The great age of television lasted in Australia from 1960 to 1997. These were the years after the age of the radio and before the internet. It was a generation long, perhaps two. My parents worried that I watched too much TV, but I watched far more than my children do. I have to encourage them: 'do you wanna watch TV?' TV producers recognise this and retread 70s programmes like Doctor Who. Increasingly, TV combs back over its own archives and creates 'classics'.
It is still the case that our lounge rooms are arranged with the seats facing the TV screen, as they would have once been arranged around the fire. The TV is that warm glow against which we warm ourselves - that little box of radiance and enlightenment.
In that period, television had the power to make events as well as record them. We sometimes scoff at the expression ‘television history’; but I don’t think it is an underestimation. The presence of TV cameras made Vietnam an unwinnable war in the public imagination. The Moon landings would not have happened without TV. It is said that the Berlin Wall fell because a TV news reporter mistakenly declared that it had fallen – and so the huge crowds surged to the gates and tore it down.
Television united human beings in single moments more than was ever thought possible. We can be part of a bigger crowd than can actually gather together in one spot- it gives us the ability to be present when we are distant. The thought of 100 million people watching the same event beggars the imagination. But TV made it possible. I remember growing up in Britain in the 70s when there were only three stations for 60 million people. 20 million people would watch the same drivel on Saturday night!
Now that power has largely dissipated; the audience has fragmented. bloggers and tweeters do it better. TV’s great weakness was that it didn’t allow its audience to answer back. It preached at us. Only latterly has it woken up to the possibilities of breaking through the glass and inviting us to take control – through reality TV and through associated technologies like the mobile phone.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Compiling a freedom of speech reading list
I am contemplating some research on freedom of speech and its relation to Christianity (naturally), and its (partial) roots in a Christian understanding of persuasion.
Reading suggestions anyone?
Reading suggestions anyone?
Friday, February 12, 2010
Current Reading List for Theological Anthropology MA
(gold star to anyone who can add up how many pages this is).
Barth, Karl. "The Humanity of God." In The Humanity of God. London: Collins, 1967, pp. 33-64 (32pp)
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge. London: SCM, 1999, pp.3-17, 294-300, 369-70 (15pp)
________. Ethics. Translated by R. Krauss, C. West and D. Stott. Vol. 6 Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, ed. Clifford J. Green. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, pp. 76-102 (27pp)
Calvin, Jean, A Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. 3 vols. Calvin's Commentaries (Oliver & Boyd). Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1972, pp. 133-143 (11pp)
Cameron, Andrew J.B., G.J. Clarke, and Michael P. Jensen. "Towards a Christian Understanding of the Concept of Human 'Community', with Special Reference to the Praxis of a Non-Government Human Services Delivery Organisation." Evangelical Review of Society and Politics 3, no. 2 (2009): 22-41. (19pp)
Carroll, John. The Wreck of Western Culture : Humanism Revisited. Rev. ed. Carlton North, Vic.: Scribe Pubications, 2004, pp.1-9, 51-59 (20pp)
Cavanaugh, William T. Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ Challenges in Contemporary Theology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, pp. 34-58 (25pp)
Coakley, Sarah. "The Eschatological Body: Gender, Transformation and God." In Powers and Submissions : Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender, Oxford: Blackwell, 2002, pp. 153-167 (14pp)
Darwin, Charles, and J. W. Burrow. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection : Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life Penguin Classics. London: Penguin, 1985, pp. 65-69 (5pp)
De Botton, Alain. The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work. London: Hamish Hamilton, 2009, pp. 106-128 (23pp)
