'To Change the World': A Review

I've been reading James Davison Hunter's book 'To Change the World: The Irony, & Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World'. Many have acclaimed this book as one of the most significant Christian books for some time, including Tim Keller, Charles Taylor, Nicholas Wolterstorff and Justin Taylor. Justin Taylor says of the book:

Written with keen insight, deep faith, and profound historical grasp, 'To Change the World' will forever change the way Christians view and talk about their role in the modern world.

Has this book been over-hyped? Maybe a little, but it is a very significant book that has challenged my thinking about Christian engagement with the world.

The book has three parts, which Hunter calls 'essays', each with multiple chapters:

• Christianity and World Changing
• Rethinking Power
• Toward a New City Commons: Reflections on a Theology of Faithful Presence

Hunter's aim in writing the book is to challenge Christians to think about the way they engage with culture and how they seek to change the world. He writes:

"I contend that the dominant ways of thinking about culture and cultural change are flawed, for they are based upon both specious social science and problematic theology. In brief, the model upon which various strategies are based not only does not work, but it cannot work."

Hunter begins in his first essay by offering a critique of the assumptions that have driven Christian public engagement and action. He looks first at culture and methodically demonstrates the errors inherent in how people view culture. Speaking from the vantage point of his life in America, he is critical of the political theologies of the Christian Right and Left and the Neo-Anabaptists in the USA.  He argues that if we want to change the world we "must begin with an understanding of what is to be changed."

The essence of culture he suggests is not found simply in the 'hearts and minds of individuals', that is, in what are called 'values'. Efforts to change values, worldviews and impart great ideas of what is real and true, will fail to change the world. Wilberforce, Churchill, Martin Luther King, Mandela and others did not change the world because they simply held to the right values.  Our views of culture, are in his view weak, and fail to take into account the factors that give it strength and resilience over time. Change does not occur simply through the power of great ideas, but as these ideas meet elite networks and institutions, penetrate them and then spread their influence through new institutions and networks of influence.  He argues that at every point of significant cultural change there is "rich patronage" that resources intellectuals and educators who within their networks "..imagine, theorize and propagate an alternative culture." Overlapping networks of leaders and resources come together and give a critical mass to the ideals, practices and goods of an alternative culture.   

Hunter is at pains to stress that while he believes evangelism and social reform are priorities for the church, the working theory of culture on which they are based is flawed. In a sense he is saying that churches and individuals pursue right agendas to make Christ known in word and deed, but they are doing this often from a position of isolation on the periphery. His stress on networks and in particular the penetration of elite networks, would seem timely to me as I observe many Christians fleeing the professions, schools and universities to train for full-time ministry. Significant cultural change requires some Christians to be operating at the centre of elite networks.

Hunter also helpfully reminds us that at key moments in history new institutions are created that give form to culture, enact it and give expression to it. Hunter cites many examples of how his alternative hypothesis has been demonstrated at key points in history, including the spread of Christianity across the Roman Empire, the conversion of Barbarian Europe, the Reformation, the Great Awakening (1730s-1740s) and even many key periods of secular cultural transformation such as the Age of Enlightenment. How are Christians at work today to create and sustain such institutions? For example, if universities are one of the existing types of influential institutions, why don't more bright young Christian men and women commit to a lifetime of faithful work as servants of God within these networks?

An alternative, "Faithful Presence"

Hunter offers an alternative way for Christians to view how they should spend their lives for God. He suggests the embracing of a different paradigm to engage with the world, something he calls “faithful presence". This is an ideal of Christian practice that is both individual and institutional.

He begins to demonstrate what 'faithful presence' is by contrasting it with what it isn't; three 'paradigms of engagement' with culture and the world.  He suggests that there are three major paradigms at work today:

a) 'Defensive Against' - This is seen in the activities of political and cultural conservatives who join forces to create enclaves set against the world. Christians who embrace this paradigm have as their major objective the retention of Christian orthodoxies and conduct (e.g. lifestyle, ethics, liturgy, church practices etc). Christian institutions of all types he suggests are created to hold off the forces of pluralism, secularisation and change.

b) 'Relevance To' - For adherents to this paradigm the aim is to ensure relevance to the issues and problems of the age. While Hunter suggests that liberals were the first to embrace this paradigm, more recently some evangelicals have moved in the same direction. The 'seeker-church' and 'emerging church' movements are examples of this paradigm that place a priority on being connected to the issues of the day; being in touch and meeting the "felt-needs" of church attenders, especially non-believers.

c) 'Purity From' - This paradigm he argues is reflected in a desire to uphold historical truths (like 'Defensive Against'), but this group goes further and concludes that there is little to be done for the world in its fallen state. The central task then is to extricate itself from the forces of the world and enable authentic witness.

While not suggesting that each of these major paradigms is without biblical justification, or that all the activities that characterize these paradigms are without merit, Hunter argues that ultimately they fail to effect major cultural change and make a difference for the Kingdom of God. Using real-life examples and careful historical and cultural analysis, he suggests an alternative way based on what he calls the practice of “faithful presence.” Such practices will be more fruitful, Hunter argues, more exemplary, and more deeply transfiguring than any more overtly ambitious attempts can ever be. He reminds us that presence and place matter and that this is demonstrated so profoundly in the incarnation, "the very character of God and the heart of his Word is that God is fully and faithfully present to us." God pursues us, identifies with us, and offers us life through his sacrificial love. In short, a theology of presence is an engagement in and with the world around us. Hunter argues “...that where and to the extent that we are able, faithful presence commits us to do what we can to create conditions in the structures of social life we inhabit that are conducive to the flourishing of all.”

Responding to Hunter's Work

It would be easy to critique Hunter's work by pointing to the over-simplifications that can occur when allocating discrete categories that summarize complex and diverse expressions of Christian faith. But Hunter doesn't claim that his three paradigms neatly describe the world. It would also be easy to get to the end of his book and say, but what has he shared that helps the reader to practice faithful presence, for there is no 10 point checklist to follow. And we could also argue that too many Christians in the past have pursued the path of elite networks in the past for personal gain rather than the Kingdom of God. But I think his book should be a major corrective to how many of us think.

