be human is to be summonsed to glorify God in or created life – this is the ‘chief end of man’. The first human beings were called into a life together with God and each other in the created world. Jesus Christ lives out this vocation and embodies it: he is both the Word of God, the divine communication AND the model and properly representative human response to that Word. This life is what it means to depend utterly on the Word. The gospel of Jesus Christ ‘summons the self to its proper vocation – faithful speech agency… (Vanhoozer).
6. The practices of hearing
…you have opened my ears… (Psalm 40:6). What does it mean to ‘have the ears to hear’? The theological ear needs to be trained. If the word of God to us is a word about our utter dependence on God in our fallen-ness and in our creatureliness, then hearing it is dependent on us being made in the image of his Son and being enabled by his Spirit to respond rightly. The Christian life continues as a life dependent on and nourished by hearing. ‘Man shall not live by bread alone’. The OT shows Israel committed to a life of memorizing, revering and reciting the word of God. The Christian life is in this sense no different. Scriptural study is its sine qua non, because in Scripture, by his Spirit God continues to speak to us today. Luther described the threefold process of listening to the voice of God as oratio (prayer), meditatio (meditation on the text), and tentatio (agonizing struggle). Psalm 119 is the model text in this regard!
Further reading
Stephen H. Webb The Divine Voice – Christian Proclamation and the Theology of Sound, Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2004
Kevin J. Vanhoozer ‘Human Being: Individual and Social’ in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, ed. C.E.Gunton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 158-188
Monday, July 06, 2009
Christian Life Reading List
The possibilities for reading in this particular part of the course (that I am teaching on The Christian Life here at Moore) are enormously varied. This is because the division between ‘academic’ theological works and ‘spiritual classics’ is necessarily blurred more than at other points on the course. The key thing is to get reading- and thinking! Hopefully, this little list will help.
Reformed
It would be great to revisit Calvin’s masterful treatment in Book III of the Institutes – especially looking at how he treats topics like Prayer and Faith. From there, it would be good to dip into a major systematic theologian in the Calvinist tradition: someone like Charles Hodge or (my favourite) Hermann Bavinck. Look first at the table of contents. How do they organise their material? What are they communicating by the placement of the material on sanctification in this place, in this order? What do they say about prayer and the sovereignty of God, if anything? John Owen has much to contribute in his works Sin & Temptation: The Challenge to Personal Godliness and Spiritual-Mindedness. You will get a chance to read Jonathan Edwards’ The Religious Affections in 4th year, but Edwards is a hugely influential figure in the Reformed tradition of the thinking about the Christian life even to this day (John Piper is very very Edwardsian!). Karl Barth was also a Reformed thinker, and engaged critically with the tradition of Calvin. Read from his Church Dogmatics, IV.iv, , pp. 3-40 and the brilliant piece on Faith, Prayer and Obedience from III.iii, 239-288. Kevin Vanhoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine has some very exciting material on the Christian life – but use the indexes to find it. Finally, there’s Bruce Demarest’s work The Cross and Salvation – for a contemporary, textbooky approach.
‘Spiritual Classics’
As pastors, we neglect these to our peril – since they are often read by those whom we are seeking to teach. It is hard to go past Augustine’s Confessions for an earlier work – although the Sayings of the Desert Fathers give you something quite different. For the middle ages, you could read Bernard of Clairvaux’s On the Love of God. He was an abbot who had a huge influence of Calvin, believe it or not. You could read Thomas a Kempis’s The Imitation of Christ – a massively influential book even today. Teresa of Avila was a Spanish nun and mystic, and her book The Interior Castle you could easily dip into and be surprised by. On the Protestant side, you can’t go past The Pilgrim’s Progress. Or John Piper’s Desiring God. My own personal favourite is Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship. The trick with these works is to read with theological eyes well open.
Other traditions
It would be important to engage in some way with John Wesley – such a huge figure for the evangelicalism that has come after him, and in many ways the forerunner of the contemporary charismatic movement. He wrote enormous amounts of material – his sermons and other papers are easily available. You could trace the way in which he was influenced by the Moravian Brethren, and especially the pietism of Count Zinzendorf. Like Wesley, he is more interesting to read about than to read, and his influence has been transmitted through hymns as well as sermons and other writings.
It is fascinating to see what Roman Catholicism is doing too. Of course, the Eucharist looms large in the thinking of theologians on that side of the fence. You could dip into Hans Küng’s On Being a Christian ¬– he sounds strangely Protestant at times!
And finally...
David Peterson’s book Possessed by God is, for my money, the gold standard on sanctification from a biblical theological point of view.
Reformed
It would be great to revisit Calvin’s masterful treatment in Book III of the Institutes – especially looking at how he treats topics like Prayer and Faith. From there, it would be good to dip into a major systematic theologian in the Calvinist tradition: someone like Charles Hodge or (my favourite) Hermann Bavinck. Look first at the table of contents. How do they organise their material? What are they communicating by the placement of the material on sanctification in this place, in this order? What do they say about prayer and the sovereignty of God, if anything? John Owen has much to contribute in his works Sin & Temptation: The Challenge to Personal Godliness and Spiritual-Mindedness. You will get a chance to read Jonathan Edwards’ The Religious Affections in 4th year, but Edwards is a hugely influential figure in the Reformed tradition of the thinking about the Christian life even to this day (John Piper is very very Edwardsian!). Karl Barth was also a Reformed thinker, and engaged critically with the tradition of Calvin. Read from his Church Dogmatics, IV.iv, , pp. 3-40 and the brilliant piece on Faith, Prayer and Obedience from III.iii, 239-288. Kevin Vanhoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine has some very exciting material on the Christian life – but use the indexes to find it. Finally, there’s Bruce Demarest’s work The Cross and Salvation – for a contemporary, textbooky approach.
‘Spiritual Classics’
As pastors, we neglect these to our peril – since they are often read by those whom we are seeking to teach. It is hard to go past Augustine’s Confessions for an earlier work – although the Sayings of the Desert Fathers give you something quite different. For the middle ages, you could read Bernard of Clairvaux’s On the Love of God. He was an abbot who had a huge influence of Calvin, believe it or not. You could read Thomas a Kempis’s The Imitation of Christ – a massively influential book even today. Teresa of Avila was a Spanish nun and mystic, and her book The Interior Castle you could easily dip into and be surprised by. On the Protestant side, you can’t go past The Pilgrim’s Progress. Or John Piper’s Desiring God. My own personal favourite is Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship. The trick with these works is to read with theological eyes well open.
Other traditions
It would be important to engage in some way with John Wesley – such a huge figure for the evangelicalism that has come after him, and in many ways the forerunner of the contemporary charismatic movement. He wrote enormous amounts of material – his sermons and other papers are easily available. You could trace the way in which he was influenced by the Moravian Brethren, and especially the pietism of Count Zinzendorf. Like Wesley, he is more interesting to read about than to read, and his influence has been transmitted through hymns as well as sermons and other writings.
It is fascinating to see what Roman Catholicism is doing too. Of course, the Eucharist looms large in the thinking of theologians on that side of the fence. You could dip into Hans Küng’s On Being a Christian ¬– he sounds strangely Protestant at times!
And finally...
David Peterson’s book Possessed by God is, for my money, the gold standard on sanctification from a biblical theological point of view.
