The church is the place where God is working in new creation power. The church is the outpost of the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the future, a society of resident aliens gradually filling the earth with the citizens, values, laws, and life of heaven.
Which means that all our plans for transforming human society must be church-centred. Reform the church, change the world. Not the other way round. The church models what it means to be the city of God to the city of man, pointing to a better way of life, a better King.
Which is why one of the primary ways we should respond to the HFE bill disaster this week (and it is a disaster, how else can we describe the willful abandonment of God's structure for the family and the destruction of precious human life?) is to build, in the church, a strong counter-culture where children are accepted, honoured, disciplined and loved in the Lord, an alternative society where godly fathers serve through loving headship. We have to reform ourselves according to the word, pursue deeper levels of faithfulness, study and pray harder, evangelise, serve, weep, disciple the next generation. We change the world by growing, being, reforming the Church.
So, we must continue the campaigning and the lobbying. Christians should be committed to speaking the mind of God on public issues where we can, doing what good we can, serving, loving, arguing. Those of us unable to do so in person should pray and support financially those who can. But long-term deep change will come, by the grace of God, in the gospel, through the Church.
[DF has some thoughts on the link between the state of the church and the state of the nation HERE]
Showing posts with label Public Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Theology. Show all posts
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Wilson at Blenheim
Has the British Church become domesticated, like 'one of those little yippy dogs trained not to pee on the carpet?'
That and related topics are dealt with in these lectures on
The Gospel and your Church
The Gospel and your Family
The Gospel and your Government
by American Pastor Doug Wilson available here for free download. I for one am looking forward to listening to them.
That and related topics are dealt with in these lectures on
The Gospel and your Church
The Gospel and your Family
The Gospel and your Government
by American Pastor Doug Wilson available here for free download. I for one am looking forward to listening to them.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The LORD your God is the only Lord...
The Vatican has added another seven to the 'old school' seven deadly sins. They are:
The reason? It seems like the old sins just aren't driving people to the confession box enough. [After all, who really gets upset these days by a bit of lust, greed, or sloth?]
Apart from questioning the presumption to decide which sins are death-inducing, cynics might also worry that the Apostolic Penitentiary (who, according to the BBC are "in charge of fixing the punishments and indulgences handed down to sinners") is motivated by self-interest in trying to stem the tide of ever-diminishing visits to confession.
Meanwhile Libby Purves has some thoughtful things to say about the way our tax and benefit system treats the poor as if they are incapable of looking after their own money. She says "the message [repeatedly given in successive government budgets] is that if you are poor, you must be kept in the status of client and petitioner..." handing wads of your hard earned money over to the government in order to "immediately beg nanny government to give them back." She sums up:
"If you are poor, the Government's message is simple: “You are not in charge of your life and prosperity. We are. Trust us. Keep on voting for us or you're stuffed.”"
All this in the same week that someone suggests that school-leavers should be encouraged to swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country. What I found very telling was how Lord Goldsmith understood the education system: "The citizenship ceremonies, which are just one of the many things I have suggested, are a way of marking that passage of being a student of citizenship to a citizen in practice." It might surprise many of us Christians to discover that the education system is not, after all, about being taught 1+1 and your p's and q's in a value-neutral environment (as if one actually exists), but about being given "a sense of shared belonging, a sense that you are part of a community with a common venture, to integrate better newcomers to our society and be clearer about what the rights and responsibilities are."
Meanwhile, back in reality, there is still only one God whose righteous law defines what is sin and determines the punishment, only one Lord to whom we owe absolute allegiance, and only one Saviour in whom we trust for forgiveness, prosperity, and identity.
Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature
The reason? It seems like the old sins just aren't driving people to the confession box enough. [After all, who really gets upset these days by a bit of lust, greed, or sloth?]
Apart from questioning the presumption to decide which sins are death-inducing, cynics might also worry that the Apostolic Penitentiary (who, according to the BBC are "in charge of fixing the punishments and indulgences handed down to sinners") is motivated by self-interest in trying to stem the tide of ever-diminishing visits to confession.
Meanwhile Libby Purves has some thoughtful things to say about the way our tax and benefit system treats the poor as if they are incapable of looking after their own money. She says "the message [repeatedly given in successive government budgets] is that if you are poor, you must be kept in the status of client and petitioner..." handing wads of your hard earned money over to the government in order to "immediately beg nanny government to give them back." She sums up:
"If you are poor, the Government's message is simple: “You are not in charge of your life and prosperity. We are. Trust us. Keep on voting for us or you're stuffed.”"
All this in the same week that someone suggests that school-leavers should be encouraged to swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country. What I found very telling was how Lord Goldsmith understood the education system: "The citizenship ceremonies, which are just one of the many things I have suggested, are a way of marking that passage of being a student of citizenship to a citizen in practice." It might surprise many of us Christians to discover that the education system is not, after all, about being taught 1+1 and your p's and q's in a value-neutral environment (as if one actually exists), but about being given "a sense of shared belonging, a sense that you are part of a community with a common venture, to integrate better newcomers to our society and be clearer about what the rights and responsibilities are."
Meanwhile, back in reality, there is still only one God whose righteous law defines what is sin and determines the punishment, only one Lord to whom we owe absolute allegiance, and only one Saviour in whom we trust for forgiveness, prosperity, and identity.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
John Owen - Transformationist?
This view of the intention of God in the creation leads John Owen to propose a (to my mind at least) distinctly 'Kuyperian' (or 'transformationist' - see here for a good quote on that sort of thing) approach to culture.
“…God would hereby instruct us both in the use that we are to make of his creatures, and the improvement that we are to make of the work of the creation unto his glory. For the first, it is his will that we should not use any thing as merely made and created by him, though originally for that purpose, seeing as they are so left they are under the curse, and so impure and unclean unto them that use them…but he would have us look upon them and receive them as they are given over unto Christ…This God instructs us in, namely, to look for a profitable, sanctified use of the creatures in Christ, in that [he?] himself ordered them in the very first creation to fall at length naturally under his rule and dominion, making them all by him."
