Cruciformity

I’ve just finished writing an essay outlining the shape of Karl Barth’s ethic, key to which is the concept of Divine Command. To prevent his account sounding like a divine tyrant or a voluntaristic thunderstrike like other Divine Command Theories, he provides the following great quote from CD II/2, p 587:

It is true, of course, that this command also says: Do this and do not do that. But in the mouth of God this means something different.  Do this—not because an outer or inner voice now requires this of you, not because it must be so in virtue of any necessity rooted in the nature and structure of the cosmos or of man, but: Do this, because in so doing you make it true that your rejection has been rejected in the death of Jesus on the cross, that for His sake your sin has been forgiven.  Do this, because in Jesus Christ you have been born anew in the image of God.  Do it in the freedom to which you have been chosen and called, because in this freedom you may do this, and can do only this.  For this, and not for any other reason, do this.  You may do it.  And: Do not do this—not because you hear an inner or outer voice which seeks to make it doubtful or dreadful for you, not because there is any power in heaven or on earth to prevent or spoil or for some reason forbid it.  No, but: Do not do this, because it would be a continuation of the fall of Adam, because it would not correspond to the grace addressed to you but contradict it, because you would have to do it as the captive which you certainly are not, because you, the free person, are exempted from the necessity of doing it—really exempted by the fact that you have been made righteous and glorious in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that you have actually been cut off by Him from this very possibility.  This is how the command of God speaks.

I’ve been reading J B Torrance’s Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace with a few friends from College and I thought I’d share this little gem on prayer. 

The first real step on the road to prayer is to recognize that none of us knows how to pray as we ought to. But as we bring our desires to God, we find that we have someone who is praying for us, with us, and in us. Thereby he teaches us to pray, and to pray in peace to the Lord. Jesus takes our prayers - our feeble, selfish, inarticulate prayers - he cleanses them, makes them his prayers, and in a “wonderful exchange” [...] he makes his prayers our prayers and presents us to the Father as his dear children, crying: “Abba Father.” (p46).

Sports stars aren’t known for their capacity to provoke thought, but I’m happy to report one such case! Have a read of these words from Michael Johnson, the four-time Olympic gold medalist for middle distance running:

“I believe sport is the most powerful vehicle for positive social change all over the world. It’s why I’m delighted to be supporting Beyond Sport, which identifies and rewards the most important sport development initiatives across the globe.”

Wow. I mean I love sport. I love watching and I love playing it. If I spoke to you in this last week, did I mention already that Spurs beat Liverpool last week? But “the most powerful vehicle for positive social change across the world”?

Of course, this statement is ridiculous. The outrage that has recently been poured out in the media over the acts of sports personality Matthew Johns, you would have to say that its powerful, but not necessarily positive. The positive vibes need to weighed against the negative aspects of sport throughout the world: the violence manifested in English Premier Football, the racism manifested in Spanish football, the riots that have flared up between Croatian and Yugoslavian supporters over the years have all demonstrated the failure of sport as a positive vehicle of social change. Consider even the way that people like Ben Cousins (this hurts so much to say this as a long-lasting Eagles supporter) dangerous serve as a role-model for young blokes. Consider the ridiculous amounts of money that English footballers are paid. Consider its byproducts, the gambling and drinking habits that are closely associated with sports. It anything, sport is a huge liability.

But is there any truth to his words? Well, my mind doesn’t have to stretch too far back to recall the strong sense of international community surrounding the Sydney Olympics - I wasn’t even living in Sydney and I could feel its gravity. Consider also the way that almost every person I know stayed up to watch the Socceroos in the last World Cup, or even the way that rival politicians and business leaders, fierce competitors in the wild will put their differences aside and play a charity match as a symbolic gesture of a greater unity in their humanity. Memorial matches form powerful symbolic gestures within society stirring memories of important people or occasions.

Here’s the point that Michael Johnson provoked me to think. Given these experiences, could it be possible that sport succeeds where our churches have been failing? Should we prioritise sports programs as key in our church community projects? 

Stanley Fish here makes two great observations about sport. First, that sport does seem to weave a harmony between players despite their abilities and backgrounds - “the ethical fabric weaved by sport” - and my own experience testifies to the amazing capacity that organised sport provides for social networking, and particularly among the blokes. Passing someone a football can deeply representing approval, acceptance, and friendship. I’m not kidding!

