Sub Ratione Dei

Lovin on Barth and the Impossibility of a Public Ethic

Barth's insistence on the freedom and initiative of God, however, seems to limit human ethics to act-deontology. On the one hand, no generalizations about God's will can be permitted. That would reduce God to an object and restrict his freedom to act. On the other hand, no moral requirements can be built on anything but the will of God. That would substitute human goals and human reason for the Word of God ... For all it's theological integrity, Barth's position is impossible for a public ethics. If we are to choose our actions by reason and defend them publicy by argument, we must either limit the freedom of God or abandon the metaethics that bases all moral meanings on God's will.

Robin W Lovin, Christian Faith and Public Choices: The Social Ethics of Barth, Brunner, and Bonhoeffer, Fortress, (1984), 42.

Vincent J Donovan on the Church

The following is a quote from Vincent Donovan's Christianity Rediscovered. I am not sure I am entirely happy with the argument but it is nonetheless an interesting perspective from a fascinating book.

Church-planting and church-establishing have often been used as descriptions of a missionary's task. But such descriptions can be misleading since they necessarily imply a kind of fixed and predetermined outcome to the preaching of the gospel. Because a missionary come from another already existing church, that is the image of the church he will have in mind, and if his job is to establish a church, that is the church he will establish. I think, rather, the missionary's job is to preach, not the church, but Christ. If he preaches Christ and the message of Christianity, the church may well result, may well appear, but it might not be the church he had in mind

... If the missionary truly presents God and Jesus Christ, his work is certainly finished. The rest is up to the people hearing the message. They can either reject the message entirely, or they can accept it. If they accept it, what they must do is outlined in gerneral in scripture, but that outline should not be considered part of the good news. I think it is rather the response to the good news. It is the church.

Vincent J Donovan, Christianity Rediscovered, 2003, p 62.

Related Tags: Missiology, Theology

The Last Decalogue

I think this is the first time I've posted a poem on the blog, fortunately for you all it's not mine. The Last Decalogue by Arthur Hugh Clough:

Thou shalt have one God only; -who
Would be at the expense of two?
No graven images may be
Worshipped, except the currency:
Swear not at all; for, for thy curse
Thine enemy is none the worse:
At church on Sunday to attend
Will serve to keep the world thy friend:
Honour thy parents; that is, all
From whom advancement may befall:
Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive
Officiously to keep alive:
Do not adultery commit;
Advantage rarely comes of it:
Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat,
When 'tis so lucrative to cheat:
Bear not false witness; let the lie
Have time on its own wings to fly:
Thou shalt not covet, but tradition
Approves all forms of competition.

Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America ’ s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion

Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion by Edward J Larson. Harvard University Press, (1997). ISBN: 0674854292

The Scopes "Monkey Trial" is an extremely important and infamous event in American cultural and religious history. This book is a brilliant introduction the complexities of both positions which is all the more relevant at present with the legal challenges regarding the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in the public school system in the USA.

John Scopes was a science teacher who, with some encouragement from Dayton (Tennessee) dignitaries (for the noble purpose of generating tourism revenue) challenged the recently enacted Butler bill that forbade the teaching of evolution in the school system that contradicted the biblical testimony.1 Scopes was indicted for this offence and was initially defended by the ACLU but before long Clarence Darrow become the lead defending attorney. The Prosecution was led - in the media's eyes at least - by William Jennings Bryan, a conservative Christian who was greatly respected by the ACLU for his progressive politics.

In part one of the book Edwards outlines the campaign, to which Bryan was figurehead, to introduce the anti-evolution bill in the state of Tennessee.^[1] Whilst was clearly a religious issue this was not simply religious in the sense that the advocates thought that Darwinism denied the veracity of the biblical creation narratives. Bryan in particular felt that when linked to the idea of Social Darwinism the teaching of evolution could undercut the Christian base of society, it seemed inconceivable that God could be present in a system that had as its goal the obliteration of the weak to the advantage of the strong. Edwards also outlines the political issues involved. How could it in any way be democratic, asked Bryan, to impose a system of education in state schools and therefore at taxpayer's expence, that were at variance with the majoritarian view? Finally, Edwards describes the actual means by which the trial came to be.

