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!

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.

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...

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.

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.

Con Campbell on Union with Christ

Con Campbell on Union with Christ

Two must-reads

You just have to read Oliver O'Donovan's lecture on the Authority of Scripture, which riffs on The Jerusalem Declaration - including this:

'We shall be obedient to Scripture to the extent that we have learned and acted upon what Scripture has said of them. But Scripture does not provide us with the concrete act itself, which we must perform right now. Devising that act is precisely what practical thought does, and devising it faithfully to the norm is what obedience is all about....Obedience is never predetermined, it has always be thought through and sought after.'

I was also taken by this 'Theological Vision for Ministry' published by the Gospel Coalition. Their confessional statement is rather dull: but this 'vision' actually takes it all somewhere, addressing (among other things) epistemological and hermeneutical issues with an honesty and self-awareness rarely seen. It is still a creature of the American context, however...

Oh, and I killed a baby, by the way...

The Christian Life – a sketch for a lecture series

Thesis: The Christian life consists of acts that are a response to the new identity given to human beings by the Father, in Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, performed in the world, in expectation of the renewal and judgment of all things.

Faith – the ground of the Christian life
1. hearing
2. testifying
3. watching
4. waiting

Prayer – the words of the Christian life
5. praising
6. confessing
7. thanksgiving
8. asking

Obedience – the works of the Christian life
9. leaving
10. living
11. loving
12. suffering

How to read theology - a guide for the perplexed

Let's face it - not everyone's a natural reader. Not everybody finds reading an easy or pleasurable task. And reading theology is not an exception.

In fact things may be worse. For one thing, even though the subject matter is glorious, writers of theology are not necessarily good writers. It is often translated from Latin or German. And it is also the case that, like its cousin philosophy, theological writing can be highly abstract, deploying a specialised vocabulary, and requiring the reader to juggle several mental items at once.

So: here's some help.

1 - Orient yourself to the writer and his or her work by using Wikipedia. It is not definitive, but it is very useful as an introduction.

2 - Ask 'what is the purpose or occassion of the work?' And 'who was this written to convince?' Much of the best theology is written out of controversy, or to suit the historical occassion. We need to know how important Pelagius was for Augustine, for example.

3 - Now - you want the potted version. So: look for where in the work the author summarises what they are trying to say. With a more modern work, find online reviews of the work that boil it down to a couple of paragraphs. This is not a substitute for reading of course!

4 - Try to get a sense of the outline of the argument or the structure of the work. Flip forward to passages that might stand out as offering this help - to headings, conclusion and introductions.

5 - Check the indexes. You get a really good sense of what is most important for an author this way - and you might be guided to some purple passages.

6 - Have to hand a work like Grenz's Dictionary of Theological Terms or McGrath's Christian Theology An Introduction, and don't be afraid to pause and clarify in your own mind what you don't get.

7 - Use a pencil and write all over the text. Go on! This helps with memory and with re-reading. And you have to decide what is important in the text. It is less effort than making summaries but increases your attentiveness.

8 - Join a reading group that is committed. There's nothing better than helping each other at the level of comprehension. Don't be afraid to invite an expert to share every now and then.

Addendum: 9 - you have to learn to read with your ears. That is, reading anything, not leasts theology, is about hearing the author's own distinctive voice. This isn't just a matter of their style: it is about picking up the shape of their thought, their favourite expressions, and the habits of their mind.

This Present Age?

I trotted off the following piece just before Easter. It was an attempt to subvert the usual process of public theology a bit, given that the appeal to the usual authorities doesn't seem to work. My hunch is, that given the choice, the inert masses will actually not choose atheism. Why not goad them into making a choice. The high enrolments in church-run schools I cite as evidence...

Anyhow, when I discussed it with some older, wiser heads, the feeling was that in fact this was a foolish piece to run. I publish it now here in the subjunctive form: here is what I might have written; here is what I might think...or, possibily not as the case may be... Love to have your thoughts.

This present age is an age of such spiritual inertia and cowardice that we don’t even believe in our own unbelief.

We haven’t the courage of our secularist convictions. Churches are still afforded protection by the law. Christian organisations are still exempted from all kinds of discrimination laws and given multi-million dollar tax breaks. Church schools receive government funding. We let Christians hold us to ransom on euthanasia laws and genetic engineering. And yet, most of us never go within coo-ee of the church (unless someone carks it, or gets hitched...).

So passionless are we that we think we can repudiate the Christian church and yet
cling to the bland middle-class morality called Christian ‘values’. This is a morality for the gutless, with its thoughtless (and godless) worship of hard work and the nuclear family. ‘Working families’, and all that guff.

So mindlessly nostalgic are we that we have forgotten to scrape off the sticky residues of Christian belief. In a recent survey published by the Centre for Public Christianity and reported in the Herald it was discovered that 45% of unbelievers still believe that Jesus rose from the dead! If this is really so, why are so many people sleeping in on Sunday mornings when they think that there is another world to prepare for?

Most of us – even the professed atheists among us - still hold to the essentially Christian teaching that human beings are special. But we have no idea why we think it, other than it is convenient. The atheist philosopher John Gray, of the London School of Economics, writes that ‘contemporary atheism is a Christian heresy that differs from earlier heresies chiefly in its intellectual crudity’. An atheistic humanism, he says, is plainly ridiculous. If unbelievers are going to embrace their unbelief, they had better leave such vestiges of Christian faith behind. We are still happy to let Christian churches pick up the slack of our welfare programmes, and let them do a large proportion of our educating and our health services. Are there no secular reasons to be committed to these things? Is it only those with views we consider pre-modern and pre-scientific that believe in community?

