My wife and I are non-smackers of our children.
This is a reasonably controversial thing to be amongst Christians. And, I have to say, most people who were adults now (in Anglo-Saxon countries anyhow) were smacked as children - and most without any ill effects.
Our 'philosophy' is really just pragmatic: we think it is more effective not to smack and to discipline by other means. So, we are happy to say smacking might work for someone else but not for us. I have to say it is really useful to have such a policy in place for those times when you really get mad...
Any thoughts?
Monday, July 31, 2006
A more attractive photo of Freya!
I realised that that first photo had a kinda squashed look. She really is prettier than that!
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Still more on Article II
It is worth pointing out that the Article - along with many creeds of course - omits any reference to Jesus' life and teaching - his obedience and his prophetic office in other words.
And yet there is a significant biblical emphasis on this aspect of Jesus' work - even in Paul, who seems to emphasise the cross/resurrection more.
Is this indicative of tendency in the tradition to instrumentalise the humanity of Jesus - ie to make it a matter of utility , that he is purpose built (purpose-driven?) for the passion?
And yet there is a significant biblical emphasis on this aspect of Jesus' work - even in Paul, who seems to emphasise the cross/resurrection more.
Is this indicative of tendency in the tradition to instrumentalise the humanity of Jesus - ie to make it a matter of utility , that he is purpose built (purpose-driven?) for the passion?
Monday, July 24, 2006
More on Article II
Though both approaches to the person of Christ - from above and from below - can claim scriptural warrant, their deficiencies are significant. Is there some alternative approach? It seems to me that thinking exclusively from above or from below is unsatisfactory, and not quite a reflection of the Biblical record. The important insight is that if we see the work and the person of Christ as a unity we will perhaps avoid the difficulties that beset the two positions.
TF Torrance writes:
the proper theological procedure we adopt in Christology is not to understand the Person and work of Jesus Christ by approaching him either from below or from above, but from below and from above at the same time, for it is in the light of what we learn from below that we appreciate what derives from above, and in the light of what derives from above that we really understand what we learn from below […] we apprehend both together.
Further, we might ask whether the whole assumption on which the “above/below” debate rests is a good one; namely, that there is a sharp gulf between time and eternity. We could certainly conceive of other ways of relating the two.
TF Torrance writes:
the proper theological procedure we adopt in Christology is not to understand the Person and work of Jesus Christ by approaching him either from below or from above, but from below and from above at the same time, for it is in the light of what we learn from below that we appreciate what derives from above, and in the light of what derives from above that we really understand what we learn from below […] we apprehend both together.
Further, we might ask whether the whole assumption on which the “above/below” debate rests is a good one; namely, that there is a sharp gulf between time and eternity. We could certainly conceive of other ways of relating the two.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Article II: Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man
The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.
The identity of Jesus of Nazareth is an issue of continuing interest and controversy, both within and without Christianity. As NT Wright puts it: “who was Jesus?” and “so what?” - these remain challenging questions to answer. In the contemporary context of pluralism, traditional Christology comes under particular assault because of the scandalous suggestion that he might be so related to the God of the universe at the level of being that he represents the only real opportunity of knowing the true God. How can he have been genuinely God and genuinely human at the same time without either of these descriptions being compromised in one way or another? Can we say with Paul “God was in Christ”; and what might we mean by it?
The problem is twofold. Firstly, the human, historical Jesus has been the subject of frenetic scholarly argument over two centuries. It remains a real question to challenge us: what can we know, if anything, of Jesus’ earthly life, and how should we understand his mission? Some have decided, given the plethora of reconstructions of the life of Jesus, that there is no way to access the real Jesus, no knowing the truth about his human life. Albert Schweitzer wrote in 1906, after reviewing a century of scholarship that the best we could hope for in Jesus is a subjectively experience of one unknown:
He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the task which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.
A.Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, p.401
Rudolph Bultmann wrote in 1926:
I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus…
R.Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p.8
Secondly, there is a philosophical problem: if we start, as most modern theology has done, with what we know of the human Jesus, how can we begin to speak meaningfully of the eternal Christ, the Son of God? The problem runs the other way, as well: if we start with statements about the eternal or transcendent, how can we proceed to connect those to the temporal and immanent? Since the philosophy of Immanuel Kant in the late 18th Century, this issue has deeply vexed theologians.