In the second part Edwards provides a narrative of the trial itself. At its most simple level the case was an open and shut case but with the lenient presiding of the judge the case was heard and contrary to popular opinion it was Bryan who won the case, although Darrow certainly had the upper hand through the media reporting. The key plank of the prosecutions argument was the majoritarian will of the Tennessee's citizens whereas for the defence the issue was one of academic liberty and freedom to dissent (hence the ACLU's interest).^[2] This section closes with the infamous cross-examination of Bryan by Darrow which is commonly seen as being a humiliating defeat for Bryan and the Fundamentalist movement.

In the final section Larson offers a brief survey of the conflict between Science and Fundamentalist religion that, in the light of recent events, is a little dated but useful nonetheless. Overall in terms of historical narrative (rather than the theological implications) this is an excellent book that gives a useful basis for understanding the events that precipitated the fundamentalist withdrawal from politics.

^[1] Unfortunately Larson does not actually quote the Butler Bill. However, the text reads: Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals (available here)

^[2] In the light of the recent debate of the Teaching of Intelligent Design in schools I do think there is a sense in which the debate has turned full circle. Although the Dover ruling disagrees it is the academic freedom to challenge accepted theories (neo-Darwinian evolution) that seems to be denied to the ID proponents, particularly since this was never actually taught but merely a disclaimer given advising students of alternative opinions. It strikes me that maybe it would be more consistent for the ACLU to have supported the ID proponents (this is emphatically not an argument in favour of ID).

Salvation and Suicide

I haven't really got the time to do the type of review I think David Chidester's Salvation and Suicide deserves in which Chidester offers a survey of the Peoples Temple. However, fortunately there's a significant review of the book available elsewhere. I'd encourage you to give the review a read.

Although Robbins has a point about the updated prologue the text is I think a superb piece of scholarship that offers an analysis of just why so many perceived the Peoples Temple to be a positive force in their lives and in at least most cases willing to commit suicide rather than let the dream die. A highly recommended book.

Mosley's Fascism

Richard Thurlow, Fascism in Britain: From Oswald Mosley's Blackshirts to the National Front, Rev ed, I B Taurus, (1998).

There is no doubt that Oswald Mosley was a charismatic and intelligent politician. Prior to reading this work I watched the Mosley - The Complete Series TV series covering Mosley's political career up to 1940.What Jonathan Cake who played Mosley in this piece did so well was to portray the brilliance of Mosley with his arrogance and impulsiveness. Had he played the party-political game I do not think it inconceivable that Mosley could have achieved high office as a Labour minister but the arrogant streak and refusal to bide time put paid to such ambitions.

At the age of 21 Mosley became the youngest member of parliament as a conservative MP, however it was not long before he fell out with the conservative government over their Irish policy, particularly the harsh actions of the Blacks and Tans which Mosley (not alone) considered to be state-sanctioned torture. Mosley subsequently crossed the floor and in 1924 not only joined the Labour Party but expressed sympathy with the party's left by also joining the Independent Labour Party. In the Labour Party Mosley developed a friendship and alliance with Ramsey McDonald and when McDonald formed a government in 1929 he had expected a Cabinet position but, to his disappointment Mosley was appointed Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with responsibility for looking at the nation's unemployment.

It was this commission that was to act as the catalyst for Mosley's extreme future political career. Mosley recommended a relatively radical solution that was both protectionist, aimed at stimulating the economy with public works and was inspired by Keynesian economics. That a party that styled itself as socialist should be so risk-averse. Furious at the lack of respect (read - failure to recognise his greatness) and disillusioned with the party political system as it was Mosley, together with a number of fellow conservative and labour MPs left to create a new party which, imaginatively, the called The New Party.

