Reflections of a Broken Man

In a counterpoint to my last post, I’ve been really hit by how amazing God has been to me, and it’s only taken a year to see it. Singleness has its many challenges, including loneliness, frustration and many other things. I may not have a wife, girlfriend, whatever, or even any prospects for such. However, I have realised that I have a really really awesome close-knit group of friends here at the college residences. It wasn’t until after exams, however, that I realised this.

Yesterday, I celebrated the post-exam period with a brunch at on of the lecturers places, with the other second year resos. Here… what an amazing, awesome, godly group of people. It had a tinge of the bittersweet – some were leaving – yet, it was at that point, I realised that I had the single-man’s equivalent of a wife: the community of “good men” (and I mean that in the non-gender-specific sense). One of my mentors had taught me: “Ministry is a wonderful privilege. Look for good men to work with”. I found that yesterday. It had been in front of me for two years, but as you know, I’m slow on the uptake. Life may be difficult, my inner struggles tormenting. But I have found great joy in the people that God has given me as family.

And it is this family that I realise needs to be solidified now, lest it be dispersed post-college. The fact that I have only a few friends from school days means that I need to take seriously those who are dear to me now. For it is this group who are not only peers, but colleagues, fellow workers in God’s field. It’s something that I never ever want to lose.

“Look for good men to work with”

EBHG

**currently listening to random playlist… Muse is currently on… contemplating getting their latest after falling in love Absolution and Black Holes and Revelations**

Sorry, but by the S-word, I mean that three letter word that will flag everyone’s Covenant Eyes when they open up this page.

I preached on the topic from Proverbs 5 this past Sunday (here). It went for 40min – the longest sermon I’ve ever preached. My minister said it was the best he’s heard from me, but my youth group fell asleep…

Even now, two days after preaching it, I still feel uneasy. In the month leading up to it, the topic did my head in. I felt my purity of thought severely challenged, and admit that I failed on numerous occasions. Its the age-old problem of being immersed in a topic, and thus you noticed it more often. Even now, I feel somewhat a level of hypocrisy, knowing that despite all the things I had talked about, all the advice and wisdom from those around me, its a very different story when trying to put it into practice.

The problem is that it’s not with physical sexual purity, but with thought life. It’s not even fantasy or lust, but with the mind games that twist the normal everyday experiences into things that they are not. Its the recurring thoughts about innocent conversations which your mind reinterprets as something more. Its the chats, the coffees, the relationships that are good and wholesome as they are, that your mind twists and warps.

“Wouldn’t she be a good wife?”
“She’s really good looking…”
“Do you think she’s single?”
“She likes you… why else would she be chatting for so long with you?”
“You know… it could work between you two… just ask her…”

It is all well and good to “make a covenant with my eyes” (c.f. Job 31:1), but can I do the same with my own thoughts? I may not see my sisters as potentials, but my mind tries to think they are. What do you do when your thoughts betray you? **

And even though I scream at myself, and I force those thoughts away, they continue to return. It’s insistent, a constant banging, thumping, pounding, like a nail being hammered into a really hard piece of wood.

I’m currently training to be a pastor to God’s people. Whether or not I find myself in full time ministry, due to this training, I’ll be in a position of teaching and pastoring and shepherding and ministering to God’s people. If I am convicted and stung by God’s word every time that I teach a topic as I have for this one… I know that I am vindicated in God’s sight. I know that Jesus has washed me clean. I know my Redeemer lives, and that in the end, he will stand upon the earth, and in my flesh, I will see, I and not another! I know this, yet I weary of this struggle. And even if I should be blessed by a woman whom I do not deserve, even then, the problem will not go away. For the problem is not my singleness, it is my concupiscence.

I write, as always,
EBHG

**Yes I know… sounds very much like Yoda… but he makes a poignant point…

*Currently listening to Map of the Problematique – Muse*

It’s been close to a month since my last post, and even longer since my last in this series. Having had a conversation on state sovereignty with respect to God’s sovereignty (another possible post), I was reminded that I haven’t been here in a while. Unfortunately, life’s a little chaotic at the moment, so I don’t know how regular I’ll be until end of November…

My argument has been so far that just war theory is a tragic necessity, tragic as it permits in certain circumstances the killing of humans, necessary in that we live in a sinful world, and that killing of humans is in defence of others. I argue that it is a moral framework for the ethical practice of war, that it holds the necessary middle ground between political realism (realpolitik) and pacifism, and that it must remain a moral theory rather than a legal one. Now, I want to describe the three components of just war theory, namely jus ad bellum (justice in going to war), jus in bello (justice in fighting war), and jus post bellum (justice in the post-war aftermath).

