Reformed Romantics: Fallen Sexuality, Relationships, and Genesis 3

For those who might be panicking slightly, I am not intending to give a chapter-by-chapter reflection on marriage and relationships for the whole Bible! I will be moving on more quickly if you bear with me for a little longer. A quick recap:

The creation of humanity as relational beings by God is a reflection of Trinitarian character and action. With respect to character, human beings are "like" God in that they are able to relate in within a matrix of intertwining personal similarities and differences. Relationships extend outside of Self to include Other through love. In action, Male and Female are created to be partners in the work that God has given them to do which reflects godly priorities. In Genesis 1-2 this is the stewardship of the earth and the expansion of humanity. While this work remains ongoing, it is not necessary that this remain the primary task of humanity. In fact, the context suggests that the relationships between Male and Female will necessarily adapt to new tasks emanating from the priorities of God.

Total Depravity is a theological touchstone of the Reformed tradition. As John Calvin puts it:

...all parts of the soul were possessed by sin after Adam deserted the fountain of righteousness. For not only did a lower appetite seduce him, but unspeakable impiety occupied the very citadel of his mind, and pride penetrated to the depths of his heart. (Institutes II.i.9)

It is obvious that human sexuality and gender relations must be impacted by the rebellion. The question is how far this fallenness extends. Has marriage been "ruined" by the Sin of Eden?

There is no need to read into Genesis 3 any Freudian symbolism with respect to reptiles and fruit. Corruption of interpersonal relationships, with particular pertinence for the romantic variety, is evident from Gen 3:7. Romantic dysfunction is a result, not a cause, of the Fall. Yet it appears this is not an Epic Fail scenario. While in v.16 an increase in childbirth pain is given as a curse, the woman also receives an assurance from God in that the whole process of childbirth and marriage remains a blessing. The waw at v.16b should best be read as disjunctive, implying that despite the agony the woman will retain a desire for her husband and he will retain headship over her in a marriage covenant. The NRSV gives, I believe, the best translation ("...you shall bring forth children, yet your desire..."). The NIV ignores the particle, making it unclear as to how the second half of the verse should be interpreted. The HCSB is way off the mark by ignoring this first particle and translating the second waw into a disjunctive when it is obviously meant to be a connective (Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will dominate you."), thereby rendering v.16b as a curse when it meant to be an extension of grace. Two observations can be made regarding marriage and relationships from this chapter.

First, romantic relationships between Male and Female remain blessed by God and are obviously meant to be continued in some form even given the fallen state of humanity. God did not rip Male and Female asunder in his judgment - if he did, there is no reason why the Man and Woman left Eden to continue their lives together. In bearing children they still appear to be fulfilling the work that God had given them to do. When children are finally born it is said to be with the Lord's help (Gen 4:1). At this point we cannot say that Marriage Is Doomed by sin.

Second, despite the blessings that remain with the Man and Woman, we need to take the fallen nature of sexuality and relationships seriously. I have noticed a particularly American synonym for "virginity" cropping up in Australian circles - "purity". I think it is partially due to a certain Anglo-Saxon middle-class aversion to being blunt. "I have a Purity Problem" sounds a lot more palatable than "I can't stop watching gay porn on the internet." There are two problems with the "purity" word. First, the few instances of 'agneia in the NT do not specifically refer to sexual behaviour but to a consistent pattern of godly behaviour in all matters of public conduct. A thief has as much of a "Purity Problem" as an adulterer. Second, "purity" implies the a priori existence of something pure. However, the reality is that the Chaste Virgins of Victorian Romances share the same fallen sexuality as Bangkok Lady-boys. It is not surprising, therefore, that measures designed to "safeguard" the purity of Christian youth such as Purity Rings or Abstinence Only Sex-Ed should end up being abject failures in practice. This fallen sexuality will therefore continue to manifest itself in relationships, including marriages between mature Christian persons. There is no place or context in the current age where fallen sexuality cannot undermine true love and service of either God or Neighbour.

