Postcards from Karl #1

I have to read 100 pages of Karl Barth before next Wednesday for a theology class. I thought I'd share some highlights as I work my way through it.

God and the human element are not two co-existing and co-operating factors. The human element is what God created ... Between God and true service of God there can be no rivalry. Service of God does not have to be removed in order that God himself may be honoured in it. Where God is truly served, there - with no removal of the human element, with the full essential presence and operation of the human element in all its humanity - the willing and doing of God is not just present as a first or second co-operating factor; it is present as the first and decisive thing as befits God the Creator and Lord.

Church Dogmatics I/1, 94.

What a way to inspire us as we serve others! Our humanity - in all its weakness - does not get in the way of God's work. How can it, given that he created it and has redeemed it? Keep serving my friends, God is at work through you...

10 points for the name and location of this British natural monument.
10 more for the name of the landform from which the photo was taken.

Digital Humanity #4

While the relational aspects of online life can be seen to reflect our humanity, we must also maintain that it’s not a full reflection of human existence; human life is created, physical life which is meant to be lived out in the flesh. Jesus did not take on and redeem the human body so that we might exist wholly within a digital Platonism. Humanity was created in, redeemed for and looks forward to a continued physical existence.


A couple of implications stem from this. First we can say that the ideal relationship is not just carried by verbal communication. The apostle John knew this, as evidenced by this personal touch in 2 John 12:

Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

There are times when verbal communication is the only means of maintaining a relationship, but it’s hardly the ideal situation to be in, nor is it how we were meant to pursue relationships. And it’s interesting that for John, the joy brought by such a relationship was seen as being incomplete.

Secondly we should also be wary of the temptation to let our online interactions take over from our physical lives. Sociologically speaking, we could view the phenomenon of online worlds like Second Life as a product of a growing dissatisfaction with life in the real world; a form of escapism where unfulfilled dreams are met and secret longings pursued. An understanding of the physical aspects of human existence means that we should chase after life within its full embodied form, not settling for the shadow which is life spent in front of a LCD screen. While the internet can be seen as a tool for living, it’s not a replacement for it.

Pastorally speaking there are some simple things we can do to help break a dependence upon online forms of interacting. One friend of mine has recognised that some of those she is mentoring in the faith are more likely to open up online than in person. While it’s good that they feel safe to open up after logging on, my friend recognises the need to help her friends move beyond the digital world and so she makes a point of asking them about their specific issues the next time she sees them in person. This act reminds all involved that life is a holistic affair, and it also means that the issue is not left behind in the ether (which is a further reason why anonymity is a problem when interacting online – see last post).

So while the increasing phenomena of digital interaction throws up some challenges, there are ways in which we can start to care for those we have pastoral responsibility for. I’ve come to realise that this discussion has really only been the tip of the iceberg, and that there are many other questions which are thrown up by the many and varied methods of online interaction:

What scope is there for evangelism within a program like Second Life?
Is an online church really viable?
What about the ethics of allowing a site like Second Life in the first instance?

This is a big deal, so I’d like to hear any thoughts that others might have…

10 points for the London park in which the above race was held.

Digital Humanity #3

If human life is an existence of embodied relationships, then there are certain things we can say in light of our online interactions.

First of all, we can say that it matters who you are online.


We cannot say that our online relationships are of no consequence simply because they are not done in the flesh. Whenever we communicate we are engaging in a fundamental human activity, so the usual courtesies placed on face to face interaction should also apply to communication done digitally.

All communication involves an interaction between two beings at some level, be it through typed text or via the actions and words of a Second Life avatar. And as we are creatures who respond to and formed by all types of communication (a quick read through the Book of Proverbs bears testimony to this), it’s hard to see online relating as some kind of neutral zone where there are no consequences. Scripture exhorts us not to conform “to the pattern of this world” but “to be transformed by the renewing of [our] minds” (Rom 12.2). Developing the habit of conforming to the world while being online is hardly going to help us grow to the stage where we can “test and approve what God’s will is”.