Hunter's book doesn't offer a simple explicit alternative. The reality is, as one reviewer observes, "Faithful presence is not the starting point of Hunter’s book, but its conclusion". The strength of Hunter's work is his methodical discussion of culture and our capacity to influence it, the evidence he presents in relation to the nature of cultural change and his critique of the way the Church deals with the challenges of pluralism and increasing secularisation.

The full benefit of Hunter's work will only occur as people read the work, discuss it with others and consider its implications for life. How do we spend our lives in the key relational communities that make up our world - family, church, neighbourhoods, workplaces, cities, nations? How do we relate to key institutions like the State? How do we fulfil faithful presence in the key roles we fill - husband, wife, son, neighbour, worker, boss, citizen? How do we see the significance of our influence within the spheres of our life - families, neighbourhoods, voluntary associations, work and so on. How does the way we live, in the places that we live, contribute to the flourishing of all? This is a book that deserves to be read by many and discussed at length.

The Invisibility of Christian themes in Blockbuster Movies

Regular readers of this blog know that I have written several times on the relationship between biblical narrative and literature HERE.  I have also called on Christians to consider turning their creative energies to the writing of literature for broader audiences.  Who will be the next C.S. Lewis or J.R. Tolkien? But perhaps there is a greater challenge facing Christians with film. David Dale in the Sydney Morning Herald has rather amusingly made the observation that it seems like every imaginable religious worldview is being represented in recent popular movies except Christianity.  He asks wryly "What has the Judeo-Christian system done for us lately?" He writes:

Transmigration of the soul, a belief of Hindus, Buddhists, and followers of the Jewish Kabbalah, is the trendy trope for screenwriters. A film called 'Source Code', which sold a  healthy 130,000 tickets during its first week in Australian cinemas, assumes a person's mind can be placed into the body of another person for the last eight minutes of person B's life (thus permitting person A to learn who murdered B). It's not so much reincarnation as preincarnation. Don't ask how the technology works. Just have faith.

'Inception' uses a similar principle, except that the soul-jumping happens when both parties are asleep. And in 'Avatar', human souls are transferred into bio-engineered alien bodies (on a planet whose inhabitants engage in Gaia worship, just to offer another option).

It's an amusing read but is there a significant message for Christians? How can we ensure that the Bible's central narrative themes are represented in literature and film? While there are plenty of films and books with Christian themes evident, he is commenting on recent blockbusters and the seeming dominance of other faith traditions at the moment. Of course, the trend begs the question is this evidence of people buying into other faith positions, or simply being willing to suspend their beliefs and reason to enjoy a good story? I'll let you judge that one, here's the trailer.

The Christian Mind

I'm in the middle of preparing the 2011 Commencement Lecture* for 'St Mark's National Theological Centre' in Canberra next week titled 'Regaining our Voice in the Secular University'. I have spent considerable time in January and February reading some new and some old works that are relevant. I thought I'd share a great quote from Harry Blamires well-known book 'The Christian Mind: How Should a Christian think?' Harry Blamires is now 95 and has been retired for some time. He is an Anglican theologian, literary critic, and novelist and was head of the English department at King Alfred's College (now Winchester University) in Winchester, England. He began writing in the late 1940s at the encouragement of his friend, C. S. Lewis, who was his tutor at Oxford University.

"There is no longer a Christian mind. There is still, of course, a Christian ethic, a Christian practice, and a Christian spirituality. As a moral being, the modern Christian subscribes to a code other than that of the non-Christian. As a member of the church, he understands obligations and observations ignored by the non-Christian. As a spiritual being, in prayer and meditation, he strives to cultivate a dimension of life unexplored by the non-Christian. But as a thinking being, the modern Christian has succumbed to secularization. He accepts religion - its morality, its worship, its spiritual culture; but he rejects the religious view of life, the view which sets all earthly issues within the context of the eternal view which relates all human problems - social, political, cultural - the doctrinal foundations of the Christian Faith, the view which sees all things here below in terms of God's supremacy and earth's transitoriness, in terms of Heaven and Hell." pp 3-4

Blamire's challenge to recover the authentic Christian mind was made in 1963! It still applies in 2011. CASE exists in response to challenges such as Blamire's. His book does not denigrate or ridicule the secular mind; rather, it calls upon Christians to seek to understand the difference between the two.

"To think secularly is to think within a frame of reference bounded by the limits of our life here on earth: it is to keep one's calculations rooted in this-worldly criteria. To think christianly is to accept all things with the mind as related, directly or indirectly, to man's eternal destiny as the redeemed and chosen child of God." p.44

While Blamire's book is framed by his experience in the first half of the 20th century, his ideas still resonate. I'll probably do a longer post on this topic in the next few months.

* The lecture for those interested is HERE

Bioethics and Future Hope: An Eschatological View of the Future

A recap of Talks 1 & 2

Last night Professor John Wyatt presented his final talk in the 2009 New College Lectures - ‘Bioethics and Future Hope’. In his first talk (here) he described two alternative worldviews, one he termed materialistic which he suggested sees life as the result of random events with no underlying purpose; matter is all there is. He contrasted this with a Christian worldview that sees the cosmos as founded in the intentions of a Creator. Humans he argued are the creative work of God and are made in his image. Each worldview he argued leads to different views of personhood that shape our choices about life and death.

In his second lecture (here) he took this further and challenged the materialist’s view of life, that it is little more than well-evolved matter. He stressed that a worldview based on biblical understanding views humans as both physical and immaterial beings. He critiqued the language of ‘potentiality’ and the philosopher’s notion of a ‘not quite yet a person’ when applied to the embryo, or the ‘no longer a person’ judgement made of the terminally ill, demented or brain injured person in the final stages of life.

He also talked of the different views of pain and suffering, life and death that flow from these different worldviews. He pointed to the great fear of our time - loss of independence and autonomy - and the renewed acceptance of an old folly, seeing suicide and euthanasia as noble ways to die when faced with what is judged to be a less than human existence. Such a judgement he reminded us overlooks the fact that sometimes the image of God is seen most clearly in brokenness and the imperfect.

