A Q&A with Slavoj Žižek

When were you happiest?

A few times when I looked forward to a happy moment or remembered it – never when it was happening.

What is your greatest fear?

To awaken after death – that’s why I want to be burned immediately.

What is your earliest memory?

My mother naked. Disgusting.

Which living person do you most admire, and why?

Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the twice-deposed president of Haiti. He is a model of what can be done for the people even in a desperate situation.

What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?

Indifference to the plights of others.

What is the trait you most deplore in others?

Their sleazy readiness to offer me help when I don’t need or want it.

What was your most embarrassing moment?

Standing naked in front of a woman before making love.

Aside from a property, what’s the most expensive thing you’ve bought?

The new German edition of the collected works of Hegel.

What is your most treasured possession?

See the previous answer.

What makes you depressed?

Seeing stupid people happy.

What do you most dislike about your appearance?

That it makes me appear the way I really am.

What is your most unappealing habit?

The ridiculously excessive tics of my hands while I talk.

What would be your fancy dress costume of choice?

A mask of myself on my face, so people would think I am not myself but someone pretending to be me.

What is your guiltiest pleasure?

Watching embarrassingly pathetic movies such as The Sound Of Music.

What do you owe your parents?

Nothing, I hope. I didn’t spend a minute bemoaning their death.

To whom would you most like to say sorry, and why?

To my sons, for not being a good enough father.

What does love feel like?

Like a great misfortune, a monstrous parasite, a permanent state of emergency that ruins all small pleasures.

What or who is the love of your life?

Philosophy. I secretly think reality exists so we can speculate about it.

What is your favourite smell?

Nature in decay, like rotten trees.

Have you ever said ‘I love you’ and not meant it?

All the time. When I really love someone, I can only show it by making aggressive and bad-taste remarks.

Which living person do you most despise, and why?

Medical doctors who assist torturers.

What is the worst job you’ve done?

Teaching. I hate students, they are (as all people) mostly stupid and boring.

What has been your biggest disappointment?

What Alain Badiou calls the ‘obscure disaster’ of the 20th century: the catastrophic failure of communism.

If you could edit your past, what would you change?

My birth. I agree with Sophocles: the greatest luck is not to have been born – but, as the joke goes on, very few people succeed in it.

If you could go back in time, where would you go?

To Germany in the early 19th century, to follow a university course by Hegel.

How do you relax?

Listening again and again to Wagner.

How often do you have sex?

It depends what one means by sex. If it’s the usual masturbation with a living partner, I try not to have it at all.

What is the closest you’ve come to death?

When I had a mild heart attack. I started to hate my body: it refused to do its duty to serve me blindly.

What single thing would improve the quality of your life?

To avoid senility.

What do you consider your greatest achievement?

The chapters where I develop what I think is a good interpretation of Hegel.

What is the most important lesson life has taught you?

That life is a stupid, meaningless thing that has nothing to teach you.

Tell us a secret.

Communism will win.

[Source: The Guardian, Saturday August 9 2008. Interview by Rosanna Greenstreet]

The purification of the conscience

In his wonderful study, The Conscience – Conquering or Conquered? (Blackwood: New Creation, 1987), Geoffrey Bingham contends that a person ‘cannot displace the creational faculty of the conscience, so he must war with it. He must seek to control its elements which, not being allowed to help man, must now be enlisted – against God – to give him the peace which may only come from true obedience, i.e. true creational functioning. Man then, seeks to control his conscience and re-educate it, even to the point of being enlisted in idolatry’. (pp. 15-6).

Idolatry not only perverts God’s creation, but also demeans God and the idolater. For God to do nothing in the face of such perversion and demeaning is unthinkable. Just as Forsyth argued, for God to do nothing in the face of evil manifested in Germany in the early Twentieth Century would be unimaginable. Judgement is the only possible outcome. So it is on the personal level. Psalms 32:3-4 and 38:1-8 bear witness to the truth that the human conscience refuses to let us off the hook, despite our best efforts to pervert and appease it. Deeply down the nemesis is working. Only perfect obedience from the side of sin will satisfy God and purge the evil rampant in God’s creation. The conscience ever testifies to this, even if the human mind insists otherwise. Satisfaction is a must, and the conscience knows this. The cross alone satisfies the human conscience – and God’s.