Is Scripture Enough?
On Saturday, I was guest panellist at the St James' Institute's gathering entitled Is Scripture Enough?
My co-panellists were Rev Dr Dorothy Lee and Rev Prof Andrew McGowan, both from Melbourne's Trinity College. Being theologians, we all answered the set question by stroking our chins and saying "it depends what you mean."
In his address, Andrew in fact focused more the clarity rather than the sufficiency of Scripture. I think we found a sort of consensus in the fact that Article VI is pretty much normative for Anglicans - the sufficiency of scripture is to do with salvation. The regulative principle view is in fact that which Anglicans rejected. However, we are not to view a Classic Anglican like Richard Hooker as placing reason or tradition above or even alongside scripture - for him scripture is authoritive, though reason and tradition are instrumental in its reading (though this has been the reading of Hooker since the 19th century, it is actually inaccurate, as Andrew acknowledged. He never mentioned the three-legged stool!).
Rather the issue is clarity. Both Andrew and Dorothy were at pains to state that they did not hold to a kind of postmodern interpretative free-for-all. Nevertheless, Scripture contains some difficult places and some complexity and richness (which of course is what 2 Peter says about Paul!). These have to be acknowledged and addressed. For Andrew, 'the gospel itself is clear' in Scripture (he sounds a lot like Peter Jensen's The Doctrine of Revelation at this point!). This does not mean that an absolute textual clarity follows. In fact, Scripture itself describes itself as having an obfuscating role for some - it is even a judgement on them that this is the case.
So - the question is, for me: what is the corollory for the actual textual clarity of the words of Scripture of the Reformation teaching of the spiritual or evangelical clarity of scripture (as expressed in the Westminster Confession no less!)? And further: what hermeneutic can help us not give too much weight to the claims and counter-claims of historians, without becoming obscurantist?
These a major questions of course, and will lead to major differences. However, if the normative and authoritative role of scripture for the church can be agreed I think the ground has shifted in an interesting direction. Twenty or thirty years ago I think you might have heard a more magisterial view, or a more decisive authoritive role given to tradition, or experience, or perhaps a more optimistic view of human reason. The work - and let's not be under any illusions, this is a big task - remains to be done on the text of scripture itself. What is it actually saying? How are we to receive it?
My co-panellists were Rev Dr Dorothy Lee and Rev Prof Andrew McGowan, both from Melbourne's Trinity College. Being theologians, we all answered the set question by stroking our chins and saying "it depends what you mean."
In his address, Andrew in fact focused more the clarity rather than the sufficiency of Scripture. I think we found a sort of consensus in the fact that Article VI is pretty much normative for Anglicans - the sufficiency of scripture is to do with salvation. The regulative principle view is in fact that which Anglicans rejected. However, we are not to view a Classic Anglican like Richard Hooker as placing reason or tradition above or even alongside scripture - for him scripture is authoritive, though reason and tradition are instrumental in its reading (though this has been the reading of Hooker since the 19th century, it is actually inaccurate, as Andrew acknowledged. He never mentioned the three-legged stool!).
Rather the issue is clarity. Both Andrew and Dorothy were at pains to state that they did not hold to a kind of postmodern interpretative free-for-all. Nevertheless, Scripture contains some difficult places and some complexity and richness (which of course is what 2 Peter says about Paul!). These have to be acknowledged and addressed. For Andrew, 'the gospel itself is clear' in Scripture (he sounds a lot like Peter Jensen's The Doctrine of Revelation at this point!). This does not mean that an absolute textual clarity follows. In fact, Scripture itself describes itself as having an obfuscating role for some - it is even a judgement on them that this is the case.
So - the question is, for me: what is the corollory for the actual textual clarity of the words of Scripture of the Reformation teaching of the spiritual or evangelical clarity of scripture (as expressed in the Westminster Confession no less!)? And further: what hermeneutic can help us not give too much weight to the claims and counter-claims of historians, without becoming obscurantist?
These a major questions of course, and will lead to major differences. However, if the normative and authoritative role of scripture for the church can be agreed I think the ground has shifted in an interesting direction. Twenty or thirty years ago I think you might have heard a more magisterial view, or a more decisive authoritive role given to tradition, or experience, or perhaps a more optimistic view of human reason. The work - and let's not be under any illusions, this is a big task - remains to be done on the text of scripture itself. What is it actually saying? How are we to receive it?
Thursday, July 02, 2009
7 reasons to sign up to Calvin@500 today
Moore College is holding its very own School of Theology in honour of John Calvin's 500th birthday. Why should you fork out the funds and book out the time?
1. Oliver Crisp. Oliver is one of the most interesting and prolific of a younger breed of evangelical theologians currently working in the UK. He has published on Jonathan Edwards and other figures in the Calvinian tradition.
2. Paul Helm. Paul Helm is already the author of a very, very good book on Calvin: John Calvin's Ideas. His intellect is formidible - his mastery of concepts extraordinary. Worth the price of admission!
3. Ashley Null. Ashley's expertise is in Tudor Anglicanism, and especially in the thought of Thomas Cranmer. One of the most exciting features of the conference (for me anyhow!) will be tracing the influence (or not) of Calvin on the faith that became Anglicanism.
4. Assessing the New Calvinists. Time magazine called 'the New Calvinism' one of the top ten ideas changing the world right now. Have the New Calvinists - much beloved of a younger generation of Christians world-over - got their hero right?
5. Calvin in Australia. Two papers, by Peter Jensen and Colin Bale, will assess Calvin's often unconsidered place in Australian history generally and in Australian church history especially.
6. Calvin as a theologian of the Holy Spirit. David Hohne's paper promises to lift the lid on Calvin's pneumatology! Calvin the charismatic?
7. Purchase the book of the conference AT the conference. The papers will be available in a hot-off-the-press volume entitled 'Engaging Calvin' (pub. IVP) at the conference.
1. Oliver Crisp. Oliver is one of the most interesting and prolific of a younger breed of evangelical theologians currently working in the UK. He has published on Jonathan Edwards and other figures in the Calvinian tradition.
2. Paul Helm. Paul Helm is already the author of a very, very good book on Calvin: John Calvin's Ideas. His intellect is formidible - his mastery of concepts extraordinary. Worth the price of admission!
3. Ashley Null. Ashley's expertise is in Tudor Anglicanism, and especially in the thought of Thomas Cranmer. One of the most exciting features of the conference (for me anyhow!) will be tracing the influence (or not) of Calvin on the faith that became Anglicanism.
4. Assessing the New Calvinists. Time magazine called 'the New Calvinism' one of the top ten ideas changing the world right now. Have the New Calvinists - much beloved of a younger generation of Christians world-over - got their hero right?
5. Calvin in Australia. Two papers, by Peter Jensen and Colin Bale, will assess Calvin's often unconsidered place in Australian history generally and in Australian church history especially.
6. Calvin as a theologian of the Holy Spirit. David Hohne's paper promises to lift the lid on Calvin's pneumatology! Calvin the charismatic?