So, if we want to glorify God in our use of the various elements of the old creation, we must view them as not just having been created by God, but as belonging specifically to Christ the Redeemer, as being intended for subjection to him in the new creation.
So what does this mean of non-Christian use of the creation?
"The whole mystery of laying the works of the old creation in a subserviency unto the new being hidden from many ages and generation, from the foundation of the world men did, by the effects and works which they saw, conclude that there was an eternal power and infinite wisdom whereby they were produced: but whereas there is but a twofold holy use of the works of the creation – the one suited unto the state of innocency, and the moral-natural worship of God therein, which they had lost; the other to the state of grace, and the worship of God in that, which they had not attained, - the world and the inhabitants thereof, being otherwise involved in the curse and darkness wherewith it was attended, exercised themselves in fruitless speculations about them…and glorified not God in any due manner, Rom. i. 21. Neither do nor can men unto this day make any better improvement of their contemplation on the works of creation, who are unacquainted with the recapitulation of all things in Christ, and the beauty of it, that all things at first were made by him. "
I think this means that Owen would, for example, argue against any concept of common grace, or natural law, providing a 'neutral zone' where Christians and non-Christians can meet to do social-political-cultural work. God-honouring use of the creation in all of these activities (whether painting, building a bridge, teaching geography, or writing a song) is only possible when creation is viewed as properly belonging to, and destined for, the Lord Jesus Christ. God wants us to look at and treat creation as being subject to him.
All from John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol III. 81-82.
“…God would hereby instruct us both in the use that we are to make of his creatures, and the improvement that we are to make of the work of the creation unto his glory. For the first, it is his will that we should not use any thing as merely made and created by him, though originally for that purpose, seeing as they are so left they are under the curse, and so impure and unclean unto them that use them…but he would have us look upon them and receive them as they are given over unto Christ…This God instructs us in, namely, to look for a profitable, sanctified use of the creatures in Christ, in that [he?] himself ordered them in the very first creation to fall at length naturally under his rule and dominion, making them all by him."
So, if we want to glorify God in our use of the various elements of the old creation, we must view them as not just having been created by God, but as belonging specifically to Christ the Redeemer, as being intended for subjection to him in the new creation.
So what does this mean of non-Christian use of the creation?
"The whole mystery of laying the works of the old creation in a subserviency unto the new being hidden from many ages and generation, from the foundation of the world men did, by the effects and works which they saw, conclude that there was an eternal power and infinite wisdom whereby they were produced: but whereas there is but a twofold holy use of the works of the creation – the one suited unto the state of innocency, and the moral-natural worship of God therein, which they had lost; the other to the state of grace, and the worship of God in that, which they had not attained, - the world and the inhabitants thereof, being otherwise involved in the curse and darkness wherewith it was attended, exercised themselves in fruitless speculations about them…and glorified not God in any due manner, Rom. i. 21. Neither do nor can men unto this day make any better improvement of their contemplation on the works of creation, who are unacquainted with the recapitulation of all things in Christ, and the beauty of it, that all things at first were made by him. "
I think this means that Owen would, for example, argue against any concept of common grace, or natural law, providing a 'neutral zone' where Christians and non-Christians can meet to do social-political-cultural work. God-honouring use of the creation in all of these activities (whether painting, building a bridge, teaching geography, or writing a song) is only possible when creation is viewed as properly belonging to, and destined for, the Lord Jesus Christ. God wants us to look at and treat creation as being subject to him.
All from John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol III. 81-82.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Did he ask for Britain?
A few worthy blog-posts out there in Cyberdom.
Matthew Mason writes to his congregation on the Rowan/Sharia thing.
Douglas Wilson calls British Christians to imagine by faith. Best quote: "After the resurrection, the Lord Jesus was given this invitation -- ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. Does any Christian seriously want to say that Jesus was given this invitation and that He didn't ask for Great Britain?"
Matthew Mason writes to his congregation on the Rowan/Sharia thing.
Douglas Wilson calls British Christians to imagine by faith. Best quote: "After the resurrection, the Lord Jesus was given this invitation -- ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. Does any Christian seriously want to say that Jesus was given this invitation and that He didn't ask for Great Britain?"
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Faith in Public Life
For Public Theology last semester we had to write a script for a ten minute talk on 'Is faith in public life good for Britain?' to be given to a mixed audience of Christians, secularists and agnostic fence-sitters (you can read about the real event this assignment was based on here). Below is my attempt. Reading it now, I'd make a couple of changes (more eschatology for a start). What I was trying to do was briefly and winsomely argue that the Christian faith ought to be the basis for public life, and that until that's the case, Christians will still love and serve in the public sphere where they legitimately can.
******
There are two things that us Brits are not allowed to talk about - religion and politics. Today we’re breaking all the rules by talking about both.
I have only a short amount of time, so I’ll dive straight in. I have two things I’d like to contribute to the discussion.
1. Faith and Public Life are inseparable.
Now, I am taking ‘faith’ here in a broader sense than is often used, though one that I think is actually more accurate. Possession of a faith, a system of beliefs, a way of looking at the world, a set of values and presuppositions, is common to all people. In this sense secular humanism is a faith just as much as Christianity or Buddhism are. Everyone operates on the basis of a set of beliefs about the world. I think once we’ve acknowledged that then it becomes clear that faith and public life cannot be separated. No-one can operate without presuppositions, values, a worldview, in any area of life. Someone can be inconsistent, or can dip in and out of or amalgamate several all at once – but no-one can be worldview-neutral.
Therefore, the call for ‘faith’ to be kept out of public life is really a non-starter, and a rather paradoxical one at that. In calling for a secular state, secularists are simply doing what the advocates of other worldviews have been doing for a long time with varying degrees of forcefulness, arguing that their worldview/faith is the right one for basing national public life on. Now, those who are secularists are entirely welcome to that opinion in one sense. But it can’t be claimed that secularism offers some kind of neutrality for public life. What secularists want is for people of every persuasion to adopt the values, the principles of the secularist worldview by leaving their Christianity or their Hinduism at the doors to the houses of parliament or the school gate.
