Two cheers for coercion, and other stories

Coercion: Do we ever think coercion might be a good thing? Brad contemplates what a cheating athlete can teach us about the place of law in public life.

Magic economics: The economy is a Pied Piper - a delightful and insightful image from Gillian.

Debate vs argument: What's the difference? And what difference does it make to recognise the distinction?

Peak coal: John celebrates the 140th anniversary of the death of William Stanley Jevons, an English writer who foresaw the end of British coal-expansion from way back in 1865 (and who also gave his name to the Jevons paradox). Jevons was aware that relying on finite resources brought a false complacency to social questions by enabling the deferral of questions of distributive justice. If we expect the economy to keep growing, then we can skirt of over gross inequality, trusting that a rising tide will lift all boats. If we accept that the global economy faces certain physical limits within timeframes of human interest, then the deferral of questions of distributive justice can no longer be maintained. In short, faced with limits to growth, there is a certain sense in which it becomes incumbent upon us to make wealth history (which is also the name of this excellent blog, in which Jeremy wrestles with the economic and social implications of this insight).

Mortality: Ben Myers is dying.

Chalk wars: Chalk it up to the suppression of dissent; increasingly, people are being arrested for chalking pavements, at least in the Land of the Free™. The Edinburgh Festival would go out of business if this attitude were introduced over here. And Arthur Stace (a.k.a. Mr Eternity) would have gone to gaol.
H/T Gordon for the final observation.

Twenty questions: The questions that the US press ought to asking of those who oppose climate action. These questions, from climate ethicist Donald Brown, would make for some interesting discussion starters for groups wanting to wrestle with some of the ethical implications of climate change.

Growth myths: Herman Daly walks us through eight fallacies about economic growth. A very useful and insightful summary of some of Daly's contributions to these discussions.

Last words: The final unpublished letter from eco-author Ernest Callenbach, discovered after his death. His top tips? Hope, offer mutual support, gain practical skills, organise, learn to live with contradictions.

Climate intro: The basics of climate science. It's worth posting pieces like this from time to time, since I am constantly reminding just how common it is for otherwise intelligent people to have some basic misunderstandings (myself included!).

Compliance: You never know you're in prison until you try the door. Glenn Greenwald reflects on why oppression and tyranny are often invisible when close to home.

A shared understanding

Each of these reputable scientific institutions is staking its reputation on the claim that human carbon pollution is dangerously altering our climate. Credibility is their most valuable asset to risk.

The list of reputable scientific institutions staking their reputation on the denial of that claim can be counted on the fingers of one head.

Arguments from authority are a legitimate secondary form of argument, and are quite relevant for non-specialists such as myself (and, I assume, most of my readers).
This question is discussed in more detail by Kate at ClimateSight: "Is there a consensus in climate science?"

On refusing to vote

"[Refusing to vote] reflects a new recognition of the nature of power. In reality we all have “a say in our future”, every day, with everything we do and everything we don’t. Privileging government as the only means of social change is a concept the gospels call into question. The assumption is that power is concentrated at the top, and the only way to change anything is to change the government or its way of operating.

"This, it seems to me, stands in stark contrast to the way of Jesus. One of his early temptations, in fact, captured in the wilderness narrative, is precisely to this kind of topdown political power. Significantly, it is the devil who offers it to him. Jesus refuses."

- Simon Moyle, Why I don't vote.

Most elections do not change things. The idea that political responsibility means voting once every few years is a bit like thinking that a healthy lifestyle consists in being checked by the GP every few years. Voting is not to be sneezed at (and in the end, I disagree with Simon Moyle, though respect his position, which also represents the considered position of some good friends of mine), but it is not the main game in politics, far less the main game in changing the world.

Praying for kings and rulers: civic order and the good news of Jesus

A guest post by Ruth Brigden
Ruth is a missionary working with CMS Australia and serving in Numbulwar, a remote indigenous community in the Northern Territory.

