Douglas Campbell

Some very quick (and undeveloped!) thoughts on Douglas' Campbell's Quest for Paul's Gospel. One thing I found very striking is his treatment of Paul's ethics. He argues that some aspects of Paul's ethics flow from his soteriology (basically the idea of union with Christ), while other aspects seem to be more 'static' and 'rooted in a particular conception of creation'. So, in Galatians 3:28 he affirms the unity of Jew and Greek; male and female etc. This, argues Campbell, is consistent with his view of salvation. However, in other places (e.g. 1 Cor 11:2-16; Romans 1) he affirms 'gender codes', and that homosexuality is 'unnatural'. These affirmations are tied to creation not salvation making his ethics inconsistent according to Campbell

What to do with this inconsistency? Campbell is clear:
'If Paul was inconsistent at this point, as seems likely, failing to prosecute his soteriology (and who of us can cast the first stone here?!), then I suggest that, having detected this, we should simply overrule those inconsistencies in the name of his central convictions. Paul’s soteriological centre, along with its consistent ethical corollaries, should trump his inconsistent ethical admonitions; his position on redemption should overrule his inconsistent statements about creation’ (p127).

I have to confess that I stopped reading the book at this point. Calling Paul inconsistent is just seems the easy way to write off the parts of his teaching you don’t like and shows that you have not understood how his theology fits together. Campbell does say (I did read on a bit!) that he doesn’t ‘suggest this lightly, but only after careful consideration. Neither do I do so because of some external agenda; it is Paul’s own position on redemption that forces us to call his creation-based ethics into question. (So here I act on in accordance with the important principle that scripture should interpret scripture.)[…] And this decision allows us to leave behind the series of theological and social problems associated with those commitments, which is surely a good thing.’

An interpreter of Scripture once made the observation that our tendency is to trust ourselves and to suspect Scripture (of being inconsistent etc.) whereas the Scripture suggests that we should trust it and suspect ourselves (of having sub-conscious agendas etc.). That position will not convince anyone in the guild who takes a fundamentally critical stance towards Scripture, but to honour it as God's Word it is surely the right way to approach it.

As I say there are other problems with The Quest for Paul’s Gospel (like how he sets justification and participation in polar opposition to each other) but this one is particularly striking and revealing.

Living with Death

I had a conversation today with a group of people about a video we had watched last week. The video was a number (~15) of years old, and followed the story of an elderly man, his wife, and his doctor in the Netherlands. The documentary told the story of this man's death. Or, more exactly, him being killed. For it was a documentary about this man's journey to euthanasia. I choose the word 'killed' carefully, and not for generating undue emotion, for the doctor himself comments, and recognises, that what he is doing when he injects this man with a lethal dose of a narcotic is, in fact, killing him.

The group I was with was discussing the issues of pastoral care in this situation. While we discussed the overall ethics and morality of the subject, the purpose was to consider pastoral care in such cases. It appeared (and this is only my perception) that some people I was talking to were of the opinion that the most caring thing in these situations is to assist in, or certainly not hinder, the decision to end life. I disagreed, for many of the reasons set out here.

Additionally, much time was spent speaking about the care of the doctor. He suffered terribly - he noted that his practice of offering this service left him depressed; he often couldn't sleep after it had happened; and at times, when he was cycling and his mind wandered, the images of people dying came back to him. Clearly this man has been horrifically affected by what he does. There needs to be support for him, it was argued, because of all that he had gone through.

But there was another person who requires care in this situation, and indeed should possibly be more fully considered in discussions about the topic. It was the man's wife. For after he had died, she was heard weeping, and asking herself if she had done the right thing. She was complicit in what had happened - she was by his side the whole time, and yet he is now gone, and she is not. She has to live with what she has agreed to. And how do you live with that? What answers are there when you wake up in the night and ask yourself, was it right? Was it his time. Might he have rallied? Was he depressed when he asked to die? What affect must this practice have on those who remain, who were intimately involved in the decision making.

I'm not saying that this is an easy issue. Anyone who has sat with someone in extreme pain, who has seen the massive and rapid degeneration of a loved one, is aware of the plethora of emotions which erupt. But I am saying that euthanasia should not only be thought of as an end. For it is also a beginning. The beginning of a life where those close to the dead person have to live with uncertainty and doubt. It's the beginning of a life where one has to live with death.

How nice would this be

David Field has posted that John Frame's next volume in his A Theology of Lordship series is out in June. Which means I can get it in NZ in 2010. Still, looking forward to it.

Ethical plagerism

A smattering of quotes from the opening chapter of Resurrection and Moral Order (Oliver O'Donovan):

Christian ethics must arise from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

A belief in Christian ethics is a belief that certain ethical and moral judgements belong to the gospel itslef; a belief, in other words, that the church can be committed to ethics without moderating the tone of its voice as a bearer of glad tidings.

Whether it appears as law or as licence, the ultimate fact about life according to the flesh is that it is a refusal of life according to the Spirit.

We shall argue for the theolgcal proposition that Christian ethics depends upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

We are driven to concentrate on the resrurection as our starting-point becuase it tells us of God's vindication of his creation, and so of our created life.

Man's life on earth is important to God; he has given it its order; it matters that it should conform to the order he has given it.

The order of things that God has made is there. It is objective, and mankind has a place within it.

In speaking of man's fallenness we point not only to his persistent rejection of the created order, but also to an inescapable confusion in his perceptions of it.

The Spirit forms and brings to expression the appropriate pattern of free response to objective reality.