Reformed Romantics: Helpers and Genesis 2

Much ink has already been spilt in recent times with respect to the nature of the created genders in Genesis 2. Attention has been drawn, by Ash amongst others, to the fact that the Woman is to be a "helper" (Heb: 'uzer) to the Man in his God-given tasks. Woman is to play a central role in this work. She is not Man's companion, cook, whore, go-fer, or any other demeaning functionary. Man's task would be impossible to accomplish without Woman. Tracing the use of "helper" in the Old Testament we find it applied most often to God himself. God is the Helper of Israel, the one who delivered his people from Pharaoh (Exod 18:4), protected them from their enemies (Deut 33:7), and because of his protection is the one to be praised (Ps 28:7). The fact that Woman is called a "helper" is, according to the use of the label in Jewish culture, a term of the highest honour and respect.

Two questions must therefore be answered if this passage is to serve in ongoing edification for Christians.

First: What exactly is the task that Man needs a helper for? The clear answer is to have dominion over the whole of creation by the exercise of God-shaped rule. This is to be achieved through subduing all creatures of the earth and bearing of children to be a future generation of stewards. This is a task that will continue as long as the present age. In order for humanity to continue a new generation must always be born and animals that are not continually subdued will turn feral, which would not serve either their purpose or ours. We must say that in the plans of God the ongoing institution of marriage between Man and Woman must be considered Good.

Second: Does this Imperative Of Eden remain central to humanity's place in the purposes of God? If we marry and keep a few chickens in the backyard are we then "truly human"? When the biblical narrative is taken as a whole it is clear that, in terms of human relationships, God desires more from us than simply pairing up for procreation. In fact, I am tempted to ask whether this facet of our humanity, Good as it remains, shifts from Centre to Periphery in the purposes of humanity.

As the Bible unfolds more and more is commanded of humanity by God. Our task, in other words, shifts from one of Dominion to one of Redemption following the entry of Sin in Genesis 3. If this is the case, then it is only logical to assume that the way in which Woman continues to be the helper of Man must also change. It follows that, if procreation is not the main game, then patterns of godly relationship should shift away from the Marriage, though the Goodness of such relationships as they are proscribed by God remains.

Next time: How does the marriage relationship support the shifted task of humanity once Eden is in the rear view mirror?

Reformed Romantics: Trinitarian Love and Genesis 1

Thesis: If we want to have good teaching about the place of marriage/relationship in the Christian life we must start with serious reflection on the Persons of the Trinity.

At the heart of the Creator God there are relationships between three Persons bound together by a mutual indwelling of Love. These Persons do not exist as mere modes of an ultimately unknowable divine being, but this God has His being substantially in three Persons - Father, Son and Spirit. These Persons are not confused though they are united in the one Godhead. Christians worship a God for whom love and relationship are foundational rather than secondary activities. Each Person is in ordered relationship with the other two Persons. The creative and redemptive activity of God is an outworking of this reality.

Notice that in the New Testament two of the Persons are given the familial descriptions of Father and Son. A proper understanding of the funtion of divine analogy means that we cannot think of these titles as being projections of our limited experience of family relationships onto the divine, but that the created order reflects what is in accord with the divine nature. Human fathers and sons, therefore, are analogies of the higher reality, rather than the reverse. Since God has chosen to reveal Himself in familial terms we must approach any discussion of the question of family and relationships with the utmost seriousness. It is unfortunate that books on marriage are frequently filed under Christian Living rather than Theology in our bookstores. This may be an indication that the authors mistakenly feel that serious theology has no place in these texts. I would beg to differ.

The consequence is that when humanity is created in Genesis 1:26-27 they are deliberately brought in to a sphere of already existing relationships between God and Creation. They are not merely creatures, but are intended to share in the rule over Creation that God as Father, Son & Spirit already enjoys. They are more like their Creator than what He has created. They have the capacity to relate to what is Other. They are given blessings before they are given instructions (Gen 1: 28-30). The commissions to fill the earth and rule over all animals should be seen as expressions of the Divine-Human relationship rather than separate from it.

The primary purpose of created humanity was not to be either gardeners or procreators, but to enjoy and participate in the sphere of divine relationships. Male and Female were created not for each other but for God. In the tasks of each they celebrate the other-person centred love that they were meant to enjoy with God.

