Re-thinking Success

You’ll be aware that the Olympic games are happening right as you read this. People are running and jumping and hitting each other, and more, both for other people’s entertainment and the sake of being the best at these things on the world stage. Everyone is watching the activities and it’s quite an enjoyable time. While we’re doing that, it seems as good a chance at any to reconsider what “success” is. We’re all keen to see gold medals hanging around the necks of some New Zealanders, and no doubt the national mood will lift if our flag is hoisted above those of other nations a few times. We all also realise of course that true success in life goes beyond getting a gold medal and a short-term boost in national pride; but we’re not necessarily sure how.

What does our culture, or the majority emphasis thereof, consider success to be? Who, real or merely ideal, is our collective model? I think for most of us the perfect model person is first and foremost ‘in control’ – they’re running the show, and any others in the picture are joining in for the ride. The person to be is smart and sassy, popular and powerful in one way or another. They’re sexually active (it almost goes without saying), and they’re happy – and the two are probably linked! Successful Sam or Sally is certainly not judgmental or religious in any serious way, and if they care about politics they’re probably a fan of having a larger state where the government looks after everyone well; but the details of that will depend on their friendship circles. They drive a decent car, or they have enough income to live the good life anyway. Ideally they’ll own their own property and enjoy travelling, and they’re obviously young and full of potential.

Yet, though it may sound unthinkable, there are other models of success! This week amidst the excitement of the Olympics and the busyness of term time is “Jesus Week” at Auckland Uni, presented by various Christian clubs on campus. We think that Jesus offers what the world most desperately needs, and also serves as a shockingly different model of success and human well-being. Jesus was not wealthy or particularly mobile – the most impressive means of transport he was ever likely to have made use of was riding through the dusty roads of Palestine on a donkey. For a time he was popular, when people thought he wanted to achieve their political goals for them, but this ended soon enough. He is a leader of leaders, to whom thousands of kings and presidents have sworn allegiance, but the way he demonstrated leadership was to use his own hands in washing the crap and other muck from the road off the feet of his followers. He died a criminal’s death, hanging naked on a Roman cross after having been mocked and flogged. Jesus didn’t fight back when arrested and taken to trial, and he didn’t lead a political revolution – give the Emperor what he deserves and give God what He deserves, was Jesus’ challenge to us.

In light of this, Christians on campus believe that we have something to offer the university this week. We don’t do so out of arrogance or because we think we’re better than anyone else, but because we believe the claims Jesus made about himself are true, and that he continues to turn lives upside down to this day. Nick Willis, carrier of the NZ flag at the London 2012 Olympics, discovered this simple truth while on a running scholarship a few years ago: “Jesus showed me how we can live life to the fullest.” He recounts that people “started encouraging me to consider what I thought about Jesus, how my life could change if He were a part of it. At the time, I didn’t really know the answers to these questions, but I was very curious to find out.” This week, why not look out for the flyers and posters for our events, and pick one to come along to? Whatever your own beliefs, interact with the claims placed before the campus this week by your fellow students – I and many others have put them to the test and believe they are both intellectually credible and existentially satisfying. Investigate this Jesus, and re-think success with us.

 

For the first event of the week, come and hear Chris Clarke, CEO of World Vision, sharing his thoughts on how to change the world. Monday 6th August, 5pm. Look out for our posters & flyers for more event details. [blog-editor’s note – it’s in Shadows!]

 
[……..]
Evangelical Union president

Advertisements

Is it possible to be unhappy about gay marriage?

Here are some preliminary thoughts about the gay marriage debate that NZ will face in coming weeks. They grew to a longer screed than intended, sorry. A bill will be debated before parliament on this subject – here is its current form. These thoughts are a work in progress, and I may work on them further in future if it seems a productive use of time. I realise that by entering this area, I may offend some people, but that is not my intention. I ask that you read this with an attitude of charity. If you’d like to talk about it, I will gladly buy you a coffee, though if a firestorm of controversy erupts this is a limited offer as I have finite time and resources.