Fish’s second points is that there is a strange aesthetic connected to sport. Not only watching a classy playing score from long range, nor the beautiful tapestry woven in the teamwork of a Barcelona or Tottenham Hotspur, but also the beauty of participating - playing and watching.  Fish draws on Kant and Morales: It’s what Kant calls “pure disinterested satisfaction” and Olympic swimmer Pablo Morales described the pleasure he feels in competition as “that special feeling of getting lost in focused intensity.”

What I think is occuring here is another case of a collapsing of the True and the Good into the Beautiful. Sport is beheld as truly beautiful for many people and so forms a commonality between many people. Many people gather around it and it such community is thrilling and I wholehearted believe that it is positive. But is the Beautiful able to bring social change without also being Good and True? 

In my opinion Christians need to embrace the evidently Beautiful in this world like sport, and also music and poetry and its other forms. But precisely the reverse of what Michael Johnson said is true. In fact, when you mention these other artforms you realise just what a vehicle  influential Christians have been in historically promoting these artforms! I don’t know the history of English football but I wouldn’t be surprised if it grew out of the work of a Christian organisation like the YMCA back in the day. I reckon Michael Johnson would do better to find a vehicle of social change in the person of Jesus. Not his cheap caricatures but the historical one described in the Scriptures: Beauty, Good and Truth personified.

I was looking at the website of what you might call the official celebrations of Jean Calvin’s 500th birthday over here. The celebrations seem to have consisted of a some serious publications and a pretty flashy looking touring conference. It made me think: although a 500th is up there when it comes to birthday celebrations, if I had heard of this a couple of years ago I probably would have wondered what all the fuss was about.

When I first started reading Calvin’s Institutes, it didn’t exactly blow me away. All he seemed to say was what I already knew. But over time it has dawned on me how remarkable it is that his theology has lasted so long. There are plenty of books that age the moment they enter the bookshop, but Calvin’s theology and exegesis has been read and referenced for the best part of 450 years. What’s also remarkable is the way that his theology seems to constantly speak into the very latest of theological ideas and trends.

Anyway, I gleaned from this website what I thought was a cool little summary of a sermon preached at one of the conferences (posted there by Ray Pennings):

On Ephesians 1:3-14 enttiled “Election” by Rev. Geoffrey Thomas. He expounded the text with five points:

1. Election is a simple doctrine to understand. A useful illustrative narrative between a pastor and parishoner who was confused about election was used to make his point.

Pastor – How are you saved? Parishoner – By God’s grace.

Pastor – Did God save you or did you save yourself? Parishoner – God did.

Pastor – Did He do so on purpose or by accident?

2. We should not have small or shrinking thoughts of God’s election. He has saved a great multitudes of His people.

3. God chose multitudes because He loved them. “We cannot speak of God without speaking of Him as being in love with His people.”

4. The teaching of election effects us by (a) humbling us; (b)encouraging us; (c)providing support for evangelism; (d) making us courageous.

5. How can we know we are elect? We know our election by having Christ. “A faith as thin as a spiders thread, in Christ, will carry us across the fire.”

I must be one of the last people to hear about this. In any case, A. N. Wilson, a man who has mocked Christians and Christianity in his writings over many years, has re-committed himself to faith in the old, old story. Have a read - he’s a brother!

George Herbert

LORD, who createdst man in wealth and store,

     Though foolishly he lost the same,

          Decaying more and more,

             Till  he  became

               Most poor :

               With  thee

             O  let  me  rise

          As larks, harmoniously,

     And sing this day thy victories :

Then  shall  the  fall  further  the  flight  in  me.

My  tender  age  in  sorrow  did  beginne :

     And still with sicknesses and shame

          Thou didst so punish sinne,

              That  I  became

                Most thinne.

                With  thee

              Let me combine,

          And feel this day thy victorie,

     For,  if  I  imp  my  wing  on  thine,

Affliction  shall  advance  the  flight  in  me.

Galatians is almost certainly one of the earliest New Testament writings, to my knowledge it was indisputably written by Paul, and, as far as I can tell, it has served as a frontline of recent New Testament fistycuffs. So I’m aware that it’s kind of trendy to blog about this kind of thing and I want to avoid the trend of making reductionistic conclusions (not to mention slanderous conclusions!) like a pyromaniacal kid, fixated upon finding the hottest part of the fires of controversy and have a good poke and prod around, toasting well-worn pastors and scholars like marshmellows for a cheap-shot melting moment… Ok, the metaphor’s run it’s course.

I’ve been reading through Tom Wright’s new book, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision and I have thoroughly enjoyed engaging again with Paul’s writings and trying to hear what Paul actually says. I’ve been challenged to consider some of the tensions and complications that I had simply settled with previously.

