It’s so good to see clear Christian articles in the central space of the SMH. Great work by the Dean, Phillip Jensen for taking the initiative to write the article and get it published.
And he does a great job of explaining and exposing the views of Joe Hockey.
from flickr by designldg
Which is why it’s such a shame that he seems to drop the ball over the line.
Just as Hockey’s pale, anaemic religion is clear for all to see, the piece seems to veer off along a ‘we’re right and you’re not’ path – highlighting the mutually exclusive teachings of Christianity and Islam, and the way that churches that take Scripture seriously are growing, along with some bare assertions about the heart of Christianity.
The problem is that, though those things are true of course, they don’t actually show why it matters that Hockey’s hokey moralism be opposed for the feeble thing it is.
And it matters precisely because religion-as-niceness has nothing to say in the face of real evil – other than bleet ‘be nicer’. This is part of the great apologetic significance of the cross and resurrection – evil is real (in a sense, although that’s another story), no pretending, and God-in-Christ overcomes evil with good by absorbing that evil in himself, and rises to new life in victory and glory. And so we Christians can name evil for what it is, entrust ourselves to the glory to come, while doing everything in our power now to walk in the footsteps of Christ in overcoming evil with good.
I wonder whether 2 things are going on here.
- First, the article feels like a modernist response to a post-modern position – a response which is strong on it own terms, but in the end is speaking a different language.
- Second, and related, Hockey’s piece is sheerly individualistic in nature – that is part of its weakness – and requires a response that highlights the cosmic nature of sin and evil – and the cross; but the response is also couched in individualistic terms.
Of course, it’s easy to snipe from the sidelines. It’s excellent that the issues are front and center in the public square.
Thanks for this, I saw Hockey’s article, but hadn’t got around to looking for the responses.
I think you should use a better sound byte than “by absorbing that evil in himself”. I’ve heard you express the same idea in ways that can’t be taken the wrong way.
Here’s another take on it.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gods-memo-for-kevin-and-joe-20091113-ier6.html
What do you think?
Matt
A win or a draw? Other than Dorothy McRae McMahon in today’s SMH letters I don’t hear many people giving the debate to Hockey. It was a clear win for Jensen, just as it was for Forsyth & Clarke & Dickson. (Don’t miss the hilarious Annabel Crabbe piece – that Matt links to above – she also sees the ways Hockey would fail Religion 101 in his pick and choose theology)
Seeing theologians and Christian apologists try to graciously engage with Hockey’s hokey moralism has been a bit like watching Ricky Ponting face a gifted amateur at a celebrity charity match. Hockey was just out of his depth. Yes, more could have been said and he could have been exposed in other ways.
But this was no draw or dropping the ball over the line. No need to see the replay on this one. A win to Jensen.
Mike,
I’m not sure you’ve quite caught my point.
Of course Phillip is right. What I’m saying is that I don’t think it’s enough simply to assert that something is not historic Biblical Christianity – that will only speak to people who already believe in historic Biblical Christianity.
The fact is that the kind of wet, semi-liberal mush that Hockey served up appeals to a huge swathe of middle-class SMH Sydneysiders. The issue is, from their point of view, was it a win or a draw?
What’s needed is not just the juxtaposing of 2 views, but the exposing of why it matters – what’s at stake. And part of the great glory of the gospel is that it faces evil head on, in a way that nice-ism never can.
Andrew,
Agreed that Phillip dropped the ball. I don’t think many of your typical soft left SMH readers would have read Phillip’s article much beyond the first few paragraphs. It just wasn’t the kind of compelling Christian response that it should have been.
Rather than coming at Hockey point-by-point (as well as wasting a whole lot of ink on political analysis), it would have been far better to tackle the guts of his worldview: that I can create for myself any kind of God I like (as long as his morality aligns with 21st century secular morality).
I think we had more than just the juxtaposing of two views. I think the internal inconsistencies of Hockeys position were exposed. More than that, they were shown not to be authentically Christian – which was the ground he was wanting to claim. Its important that ‘wet semi liberal mush’ isn’t perceived as Christian. You & I were never fooled – but Philip’s piece helped demonstrate that to others. (By the way – so did Annabel Crabbe’s piece)
I’d say Philip’s argument is not just true but necessary to reach middle-class SMH Sydneysiders. You rightly ask whether it is sufficient. Perhaps not – but I’d build on what he’s put rather than dismiss it as veering off into a modern and individualistic argument.
I think that there is no doubt that Hockey ‘lost’ this one.. but of course its just one round in very long boxing match between secular humanism and Biblical Christianity.
I take your point Andrew, but I think the real apologetic issue that Hockey raises in the popular mind is about the problem of ‘literalism’ = ‘fundamentalism’ = ‘religious violence’. Hockey links Christian ‘literalism’ to the oppression of gays, for example.
As a result you see a lot of secular responses to this conversation dismissing Christianity entirely because of the ‘ridiculous’ OT laws.
Con Campbell’s response in today’s Herald is an important starting point for a response.
Mike,
the issue of ‘authentically Christian’ is exactly what’s at stake. It’s just that asserting one against the other won’t persuade; what persuades is showing why it matters, which is the way that nice-sim has nothing to say about evil. But that’s not where Phillip’s article went.
Behind this is the issue – who are we speaking to, and how can we speak in such a way that what we say is compelling.
Jeremy,
actually, I’m nit sure that literalism vs fundamentalism really is the issue – it’s a question of method. It seems to me that the real battle will be fought subsequent to method, namely the substance; in particular, the ability to respond compellingly to the issues of the day. The challenge of evil is THE post-modern issue.
By this I don’t mean change the gospel (of course). I mean, find the aspect of the gospel which speaks more clearly.
Andrew I would offer a two-fold response.
1. practically speaking, the sort of in-depth apologetic you are suggesting is probably a bridge too far, for this kind of op-ed piece in a mainstream newspaper. ie to suggest that Hockey’s position allows ‘great evil’ to go unchallenged could easily sound a bit OTT given you’ve only got 600 words to present a nuanced position.
2. Your assumption is that the Hockey (and the public) are coming from a classic post-modernist/relativist stand point. I dont think they are.
Jeremy,
not so sure about the in-depthness of the comment. I find that people very quickly get a hold of the issue of evil, and long for something to be said about it.
I’m pretty sure that the culture is pretty relativist when it comes to religion!
No I don’t think so actually. Not post Sep 11.
Could someone tell me: was it actually published on paper, or only online?
Mike,
you bet – main article, opposite the letters.
ie The prime “Alan Ramsay” spot. It was also promoted on the front.
Strange, you wouldn’t have guessed that from reading online.