Erasmus, Desiderius, Martin Luther, E. Gordon Rupp, A. N. Marlow, Philip S. Watson, and Benjamin Drewery. Luther and Erasmus : Free Will and Salvation. London: S.C.M. Press, 1969. pp. 41-42, 89-91, 139-143 (10pp)
Gaita, Raimond. The Philosopher's Dog. London: Routledge, 2003, pp. 39-64 (26pp)
Gregersen, Niels Henrik. "Trial and Temptation: An Essay in the Multiple Logics of Faith." Theology Today 57, no. 3 (2000): 325-343. (18pp)
Gregory, of Nyssa. "On the Making of Man." In Select Writings and Letters, Tr., with Prolegomena, Notes and Indices, by W. Moore and H.A. Wilson ed. William Moore and H.A. Wilson,. Oxford, 1893, pp. 387-406 (19pp)
Irigaray, Luce. "Equal to Whom?" In The Postmodern God : A Theological Reader, ed. Graham Ward, 198-213. Cambridge, Mass. ; Oxford: Blackwell, 1998, pp. 198-213 (15pp)
James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience : A Study in Human Nature Penguin Classics. New York ; London: Penguin Books, 1985, pp. 485-519 (35pp)
Jensen, Michael P. "In Spirit and in Truth - Can Charles Taylor Help the Woman at the Well Find Her Authentic Self?" Studies in Christian Ethics 21, no. 3, (2008), 325-341 (16pp)
Jensen, Michael P. "White Teeth and the New Humanity." Sydney: CASE, 2004. (8pp)
Kafka, Franz, and Nahum Norbert Glatzer. The Complete Short Stories of Franz Kafka. London: Vintage, 2005, pp. 150-177 (27pp)
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God : Christian Eschatology. London: SCM Press, 1996, pp.323-339 (17pp)
Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991, pp. 25-29 (5pp)
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. "Human Being: Individual and Social." In The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, ed. C.E.Gunton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 158-188 (30pp)
Volf, Miroslav. Work in the Spirit : Toward a Theology of Work. New York ; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 89-122 (34pp)
Williams, Rowan. ‘Being Alone’ in Open to Judgement : Sermons and Addresses. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1994, pp. 143-149 (7pp)
Barth, Karl. "The Humanity of God." In The Humanity of God. London: Collins, 1967, pp. 33-64 (32pp)
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge. London: SCM, 1999, pp.3-17, 294-300, 369-70 (15pp)
________. Ethics. Translated by R. Krauss, C. West and D. Stott. Vol. 6 Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, ed. Clifford J. Green. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, pp. 76-102 (27pp)
Calvin, Jean, A Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. 3 vols. Calvin's Commentaries (Oliver & Boyd). Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1972, pp. 133-143 (11pp)
Cameron, Andrew J.B., G.J. Clarke, and Michael P. Jensen. "Towards a Christian Understanding of the Concept of Human 'Community', with Special Reference to the Praxis of a Non-Government Human Services Delivery Organisation." Evangelical Review of Society and Politics 3, no. 2 (2009): 22-41. (19pp)
Carroll, John. The Wreck of Western Culture : Humanism Revisited. Rev. ed. Carlton North, Vic.: Scribe Pubications, 2004, pp.1-9, 51-59 (20pp)
Cavanaugh, William T. Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ Challenges in Contemporary Theology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, pp. 34-58 (25pp)
Coakley, Sarah. "The Eschatological Body: Gender, Transformation and God." In Powers and Submissions : Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender, Oxford: Blackwell, 2002, pp. 153-167 (14pp)
Darwin, Charles, and J. W. Burrow. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection : Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life Penguin Classics. London: Penguin, 1985, pp. 65-69 (5pp)
De Botton, Alain. The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work. London: Hamish Hamilton, 2009, pp. 106-128 (23pp)
Erasmus, Desiderius, Martin Luther, E. Gordon Rupp, A. N. Marlow, Philip S. Watson, and Benjamin Drewery. Luther and Erasmus : Free Will and Salvation. London: S.C.M. Press, 1969. pp. 41-42, 89-91, 139-143 (10pp)
Gaita, Raimond. The Philosopher's Dog. London: Routledge, 2003, pp. 39-64 (26pp)
Gregersen, Niels Henrik. "Trial and Temptation: An Essay in the Multiple Logics of Faith." Theology Today 57, no. 3 (2000): 325-343. (18pp)
