"What the willy wonka was that all about?" So asked my friend and colleague, Jason Goroncy, in response to the Hillsong London version of Silent Night that's been doing the rounds on the web in recent days. Jason's question prompted a good conversation on his blog, and he himself has now responded with his own typically thoughtful comments. Jason encourages some searching questions about how to interpret this performance in a way that's theologically serious and fair. He also points out that the discomfort many of us (and I count myself in this number) experience watching this might properly be transferred to other Christian 'performances' and 'symbols' which don't cause the discomfort which they perhaps should. So, an extract:
Watching the performance of this single song, online, nearly 17,000 kilometres from where it was performed, I have the same kind of confusion I experience whenever I worship in a building with a national flag in it; or an Honour Roll commemorating those who gave their lives in ‘the service of freedom’ and ‘for God, King and Country’, some of whom, it is noted (sometimes with the sign of a little cross!), ‘paid the supreme sacrifice’; or whenever I see a reference, in my ecclesiological territory, to ‘senior pastor’; or when I hear that a qualification for being a bishop (in some other ecclesiological territories) is proof of a penis; or whenever I see an innocent bunch of carnations perched on a baptismal font;....
Check out Jason's first post and the ensuing conversation here.
Since I had a gap in my diary, I arrived at the Seminary a few days in advance of the conference. This gave me the chance to work in the library as well as to have conversations with staff and students as opportunities arose. As I've reported in blogs following previous visits, the Seminary is the focus of a very different world of theological education than ours in Australia: 350 residential students, nearly all of whom are under 30, some straight out of school. Within a few years, all these students will be pastors in churches with 100s and even 1000s of members. Still, even this number of students - together with the smaller numbers at the regional seminaries - it is going to take a while to change the present ratio of 1 theologically-trained ordained minster: 18,000 Protestant Christians. The enthusiasm and dedication of both students and faculty is exemplary and inspiring. A cohort of about 25 graduate students sat in on the conference for its duration and often asked very probing questions.
The Canadian delegation was made up of 22 people, including the Assembly Moderator, the General Secretary, and a range of other leaders and members; the delegation also reflected the cultural and ethnic diversity of the UCC. An indigenous elder among the delegation opened the Canadian presentation with an indigenous ritual used when starting communication with new friends. It also included a retired UCC theologian who had spent 2002-2007 teaching at the seminary. He was warmly welcomed back to Nanjing.
Listening in to the various presentations and the interactions which they produced, I was struck at how often the conversations replayed the dialogue the UCA and CCC had undertaken in 2013. It didn't take long for questions such as these to emerge: How is the unity of the church articulated theologically? What is the relationship between gospel and culture? What are the demands and opportunities of being
post-denominational and post-Christendom churches in both China and Canada? How does the church co-operate with the state in the provision of community services (a new possibility for the Chinese church which was prevented from doing so until 2011). I think that united and uniting churches work, at least implicitly, with ecclesiologies that are not easily mapped on to the ecclesiologies of Christendom. I think that in exploring these questions the UCA, the CCC and UCC are fellow-travellers.
For me a real highlight among the presentations was a paper, "Gospel and Culture: A Chinese Christian's Understanding" by Rev Dr Yongtao Chen from the Nanjing faculty. It was a very illuminating perspective from within the Chinese context of how Christianity appropriates elements of Chinese culture and what it is that Chinese Christianity can contribute to Chinese culture. He offered a very interesting reading of Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman in John 4 as a paradigm for the encounter between Jesus and another culture. A fuller version of Dr. Chen's paper is available in Christianity and Chinese Culture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010) edited by Mikka Ruokanen and Paulos Huang.
Both before and during the visit I took the opportunity to delve more than I have in the past into the truly vast and rapidly expanding body of contemporary scholarly writing on Chinese Christianity. I would simply mention the following as a fairly random sample of the literature which I myself have only skimmed and which others might also find helpful:
Daniel H. Bays, A New History of Christianity in China (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012)
Jason Kindopp and Caroll Lee Hamrin, God and Caesar in China: Policy Implications of Church-State Tension (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution 2004).
Justin Tan, "Chinese Protestant Christianity" in The Church in China (Adelaide: ATF Theology, 2010) 83-120.
Yang Huilin, China Christianity and the Question of Culture (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2014).