[image from Wikipedia]

What am I looking for in this debate; what do I hope to see? As far as possible, I want to see human dignity respected, human well-being maximised, and consistent standards applied. I want to see careful reasoning. Bold claims about ‘rights’ and ‘progress’ will be treated with scepticism – if this is considered sacrilegious, so be it. There are many conflicting claims in this area, often uttered by the same person – some attempt at rigor and clarity is essential if we are to see genuine debate rather than an emotive shout-fest. Some will say that the time for talking is over. I say that talking is one of the best defences we’ve yet found against bad ideas and I don’t intend to stop it. I write this post as I have studied philosophy, have a semi-amateur and seldom-indulged interest in legal thought on this issue, and believe it is important that the debate is actually had rather than simply assumed to have had been won sometime in the past.

What values do I bring to this debate? Firstly I am a Christian, and I believe that the Bible is entirely true in all that it teaches. I will leave that for now, but am always happy to discuss it. I think you will not need to agree with me on that to agree with me on other things presented here. I also, incidentally, believe that Christians should be able to promote religious views in the public square much as atheists can present views founded on a secular ethic; but I don’t think you’ll need to accept ‘religious’ premises in order to rationally oppose or be sceptical of claims for a change in the definition of marriage.

Secondly, I am socially conservative. Full explanation of this will have to await another occasion, but there are at least two strands. 1) Societies of the past have something to offer our present society. This is encapsulated in a quote from GK Chesterton:

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” “

2) Living in a ‘western’ country, our laws and institutions owe a great deal to the Christian faith. As a Christian, I am therefore inclined to want to keep more of them than I want to immediately change. There was, however, no ‘golden age’ in our past that we can look back to for a perfect legal system, and our system is always and rightly being reformed. Indeed, we have made some significant moral progress over the centuries – not in all areas, but in many. Note that by accepting that we have made real moral progress, I am accepting that there is a standard by which moral claims may be judged. I believe that this standard is from God and our best hope at it is intelligent reflection on the biblical witness to divine revelation, taking into account other findings, for example from science and human experience of the world. This proposal may sound unlikely to you, but it is my contention that a secular basis for normative ethics is at best very hard to come by. And if ethics is an illusion, let us give up talk of rights and progress! But, human beings tend to share some moral intuitions and the ability to reason about the world and I think people of goodwill can be reasoned towards accepting the good sense of a traditional, conjugal, view of marriage. If not, I guess we’ll all just be talking past each other, and that’d be a real pity.

Okay, prolegomena aside, time to move on to the dangerous stuff.

What is marriage? I believe that it is the union of one man and one woman who commit to each other exclusively, and that an important function of the institution (though not every instance of it) from the perspective of the wider society is the raising of children; part of the nature of the institution is that it is for the benefit of the wider society. This is what marriage intrinsically is. But in New Zealand and many other places, there is an added layer – marriage is recognised by the state; it is considered normative in some sense, or at least worthy of recognition. The view I commend is that enshrined in our current law, as I understand it. If we are to reject it as a society, I want to see reasons. Following RP George et al, the view I will be defending is the “conjugal view”. Fuller argumentation in support of it can be found in this important paper – I will simply highlight aspects that I consider important in my particular context. Mere statements of one’s opposing belief about the issue will not be persuasive and noone should expect them to be. If you disagree with what I present, an alternative is required – not mere critique or mockery, but a new definition.

The view I hold is found across cultures and I think is firmly grounded in the nature of human beings. There is Christian teaching to this effect, but it is also commonly recognised as being normative. However, we must ask: what about the vast range of other relationships out there, whether sexual or not – are any of these also ‘marriage’? One alternative view is that any committed relationship between two people where they love each other should be considered eligible for the status of marriage if the two wish to take that path. Anything else, we are told, is discrimination. Perhaps surprisingly, this is not the view found within the text of the new bill. On my reading, this proposed piece of legislation stipulates that a person, no matter how strong the love, commitment, etc., may not marry their:

(a) grandparent:

(b) parent:

(c) child:

(d) grandchild:

(e) sibling:

(f) parent’s sibling:

(g) sibling’s child:

(h) grandparent’s spouse or civil union partner:

(i) parent’s spouse or civil union partner:

(j) spouse’s or civil union partner’s parent:

(k) spouse’s or civil union partner’s grandparent:

(l) spouse’s or civil union partner’s child:

(m) child’s spouse or civil union partner:

(n) grandchild’s spouse or civil union partner:

(o) spouse’s or civil union partner’s grandchild.