The identity of Jesus of Nazareth is an issue of continuing interest and controversy, both within and without Christianity. As NT Wright puts it: “who was Jesus?” and “so what?” - these remain challenging questions to answer. In the contemporary context of pluralism, traditional Christology comes under particular assault because of the scandalous suggestion that he might be so related to the God of the universe at the level of being that he represents the only real opportunity of knowing the true God. How can he have been genuinely God and genuinely human at the same time without either of these descriptions being compromised in one way or another? Can we say with Paul “God was in Christ”; and what might we mean by it?
The problem is twofold. Firstly, the human, historical Jesus has been the subject of frenetic scholarly argument over two centuries. It remains a real question to challenge us: what can we know, if anything, of Jesus’ earthly life, and how should we understand his mission? Some have decided, given the plethora of reconstructions of the life of Jesus, that there is no way to access the real Jesus, no knowing the truth about his human life. Albert Schweitzer wrote in 1906, after reviewing a century of scholarship that the best we could hope for in Jesus is a subjectively experience of one unknown:
He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the task which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.
A.Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, p.401
Rudolph Bultmann wrote in 1926:
I do indeed think that we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus…
R.Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p.8
Secondly, there is a philosophical problem: if we start, as most modern theology has done, with what we know of the human Jesus, how can we begin to speak meaningfully of the eternal Christ, the Son of God? The problem runs the other way, as well: if we start with statements about the eternal or transcendent, how can we proceed to connect those to the temporal and immanent? Since the philosophy of Immanuel Kant in the late 18th Century, this issue has deeply vexed theologians.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
A prayer for a new child
Sent to me by a friend:
O God, who dost renew all life on the face of the earth and dost reveal to human parents the mystery of thy creative work in the birth of a child, enable this couple, and all who found families where children grow, to express the tenderness of divine love, the innocence of divine community and the authority of divine instruction; that each new generation may have wherewith to seek thee, and all history resound to thy praise, until the coming of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.
O God, who dost renew all life on the face of the earth and dost reveal to human parents the mystery of thy creative work in the birth of a child, enable this couple, and all who found families where children grow, to express the tenderness of divine love, the innocence of divine community and the authority of divine instruction; that each new generation may have wherewith to seek thee, and all history resound to thy praise, until the coming of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Values continued
talk of ‘values’ is reductive and selective, inevitably. ‘Values’, as we have seen, tends to indicate a conservative expression of conformist and traditional aspirations: diligence, ‘a fair go’, self-reliance, integrity and so on. However, the set of values labelled as ‘Christian values’ very rarely includes the kind of challenge to the status quo that Jesus himself modelled, as the Old Testament prophets had before him. There is nothing prophetic, we might say, about ‘values’ (which is where Brendan Nelson’s use of the word ‘comfortable’ should set off alarm bells). Cultural critic Guy Rundle writes:
The elite schools are multimillion-dollar educational entrepreneurs, whose attachment to the religion is now simply a form of thematic branding, a bit of spiritual swoosh.
He is speaking of the Melbourne scene, where various high-priced schools have doggedly fought off the intervention of the churches in their affairs while retaining a nominal link – a keeping up of appearances. His comment would not be fair to the schools I know in Sydney. But it is true that talk of ‘values’ tends to reduce the Christian affiliation of schools to a mere badging of middle-class aspirationalism. The language of ‘values’ robs the gospel of its counter-cultural edge. Though it will be popular with potential customers/parents, it offers an emaciated moral vision. Parents want their children’s selves realised, fulfilled and actualised; but Christ calls us to die to our selves.
The elite schools are multimillion-dollar educational entrepreneurs, whose attachment to the religion is now simply a form of thematic branding, a bit of spiritual swoosh.