Reformed Romantics: a few thoughts

I have now reached the age where wedding invitations have slowed to a trickle. This is a great comfort to me. I am now spared from a succession of steamy afternoons in non-airconditioned sandstone monstrosities while a pair of dear friends plight their eternal troth, not to mention the neverending argument with She Who Must Be Obeyed as to whether it is important to "like" the purchased wedding present. [I am of the opinion that the first item that can be located on the register that is within budget is the ideal present. I don't care what it looks like or what it does - if the Happy Couple put it on there then they will be overjoyed to receive it. Let all the Men say 'Aye'!] My present occupation also means that I am now more likely to be conducting a wedding service than having to stay awake through one. The demographics of my faith community peers (mostly in their early 30s) means that most of them have paired up now anyway.

Except for those who haven't.

I am friends with a number of single Christian men and women whose youth (like mine) is slowly fading. They are, almost without exception, godly and kind people. For some their singleness (note: I hate that word but have yet to come up with a better one) is a peripheral fact of life. For others it is a crushing burden that impairs their natural Christian joy. These people are not selfish or immature or "unwilling to settle". The door to romance has simple not been opened to them up to this point.

The advice given out to the unmarried in our Christian circles is often very unhelpful, and I believe this stems from a lack of sufficiently theological reflection on the place of marriage. Several years ago I sat in a Men's Hour led by a pastor whom I greatly respect. His advice to the young men was that they had no excuse not to get married as there were more women than men numerically in the church, so if they didn't find a husband there then they would be tempted to seek an unbeliever who would most likely lead them away from faith. The implication of this, of course, was that if any single women fell away under this shepherd's leadership then it wasn't really his fault but was instead the fault of the young men for not "snapping her up quick enough". I had thought that this sort of advice was no longer given, until I heard it being basically repeated by another pastor I greatly respect several weeks ago.

Over the last few years I have been reflecting that perhaps some of the pain being felt by single Christians today is a result of a dysfunction in our overall view of what Christian marriage could and should be. In my final year at Moore College I did a theology paper on Marriage & Children in response to the rise of the Quiverfull and Childfree Christianity movements. As I did my research I came to the conclusion that much of the "Christian" view on marriage is not much more than natural theology blended with Anglo-middle-class morality. Even in solidly evangelical works such as those by Christopher Ash the theological focus is firmly on Genesis 1-3. Almost nothing is said about the deeply familial language of trinitarian relationships, not to mention the radical re-evaluation of our social patterns that the Cross of Christ must bring. In light of this, it is not surprising that the messages of encouragement in the chapters on Singleness in many books rings resoundingly hollow.

I believe that we need to start again. We need to take a fresh look at how the Gospel should shape our patterns of love, marriage, family, and children so that the Christian pattern of living is transformative rather than conformative. It will mean rethinking how we order our public gatherings, how we structure our youth and children's ministries to be informed by these principles. It will mean repenting of hopes that were never meant to be and of finding joy where we never thought possible for it to be found.

I'm planning on writing these posts as I go. While I have done some work on this area in the past, there is a lot which I have not yet thought about. I'm hoping that as I put some of my ideas out there that many of my readers (whether married or single) may challenge me on my exegesis and interpretation.

Album Review: "Unity" by Garage Hymnal

[Disclaimer: The author is married to a backing singer on Garage Hymnal’s debut album, Take My Life.]

The rise of Garage Hymnal as a major contributor to the local worship music scene has been nothing short of impressive. Their 2006 debut, Take My Life, was a slightly patchy affair, born out of the environment of a loose collaboration of musicians bound by a healthy dose of raw talent and a delight in the Word of God. Nevertheless, it boasted several strong moments (the title track and “Rejoice” in particular) that signalled that these were a young bunch to keep an eye on. By the time of their self-titled release of 2009 the group had coalesced into a much tighter unit, with the focus on the honeyed lead vocals of Alana Rodgers and Stephanie Vanden Hengel. Sonically the group offered delightful tunes that betrayed the influences of modern pop rock (e.g. Coldplay, Evermore, Something For Kate) and quirky indie (e.g. Architecture In Helsinki).

However, by this stage it was clear that they band had grown into a different kind of “worship band”. While spins on Christian Radio increased, precious few of the band’s songs made it into widespread congregational use (with the possible exceptions of their home churches). Is it possible that Garage Hymnal were making a genre switch from Worship Music to Christian Pop?