7. Purchase the book of the conference AT the conference. The papers will be available in a hot-off-the-press volume entitled 'Engaging Calvin' (pub. IVP) at the conference.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Jesus was ... 'ill-advised'
From Matthew 5, the words of Jesus:
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I heard recently a well-known media figure say of these words 'I think they were ill-advised'. It isn't often, even in secular Australia, that you hear the teaching of Jesus challenged as to its wisdom. I was too shocked to respond with quickness of wit I am afraid to say. Not that secular people shouldn't challenge or question Jesus' teaching directly - it is just that they rarely bother to do it...
Not that my conversation partner was without insight here of course. He understood quite well that in this teaching Jesus raises the stakes for moral discouse quite appreciably. For Jesus, it is not only external actions that count - action that can be calculated as to the hurt they cause to others. No: the inner world of thoughts and desires are part of the picture. My disposition and my mindset - my 'heart': these are not out of the game, as far as Jesus is concerned. In this he is reminding Israel of the 10th commandment, against covetousness - a prohibition against ill-directed desire rather than against an evil action.
Was this 'ill-advised'? Did it bequeath to the Christian tradition a tendency to inwardness that leaves a legacy of psychologically harmful guilt? Did it leave us unable to think healthily about desire, unable to seperate the 'harmless' secret contemplations of the 'normal' individual from the pathologically harmful deeds of the criminal or the adulterer? Did it leave us terribly afraid of depictions of nudity in art (for example), depictions that are in fact harmless and even beautiful?
I don't think it was 'ill-advised' (of course). I think there is a terrible naivety - exposed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount - in imagining that we are capable of such self-mastery that we can nurture ill-directed desire without it affecting our outer world of relationships. Can a wife fantasise about another man while sleeping with her husband and imagine that there be no ill-effects - quite apart from the shattering inauthenticity and hypocrisy of the act, an act which is meant as an expression of desire for a particular other, and turns out not to be? Can we really leave lying around in the supposedly private chambers of our heart the desire that another fail, or be harmed, or even die, without resulting damage in the public world? Can we - ought we - live in such a two-faced way, that our inner and outer worlds are completely different? Is that what makes for whole and healthy, authentic people?
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I heard recently a well-known media figure say of these words 'I think they were ill-advised'. It isn't often, even in secular Australia, that you hear the teaching of Jesus challenged as to its wisdom. I was too shocked to respond with quickness of wit I am afraid to say. Not that secular people shouldn't challenge or question Jesus' teaching directly - it is just that they rarely bother to do it...
Not that my conversation partner was without insight here of course. He understood quite well that in this teaching Jesus raises the stakes for moral discouse quite appreciably. For Jesus, it is not only external actions that count - action that can be calculated as to the hurt they cause to others. No: the inner world of thoughts and desires are part of the picture. My disposition and my mindset - my 'heart': these are not out of the game, as far as Jesus is concerned. In this he is reminding Israel of the 10th commandment, against covetousness - a prohibition against ill-directed desire rather than against an evil action.
Was this 'ill-advised'? Did it bequeath to the Christian tradition a tendency to inwardness that leaves a legacy of psychologically harmful guilt? Did it leave us unable to think healthily about desire, unable to seperate the 'harmless' secret contemplations of the 'normal' individual from the pathologically harmful deeds of the criminal or the adulterer? Did it leave us terribly afraid of depictions of nudity in art (for example), depictions that are in fact harmless and even beautiful?
I don't think it was 'ill-advised' (of course). I think there is a terrible naivety - exposed by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount - in imagining that we are capable of such self-mastery that we can nurture ill-directed desire without it affecting our outer world of relationships. Can a wife fantasise about another man while sleeping with her husband and imagine that there be no ill-effects - quite apart from the shattering inauthenticity and hypocrisy of the act, an act which is meant as an expression of desire for a particular other, and turns out not to be? Can we really leave lying around in the supposedly private chambers of our heart the desire that another fail, or be harmed, or even die, without resulting damage in the public world? Can we - ought we - live in such a two-faced way, that our inner and outer worlds are completely different? Is that what makes for whole and healthy, authentic people?
Sunday, June 14, 2009
This IS the word of the Lord - and thanks be to God...
We have been very happy in our new church home, All Saints' Petersham. Today in church we had one of those moments that church attending ought to give you - a moment of real discomfort and dissonance. Frankly, if your church isn't making you uncomfortable some of the time, then change. Well, I mean, if your church doesn't allow the word of God to make you feel uncomfortable...
You see, we had a reading and a sermon from 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. And I am not just going to trot out the old line about how this challenges our cultural assumptions blah blah. That is a device used by complementarians to avoid being themselves listening too carefully to the text. (Mind you, at least they are listening to the text...)
No: this text is a test to see if we really do hold to the authority of the Scriptures. Do we really believe it when the reading is finished and the reader says 'this is the word of the Lord'? Can we really say 'thanks be to God'? This text, it seems to me, refuses to be mastered by the knowing exegete. It is teasing and mysterious and confronting and awkward. What can 'on account of the angels' mean? What does Paul mean by 'nature teaches us' (phusis)? It's the Bible at its best - turning our worlds upside down. Judging us just when we thought we were going to judge it. It can only be preached - and heard - with fear and trembling (and full marks to our preacher, Antony Barraclough, for not flinching).
Let me be honest: I don't like what this text is saying. I don't see how it makes sense (yet). It seems offensive and it is embarassing. But shouldn't the word of God - if it really IS the word of God spoken into the dark world - get precisely that reaction from me? And doesn't this word prove trustworthy and true again and again?
You see, we had a reading and a sermon from 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. And I am not just going to trot out the old line about how this challenges our cultural assumptions blah blah. That is a device used by complementarians to avoid being themselves listening too carefully to the text. (Mind you, at least they are listening to the text...)
No: this text is a test to see if we really do hold to the authority of the Scriptures. Do we really believe it when the reading is finished and the reader says 'this is the word of the Lord'? Can we really say 'thanks be to God'? This text, it seems to me, refuses to be mastered by the knowing exegete. It is teasing and mysterious and confronting and awkward. What can 'on account of the angels' mean? What does Paul mean by 'nature teaches us' (phusis)? It's the Bible at its best - turning our worlds upside down. Judging us just when we thought we were going to judge it. It can only be preached - and heard - with fear and trembling (and full marks to our preacher, Antony Barraclough, for not flinching).
Let me be honest: I don't like what this text is saying. I don't see how it makes sense (yet). It seems offensive and it is embarassing. But shouldn't the word of God - if it really IS the word of God spoken into the dark world - get precisely that reaction from me? And doesn't this word prove trustworthy and true again and again?
Friday, June 12, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Riddle of Christian Subjectivity (and my 1000th post!)
Who is the Christian?
In what, of what, does the Christian life properly consist? If we have given an Augustinian and Reformed, and so Pauline, account of the depravity and death-ward-ness of human nature apart from grace, and then if we have given complete supremacy and initiative to God in the reconciliation of human beings to himself, then in what sense has the Christian any life left to live that may properly be called theirs? In what sense can we understand that the Christian is an acting subject, a person with a task to do which is properly his or her own, and a unique and distinctive voice with words to say that are not merely a piece of ventriloquism on behalf of God, and an individuality? Is the Christian still so corrupt, so shot through with sin, that they cannot properly be called the agent of any good whatsoever? Furthermore, if ‘it is no longer I that liveth, but Christ that liveth in me’ (Gal 2:20) – if even my identity, myself as an ‘I’ wanes, while he waxes – then have ‘I’ not utterly dissolved? Am I not in fact a non-entity? If faith means the giving up of any claim I might have had at asserting myself as a someone before God (coram Deo) – self-justifying, in other words - and receiving instead the life that emanates from Jesus as a gift, justified by grace, through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, then in what sense am I still an ‘I’? If even faith is ‘the gift of God...so that no-one can boast’ (Eph 2:8-9), then how is it that this faith, which must surely involve my will and affections, is really mine? Is the freedom for which Christ set me free (Gal 5:1) really no freedom at all, because I am in no sense the agent of my own actions?