He is speaking of the Melbourne scene, where various high-priced schools have doggedly fought off the intervention of the churches in their affairs while retaining a nominal link – a keeping up of appearances. His comment would not be fair to the schools I know in Sydney. But it is true that talk of ‘values’ tends to reduce the Christian affiliation of schools to a mere badging of middle-class aspirationalism. The language of ‘values’ robs the gospel of its counter-cultural edge. Though it will be popular with potential customers/parents, it offers an emaciated moral vision. Parents want their children’s selves realised, fulfilled and actualised; but Christ calls us to die to our selves.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Freya Louise Jensen!
Freya Louise came into the world 7/7/06 at 7.5 lbs!!
She caught us by surprise being two weeks early!
Mother and baby well.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Rowan Williams on Theological Integrity
I find Rowan Williams a fascinating if frustrating figure. He is capable of some of the most conceptually rich and stimulating theologically thinking I have read - but yet, his starting assumption seems to be that there is no speech FROM God available, and certainly not in Scripture.
Here: a couple of interesting comments from an essay called 'Theological Integrity':
'Having integrity...is being able to speak in a way which allows of answers'.
'Religious practice is only preserved in any integrity by seriousness about prayer; and so, if theology is the untangling of the real grammar of religious practice, its subject matter is, humanly and specifically, people who pray.'
Here: a couple of interesting comments from an essay called 'Theological Integrity':
'Having integrity...is being able to speak in a way which allows of answers'.
'Religious practice is only preserved in any integrity by seriousness about prayer; and so, if theology is the untangling of the real grammar of religious practice, its subject matter is, humanly and specifically, people who pray.'
Thursday, July 06, 2006
1. Faith in the Holy Trinity (continued)
The articles could have started in a different place. It is interesting that they do not begin with a statement about revelation. They do not first give an epistemological grounding of the knowledge of God before moving on to substantive expressions of what that knowledge is. Neither do they start with Christ and the incarnation, or the gospel, and work out from this point (as a 20th century theological statement might have).
However, starting with God in this way reflects the order of reality, not the order of knowledge. The starting point is the God who is the source of all things, not the nature of our access to him - even the Son is here first introduced as ordered to the Father. Jesus does not exist in or for himself - there is a priority of the Father over the Son. The Son's orientation is towards the Father.
There is no question but that this statement employs terms that are Platonic rather than distinctively Christian, as the Cyberpastor noted. Christian thinkers have since very early on found platonic terms a congenial way of expressing what they found in the OT. These terms are especially useful in speaking of God's absolute transcendence - his sheer infinity.
The question is: is this use inappropriate? Does it fatally distort the doctrine of God? If you take the first article in toto, we do see that there is in place a dialetic between God's oneness and threeness which we could certainly read as heavily qualifying those Greek terms in a distinctively Christian way. That is, the article does not stop at God's infinite distance from us, but also by speaking of Father, Son and Spirit, implies his nearness to us: and flows on into the second article, which more properly announces the coming of the Son of God into our midst.
However, starting with God in this way reflects the order of reality, not the order of knowledge. The starting point is the God who is the source of all things, not the nature of our access to him - even the Son is here first introduced as ordered to the Father. Jesus does not exist in or for himself - there is a priority of the Father over the Son. The Son's orientation is towards the Father.
There is no question but that this statement employs terms that are Platonic rather than distinctively Christian, as the Cyberpastor noted. Christian thinkers have since very early on found platonic terms a congenial way of expressing what they found in the OT. These terms are especially useful in speaking of God's absolute transcendence - his sheer infinity.
The question is: is this use inappropriate? Does it fatally distort the doctrine of God? If you take the first article in toto, we do see that there is in place a dialetic between God's oneness and threeness which we could certainly read as heavily qualifying those Greek terms in a distinctively Christian way. That is, the article does not stop at God's infinite distance from us, but also by speaking of Father, Son and Spirit, implies his nearness to us: and flows on into the second article, which more properly announces the coming of the Son of God into our midst.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
39 Articles on the 39 Articles: 1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
At this tumultuous time for the Anglican Communion (or is it now 'Federation'?) I thought it would be good to revisit our classic statement of faith: The Articles of Religion. So, today I begin a series of um, 39 Articles on the 39 Articles. For an intro you can see my earlier post 'The 39 Articles'.