This poses specific issues for Christians of course, since Christians believe (when they’re being consistent) that it is the message of Jesus Christ that provides the best basis for public life. Christians, of all people, should have massive problems with living out their faith in the private sphere of the home or church but in the public arena.
Which actually leads to my second point.
2. The Christian Faith provides a great basis for public life.
My argument is that national public life can only really work where there is a common worldview, or faith. The dream of a pluralistic state runs into problems the moment someone tries to write the constitution. A pluralist constitution would either have to be blank, in which the authority of the state is groundless and therefore tyrannical by definition, or else it could say something about everyone being right or everyone being wrong, which hardly holds promise for coherent and workable legislation. Can any state really refuse to take an ideological stance?
But I’d want to argue not just that we need a basis for public life, but that in actual fact the Christian Faith as such a basis is extremely beneficial. Because Christians believe their God to be the Creator God, the outrageous claim is that life based on Christianity is life lived according to the Maker’s just and loving standards, and therefore the best way of living, in the public as well as the private sphere.
(Of course there are historical examples of abuses in Christianity’s name. I don’t think it’s my job to make excuses for these and I wouldn’t want to try. I do think overall Christianity has brought enough prosperity, freedom, justice, to outweigh the genuine pain and sometimes horror that has been caused by some of the distortions and mistakes of its followers.) Aside from any historical arguments that can be made I want to argue that Christianity itself provides us with principles that are truly good for public life. There are many that could be highlighted (some that we are so used to enjoying we often forget their origins in Christianity), I want to briefly mention two.
a. The value of human life
Christians believe that murder, rape, violent assault, theft of property is wrong as do most people in our society. The difference is that Christian faith bases these values not on biology, evolutionary theory or the gut ‘yuk’ instinct of how distasteful such actions may seem. According to Christianity, human life is valuable because it is valued by its Creator. Human life is valuable because God makes, sustains, and preserves his creatures. Human beings are valuable because the Creator values them enough to work transforming justice and forgiveness where they’ve gone way off course. Because it teaches that God so highly values humanity, Christianity provides the basis for a society that treasures life.
b. Servant Leadership
In Christianity, leaders are servants. Leadership is not so much a position to be lorded over others, but a service to be exercised for the interests of others. This other-person-centredness flows from the very source of the faith himself – Jesus – the very epitome of ‘servant leadership’. A society following Christian principles would be led by servants not despots. That’s also why much current Christian involvement in the public square is characterised by service and love of neighbour.
Of course, us Christians would love to see our whole society voluntarily committing itself to a public life ordered on the principles of Christianity. But where that’s not the world we live in we’ll still serve, love, debate, comment, help in the public sphere alongside those who disagree with us as far as we are able and for as long as we are allowed. We’ll keep suggesting ways that the principles of our faith can benefit everyone. That’s because it’s only Christianity that provides a basis for genuinely serving those who, from a worldview perspective, might be in direct opposition to you. Because it’s only the founder of the Christian faith who gave his life for the sake of even his enemies.
******
There are two things that us Brits are not allowed to talk about - religion and politics. Today we’re breaking all the rules by talking about both.
I have only a short amount of time, so I’ll dive straight in. I have two things I’d like to contribute to the discussion.
1. Faith and Public Life are inseparable.
Now, I am taking ‘faith’ here in a broader sense than is often used, though one that I think is actually more accurate. Possession of a faith, a system of beliefs, a way of looking at the world, a set of values and presuppositions, is common to all people. In this sense secular humanism is a faith just as much as Christianity or Buddhism are. Everyone operates on the basis of a set of beliefs about the world. I think once we’ve acknowledged that then it becomes clear that faith and public life cannot be separated. No-one can operate without presuppositions, values, a worldview, in any area of life. Someone can be inconsistent, or can dip in and out of or amalgamate several all at once – but no-one can be worldview-neutral.
Therefore, the call for ‘faith’ to be kept out of public life is really a non-starter, and a rather paradoxical one at that. In calling for a secular state, secularists are simply doing what the advocates of other worldviews have been doing for a long time with varying degrees of forcefulness, arguing that their worldview/faith is the right one for basing national public life on. Now, those who are secularists are entirely welcome to that opinion in one sense. But it can’t be claimed that secularism offers some kind of neutrality for public life. What secularists want is for people of every persuasion to adopt the values, the principles of the secularist worldview by leaving their Christianity or their Hinduism at the doors to the houses of parliament or the school gate.
This poses specific issues for Christians of course, since Christians believe (when they’re being consistent) that it is the message of Jesus Christ that provides the best basis for public life. Christians, of all people, should have massive problems with living out their faith in the private sphere of the home or church but in the public arena.
Which actually leads to my second point.
2. The Christian Faith provides a great basis for public life.
My argument is that national public life can only really work where there is a common worldview, or faith. The dream of a pluralistic state runs into problems the moment someone tries to write the constitution. A pluralist constitution would either have to be blank, in which the authority of the state is groundless and therefore tyrannical by definition, or else it could say something about everyone being right or everyone being wrong, which hardly holds promise for coherent and workable legislation. Can any state really refuse to take an ideological stance?
But I’d want to argue not just that we need a basis for public life, but that in actual fact the Christian Faith as such a basis is extremely beneficial. Because Christians believe their God to be the Creator God, the outrageous claim is that life based on Christianity is life lived according to the Maker’s just and loving standards, and therefore the best way of living, in the public as well as the private sphere.