The New Party still campaigned on a (largely) socialist ticket using as an election manifesto an expanded version of Mosley's memorandum. But because of poor electoral showings and suspicion of the increasingly authoritarian the New Party was disbanded and what came next was the first major explicit fascist political identification in the UK, namely the BUF (the British Fascisti did proceed the BUF but in terms of external influence they were pretty inconsequential). It is here that the first of two of the main aims of Thurlow's work comes into play. There is within academic literature much discussion of generic fascism (one can pick up the gist of the argument here and here). In the introduction to the book Thurlow (page xi, xii) writes of the British Union of Fascists (hereafter BUF)

the BUF produced the most coherent and developed programme of any fascist movement ... it was anti-war, portrayed itself as law abiding engaging only in defensive violence, and for the 1930s had some relatively advanced views on feminism.

Although within a British context discussion of fascism is next to always made in reference to the German experience of German National Socialism Thurlow shows that the BUF in its earlier and most politically potent period had no substantive (policy) connections to Germany. If there were any connections of international fascism to Mosley's BUF (pictured doing a silly salute) it was to Mussolini. It is known that Mussolini was, second to Mosley himself, the key financial contributor to the BUF, that Mosley did meet with Mussolini early in the 1930s and that like Mussolini racialised fascism was not as significant as in Germany.

However much Mosley the BUF considered the BUF (in comparison to continental fascisms) as "fascism minus the violence" with the tail-off of press interest (following a particularly ugly scene involving warring communists and fascists) Mosley soon began using violence to keep in the political eye. Likewise, and here Thurlow never really explains why, Mosley unlike some colleagues in the BUF (e.g, William Joyce and A K Chesterton - cousin of GK) had never been exceptionally anti-semitic but this became a recurring motif in his speeches.

Thurlow continues to complete Mosley's story, including a fascinating chapter on Defence Regulation 18 which (and where have I heard this before?) suspended the right of habeas corpus and imprisoned most of the key players in British fascism without trial even though it is clear they were no threat to national security, as Thurlow shows. Mosley was to try to resurrect his political career post war in the union movement and while - arguably -not a fascist movement (it advocated a pan-european-nation instead of current political nation states) the authoritarian emphasis remained.

Fascism in Britain is not however just a history of the BUF and its impact on then contemporary British society. If it were then it would have achieved its aim. The second edition, published in 1998 offers something more: namely a history and analysis of fascism in post-war Britain. In his analysis of Mosley's attempted political resurrection in his vision for a European Nation then this surely succeeds. Likewise, Thurlow does an able job of analysing the post war conspiratorial and racialised fascisms of other of the main players in the BUF (A K Chesterton et al - a cousin of GK).

The latter chapters deal with the rise of the National Front and thereafter, with the BNP. The fascism these groups present, argues Thurlow, is to be distinguished from that of Mosley. To be sure, no one in post-war British fascism has had the same intellectual substance as Mosley but that does not change the fact Mosley's own fascism was ambiguous. Mosley's fascism was at one point truly a form of national (empire) socialism but at another it was little distinguishable from the paranoid ramblings of the conspiracist theorists. No real account is given for this change and, given Thurlow does not agree that this was just a political manoeuvre on Mosley's part to seek right wing votes it must surely be accounted for. Despite having the largest fascist following at its peak in the UK Mosley's influence on post-war fascism appears to be negligible. Strangely, Thurlow offers very little analysis of why this is the case. Finally, Thurlow offers a premature obituary of British fascism arguing that the inter-group squabbling, Nazi connections and the strong and anti-immigrant legislation of Thatcher et al destroyed the chance of a fascist resurgence. Unfortunately, in the year following this book's publication the BNP gained a new leader and the anti-immigration and law and order ticket , in the recent London elections, a seat.

In contrast to most british fascists Mosley was a man of charisma and intelligence, thankfully these are few and far between. Although lacking a critical edge that at times was needed Thurlow's book is a well-written history of British fascism as it related to Mosley, as a general history of bristish fascism in the current political climate less so. 

The Force and Religious Tolerance

From last Friday's Guardian:

Tesco has been accused of religious discrimination after the company ordered the founder of a Jedi religion to remove his hood or leave a branch of the supermarket in north Wales.