Jus ad bellum – The decision to make war.

The decision to make war is the first step in the “event” of war: how a war begins will often affect how it is conducted and how it ends. Jus ad bellum is one of the most recognisable aspects of just war theory, especially because of its prominence in various international regimes that regulate conflict. The term jus ad bellum is attributed to Augustine who, writing in an era where the Christian standpoint was pacifist, realised that there had to be a serious discussion on the use of force in the context of increasing Christian participation in the Roman Empire, especially in its army. Jus ad bellum is a set of exceptions that differentiate ‘just war’ from the ‘crime of war’, or what Walzer calls “aggression” (p. 51). Some considerations involved in jus ad bellum, like ‘legitimate authority’ and ‘right intention’, have their origins in antiquity, while others like ‘reasonable prospects for success’ are more recent.

Jus ad bellum has a twofold approach: a retrospective and a prospective viewpoint. Of the seven criteria that make up jus ad bellum, it is interesting to note that only two of these criteria (just cause and right authority) are retrospective, while the majority of the criteria are prospective. This is important, as it means that there is a strong connection between jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and that while these principles are analytically distinct, in practice they will overlap. Furthermore, jus ad bellum ensures that leaders have seriously thought through the decision, not just retrospectively, (whether the war is just because just cause and right authority have been satisfied), but have considered and planned prospectively: essentially forcing decision makers to consider jus in bello and jus post bellum before those principles actually come into effect.

The retrospective viewpoint analyses the lead up to the conflict. It has two parts: the first asks, “Is the cause just, and is it great enough to justify going to war over it?” The question of just cause looks at the reason for war, the injustice or wrong done, and is usually limited to self-defence, defence of others, restoration of peace, defence of rights or the punishment of wrongdoing (Bellamy: p. 122). Just cause also relates to the magnitude of the ‘wrong’ and whether the resort to war is an appropriate response to that ‘wrong’. This ties closely to ‘proportionality of ends’, discussed below. The second part of the retrospective viewpoint is the question of right authority. Given that the cause is just, and war is the correct response, right authority asks whether the actor is the appropriate one to pursue justice and fight the war. Traditionally, this actor is only one who has no judicial superior, yet of late, more legitimacy has been given to non-state and sub-state actors.

A majority of the jus ad bellum criteria are prospective, i.e., they look at the plans for the execution of the war, and the re-establishment of peace: implying that those who choose war as a means for justice must consider all aspects of the war (its inception, prosecution, and conclusion) before making the initial step. Considerations like ‘last resort’ and ‘proper declaration’ remain similar in both conventional and asymmetric scenarios, and ‘right intention’ is dependent on the definition of war (war as justice). It is ‘proportionality of ends’ and ‘reasonable prospects for success’ that provide the most interesting analysis for asymmetric warfare. Proportionality is tied to just cause, as the magnitude of the cause will determine whether war as a response is proportional. If in an asymmetric scenario civilian casualties are higher, then the cause for war must be greater that in a conventional scenario for it to remain proportional. Reasonable prospects demands that even if a cause be just, and war be a proportional response, a war can still be unjust if it is waged knowing that it cannot be won. It has two parts, looking at the chance of success, as well as the cost of success (Bellamy: p. 123).

EBHG

**Currently listening to Rust (The Short Story of Mary Agnosia) – Anchor & Braille… hooray! I finally have the album! Not bad, but definitely not Anberlin… **

I recently did an essay, answering the question “What theological consequences flow from a denial of an historical fall?” It was a really poor essay, finished in three days. But I did learn a little, despite not delving as deeply as a should have. That, is my disclaimer to this post.

My brother and friend, duck5, writes:

as you would know, i’ve just finished an essay on the consequences of denying an historical fall (here, here, and here). the position i finished at was that the idea of “the fall” is not what Genesis 3, nor the rest of the testimony of the bible, is trying to get across.

rather, as Karl Barth agreed with me, “the first man was immediately the first sinner.” (CD IV.1 §508)

so as we discussed the idea of the fall, we didn’t use the terminology of “fall”, but analysed what the story said. and it said that sin consists of disobedience, selfishness, disrespect, but primarily trusting Satan’s lies. we agreed that none of us would have been different, and that this grasping against God is something we all continue.

While I acknowledge that duck5 has researched this more and thought much harder and longer than I, I do have a problem with this conception, particularly Barth’s quote.