“I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”

- 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

This is Kathy-Anne. She is our church treasurer.
Kathy-Anne is also an elected Councillor on the Roper Gulf Shire, which oversees service provision in Numbulwar.

I was challenged by Kathy-Anne recently when she told me that she prays everyday for Numbulwar’s police, school, credit union, and her employer, the Roper Gulf Shire.

Numbulwar’s police station is only a few years old. Before it was built, intervention into domestic disputes, and fights between tribal groups was done by individuals (including Yulki, our church deacon), and they often got hurt in the process. In the event of an emergency, the nearest police came by plane from Groote Eylandt, and by the time they got here, the damage was usually done. A permanent police presence has helped Numbulwar community live more peacefully, and it has helped people like Yulki devote more time to the Ministry of the Word, rather than spending her time breaking up fights.

When Kathy-Anne prays for the police and other local institutions, she is putting 1 Timothy 2:1-2 into practice. I’m sure we can think of many good reasons why well-functioning institutions that promote public order are desirable. But it seems that from a spiritual point of view, this kind of stability is good for Christians who want to proclaim the gospel of peace.

It is in the interests of Christians to pray for “kings” and “all those in authority”, because if under God those in authority govern well, Christians will be freed-up to live out their faith before outsiders, “in all godliness and holiness”.

Living in a small community helps Kathy-Anne to see how integral institutions that maintain the good order of society really are – she has got it right in praying regularly for those in authority in Numbulwar, and she has challenged me by her example to pray more in line with 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

Take and read: O'Donovan on reading Scripture

"No collective spiritual exercise, no sacrament, no act of praise or prayer is so primary to the catholic identity of the church gathered as the reading and recitation of Scripture."

- Oliver O'Donovan, "The Reading Church:
Scriptural Authority in Practice".

This morning I had a supervision meeting with Professor O'Donovan that was (largely due to his graciousness) not the train-wreck I had been somewhat anxiously anticipating (this in itself was quite ironic, since the topic at hand was some of my work on, well, anxiety - more on that soon).

During the course of our meeting, he mentioned somewhat dismissively a lecture he gave recently, and which I had heard about, but not read. It is a lecture reflecting upon the "Scripture" clause of the recent Jerusalem Declaration delivered at GAFCON (and partially composed by some of my former teachers at MTC):

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God written and to contain all things necessary for salvation. The Bible is to be translated, read, preached, taught and obeyed in its plain and canonical sense, respectful of the church’s historic and consensual reading.

The lecture is itself an exercise in careful attention to this text, but becomes far more than simply another comment on a recent highly publicised declaration. Having now read his lecture, I can assure you that his estimation of its worth is as far off the mark as my anticipation of our meeting this morning. Take and read. Not just the lecture, but, of course, the Scriptures which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
NB Reading will take time, but that is the point: "Acts of reading that refuse the text patience invariably miscarry."

Democracy in action again

On reflection, perhaps parts of my previous post were a little cryptic. When I mentioned Daniel 7, I was referring to the famous vision in which four fantastic and fearsome beasts arise from the sea, only to be condemned by an Ancient of Days, who gives the positive verdict to 'one like a son of man' (i.e. a human). As the vision is explained in the second half of the chapter, these beasts are pictures of four kingdoms that arise against Israel, but the narrative promises that God will remove their beastly political authority and give it to his people. Jesus takes this famous narrative of vindication for Israel, and seems to turn it on its head, claiming that he (not Israel) is the Son of Man,* and implying that those who oppose him (the Jewish leadership) are thus one of the beasts, who will face their day in court with God! This is how I read the 'mini-apocalypse' in Luke 21.5-38 (with parallels in Mark and Matthew, though I've been focussing on Luke lately).
*Or perhaps that he is Israel.

It then seems to me that the various trials in Luke 22 & 23 all illustrate the brutal failure of all other human political authorities (both Roman and Jewish) in the face of the true king, whose rule is genuinely humane.