(Of course there are historical examples of abuses in Christianity’s name. I don’t think it’s my job to make excuses for these and I wouldn’t want to try. I do think overall Christianity has brought enough prosperity, freedom, justice, to outweigh the genuine pain and sometimes horror that has been caused by some of the distortions and mistakes of its followers.) Aside from any historical arguments that can be made I want to argue that Christianity itself provides us with principles that are truly good for public life. There are many that could be highlighted (some that we are so used to enjoying we often forget their origins in Christianity), I want to briefly mention two.
a. The value of human life
Christians believe that murder, rape, violent assault, theft of property is wrong as do most people in our society. The difference is that Christian faith bases these values not on biology, evolutionary theory or the gut ‘yuk’ instinct of how distasteful such actions may seem. According to Christianity, human life is valuable because it is valued by its Creator. Human life is valuable because God makes, sustains, and preserves his creatures. Human beings are valuable because the Creator values them enough to work transforming justice and forgiveness where they’ve gone way off course. Because it teaches that God so highly values humanity, Christianity provides the basis for a society that treasures life.
b. Servant Leadership
In Christianity, leaders are servants. Leadership is not so much a position to be lorded over others, but a service to be exercised for the interests of others. This other-person-centredness flows from the very source of the faith himself – Jesus – the very epitome of ‘servant leadership’. A society following Christian principles would be led by servants not despots. That’s also why much current Christian involvement in the public square is characterised by service and love of neighbour.
Of course, us Christians would love to see our whole society voluntarily committing itself to a public life ordered on the principles of Christianity. But where that’s not the world we live in we’ll still serve, love, debate, comment, help in the public sphere alongside those who disagree with us as far as we are able and for as long as we are allowed. We’ll keep suggesting ways that the principles of our faith can benefit everyone. That’s because it’s only Christianity that provides a basis for genuinely serving those who, from a worldview perspective, might be in direct opposition to you. Because it’s only the founder of the Christian faith who gave his life for the sake of even his enemies.
Monday, February 11, 2008
"We live in a political world..."
...as Bob Dylan once sang. And here in the UK the hoo-ha over Rowan William's comments about Sharia Law has proved that religion and politics can't really be separated.
I've posted before about this sort of stuff (see 'public theology' posts), but here and here are two recent posts by David Field saying what I'd already thought about the RW thing but in a much better way than I'd have said it.
Secondly, here's another David Field post on some lectures given at the weekend somewhat pertinent to the same issues.
Philippians 2:9-11.
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I've posted before about this sort of stuff (see 'public theology' posts), but here and here are two recent posts by David Field saying what I'd already thought about the RW thing but in a much better way than I'd have said it.
Secondly, here's another David Field post on some lectures given at the weekend somewhat pertinent to the same issues.
Philippians 2:9-11.
Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
On 'doing God' or not
Should be writing essay(s) in this pause in the festivities, but I read an interesting article the other day. Matthew Parris talks a lot of sense sometimes. Here he is on how it matters whether or not our politicians believe in God:
We non-believers are always puzzled by protests that strong religious conviction could be without huge influence in the way a man lives his public as well as his private life. We read the Gospels (sometimes with more attention than believers seem to); we learn about Judaic beliefs in God's purpose for the Jews and for mankind; we hear and try to understand the claims of Islam; and it strikes us that these belief systems make enormous claims on their adherents, with the most profound practical consequences.
...We think it matters. It genuinely pains us to seem to insult nice Anglicans, decent Methodists, quiet Catholics, moderate Muslims and liberal Jews, but we don't think they're representative of their faiths militant.
The rest of the article is here. I totally disagree with his stance (he thinks it's a bad thing when politicians believe in God) but I couldn't agree more about the silly idea that it simply makes no difference.
Those Christians living in Nick Clegg's constituency should take note. It matters.
We non-believers are always puzzled by protests that strong religious conviction could be without huge influence in the way a man lives his public as well as his private life. We read the Gospels (sometimes with more attention than believers seem to); we learn about Judaic beliefs in God's purpose for the Jews and for mankind; we hear and try to understand the claims of Islam; and it strikes us that these belief systems make enormous claims on their adherents, with the most profound practical consequences.
...We think it matters. It genuinely pains us to seem to insult nice Anglicans, decent Methodists, quiet Catholics, moderate Muslims and liberal Jews, but we don't think they're representative of their faiths militant.
The rest of the article is here. I totally disagree with his stance (he thinks it's a bad thing when politicians believe in God) but I couldn't agree more about the silly idea that it simply makes no difference.
Those Christians living in Nick Clegg's constituency should take note. It matters.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The government we deserve? (updated)
Matthew Mason's post here hits the spot in my opinion. If we have complaints about the government we might need to first ask questions about the Church.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Towards the redemption of television
Still not sure I know the answer to the question I posed in the previous post. But the points below seem like good things to be getting on with, some more long term than others, some more specific than others.
These points are part-stolen, part-adapted from Schultze's "Redeeming Television."
1. Christians should be discriminating viewers of TV.
Rather than start by blaming the television industry or some other institution, Schultze suggests getting our own TV habits in order first. Christians must be discerning, and Christian parents in particular must teach and train their families to make careful, considered viewing choices. Discernment means finding the good to enjoy. Discernment means balancing television appropriately with all the priorities and tasks we have in life.
2. Christians should push for televisual literacy in education.
The medium we choose shapes the message. Communication methods encourage certain patterns of thought, certain ways of learning, certain kinds of worldview. Television is biased in a certain way, just as print is. Television, as it currently stands, tends towards fragmentation/ incoherence, the valuing of entertainment as the way to communicate anything, and a bunch of other things. People more aware of these tendencies are in a better position to interpret these inherent (whether intended or accidental) messages.
3. Christians should be active in TV protest.
Whether writing in to the BBC, or filling in the market researcher’s form, or signing the appropriate petition, Christians should make known their views on television as it currently stands. These views, of course, should come from analysis of television from the perspective of a biblical worldview. It might be that some Christians should voice their ‘protest’ by exercising their consumer choice in not buying a TV license.