Gregory, of Nyssa. "On the Making of Man." In Select Writings and Letters, Tr., with Prolegomena, Notes and Indices, by W. Moore and H.A. Wilson ed. William Moore and H.A. Wilson,. Oxford, 1893, pp. 387-406 (19pp)
Irigaray, Luce. "Equal to Whom?" In The Postmodern God : A Theological Reader, ed. Graham Ward, 198-213. Cambridge, Mass. ; Oxford: Blackwell, 1998, pp. 198-213 (15pp)
James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience : A Study in Human Nature Penguin Classics. New York ; London: Penguin Books, 1985, pp. 485-519 (35pp)
Jensen, Michael P. "In Spirit and in Truth - Can Charles Taylor Help the Woman at the Well Find Her Authentic Self?" Studies in Christian Ethics 21, no. 3, (2008), 325-341 (16pp)
Jensen, Michael P. "White Teeth and the New Humanity." Sydney: CASE, 2004. (8pp)
Kafka, Franz, and Nahum Norbert Glatzer. The Complete Short Stories of Franz Kafka. London: Vintage, 2005, pp. 150-177 (27pp)
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God : Christian Eschatology. London: SCM Press, 1996, pp.323-339 (17pp)
Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991, pp. 25-29 (5pp)
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. "Human Being: Individual and Social." In The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, ed. C.E.Gunton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 158-188 (30pp)
Volf, Miroslav. Work in the Spirit : Toward a Theology of Work. New York ; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 89-122 (34pp)
Williams, Rowan. ‘Being Alone’ in Open to Judgement : Sermons and Addresses. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1994, pp. 143-149 (7pp)
Monday, February 08, 2010
Bizarrely, more Turretin
Turretin argues strongly that the doctrines of faith and practices can be legitmately proved by 'consequences' drawn from Scripture. Which is to say: the lack of an express word of Scripture about a certain doctrine is not a sufficient argument to countersay the claim it makes. Turretin points to the famous heretics of the church who have used exactly this strategy - the Arians and the Macedonians in particular. The Arians denied the homoousion just because it was not contained in so many words in Scripture (says FT). Gregory of Naziansus called the Macedonian (who denied the divinity of the Spirit) 'an ABC Sophist and a pettifogger of words'. In Turretin's time, he observed this strategy being used by his Catholic opponents.
A thing may be in Scripture kata lexin or kata dianoian: expressly, or implicitly. To say that all things necessary for Christian doctrine are contained in Scripture and that Scripture is sufficient means the latter rather than the former. So the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures does not consist in their condemning all errors and heresies by name, but only in their announcing all positive doctrines clearly (1.12.7).
Turretin could point to a number of evidences for the use of consequences to establish authoritative teaching and practice - and even the practice of Jesus and the apostles as they read the OT. Proving that Jesus was the Messiah was not a matter of explicit statement in the OT, but rather inference.
It is appropriate for the theologian to use reason in the development of consequences from Scripture because, though fallible reason is an inappropriate foundation for knowledge, it is a suitable instrument for it. In adducing theological conclusions, there is need for faith and the operation of the Holy Spirit; but reason may be the means for the operation of these. So:
Although reason concurs in educing consequences, it does not follow that faith is established by reason; as, although faith cometh by hearing, yet the senses are not the foundation of faith; faith uses readon, is not built upon it. It uses it as an instrument of application and mode of knowledge, but is not built upon it as a foundation and rule of things to be believed.
All wonderful and interesting stuff.
A thing may be in Scripture kata lexin or kata dianoian: expressly, or implicitly. To say that all things necessary for Christian doctrine are contained in Scripture and that Scripture is sufficient means the latter rather than the former. So the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures does not consist in their condemning all errors and heresies by name, but only in their announcing all positive doctrines clearly (1.12.7).