Our doctrine of humanity is at stake. Man was created good. Man was created in God’s image, and created perfectly. As such, man cannot be immediately the first sinner. It is the word immediately that I find fault with. I can say the first man was the first sinner, but not was immediately the first sinner. There must have been a moment or time of perfection, of perfect relationship with God without sin, otherwise we must argue that man was created inherently imperfect. The consequences of this conclusion are twofold. First, what is Jesus saving us from? If man is inherently sinful, then Jesus, in order to save us, must remove part of our humanity. We must become less than human to be saved. Second, was Jesus therefore fully human? For if man is inherently sinful, then Jesus must be in part sinful for him to be human. This is a problem.

However, to say that there was a Fall, i.e. to say that man was perfect, and that he fell out of relationship with God, fell from perfection into corruption, we overcome these conclusions by arguing that Jesus is saving us from our fallen and corrupted nature. We also say that Jesus’ humanity is a pre-fall humanity, one fully human, but uncorrupted by sin’s effects.

Would love your response duck5.

EBHG

**currently listening to a random playlist while avoiding doing my doctrine essay… perhaps I can just borrow duck5’s blogposts…**

Wednesday and Thursday, I attended the Calvin@500 conference. For a proper review of the conference, Dr. Mark Thompson, one of the speakers has provided a fantastic overview. Unfortunately, I couldn’t get my comment on his blog to work, so I’ll post it here along with my own reflections.

The first thing to notice is that it was unlike any other conference I’ve been to. Here, academics presented topical papers (the topic being the life and work of John Calvin, and his continuing importance and relevance today), and were grilled by the audience during question time (Is this normal for conferences? Dr. Thompson seemed to cop the worst of it, but he wasn’t alone in the grilling…). There was an audio interview providing a bio of Calvin, a variety of papers, and a few interviews and panels. Unfortunately, I probably failed to appreciate much of what was said, simply due to the fact that it was a little above my level, but there were many gems that I managed to pick up while there.

Overall, I think there were a few things that stood out. First was an appreciation, and possibly even excitement, about making a better effort to read his writings. I haven’t yet finished my set readings for last summer, (which, actually, was the topic of the last paper presented on wed night), but many of the talks did fill me with a fresh appreciation for, and the desire to take seriously, Calvin’s works. Second, I think, was Calvin as a model for ministry. Something that has really struck me of late has been my lack of pastoral concern, or rather, to see the importance of pastoral ministry. Calvin was not an academic in the sense of being in an ivory tower. His insight and perception stems from knowing and caring for his congregation as people, not subjects of study. He was intensely pastoral. Third, there was a genuine presence of God in Calvin’s work and writings. By this, I do not mean that Calvin is the word of God etc… But as many speakers acknowledged, Calvin was so intensely focussed on knowing God better and conveying this to his readers/hearers that Calvin’s conversations with God would come through his work. In some sense, God is mediated to us through Calvin’s work. This is something that should affect us as pastor/teachers, in that when we preach the word, the congregation should be confronted with God’s words as the preacher preaches from God’s Word. There is an immediacy and presence which stems from Calvin’s bible-centered work.

There were some specific points that I really appreciated. The two talks on thursday morning from Oliver Crisp and Peter Adam were fantastic. Dr. Crisp spoke on petitionary prayer in Calvin’s thought. I think I really appreciated the clarity and simplicity of Dr. Crisp’s presentation. Calvin’s description of God’s sovereignty is quite strong, leading many to believe that he was overly deterministic. Where then is the place of prayer, particularly petitionary prayer (asking for stuff) in Calvin’s view? Dr. Crisp showed how Calvin believes that prayer plays a very important part in God’s overall providence, allowing us to participate in His work by ordaining not only the end (answered prayer) but also the means (my prayer). The other paper that really stood out was Dr. Adam, who spoke on Calvin and preaching. There were 5 core ideas that Dr. Adam mentioned: Preachers need to (a) Engage with congregation (b) Engage with God (c) Engage with the Bible (d) Engage with Theology and (e) Engage with training. A very challenging, yet at the same time edifying, paper.

Further reflections to come…

EBHG

*currently in a break between lectures… will post detail tonight or tomorrow…**

During the 16th-18th centuries, there was a transition from Christian/moral just war theory to legalistic just war theory. This still exists today. Should just war theory remain legalistic?

Moralism:
It is my belief that Just War Theory is and should remain a moral theory, rather than a legal one. In other words, it deals with right and wrong, rather than legal or illegal actions.