Gloria S. Tseng, "Revival Preaching and the Indigenization of Christianity in Republican China", International Bulletin of Missionary Research 39 (2014): 177-182.
Alan Hunter and Kim Kwong Chan, Protestantism in Contemporary China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)
Several themes emerges from even a rapid engagement with these works: the sheer complexity of the history (ancient and recent) of Christianity in China; the immense diversity of Christianity in China, a diversity which extends from the impact of contemporary Pentecostalism to alliances between Christianity and folk religion; and the challenges of being the Christian community in a one-party state (a challenge which is not reducible to the status respectively held by the registered and unregistered churches); and the need for Westerners to recognise that 'state' oversight of religious activities has been part of Chinese culture and society for over a millennium. I would also draw particular attention to the work by Yang Huilin mentioned above. Huilin is a leading Chinese academic, presently the Vice-President of Renmin University in Beijing. Huilin is among a group of Chinese intellectuals - only some of whom are Christian - who engage with Christian theology as an intellectual discipline in its own right. In this particular book Huilin engages Christian ethics, the place of theology in the humanities, Zizek's post-secular appropriation of Christianity, and even a chapter on Scriptural Reasoning, as tools for dialogue between China and the West. Whilst I understand there is some ambivalence from the church theologians towards this enterprise, it is fascinating - and perhaps salutary- that intellectuals outside the church find Christian ideas interesting precisely as ideas which have contributions to make to the welfare of Chinese culture.
Once again, I returned from a visit to China deeply grateful for the opportunity to be exposed to this growing church, and on this occasion also to learn about another united/uniting church, i.e., the United Church of Canada. The blog which the UCC delegation produced throughout its visit can be found here. I'm grateful to both delegations for letting me eavesdrop on their conversation.
The
Western Australian Synod of the Uniting Church in Australia is currently seeking a Director of Education and Formation to
join their leadership group. The core purpose of the role is to provide
leadership in the achievements of a culture in which faith formation for
discipleship and leadership is prized, appreciated and seeks to build an
informed and integrated learning community directed to the mission of God. For
position description contact Monica Pettersen on 9260 9800 or email monica.pettersen@wa.uca.org.au>
. Please send your CV and cover letter (for the attention of Rosemary Hudson
Miller, Acting General Secretary), by e-mail to Human Resources Advisor monica.pettersen@wa.uca.org.au>.
Applications close at 5.00pm on 16 December 2015.
Last weekend I participated in the Ethos event, A Civil Conversation on Homosexuality. I was one of eight panellists. We presented in groups of two or three around, respectively, biblical/theological issues, the local church, pastoral and counselling challenges, and legal matters. A wide diversity of convictions, expertise and experiences was included. The ensuing conversation was rich and challenging.
Each of us on the panel had 5 minutes to make an initial contribution to the discussion. Mine is included below. Clearly, there is significant risk is posting this brief overview. With such a skeletal outline of the argument, its weaker points are easily exposed and the methodological strategies it employs are identified but left unexplained.
A full version (10,000+ words) of my argument will be published as the Summer Zadok Paper next month. An even slightly longer version of the argument, specifically oriented to debates within the Uniting Church in Australia, will be included in my book Disturbing Much, Disturbing Many: Theology Provoked by the Basis of Union to be published in the New Year.
--ooOOoo--
In supporting a
revision of the church’s historical rejection of homosexual practice, my
argument does not consist of a generic appeal to ‘inclusion’, nor to an
application of the political discourses of ‘rights’ or ‘liberation’, nor even
to a theological endorsement of ‘homosexual experience’, however that might be
defined.
My argument weaves
together reflections on what it means to appeal to scripture in the face of
novel experiences of the Spirit. The novel experience I’m seeking to bring into
conversation with Scripture is not an abstract ‘homosexual experience’, but the
church’s experience of having gay disciples within it.
In other words, the experience which
presses itself upon the church is the experience of Christian men and women
who, through mutual attraction, friendship and affection have formed a
relationship with a partner of the same gender. These relationships display and
practise fidelity and mutual nurture, and allow each partner to
develop as disciples of Jesus Christ by loving God and neighbour, befriending
strangers, praying for enemies, and otherwise contributing to and building up the
life and witness of the church.
It is with this
experience in mind that I believe the experience of the inclusion of the
Gentiles becomes a significant biblical paradigm for our contemporary
theological reflections.