Perhaps some proponents of the bill would wish that these restrictions were not in place, I do not know. But it is clear that things are not entirely simple in this area; love between two consenting adults is not enough! A slogan promoting revision to the law is “legalise love”. But in my view, love is not the issue here – the state prevents no-one (including those sharing love with another on the “still banned” list) from loving each other. The question is what relationships the state should recognise as belonging within ‘marriage’, conceived as a fundamental institution of our society. If marriage is literally meaningless or a definition is unable to be found, then it should be abolished rather than renovated.

The new definition of marriage desired by those pushing for “marriage equality” is I think an essentially selfish one, at least in the way I have seen it promoted. Marriage under such a definition is about two people who love each other, and everyone else can keep their nose out of any such partnerships. What happens between two adults is up to them, we are told, and we should all respect other people’s choices. But, those pushing for the recognition of same-sex marriage are simultaneously looking for state approval of such relationships. If state approval of marriage is currently due to what it produces, i.e. is essentially ‘others’ or ‘society’ focussed, then individual-centred, rights-based approaches will be in conflict with this understanding. If the state is required to recognise any relationship whatsoever, then it seems to me it may as well get out of the business of recognising relationships entirely. But if it is to only recognise some (even if a very large range) as constituting “marriage”, it will need to provide justification to those whose relationships do not fit the pattern deemed normative – and there will always be some! The conjugal view can provide such justification, in that under it, marriage is considered a public good and the natural foundation of society – a version which is only concerned with the self-fulfilment of those in the marital relationship will struggle to justify special state treatment accruing to those who enter it.

In summary, I don’t see principled distinctions being made between relationships recognised as marriage and those not (e.g. incest, not to mention polygamy and other multiple-person relationships) under a new definition. I also don’t see justification for State recognition of a broader range of relationships. Instead, same-sex marriage seems to me to be a quirk, a mere twist on a traditional view of marriage – we are held back by our western heritage from legally recognising a number of relationships (there’s a cringe factor associated with them) but want to recognise as many as possible, so are stuck in a bizarre half-way house where some aspects of traditional marriage (e.g. love & commitment [to some extent] and the requirement for exactly 2 participants) are arbitrarily insisted on, while others (those that are distinctive to the heterosexual conjugal view) are dropped. “Marriage equality” is presented as the epitome of progress, but is instead just one iteration of the traditional view that is possible out of many – merely cultural factors cause the population to favour some over others.

Finally, to respond to some assertions made in an article in ‘Craccum’ on this issue published last week, mostly dealing with what Christians think about the issue, qua Christians (I may write a proper response some time, we’ll see):

The Bible is clear that sex is intended for heterosexual marriage – assertions to the contrary are false.

Many marriages in the Old Testament (OT) were indeed polygamous. This is clearly forbidden in the new and is an example, perhaps, of progressive revelation – I am not a theologian so I’m not sure of the right way to put it. The OT, however, does not I think advocate polygamy or see it as normative. A quote from Tim Keller is helpful:

”… then I read Robert Alter’s The Art of Biblical Narrative. Alter is a Jewish scholar at Berkeley whose expertise is ancient Jewish literature. In his book he says there are two institutions present in the Book of Genesis that were universal in ancient cultures: polygamy and primogeniture. Polygamy said a husband could have multiple wives, and primogeniture said the oldest son got everything—all the power, all the money. In other words, the oldest son basically ruled over everyone else in the family. Alter points out that when you read the Book of Genesis, you’ll see two things. First of all, in every generation polygamy wreaks havoc. Having multiple wives is an absolute disaster—socially, culturally, spiritually, emotionally, psychologically, and relationally. Second, when it comes to primogeniture, in every generation God favors the younger son over the older. He favors Abel, not Cain; Isaac, not Ishmael; Jacob, not Esau. Alter says that you begin to realize what the Book of Genesis is doing—it is subverting, not supporting, those ancient institutions at every turn.”