The rise of legalism in just war theory came from the abuse by sovereigns of the tradition, turning it into an excuse for war (“holy war”), rather than a restriction on it. Arguably, legalism is now guilty of that same charge. The codification of just war theory into international law, placing it in the paper world of positive international lawyers, is producing the same problems, allowing sovereigns to justify their wars – no longer in terms of “holy war,” but rather as legal war. Just war theory has become a series of checkboxes of laws that politicians tick to justify their positions. This poses some serious issues, as it overlooks the original focus of just war theory, namely, the limitation of war and a reduction of the individual suffering caused by it.

There are three points that flow from this assertion. First, the individual has always been, and should remain, the primary focus of JWT. From a political theory standpoint, the state is founded upon the individual, and a state’s rights and responsibilities are based on those of the individual. Thus, a violation of those rights at a state level corresponds to a violation of rights at the individual level. As Walzer writes, aggression is the name we give to the crime of war, and it is a crime because of the violation of the rights at an individual level. War forces citizens to give up their freedom and welfare for a cause, be it just or not. Importantly, it forces one’s adversary to do the same to their citizens. JWT is a theory that addresses the problem of human suffering caused by war, and it is for this reason that it aims to limit and restrict it.

Secondly, JWT is an incredibly practical framework. The codification of JWT into international law means that this element is often neglected. One need only look at the criteria of jus ad bellum, let alone jus in bello, to see the practicality of the framework. “Legitimate authority” ensures that war is only fought or declared by those with the appropriate power to do so, “reasonable prospects for success” and “last resort” are essentially cost/benefit analyses, and “proportionality” and “discrimination” all have prudential considerations.

Finally, legalism deals with what Walzer terms the “superstructure.” It fails to deal with the ethical substructure that underpins it, and as such, fails to account for how laws were formulated, and why they are considered legitimate. International law is seen to be the combination of what Grotius calls “natural law” (human reason applied to understanding the will of God: what is “just”) and “human law” (the customs, traditions, and agreements made by society for “the enjoyment of rights and the common interest”: what is legal). Both natural and human law require some ethical substructure to provide a reason for why they are accepted as law. The concept of “sovereignty” is a perfect example, being a fundamental term in international law. While many accept that sovereignty is about responsibility, this acceptance is mainly limited to the Western world, and is disputed by developing nations. The reason this is disputed is because of the implications for individual political freedom. Developing nations believe the concept of sovereignty as responsibility could be used as an excuse for other countries to interfere in their domain, whereas many in the West believe that if a state is incapable of carrying out its duties in providing for the welfare of its citizens, then it no longer retains that right, and others need to make that provision. It is interesting that the catalyst for this development came about from the moral outrage caused by the suffering of people in Rwanda, Somalia, and Kosovo.

EBHG

**Currently listening to Rust (The Short Story of Mary Agnosia) – anchor&braille on purevolume… still haven’t forked out for the album yet… can only get it from the US **

2. Alternatives within Just War theory

Legalism:
During the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries, approaches to Just War Theory changed. Previous to the Enlightenment, just war theory had been within the domain of Christian thought. With Jesus Christ as the common moral imperator between “Christian” nations, just war theory had a common moral vocabulary and a common moral framework, and most importantly, a common moral authority within which to work. However, abuses of the system, namely the Crusades, and the holy wars of the Reformation period led to disenfranchisement with this “Christian” conception of just war theory. Just war became an excuse for war, rather than a restriction of it. Thus, Jesus’ role as the common moral authority was disputed, and legalism, a sub-tradition emerging from canon law, became the common authority underpinning just war theory.

In short, just war theory became a legal theory, rather than a moral theory.

This is a trend that has persisted through to today. The three main tenets of just war theory, jus ad bellum (justice in going to war), jus in bello (justice in fighting a war), and jus post bellum (justice in post-war settlement) now find themselves codified in international laws. Jus ad bellum has been codified into the UN Charter, with Chapter 7 making the provisions for legitimate use of war. Jus in bello finds itself in Geneva Conventions (particularly Conventions IV and VI). And just post bellum is represented in the International Criminal Court.

EBHG

**This post is based partially on an article written for the Sydney Globalist.

As I have been distracted, I haven’t written anything recently…

However, don’t despair! Patrick has volunteered to post his own reflections!

Welcome Pat!

EBHG

**Currently listening to: Breaking – Anberlin… concert was awesome on Friday night, but a bit loud… first four songs were indistinguishable :S **

I work in a church in the south west. It is in a housing commission area, which means that the people who leave around the area are often there for a reason. Some of them are there because they can’t work, and the reasons for not working sometimes involve disabilities, mental or physical. Let me make it quite clear that I am not saying that everyone who lives in housing commission is disabled, nor do I want to even hint that I am giving that impression. However, the few people who come to our church from the area sometimes have interesting peculiarities.