We could also argue (although I feel a little tentative about it) that even though we might be relating through a fictitious avatar, we are still operating as the image of God. It seems to me that a digitally created human still carries some semblance of the divine relational image; it still represents the kind of relationships which constitute the image of God in the physical world. The animated avatar might be an image of an image, but it is still an image. This raises all sorts of questions about how humans are depicted within different art forms. Is a degrading photo of a human being a blasphemy against the image of God? Quite possibly. So can an avatar who acts in disrespectful ways also be seen to be a blasphemy against the divine image? I think it could be (I’d be interested to see what people think of this idea).

So what steps can we take to make sure our online personae are respecting the image of God and helping others to grow in godliness? The anonymity created by online communication can act as a cover under which we can be tempted to pursue unhelpful patterns of relating. In response to this a friend of mine has determined to never use an online pseudonym; he always identifies himself so that people always know exactly who he is. He finds this an easy way to keep himself accountable, and it nips any temptation to act unhelpfully in the bud. Simple and effective.

But as we have already said, human life is more than just relating to one another, it’s also an embodied life…

Hauerwas on singleness

Singleness is the one practice of the Church that most profoundly shows that it has accepted and wishes to participate in the hope that God secured through Christ’s cross, resurrection, and ascension. Singleness embodies the Christian hope that God’s kingdom has come, is present, and is still to come … when the Church loses the significance of singleness, I suspect it does so because Christians no longer have the confidence that the gospel can be received by those who have not been, so to speak, “raised in it”.

Stanley Hauerwas, "The Radical Hope of the Annunciation: Why both Single and Married Christians Welcome Children", in The Hauerwas Reader, 512

An interesting notion: that singleness is a sign to the church of our hope being in Jesus and not in our ability to have kids, and that the gospel cuts through physical family lines and creates a new spiritual family founded in Christ.

A question: how far the does the concept and practice of “family” extend in your church?

Digital Humanity #2

The first step in dealing with this issue is to land on a workable definition of what it means to live as a human. Reformed theologian Anthony Hoekema provides a useful way of thinking about humanity when he observes that:

God placed man [and woman] into a threefold relationship: between man and God, between man and his fellowmen, and between man and nature.*

This understanding of humanity’s relational dimension is seen within the Bible’s opening chapters, with Adam subservient to God (Genesis 2.16-17), in partnership with Eve (Gen 2.21-14) and in dominion over nature (Gen 2.19-20). Of course these relationships are distorted through the fall (Gen 3), but in Jesus – the model human – we see one man who successfully lives out these relationships as they are intended to be lived. And if we abide in Jesus (John 15), then it’s possible for us to participate in and enjoy these renewed relationships; to start living as we were created to live.

But aside from being relational, human life has another characteristic in that it’s an embodied life. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul speaks of the hope of a renewed physical existence for us humans; our physical bodies will be perfected in the age to come. The relational ideal is an ideal which is pursued within a physical framework. This has always been God’s intention and is what we look forward to on the other side of death.

The perspective of human life being an existence of embodied relationships can act as our touchstone when speaking of how we are to approach life once we log in…

* Created in God's Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), 1986, 75.

OK, 10 points if you can tell me what these people are doing, 10 more points if you can tell me the city, 20 points if you can tell me the street.

Calvin on John Chapman House

It is clear ... that pious men customarily prepared themselves by monastic discipline to govern the church, that thus they might be fitter and better trained to undertake so great an office.
- Institutes 4.13.8

So is that what my life has been about for the last 3 years? There has to be a better way ...

Digital Humanity #1

Being human is becoming increasingly complex. While the church still discusses the new expressions of human existence brought on by the sexual revolution a new field has opened up where the boundaries of human being are being challenged.

And I fear that this one has flown right in under our radar.