So Bingham, this time from Everything in Beautiful Array:

‘The things of which I was deeply ashamed, the things that harrowed my spirit, and that burned their shamefulness into me, are now expending themselves upon this great High Priest who is the true Guilt-Offering, the true Holy Oblation. Into his pure self flow the sin and evil of me, only to be met by such utter purity that the evil dissolves in the pure, the darkness in the light. Pain it all is to him, but effective pain, for it destroys all my evil, all my guilt, and it destroys it wholly until not one fragment remains. There is nothing in me or about me which is evil: no sin remains, no guilt is in my conscience. That conscience has been wholly purified and so has given me the first true sight of the loving God whom now I desire to worship in my purified spirit.’ – Geoffrey C. Bingham, Everything in Beautiful Array (Blackwood: New Creation, 1999), 75.

PT Forsyth on satisfying the holiness of God

‘There is only one thing that can satisfy the holiness of God, and that is holiness – adequate holiness … Nothing, no penalty, no passionate remorse, no verbal acknowledgment, no ritual, can satisfy the claim of holy law – nothing but holiness, actual holiness, and holiness upon the same scale as the one holy law which was broken. The confession must be adequate … All your repentance, and all the world’s repentance, would not be adequate to satisfying, establishing the broken law of holy God. Confession must be adequate – as Christ’s was. We do not now speak of Christ’s sufferings as being the equivalent of what we deserved, but we speak of His confession of God’s holiness, his acceptance of God’s judgment, being adequate in a way that sin forbade any acknowledgment from us to be. For the only adequate confession of a holy God is perfectly holy man. Wounded holiness can only be met by a personal holiness upon the scale of the race, upon the universal scale of the sinful race, and upon the eternal scale of the holy God who was wounded. It is not enough that the eternal validity of the holy law should be declared as some prophet might arise and declare it, with power to make the world admire, as the great and sublime Kant did. It must take effect’. – PT Forsyth, The Work of Christ (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), 126-7.

Why universities exist …

‘The university exists only by virtue of a faith that human beings are worthy of special attention; that the development of the human intellect is an end in itself; that the exercise of memory and reason is not a perversion of the nervous system; and that the scholar is somehow superior to the fool—all of them propositions that admit of no scientific proof; propositions that must, in fact, be maintained despite clear and cogent evidence that untroubled happiness is reserved for morons’. – Willmoore Kendall, from a speech at Harvard about disturbing trends in academic culture. Cited in Robert L. Paquette, ‘The world we have lost: a parable on the academy’, The New Criterion 26 (May 2008), 19.

Markus Barth on the triumph of God’s cause

‘A Christian hope that yearns only for the Christians’ own personal perfection, peace and happiness, looks deeply suspicious to all who crave for a hope in promises that are greater than those of egoistical and meritorial systems. Paul’s message in Ephesians is not one of individual perfection, wholeness or happiness. It rather is Jesus Christ “filling all in all (1:23; 4:10); it is the hope to attain to the stature of his fullness and perfection (4:13); it is the manifest triumph of God as Father “of all, over all, through all, and in all” (4:6). By the Spirit, a hope and a triumph are granted that go far beyond some egotist’s private concern. If God is “all in all” (1 Cor. 15: 28), there is no need to be anxious about individual post-existence. Ephesians does not promise heavenly pastures, but it promises the triumph of God’s cause. The Holy Spirit given now is the seal that cannot be removed’. – Markus Barth, The Broken Wall: A Study of the Epistle to the Ephesians (London: Collins, 1960), 63.

Moltmann on the fulness of God

‘The fulness of God is the rapturous fullness of the divine life; a life that communicates itself with inexhaustible creativity; an overbrimming life that makes what is dead and withered live; a life from which everything that lives receives it vital energies and its zest for living; a source of life to which everything that has been made alive responds with deepest joy and ringing exultation. The fulness of God is radiant light, light reflected in the thousand brilliant colours of created things. The glory of God expresses itself, not in self-glorying majesty, but in the prodigal communication of God’s own fullness of life. The glory of God is not to be found, either, in his laborious self-realization by way of his self-emptying, but follows upon that of the eternal day of resurrection’. – Jürgen Moltmann, The Coming of God: Christian Eschatology (translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2004), 336.

A Day Conference in Memory of Very Rev Professor Thomas F. Torrance

The School of Divinity at the University of Edinburgh are hosting a day conference in memory of TF Torrance on Wednesday 29 October 2008. The programme includes:

  • ‘Opening Remarks’, by Iain Torrance
  • ‘The Influence of Torrance’s Theology on Parish Ministry’, by Colin Williamson & Rev Eddie Simpson
  • ‘The Shape of Torrance’s theology’, by Andrew Purves
  • ‘Torrance on Worship’, by Sandra Fach
  • ‘The Torrance lectures’, by Robert Walker
  • ‘Closing Act of Worship’, by Andrew Anderson

More information here.