Daniel Jones, founder of the religion inspired by the Star Wars films, says he was humiliated and victimised for his beliefs following the incident at a Tesco store in Bangor.

The 23-year-old, who founded the International Church of Jediism, which has 500,000 followers worldwide, was told the hood flouted store rules.

But the grocery empire struck back, claiming that the three best known Jedi Knights in the Star Wars movies – Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker – all appeared in public without their hoods. Jones, from Holyhead, who is known by the Jedi name Morda Hehol, said his religion dictated that he should wear the hood in public places and is considering legal action against the chain.

"It states in our Jedi doctrination that I can wear headwear. It just covers the back of my head," he said.

 The story does I think have a serious side - it is (rightly) inconceivable that Tesco would ever ask a Muslim woman to remove a hijab in the UK and eject her for failing to comply on the basis of her religious belief. So, what's the difference? Certainly Jediisim bears some hallmarks of religious faith e.g, transcendent worldview and to the extent it is taken seriously offers a a way for some to find meaning in life.

As it is, I am extremely sceptical Jediisim is properly considered a religious system (the UK government has explicitly excluded it from religious protection legislation) mainly due to the nature of its beginnings but that is not to say it will not evolve into something different for a small minority.

Although taken as a joke (as it was in the census - I can't remember but I may have said I was Jedi myself) by most of the media and tesco itself I am not sure I am entirely happy to leave the job of determining who is and who is not religious to corporate entities such as Tesco.

Elsewhere ...

Jedi Ejected From Tesco

Poking the Jedi

Violence and the Jedi Religion

Pentecostalism: The Same Yesterday, Today and Forever?

Over at Religion Dispatches Anthea Turner has been asking this question in relation to the Prosperity Gospel - does all that calls itself pentecostal warrant the name? Modern variants Butler suggests are akin to the Tribble in Star Trek:

If an animal could describe the Pentecostal movement, it would be the tribble, a cute furry fictional animal, well-known to Star Trek fans. Tribbles, the story had it, were born pregnant, reproduced at a staggering rate, and ate everything in sight: if the ravenous creatures hadn’t eaten a store of poisoned grain, they would have destroyed the Enterprise. To follow the analogy, Pentecostalism and certain segments of the movement (namely, the “Prosperity Gospel” and the “New Apostolic Movements”) have mutated like tribbles, choking off their Pentecostal origins, multiplying to such a degree that it is difficult to distinguish the broader Pentecostal movement and historic churches from the mutants.

Just this week I received Jesse Duplantis' plea for more money (otherwise known as ministry magazine) which runs the story "Recession: I'm not participating" which of course is true, it's the hapless followers convinced to 'step out in faith' for credit in the sub-prime market who are. This capitulation to capitalism is barely recognisable to William Seymour's gospel. Butler concludes:

All of this activity points to one conclusion: whatever Pentecostalism started out to be is not what it is now.

True, many denominations and faith traditions change over time, but what is interesting about Pentecostalism is the movement’s ability to morph from its basic antecedents into a plethora of new movements; all with the basics of Pentecostal teachings at their core.

The diversity of the movement begs the question, what really is “Pentecostal” and what isn’t? Are these manifestations of Prosperity Gospel and New Apostolic Reformation heresy, bad taste, or simply capitalist adventures for those in leadership?

For a movement that started out with a millennial orientation, it has certainly become enamored with the world, and remaining powerful within it in every way. Whatever these new tribbles of Prosperity and Apostolic leadership are, it is time to pay them even closer attention, before they overrun the ship entirely.

Unfortunately in my view although distanced from contemporary practice Pentecostalism did have some of the seeds from which these distortions developed. There was, after all, the life of victory of health and refusal of medical help and the George Mulleresque ministries trusting God (i.e., the faithful) for the development of ministries. Ultimately, it must be pentecostals who say in print, in person, and with their bank balances that it is Christ, not mammon, that is the focus of their devotion.

Elsewhere ...