And yet of course, if we read the New Testament we find that, yes, the Christian is enabled to step out on the journey. The blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame leap for joy. The dim eyes, the stopped-up ears, the withered and useless legs – these are now used for seeing, hearing and leaping. The creature who is faithless, and false, and even aptly described as dead in sin, is now faithful, and true, and alive to God. She who was unable to respond, now responds. She who was active only in wickedness is now an agent of righteousness. She now labours not in vain (1 Cor 15:58) – not merely as the conduit or channel for some divine will, but as a free subject whose will is co-ordinated to the divine will.
We have then not available to us the option of denying the reality of Christian agency and identity. These, if we are to read the Bible, are givens. But so is the priority of God in redemption from beginning to end. We cannot either consider a co-operative model in which man on his own strength completes an action initiated by God, or replicates in his own life the model given to him by God in Jesus Christ. These explanations are on every side altogether too tidy.
In what, of what, does the Christian life properly consist? If we have given an Augustinian and Reformed, and so Pauline, account of the depravity and death-ward-ness of human nature apart from grace, and then if we have given complete supremacy and initiative to God in the reconciliation of human beings to himself, then in what sense has the Christian any life left to live that may properly be called theirs? In what sense can we understand that the Christian is an acting subject, a person with a task to do which is properly his or her own, and a unique and distinctive voice with words to say that are not merely a piece of ventriloquism on behalf of God, and an individuality? Is the Christian still so corrupt, so shot through with sin, that they cannot properly be called the agent of any good whatsoever? Furthermore, if ‘it is no longer I that liveth, but Christ that liveth in me’ (Gal 2:20) – if even my identity, myself as an ‘I’ wanes, while he waxes – then have ‘I’ not utterly dissolved? Am I not in fact a non-entity? If faith means the giving up of any claim I might have had at asserting myself as a someone before God (coram Deo) – self-justifying, in other words - and receiving instead the life that emanates from Jesus as a gift, justified by grace, through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, then in what sense am I still an ‘I’? If even faith is ‘the gift of God...so that no-one can boast’ (Eph 2:8-9), then how is it that this faith, which must surely involve my will and affections, is really mine? Is the freedom for which Christ set me free (Gal 5:1) really no freedom at all, because I am in no sense the agent of my own actions?
And yet of course, if we read the New Testament we find that, yes, the Christian is enabled to step out on the journey. The blind see, the deaf hear, and the lame leap for joy. The dim eyes, the stopped-up ears, the withered and useless legs – these are now used for seeing, hearing and leaping. The creature who is faithless, and false, and even aptly described as dead in sin, is now faithful, and true, and alive to God. She who was unable to respond, now responds. She who was active only in wickedness is now an agent of righteousness. She now labours not in vain (1 Cor 15:58) – not merely as the conduit or channel for some divine will, but as a free subject whose will is co-ordinated to the divine will.
We have then not available to us the option of denying the reality of Christian agency and identity. These, if we are to read the Bible, are givens. But so is the priority of God in redemption from beginning to end. We cannot either consider a co-operative model in which man on his own strength completes an action initiated by God, or replicates in his own life the model given to him by God in Jesus Christ. These explanations are on every side altogether too tidy.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
The Life of Jesus - CPX
The guys at CPX (the Centre for Public Christianity) have really excelled themselves with the new Life of Jesus package. The Life of Jesus screened on Australia's Channel 7 at Easter time in an hour long format, and I was impressed then by the production values, the clarity and depth of the presentation and the brilliantly constructed programme. The DVD comes with two and half hours of material, much of which is shot on location in the Holy Land. Alongside the 'life of Jesus' stuff comes a series of shot explanations of various questions such as 'Is there a God?' and 'Can you be good without God?'
The Life of Jesus comes with a very useful guidebook which is stuffed full of information, scripts, questions and notes, meaning that the DVD can operate as a six-part course. I think it would be fun to do in a class or group. It is sophisticated and serious enough to provide a real challenge at an adult level while being clear and simple enough that senior high school groups could easily use it.
The great benefit of the course is that it provides an antidote to the crackpot theories that make so much headway in the media. John Dickson's strategy is to show that even liberal-minded or non-religious scholars agree on the basic outline of Jesus' life - the impression given sometimes in the media that almost nothing can be known of him is quite wrong.
But more than this, it presents an account of Jesus the man that is plausible without being overstated. It takes us in to the story of his life, presenting it too us not only a historical reasonable narrative, but as a story that has life-changing implications for everyone.
As a theologian, I am quite suspicious of an apologetic strategy that relies on historical proof. The Life of Jesus uses an evidentialist type of apologetic, and unashamedly so. But there is no suggestion that just providing this evidence is enough to instill faith. And it is the case that quite often theologians have conceded the historical ground to the sceptics prematurely. The Life of Jesus shows this brilliantly.
Furthermore, the plethora of scallywag accounts of Jesus' life is allowed to grow because theologians have said 'it doesn't matter'. No - it does matter, theologically, that we can go Israel and see with our own eyes the ground on which Jesus walked. He was not a fantasy, or a principle. He was a man of flesh and blood and bone, and as far as any man of flesh and blood and bone may be traced in history so we should expect and in fact rejoice that traces of Jesus' presence among us are there to be found.
The Life of Jesus comes with a very useful guidebook which is stuffed full of information, scripts, questions and notes, meaning that the DVD can operate as a six-part course. I think it would be fun to do in a class or group. It is sophisticated and serious enough to provide a real challenge at an adult level while being clear and simple enough that senior high school groups could easily use it.
The great benefit of the course is that it provides an antidote to the crackpot theories that make so much headway in the media. John Dickson's strategy is to show that even liberal-minded or non-religious scholars agree on the basic outline of Jesus' life - the impression given sometimes in the media that almost nothing can be known of him is quite wrong.
But more than this, it presents an account of Jesus the man that is plausible without being overstated. It takes us in to the story of his life, presenting it too us not only a historical reasonable narrative, but as a story that has life-changing implications for everyone.
As a theologian, I am quite suspicious of an apologetic strategy that relies on historical proof. The Life of Jesus uses an evidentialist type of apologetic, and unashamedly so. But there is no suggestion that just providing this evidence is enough to instill faith. And it is the case that quite often theologians have conceded the historical ground to the sceptics prematurely. The Life of Jesus shows this brilliantly.
Furthermore, the plethora of scallywag accounts of Jesus' life is allowed to grow because theologians have said 'it doesn't matter'. No - it does matter, theologically, that we can go Israel and see with our own eyes the ground on which Jesus walked. He was not a fantasy, or a principle. He was a man of flesh and blood and bone, and as far as any man of flesh and blood and bone may be traced in history so we should expect and in fact rejoice that traces of Jesus' presence among us are there to be found.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Keith Condie on Richard Baxter
We interviewed Keith Condie about his project on 17th Century legend Richard Baxter today. It was quite fascinating - including revelations that Keith has found some hitherto undiscovered documentary evidence about Baxter!