4. Christians should work to redeem television’s institutions.
TV belongs to God. The technology, but also the institutions, the personnel, the programmes. Christians who are talented and thus inclined should enter the industry and seek to change priorities, make Christ’s values known, bring others to Christ, and live out their Christian faith within the TV world. Living with integrity within any sphere dominated by more secular (or just confused in a sort of postmodern way) agendas will be extremely difficult, and Christians must be prepared to lose their jobs for the sake of doing so. But it might also turn out that some are able to change some things for the good. Christians in the media world need help, encouragement, challenge, not suspicion from well-meaning Pastors.
5. Christians should work to provide alternatives to secular television.
One of the problems with Christian television is that it is often an inferior version of the secular. Just like a lot of Christian pop music. Rather, Christian television should pursue aesthetic and artistic excellency. Christian TV programmes should be good, not cringeworthy. Christian TV should be innovative, creative, not merely a low budget version of Trisha with a sheen of ‘God-talk’. This is probably where we’re ‘furthest back.’ So much work needs to be done in the area of a Christian perspective on beauty/ aesthetics/ art/ story-telling before Christian cultural produce can be more like what it should be.
6. Christians should prioritise evangelism and holistic discipleship.
Ultimately, bringing TV to glorify God comes from the transformation of people into God-glorifiers in all areas of their lives. Preaching Christ (the whole Christ that is) will always be the first stone in the jar.
These points are part-stolen, part-adapted from Schultze's "Redeeming Television."
1. Christians should be discriminating viewers of TV.
Rather than start by blaming the television industry or some other institution, Schultze suggests getting our own TV habits in order first. Christians must be discerning, and Christian parents in particular must teach and train their families to make careful, considered viewing choices. Discernment means finding the good to enjoy. Discernment means balancing television appropriately with all the priorities and tasks we have in life.
2. Christians should push for televisual literacy in education.
The medium we choose shapes the message. Communication methods encourage certain patterns of thought, certain ways of learning, certain kinds of worldview. Television is biased in a certain way, just as print is. Television, as it currently stands, tends towards fragmentation/ incoherence, the valuing of entertainment as the way to communicate anything, and a bunch of other things. People more aware of these tendencies are in a better position to interpret these inherent (whether intended or accidental) messages.
3. Christians should be active in TV protest.
Whether writing in to the BBC, or filling in the market researcher’s form, or signing the appropriate petition, Christians should make known their views on television as it currently stands. These views, of course, should come from analysis of television from the perspective of a biblical worldview. It might be that some Christians should voice their ‘protest’ by exercising their consumer choice in not buying a TV license.
4. Christians should work to redeem television’s institutions.
TV belongs to God. The technology, but also the institutions, the personnel, the programmes. Christians who are talented and thus inclined should enter the industry and seek to change priorities, make Christ’s values known, bring others to Christ, and live out their Christian faith within the TV world. Living with integrity within any sphere dominated by more secular (or just confused in a sort of postmodern way) agendas will be extremely difficult, and Christians must be prepared to lose their jobs for the sake of doing so. But it might also turn out that some are able to change some things for the good. Christians in the media world need help, encouragement, challenge, not suspicion from well-meaning Pastors.
5. Christians should work to provide alternatives to secular television.
One of the problems with Christian television is that it is often an inferior version of the secular. Just like a lot of Christian pop music. Rather, Christian television should pursue aesthetic and artistic excellency. Christian TV programmes should be good, not cringeworthy. Christian TV should be innovative, creative, not merely a low budget version of Trisha with a sheen of ‘God-talk’. This is probably where we’re ‘furthest back.’ So much work needs to be done in the area of a Christian perspective on beauty/ aesthetics/ art/ story-telling before Christian cultural produce can be more like what it should be.
6. Christians should prioritise evangelism and holistic discipleship.
Ultimately, bringing TV to glorify God comes from the transformation of people into God-glorifiers in all areas of their lives. Preaching Christ (the whole Christ that is) will always be the first stone in the jar.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Redeeming Television?
“Redemptive cultural discourse seeks to redeem culture from a fallen world, to rehabilitate, to reconfigure, and to reorient culture to the glory and service of God, that is, to cause culture to affirm God as the awesome and beautiful Lord of creation.” (Here for full article)
Here's probably the biggest question I have coming away from my own seminar on television. What does the above look like in the case of television?
Some people might think television is simply irredeemable (others might get itchy at the use of the language of redemption for anything other than people, but I might blog on that another day).
And for sure, human technology is not neutral, nothing is.
And certainly there's a whole load of godless bilge out there on the box.
But then they're not necessarily evil in and of themselves either. Rather, they're biased (thanks to Doug Wilson, via David Batchelor for this) - prone to certain specific temptations and tendencies. Like money.
And that doesn't mean TV is irredeemable.
Here's probably the biggest question I have coming away from my own seminar on television. What does the above look like in the case of television?
Some people might think television is simply irredeemable (others might get itchy at the use of the language of redemption for anything other than people, but I might blog on that another day).
And for sure, human technology is not neutral, nothing is.
And certainly there's a whole load of godless bilge out there on the box.
But then they're not necessarily evil in and of themselves either. Rather, they're biased (thanks to Doug Wilson, via David Batchelor for this) - prone to certain specific temptations and tendencies. Like money.
And that doesn't mean TV is irredeemable.
Television
Television has come in for a lot of bad press. It is the drug of the nation, the tool for numbing us into mindless obedience to the status quo in the hands of the establishment. It causes obesity, family breakdown and postmodernism.
Or, on the other hand, it is the mechanism through which God speaks to us in the questions, struggles, doubts, hopes, dreams, confessions of the nation. It is the 'common grace donkey' through which we hear God's prophetic voice calling us into dealings with him.
These, and related matters, were discussed in a seminar I had to lead this past Wednesday on media. I chose to focus on television because it is really really popular, and really really easy to have a go at. I wanted to see what, positively and negatively, a Christian worldview could make of television. In the end I got far more questions than answers. Matters for further though/ action/ study include:
Or, on the other hand, it is the mechanism through which God speaks to us in the questions, struggles, doubts, hopes, dreams, confessions of the nation. It is the 'common grace donkey' through which we hear God's prophetic voice calling us into dealings with him.