Introducing: Joseph Parker

Joseph Parker (1830–1902), Congregational minister, was born on 9 April 1830 in the Market Place, Hexham, Northumberland, the only child of Teasdale Parker, stonemason, and Elizabeth Dodd, his wife. He was educated at local schools. At fourteen years of age he was set to learn his father’s craft, but soon tired of it and was sent back to school. Until he was twenty-one years old he devoted himself, as he said, to ‘self-culture’. The Congregational church where his father was a deacon was divided over the introduction of evangelical Arminian ideas by the new minister, James Frame, and the stricter Calvinists, including Teasdale Parker, withdrew and (somewhat incongruously) joined the Methodist church.

During his youth Joseph Parker was fascinated by the ideas and speeches of such radical reformers as Edward Miall (1809–1881) and Joseph Cowen (1800–1873). From the age of fourteen Parker had participated in local debates and boys’ meetings, but it was as a supporter of the temperance movement that he was given his first opportunity to exercise his gifts in public. In June 1848 he preached his first sermon on the village green and was enrolled as a lay preacher in the Methodist circuit. The family returned to the Congregational church and Parker felt that he was called into the Christian ministry. He wrote for guidance to Dr John Campbell (1794–1867) of Whitefield’s Tabernacle, Moorfields, and in his reply Campbell invited him to preach at his church for three Sundays. He left home for London on 8 April 1852. Such was the impression that he made that he was appointed assistant minister.

After Parker had spent nine months in London, where he attended lectures at University College, he accepted a call to the Congregational church at Banbury, where he was ordained minister on 8 November 1853. The congregation, initially of fifty members, soon became too large for the building and a new church had to be built. Parker also caused some consternation and some physical danger to himself by initiating open-air services on the cricket ground. He drew wider attention by challenging the formidable secularist George Jacob Holyoake (1817–1906), and holding his own against him in public debate. It was at Banbury, too, that he began to publish books and articles, an activity that he was to continue vigorously throughout his career.

Among the numerous churches that now sought his services it was the prestigious Cavendish Street Congregational Church, Manchester, that persuaded Parker to become its minister. He accepted its call on 10 June 1858 and began his ministry at the end of the following month. Success attended him again and by 1863 there were over 1000 members in the church, including many wealthy leaders of commerce and industry. All 1700 seats in the church were occupied at the Sunday services.

On 1 October 1860 courses began at Cavendish College (later the Nottingham Congregational Institute), founded by Parker to provide basic training for men who had been deprived of educational opportunities. He shared the teaching with J. B. Paton and J. Radford Thomson of Heywood. After a clash over the expulsion of a student, Parker withdrew from teaching before the end of the first session and resigned from the board of management in 1862.

On 19 September 1869 Parker began his ministry at the oldest nonconformist church in London, the Poultry Chapel, Cheapside. It was not in a flourishing condition but was soon filled with eager congregations. On 23 September he began to hold a lunchtime service for city workers on Thursdays. Average attendance exceeded one thousand, and it attracted people of all denominations and made a significant contribution to ecumenical understanding, despite the fact that prominent Anglicans were officially inhibited from accepting his invitations to address the congregations. It continued for thirty-two years. From 1871 until 1874 he conducted an institute of homiletics to improve the standard of preaching. Parker’s success made a new building necessary. The Poultry Chapel was sold for £50,000 and the last service was held there on 16 June 1872. Services continued in temporary accommodation until the new church, erected at Holborn Viaduct and known, significantly, as the City Temple, was dedicated on 19 May 1876. Its marble pulpit was the gift of the corporation of the City of London. Here Parker ministered for the remainder of his life. The City Temple became the most powerful centre of nonconformist influence in the city and indeed far beyond, not least in the United States, a country which Parker visited five times. It was this transatlantic influence that prompted Dr T. L. Cuyler’s dictum that ‘the back galleries of the City Temple were in the Rocky Mountains’ (Adamson, 126).

