About Me

My photo
Robin Parry is the husband of but one wife (Carol) and the father of the two most beautiful girls in the universe (Hannah and Jessica). He also has a lovely cat called Monty (who has only three legs). Living in the city of Worcester, UK, he works as an Editor for Wipf and Stock — a US-based theological publisher. Robin was a Sixth Form College teacher for 11 years and has worked in publishing since 2001 (2001–2010 for Paternoster and 2010– for W&S).

Friday, 28 November 2008

Why do I hate this doll?



Here is an action doll I saw at Borders Bookstore in downtown Bwaston (=Boston).

I really hate this kind of thing. But why? I am sure that the doll tells us a lot about contemporary culture but what does the fact that I hate it tell me about me? After all, creating an action doll of someone is not considered a way of demeaning them - it signifies that the character has some status. It means that children might wish to play games in which the character is the hero, and so on. Children may indeed wish to emulate such a hero.

But I still hate it. ... [brief pause for introspection] ...

To my mind it does seem to trivialize Jesus. When I think of the Lord I am filled with gratitude, awe and wonder. I revere him. He is not cute. He is not tacky. He may have a sense of humour but he is not the object of humour. He is not a 'doll' that I can manipulate to my purposes. He cannot be domesticated but stands over against my attempts to 'tame him'.

Doll-Jesus looks tacky. He does what I want him to, to whom I want him to, when I want him to. I simply cannot think of Jesus in that way without a real feeling of horror.

Perhaps I need to get a life and loosen up but these feelings are deep seated and that's just where I am at.

I would be interested to know how others respond to the doll (and I will not slay anyone with righteous indignation if you are positive about it).

Wednesday, 19 November 2008

What would James make of Hebrews?

I have just been reading an excellent forthcoming book by Barry Joslin called Hebrews, Christ and the Law - top notch stuff. Anyway, it has compelled me to ask again a question that has bugged me for a while:

What would James think about the book of Hebrews?

Here's the puzzle. Hebrews appears to be very clear that Christ, a high priest in the order of Melchizadek, makes the Levitical priesthood redundant and his sacrifice replaces all the sacrifices of the Temple cult. The impression that one would get is that the coming of Christ brings about a change in the parts of the Law that apply to the cult and that participation in the Jerusalem cult would, in effect, be a denial that Christ had indeed initiated the new covenant.

But our evidence suggests that the earliest Jewish Christ-believers did participate in the Temple rituals including the sacrifices (I include the big names here like Peter, James and, yes even Paul). They did not seem to see any problem with maintaining that Christ's sacrifice was THE sacrifice and participating in the cult (which, one would imagine, they saw as being fulfilled in Christ).

So what would they make of Hebrews? And what would the author of Hebrews make of them? Or could it be that they are actually singing from the same hymn sheet and, if so, how does that work? Any thoughts? Did they think that their ongoing participation in the cult was a temporary and transitional phase? Hmmmmm. I guess that if Jesus has foretold the destruction of the Temple they may well have been aware that things would not go on this way forever but ... Hmmmmm. Help

Monday, 3 November 2008

Quote of the Day - Kallistos Ware

"The entire cosmos is one vast burning bush, permeated by the fire of the divine power and glory"

Kallistos Ware, Through the Creation to the Creator. London: Friends of the Cantre, 1997, p. 9.
Quoted in C. Southgate, The Groaning of Creation. Kentucky: WJKP, 2008, p. 113.

Sunday, 2 November 2008

Darwinism, Animal Suffering and Theology

I have nearly finished reading Christopher Southgate's wonderful new book The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution and the Problem of Evil (WJK, 2008). My thanks to the kind people at Alban Books who gave me a review copy.

The fundamental problem that the book seeks to address is the problem of the suffering and death of countless animals over the vast history of evolution. How could the God of Christian theism use such a brutal process to create? The book wisely takes contemporary scientific accounts of the history of earth and of life on earth as a given and seeks to do creative theology in the light of them (rather than taking a creation science route of challenging the science in order to defend a literal reading of Genesis).

Historically Christians might have said that all the bad things in the natural world - earthquakes, diseases, predation, suffering, animal death, etc. - are the result of the fall. Southgate argues that this 'solution' simply will not work. All these evils were around long before humans came on the scene. Blaming them on a postulated angelic fall is also a non-starter (the world, says Southgate, is the way it is as a result of divine fiat and demons cannot unleash chaos on creation that God cannot hold back).

Creation is clearly groaning (Rom 8) - and seems to have been doing so since before we came around - but can it be good (Gen 1) at the same time? That is Southgate's question.

I appreciated the fact that Southgate faces the problem of evolutionary suffering (no burying of the head in the sand here). I also appreciated the fact that he faces the issue of animal suffering as a theological problem (98% of the species that have existed on earth are now extinct!). Too often the issue of theology is handled only in terms of human life.

In a nutshell Southgate's approach is as follows

He maintains that the Darwinian system is indeed good and generates all of the values that we hold dear in living things.

He acknowledges that the Darwinian system also - and necessarily - generates a lot of pain, suffering and death.

He proposes that an evolving creation was the only way that God could generate the wonderful biospehere with all the values it contains. Consequently if God wanted to create a universe with all the goods that ours has he has to create one that has the costs.

But all this is a fat lot of consolation to the individual animal that is a 'victim' of this Darwinian world. Such an animal has value to God (Southgate develops an interesting, speculative, Trinitarian account of the value of individual animals) but is thwarted from living up to its potential.

Following, amongst others, John Wesley (!) Southgate holds that an adequate theodicy of animal suffering requires that God, in his goodness, grants some kind of eschatological redemption/recompense to the individual creatures that have been victims of evolution. I must confess that I found this the most interesting part of the book because, to my amazement, I found myself pretty convinced. I think that I have become an advocate of Pelican heaven! Not simply that there will be animals of certain types in the new creation (e.g., sheep) but that some of the specific animals that have existed in this creation (including dinosaurs, etc) will there there!!! I never thought I'd be persuaded of that!

Creation has a teleological goal and so the goodness of creation will be fully realized in new creation.

Southgate also explores the 'suffering' of God with his suffering creation (not simply humans) and see the cross as essential for the redemption of all creation and the resurrection as the inauguration of new creation (with implications for animals). Lots could be said here but you can read it for yourselves.

Southgate defends a high anthropology. God has a special concern for humans and humans have a special role in working with God for the redemption of creation. He suggests that part of God's calling upon humanity is to use our intelligence and technology for the good of creation (and this can include genetic manipulations). Fascinating stuff.

I have yet to read the final chapter but I see a call to eschatological vegetarianism. That'll be fun!

I have found this book to be exceptionally clear, refreshingly honest, biblical (in a non fundamentalist sense), theologically orthodox (honest!), thought provoking and very helpful.

Of course, I have questions and I am not persuaded by all of it. For instance, I have always been wary of the argument that says that the only way that God could achieve goal X is by route Y. I just don't know how we could know whether such claims are true or not. That said, I am open to the possibility that Southgate is right here but I am not prepared to accept it just yet. I also have always had a soft spot for classical theism and I tend to shy away from discussions of divine suffering and kenoticism unless they are qualified in careful ways (and I confess that I do often shudder at some of the kenotic discussions that those at the interface of theology and science sometimes engage in). Southgate handled both issues well but I need to ponder things some more. I think that my version would be a tad more classical.

But I can honestly say that this is the best book I have yet read on the issue of the suffering of the Darwinian system. I highly recommend it.