These, and related matters, were discussed in a seminar I had to lead this past Wednesday on media. I chose to focus on television because it is really really popular, and really really easy to have a go at. I wanted to see what, positively and negatively, a Christian worldview could make of television. In the end I got far more questions than answers. Matters for further though/ action/ study include:
- What is the proper relationship between words and images? I suspect the answer starts to be answered once we engage with the specifics of the relationship between God's general revelation and his special revelation, between the two halves of Psalm 19.
- Relatedly, since God gave us a book not a video, are text-based cultures the bees knees? Are they better than image-based ones? Better than oral cultures? Are they the only sort of culture the gospel produces?
- Relatedly again, should we be seeking to go backwards (to text) or forwards (from image). What would moving on from the negatives of a very visual culture mean?
- How do we evangelise and disciple post-literates and illiterates? And people with very different learning styles?
- How do we help people engage critically and christianly with television? How do we help them 'tame' it and use it with moderation?
- How do we disciple those Christians already working within the media world and encourage them to have a transformative, provocative, positive Christian presence and witness in that sphere?
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Christianophobia in Public Life (updated)
Interesting BBC article here about a debate being held in Westminster today.
What's more, here is a BBC report on some of what was said at the debate and the website of the MP who called for it.
What's more, here is a BBC report on some of what was said at the debate and the website of the MP who called for it.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Through New Eyes 4
James B Jordan is a transformationist. He thinks culture matters, and that Christians should develop Christian culture.
One of the arguments against Christian involvement in transforming culture is that cultural produce doesn't last, so is only good in the sense that it can help us to learn how to be more godly, or in as much as it might be useful somehow for evangelism. Jordan's view is different.
One of the arguments against Christian involvement in transforming culture is that cultural produce doesn't last, so is only good in the sense that it can help us to learn how to be more godly, or in as much as it might be useful somehow for evangelism. Jordan's view is different.
This second aspect also gives perspective to the transitory nature of human works. The great paintings of the Reformation era are darkening and cracking with age. Many have been destroyed in wars. Of Bach’s five great Passions, only two are extant. All our works are like castles of sand. Thus, it is sometimes argued that human work in the creation has meaning only in that it trains men: Adam himself is progressively transformed and glorified through the six-fold action. While this touches an important truth, the problem is with the word “only.” By itself, the notion that human labor exists only to train men reduces the value of work only to the subjective dimension. The objective foundation needed is the confession that human labor, if it is ultimately worthwhile, progressively reveals and glorifies God. Even if the artifact does not itself endure, like the crude sketches of a child, the revelation of God and glorification of the creation is cumulative (p124).
Our task is to 'do' the being human/ Genesis 1-2 thing called 'culture' in such a way that God's glory is reflected back to him. That can never be a worthless activity, or useful only in the sense that it morally has an impact on me.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Action for the Unborn
Psalm 68:5
Father of the fatherless and protector of widows, is God in his holy habitation.
I've been thinking recently a lot about the abortion issue. I think there's a need for evangelicals to do two major things;
a. Speak out on this issue (hardly ever mentioned in the churches I've been a part of. Don't think I've ever mentioned it from the pulpit or in personal ministry either).
b. Provide positive care for women in difficult situations who are tempted to abort, or being pressured to, or likely to. We can't just say the negative, we should help provide alternatives.
I really admire what John Piper's church do. As well as preaching passionately, they actively encourage and facilitate adoption so as to help give women a real alternative to abortion.
I think we need evangelical adoption agencies (I'm sure there are some already out there? We should support them too). However, there are a number of problems with the state of play legally with regard to adoption, especially over the issue of homosexuality, making it difficult for evangelicals to be involved and remain within the bounds of both the law of the land and the law of Christ. This gives rise to another action point;
c. Work to change current UK adoption legislation and procedure.
Father of the fatherless and protector of widows, is God in his holy habitation.
I've been thinking recently a lot about the abortion issue. I think there's a need for evangelicals to do two major things;
a. Speak out on this issue (hardly ever mentioned in the churches I've been a part of. Don't think I've ever mentioned it from the pulpit or in personal ministry either).
b. Provide positive care for women in difficult situations who are tempted to abort, or being pressured to, or likely to. We can't just say the negative, we should help provide alternatives.
I really admire what John Piper's church do. As well as preaching passionately, they actively encourage and facilitate adoption so as to help give women a real alternative to abortion.
I think we need evangelical adoption agencies (I'm sure there are some already out there? We should support them too). However, there are a number of problems with the state of play legally with regard to adoption, especially over the issue of homosexuality, making it difficult for evangelicals to be involved and remain within the bounds of both the law of the land and the law of Christ. This gives rise to another action point;
c. Work to change current UK adoption legislation and procedure.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Many years from now... Abortion and the long term perspective.
Charles Moore writes in the Telegraph on the occasion of 40 years since the abortion act was passed.
"I found myself wondering how abortion will be viewed by museum curators, teachers, historians and moralists 200 years from now."
"We reserve particular scorn for those who sought to justify slavery on moral grounds. We look at the moral blindness of the past, and tut-tut, rather complacently."
"It is not hard to imagine how a future Museum of London exhibition about abortion could go. It could buy up a 20th-century hospital building as its space, and take visitors round, showing them how, in one ward, staff were trying to save the lives of premature babies while, in the next, they were killing them."
He then warns about the danger of senationalising the past, and stresses the need to help mothers with unwanted children rather than jump to preachy condemnation. After that he continues
"But the reason I throw this argument into the future is that, with the passage of time, abortion, especially late abortion, is slowly coming to be seen as a "solution" dating from an era that is passing. It will therefore be discredited."