Of course, the 'democracy' evident in the near-riot in front of Pilate is a far cry from modern liberal representative democracies. Representative democracies are not intended to reflect the views of the majority in any straightforward way. We do not elect politicians who are then to act as conduits of our opinions, or whom we expect to mirror the views of their constituency. We elect representatives, whom we entrust with the task of making judgements on our behalf, even where these may not be the judgements we would make in the same circumstances. That is why poll-driven politics puts the cart before the horse. It is also why a member of a different party to the one I like may still legitimately represent me. The representation does not depend on the coincidence of our views. Furthermore, modern liberal democracies limit the power of these representatives constitutionally in order to attempt to preserve certain basic standards and ensure minorities are not arbitrarily sacrificed on the altar of the majority.

Despite these differences, I still think that Luke 22-23 makes a deeper point about the failure of human authority than justifying certain political reforms.
See here for why elections don't really matter.
Twelve points each for naming the leader who authorised dedicated this monument and the leader whom it celebrates.

Democracy in action

Pilate then called together the chief priests, the leaders, and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was perverting the people; and here I have examined him in your presence and have not found this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us. Indeed, he has done nothing to deserve death. I will therefore have him flogged and release him."

Then they all shouted out together, "Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!" (This was a man who had been put in prison for an insurrection that had taken place in the city, and for murder.) Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again; but they kept shouting, "Crucify, crucify him!" A third time he said to them, "Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no ground for the sentence of death; I will therefore have him flogged and then release him." But they kept urgently demanding with loud shouts that he should be crucified; and their voices prevailed. So Pilate gave his verdict that their demand should be granted. He released the man they asked for, the one who had been put in prison for insurrection and murder, and he handed Jesus over as they wished.

- Luke 23.13-25

It struck me tonight that this is one version of democracy in action. The many declare their will and it is implemented by the appointed authorities, despite personally disagreeing with the decision.

It is, however, an unmitigated disaster. The mob's irrational hatred* drowns out the one voice of reason and a gross injustice is perpetrated.

Not that the alternatives to democracy fare much better on this dark day. The entire chapter can be read as an unmasking of the beastliness of human authorities (cf. Daniel 7: obviously not a randomly selected passage, given the number of times Jesus refers or alludes to it while in Jerusalem). There is far more to say about a biblical attitude towards authority than Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 (i.e. "obey!").
*The problem of why the crowd suddenly turn upon Jesus may be solved if it is assumed that this group is largely co-extensive with "the assembly of the elders of the people" (22.66; cf. 23.1). Although this group may have grown a little (justifying the inclusion of "the people" in the list of verse 13), it may well have still be largely those who had tried Jesus the night before. Notice in verse 14 that Pilate can say to the crowd that "you brought me this man", implying a high degree of continuity between the assembly and this group before Pilate. Also notice that the multitudes who had been praising Jesus a week earlier as he rode into Jerusalem were not Jerusalemites, but a rent-a-crowd of disciples (i.e. they had already been travelling with Jesus). Therefore, there is no need to explain a sudden change of mind on the part of the Jerusalem populace.
Ten points for correctly identifying this building and fifteen for briefly explaining its connection to the history of democracy.

Must Christians be pacifists? III

A series by Andrew Errington
III: The cross and the wrath of God
I have been arguing that governing authorities who “bear the sword” are a God-given provision for this age, servants of God who provisionally and imperfectly reflect his final judgment on the last day. This does not weaken Jesus’ ethic of non-resistance and nonviolence for the Christian community. “Judge not,” says our Lord; and we dare not disregard his warning. Yet it does mean that “within the New Testament the sphere of public judgment [that is, the determinations of right and wrong made and enforced by political authority] constitutes a carefully circumscribed and specially privileged exception to a general prohibition of judgment” (Oliver O’Donovan, The Ways of Judgment, 99). Within this carefully circumscribed sphere the use of “violence” (in some sense) to forcefully enact judgments cannot be ruled out as categorically wrong.