Perhaps in an attempt to ‘get back to their roots’, Garage Hymnal elected to make Album #4, Unity, a live album. Not only that, but it was to be recorded at St Stephen’s Anglican Church, a traditional edifice amid the hip grunginess of Newtown. Their website says that Unity...

“...offers twelve new songs for churches to sing together. Centred around the theme of our life together as a church, this album is a passionate prayer for unity...”

It is also a strong bid for mainstream acceptance of their worship vision.

While live worship albums have on the increase in recent years, following on the success of the Hillsong and Sovereign Grace teams, it is worth remembering that such recordings have been popular ever since the days of Thomas A. Dorsey. Yet bringing a set of new songs in front of a live audience and counting on their enthusiastic support is an act of courage. Judging by the applause, Garage Hymnal seemed to have had no trouble winning over their crowd on this occasion.

In keeping with its title, the lyrics on Unity abound with plural pronouns. The songs remind the listener that individual salvation has both contemporary and eternal communal applications. Worship is not restricted to my heart or voice, but only when the voices of the elect are joined together is Christ truly honoured. We live together, we worship together, we expect together...

Unity grounds part of its message in an homage to Christian worship of past generations. The adaption of Charles Wesley’s lyrics in “Psalm 140” isn’t revolutionary, but the theological focus on the uplifting of Christian affections through the work of Christ is most welcome (particularly following the recent visit of John Piper). “We Praise You” on the other hand taps into a more ancient stream through its reworking of the Te Deum, revealing a maturity and knowledge of worship history that is encouraging. Unfortunately, “Fairest Lord Jesus” (based on a 19th Century translation of lyrics from German Jesuits) has roots more in Romanticism than Scripture, and the winsome vocals make the song more than a little twee.

The original songs on offer follow a theme of faithful perseverance while awaiting eschatological redemption. “Unity” takes its cue from Jn 17:11 in applying Trinitarian relationships to the proper expression of Christian unity. “Stand Firm” reminds of the necessity of waiting together for the return of Christ in faith. The fact that there is no Penal Substitution song does not mean that the cross is absent, but rather the death and resurrection of Jesus are the unspoken foundation of present hope.

Musically, this album aims for high standards and unquestionably delivers. Arrangements are tight, with the piano and guitar interplay of Andy Judd and Greg Cooper tastefully done. Perhaps the greatest strength of the album is that the lyrics consistently scan well and are emotionally engaging. For example, the opening verse of “Sunday Came”:

Sunday came, darkness hides in shame
Desert plains, greet the morning sun
Mourn no more, feel the rising joy
Hearts revived, dust returns to life

Pure poetry!

So, if all that is true, why am I less than enthusiastic about this album?

First, there are sonic problems. Producer David Nicholas has an impressive pedigree, but the high ceilings of the recording location have produced a cavernous echo that results in a sonic wash which obscures many delicate musical moments (particularly in the quiet passages). While echo worked for Pink Floyd in Pompeii it doesn’t work so well for Garage Hymnal in Newtown. Another issue (common to live worship albums) is that the audience applause often intrudes on the beginning of songs, making it awkward for under-resourced churches who may rely on recorded music to lead their congregations.

But, more importantly, I am unconvinced that Unity has achieved its stated goal. Garage Hymnal wanted to make a Contemporary Worship album; what they made was another Christian Pop album.

A music co-ordinator who is keen to find appropriate material to introduce to their congregation will find the pickings on Unity sadly slim. Melodies are not well developed and are unnecessarily syncopated. The result is that those songs which are potentially singable would require too much work by a time-poor worship leader to rearrange with no guarantees that a congregation would pick up the tunes easily. The songs are undeniably catchy, but more “sing along in the car” than “worship together in church”. This is a shame, as Garage Hymnal is better than a Sydney Anglican version of Cold Chisel.

Garage Hymnal’s track record suggests that they have the potential to make a great contemporary worship album. Sadly, Unity ain’t it. As it is, this is still a fine collection of tunes that would be perfect for your next carpool up to Katoomba.