In 1867 Parker was chair of the Lancashire Congregational Union and was twice elected chair of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, in 1884 and 1901. Between 5 and 8 February 1887 he was in Edinburgh where he lectured and preached at several venues, including the church of St Giles, and he was in Scotland again from 30 July to 16 August 1888 conducting a preaching mission. Then in May 1894 he addressed the general assembly of the Free Church of Scotland and spoke to the thousand ministers who were present on his objections to the higher criticism of the Bible. By these visits he became a familiar name to the Scots. In 1862 he was granted an honorary DD from the University of Chicago. On 4 October 1887, while on a visit to the United States, he delivered at the Brooklyn Academy of Music the eulogy on his friend Henry Ward Beecher, who had died on 8 March 1887, and that event, he confessed, ‘was the most memorable public occasion in which I have taken part’ (Adamson, 192). His enthusiastic reception on his various visits to the United States sparked off rumours that he would be invited to succeed Beecher. But Parker had no thought of emigrating.

Parker’s consistent interest in contemporary politics led him to publish a manifesto as a parliamentary candidate for the City of London in the general election of March 1880. In it he supported disestablishment of the Church of England, abolition of the traffic in liquor, and an extension of peasant proprietorship of land. Although 1200 electors had promised their support, Samuel Morley MP (1809–1886) and others persuaded him to withdraw his name, which he did.

Parker was twice married. On 15 November 1851, at Hexham Congregational Church, he married Ann, the daughter of William Nesbitt, farmer, of Horsley. She died in 1863. A stained-glass window was erected in her memory at Horsley Congregational Church in 1899. On 22 December 1864 Parker married Emma Jane, daughter of Andrew Common JP, banker, of Sunderland. She died on 26 January 1899 and was buried at Hampstead cemetery. In her memory stained-glass windows were installed at City Temple and Union Congregational Church, Sunderland. At Sunderland, too, Parker founded in her memory the Parker Memorial Home for Girls. He never recovered from this bereavement and confessed that he did not find it unfitting to pray to her. There were no children. Parker died at his home at 14 Lyndhurst Gardens, Hampstead, on 28 November 1902 after a debilitating illness and was buried at Hampstead cemetery.

Parker was a prolific author and his published books amount to more than sixty titles. He also wrote a large number of articles and edited journals. His attempt to launch a daily newspaper, The Dial (1860–64), failed. His most ambitious publication was The People’s Bible (1885–95), which ran to twenty-five volumes and consists of the material used in his sermons over a period of years. Ecce Deus (1867) was a reply to J. R. Seeley’s Ecce homo (1865). His Six Chapters on Secularism (1854) represents his polemics against the kind of views espoused by Holyoake. His interest in improving the standard of preaching is demonstrated in Ad clerum: Advices to a Young Preacher (1870). Bible exposition was a passionate interest of his and permeates most of his writing. Tyne Chylde: my Life and Teaching (1883) and A Preacher’s Life (1899) are autobiographical. His ineffectual attempts at fiction are seen in Springdale Abbey (1868) and Weaver Stephen (1886). Most of what he published soon sank into oblivion. His verbose and over-heated prose proved not to be to the taste of a later generation, while his biblical studies, although often perceptive and moving, suffered from the lack of a firm basis in scholarly precision. Even so, his Pulpit Bible (1901) found a welcome in many churches.

Parker was a communicator of genius. The huge congregations that he attracted in England, Scotland, and the United States testified to a rare ability to make the Christian message relevant to his own generation. It put him in the front rank of English preachers. It is not easy for a later generation to account for his influence. In theology he was an evangelical, but not of a dogmatic kind. When C. H. Spurgeon initiated the ‘downgrade controversy’, Parker commented that Spurgeon’s hostility to theological change showed lack of trust in God’s providence, and to believe that the age was in decline was to be an atheist (The Freeman, Aug 1887). He combined his fairly conservative theological emphasis with a passionate Liberalism in politics. His leonine head and bold stance gave him an imperious presence in the pulpit. Most of his preaching was extemporary, and that enticed him to make unexpected outbursts that both astonished and attracted his congregations, as in his imprecation, ‘I say, God damn the Sultan’, delivered in his address on the tercentenary of the birth of Oliver Cromwell, 25 April 1899, or his assertion that ‘the Stock Exchange is the bottomless pit of London’, which came in his tirade against gambling in 1900. His sonorous voice, with its surprising modulations, as well as his dramatic delivery, his humour, his use of dialect, and his freshness, combined to make his oratory unique in the London of his day. Added to this were the puzzling contradictions in his personality. He could be brusque and gentle, sarcastic and mellifluous, full of self-esteem and yet dependent on the kindness and even flattery of those about him.