Turretin could point to a number of evidences for the use of consequences to establish authoritative teaching and practice - and even the practice of Jesus and the apostles as they read the OT. Proving that Jesus was the Messiah was not a matter of explicit statement in the OT, but rather inference.
It is appropriate for the theologian to use reason in the development of consequences from Scripture because, though fallible reason is an inappropriate foundation for knowledge, it is a suitable instrument for it. In adducing theological conclusions, there is need for faith and the operation of the Holy Spirit; but reason may be the means for the operation of these. So:
Although reason concurs in educing consequences, it does not follow that faith is established by reason; as, although faith cometh by hearing, yet the senses are not the foundation of faith; faith uses readon, is not built upon it. It uses it as an instrument of application and mode of knowledge, but is not built upon it as a foundation and rule of things to be believed.
All wonderful and interesting stuff.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
William Perkins: the Golden Chaine
Here is the great Elizabethan 'Puritan' (it is a somewhat anachronistic term) William Perkins on Scripture and Theology:
The body of Scripture is a doctrine sufficient to live well. It comprehendeth many holy sciences, whereof one is principal, others are handmainds or retainers. The principal science is theology. Theology is the science of living blessedly for ever. Blessed life ariseth from the knowledge of God and therefore it ariseth likewise from the knowledge of ourselves, because we know God by looking into ourselves. Theology has two parts: the first of God, the second of his works.
You can see Calvin's great opening to the Institutes coming back here. The emphasis on theology as a practical science and not just a theoretical one is a theme that comes from Calvin and returns in Turretin, too.
The body of Scripture is a doctrine sufficient to live well. It comprehendeth many holy sciences, whereof one is principal, others are handmainds or retainers. The principal science is theology. Theology is the science of living blessedly for ever. Blessed life ariseth from the knowledge of God and therefore it ariseth likewise from the knowledge of ourselves, because we know God by looking into ourselves. Theology has two parts: the first of God, the second of his works.
You can see Calvin's great opening to the Institutes coming back here. The emphasis on theology as a practical science and not just a theoretical one is a theme that comes from Calvin and returns in Turretin, too.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Introducing... Francis Turretin
I have been researching the doyen of Reformed Scholastic theologians, Francis Turretin, for a course called Reformed Greats. Of course, Richard A Muller's writings have been my constant companion on the journey.
Descended from Italian stock, Francis Turretin was the son of a leading Swiss theologian, Benedict Turretin, who had himself been a proponent of the kind of Calvinism formulated at the Synod of Dordt. Though he was educated in a variety of European faculties – Leiden, Utrecht, Paris, Saumer, Montaubon and Nimes – Turretin was a man of Geneva through and through. He was born and died in the city, and spent the greater part of his career there.
Appointed the pastor of the Italian congregation in Geneva in 1647, he became a professor of theology in 1653. He was a co-sponsor of the Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675), in which the views of Moses Amyraut were rejected – and which all candidates for the ministry were required to sign. His major work, the four volume Institutes of Elenctic Theology were published in 1688.
Turretin provides a great example of a rigorous attempt to think through the prolegomena to theology - a topic the Reformers had somewhat neglected. What kind of thinking is theology? It can be considered either systematically as a discipline or, more subjectively, as 'a habit residing in the intellect'. Systematically, theology can be classified as doctrine. But Turretin insists that the types of mental disposition or habitus need an analysis. The question is: what habit of mind leads to the due reception of the doctrine of the church for our salvation?
Turretin outlines a trio of mental dispositions - knowing, believing and supposing. For each habit or disposition there is an appropriate act of assent. If assent depends on reasoning, then the habit in question is scientia; if it depends on testimony, then the habit is fides; if it is a question of opinion or probability, the opinio. (I am cribbing from Muller here).
Theology appears to depend for assent on testimony, and so its habit is that of fides. Theology is only roughly similar to scientia-type disciplines - it has a supernatural basis stemming from divine revelation, and it mixes both pratical and theoretical knowledge in a way unlike the intellectual disciplines.