The Craccum article claims that there were medieval and pre-medieval examples of gay marriage in Christian countries. This is a popular claim on the internet, but is most probably false.

As the author says, it is curious that the State has a role in recognising the marriage relationship. Maybe there’s a reason for it.

There is more I intended to say – including about why marriage is particularly important to Christians, having been used repeatedly as an image of God’s love for people and the relationship between God and Church, and more – but this will do for now. If you’re annoyed by what I’ve written, I’m happy to talk about it; please convince me!

The value of the university


A university is a place where truth is valued so much that dearly held beliefs considered self-evident or irrefutable are opened up to being questioned. Universities in NZ have an officially recognised role as the “critic and conscience of society”; this requires us to be morally aware, well-informed, and active in speaking out, but these requirements seem to have taken a back-seat to pragmatism and people-pleasing in recent years; if indeed they were ever uppermost. Imagine if we helped to regain them; if we dared to step back and glimpse the big picture and act in light of it.

A university is not just a factory producing skilled workers to grow the economy. Yes, long-term gains in living standards require more than that approach, but what the university is really about has intrinsic value and does not require further justification. It’s not just a place where students file in to be indoctrinated with the intellectual fads or propaganda techniques of the day, but rather an institution where careful thought and argument are prized, and disagreement is engaged in charitably, even across the wide social, cultural, and ideological barriers that divide us. The real value of the university lies in its role in fleshing out the values of our society and subjecting them to critique.

What are the questions that our generation needs to be asking; and how are we to answer them? If you’ve never considered these things, you’re in the right place – a university exists for such a purpose. Market forces, mass media, globalization and many other things may conspire against us, but we need to take learning and thought seriously for its own sake. Charles Malik, who helped to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, comments “change the university and you can change the world!” For the sake of the world, I hope to see positive change in our university.

In our confused and messy world, here are some things I think we should probably consider as a society and as individuals. Firstly, what is truly valuable? What is it that is worth making sacrifices for and that we want to see more of in our world? Following on from this, are we truly autonomous as individuals, or are we beholden to something greater than ourselves? Secondly, how is this value (whatever it may be) grounded? How did it get here, and what makes it important? Is it just a matter of our choice? Is value foreign to the real nature of the universe, a projection upon it, or is it in some way foundational? Thirdly, given that that which we deem valuable is so often defaced, what are the underlying problems causing this situation? Is it selfishness, technology, superstition, politics, commerce, religion, or something else to blame? Fourthly, are these problems addressable, and if so, how? And finally, a twist on the first question – what is our goal anyway? Setting aside what will for most of us just be a handful or less years at university, what are we aiming to achieve in life as a whole?

I don’t have space here to give my own answers to these questions, but the club I help to lead is very interested in these things. The Evangelical Union is our university’s longest-running faith-based student organization and in line with my proposal that we all reconsider the big questions, we offer the university an event – Rutherford medallist Dr Jeff Tallon, FRSNZ, speaks on “Who made God? And other questions on the borders of physics and faith”. Tues 24th July, Eng 3403, 12-1. I hope to see you there.

[photo from Wikipedia]

Early Christian society, inferred from their manuscripts

an early Christian
The written records we have of the early Christian community indicate that it was quite egalitarian compared to its societal milieu. For instance, we see slaves, public officials and wealthy merchants all playing important roles in the church (as far as I know).

This is corroborated to some extent by the way in which some of these texts were written – unlike some contemporary writings, they weren’t designed solely for the use of societal elites, but included presentation techniques designed to facilitate reading by less highly educated people.

See more on this here.

I would like to study more about Christian origins, but I fear I will not have time to be anything other than an amateur on this issue and many others.