Parker’s career illustrates powerful tendencies in Victorian nonconformity. He began as a radical and republican, but as he came more into contact with rich and influential people he developed into a defender of the social and economic establishment as well as the monarchy. Although claiming to be a defender of Congregationalism in its stricter Independent form, in his speeches from the chair of the Congregational Union in 1901 he advocated a centralized form of Congregationalism. The plans he advocated aroused controversy, but he seems to have been intent on creating a united nonconformist church that would eventually embrace all denominations and be able to compete for social and religious pre-eminence with the Church of England. In his development he embodies the ambition to transform dissent into a powerful movement that would be socially respectable, morally influential, spiritually prophetic, and politically powerful. It was to be an unfulfilled hope.

Sources

W. Adamson, The life of the Rev. Joseph Parker, DD (1902) · J. Parker, A preacher’s life (1899) · G. H. Pike, Dr Parker and his friends (1904) · Congregational Year Book (1903), 208b–e · R. R. Turner, ‘Cavendish Theological College, 1860–63’, Transactions of the Congregational Historical Society, 21 (1971–2), 94–101 · J. H. Taylor, ‘Joseph Parker’s United Congregational church’, Transactions of the Congregational Historical Society, 19 (1960–64), 91–6 · A. Peel, The Congregational two hundred, 1530–1948 (1948), 208–9 · J. Parker, Tyne chylde: my life and teaching (1883) · Congregational Year Book (1885), 33–98 · Congregational Year Book (1902), 17–50 · BL cat.

Archives

DWLBL, corresp. with W. E. Gladstone, Add. MSS 44446–44520 · LPL, corresp. with A. C. Tait

Key Works

  • City Temple Sermons (1869-1870)
  • The People’s Bible, in 25 vols (1885-1895).
  • Springdale Abbey (1869)
  • The Inner Life of Christ (1881)
  • Apostolic Life (1884)
  • Tyne Chylde: My Life and Teaching (1883; new ed., 1889)
  • A Preacher’s Life (1899)

Likenesses

C. B. Birch, plaster bust, 1883, NPG · R. Gibb, portrait, 1894, RSA · J. Adams-Acton, bust · Ape [C. Pellegrini], chromolithograph caricature, NPG; repro. in VF (19 April 1884) · H. Furniss, caricatures, pen-and-ink sketches, NPG · E. Walker, photograph, NPG [see illus.] · photograph, repro. in Adamson, Life of the Rev. Joseph Parker · photograph, repro. in Parker, Tyne chylde · stipple and line print, NPG

Wealth at death

£289 3s. 5d.: probate, 17 Jan 1903, CGPLA Eng. & Wales

Note: Additional dictionary content from The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography can be obtained free in the UK from public libraries thanks to a national deal with the MLA.

See here for more biographies in the Introducing Series.

‘We believe in the forgiveness of sins’

Whatever it means for the Church to confess ‘We believe in the forgiveness of sins’ at the same time as it professes belief in ‘life in the world to come’ can mean no less that that the life of the world to come is the life of restored relationships. One implication is, as Volf observes in his essay ‘The Final Reconciliation: Reflections on a Social Dimension of the Eschatological Transition’ (Modern Theology 16/1 (2000)), that ‘the not-loved-ones will have to be transformed into the loved ones and those who do not love will have to begin to do so; enemies will have to become friends … Without such transformation the world to come would not be a world of perfect love but just a repetition of a world in which, at best, the purest of loves falter and, at worst, cold indifference reigns and deadly hatreds easily flare up’ (pp. 91, 92). The weight of this cannot conceivably be carried by traditional notions of the last judgement alone, Volf notes, and would seem to require an ‘ontological novum that a comprehensive transformatio mundi represents’ (p. 92), reconciliation occurring as part of a broader eschatological transition.

Eschatology and the doctrine of God

‘Every statement of Christian eschatology … is an inference from some basic truth in its doctrine of God, and must be judged and tested accordingly … Every truth about eschatology is ipso facto a truth about God … What God is, is what in history He asserts Himself to be’. – John Arthur Thomas Robinson, In the End, God: A Study of the Christian Doctrine of the Last Things (London: James Clarke & Co., 1950), 31, 36, 37.