But I am not appealing
to the inclusion of the Gentiles in the way that it is often appealed to in
this issue. The argument is often presented like this: the inclusion of the Gentiles is a paradigm of the church accepting, on
the basis of their evidence of the Spirit’s work, those who have previously
been deemed outsiders.
Instead, my
appeal to the inclusion of the Gentiles goes like this:
The appeal to the Bible which was prompted by the outpouring of the
Spirit on the Gentiles is itself a paradigm for our appeal to Scripture in our
reflections on the place of homosexuals in the church.
Inclusion of the
Spirit-filled Gentiles was ultimately justified by novel ways of reading
scripture.
Crucial here is the
reference by James to the prophets, principally Amos 9, in the deliberations at
Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. Time does
not permit a full engagement with this text, other than to say that James – or
Luke – manifestly tinkers with this text. It is not a direct quote form the Septuagint,
a fragment is added from Isaiah, and another from Zechariah. Even in the use of
Amos, the image of redemption is altered.
In other words, James –
or Luke – has not discovered or revealed ‘the meaning’ of Amos or the other
prophets; he has produced what one commentator has described as “a pastiche of
fragments” (1).
What we see here is the
kind of freedom, imagination and creativity which the writers of the New
Testament characteristically exercised in their use of and appeal to their
Scriptures.Scripture was used, under
the intense pressure of spiritual novelty, to reimagine the purposes of God.
How might we appeal to
Scripture to reimagine the purposes of God under the pressure – or, as I would prefer to say, the gift –
which the presence of openly gay disciples in the church is to the church.
****
I suggest that there
are voices in Scripture which help us reimagine the nexus of creation, nature
and order in ways which are alternatives to the very tight nexus of creation,
nature and order evident in Romans 1 and which has been so pivotal for
sustaining the classical Christian rejection of homosexual practice. There,
Paul argues God’s creative act produces a natural order to which corresponds a
moral order, a moral order which is violated by homosexual acts.
Job 39 and Ecclesiastes 7 tell a different story –
not about homosexual acts, to which they do not refer – but about the prior relationship
between creation, nature and order.
In his response from
within the whirlwind to Job’s protests, God points Job to those dimensions of
the good creation which lie beyond the human perception of order. Strikingly,
this includes the flightless ostrich.
These creatures appear ‘disordered’. The ostrich has
wings but cannot fly; in careless abandonment it fails to protect its eggs; it
treats its children with cruelty, as if they were not even its own. Yet God
declares these creatures with these features to be his work. Job is not invited
to see some otherwise hidden order, nor to understand this apparent 'disordering'
as the result of a universal fall. Rather Job is summoned simply to
acknowledge that these creatures with these features belong to God’s wise
creative work and thus play their role in the integrity of creation. In the words of one commentator: “God
confronts Job with things that his…categories cannot possibly comprehend.” (2)
Similarly, Qohelet,
the author of Ecclesiastes, repeatedly queries whether there is any justice or
order in the world, and is unable to find it (e.g., 1:16-17; 2:17; 8:14). So,
Qohelet declares: “Consider the work of God; who can make straight what he has
made crooked” (Eccl 7:13). In commentary on this verse it has been said, the “universe has
wrinkles”, some of which are simply part of the “act of creation itself”. (3) As
with the book of Job, the point at issue is the difference between the
integrity of God’s wise creation and the limited human perception of order.
I suggest that by
linking these texts to other biblical texts on, specifically, ‘desire’ and ‘the
body’, we can envisage a biblically and theologically coherent “pastiche of fragments” which invite us to
reimagine the place of homosexuality within the integrity of God’s wise
creation.
Notes: (1) Robert W. Wall, The Acts of the Apostles: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections
in The New Interpreter’s Bible: A
Commentary in Twelve Volumes, ed. Leander E. Keck et al., (Nashville:
Abingdon, 2002), 10:218. (2) Carol A. Newson, Job: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander
Keck et al., (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), 4:625. (3) James L Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes (Louisville: WJKP, 1987), 139.
This sermon is one that I've preached several times this year in different contexts. It picks up some of the ideas of the 'strangeness' of Jesus Christ - one of the themes of this blog. In this case, the theme is developed through an engagement with Mark 8: 27-38. It's been fine-tuned by responses from the congregations of Wesley Uniting Church (inner-city Melbourne), Clarence Uniting Church (suburban Hobart) and East Doncaster Uniting Church (suburban Melbourne).