A Christian understanding of future hope

In his final talk he closed the circle by not only considering the end of life but our future eternal hope. The physical universe and our place within it have a clear purpose, hope and future. He argued that our future would not be a human construct, an artefact of our ingenuity and the ability to control our destinies. Instead, he suggested that the future is a reflection of the loving purposes of God. In Jesus we not only see God but the perfect human being, the one in whose likeness a new creation will spring.

Paul in writing to the church in Rome expressed our future hope this way:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:18-25)

The need for a biblical (NOT secular) eschatology

As he concluded the series Professor Wyatt challenged the audience to consider a biblical eschatology that speaks of the coming kingdom of God founded in and through Christ. This was our only hope, not a secular eschatology that places our hope in humanity's ability to reconstruct the future.

In pointing to the Bible’s eschatological view of the future (as both a Christian and a medical practitioner) he reminded us that in Christian thought, love is joined with the other virtues of faith and hope:

'And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love’ (1 Cor 13:13)

“They are virtues which all point to the future. To use theological jargon, they are eschatological virtues, pointing towards the end times. When we love someone in the present, showing practical, empathic, respectful, sacrificial caring, we are also pointing them to the future, to the hope of the resurrection. We are treating someone now in the light of what they are going to be. This is why we can still respect and treat with dignity even the most tragically damaged of human beings. The malformed baby, the person in the persistent vegetative state, the profoundly demented individual are those who can, in God's grace, be transformed to become a new creation. So practical Christian caring for those with a degenerative condition like dementia is not a sentimental nostalgic reaction, treating someone with respect just because of what they once were. We treat them with respect because of the God-like image that, in his grace, they will display in the future. In fact, Christian love can only be intelligible in the light of the Christian hope.”

You can download all three talks as MP3 files from the New College Website (here).

Related Links

Post on Talk 1 - 'Bioethics and Creation' (here)

Post on Talk 2 - 'Bioethics and Redemption' (here)

Full details on the lectures (here)

All CASE posts on medical ethics (here)

Information on John Wyatt's book 'Matters of Life and Death' (here)

Bioethics and Redemption: Understanding pain, suffering and death

Prof John Wyatt presented the second of three public lectures in the annual New College Lectures last night. His second talk was titled "Bioethics and Redemption". Like his first talk (here) he spoke with humility and grace; treating a complex topic and difficult issues with great sensitivity and respect.

1. Christian thinking about the human embryo

He began once again with fundamentals – human development before birth – the “human embryo”, a unique type of being. Not a baby 'not quite born', nor a collection of genetic material. It is something unique, different in kind. He then went on to consider what it is to be human – a foundational ethical issue. In considering this, he spoke helpfully of two tensions. First, between the 'physical and the immaterial' - two aspects of 'being' locked together in humanity. Humans are fully physical and fully ‘immaterial’. He reminded us that 'materialists' (e.g. Peter Singer) would want to see humans as machines that have achieved a level of self-consciousness. The 'philosophical idealist' he suggested would see us as spiritual beings attached to bodies for a time. Alternatively he argued that the 'biblical anthropologist' denies both these positions and suggests that we are at one and the same time physical and spiritual beings. This tension he reminded us is seen in the incarnation (Jesus – fully human and fully God), the Bible (human writers divinely inspired), divine providence (God at work through the evil acts of men who crucify God’s Son).

The second tension he mentioned was between the ‘already’ and the ‘not-yet’. The Bible would suggest that we are already human beings but in Christ becoming something else. We are already made in God’s image, but we are being transformed into the likeness of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). He then critiqued the language of 'potentiality' and the philosopher's notion of 'not quite yet' a person when applied to the embryo. He suggested that we should stop talking of Human Embryos and begin talking of ‘Embryonic Humans’ that could sit alongside the use of terms like foetal humans, adult humans, geriatric humans and resurrected humans.

2. Conflicting views on evil, suffering and death

He suggested that to the 'materialist', all evil is a consequence of "meaningless molecular interactions". Hence the minimisation of suffering becomes the supreme moral good and suicide a noble death.

He offered new insights into the potential of stem cell research for good, but questioned the use of human stem cell research and the harvesting and creation of embryos for varied purposes. He pointed out that there are ethically acceptable alternative sources of stem cells, including adult bone marrow, skin cells and umbilical cord blood and tissue.

We then considered what I would call the major public ethical dilemma of the last few weeks in this Australia. We have felt the pain of Christian Rossiter, who wants to die and escape what he sees as “being a prisoner in his own body” (see reference to this story here). How are we to respond to these types of real life situations? There are challenges for all in the face of suffering, but this is more acute for a humanity that sees suffering, death and pain as things that are meaningless and that have no place in their worldview. He put his finger on one of the great fears of our time – loss of independence and autonomy. Suicide and euthanasia are increasingly seen as noble ways to die, when faced with what is seen as meaningless suffering and what is judged to be a less than human existence.

3. Christian perspectives on death and suffering

We then considered a Christian perspective on death and suffering as Prof Wyatt brought us back to the Bible. He argued that death is not natural and was not part of God's plan (some will want to challenge this view), and that for many, it can only be seen as the ultimate terror. But the Bible teaches that the Christian's attitude to death and suffering is to be different – it is not meaningless, for it comes from the hand of God and it produces endurance, character and hope (Rom 5:1-11). He then argued that in Christ (his incarnation, death and resurrection) we find the lens through which we must view our painful contemporary dilemmas. It is in the hope of Christ that we find peace, complete redemption, eternal joy and fulfilment in worship and praise of our God.

Professor Wyatt illustrated how the Christian hope can change the way we view suffering and death with stories of people from his own clinical and personal experience, who have gone where few of us have been, and where none of us would choose to go. And yet, in each case he pointed out, that the people who had suffered from degenerative disease, the birth of a child with a degenerative illness or disability, the evil of rape and a resulting pregnancy, had all seen God glorified and their lives enriched in the midst of pain and suffering. The ultimate paradox it would seem is that sometimes the image of God is seen most clearly in brokenness and the imperfect, with of course the cross being the ultimate example. Pain and suffering can be transformed by the grace of God and used for his purposes.