On Writing Well – II

It is little wonder that the child of a society drowning in ‘unnecessary words, circular constructions, pompous frills and meaningless jargon’ should be named ‘Clutter’. This child is, according to Zinsser, ‘the disease of American writing’, and one of the main culprits named  throughout his book On Writing Well, a book I introduced in an earlier post. [Incidentally, I’m moving house today and this same child is magically appearing in every room. Yes I should be packing boxes, or vacuuming, or anything but blogging].

In Chapter 2, entitled, ‘Simplicity’, Zinsser presses that one of the secrets of good writing is to ‘strip every sentence to its cleanest components’. He contends that words that serve no function, or are too long, need to go because they weaken a sentence’s strength. Moreover, adverbs that carry the same meaning as an already-used verb must be exterminated immediately. He also notes in passing that these sentence-murderers ‘usually occur … in proportion to education and rank’. I thought: Another reason why Richard Bauckham and NT Wright are so unique.

As I read this chapter, I must confess to mixed feelings: The thesis-writer in me – suffering from a major dose of verbal diarrhoea – was bearing the full brunt of the ‘guilty-as-charged’ word. The poet in me wanted to throw the book away by page 7 because here is a recipe that seems to sap every bit of play out of prose. But I stuck with it and, once I stopped to hear what he was saying, was glad I did.

So how can we avoid birthing such an evil little child? Zinsser’s answer: ‘Clear our heads of clutter. Clear thinking becomes clear writing: one can’t exist without the other’. But what if I like my cluttered head? What if I’m scared to be without it? Then apparently we can get away with it … but only for a paragraph of two.

Just as well I only write one or two paragraphs at a time …

Previous posts in this series: Part I.

Karl Barth on the relationship between justification and sanctification

‘When, however, we speak of justification and sanctification, we have to do with two different aspects of the one event of salvation. The distinction between them has its basis in the fact that we have in this event two genuinely different moments. That Jesus Christ is true God and true man in one person does not mean that His true deity and His true humanity are one and the same, or that the one is interchangeable with the other. Similarly, the reality of Jesus Christ as the Son of God who humbled Himself to be a man and the Son of Man who was exalted to fellowship with God is one, but the humiliation and exaltation are not identical. From the christological ἀσυγχύτως and ἀτρέπτως of Chalcedon we can deduce at once that the same is true of justification and sanctification. As the two moments in the one act of reconciliation accomplished in Jesus Christ they are not identical, nor are the concepts interchangeable. We are led to the same conclusion when we consider the content of the terms. In our estimation of their particular significance we must not confuse or confound them. Justification is not sanctification and does not merge into it. Sanctification is not justification and does not merge into it. Thus, although the two belong indissolubly together, the one cannot be explained by the other. It is one thing that God turns in free grace to sinful man, and quite another that in the same free grace He converts man to Himself. It is one thing that God as the Judge establishes that He is in the right against this man, thus creating a new right for this man before Him, and quite another that by His mighty direction He claims this man and makes him willing and ready for His service. Even within the true human response to this one divine act the faith in which the sinful man may grasp the righteousness promised him in Jesus Christ is one thing, and quite another his obedience, or love, as his correspondence, to the holiness imparted to him in Jesus Christ. We shall speak later of the indestructible connexion between these. But it is a connexion, not identity. The one cannot take the place of the other. The one cannot, therefore, be interpreted by the other’. – Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 503.



PT Forsyth on our assurance

Forsyth consistently asserts that the Church’s faith rests not on some ‘subjective sanctity’ but on a ‘real principle’ – the objective work of Christ. This faith finds personal expression in his own experience of grace: ‘God has made life out of my shipwreck’, he says in his sermon on Ezekiel 37, ‘that is my experience. He has opened my grave and made me live; he has clothed my bones with flesh, and stirred me with life and hope; and if he has done that for me, then the incredible miracle is in principle done that saves the world.’ Here Forsyth gives voice to his conviction that he has been saved by that which saved the whole world. ‘It took a world salvation to save me, and what I know in this matter for me I foreknow for mankind.’ In other words, Forsyth is certain of his salvation because God has saved the world.

Now because Forsyth understands election both christologically and as related to God’s wider eschatological purposes concerning universal righteousness (as in Calvin, who in the Institutes deals with election at the end of Book Three, i.e. after he has expounded the persons and works of God), his doctrine of assurance avoids the anxiety-producing effects that have accompanied that Calvinist tradition that traces its roots through Beza and Perkins. Forsyth identifies that no matter how pastorally well-intended the federal theologians were, one result of decayed and pietistic federal Calvinism has been ‘a welter and a haze in which the soul turns for assurance from itself and its piety … to seek in the sacraments a stay and comfort which the elect found at a higher source’. Forsyth directs us to look to Christ in whom we are given the objective ground our election and so of assurance.