Hebrews 10:25 and Confidence In Christ

If you had to pick the Top Christian Guilt Trip Verse, I reckon Hebrews 10:25 would at least make the short list. Beloved of pastors and Bible Study Leaders everywhere, this verse is likely to appear in any conversation that begins with the words, "Soooo...where were you last Sunday?"

Any absence from regular fellowship can be elegantly dealt with by appealing to this remarkable proof-text. The wayward sheep will be rebuked by the plain words of Scripture and will (hopefully) return to an acceptable attendance pattern.

But to what exact situation does Hebrews 10:25 refer? What is the cessation in meeting that the writer is warning his readers against? Can this verse be used as a catch-all for the spiritually slack?

In his very thorough commentary Peter O'Brien admits that the exact circumstances of those who have ceased fellowship are not clear, though the fact that the writer has raised the "falling away" issue several times previously (and will do so again later) shows that apostasy was likely to have been a pressing concern for the Jewish-Christian receivers of the letter. O'Brien suggests factors such as persecution, indifference or apathy can be broadly implied from the text. While these issues probably played a role in halting regular meeting, I am of the opinion that the most important issue for these apostates was a lack of Confidence In Christ.

The stress on Jesus as the New and Better High Priest in Hebrews is hard to ignore. In fact, once the writer has reminded the Jewish Christians of the basics of belief, chapters 5-10 are devoted almost exclusively to this issue. A viable scenario is that a lack of a cultic system or priesthood in this new Christian movement would have given those believers of a Jewish background a certain amount of unease. For centuries the descendants of Abraham had relied on a Levitical priesthood to intercede with God on their behalf. The ceremonies and duties were strict - a failure to follow them correctly would have resulted in a break in fellowship with God. Now these Christians seem to have done away with all of the ritual rigmarole - no priests, no sacrifices, no incense, no ritual washings. Was God going to accept this as proper worship? Was the holiness of the Creator being denied? Maybe it would be better if we left these Christians to their hymns and prayers and brought a nice lamb to the Temple Priest to make sure God is going to accept us...

As I have been leading my weekly Bible studies on Hebrews, it occurs to me that the advocation of Jesus as the new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek appears to have been for the sake of restoring confidence to those Christians who were struggling with the lack of cultic practices. It was hard to believe, given the strict nature of the Mosaic regulations, that God could be happy with simply Faith Alone. There would have been many who were Just Not Sure, and so they needed reassurance.

What does this have to do with the use of 10:25 in our age? Well, I believe that this verse is not the Rebuke To The Self-Indulgent that it so often becomes. Instead it is the reassurance to those whose confidence in Christ is wavering, for those who feel burdened with sin, and those who feel that God does not hear their prayers.

I have been challenged in the last few days by Scripture to be very careful as to how I use Hebrews 10:25 pastorally from now on. Don't get me wrong - if someone isn't at church for no better reason than they went to see the Tigers lose again then they should definitely receive a boot in the backside. I'll just use other verses of Scripture to do it and instead save Hebrews 10:25 for the person who needs their confidence in Christ reaffirmed.

Tools and Carbon Taxes

When I comes to climate change I believe that I am neither an alarmist nor a skeptic.

Having done a bit of science at university level, I am aware that there is precious little about scientific knowledge that could be deemed Uncontested. Absolute scientific proof can usually only be determined in Controlled Lab Conditions, something that the global atmosphere distinctly lacks. Scientific tests can give at best imperfect results when attempting to prove abstract theories in Real Life. Moreover, long range climate predictions given by scientists who have only the vaguest idea as to whether it will rain next Tuesday need to be taken with a large shaker of salt.

On the other hand, it is only common sense that an increasing global population that consumes a growing percentage of natural resources and is only moderately interested in cleaning up after itself may have some negative impact on future generations. It would be nice, if not polite, to at least make some attempt at considering consequences and acting appropriately.

It seems as if the weight of Conventional Wisdom in our antipodean nation has swung towards the idea of a Carbon Tax as THE way to curb carbon emissions into the future. Levels of carbon emissions over a certain amount by the Big Polluters will incur a government levy under this scheme, the idea being that companies want to keep their running costs low and so will avoid behavior that lands them with a large Pay Now Or Else bill from Ms Gillard. If there is to be a solution to environmental Armageddon then it must come by and through the Market, the final arbitrator of all that is Good and Right in our modern times. Economic experts are almost unanimous, we are told, in declaring that this will be the most Cost Effective way of lowering greenhouse pollution in our nation.

