My piece on Calvin in The Australian

Here!

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?

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?

Theologian at work

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.

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.

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!

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!