A clear view of the wrath of God is central to this argument. Without it, Christian ethics are unintelligible. The wrath of God means Christians must not resist the evildoer, but instead love their enemies and overcome evil with good; and it means governing authorities must resist the evildoer, bearing the sword with justice.

This position remains deeply Christocentric. It is because Jesus himself will one day return to judge the living and the dead that we may contemplate the ways of judgment here and now. Yet it is perhaps a less cross-centred ethics than that advocated by Kim Fabricius (see Part I). Previously, Kim has described Jesus as “the hermeneutical criterion of all scripture” (Propositions on peace and war: a postscript Yet his arguments seem to go further and see the cross as the hermeneutical criterion for all that Jesus is, and so all that God is. A similar idea was hinted at by Ben Myers when, in his wonderful Theology for beginners series, he described Jesus’ resurrection in this way: “God took this dead man through death into new life, into the life of God’s future. Precisely as a dead man, he lived! Precisely as the Crucified One, he became the Risen One!” (Theology for beginners (7): Resurrection, my italics). What does this mean? Does it imply that the death of Jesus is the definitive moment in God such that anything that cannot be said of God at this moment cannot rightly be said at all?

The not-quite-pacifist position diverges at this point because of the conviction that the death of Jesus is not the final thing to say about God. The one who was crucified is now exalted as Lord and will return. To be sure, he still bears the marks of the nails in his hands, but these now show not only his surrender to death but his defeat of it. Now Jesus reigns, and he must do so “until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor. 15:24). If what we have to say about God is at odds with this Jesus, then, too, we may end up with a “decaf theology” (see Propositions on peace and war: a postscript). "As the cross is not the sum of how Jesus 'went about doing good,' so neither is the command 'follow me' exhaustively accounted for by the words: 'when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.'" (O’Donovan, The Just War Revisited, 11).
I’d like to thank Kim for this opportunity to enter into conversation with one whose knowledge and imagination far exceeds my own. I hope some of my thoughts have been half as interesting as his have been for me. Series: I; II; III.

O'Donovan on the church's role in society

An effective church with an effective ministry, in holding out the word of life, than which there is no other human good within the world or outside it, will render assistance to the political functions in societry by forwarding the social good which they exist to defend. But that is to take the very longest view of the relationship. In holding out the word of life, an effective church with an effective ministry issues the call "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!" And so in the short, the medium, and even the penultimate term the presence of the church in political society can be a disturbing factor, as those who first thought Christianity worth persecuting understood quite well. It presents a counter-political moment in social existence; it restrains the thirst for judgment; it points beyond the boundaries of political identity; it undermines received traditions of representation; it utters truths that question unchallenged public doctrines. It does all these things because it represents God's kingdom, before which the authorities and powers of this world must cast down their crowns, never to pick them up again.

- Oliver O'Donovan, Ways of Judgment, 292.

Heaven: not the end of the world III

God is in his heaven...
Starting here, here (and here), this little series still has some distance to go.

I began with the idea that the basic meaning of heaven is what you see when you get knocked out. Or rather, what you first see when you wake up lying flat on your back.

A second common biblical use of 'heaven' is to refer to the dwelling place of God. He is called 'the God of heaven', though also the God of heaven and earth, apparently referring not to his location, but to the extent of his dominion (i.e. over everything). Yet sometimes the more specific God in heaven (or in the heavens) is used, and this seems to be associated fairly directly in some cases with vertical elevation, though Solomon does acknowledge that the heavens can't contain him, and the psalmist speaks of him being exalted above the heavens. What effect might it have on our thinking if we translate 'heaven(s)' (shamayim) with 'sky' (or 'skies')?

This elevated location is taken to imply (or is itself a symbol of) God's ultimate superiority, with consequences for human actions.