Descended from Italian stock, Francis Turretin was the son of a leading Swiss theologian, Benedict Turretin, who had himself been a proponent of the kind of Calvinism formulated at the Synod of Dordt. Though he was educated in a variety of European faculties – Leiden, Utrecht, Paris, Saumer, Montaubon and Nimes – Turretin was a man of Geneva through and through. He was born and died in the city, and spent the greater part of his career there.
Appointed the pastor of the Italian congregation in Geneva in 1647, he became a professor of theology in 1653. He was a co-sponsor of the Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675), in which the views of Moses Amyraut were rejected – and which all candidates for the ministry were required to sign. His major work, the four volume Institutes of Elenctic Theology were published in 1688.
Turretin provides a great example of a rigorous attempt to think through the prolegomena to theology - a topic the Reformers had somewhat neglected. What kind of thinking is theology? It can be considered either systematically as a discipline or, more subjectively, as 'a habit residing in the intellect'. Systematically, theology can be classified as doctrine. But Turretin insists that the types of mental disposition or habitus need an analysis. The question is: what habit of mind leads to the due reception of the doctrine of the church for our salvation?
Turretin outlines a trio of mental dispositions - knowing, believing and supposing. For each habit or disposition there is an appropriate act of assent. If assent depends on reasoning, then the habit in question is scientia; if it depends on testimony, then the habit is fides; if it is a question of opinion or probability, the opinio. (I am cribbing from Muller here).
Theology appears to depend for assent on testimony, and so its habit is that of fides. Theology is only roughly similar to scientia-type disciplines - it has a supernatural basis stemming from divine revelation, and it mixes both pratical and theoretical knowledge in a way unlike the intellectual disciplines.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
It's the truth
Ok, so it's been a long, long time between blogging drinks. I have to say, I lost my blogging mojo for a while there. Went on holidays...
While there, I read Raimond Gaita's A Common Humanity, and was struck there by an intriguing essay on truth and knowledge. Gaita asks: are we entitled to dismiss the claims of the flat earth society without even investigating them? Ought the teaching of David Irvine, holocaust-denier extraordinaire, be suppressed? Or ought we allow him full airplay and answer his claims one-by-one? Can I just dismiss climate change sceptic Ian Plimer - or does his mantra 'you aren't a scientist!' actually mean I can say nothing? Trouble is of course, I am called upon to have an opinion on these matters in which I am clearly not even remotely expert. Neutrality isn't possible. Given that I am interested in believing what is true and not being fooled - what am entitled to believe?
See, the thing is: I bet Irvine would have me for breakfast in a debate. He knows far more about German history than I ever will. He is an experienced debater and speaker. He has spent years with the sources. Likewise, I am sure that a flat-earth society member can marshall geological arguments far better than I will be able to. Plimer would chew me up and spit me out.
So am I entitled to just dismiss their claims out of hand? Isn't this unscholarly, and even dishonest? And further: isn't it the case that great scientific advances in the past have frequently come from mavericks, eccentrics and oddballs? If I dismiss Irving and the flat-earthers, could it not be said of me that I would also have dismissed a Galileo or a Luther?
Well perhaps. But the fact that mavericks are sometimes right does not mean that mavericks are always or even usually right. In fact, the opposite is the case. Human knowledge is a shared exercise, necessarily. It depends on many small acts of trust. We ought to recognise this and be appropriately modest about what we claim. Scholarly consensus CAN be skewed, or plain wrong. Truth is not an exercise in democracy. But that does not entitle us to dismiss what the clear majority of experts are saying in our time. And we are completely entitled to treat Irving, and flat earthers as eccentrics and oddballs.
Further, the nature of the human grasp of the truth is that there will always be space for Irvings and Plimers. Scientific knowledge proceeds far more precariously and contentiously than we sometimes imagine - let alone the business of history. The very nature of the way we know things - indirectly, by report, by building on premises we haven't got time to test, by following the best opinions to which we have access - means that it will always be possible to through mud in the air.