Article I: Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
We begin with the radical monotheism of the Old Testament. It is easy to forget just how outrageous the claim that there is but one God is. Surely in the vast universe with all its diversity and array and all its flux and change there is room for a variety of gods. In fact, why should we believe that the tumult and struggle we encounter about us does not correspond to a divine tumult and struggle: that there isn't a chaos of gods with their special interests and foibles?
There are other spiritual beings. But none of them is divine. The one-ness of God means that all of reality has a unity too: a unity in him. It is all connected, however distant or discordant it seems: in him. His oneness also means that no religious tribalism is possible. Even as this God chose for himself a special people, he reminded them of his oneness: they could not hold him as their possession or talisman. The election of Israel was based on God's election of Adam.
The Articles emphasise the sheer transcendence of this deity and his freedom, matched by the three-fold cord of his classic attributes of power, wisdom and goodness. That he is without passions is most controversial to contemporary readers - but what this terms is meant to convey is that he is not prey to his emotions or whims. He is not irascible or moody, a victim of his own nature.
(to be continued...)
Article I: Of Faith in the Holy Trinity
There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
We begin with the radical monotheism of the Old Testament. It is easy to forget just how outrageous the claim that there is but one God is. Surely in the vast universe with all its diversity and array and all its flux and change there is room for a variety of gods. In fact, why should we believe that the tumult and struggle we encounter about us does not correspond to a divine tumult and struggle: that there isn't a chaos of gods with their special interests and foibles?
There are other spiritual beings. But none of them is divine. The one-ness of God means that all of reality has a unity too: a unity in him. It is all connected, however distant or discordant it seems: in him. His oneness also means that no religious tribalism is possible. Even as this God chose for himself a special people, he reminded them of his oneness: they could not hold him as their possession or talisman. The election of Israel was based on God's election of Adam.
The Articles emphasise the sheer transcendence of this deity and his freedom, matched by the three-fold cord of his classic attributes of power, wisdom and goodness. That he is without passions is most controversial to contemporary readers - but what this terms is meant to convey is that he is not prey to his emotions or whims. He is not irascible or moody, a victim of his own nature.
(to be continued...)
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's linguistic theory...
"All language is metaphorical, and if we insist that particular words have only one meaning and the way we understand those words is the only possible interpretation, we have elevated that text to an idol..."
Well I am not unhappy with language being metaphorical and all... but where's the logic in the accusation of idolatry? Of course, if you undermine the authority of texts, then all you have left is... the tyranny of the bishop.
I think this is the case of someone who thinks they are being all postmodern-hip not really understanding the pomo thing anyhow.
Weird.
Well I am not unhappy with language being metaphorical and all... but where's the logic in the accusation of idolatry? Of course, if you undermine the authority of texts, then all you have left is... the tyranny of the bishop.
I think this is the case of someone who thinks they are being all postmodern-hip not really understanding the pomo thing anyhow.
Weird.
"Values"
This is from a document entitled:
National Framework
for Values Education
in Australian Schools 2004
National Framework
for Values Education
in Australian Schools 2004
In the Glossary it defines "values" by giving two quotations without any explanation:
• “… the principles and fundamental convictions which act
as general guides to behaviour, the standards by which
particular actions are judged as good or desirable.’”
(J Halstead, J and M Taylor, ‘Learning and teaching about
values: A review of recent research’, Cambridge Journal of
Education, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2000, pp 169-202);
• “the ideals that give significance to our lives, that are
reflected through the priorities that we choose, and that
we act on consistently and repeatedly” (Emeritus Professor
Brian Hill), keynote address, first National Forum on Values
Education, Melbourne, April 2004.
What is interesting here is relationship in both quotations between 'principle' and 'action', and the relationship between both of these and 'judgment' or 'significance'. What kind of moral universe does this reflect?
My gut reaction as a Christian is that 'following Jesus' doesn't really work with either of these, because it is not an 'ideal' or a 'principle' - though it is more like the former than the latter.
Of course, the question that is begged by all of this is: 'which 'values' '? Or better, 'whose'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)