So why am I uncomfortable about all this?

The story starts in my granddad's shed. Pa spent most of his retirement years making furniture out of wood (one of his chairs has a special place in my office). The beauty of his handiwork was partially achieved through personal skill, but just as important was the use of the right tool for the right job. Pa impressed this upon me from an early age, and the sheer number of tools in his workshop was a testimony to his belief in this principle. Using, for example, a spanner to knock in a nail would not only produce a dodgy job but would also damage the tool so that it could not do the job that it was made to do.

My point is this: trusting in Economics to solve a Social Problem is a case of using the wrong tool for the job at hand.

The way that economists and politicians (not only from the Left) talk you would be forgiven for mistaking the Market and Society for the same thing. This is a bleed from early 20th Century socialists, who had no problem in reducing individuals to the status of economic units. It is assumed that what is good for the Market must, by definition, be good for Society. If society needs a little tweak of its direction, then it is only natural that a push of the economic tiller will adjust our social direction.

I didn't do much study in economics in high school or any at all at university, but there is one thing that appears blatantly clear: the only function that the Market has in this world is Making Money.

Markets are under no obligation to fix the environment. Share prices don't care if you bought a hybrid car or a 4WD. Balance sheets aren't interested in whether the polar ice caps are melting. Corporate boards do not serve secondary agendas, only the bottom line. Implying that a federal tax on an aspect of business production will necessarily deliver the social change desired is a Hit And Hope scenario of major proportions. It's using the wrong tool for the job. In fact, it's worse than that, as it is using the tool most likely to deliver the opposite outcome from the one intended.

A carbon tax places the responsibility for environmental solutions in the hands of those that even the politicians admit are principally responsible for the present situation. It requires corporations to be proactive in cutting emissions rather than simply passing on associated costs and eventually to trade carbon credits as a viable commodity (one that has had a distinctly rocky track record where it has been tried so far). The only way this ends is with those already with Market Power growing stronger while the government rakes in more money from the pockets of working Australians while crowing about The National Interest. Local innovation and small business will be crushed under the weight of higher prices across the board. Those who have swallowed the socialist view of Market=State, whether they currently sit on the Left or Right, are equally responsible.

Surely the more prudent approach should be to take the power away from the corporate giants who have no vested interest in change and instead place it where it will achieve lasting results: community solutions arising from local innovation and small business. Economic regions must be given the power to decide what is in the best interest of those living within them rather than the interests of international corporations or foreign investors. Development grants for clean energy research and implementation need to be front and centre. Planning for energy generation needs to be taken out of central administration and given to those who know their areas best - wind, solar, geothermal or nuclear solutions could be possible while making long-term investments in regional education, thereby cutting reliance on Chinese or American conglomerates.

We need to think Smaller not Bigger. The disadvantages to this way of doing things are obvious: it will cost more and take longer. This is true. But didn't our parents always tell us that if something was worth doing it was worth doing right the first time? There is a reason that old growth forest logging has endured so long - it's Cost Effective! It's easier and cheaper to chop down an old tree than plant a new one and wait for it to grow. This is where Market Forces always let us down.

Those on the Left love centralized solutions because it feeds their need for total social control and those on the Right can be happy to go along with it if it makes their rich mates happy in the meantime. But the time has passed for self-interest. Along with looming environmental challenges, Australia faces a growing concern for its economic independence, with the manufacturing sector battered at every turn and growing rates of youth unemployment.

The answer for our environment lies in communities taking ownership of how they are impacting their environment and harnessing the know-how of those who have a vested interest in success. The solution is in our youth, who demonstrate again and again that they care about the future of their planet and are champing at the bit for an opportunity to make a difference. The solution is in local business and community empowerment, together a mighty combination that could move mountains if given enough room to show what they could do.

This is why I hope our leaders vote No on a Carbon Tax. Not only is it the wrong tool for the job, it would destroy the only tools we have that could do the job properly.