Activism

Activism is one of the key features of urban culture, I think. There's a strong optimism about the future, about our ability to deal with the problems facing us, a confidence about voicing opinions, and engaging with large social problems. Our society constantly tells us that humans are incredibly competent, able to achieve just about everything, is hugely confident about our innate goodness, applauds self-sufficiency and sometimes sees it as taboo (sin?) not to 'believe in yourself'.

I see a strong degree of activism in myself as well - I feel a responsibility for those around me, to speak about issues of justice. I often feel competent and able to influence and change the world around me. This year, I'm struggling with this, because I'm having such a passive year (for me). It's all about watching, observing, reflecting, learning for the future.

When I think Biblically about activism, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, humans are commanded at creation to rule over the earth – we are given responsibility for it, and expected to influence our surroundings in a way that reflects God’s character. 

Humans are called throughout both Old and New Testaments to be active in many ways: praising God, calling others to praise him, seeking justice – especially for those who are unable to speak for themselves. We are not to be passive or disengaged members of his people or of society.  

The New Testament particularly presents the church with a compelling mission – to proclaim the good news of Jesus. We are to speak about him and teach each other – all of Jesus' followers are given gifts that are to be used for the building up of the church. We're not to be lazy or selfish with our time or resources.

However - and it is a big however, sin has impacted every part of life, and we often seek things for our own sakes rather than others. Even when we think we are active on behalf of others, we often deceive ourselves and are seeking our own glory or benefit (altruism makes me feel good, fits my picture of who I want to be, brings the approval of others).  

One of the significant characteristics of Christians, and a key factor in following Jesus, is that we recognise God - revealed in Jesus - as the supreme power of the universe. Ultimately, it's God who controls the future and influences world and local events, not humans. This is a basic part of Christian teaching and the practical experience of following Jesus.

God may well have plans that are larger or just different from what we plan. He may frustrate human plans for his own purposes and glory, or bring about things that we would never have chosen. (Biblical examples include the Tower of Babel, Joseph's experience in Egypt, the Israelites being exiled to Assyria and Babylon or persecution of Christians in the New Testament - in fact, just about every page of the Bible. Examples from my own life also abound.)

Christians aren't to be shaped by the culture around us, we're to be defined by what God has revealed - although that takes on different shapes in each culture. Urban, progressive culture highly values self-sufficiency and speaks as though humans are almost limitless. We don't like to think about things like death, which speak powerfully of human limitation and inability. Human self-sufficiency and  confidence can easily become proud - unrealistic and over-inflated. 

Ultimately, it is God who will build his church, transform individual lives and societies, establish justice throughout the earth, bring healing to the countries of the world. We need to work towards these things, and doing that reflects God's character, but if we as humanity take that on as our sole responsibility, we will exhaust ourselves and distract from the one who is actually able to achieve all these things - and has promised that he will.

Historical tour of repentance and forgiveness

This is a - very brief! - historical tour (Historical Theology) of the relationship between repentance and forgiveness, and follows on from my previous post on my essay about the relationship between repentance and forgiveness. I've confined it to Christian thought here, although later I'll consider the perspectives of some other religions a bit.

Early church
At the heart of the early church debate about the relationship between repentance and forgiveness are 'the lapsed.' These were believers who had denied Jesus under persecution. The early church understood that baptism was an act of repentance that cleansed an individual of all their sins up to that point, but didn't know how to deal with any sin committed after that. The lapsed presented a real problem - here were Christians who had already been baptised and cleansed, and had then 'lapsed'. The discussion was focused around whether the lapsed should be allowed to participate in communion (the Lord's supper) again - which would be a visible symbol of their forgiveness and restoration to the fellowship of the community. There was a wide range of responses:

• People who said the lapsed should never be restored to communion, no matter how repentance they were, because it could not be a genuine repentance;
• Those who admitted the lapsed to communion on their deathbeds or if they proved themselves faithful under another persecution - although this was tricky because you needed to know when someone was about to die, or needed another persecution to come along;
• Those who restored the lapsed to communion after strong signs of emotional and public repentance (including lots of tears, hand-wringing, etc), when they were accompanied by 'intercessors' (Christians who had proved themselves faithful);
• Those who re-admitted the lapsed with no requirement of repentance.

This problem of how to deal with the lapsed caused deep division within the early church, with different factions and regions adopting different approaches.

Middle ages and Reformation
Throughout the middle ages, the acts of repentance that a believer needed to demonstrate before being offered forgiveness developed into an intricate system of sacraments - confession to a priest, heartfelt contrition and satisfaction (‘penances’). These practices were upheld by the Council of Trent in the counter Reformation.

The Reformation moved away from this visible acts to demonstrate repentance, and re-defined repentance as a ‘change of mind.’ They said 'penance' wasn't a sacrament and that believers didn't need to confess to a priest to be forgiven - Jesus is our great high priest and we can approach him directly.

Luther’s ‘justification by grace alone through faith’ assured forgiveness for those who demonstrated this new understanding of repentance. The implications of this doctrine were developed by Calvin, who saw faith as the key framework for relating to God, by which ‘both [repentance and remission of sin] are obtained’. Calvin taught that repentance does not earn forgiveness, but is a gift with an end in itself.

Recent centuries
Much theology - natural theology, liberalism, parts of the emerging church, to name a few - have moved away from questions of sin and repentance. This makes forgiveness also a redundant topic.

However, forgiveness has become significant in other fields such as social science, politics, philosophy and literature. Research in their fields has been a response to the Jewish holocaust, apartheid in South Africa and the genocide in Rwanda. Questions of how to reconcile vast relational gulfs have produced many explorations of human-human forgiveness - and many have focused on whether forgiveness should be offered to perpetrators who do not repent. Secular writers have tended to exclude the vertical relationship between God and humans. This leaves a strong tension between justice and grace, which is difficult to resolve at a human level.

Brunswick houses

I often notice this house with its enormous dish in the front yard as I ride past on my bike. I've mentally noted that it's somewhat incongruous and counter-cultural for the area, until I stopped today to take a photo. And noticed the solar panels all over the roof, huge water tank and solid sun blinds for carbon-neutral climate control.

I love the appearance of this house - very natural tones, slightly arty design, neatly presented, native garden. This kind of look is increasingly popular in the area - I wouldn't be surprised if there was lots of wooden floors, exposed beams, light and airy.

I doubt I'll ever afford that kind of thing, though, and although I love it, I'm not sure I'd spend the money on my house even if I had it.

Signs of Brunswick's cultural diversity - I don't think this is the house of a young Anglo professional.