Finally, he challenged us to avoid judgement and stand instead with people who go where we would never want to go. We are to love and serve them as God works out his redemptive plan for their lives and in fact all of his creation. Whether it is through better palliative care, pregnancy support centres or support of families in crisis, we must offer alternatives that help people to deal with pain and suffering and point them to the hope of Christ. His 3rd talk tonight is titled 'Bioethics and Future Hope'.

You can download all three talks from the New College Website as MP3 files (here).

Related posts

Full details on the lectures (here)

Post on talk 1 in the series on 'Bioethics and Future Hope' (here)

Other CASE posts on medical ethics (here)

John Wyatt's book 'Matters of Life and Death' (here)

Two worldviews: Two views of life and death

Prof John Wyatt presented the first of three public lectures in the annual New College Lectures tonight. His first talk was titled "Bioethics and Creation".

He spoke with humility and compassion about the struggles that medical practitioners face every day due to advances in technology and science that open up choices not previously available. He also spoke graciously of the decisions ordinary people make in their daily lives as they deal with infertility, disability, degenerative illness, the risks of unplanned pregnancy, and foetal abnormalities and disease.

He structured the talk around explanation of two worldviews of the origin and nature of reality. The first, which he termed "Materialism" – one that sees reality as nothing but matter and energy and scientific laws governing how they interact (The Dawkins view of reality). Creation for the person holding this worldview only has a physical reality with no underlying purpose; human beings are seen as the result of a series of improbable and random events. A view he referred to as “the faith of the enlightenment” with its followers people who are on a quest for freedom from the restraints of nature.

The second worldview, a Christian understanding of reality, sees the cosmos as founded in the intentions of a Creator. Creation is no accident; there is a plan. All that we see unfolding before us is oriented towards the future plans of God. God has created the physical stuff that is easy to observe and the hidden moral order that is part of it. Humans are no accident; they are the creative work (no matter by what method) of God, made in his likeness and for his purposes. We are not self-explanatory; we derive our meaning from outside of ourselves – from God!

The second view of reality is based on the teachings of the Bible, and leads to a different view of personhood that should constrain our choices in accordance with God's loving purposes for us. Prof Wyatt argued that even when sin distorts the image of the creator in all of us, God works through our pain, our imperfections and the taking up of each other's burdens.

"As we face the challenges of advances in biology and biotechnology, it is vital for Christians to rediscover an authentically biblical view of what it means to be a human being – a biblical anthropology. In fact biblical ethics (the way we should behave) is derived from biblical anthropology (the way we are made)."

A different view of what it is to be human in turn leads to different hopes, aspirations and expectations for life and death.

For those in Sydney Prof Wyatt will present his second lecture at New College tomorrow evening at 7.30pm. The topic is “Bioethics and Redemption". Full details are on our website.

You can download all three talks in the series here

Professor John Wyatt

Professor Wyatt’s current position is as a clinical academic at the Regional Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at University College London Hospitals - an internationally recognised tertiary centre for the care of the newborn. He has supervised a range of research projects including the use of new methods of optical brain scanning in babies and research on pre-term and brain-injured infants. He also has a long-standing interest in philosophical, ethical and religious issues raised by advances in medical technology. His is author of the widely acclaimed book 'Matters of Life and Death'

The need for truth, not seduction, in a pluralistic world

The challenge of pluralism

It seems that for every generation there will be cultural challenges. In the 1960s (my teenage years) the younger generation was focused on a quest for 'freedom'. This showed itself in the questioning of the authority of institutions like the church and the state, the desire for sexual freedom and for women, in particular, feminist challenges to traditional roles and relationships between men and women at work and in the home. In this present age some of the greatest challenges are a consequence of the rise of cultural and religious pluralism and the challenge of postmodernism to truth claims. This has had consequences for Christians and the church and their place in societies like Australia that were once thought to be 'Christian'. Professor David Wells has some helpful comments on this topic in Justin Taylor and John Piper's book "The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World" (Crossways, 2007), a book that I've been reading this week. Wells suggests that the impact of pluralism has been that religions have tended to lose their edge and distinction. He argues, "religions tend to blur in the postmodern mind and become undifferentiated from each other." While some could counter this generalisation by pointing to some sections of major religions that have become more radical and others that have become more fundamentalist (I don't use the term pejoratively) or conservative; but the tendency to water down distinctives ('blending in') is a strong pressure.

New and old spiritualities

In the face of the challenge of pluralism, many have left religions due to the perception that traditional religious beliefs are too narrow and inhibiting; new atheism has been one of the responses. Other people have left mainstream churches and have sought spiritual fulfilment in other places. Wells rightly points to the fact that while established religions have suffered in western countries, that new spiritualities have emerged and some old ones like paganism and Gnosticism have re-emerged. For many, a new spirituality has been sought through peace of mind and inner transformation. A new level of consciousness is being pursued, which in its shallowest form is about self-awareness, self-esteem and self-actualisation. It seems that when there is a search for the sacred, it can be frequently sought for what can be gained personally from this new type of spiritual devotion. The search is not for the God of Christian religion but for the god within; a god found in the self. This is a faith suggests Wells that:

"...begins in the soil of human autonomy and it gives to the self the authority to decide what to believe, from what sources to draw knowledge and inspiration, and how to test the viability of what is believed."

What we have is a conflict of worldviews; people with different frameworks for understanding their world, rejecting things once taken for granted as givens. And of course, Christians see this at its foundation, as rebellion against God and the rejection of Christ. How do we respond? In such a pluralistic world Wells suggests that the Christian church should respond not by adaptation but by confrontation. Not aggressive clashes of behaviour and words but a willingness and boldness to understand people who are rejecting the Christian faith and "to speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15).