It led us to discuss the religious affections and the devotional life of the believer too. Enjoy!
It led us to discuss the religious affections and the devotional life of the believer too. Enjoy!
Monday, June 01, 2009
With God, nothing is impossible...
This weekend's Sydney Morning Herald magazine included a feature on the minority of people who have chosen not to have sex before (or outside) marriage. (Unfortunately it is not published online, or I would link to it). Though the author, Amanda Hooton, interviews a number of people who are celibate or trying to be (including the admirable Jason Stevens) and does so sympathetically, she throws a great deal of doubt on whether the celibate lifestyle and its promotion is healthy and safe.
She cites statistics which show that celibacy pledges actually achieve nothing by way of stopping pre-marital sexual activity, and actually increase the likelihood of such activity occurring in an unsafe way. Further, by linking sex to guilt and shame, religious groups are making it more difficulty for teenagers to behave in a mature way, not easier (is the claim).
Hooton writes:
It [sex] is...on some basic level, part of what it is to be human; part of life. And chastity, in this context at least, feels like a denial of life. Can it really be a path to happiness and contentment? Perhaps no-one can answer this question for anyone else...but one can't help wonder about the coercive powers of chastity movements en masse, rather than on an individual basis, in which so many people are manoeuvered into decision that are not only evidently wrong for them, but potentially dangerous.
So here we have the usual stuff about personal authenticity and sex as an expression of it. And the importance of the personal in sexual ethics.
All the people interviewed in the article are religious in one way or another, and extremely so -Pentecostal Christians and Mormons, which increases the impression that this is not a 'rational' way to behave. I was disappointed at how unconvincing they were. While some of them give a good account of themselves, the reasoning of some of the people interviewed far too easily falls into a lame consequentialism. That is, they seek to establish that sex before marriage is in some way demonstrably bad for you. 'You'll get pregnant'. 'You'll get disease'. 'You'll be psychologically damaged'. Trouble is, the secular person can respond to all these by saying 'good education prevents these', and 'teens are just as likely to have pre-marital sex with a chastisty pledge as without'.
And this is where I wonder whether Christians have got the reasoning about this all wrong and fallen back into a kind of terrible Pelagianism with regard to sex before marriage. In the first instance, the consequentialist arguments about pre-marital sex are not very convincing - and in fact there has emerged a counter argument (that celibacy is bad for you, or at least, for many). At this point the celibacy movements are looking more than a little shaky. They haven't convinced people that the consequences of sex outside marriage are that devastating. And the heated rhetoric they use seems to belong to a different age.
And times have indeed changed: in a former time, social pressure and shame would have pushed most people in the direction of pre-marital abstinence. People would have lived out a Christianised ethic in their sex lives, but on the basis of conformity to social norms. And the dangers, especially for girls, of misbehaviour were very severe. Without reliable contraception or easy access to abortion, self-control was a necessary weapon against the terrible stigma of teen pregnancy or worse. Religious teaching of course played a part, but in a negative sense: reminding people of the terrible spiritual consequences of misbehaviour rather than the potential for grace and forgiveness.
Now social pressure runs the other way (it is a truism to say!). 75% of people think pre-marital sex is fine. Religious groups are in decline. The public square is saturated with sexual images. It is thought normal and healthy to experiment with sex outside marriage, so long as you don't hurt anyone. It is 'part of a life' - felt to be part of really living. Girls and boys are taught that to be a full person you need to express your sexual self, not exercise restraint. And their bodily appetites confirm this.
This is where a theological account of human nature needs to come in. Whereas before, conformity to social norms made celibacy humanly possible, the new context makes it (for many people) humanly impossible. And this is where just telling people to try harder, or getting them to make pledges, or take cold showers, is bound to fail. Or, it gives them false hope in their ability to master themselves. It trusts too much in the flesh over which we have in the end so little power - without the Spirit of God. If you are a youth leader wondering how on earth you can tell your young people to keep their hands off each other, well let us acknowledge the reality of the situation: it is impossible. It is impossible because of social convention, because consequential arguments don't convince, and because human flesh is weak.
But Jesus said:
With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God. This applies to randy teenagers as much as to greedy rich men. With the Spirit of God, it is possible even for young people to remain celibate until they are married. I am convinced that this is the teaching of the Bible, which is good for human beings - even when they can't explain how. If it weren't at least sometimes the case that the Word of God asked of us something that runs counter to what is apparently reasonable and decent in the contemporary world, I would doubt that it was the Word of God!
She cites statistics which show that celibacy pledges actually achieve nothing by way of stopping pre-marital sexual activity, and actually increase the likelihood of such activity occurring in an unsafe way. Further, by linking sex to guilt and shame, religious groups are making it more difficulty for teenagers to behave in a mature way, not easier (is the claim).
Hooton writes:
It [sex] is...on some basic level, part of what it is to be human; part of life. And chastity, in this context at least, feels like a denial of life. Can it really be a path to happiness and contentment? Perhaps no-one can answer this question for anyone else...but one can't help wonder about the coercive powers of chastity movements en masse, rather than on an individual basis, in which so many people are manoeuvered into decision that are not only evidently wrong for them, but potentially dangerous.
So here we have the usual stuff about personal authenticity and sex as an expression of it. And the importance of the personal in sexual ethics.
All the people interviewed in the article are religious in one way or another, and extremely so -Pentecostal Christians and Mormons, which increases the impression that this is not a 'rational' way to behave. I was disappointed at how unconvincing they were. While some of them give a good account of themselves, the reasoning of some of the people interviewed far too easily falls into a lame consequentialism. That is, they seek to establish that sex before marriage is in some way demonstrably bad for you. 'You'll get pregnant'. 'You'll get disease'. 'You'll be psychologically damaged'. Trouble is, the secular person can respond to all these by saying 'good education prevents these', and 'teens are just as likely to have pre-marital sex with a chastisty pledge as without'.
And this is where I wonder whether Christians have got the reasoning about this all wrong and fallen back into a kind of terrible Pelagianism with regard to sex before marriage. In the first instance, the consequentialist arguments about pre-marital sex are not very convincing - and in fact there has emerged a counter argument (that celibacy is bad for you, or at least, for many). At this point the celibacy movements are looking more than a little shaky. They haven't convinced people that the consequences of sex outside marriage are that devastating. And the heated rhetoric they use seems to belong to a different age.
And times have indeed changed: in a former time, social pressure and shame would have pushed most people in the direction of pre-marital abstinence. People would have lived out a Christianised ethic in their sex lives, but on the basis of conformity to social norms. And the dangers, especially for girls, of misbehaviour were very severe. Without reliable contraception or easy access to abortion, self-control was a necessary weapon against the terrible stigma of teen pregnancy or worse. Religious teaching of course played a part, but in a negative sense: reminding people of the terrible spiritual consequences of misbehaviour rather than the potential for grace and forgiveness.