From Mark 8, I take the themes of curiosity, confession and confusion and build the sermon around that.
A further episode in the conversation between Ben Myers and me following Tony Abbot's Thatcher Lecture: "The Welfare of the City: Re-thinking Church and State". Prompted to think a bit more about a theological understanding of the state and its relationship to culture, I conclude the article with these suggestions:
I suggest that rather than repeat received theologies of the state, or even develop new ones, for this new context, Christian theological energy could be invested in theologies of citizenship in the midst of cultural diversity. For much of the Western theological tradition, cultural diversity has been a problem to be solved. Might it be that it is itself a good of creation, and one that invites a level of theological engagement which would match that which has previously been devoted to theologies of the state? Power and authority will weave their way through such diversity in ways that both help and hinder human flourishing.
For that reason, and many others, Christians are called to learn to live, think and imagine in ways that will allow them, in the words of Jeremiah, to "seek the welfare of the city" - this strange and unfamiliar "city" in which God has presently placed the Western church.
On Saturday Nov 21st, I'll be part of a panel discussing homosexuality. The event is being organised by Ethos, the Evangelical Alliance's Centre for Christianity and Society. A panel, representing a wide range of denominational and theological commitments, has been convened. The panel is also notable for the inclusion of various domains of expertise. My particular contribution will be to discuss the biblical and theological issues with Gordon Preece and Mark Lindsay.
Other panellists include: Kevin Giles, Denise Cooper-Clarke, Carolyn Francis, Matt Glover, Rich Phan and Matt Glover.
David F. Ford, The Future of Christian Theology (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011)
This book is part of the Blackwell Manifesto series. In fact, if you go to this video (and below), you can watch Ford explain how, in the process of writing it, he was in dialogue with the authors of the parallel manifestos for Jewish and Islamic theology. Such dialogue is typical of David Ford's writings and this Manifesto reflects these and other conversations. There are theological engagements with the state of the 'secular'; he studies how Christian theology can be 'blessed' by other faiths; he explores the multiple communities in which theology is performed; he writes of the need for theological apprenticeship; he addresses institutional and funding issues on which the future of theology will depend. Although written from the heart of British academic theology (Ford is Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge), the book reflects Ford's interest in global theology and the diverse communities from which theology emerges and which it serves. For all these reasons the book is worth reading. Nevertheless, I will specify two particular aspects of his argument which make this book an especially worthwhile read.
The first relates to the openness of Christian theology and the grounds of that openness. I am frequently drawn into conversations about the systematic nature of systematic theology and the criticism that precisely by being systematic the discipline over-organises the material of Christian theology. Just recently I was in a meeting where systematic theology was summarily dismissed as 'too rigid'. This is not an unfair criticism of some strands of systematic theology, but not, however, of its best exponents. (See my earlier post discussing Sarah Coakley's reponse to such criticisms). Ford is not preoccupied with this criticism, nor is the book an apology for systematic theology. Nevertheless he has some useful ways of exploring the openness of the Christian theological task. With echoes of von Balthasar, and before him, Hegel, Ford uses a typology of 'epic', 'lyric' and 'drama' to distinguish different theological styles. The "epic mindset", he writes, "likes clarity completeness, and objectivity, systems, overviews and comprehensive structures" (p.25). Lyric theology concerns itself with "inwardness, self-expression and the present moment" and embraces "messiness and loose ends" (p.25). As such, lyric theology can be a corrective to epic theology. Yet, the danger with the lyric style is that it can "give up on a coherent plot, an overarching meaning" (p.26). Drama, on the other hand, "is able to embrace the objective and the subjective, to maintain a sense of plot and purpose without supressing individuality [or] diversity" (p.26). It can "have epic detachment and lyric intensity, and enable a sense of coherence without assuming one overview" (p.26).
Ford prefers the dramatic because he believes that it is characteristic of the biblical testimony itself, and for that reason has a particular claim on the work of theological reflection. The Bible, he writes,
testifies to a real drama of love and freedom, and the most serious matters are at stake in the interactions of God, humanity, and creation. ... Human freedom is fulfilled in involvement with God and God's purposes, and this means constant discernment of vocation and responsibility within an unfolding drama whose central act is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (p.27).