Speaking the truth in love and with humility

As I suggested in my post on 'Humble Apologetics' Don Carson has some wisdom for us here. In the 'The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism' (1996) Carson, while pointing out the obvious errors of postmodernism, concedes that there is at least one thing that we can learn from it. He suggests that postmodernism is a counter to arrogant dogmatism for which there is little justification. Dogmatism is the strong expression of an opinion or assertion without evidence. It is not to be confused with expressing our well argued and thought through views with strength, boldness, certainty and conviction.

But giving a reason for our faith with respect and the avoidance of dogmatism does not mean simply avoiding hard topics and critical points of difference that reflect our different views of the world. This would be to give in to what Wells is getting at as a key danger for Christians in our present pluralistic age. This is a danger faced every day by individuals, groups and churches.

The Christian will need to rely on God’s word as their ultimate test of what is right and true. We need to be people who ‘guard [their way]’ according to God’s word, ‘storing [it] up' in our hearts, ‘meditating on’ and ‘delighting in’ his statutes (Psalm 119:9-16). In sharing the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20), Jesus stresses the power of God's word to chenge lives. People clamber after a better life, new purpose, freedom from many things, new ways to be fulfilled and so on. But ultimately, fulfilment will only truly be found in seeking the God who made us for a purpose. It is the power of God, that is expressed in God's Word and revealed by God's Spirit, that will truly transform lives and set us free (Gal 5:1).

The Christian needs to hold on confidently to God’s word as the way to know the truth that is life changing for whoever hears and accepts it. As Jesus taught his disciples: ‘If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’ (John 8:31-32).

As I engage with people of all faiths and none in the university environment there is tremendous pressure to avoid topics that will bring me into conflict with others. I have a constant fear of being seen to be arrogant and out of touch, while at the same time having a desire to build relationships with people of other faiths and wordviews and ultimately share the gospel of Christ with them. This is a good pressure if it leads to a heart responsive to God and burdened for those who do not know him. But if it leads me to avoid tough conversations, to water down differences, to accept falsehood without comment, then this is bad! The modern church faces the same pressure, but its response argues Wells, frequently drifts to tactics and methodology for engaging with or "reaching" the culture. He suggests that the church must be aware of differing worldviews and see truth-based strategy as more vital than tactics; for if our focus is about tactics then it becomes:

"...about seduction and not about truth, about success and not about confrontation. However, without strategy, the tactics inevitably fail; without truth, all of the arts of seduction that the churches are practising sooner or later are seen for what they are - an empty charade; and because the emerging worldview is not being engaged, the church has little it can really say. Biblical truth contradicts this cultural spirituality, and that contradiction is hard to bear. Biblical truth displaces it, refuses to allow its operating assumptions, declares to it its bankruptcy. Is the evangelical church faithful enough to explode the worldview of this new spiritual search? Is it brave enough to contradict what has wide cultural approval?"

I continue to ponder this strong comment of Wells'; am I up to this challenge? Are you? Is your local church?

Related resources

You can download 'The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World' free HERE

'Truth and the Internet' Case magazine, #15, 2008 (here)

All CASE posts with the label 'truth' (here)

Personal responsibility: Can we mandate it?

Lisa Pryor on personal responsibility

I don’t read her column often but Lisa Pryor’s Sydney Morning Herald (22.3.08) “Cautionary tale about personal responsibility…” caught my attention. The piece got me thinking about the general topic. As the head of a large university residential community of 248 eighteen to twenty two year-olds I regularly find myself needing to encourage personal responsibility and wondering how there can be more of it in the lives of selected individuals. Motivated by recent statements by the Federal government (particularly about binge drinking) Lisa Pryor ponders what it is and moves step-wise through her ruminations. Is it:

• “not acting like idiots”,
• behaving “properly without the need for government intervention to control behaviour”,
• “making individuals accept the consequences of their actions”.

Eventually she concludes that “personal responsibility is everything and nothing, a grab bag of not much at all, malleable enough to be totally meaningless”. Is this an adequate response?


What is personal responsibility?

To me, personal responsibility is very important and is just as much about being responsible to others as to one’s self. It seems to me that there are two elements to personal responsibility. When I see people acting in ways I think are irresponsible my thoughts are often based on what I think the consequences might be for them and for others. So its sort of, responsibility to self, and responsibility to others.

We seek to act in ways that avoid infringing the law, the punishment of parents, loss of respect from people we value, unintended consequences such as injury, loss of wealth, loss of health or injury, loss of job etc. This is about us losing something, about cost to self. But personal responsibility also includes acting in ways that consider the consequences of our actions for others (which might seem incompatible, but stay with me). Will I cause pain for those who I respect and love? Will I disrupt my team’s efforts, my family’s holiday, the group well being, a quiet night for the police? Will I endanger the rescue team sent to save me? Will my boss (wife, mother, teacher, captain etc) be hurt or affected by my actions?

Ultimately, the responsible person accepts that his/her actions have consequences for themselves and others. The place of values and worldview in all of this is intriguing. If you’re a utilitarian (see my previous post on worldview) then you’ll be less worried about the 'rightness' and the law and more concerned about personal happiness and the impact on self. If you’re a liberal democrat you’ll be against just about any type of government action and regulation, full stop. If you’re a Buddhist you’ll seek to be responsible by acting well towards other sentient beings in the hope that you’ll gain some favour (Mike Wilson wrote a great piece on Tibetan Buddhism in Case 14). If you’re a believer in New Age philosophy you'll be seeking happiness and life fulfilment. I don't think that any of the worldviews that sit behind the above religions and philosophies adequately combine both sides of the equation, responsibility to self and responsibility to others.

The basis of 'right' and responsible action

Oliver O'Donovan's work on moral reasoning is helpful here. I want to suggest that Lisa Pryor misses the point that the foundation of personal responsibility is the ability to make right moral choices. In a series of lectures at New College in 2007 Professor O'Donovan reminded us that moral reasoning requires us to think more seriously about making right choices based on what is “good” and “right”. Moral thinking he said requires a journey from observation to obligation, from “goodness of the world” to the “rightness of some action”. He also talked about a right understanding of self and its place in how we make choices and act. He explained that our love of God and neighbour must be self-aware, not simply absent-minded.