Slate and the Prosperity Gospel

The S Factor

What's Right with the Prosperity Gospel

The Just War Tradition

Charles Guthrie and Micheal Quinlan, Just War: The Just War Tradition: Ethics in Modern Warfare, Bloomsbury, 2007.

Just War Theory (JWT), or as these authors term it the Just War Tradition has a long pedigree both as a centre around which the Christian approach to war is debated and as a framework for initiating and conducting military actions; it is in the latter context that this book seeks to situate itself. The authors are not academics but are certainly distinguished in their field as their CVs demonstrate. Charles Guthrie has served in both the Welsh Guards and SAS has held a number of senior defence position culminating as Chief of the Defence Staff from 1997 to 2001. Since that time he has been member of the House of Lords. Michael Quinlan's reputation is no less distinguished; for over 35 years he was a civil servant acting at times as both Policy Director for the Ministry of Defence and as Permanent Under-Secretary of State. Since 2004 he has been a Senior Fellow of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. At only just 50 pages it is I think fair to state that this is not a tour de force in JWT. Truth be told there is not much in the text that I consider to be noteworthy. This is not a work of ethical or theological theory; for example, pacifism is not really even considered viable - but is rather simply a case of standing back and watching evil unfold (p 24).

In terms of the author's survey of JWT itself they survey the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum) in somewhat greater detail than the the subject of military ethics that is the concern of the jus in bello. The jus in bello discussion is limited to the discrimination criterion, that is the requirement to limit military operations to combatants and other "actively involved" and secondly the continued need for proportionality. At first given the military background of the authors, together with those of the endorsers (that number among them other Chiefs of Staff, this may seem surprising. However, with the Jus ad bellum criteria the authors have focused on those deemed to be in legitimate authority or, in military jargon, those in command responsibility. My concern with such a emphasis is it creates an illusion of ethical neutrality on the part of the soldiers who actually do the killing of war - judging by the complete omission of their role it would seem that they are passive subjects to the JWT - the Nuremberg hearings, it would seem, never happened. With the contemporary conduct of some fragments of the military forces in recent conflict - I am thinking as an example of Abu Graib, such an omission from a text on the military understandings of JWT is an extremely significant and regrettable omission. Given its omissions and general unremarkable nature I do wonder why this book was written. I do wonder given its context in a time of continuing national debate even given its paucity of references to current conflicts whether it is a subtle reminder by two seasoned "insiders" the tendency to label every war as Just does not make it so and that more than media soundbites are required to make the case. But that, of course, is speculation.

The Branch Davidians of Waco

Kenneth G C Newport, The Branch Davidians of Waco: The History and Beliefs of an Apocalyptic Sect, Oxford University Press, 2006.

For a group that most likely never numbered more than a thousand people at its height which predated it's fall the Branch Davidians of had a significant impact on cultural memory. Aside from the intense (although sporadic) media coverage of the ATF stand off and raid in February 1993 where six Branch Davidians and four government agents lost their lives the event of Waco also had a direct consequence as a motivating factor in Timothy Mcveigh's Oklahoma terror attack. It continues to many to be an enduring image although, I confess the event entirely passed me by.

However, for all the significance there has been limited academic coverage of the event understanding the movement itself. To a significant extent Kenneth Newport, Professor of Christian Thought at Liverpool Hope University and, I gather, a former Seventh Day Adventist has filled that gap. Newport begins by offering a literature review, some of which began appearing months after the deaths. The main problem is these are often little more than a biography of Koresh (Vernon Howell) and hence with very little wider context of the group or the theological beliefs of the Branch Davidians themselves. The lacking context makes it easy to portray Koresh as the charismatic leader duping the brainwashed masses, not only making the events of Waco a sensationalist media story but also makes the Branch Davidian victims, including Koresh, dehumanised. 