Now social pressure runs the other way (it is a truism to say!). 75% of people think pre-marital sex is fine. Religious groups are in decline. The public square is saturated with sexual images. It is thought normal and healthy to experiment with sex outside marriage, so long as you don't hurt anyone. It is 'part of a life' - felt to be part of really living. Girls and boys are taught that to be a full person you need to express your sexual self, not exercise restraint. And their bodily appetites confirm this.
This is where a theological account of human nature needs to come in. Whereas before, conformity to social norms made celibacy humanly possible, the new context makes it (for many people) humanly impossible. And this is where just telling people to try harder, or getting them to make pledges, or take cold showers, is bound to fail. Or, it gives them false hope in their ability to master themselves. It trusts too much in the flesh over which we have in the end so little power - without the Spirit of God. If you are a youth leader wondering how on earth you can tell your young people to keep their hands off each other, well let us acknowledge the reality of the situation: it is impossible. It is impossible because of social convention, because consequential arguments don't convince, and because human flesh is weak.
But Jesus said:
With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God. This applies to randy teenagers as much as to greedy rich men. With the Spirit of God, it is possible even for young people to remain celibate until they are married. I am convinced that this is the teaching of the Bible, which is good for human beings - even when they can't explain how. If it weren't at least sometimes the case that the Word of God asked of us something that runs counter to what is apparently reasonable and decent in the contemporary world, I would doubt that it was the Word of God!
Saturday, May 30, 2009
In defence of doctrine
My article In Defence of Doctrine has just been published in The Briefing - you can purchase on-line as well as hard copies from Matthias Media here.
Love to have your feedback!
Love to have your feedback!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tracks to follow
Here's our interview with Bill Salier (Vice-Principal at Moore College) on Theological Education.
(Get the RSS feed here.)
Also, I wrote about punishment here, and I think the discussion has gone in an interesting direction.
(Get the RSS feed here.)
Also, I wrote about punishment here, and I think the discussion has gone in an interesting direction.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Terry Eagleton: Reason, Faith and Revolution
Terry Eagleton's latest book is a stinging attack on all things Dawkins and Hitchens, or 'Ditchkins' as he calls them.
In amongst the ridicule he rightly heaps on them, there is some fantastic prose about the essence of Christianity. Not surprisingly, this bit caught my eye:
The most radical form of self-denial is to give up not cigarettes or whiskey but one's own body, an act which is traditionally known as martyrdom. The martyr yields up his or her most precious possession, but would prefer not to; the suicide, by contrast, is glad to be rid of a life that has become an unbearable burden. If Jesus wanted to die, then he was just another suicide, and his death was as worthless and futile as a suicide bomber's messy finale. Martyrs, as opposed to suicides, are those who place their deaths at the service of others. Even their dying is an act of love. Their deaths are such that they can bear fruit in the lives of others. (p. 26)
Eagleton, a socialist from way back, can see the radicalism of the New Testament in clear focus: 'The New Testament is a brutal destroyer of human illusions. If you follow Jesus and don't end up dead, it appears you have some explaining to do.' Quite... And here's more:
The Christian way of indicating that faith is in the end a question of choice is the notion of choice. Like the world itself from a Christian point of view, faith is a gift. This means among other things that Christians are not in conscious possession of all the reasons why they believe in God... (p. 138)
Intriguingly, Eagleton has also noticed that some of the most vigorous intellectual discussion taking place in the West is being done by theologians (to the great surprise of Ditchkins)
...theology, however implausible many of its truth claims, is one of the most ambitious theoretical arenas left in an increasingly specialised world - one whose subject is nothing les than the nature and destiny of humanity itself, in relation to what it takes to be its transcendent source of life. These are not questions one can easily raise in analytic philosophy or political science.
Eagleton describes Christianity as a kind of 'tragic humanism', a type of thinking that holds that only 'by a process of self-dispossession and radical remaking can humanity come into its own'. (p. 169). By George, I think he's got it...
In amongst the ridicule he rightly heaps on them, there is some fantastic prose about the essence of Christianity. Not surprisingly, this bit caught my eye:
The most radical form of self-denial is to give up not cigarettes or whiskey but one's own body, an act which is traditionally known as martyrdom. The martyr yields up his or her most precious possession, but would prefer not to; the suicide, by contrast, is glad to be rid of a life that has become an unbearable burden. If Jesus wanted to die, then he was just another suicide, and his death was as worthless and futile as a suicide bomber's messy finale. Martyrs, as opposed to suicides, are those who place their deaths at the service of others. Even their dying is an act of love. Their deaths are such that they can bear fruit in the lives of others. (p. 26)
Eagleton, a socialist from way back, can see the radicalism of the New Testament in clear focus: 'The New Testament is a brutal destroyer of human illusions. If you follow Jesus and don't end up dead, it appears you have some explaining to do.' Quite... And here's more:
The Christian way of indicating that faith is in the end a question of choice is the notion of choice. Like the world itself from a Christian point of view, faith is a gift. This means among other things that Christians are not in conscious possession of all the reasons why they believe in God... (p. 138)
Intriguingly, Eagleton has also noticed that some of the most vigorous intellectual discussion taking place in the West is being done by theologians (to the great surprise of Ditchkins)
...theology, however implausible many of its truth claims, is one of the most ambitious theoretical arenas left in an increasingly specialised world - one whose subject is nothing les than the nature and destiny of humanity itself, in relation to what it takes to be its transcendent source of life. These are not questions one can easily raise in analytic philosophy or political science.
Eagleton describes Christianity as a kind of 'tragic humanism', a type of thinking that holds that only 'by a process of self-dispossession and radical remaking can humanity come into its own'. (p. 169). By George, I think he's got it...
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
O'Donovan on Torture
In The Ways of Judgment, Oliver O'Donovan is happy to accept a certain cultural relativism when it comes to the practices of punishment. It is possible to stand against capital punishment, for example, without regarding it as a universally forbidden practice.
But then he asks:
May it not be that even torture is accommordated within the symbolism of some penal languages? And if we define torture purely anatomically, as performing certain painful acts upon the human body, perhaps it may be so; and perhaps it may be lack of imagination that makes it seem incompatible with respect for human dignity - we need only think of the measures used by admirers of the Japanese samurai culture to commit suicide! As things stand, however, the practices we condemn as torture are clearly not viewed in that light by the societies which practice them. They are performed in secret, without due process, without legal specifications as to duration or intensity; and they in no way seek to tell the truth about the crimes they punish. These features identify such practices as subversive of the norms by which those societies formally operate. Understood in this sense, as the infliction of 'cruel and unusual' suffering outside prevailing norms, torture may be regarded as universally prohibited. (p. 122)
The very secrecy of the practice of torture gives the lie: those who practice it know already that it is wrong! But O'Donovan hones in on a problem for those descriptions of torture which rather simplistically say that it is a matter of inflicting pain on the body pure and simple. In a strange way, torture has its own language.