Reflective self-love, the foundation of other loves, is the polar opposite of an unreflective pre-moral self-absorption, a self-complacence which consists in a failure to grasp the concreteness of the self, and so leaves us at the centre of our own universe without any bearings upon the reality of others.

You can read the full texts or download audio files of O'Donovan's lectures from the New College website.

As a Christian my desire to act responsibly is driven primarily by my faith (i.e. it should be). The teachings of the Bible, centred on God's plan of redemption for his people, hold these two things in perfect balance. Our most important act of responsibility is to first recognise that God is sovereign. We need to stand with David who prayed to God "But my eyes are fixed on you, O Sovereign LORD; in you I take refuge—do not give me over to death. Keep me from the snares they have laid for me, from the traps set by evildoers." (Psalm 141:8, 9). God made all things and controls my destiny. He is the ruler of the world including me. I am imperfect, indeed sinful like everyone else, a consequence of the first man and woman’s rebellion against God (Genesis 3:1-19). He demands my commitment to him and provides a way for the forgiveness of all my past, present and future sins. Jesus died as a punishment for my sin and God adopts into his family all who believe in him and who accept this free gift of grace and love (Ephesians 1:4-6).

As a consequence of this enormous gift, I seek to lead a life that is obedient to him and which seeks to bring honour and glory to his name (not mine!). This leads me to seek to live a life where I am the best husband, father, grandfather, brother, employee, neighbour, driver (ouch!), team member, church member, citizen, tax payer, mate etc. I live my life hopefully in such a way that I hold in perfect tension the need to be responsible for the specific consequences of my actions all the while trying to be responsible for the good of others based on an understanding that God has forgiven me through no good effort of mine. As Paul urged the church in Rome, I am to lead a different life.

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (Romans 12:1)

I can’t speak for Lisa Pryor's motivation for personal responsibility (which I’m sure as a good citizen she sees as important), but I see a huge challenge for any government that seeks to legislate for personal responsibility. Its motivation will of course be the good of society, but just how does it decide what this good is? Quite a challenge in a pluralist democratic society.

Liberalism: Freedom to choose

My first post for 2008 was a review of the book A Spectator’s Guide to World Views. As I indicated in that post the book presents ten different worldviews and invites the reader to consider “Why do I think the way I do?” I thought it might be helpful to review some of the worldviews presented in the book. In each post I will do just three things. I will present a brief summary of the worldview, outline some of the points of departure from Christianity, and suggest some places where we see this worldview impacting on us. This is similar to the structure of the chapters in the book. I won’t attempt to go any further than the book but will suggest other resources along the way that will allow further exploration. I will also offer a few personal reflections as appropriate.

I thought I’d start with some of the worldviews that have received less focus in recent times, beginning with Liberalism. The chapter on Liberalism has been written by David Koyzis.

What David Koyzis says

While most of the influential writers on Liberalism can be traced to the 17th century, the foundations of this worldview can be traced to the Epicurean concept of Individualism some 2,000 years earlier. Individualism claims that “all relationships are basically contractual, like purchasing an item or joining a football club.” Hence, if every obligation can be seen as part of a contract, then “I cannot be made to fulfil an obligation I have not freely and willingly taken on.”

Liberalism emerged in the 17th century in response to the absolute power of European monarchs. The writings of Hobbes (1588-1679) and later Locke (1632-1704) became influential. Hobbes was an individualist and argued that political authority is established by a contract amongst subjects (a social contract). “

This worldview sees the world as belonging to us, and that it is for our purposes. Humans are autonomous and as far as is practicable, should have the right to live their lives as they wish. Liberals place high value on personal freedom and liberty. Noone, especially governments should tell us how to live our lives.

A personal aside

I was confronted with this view of the world when discussing with some residents of my college how they handled alcohol. While the college is ‘dry’ (alcohol is banned inside the building) residents go elsewhere to drink and occasionally some of the non-Christian residents drink too much. On one occasion a resident had been injured on the way home and in discussing this incident with the student executive I had made the comment that my hope is always that if residents drink outside college that they do so responsibly and that if one of them doesn’t that others look out for them. I suggested that this should extend to encouraging others not to drink too much and in the event that they did, making sure that they got home safely. While there was general agreement, one young man turned to me and said: “Trevor we’re all adults in this place – pretty much everyone is over 18 – we can be responsible for our own actions. I see myself as responsible for what I do, not what everyone else does.” I responded by saying, “X, I don’t share your views. When you are offered membership of New College you become part of a rich community. With this membership are rights and responsibilities. One of them is that you will contribute positively to the lives of others. In my view this includes looking out for the interests of others not just your own. If you don’t see it that way you don’t understand what collegial life is all about, and would be better off living in a flat down the road.” At the end of the year he exercised his right to do this and left. Here we see a clash of worldviews in action. One places greater priority on freedom and rights, while the other places greater emphasis on responsibility and community.

How David Koyzis sees points of contact and departure

Liberalism has properly empowered individuals and in many countries has freed them from oppressive rulers and regimes. But while the pursuit of individual freedom in the face of oppressive rulers, employers and varied forms of social injustice may have led to many areas of social reform, liberalism has been unable to maximise individual freedom to benefit society. As well, talk of individual rights is often disconnected from responsibility to others.

At the core of liberalism is the belief that humans are autonomous and have control over their world. Christianity, on the other hand, is based on the key understanding that God ultimately controls the world and every life in it.

Liberalism places great weight on the individual’s right to freedom. This is essentially freedom from external constraints. What people do with this freedom is seen as the individual’s business, others (especially the state and institutions like the church) are to refrain from telling members of a society what to do with their freedom.

However, the Bible teaches that true freedom is that which frees you to live an obedient life. While the Bible also talks about being freed from poverty and unjust oppression by others, the primary focus is on becoming free from the power of sin and death.

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery (Galatians 5:1)

Christianity is based on the belief that faith in Jesus and adoption into God’s family - the consequence of surrendering one’s life to Christ – is all about a different kind of freedom. It is freedom to live a life obedient to God, rather than freedom from rules and authority.