"If you want to do people wrong, you must first undermine the idea that they are people... One of the good moral trends of our time has been to reject this way of looking at things. Instead, we insist, in the great debate about what it means to be human, that weakness is not a disqualification, but, by a famous Christian paradox, a strength. Abortion runs against this trend, and so civilisation will eventually reject it, as once it rejected slavery."
I for one hope that future generations will look back at this period of our history in disbelief at the unwanted, defenceless, aborted unborn. And I hope that a significant part of the reason is that Christians have left the ghetto and reclaimed the public square for the Lord Jesus Christ, seeking bring his just, loving, serving, compassionate leadership to our society. (Here for more)
"I found myself wondering how abortion will be viewed by museum curators, teachers, historians and moralists 200 years from now."
"We reserve particular scorn for those who sought to justify slavery on moral grounds. We look at the moral blindness of the past, and tut-tut, rather complacently."
"It is not hard to imagine how a future Museum of London exhibition about abortion could go. It could buy up a 20th-century hospital building as its space, and take visitors round, showing them how, in one ward, staff were trying to save the lives of premature babies while, in the next, they were killing them."
He then warns about the danger of senationalising the past, and stresses the need to help mothers with unwanted children rather than jump to preachy condemnation. After that he continues
"But the reason I throw this argument into the future is that, with the passage of time, abortion, especially late abortion, is slowly coming to be seen as a "solution" dating from an era that is passing. It will therefore be discredited."
"If you want to do people wrong, you must first undermine the idea that they are people... One of the good moral trends of our time has been to reject this way of looking at things. Instead, we insist, in the great debate about what it means to be human, that weakness is not a disqualification, but, by a famous Christian paradox, a strength. Abortion runs against this trend, and so civilisation will eventually reject it, as once it rejected slavery."
I for one hope that future generations will look back at this period of our history in disbelief at the unwanted, defenceless, aborted unborn. And I hope that a significant part of the reason is that Christians have left the ghetto and reclaimed the public square for the Lord Jesus Christ, seeking bring his just, loving, serving, compassionate leadership to our society. (Here for more)
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Imposing faith
Of course the state can't impose faith on anyone, nor should it try to. But there's a difference between.
1. Making unbelief/heterodoxy/other faiths and worldviews a crime.
and
2. Making some public expressions of unbelief/heterodoxy/other faiths and worldviews a crime.
For example, if part of your worldview is a belief that people from Leicester are not really people at all and should be made into the slave-drones of the rest of us 'real humans', UK law (rightly) forbids you from practicising your belief in this country. It does not (at the moment, give it time) forbid you from holding that opinion, just from some public acts based on it.
Replace the 'people from Leicester...' bit with one of the below and you start to see how this distinction can be very important for anyone wanting government to be shaped by the bible.
Euthanasia should be legalised.
Abortion is every woman's right.
Homosexual couples should be able to adopt like any other couples.
There's nothing wrong with visiting a prostitute.
The minute anything is criminalised, someone is forbidden from living out all the implications of their worldview/faith on the basis of someone else's worldview/faith. The question for the Christian is whether they'd rather the law-shaping worldview come from the bible or not. Surely, to ask the question is to answer it.
1. Making unbelief/heterodoxy/other faiths and worldviews a crime.
and
2. Making some public expressions of unbelief/heterodoxy/other faiths and worldviews a crime.
For example, if part of your worldview is a belief that people from Leicester are not really people at all and should be made into the slave-drones of the rest of us 'real humans', UK law (rightly) forbids you from practicising your belief in this country. It does not (at the moment, give it time) forbid you from holding that opinion, just from some public acts based on it.
Replace the 'people from Leicester...' bit with one of the below and you start to see how this distinction can be very important for anyone wanting government to be shaped by the bible.
Euthanasia should be legalised.
Abortion is every woman's right.
Homosexual couples should be able to adopt like any other couples.
There's nothing wrong with visiting a prostitute.
The minute anything is criminalised, someone is forbidden from living out all the implications of their worldview/faith on the basis of someone else's worldview/faith. The question for the Christian is whether they'd rather the law-shaping worldview come from the bible or not. Surely, to ask the question is to answer it.
Principled Pluralism
Yesterday in Public theology we had a christian brother come in from here to share with us his view on how Christians should relate to the public square. The model he goes for is called 'Principled Pluralism.' This position states that under every circumstance, the ideal is that states are 'confessionally silent'. This does not mean 'we don't do God' in the sense that christian politicians must leave their christianity at home when they head to westminster, but rather that the state must never officially enshrine one epistemology (faith, worldview, etc.) in its constitution as the basis for legal authority (why it has put in the statute book what it has). Christians can and should let their faith inform their political opinions and actions, but the state must never favour Christianity in its constitution.
PP advocates believe that this is the way that God wants the state to be, because it must represent and govern all of its people, and does not have the right to impose faith on anyone.
The problems with such a view are manifold;
1.Of course the state can't impose faith on anyone, and shouldn't try. But, this is not the same as the state overtly basing it's laws on a particular worldview or faith. The minute the state legislates anything, it is imposing values derived from a worldview.
2. There is no such thing as confessional silence. Unless you are going to have a completely blank constitution that is (see below). Once you have a constitution you have taken a side, even if that side is 'we think every/no religion is right' or 'we think the government should always do what the majority says' or 'we think the government should rule for the common good'.
3. A blank constitution is a bad idea, since it means having a government exercising power based on no authority at all. Naked power without a basis for authority is a very bad thing.
4. A constitution based on something other than Jesus being Lord is an idolatrous constitution - it says something/one is Lord other than Jesus Christ.
5. Saying that 'Jesus is Lord' can never be in the constitution amounts to 'we don't do God' in our constitutions. Since Jesus really is Lord of all things and everyone, this surely includes constitutions.
Paradoxically, PP adovocates affirm that God requires the state to rule justly as his servant. So, we are left with the following statements about what God wants of the state.
a. God requires the state to govern as his servant, ruling justly, punishing evil and commending good, within the jurisdiction given to it by God.
b. God requires the state to never ever own up in public or state in its constitution that a. is true.