Which leads me to creation science. Am I entitled to dismiss the claims of the creation science movement? Creation scientists (so-called) have an enormous amount of apparently scientific and apparently theological detail at their disposal. Some very intelligent people with degrees in the appropriate areas hold to young earth creationist views. It is sometimes the case that the wider scientific community has got important data wrong. Consensus hasn't always worked as a lodestone for the truth.
But that doesn't make young earth creation science right, or even remotely plausible. In fact quite the opposite is the case. It trades on the uncertainty we have with all knowledge, and uses some highly charged theological rhetoric to bully Christians into believing it. I think it actually that it is high time that evangelical Christians stopped tolerating it in our midst. We have to stop saying 'some very godly people hold to this view' as if this some excuse for it. The godliness of the people concerned is not the point. We don't have to embrace unchecked credulity when it comes to what scientists claim as an alterative.
While there, I read Raimond Gaita's A Common Humanity, and was struck there by an intriguing essay on truth and knowledge. Gaita asks: are we entitled to dismiss the claims of the flat earth society without even investigating them? Ought the teaching of David Irvine, holocaust-denier extraordinaire, be suppressed? Or ought we allow him full airplay and answer his claims one-by-one? Can I just dismiss climate change sceptic Ian Plimer - or does his mantra 'you aren't a scientist!' actually mean I can say nothing? Trouble is of course, I am called upon to have an opinion on these matters in which I am clearly not even remotely expert. Neutrality isn't possible. Given that I am interested in believing what is true and not being fooled - what am entitled to believe?
See, the thing is: I bet Irvine would have me for breakfast in a debate. He knows far more about German history than I ever will. He is an experienced debater and speaker. He has spent years with the sources. Likewise, I am sure that a flat-earth society member can marshall geological arguments far better than I will be able to. Plimer would chew me up and spit me out.
So am I entitled to just dismiss their claims out of hand? Isn't this unscholarly, and even dishonest? And further: isn't it the case that great scientific advances in the past have frequently come from mavericks, eccentrics and oddballs? If I dismiss Irving and the flat-earthers, could it not be said of me that I would also have dismissed a Galileo or a Luther?
Well perhaps. But the fact that mavericks are sometimes right does not mean that mavericks are always or even usually right. In fact, the opposite is the case. Human knowledge is a shared exercise, necessarily. It depends on many small acts of trust. We ought to recognise this and be appropriately modest about what we claim. Scholarly consensus CAN be skewed, or plain wrong. Truth is not an exercise in democracy. But that does not entitle us to dismiss what the clear majority of experts are saying in our time. And we are completely entitled to treat Irving, and flat earthers as eccentrics and oddballs.
Further, the nature of the human grasp of the truth is that there will always be space for Irvings and Plimers. Scientific knowledge proceeds far more precariously and contentiously than we sometimes imagine - let alone the business of history. The very nature of the way we know things - indirectly, by report, by building on premises we haven't got time to test, by following the best opinions to which we have access - means that it will always be possible to through mud in the air.
Which leads me to creation science. Am I entitled to dismiss the claims of the creation science movement? Creation scientists (so-called) have an enormous amount of apparently scientific and apparently theological detail at their disposal. Some very intelligent people with degrees in the appropriate areas hold to young earth creationist views. It is sometimes the case that the wider scientific community has got important data wrong. Consensus hasn't always worked as a lodestone for the truth.
But that doesn't make young earth creation science right, or even remotely plausible. In fact quite the opposite is the case. It trades on the uncertainty we have with all knowledge, and uses some highly charged theological rhetoric to bully Christians into believing it. I think it actually that it is high time that evangelical Christians stopped tolerating it in our midst. We have to stop saying 'some very godly people hold to this view' as if this some excuse for it. The godliness of the people concerned is not the point. We don't have to embrace unchecked credulity when it comes to what scientists claim as an alterative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)