When we turn to the New Testament, heaven is associated with God's rule (symbolised by his throne), is also the location of angels (this point was not directly made in the OT, although the voice of the angel of YHWH came from heaven). Heaven is the origin of God's audible voice. Most famously, however, heaven as the location of the Father is woven into the opening line of the Lord's prayer.

Yuri Gagarin, the first human to orbit the earth said upon his return, ""I looked and looked but I didn't see God" (or maybe Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev put these words in his mouth). I wonder whether the writers of the Bible might have laughed at him. Not, however, for thinking that he might be travelling to the dwelling place of God. Simply for thinking that God might be visible when he got there.
Series: I; II; IIa; III; IV; V; VI; VII; VIII; IX; X; XI; XII; XIII; XIV; XV; XVI. Ten points for getting even the country for this pic. Photo by CAC.
UPDATE: important discussion in comments.

O'Donovan: authority and freedom

Where authority is, freedom is; and where authority is lost, freedom is lost. This holds good for all kinds of authority. Without adults who demand mature behaviour, the child is not free to grow up; without teachers to set standards of excellence, the scholar is not free to excel; without prophets to uphold ideals of virtue, society is not free to realize its common good. To be under authority is to be freer than to be independent.

- Oliver O'Donovan, The Ways of Judgment, 132.

I find this very experience in reading O'Donovan (most of the time). As I submit to his authority - which is not 'a reason for acting in the absence of reasons' but 'an authority is someone I depend upon to show me the reasons for acting' (131) - I find myself liberated from various confusions (and intiated into new ones!).

I do apologise for not writing more about O'Donovan as I earlier promised. I've been slowly working through this text with a small group at college and really enjoying it. I'll try to include more in future.
As usual, ten points for the location above. Another ten for identifying the statued figure.
UPDATE: Further important quote in comments. Also, thanks to jm for pointing out that today is the 2515th anniversary of the dedication of the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill. Entirely a coincidence...

Secular authorities

How are Christians to think of 'secular' authorities?
In a comment from a recent post about political authorities, Matheson asked: what does it mean for our attitude towards participation (which Drew encourages us to take up responsibly) that these are merely secular authorities, in the sense that they are of this "age"?

This, of course, was a leading question.

Secular is derived from the Latin secularis, which is from seculum, meaning 'age or generation'. It was a term used by the medieval church to denote what belonged to the sphere of the 'world', or at least of the world of this age, as opposed to what pertained to the age to come. Thus, by calling political authorities 'secular', this was not primarily a way of designating a 'separation between church and state' (though this idea is thoroughly rooted in Christian conceptions of authority, despite its frequent misunderstanding and abuse in much contemporary debate).* Instead, such authorities are secular because their authority is temporally limited. Their existence will continue prior to the eschatological victory of Christ in which he will 'destroy every ruler and every authority and power' before handing the kingdom over to God the Father (1 Corinthians 15.24). Thus the primary Christian stance towards secular political authorities is freedom, knowing that they are passing away, that their authority is limited and temporary. The primary political duty of the church is to bear witness to the coming rule of Christ, reminding governments that their role has a use by date and that they are not to pretend otherwise by setting themselves up as absolute authorities. Within this freedom, the Christian is liberated for joyful obedience to these provisional structures while awaiting the resurrection of the dead and with it, the destruction of the ultimate resort of every tyrant: death.
* See Oliver O'Donovan The Desire of the Nations (and presumably also The Ways of Judgment) for this argument. Indeed this post is a brief summary of one thread in his thought, as Matheson was well aware when he made the comment.Since Matheson's comment sparked this post, I thought his smiling face should end it. Five points for the first to name the thing behind Matheson. Ten points for the institution in the first shot that is being turned into a mere silhouette by the rising Son. (Yes, groan all you like; I know you're sitting there wishing you'd said it first. And yes, I know the sun is actually setting - poetic licence).