You can look here for where I stole most of the thoughts above from.
PP advocates believe that this is the way that God wants the state to be, because it must represent and govern all of its people, and does not have the right to impose faith on anyone.
The problems with such a view are manifold;
1.Of course the state can't impose faith on anyone, and shouldn't try. But, this is not the same as the state overtly basing it's laws on a particular worldview or faith. The minute the state legislates anything, it is imposing values derived from a worldview.
2. There is no such thing as confessional silence. Unless you are going to have a completely blank constitution that is (see below). Once you have a constitution you have taken a side, even if that side is 'we think every/no religion is right' or 'we think the government should always do what the majority says' or 'we think the government should rule for the common good'.
3. A blank constitution is a bad idea, since it means having a government exercising power based on no authority at all. Naked power without a basis for authority is a very bad thing.
4. A constitution based on something other than Jesus being Lord is an idolatrous constitution - it says something/one is Lord other than Jesus Christ.
5. Saying that 'Jesus is Lord' can never be in the constitution amounts to 'we don't do God' in our constitutions. Since Jesus really is Lord of all things and everyone, this surely includes constitutions.
Paradoxically, PP adovocates affirm that God requires the state to rule justly as his servant. So, we are left with the following statements about what God wants of the state.
a. God requires the state to govern as his servant, ruling justly, punishing evil and commending good, within the jurisdiction given to it by God.
b. God requires the state to never ever own up in public or state in its constitution that a. is true.
You can look here for where I stole most of the thoughts above from.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Christians and Human Authorities
What is the proper Christian approach to non-Christian authorities? How should Christians relate to pagan governments? A key passage is found in Peter's first epistle.
1Pet. 2:11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
The commentators disagree - is Peter advocating conformity (because he says to submit) or non-conformity (because he says Christians are to live as free men, with a primary identity as slaves and servants of God, not of Caesar).
For my part I think I'd want to talk about Peter proposing a policy of subversive conformity.
Christians are being told unambiguously that they must submit to the created authorities. To do less would be to do evil and to invite the negative sanctions at the disposal of the authorities – in other words, to suffer for doing evil. In this sense then, Christians are to conform, to obey the human authorities above them.
However, such conformity is subversive both in its basis and in its intent.
a. Christians must yield to the authorities in service to the Lord, as a part of their more basic submission to and service for God. They are in reality free, though free slaves of God, willing to serve him by living exemplary lives that serve his purposes in the world (of which more in b. below). The different levels of responsibility commanded in 2:17 suggest that where obeying the state conflicts with fearing God (or indeed loving the brotherhood) the Christian is under no obligation to comply.
b. Christians must yield to the authorities in order that the reign of God through the gospel might be furthered in the world. This is the inevitable conclusion from the hope of Gentiles converting in 2:12 as a result of the believer’s visible good works. It is also implicit in 2:15 where the criticisms against God’s people can be silenced by their civil obedience. Plug this into an eschatology of hope (e.g. Daniel 2:44-45) and you get the picture that as Christian's obey pagan authorities it contributes to their ultimate downfall (as pagan authorities anyway).
Christians submit to the authorities because Jesus, and not the authorities, is Lord. Civil obedience (i.e. conformity) functions within the more basic requirement to fear God and serve the Lord’s purposes, including the conversion of the nations – as part of ultimately bringing all authorities to find their rightful place under Christ’s overarching Lordship (i.e. it's subversive).
Of course, if we had time, we could discuss how 'subversive conformity' could be part of a wider picture we find in the new testament of power through weakness, victory through suffering, rule through service, resurrection via the cross, glory in jars of clay etc.
Some people did exegetical papers on this passage in my NT class, and I'm grateful for the way their careful work got me thinking. Any exegetical insights have probably come from them, any examples of bad thinking come from me.
1Pet. 2:11 Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
13 Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. 16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. 17 Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
The commentators disagree - is Peter advocating conformity (because he says to submit) or non-conformity (because he says Christians are to live as free men, with a primary identity as slaves and servants of God, not of Caesar).
For my part I think I'd want to talk about Peter proposing a policy of subversive conformity.
Christians are being told unambiguously that they must submit to the created authorities. To do less would be to do evil and to invite the negative sanctions at the disposal of the authorities – in other words, to suffer for doing evil. In this sense then, Christians are to conform, to obey the human authorities above them.
However, such conformity is subversive both in its basis and in its intent.
a. Christians must yield to the authorities in service to the Lord, as a part of their more basic submission to and service for God. They are in reality free, though free slaves of God, willing to serve him by living exemplary lives that serve his purposes in the world (of which more in b. below). The different levels of responsibility commanded in 2:17 suggest that where obeying the state conflicts with fearing God (or indeed loving the brotherhood) the Christian is under no obligation to comply.
b. Christians must yield to the authorities in order that the reign of God through the gospel might be furthered in the world. This is the inevitable conclusion from the hope of Gentiles converting in 2:12 as a result of the believer’s visible good works. It is also implicit in 2:15 where the criticisms against God’s people can be silenced by their civil obedience. Plug this into an eschatology of hope (e.g. Daniel 2:44-45) and you get the picture that as Christian's obey pagan authorities it contributes to their ultimate downfall (as pagan authorities anyway).
Christians submit to the authorities because Jesus, and not the authorities, is Lord. Civil obedience (i.e. conformity) functions within the more basic requirement to fear God and serve the Lord’s purposes, including the conversion of the nations – as part of ultimately bringing all authorities to find their rightful place under Christ’s overarching Lordship (i.e. it's subversive).
Of course, if we had time, we could discuss how 'subversive conformity' could be part of a wider picture we find in the new testament of power through weakness, victory through suffering, rule through service, resurrection via the cross, glory in jars of clay etc.
Some people did exegetical papers on this passage in my NT class, and I'm grateful for the way their careful work got me thinking. Any exegetical insights have probably come from them, any examples of bad thinking come from me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