But then he asks:
May it not be that even torture is accommordated within the symbolism of some penal languages? And if we define torture purely anatomically, as performing certain painful acts upon the human body, perhaps it may be so; and perhaps it may be lack of imagination that makes it seem incompatible with respect for human dignity - we need only think of the measures used by admirers of the Japanese samurai culture to commit suicide! As things stand, however, the practices we condemn as torture are clearly not viewed in that light by the societies which practice them. They are performed in secret, without due process, without legal specifications as to duration or intensity; and they in no way seek to tell the truth about the crimes they punish. These features identify such practices as subversive of the norms by which those societies formally operate. Understood in this sense, as the infliction of 'cruel and unusual' suffering outside prevailing norms, torture may be regarded as universally prohibited. (p. 122)
The very secrecy of the practice of torture gives the lie: those who practice it know already that it is wrong! But O'Donovan hones in on a problem for those descriptions of torture which rather simplistically say that it is a matter of inflicting pain on the body pure and simple. In a strange way, torture has its own language.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Why don't the New Calvinists say anything about the US government's torture policy?
I posted this question on my facebook update, and the following (I think interesting) discussion ensued. I have reproduced it here. It could be that the New Calvinists - who I take it as representing a theological position as very close to my own - have said a great deal about torture, but I haven't read it. I choose them to pick on as a form of self-criticism.
Nat Smith at 23:57 on 17 May
because they have better things to care about; like people going to hell.
Michael Jensen at 04:18 on 18 May
On the contrary: Piper has a lot to say about abortion for example. It just seems to be a selective choice of political issues to care about.
Jim Wackett at 08:37 on 18 May
Selective indeed. It'd be good to see an application of a 'reformed' world view on those parts of life that exist between the possibility of abortion and euthanasia, and not just limited to same-sex marriage.
Nat Smith at 08:50 on 18 May
waterboarding is flogging a dead horse, abortion, sam-sex marriage and euthanasia are more relevant in obama's america. i guess for piper the priority might go like this; saving innocent lives from death > saving guilty lives from pain.
Jim Wackett at 09:24 on 18 May
Actually, I think Piper would hold that there is no such thing as an innocent life.
David Starling at 09:26 on 18 May
They do - e.g. here:http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/04/defining-and-condemning-torture-what-it.html
Michael Jensen at 10:43 on 18 May
hmm, alas the links to the Mohler and Neuhaus papers is broken. Never mind. But I am glad to see it. Nat - I am staggered that you would come up with such an awful equation and attribute it to Piper. After all, he knows that Jesus died for the guilty... how we treat the guilty is litmus test of our own understanding of the gospel, isn't it?
Michael Jensen at 10:44 on 18 May
Still, the NC's are far more vociferous in defence of their trad 'family values' issues than they are on this, and that's a bit disappointing. It suggests that American nationalism dies very hard... no?
Roger Fitzhardinge at 11:01 on 18 May
@nat: interesting description of waterboarding ;)
David Starling at 11:07 on 18 May
Two quick thoughts: 1. I think it is entirely legitimate for an individual (e.g. Piper) to pick one or two big social/ethical issues and focus his campaigning on those, rather than issuing a thousand forgettable pronouncements on a thousand different issues. 2. I think it's a bit lazy to respond to Nat's point by playing the 'no such thing as an... innocent person' card. Before God, we're all guilty, of course (and even unborn children are part of a fallen race) but that doesn't mean that the categories of 'innocent' and 'guilty' are irrelevant in interpersonal ethics and public justice. [btw, this is not an argument for the legitimacy of torture, or, for that matter, for the assumption that all Guantanamo detainees were 'guilty' - just an argument against misusing theological categories]
Michael Jensen at 11:15 on 18 May
Well maybe. But I don't think torture IS a forgettable issue. Like abortion, it is an issue that strikes at the very soul of a society.How powerful would their criticism of the former Bush govt be if they preached against this woeful hypocrisy and the endorsement of evil by bureaucratic means! The laziness was Nat's in the first instance (no ... offence, Nat!). One shouldn't have to choose this over that. Neither should preaching the gospel of grace be sectioned off from the prophetic witnes to the egregious crimes of a rather smug society... no?
Jim Wackett at 11:25 on 18 May
David...1. Agreed. But the focus on particular issues can be understood and pursued with a little more integrity if they are placed within a broader context of a commitment to 'life' from cradle to grave. So yes, there should be NC types speaking out on abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. There should also be NC types speaking out on ... poverty, human trafficking, torture etc. 2. Not lazy... just time-starved! ; ) I only sought to make a single, and relevant, point, not articluate an entire response. I don't believe I misued a theological catagory, just addressed that fact that what was being articulated as 'piper's priority' didn't seem to me to hold with his writing/preaching.
David Starling at 11:27 on 18 May
I didn't say that torture was a forgettable issue. What I said was that a thousand statements on a thousand different issues (all of which could, in themselves, be issues of enormous importance) all end up being forgettable statements. And I'm not sure that accusing Nat of "the laziness" (even if the accusation sticks) absolves the rest of us in the thread of the possibility of being guilty of the same crime!
Michael Jensen at 11:37 on 18 May
Yes, thousands statements yes yes. But it is interesting, and sad, that the issues of choice for the NCs are traditional 'right' issues - so therefore easy to dismiss as so much predictible white noise. I am also concerned by the militarism of some of things I hear and read... it'd be nice to hear a counterpoint to that.
David Starling at 11:40 on 18 May
Thanks Jim for the responses. On point 1: I agree that it's a good thing for NC types to be speaking out on poverty, human trafficking, torture, etc. Of course! It happens (eg. this post on Joe Carter's blog the other day:http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/author/lindsay-marshall) and maybe it should happen more. But I do think it's also fair to say that on the abortion issue there are very few voices in the public square, apart from conservative Catholics and evangelicals, who are speaking up for unborn children. And as Nat said in his second comment (with the unfortunate mixed metaphor) it's a bit late to be prophetic on the torture issue in Obama's America, but there's still plenty of opportunity to be prophetic on abortion.... On point 2: fair enough - time starved is not the same as lazy! But I still do see plenty of not-so-time-starved people making the sorts of arguments (e.g. the 'no such thing as an innocent person' argument used to flatten moral distinctions
David Starling at 11:58 on 18 May
Thanks Mike for the comeback, too! I agree that in some cases the clarity and gravity of the anti-abortion case can be almost completely obscured by a whole lot of predictable RW white noise. It's one thing to be a principled social conservative - it's another to be a captive to the GOP and the machinations of a Karl Rove.Mind you, the abortion issue can just as easily get lost in a forest of more politically fashionable LW concerns in the discourse of the Campolo/Wallis types as well.... Piper's case, I'm not sure he can be quite so easily pigeon-holed and dismissed as predictably right wing. (e.g. he's been prepared over the years to lose friends within the conservative evangelical constituency on issues like race and gun laws, and I don't remember him being a flag-waver for the 'War on Terror' or the invasion of Iraq).
Michael Jensen at 11:58 on 18 May
The reason it is a bit late to be prophetic on torture is that the government - at the highest level - has been telling porky pies!!! Torture is ALWAYS like this - especially in democracies. It is a secret evil. So when IS the right time to speak out on it?
David Starling at 12:15 on 18 May
Sorry - I think our comments crossed...So this really is the last comment from me. I agree that it's never the wrong time to speak out on torture. All I was saying was that it's no longer 'prophetic' to speak out on that issue. Thankfully, the torture issue is one on which we now have the luxury of swimming with the tide of (majority) public opinion and holding the Obama administration to account for the transparency and consistency with which they follow through on their pre-election rhetoric. That's not necessarily an easy task, bit I'm not sure it's 'prophetic' (in the popular sense of the word).... Unless I'm missing something?