PT Forsyth on the certainty of our election in Christ

‘Now for this tremendous certainty [of election] there is no other foundation than the historical revelation and salvation in Christ as the eternal and comprehensive object of God’s loving will and choice, the Captain of the elect. We have not sufficient ground outside that for believing or trusting such a God. We cannot start with a view of God reached on speculative or other similar grounds, and then use Christ as a mere means for confirming it or giving it practical effect. That would mean a certainty higher than Christ’s, and the superfluity of Christ when the end had been reached. Which is not the Christian Gospel, be that Gospel right or wrong. In that Gospel our final certainty can never be detached from what Christ did, what He is and does for eternity. The eternal election is in Christ, “Mine elect in whom My soul delighteth”; and only in Christ does faith at every stage realise it. Hence it has been well pointed out that we must not preach election to produce the certainty of Christian faith, but preach Christ and faith in Him to give us the certainty of our election’. – Peter T. Forsyth, The Principle of Authority in Relation to Certainty, Sanctity and Society: An Essay in the Philosophy of Experimental Religion (London: Independent Press, 1952), 353.

Aung San Suu Kyi Refuses to Accept Food

In a developing move, detained pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi refused to accept a food delivery to her home one week ago, according to the exiled National League for Democracy – Liberated Area. The exiled group released a statement on Monday saying that Suu Kyi has refused to accept food from members of her party for nine days.

Last week, Aung San Suu Kyi cancelled two scheduled meetings with United Nations Special Envoy Ibrahim Gambari during his visit to Rangoon. Observers said that Suu Kyi’s refusal to meet with the UN envoy showed her disappointment with his failed attempts to broker a solution to the country’s decades-old political standoff.

Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years. During most of this time, her food has been supplied exclusively by her colleagues.

[Source: Scoop]

James K. Baxter: ‘Song to the Lord God on a Spring Morning’

The guitar is playing in the morning
And the tame goat browses on heads of grass
Close to the sawing block. I hear the voices
Of many friends on this spring day
Like music to me, because God has lifted
A mountain from my soul, and the winter has gone.

Alleluia. Adonai.

I need not complain that youth has gone
Or that the sins of morning
Haunt me at noonday. Whoever has lifted
The burden of Christ will find that an armful of dry grass
Is the same weight as the cross. Man only lives for a day
Yet he can hear the singing of strong voices.

Alleluia. Adonai.

Love is the answer to the dark voices
Of the demons that trouble us when youth has gone,
Saying, “You fool, you have had your day
And wasted it.” The spirit of a spring morning
When the wind moves gently over the grass
Is enough to tell us that the stone at the door of the tomb has
been lifted.

Alleluia. Adonai.

I have seen the boulder lifted
From the back of the tribe. I have heard their singing voices.
I have felt their hands like the wind on the grass
Stroking my cheek, when it seemed all hope had gone,
“Piki to ora ki a koe. The morning
Has come. E koro, be glad and eat a kai with us today.”

Alleluia. Adonai.

Therefore, whatever another day
May hold for meexile, darkness, and the rod of Pharoah lifted
to scourge my backthis brightness of morning
Cannot die. The murmur of many voices
Will stay with me when the light has gone
And my days are like an acre of burnt grass.

Alleluia. Adonai.

So small a price to pay! The Maori bones beneath the grass
Of the graveyard sing of the resurrection day
When chains of darkness will be gone
And the yoke of sorrow will be lifted
From the necks of the poor. A choir of many voices
Goes with me into the blood-red morning.

Alleluia. Adonai.

The light of a new morning is bright on the grass
And the voices of the poor are welcoming the day
When the cloud of night will be lifted and Pharoahs kingdom gone.

Alleluia. Adonai.

– James K. Baxter, ‘Song to the Lord God on a Spring Morning’ [1972]

Burma is hosting 2092 Political Prisioners

On the late night and early morning of 21st-22nd August 2007, one year ago, after leading peaceful protests against the sudden hike in fuel and commodity prices, 13 leading members of the 88 Generation Student’s Group were arrested by the Burmese authorities. They are:

Min Ko Naing (Paw Oo Tun): now more than 17 years total detention, Jimmy (Kyaw Min Yu): total detention more than 15 years, Mya Aye: a total of more than 8 years in detention, Ko Ko Gyi: a total time in detention of 14 years and 8 months Kyaw Kyaw Htwe (Marky): nearly 13 years in detention Arnt Bwe Kyaw: over 9 years in detention Pyone Cho: total of over 16 years in detention, Min Zeya: total of 7 years and 5 months detention Nyan Lin: a total of 7 years detention Ko Zeya: over 13 years and 7 months in detention Panneik Tun: a total of 8 years detention Zaw Zaw Min: a total of 1 year and 1 month detention Thet Zaw: already served a total of 10 years and 4 months.