David Ford
Of course, the appeal to the dramatic is not uncommon in contemporary theology. What makes Ford's approach especially interesting is the way he deepens the biblical foundation for it. Theology will maintain this dramatic posture if it attends to the different 'theological moods' present in the bible and reflects them in its constructive work. Too much theology, he says, is in the imperative and indicative moods. Christian theology must also develop its discourses in the subjunctive and interrogative moods. He refers to the conventional "deadening lack of recognition of the complex interplay of moods across a range of biblical books" (p.71) and argues that a greater recognition of those moods and their 'ecology' will generate theological styles reflective of the biblical witness itself.
The second aspect of his argument which makes this book worth reading is his discussion of the 'elements' of wise and creative theology. Ford suggests that such theology is characterised by these four elements: retrieving the past; engaging with God, community and world; thinking; and communication. These are spelled out in the book, but their suggestiveness should be immediately apparent. Perhaps the most striking feature of this discussion is Ford's emphasis on 'communication'. Here too he finds precedent and mandate in the Bible itself. He suggests that, historically, theological fruitfulness is linked to theological creativity. "For theology to do what the Bible did, as well as to interpret what the Bible said, means that it should pursue creativity in expression and performance in many modes" (p. 203).
To my mind, this approach to 'wise and creative' theology is a more artful and interesting approach to theological judgement than the much invoked, but somewhat flatfooted, quadrilateral (Wesleyan or otherwise) of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. I have used this quadrilateral as a very basic resource for introducing new theological students to the sources of theology. As an introductory resource it is useful. Nevertheless, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with way it often gets taken up. It is treated as an unstructured quartet which any of the other three can displace the Bible from its primary place rather than operate as hermeneutical aids in the reading of the Bible. Secondly, it too easily creates an impression that once you arrange these sources in a particular way you have a theological method which guarantees a 'correct' answer. It thereby tempts the theologian to the wrong sort of confidence. In contrast, Ford's 'wise and creative' theology keeps theologians on their toes, bringing them into a more dynamic, unpredictable, and humble approach to their task.
I think this book would be especially helpful to those in the middle of a theological degree and to those theological graduates who want to acquaint themselves with some important current trends in the task of theology. For both groups it would be well worth reading.
The theme, A Life Worth Living, stimulated lots of diverse reflections at this week's annual ANZATS conference. In his keynote addresses Scott Stephens addressed the complex history of the ideological intersections of political theory, communication, media, and the body. Electives provided opportunities to explore the theme from the perspectives of biblical studies, philosophy, ethics, doctrine. Below are some of the tweets which emerged during the week. It's a pretty random collection, but it gives an insight into the various lines of discussion and debate. Most are reporting what was said either in the keynotes or the electives.
Scott Stephens beginning with refs to Lord of the Rings. 'A Life Worth Living'. Tolkein as catechetist (@mlindsay_mark)
Devaluing of religions symbols does not build better societies, but removes quest for meaning (@edutheol)
'The greatest critic of Twitter was Soren Kierkegaard' - Scott Stephens. Can't wait to unpack that one! (@mlindsay_mark)
Media is as susceptible to vainglory as it is resistant to criticism (@gtsystheol)
Moral difference between being silent, and reflecting and deliberating. Because when one speaks they become responsible.(@garagetakai)
Australians generally have shown a lack of interest in theology (and theological education) in their own country” Geoff Treloar (@edutheol)
'What has the Trinity ever done for us?' Margaret Campbell, on Tanner, with apologies to Monty Python (@mlindsay_mark)
Our value systems are not static but dynamic and is intended for community - Peter Laughlin (@ChristyCapper)
It's the abnormal and grotesque that make other countries newsworthy. Scott Stephens (@Centressrs)
The gym as sweaty Pelagianism - Theologian Sarah Coakley via Scott Stephens (@Centressrs)
The Levinasian face doesn't mean anything. You can't love the other unless you can smell them - Zizek quoted by Stephens
Athanasius: Christ comes to re-sit as the life model for the portrait of humanity. Quoted by Christy Capper (@edutheol)
Modern mind is made of 3 parts: pride ignorance and sloth; & joined by 1 principle: the blind acceptance of unreasoned authority (@garagetakai)
Lynne Taylor investigates what new Xns say about the process of becoming Xns. Welcome move to listen to their voice.(@gtsystheol)
With thanks to @mlindsay_mark,@edutheol, @garagetakai, @Centress, @ChristyCapper .