As I started reading through Galatians again recently, the place that I first got bogged down, (and I don’t think that I’m the only one!) was the end of chapter 2 at the end of Paul’s conversion narrative and immediately following his confrontation with Peter. So what I want to do here is walk slowly through Galatians and try and make sense of it as a whole, not arguing for a particular viewpoint (Wright’s or Luther’s or otherwise). What is the logic of what Paul says to Peter in v14? What do the three phrases in v16 mean: ‘justified’, ‘works of the law’, ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ (pistis christou)?? Is there a logic to what he’s saying? Why does he mean by rebuilding in v18?

11  But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned. 12 For he used to eat with the Gentiles before certain men came from James. However, when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, because he feared those from the circumcision party.  13 Then the rest of the Jews joined his hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.  14 But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?

15  We are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;  16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no human being will be justified.  17 But if, while seeking to be justified by Christ, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, is Christ then a promoter of sin? Absolutely not!  18 If I rebuild those things that I tore down, I show myself to be a lawbreaker. 19 For through the law I have died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; 20 and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.  21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Another quaint George Herbert poem…

Love bade me welcome; yet my soul drew back,

Guilty of dust and sin.

But quick-eyed Love, observing me grow slack

From my first entrance in,

Drew nearer to me, sweetly questioning

If I lack'd anything.

'A guest,' I answer'd, 'worthy to be here:'

Love said, 'You shall be he.'

'I, the unkind, ungrateful? Ah, my dear,

I cannot look on Thee.'

Love took my hand and smiling did reply,

'Who made the eyes but I?'

'Truth, Lord; but I have marr'd them: let my shame

Go where it doth deserve.'

'And know you not,' says Love, 'Who bore the blame?'

'My dear, then I will serve.'

'You must sit down,' says Love, 'and taste my meat.'

So I did sit and eat.

I’ve been put onto George Herbert’s poems recently. Let me know if you have any favourites!

(Note that an ‘ague’ is something like ‘a fever’)

Lord, how I am all ague, when I seek
     What I have treasured in my memory!
     Since, if my soul make even with the week,
Each seventh note by right is due to thee.

I find there quarries of piled vanities,
     But shreds of holiness, that dare not venture
     To show their face, since cross to thy decrees:
There the circumference earth is, heav'n the centre.

In so much dregs the quintessence is small:
     The spirit and good extract of my heart
     Comes to about the many hundredth part.
Yet Lord restore thine image, hear my call:

     And though my hard heart scarce to thee can groan,
     Remember that thou once didst write in stone.

My New Testament 3 course has been something like a wild safari tour of Canberra as Brian Rosner has pointed to various aspects of the letter creating a deeper understanding of Paul’s world and his theology. Well, maybe safari tour is the wrong metaphor - actually, Brian’s lecturing style sometimes makes you think you’re at a trivia night! (a foible I’ve come to whole-heartedly embrace). In any case, we’ve not only seen the sights of the strange (and even obscene) culture of the place, but also, once you see the letter from the heights of its proper Jewish context, you see how amazingly well organised it is and how well it fits together! Surely a feat worthy of our own Walt Burley-Griffin! So for you bible readers out there, there’s no doubt that Brian’s forthcoming commentary in the Pillar series will be well worth the purchase price.

Current college work, combined with my fascination with the argument of Romans last year, has recently compelled me to read Paul in my quiet times each day and so I’ve started with Galatians. Galatians is confusing and riddled with statements under hot debate (cf. recent discussions on the meaning of pistis christou and ‘justification’ or ‘righteousness’ language) but also lines of passionate devotion to life in living Messiah - Jesus. I love it. Check this out:

I have been crucified with Christ; and no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Gal. 2:19b-20, HSCB).

Paul is SO personally charged by his understanding of Christ’s love for him that he busts into the first person in the middle of his rebuke to the Galatian church. If I was to get a tattoo of something that said something meaningful about me and who I wanted to be, these words be right up there as a candidate. On second thoughts I might end up looking like Ben Cousins without the physique…

I say this as a means of saying that I’m keen to nut out Paul some more on this blog. I want to think out loud some of the things where my faith and traditions have been challenged and some of the things that I’ve been learning in class and reading in writers like Michael F. Bird, Francis Watson, Tom Wright, and Richard B. Hays (not to mention Brian S. Rosner!). The above verse is a great example of a verse that can be ripped out of its context and be made to mean something completely different to what it’s intended (along with Romans 7, 8, and 9… I could keep counting!).

So anyway, stay posted for some more wrestling with Paul, trying to capture what he knows of my life in Christ.