These arbitrary arrests are part of an ongoing systematic persecution of activists, both social and political, by the Burmese Junta. In the last year there have been around 900 arrests of activists, some for things like helping the relief operation following Cyclone Nargis. Currently there are at least 2092 Political Prisoners being held in detention across Burma.

Political Prisoners in detention suffer massive hardships, inflicted on them systematically by the authorities, including severe physical and psychological torture, many interrogations, starvation, malnutrition and many different and serious health problems due to the conditions they have been held under. They also suffer prolonged and unlawful detention, no access to proper legal counsel, no free or fair trials and a methodical intrusion into their lives by the Burmese authorities, and those of their families and associates, both during their detention and throughout the times that they have been released. Due to this treatment throughout their years in detention, all Political Prisoners develop weak health, and are susceptible to illness. For example: Hla Myo Naung (member of 88 Generation Students Group, held in Insein prison, arrested at eye clinic, now awaiting sentence) has already lost the sight in one of his eyes and his other eye will also soon be blind, due to the neglect of the authorities in not providing proper medical treatment.

The current situation of the above 13 student leaders, arrested this time last year is that they have not seen a lawyer since their detention, and some of the charges under which they were first arrested have been changed. Some of them and their family members are not sure under which charges they are being held. None of them have been brought before a court of any kind, or been subject to a trial. None of them have been sentenced. Some are suffering from severe health problems and have not yet received proper medical treatment. Among the most urgent cases are Ko Min Ko Naing, whose eyesight is failing, has some serious health complications with his heart and has pain walking due to a problem with his foot and Ko Mya Aye is suffering from heart disease.

Including the last year, the 13 student leaders listed above, have served a total time in detention of 140 years and 1 month so far. That is enough. AAPP pays tribute to these Activists for their service to their country, their total commitment, creativity and strength in the face of a brutal military regime. AAPP strongly condemns the Burmese regime, who acts with impunity, for their systematic persecution of these activists. They have suffered these abuses because of their outspoken belief in human rights, their love for their country and their determination to replace military dictatorship with democracy in Burma.

Source: Scoop

On Writing Well – I

Within weeks of beginning my doctoral work I happened across these words by Winston Churchill: ‘Writing a book is an adventure. To begin with, it is a toy and an amusement; then it becomes a mistress, and then it becomes a master, and then a tyrant. The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude, you kill the monster, and fling him out to the public’. It took some time before it really came home to me that writing a PhD is not like writing a book, but these words have stuck with me all the same, and apply not a little to writing a thesis.

One of the things I’ve most enjoyed about the whole thesis process has been the act of writing itself. I love playing with words, discovering their etymology and thesaurus partners, and how long-neglected words can be re-employed to serve new meanings.

I’ve been making my way through William Zinsser’s On Writing Well. It’s a book which has undergone multiple editions (mine is the fourth); and while it is a little dated in parts (my ed. is 1990), and is geared more for the journalist than the researcher, it has served me well as both an encouragement and as guide of late. Consequently, I want to devote a number of posts to it.

Zinsser has written for Life and for The New Yorker, and for thirteen years with the New York Herald Tribune. He has also published numerous titles on writing. A recurring theme in this book is that writing is hard work: ‘If writing seems hard’, he notes, it’s because it is hard. It’s one of the hardest things people do’. It reminds me of something Oscar Wilde once said, ‘I was working on the proof of one of my poems all the morning, and took out a comma. In the afternoon I put it back again’. Zinsser repeatedly presses that while there are different kinds of writers and methods, the essence of writing is rewriting.

In the first chapter, Zinsser recalls that at the heart of all nonfiction writing is ‘personal transaction’. Good nonfiction needs both humanity and warmth, not just the facts! He writes: ‘Good writing has an aliveness that keeps the reader reading from one paragraph to the next, and it’s not a question of gimmicks to “personalize” the author. It’s a question of using the English language in such a way that it will achieve the greatest strength and the least clutter’.