The other day I heard of Second Life for the first time; an online world where you can create a persona and interact with other personae, even to the extent where your character (or avatar as it's called) could open up a shop and sell digital clothes to other online characters (avatars) for them to wear as they walk around living their “second life.” Here’s the scary part: from what I understand you can buy and sell such items using real money transferred from one account to another. That’s real money exchanged for items which have no physical existence. According to the The Age, Second Life has already spawned its first real-money millionaire. That’s wacky.

Obviously such a digital application could present real pastoral issues, but when was the last time you heard a sermon which helped the congregation negotiate life online?
Time to think about it…

Leadership #5

We can view the activity of preaching not so much as the essence of leadership but as a way in which Christ exercises his own headship. Within Paul’s letters we see the preachers of the early church fulfilling a Christ-like role in prophetic sense. In 2 Tim 2.2 Paul’s instruction to Timothy is to enlist faithful people “who will be able to teach others also.” The content of this teaching is that which Timothy heard from Paul (2 Tim 2.2), who in turn learnt it from Christ himself (Gal 1.12). This content is the “testimony about our Lord” (2 Tim 1.8); the “good deposit” which Timothy has been set apart to guard and preach (2 Tim 1.6,14). This teaching is to be done in the face of heresy and apostasy (1 Tim 1.3-4), and is the means by which the yet-to-be-perfected Church is kept faithful (1 Tim 4.16).

All this amounts to the act of preaching being understood as an outworking of Christ’s own care for the church; Jesus was a teacher and it is through his delegation of this role that he still cares for his Body. As George Herbert said in the early Seventeenth Century:

A pastor is the deputy of Christ for the reducing of man to the obedience of God.*

In particular it’s the word preached by the pastor which achieves this task. Christ still rules his church, but does so through the announcement of his Spirit empowered word.

So in the end leadership is a service we provide to help others find their place under the leadership of Christ. Planning, praying and preaching are tasks with a higher goal: the movement of people to a place under Christ’s wing. If you set your heart on being an overseer – and let’s remember what a noble task that is – then look to the Chief Overseer as the goal, model and content of your leadership. Happy leading!

* Quoted in Donald Robinson, Ordination for What? Sydney: Anglican Information Office, 1992, 29.



10 points for the following:
Top photo: Name the leader commemorated by this arch.
Bottom Photo: Name this leader-making institution.

Leadership #4

If we understand leadership (and I should be clear: I have been speaking of church leadership) to be the practice of helping others find their place under Christ’s headship, then the practical tools and methods employed while leading must have as their goal the growth of others towards and up into Christ. Out ultimate vision is to have those under our care all the more aware of their place under Christ. Any other aim must contribute to this primary goal. Similarly, if the leadership methods we utilize do not aid us in shepherding others to a place under Christ, then we ought to reconsider the tools we employ.

As far as the leader’s character is concerned, it’s of little wonder that Paul insists that leaders display Christlike attributes. The imitation of leaders is a regular theme in Paul’s letters (1 Cor 11.1, Phil 3.17, 1 Thess 1.6), and notice that in at least two of these passages (1 Cor and 1 Thess) the imitation of leaders is linked with the imitation of Christ. Christian leaders bring others under Christ’s leadership by means of example, so godly living is a non-negotiable!

Another outcome of Christ being the Chief Shepherd is that it leaves no place for egotism. We point others to another and we encourage them to draw close to him. We do not point to ourselves nor to any charisma which we might be endowed with. It’s so easy for leaders to abuse the adoration which can flow their way; to foster a dependence within the congregation on their own particular set of abilities. Because Christ is the Chief Shepherd we should take pains to lead in ways which minimise the potential for others to develop unhealthy dependencies. Positively this means encouraging wide ranging networks where individuals are encouraged and held accountable through a variety of people. This is not to denigrate the importance of individual leadership roles, but it does place such roles within a wider communal context.

When it comes to preaching and teaching, a Christ-oriented model of leadership informs the way we view that task too…


5 points to name the leader who wore this suit