Newport disavows such reductionist (and scientifically dubious) accounts more as an aside than by means of refuting the argument. Instead Newport adopts what may be termed a history of doctrine approach. In his conclusion Newport (318) writes:

To this point [page 318 of a 343 page book] very little has been said about the views [or actions] of David Koresh himself regarding the fire that would cleanse the people of God. This has been deliberate, for it is important to challenge the view that it was Koresh, and Koresh alone, who was uniquely responsible for the events of 19 April. To be sure, he did have a part to play in preparing the people theologically for those events , but the view that it was he who was solely responsible for what happened is at the very least disputable. 

Newport's text then is essentially a thorough examination of the theology of a certain branch of Adventist thought - it is noteworthy that the Branch Davidians evangelised almost exclusively among Seventh Day Adventists whom made up next to all their number. Beginning with Victor Houteff's break with the the SDA the consolidation of the Shepherd's Rod movement (Micah 7:14) which, like many revivalist movements before was not so much a break with but a reform movement within the SDA. The significance of the movement in addition to the notion of the remnant as the eschatological cleansing of the SDA was in the primary focus of Houteff as a prophet of the movement - a mantle that would pass on eventually to Koresh. In a number of chapters Newport offers in turn a historical and theological overview of the Davidian movement leading up to the schism within Davidian thought led by Benjamin Roden that led to the Branch Davidian movement through to successive prophets leading eventually to Koresh himself (who joined in 1981). The result is a very thorough but at times a mind-numbingly boring survey in that Newport has effectively entered into the very thought world of a literalist, immanent apocalyptic movement which has ensured that the significance of what may have been seen as minor changes can be shown.

Newport then, to continue the quote started above can suggest that the sufficient cause of the Waco tragedy was theological:

it had long been argued in the tradition to which Koresh belonged that the kingdom would be brought about only violently. The details did not remain constant as the tradition developed, but there can be no disputing that from Houteff to Koresh [hence precludes mainstream SDA] the view was that at the point at which the kingdom was set up there would be a slaughter of those who had rejected the message and at the same time a 'baptism by fire' for the righteous. 

Accordingly, far from being a result of the otherworldly machinations of a religious nutjob Waco was a logical outcome from the developing tradition of eschatological interpretation. In presenting this argument with a considerable evidential base it is my opinion that Newport has done a commendable job in analysing the topography of the violent new religious movement although, in this regard I do think that since this is the forum from which Waco is often studied and referred to that lack of reference to this realm of enquiry is unfortunate for it is here that the study is so important.

Underlying this study is the supposition that for the Branch Davidian leadership at least started the fire that would engulf the compound and kill so many, meaning that the deaths were either suicide or murder. In reference to both the forensic evidence and theological context of Branch Davidian eschatological interpretation Newport concludes that the deaths were evidence of an "ultimate act of faith" (279), a religiously motivated suicide in furtherance of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is, I think, a convincing case. This is significant in that the fire is often seen to either to be started accident-ly (to the extent this is discussed this seems to be the scholarly consensus).  

Aside from the above another interesting facet, although one which I feel could have been expanded upon in greater detail with more sociological and theological input is the post-waco experience of the surviving and converted(!) Branch Davidians as an case study of religious survival of failed prophecy. 

Although I think in the sociological and theological import of Waco the book could be developed more this is an excellent study of a religious movements collective descent into violence Newport has produced an interesting, meticulous and scholarly important work which I'd encourage those interested in apocalyptic thought, sectarian religion or new religious movements should find profitable.

Should anyone be interested I have set up an amazon store with all links to all the key literature commercially available - go on, help me pay off my credit card!

Elsewhere ...

Edoc Elbib Eht

Ready for Apocalypse

Kenneth Newport Explains the Fires of Waco (the comments section is also worth reading. See also this response on a blog I've added to my feed list).

Finally, since they have done the kindness of linking here for quite a while now I'd like to highlight the blog of the Adventist Peace Fellowship. It is clear that APF do some great work. One of Newport's opening points is that adventist theologians have been remiss in tackling the impact of Waco for Seventh Day Adventism and its own understanding of the faith, I am not aware that the APF have ever published on Koresh but think it would be a worthwhile endeavour not so much for the purpose of looking at Waco but the cultural milieu that enabled it of which SDA is a part.