I spoke today with a man who suffers distressingly from post-traumatic stress and depression (we had a long conversation about the UFO that he saw). Another regular has a very quirky nature that many people find difficult to get along with, though whether that’s just his personality or something else I’m not sure. These two gentlemen in particular have very saddening and lonely lives. They have few friends, usually no family at home with them, and immediate family are not close by. They are restricted by transport and inability to travel themselves. They are socially awkward, difficult to connect with, and usually emotionally draining.

These are the people Jesus chose to hang out with quite a bit.

It got me thinking today. Church should be filled with the unlovely. Or if not filled, then at least have a significant number. Jesus chose to hang out with the social outcast, the difficult to love, the high maintenance, the emotionally draining. Why isn’t my church filled with these people?!? I’m not saying that I’m a social caste above anyone else, I’m the first to admit that to others, I’m probably just as socially awkward, etc, just as unlovely as these guys that I’m describing. But my last church was the same, filled with mainly well-to-do people, people who were easy to love, easy to get along with. If God chose the weak and the foolish to shame the strong and the wise, then my church should reflect that. Yes, I am weak, and yes, I am foolish: my point is that church should be filled with these people. A friend of mine described them as the poor in spirit. We need to reach out to these people.

Another thought that struck me today was how to connect with them. On a personal note, they are sometimes emotionally draining: I spend much of my time sitting and chatting with them, and by the end of it, I feel exhausted. This may have something to do with the fact that I’m an introvert, and any social contact is draining, but anyway… How do you connect with them? Sharing your life with them is possibly the most important, knowing that they are no more or less a brother or sister in the Lord. Spending time with them is important, and not simply brushing them off because they are difficult. But what happens when this means that other people are neglected? I am also the youth minister at my church, and I love spending time with my group – they’re an awesome group. Sometimes, it’s not easy, nor wise, to mix the two groups for various reasons. And in these situations, how do I balance time with the two groups?

We are all unlovely. Whatever else, we need to make sure that our churches are welcoming for everyone, loving everyone (loving the unlovely), not showing favouritism for anyone, or we are nothing different from the rest of the world.

EBHG

**Currently listening to Rust (The Short Story Of Mary Agnosia) – anchor&braille… Why isn’t it released in Aus yet?!? And why can’t I buy from the US iTunes store?!?**

I’m new to ministry. I’m actually quite easily swayed by the opinions of those around me who have been in ministry longer than I. And so I am quite confused at the moment by the role of guilt and emotions in ministry and particularly youth ministry. How can we be affective (relating to emotions) without being manipulative? Here are some lines which can’t be crossed.

a) Emotional manipulation is wrong. Always.
b) Rational manipulation can be a form of emotional manipulation and is likewise wrong (You would be stupid to ignore the evidence…).

I think I’m convinced by the approach to pastoral theology that was raised recently in our annual lectures:

Grace –> Gratitude –> Love of God –> Repentance –> Moral Change (Good Works)

I think I’m also convinced that guilt can have a limited role in this theology, i.e. guilt leads us to recognise the grace shown to us, but does not replace the grace –> gratitude step. I think that I would hold that the “big stick” approach to motivate people to repent (you are guilty of sin, you’re a failure, you need to repent) is less effective than the “carrot” approach (God has shown you grace even when you were a sinner, we repent because we want to serve the God we love). The latter approach will involve guilt, in that it is the result of understand why we need grace in the first place, but it does not drive the need to repent. That is driven by love of and gratitude to God.

With these things in mind, here is my question: When does preaching to the emotions or ministering to the emotions to affect someone start becoming emotional manipulation?

Emotional manipulation, after a conversation yesterday, could possibly be the point where the effect of the preaching is beyond what could be defined by rationality. If we are on board with Jonathan Edwards and his perspective on religious affectation, then our emotional response must be in line with our rational response. In other words, if the emotional response is beyond what we would expect from, say the text we were preaching from, this we would call emotional manipulation… maybe…

Secondly, while emotional manipulation is more associated with guilt (and possibly easier to do), I wonder whether the same can be said for gratitude/thanksgiving…

Thirdly, is our theology of emotions influenced by our theology of God’s sovereignty? In other words, do we feel a drive to be affective to the point of manipulation because we don’t trust God’s sovereignty to save people?

*****

I’m not exactly sure where I want to go with this, as I’m not exactly sure what I’m asking.

I think, though, that our ministry should involve the emotions, particularly guilt and gratitude, but must remain limited. Gratitude is the emotion to cultivate, however, as guilt I feel is less effective in producing a godly response.

Some thoughts for further elaboration…

EBHG