Michael Jensen at 12:48 on 18 May
Well, I dunno about public opinion. You can see that Cheney's arguments are persuasive with a lot of people: the requirement for national security trumps over even the most basic sort of respect for human dignity...the ends is still justifying the means.The thing is - we shouldn't imagine that this is an end to torture. We have known about the use and practice of torture for many years - and that democracies, despite their self-congratulatory rhetoric, continue to practice it anyway.
Nat Smith at 23:57 on 17 May
because they have better things to care about; like people going to hell.
Michael Jensen at 04:18 on 18 May
On the contrary: Piper has a lot to say about abortion for example. It just seems to be a selective choice of political issues to care about.
Jim Wackett at 08:37 on 18 May
Selective indeed. It'd be good to see an application of a 'reformed' world view on those parts of life that exist between the possibility of abortion and euthanasia, and not just limited to same-sex marriage.
Nat Smith at 08:50 on 18 May
waterboarding is flogging a dead horse, abortion, sam-sex marriage and euthanasia are more relevant in obama's america. i guess for piper the priority might go like this; saving innocent lives from death > saving guilty lives from pain.
Jim Wackett at 09:24 on 18 May
Actually, I think Piper would hold that there is no such thing as an innocent life.
David Starling at 09:26 on 18 May
They do - e.g. here:http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/04/defining-and-condemning-torture-what-it.html
Michael Jensen at 10:43 on 18 May
hmm, alas the links to the Mohler and Neuhaus papers is broken. Never mind. But I am glad to see it. Nat - I am staggered that you would come up with such an awful equation and attribute it to Piper. After all, he knows that Jesus died for the guilty... how we treat the guilty is litmus test of our own understanding of the gospel, isn't it?
Michael Jensen at 10:44 on 18 May
Still, the NC's are far more vociferous in defence of their trad 'family values' issues than they are on this, and that's a bit disappointing. It suggests that American nationalism dies very hard... no?
Roger Fitzhardinge at 11:01 on 18 May
@nat: interesting description of waterboarding ;)
David Starling at 11:07 on 18 May
Two quick thoughts: 1. I think it is entirely legitimate for an individual (e.g. Piper) to pick one or two big social/ethical issues and focus his campaigning on those, rather than issuing a thousand forgettable pronouncements on a thousand different issues. 2. I think it's a bit lazy to respond to Nat's point by playing the 'no such thing as an... innocent person' card. Before God, we're all guilty, of course (and even unborn children are part of a fallen race) but that doesn't mean that the categories of 'innocent' and 'guilty' are irrelevant in interpersonal ethics and public justice. [btw, this is not an argument for the legitimacy of torture, or, for that matter, for the assumption that all Guantanamo detainees were 'guilty' - just an argument against misusing theological categories]
Michael Jensen at 11:15 on 18 May
Well maybe. But I don't think torture IS a forgettable issue. Like abortion, it is an issue that strikes at the very soul of a society.How powerful would their criticism of the former Bush govt be if they preached against this woeful hypocrisy and the endorsement of evil by bureaucratic means! The laziness was Nat's in the first instance (no ... offence, Nat!). One shouldn't have to choose this over that. Neither should preaching the gospel of grace be sectioned off from the prophetic witnes to the egregious crimes of a rather smug society... no?
Jim Wackett at 11:25 on 18 May
David...1. Agreed. But the focus on particular issues can be understood and pursued with a little more integrity if they are placed within a broader context of a commitment to 'life' from cradle to grave. So yes, there should be NC types speaking out on abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. There should also be NC types speaking out on ... poverty, human trafficking, torture etc. 2. Not lazy... just time-starved! ; ) I only sought to make a single, and relevant, point, not articluate an entire response. I don't believe I misued a theological catagory, just addressed that fact that what was being articulated as 'piper's priority' didn't seem to me to hold with his writing/preaching.
David Starling at 11:27 on 18 May
I didn't say that torture was a forgettable issue. What I said was that a thousand statements on a thousand different issues (all of which could, in themselves, be issues of enormous importance) all end up being forgettable statements. And I'm not sure that accusing Nat of "the laziness" (even if the accusation sticks) absolves the rest of us in the thread of the possibility of being guilty of the same crime!
Michael Jensen at 11:37 on 18 May
Yes, thousands statements yes yes. But it is interesting, and sad, that the issues of choice for the NCs are traditional 'right' issues - so therefore easy to dismiss as so much predictible white noise. I am also concerned by the militarism of some of things I hear and read... it'd be nice to hear a counterpoint to that.
David Starling at 11:40 on 18 May
Thanks Jim for the responses. On point 1: I agree that it's a good thing for NC types to be speaking out on poverty, human trafficking, torture, etc. Of course! It happens (eg. this post on Joe Carter's blog the other day:http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/author/lindsay-marshall) and maybe it should happen more. But I do think it's also fair to say that on the abortion issue there are very few voices in the public square, apart from conservative Catholics and evangelicals, who are speaking up for unborn children. And as Nat said in his second comment (with the unfortunate mixed metaphor) it's a bit late to be prophetic on the torture issue in Obama's America, but there's still plenty of opportunity to be prophetic on abortion.... On point 2: fair enough - time starved is not the same as lazy! But I still do see plenty of not-so-time-starved people making the sorts of arguments (e.g. the 'no such thing as an innocent person' argument used to flatten moral distinctions
David Starling at 11:58 on 18 May
Thanks Mike for the comeback, too! I agree that in some cases the clarity and gravity of the anti-abortion case can be almost completely obscured by a whole lot of predictable RW white noise. It's one thing to be a principled social conservative - it's another to be a captive to the GOP and the machinations of a Karl Rove.Mind you, the abortion issue can just as easily get lost in a forest of more politically fashionable LW concerns in the discourse of the Campolo/Wallis types as well.... Piper's case, I'm not sure he can be quite so easily pigeon-holed and dismissed as predictably right wing. (e.g. he's been prepared over the years to lose friends within the conservative evangelical constituency on issues like race and gun laws, and I don't remember him being a flag-waver for the 'War on Terror' or the invasion of Iraq).
Michael Jensen at 11:58 on 18 May
The reason it is a bit late to be prophetic on torture is that the government - at the highest level - has been telling porky pies!!! Torture is ALWAYS like this - especially in democracies. It is a secret evil. So when IS the right time to speak out on it?
David Starling at 12:15 on 18 May
Sorry - I think our comments crossed...So this really is the last comment from me. I agree that it's never the wrong time to speak out on torture. All I was saying was that it's no longer 'prophetic' to speak out on that issue. Thankfully, the torture issue is one on which we now have the luxury of swimming with the tide of (majority) public opinion and holding the Obama administration to account for the transparency and consistency with which they follow through on their pre-election rhetoric. That's not necessarily an easy task, bit I'm not sure it's 'prophetic' (in the popular sense of the word).... Unless I'm missing something?
Michael Jensen at 12:48 on 18 May
Well, I dunno about public opinion. You can see that Cheney's arguments are persuasive with a lot of people: the requirement for national security trumps over even the most basic sort of respect for human dignity...the ends is still justifying the means.The thing is - we shouldn't imagine that this is an end to torture. We have known about the use and practice of torture for many years - and that democracies, despite their self-congratulatory rhetoric, continue to practice it anyway.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)