Where do we see Liberalism in action?

The impact of Liberalism as a worldview can be seen everywhere. It is seen in the cries of pro-choice groups to be able to choose what they do with their bodies and the unborn children within them. It is seen in the opposition of my young resident who did not want rules about responsible use of alcohol, and certainly didn’t want to accept responsibility for others. It is seen in liberal approaches to education and child rearing that remove all rules and structure and value the child’s freedom to explore above all else. Approaches like Montessori (especially its emphasis on individuality and the ability of children to control and master their world) and alternative schools like A.S. Neill’s Summerhill are based at least in part on liberalism. Liberalism as a worldview is also seen in unquestioning belief in the free market and the assumption that self-seeking individuals will produce a type of natural order that governments should leave alone. It is seen in calls even from within the church for greater freedom to choose alternative forms of sexuality and sexual freedom outside traditional marriage.

What A Spectator’s guide to Worldviews does is increase our awareness of varied worldviews and in the process help us to sharpen our understanding of what the Bible teaches and why each of us thinks the way we do. This in turn helps us to look to the truths of the Bible centred on Christ to build a sound base for life. For those interested in further reading you might like to look at another recent book (Re)Thinking Worldview by J. Mark Bertrand reviewed by Erik Raymond.

What’s your view of the world in 2008?

It’s New Year, which is not my favourite time of year, but I must NOT do a post on the problems with New Year’s Eve indulgences. I want to start the year with a post that is positive. One thing I do like about the New Year is the ritual people go through of making New Year’s resolutions. Yes, I know this is rolled up in superstition and people’s good intentions often lead nowhere. And I know that Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers make a stack of money in January each year. But I always like to start the year with prayer and reflection on where my life is heading, and where I have been in the last year. I also like to express thankfulness to God for his grace and mercy in my life, not just for the last year but also for every undeserved moment for which he has given me breath.

My most memorable New Year’s Eve was at midnight atop a freezing craggy hill west of Gerringong (in NSW) with my entire Beach Mission team leading them in prayer as the year 2000 began. I’m not sure what the team thought, but I bet it was memorable even if only because we were frozen within a whisker of hypothermia.

In the interests of healthy self-reflection, I have a suggestion for this New Year. Why not make 2008 the year in which you consider your view of the world. I’ve been reviewing Simon Smart’s book A spectator’s guide to worldviews: Ten ways of understanding life for Case magazine. The book has been published by Blue Bottle Books and is available from Anglican Youthworks (in Sydney) and Christian bookshops for $AUS24.95. Just how many of us have carefully considered the very foundations of our beliefs? I want to recommend that you read this very useful book. For at least two reasons:

• First, to make sure that we understand the set of beliefs through which we view the world. Do we understand why we hold the beliefs that we do and know what guides our actions?
• Second, to help us understand the views and positions that others hold. On what foundations might my friends, colleagues and family base their lives?

Reading this book with each of these frames in mind will also strengthen the apologetic skills for those readers who see themselves as Christians. When we attempt to share our beliefs with others it is helpful to know from which worldview framework they are coming.

The book has ten chapters, written by a variety of well-known Christian authors. Each chapter deals with a different worldview – Christian, modernism, postmodernism, utilitarianism, humanism, liberalism, feminism, relativism, new age spirituality and consumerism. Each chapter of the book has a common framework that consists of a summary of the worldview, a section that deals with points of agreement and departures from Christianity and a discussion section with questions for individual or group study. The book also includes a series of narratives or interviews with people that attempt to ground the various worldviews in people’s personal stories.

You might be sceptical and ask, is this just an academic topic for academics and theological students to offer fodder for discussion and debate? Well, yes, and no! Worldview is a great topic that can stimulate deep academic and theological discussions, but it is also foundational for anyone who wants to discuss ideas and ponder life with others. It is helpful to be sure of why we believe the things we do, and why others confuse and frustrate us by not being able to see the world just the way we do.

For example, Andrew Cameron’s excellent chapter on Utilitarianism will help you to understand (in part) why some people you know don’t want to debate at length Christian opposition to topics like abortion. Why some people’s eyes glaze over when we speak of the rights of the unborn child. You will see how the utilitarian belief, that we should do all that we can to create more happiness (or more accurately utility), has influenced their view of the world and the way they make decisions. Why they seem to place more emphasis on the consequences of their actions (rather the 'rightness') when making a decision – what impact will this action have for others and me? Why they might be reluctant to discuss whether an action is right or wrong. It will also help you to see understand the Achilles heal of a worldview like Utilitarianism – why Christians believe that Peter Singer is so wrong on so many things including euthanasia, infanticide and abortion. The belief that an action is only right or wrong because of its results fails to accept that we frequently face decisions that require us to decide whether our action is right or wrong. It will also point to the foundational beliefs of a Christian worldview that leads Christians to reject utilitarianism and utilitarian thinking and argument.

In contrast to utilitarianism, a Christian worldview assumes that humanity owes its origins to God as creator who’s very character is reflected in his creation; that this life is not all that there is; that all people were created in God’s image and have value; that each life is ‘inviolable, unrepeatable and irreplaceable’ (to Quote Pope John Paul II); that true happiness is not founded on the utility of our actions but on an understanding that God seeks to have a personal relationship with us through Christ.

Of course, worldviews are complex and internally diverse (i.e. there are many versions of utilitarianism, postmodernism etc). As well, it is likely that the average person has a worldview influenced by many (if not all) of those discussed in this book. For example, in trying to understand why someone is indifferent to your arguments on abortion, it is likely you’ll need to understand how your view of truth differs from their view of truth (see the chapter on Relativism), why their views on common good and choice are different from your’s (see the chapter on Liberalism), why your view on humanity is different from their view (see the chapter on Humanism) etc. This highlights one of the strengths of this book, ten major worldviews are presented in parallel for consideration and discussion.