And we still want the holidays! We can’t yet rid ourselves of these unnecessary and inconvenient reminders of all that we have left behind us. We have to keep celebrating the death of the Christian saviour and his resurrection because some of us can’t get around to finally affirming that we don’t think it happened. Can’t we at least be consistent?

The unbelief of Australians is better described as non-belief. It has nothing to do with informed opinion. It is just couch-potato stuff, unthinkingly inherited from our parents. It has nothing to do with careful consideration of the claims of the faith we reject, let’s face it. I am sure we can find other more meaningful excuses for a long weekend. How about ‘when you’re dead you’re dead’ Sunday? Or ‘Philip Adams’ Friday?

These are blasphemies against our secular faith. There are in Christianity shocking contradictions of all we hold most dear as a community. We ought to live out the meaning of our unbelieving creed and have done with it all – at least for consistency’s sake. We ought to protect our public space from such blather – if that’s what we think it is - and do so with all the vigour we can muster.

Some links to follow

Here's my thoughts on human plasticity.

Mark Thompson has fired up his blogging engines once more and has a bit to say about John Webster and the Trinity.

David Hohne meanwhile gets all spiritual. Well, Jesus does.

Andrew Katay wants to stop hogging the leadership here.

The 10 most pressing issues for evangelical theology today

With a dash of hubris (why not, it's a Monday morning) - here are the issues on which I think evangelicals have some work to do. Not that individual evangelicals don't hold strongly to some of these - it is just that either the 'traditional' view is under challenge, or that there is a lack of consensus among evangelicals. This list is, like all lists, meant to provoke and challenge of course - it is meant (and I hope will be received!) in that spirit.


1 - scripture
How is inerrancy best to be understood and expressed - if indeed it is the most appropriate and useful word to express and uphold the highest possible commitment of the authority of scripture? Can we move beyond the use of the word as line in the sand and actually articulate what we mean by it in the midst of a post-biblical culture? Can evangelicals actually have a mature discussion about this? (I really like what The Gospel Coalition is doing with this, actually)

2 - God
Now that the 'openness of God' distraction has been overcome, there still seems to be a tension between the position known as 'classical theism' and the more 'biblical personalist' position. How are the attributes of God to be addressed, then, by the biblical Christian? Does classical theism help or hinder?

3 - election
Election is always a tough one. Double or single? Have new readings of Paul made a difference to what needs to be said about Israel? What is the purpose of the doctrine of election, dogmatically speaking?

4 - the atonement
Even between those who would agree that penal substitution is an indispensible part of the Bible's teaching on the atonement - what place does it have within the whole scope of the Bible's teaching? How does it relate to other elements?

5 - justification
The debate between Wright and Piper over imputation reveals some faultlines. Imputation seems a necessary corollory of an evangelical testimony to justification by faith. But what are its exegetical foundations? And will 'union with Christ' prove to be a more fruitful model to explain this teaching? (with much good work to come from Moore's own Con Campell)

6 - anthropology

I think theological anthropology is right at the missional cutting edge, and the more thinking evangelicals can do about it the better. That is not to fall prey to the temptation to collapse theology into anthropology, or to get distracted by all kinds of anthropologically interesting byways, but to give a full and rich account of the meaning and purpose of human life lived under the hand of the God who is mindful of man (to steal from Psalm 8).

7 - sin

Sin is a corollory of the doctrine of man... Once again it is a missionally urgent task to give an articulation of sin that is as full-orbed as we can make it. This is one instance where 'biblically faithful' and 'culturally aware' are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The mute incomprehension of our contemporaries as they hear contemporary preachers talk about sin highlights the problem... The answer is not in their hearts of course. The word of God is better than we think it is.

8 - philosophy & theology

Evangelicals seem genuinely undecided about this as a group. Is philosophy good, bad, or indifferent? A friend, or a foe? Is a philosophy-less theology simply naive? or is a philosophy in addition to theology a blasphemy? What have we to say about thinking?

9 - apologetics

A connected issue, then, is that of apologetics. Ought we to do apologetics at all? Many evangelicals have invested very heavily in apologetics. But to what end? Are the models of apologetics - evidentialist, presuppositionalist (does anyone actually understand what the heck presuppositionalist apologists are saying?) - enough for the needs of the day?

10 - church
Evangelicals have always prided themselves on being ecclesiology-lite. They have achieved far more in terms of ecumenical co-operation than other forms of Christianity as a result. Ecclesiology is secondary. However, there are numerous settings where this needs to be revisited, given the rapid realignment of denominations and the retreat of Christendom. So you see some pretty heavy church-speak from evangelicals these days: the Nine Marks ministry says some pretty particular things ecclesiology-wise. The Federal Vision movement is likewise (though very different) heavy on sacraments and covenant/church talk. This is not an isolated trend.

11 - hermeneutics
I don't mean hermeneutics in the sense of perspectival readings etc, but in the sense of asking the question: what makes the bible a unity? In what does a richly theological reading of Scripture consist? There are some very exciting developments on this front, building on the work of a previous generation - biblical scholars now collaborating with theologians on the matter of scriptural interpretation.