This is very much an introductory book. If you have already studied some of these topics the book probably won’t offer any new knowledge. But it does offer a good overview of the topic packaged in a very readable format. It would be excellent for individual reading and reflection or for reading with a group of people. It’s an easy read that many people will find helpful in unpacking the beliefs that are foundational to who they are and perhaps some of the unhelpful baggage from various worldviews that they might have picked up along life’s way. Think about this idea for 2008.

On this New Year’s day I want to wish readers of this Blog God’s richest blessings, I pray that he will bless and use each of your lives for good, bringing honour and glory to his name.

Memories, life stories and their source

It’s Christmas, and one of the things you do in Australia when you have Christmas holidays is to visit relatives. This week my wife Carmen and I took her Dad to visit his last remaining sister, Isabel (aged 83). Aunty Isabel was the last of 12 children born to Harry and Clara French in Coolongolook (and later Lorne) on the Mid-north coast of NSW. This beautiful area just 15 minutes from the sea is known for its timber and dairy farming. The timber industry has dwindled because most of the original temperate rainforests of hardwood and rare (and non-renewable) Australian Cedar are gone, but regrowth eucalyptus forests are still cut. The dairy industry which once grew around small family holdings in picturesque valleys is now smaller and dominated by large consolidated dairies owned by large companies.

Just two of the 12 French children survive Lyle (Carmen’s Dad) and Isabel. They had seen each other (we estimate) just once in the last 20 years, and that was at the funeral of one of the brothers 10 years ago. Aunty Isabel expressed pride in the family “All 12 of us had not much money, but we all worked and never had trouble finding a job. All of us were respected in our communities, and none of us was stupid. Lyle was the only one who had the chance to go to high school and he only lasted 6 months”. Aunty Isabel expressed her disappointment that Lyle ‘blew his chances’. His response was “I had to leave home on Monday morning alone, ride my horse for 10 miles, leave it in a paddock, then walk for three miles to catch a train for the 2 hour trip to Kempsey to go to school all week, and stay with an aunty (sharing a bed with another boy I didn’t know), then come back Friday and do the ride and walk home in the dark – so they could see if I could learn - but how could a kid learn doing all that.” And who could argue with his response (although Aunty Isabel did!).

We spent hours sharing stories of their childhood (well we listened and they talked). While listening I was struck by a number of things:

• How different life was in their childhood than that which children experience today in Australia.
• How different family members' memories of life can be – Aunty Isabel was constantly contesting the details of Lyle’s recounts of childhood. Lyle wasn’t sure the house at Lorne had bag walls as Aunty Isabel suggested, she was certain he only had to walk 2 miles in the morning, their brother John didn’t get killed by a falling tree the first day back from the war but a few years later…..and so on.
• How much Lyle and Isabel enjoyed re-living those contested memories from the early years

Memories and family traditions are important. It seems to me that the common memories and stories of key life events act as a type of glue that binds families together. There are some key ingredients to this. As you need spend time together – not necessarily good times – your lives become shared lives with much common ground. Your memories also become shared (though in old age perhaps contested) giving shape to who you see yourself as and the way you view the world. As parents, there’s a lot to be said for thinking carefully about the traditions and shared activities that are part of your family and how the sharing of these might be shaping your children’s memories and how they see the world. My daughter Nicole Starling has been writing a lot about developing family traditions consistent with one's faith; particularly, how this has an impact on how our children see the world. We need to think a lot about the dominant stories that shape our families' memories.

For many years I thought that my father had exercised little influence over the shaping of my life. I rejected much of what he seemed to believe and stood for and as a result we weren’t very close. And yet, a few years ago at 50+ years of age I realised that many of my beliefs had been shaped by his beliefs, his personal life story, and the sharing of it with me. My strong commitment to social justice was influenced by his experiences in mining communities on the fringes of Glasgow, and then later on the coalfields of the Hunter Valley where all 10 brothers and their father John Cairney worked in the pits, raised families, played soccer, joined pit bands and were actively involved in the trade union movement. It seemed that I was shaped to some extent by my father’s worldview (i.e. a set of beliefs or framework that affects the way we view the world). I suspect that my Dad’s view of the world had in turn been shaped in part by his Dad’s view of the world. All this reflecting on my family made me think about what I’m passing on to my children and grandchildren through my view of the world and the way this shapes who I am, how I see the world, and how I act on it. I want my Christian faith to shape my life, and the views and values that my family are ‘reading’, to reflect my faith. I hope they also have confidence that this is based on God’s word to us in the Bible.

Jean-Fracois Leotard (1979) suggested that what we accept as the truth is shaped by ‘big stories’ that we hold about the world we live in – he called these meta-narratives. As an atheist he cast doubt upon such meta-narratives, these sets of coherent and related beliefs. As a Christian, I see meta-narratives as important. My view of the world shapes who I am, what I believe and how I act. The Bible is the source of my meta-narrative. I believe what it says. That the Universe and all that is within it was created by God, that he made me, and he seeks to have a relationship with me. And he wants this so much that in spite of the tendency for humanity to want to lead life its way separate from God (in effect in rebellion against him), that he has always had a plan to bring his children back to him. This plan is centred on Jesus. The Bible teaches that God broke into history in the form of a person – he sent his son as both man and God to tell us about him and to take the punishment due for our rebellion against our creator. All he expects from us is that we take this free gift, seek his forgiveness and accept Jesus as our Lord and saviour. This in turn should shape the way I live, the priorities I have in life, my passions and decisions.

I’m pretty sure that Aunty Isabel wouldn’t have a clue what a meta-narrative is, and that she doesn’t hold to my Christian narrative (although I wish that she did). But I do know that in the house where she grew up (whether with or without bag walls) there would have been meta-narratives at work. Christmas is a good time to reflect on the dominant values and beliefs at work in your home and on what they are based. My hope is that the meta-narrative that dominates my life is the Christian story of God’s redemption through Jesus. As always, at Christmas I spend some time reading one of the gospels (available online at Bible Gateway) that tell the story of Jesus’ birth, death, resurrection and rule and to remember the story with wonder, joy and thankfulness. I praise and thank God at this special time for the gift of Jesus - "For God so loved the world that he sent his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).