This is a world with tragic death, third world suffering and lingering, painful illness.  And so people ask questions like:

1. Why do good, innocent people suffer? Why do bad things happen to good people?
2. Why do the wicked prosper?
3. What about accidental death and suffering?  Why does this happen to some and not others?
4. Is this God’s judgment for sin?
5. Is it persecution for being a Christian?
6. Why doesn’t God prevent ‘natural’ disasters like tsunamis?

Well, the first thing to do is to remember that for every difficult and complex problem there is a simple solution………….. that is wrong!  The problem of evil and suffering is difficult and complex and no one ever said there had to be a single solution for all suffering. Trying to explain human accidents, perfectly natural events (like dying), natural disasters and deliberate suffering all with one simple explanation is probably impossible.

This means we have to think things through; pray through it; study scripture. There is a great need for people to be prepared: to think through their attitude to pain, death and suffering ahead of time is essential.  And as well as the questions noted above there are other questions that should be asked, but usually aren’t:

1. Why shouldn’t these things happen?
2. Why do good things happen to bad people? And why do good things happen to good people? etc
3. OK some people don’t “deserve” to have that happen, but what would happen if everyone got exactly what they deserved?
4. Isn’t pain good? Not only in a physical sense, as a warning about a problem in our body, but isn’t, for example, the pain felt from a justified rebuke good for us?  C. S. Lewis said, “God whispers in our pleasure, speaks in our conscience and shouts in our pain.”

Why do we find this so hard to deal with?

Perhaps there should be no surprise that the question of pain and suffering is one that people find very difficult today because, as a society, we are very pain averse! As a modern scientifically and technologically literate society we have done a lot to get rid of the pain and suffering that people previously had no way of dealing with.  While questions about pain and suffering have always been around I think they are particularly sharp today.  I think in previous eras pain and death, even tragic and early death, was accepted with a much higher degree of equanimity. Today it is an affront to our egotistic belief that we can control life!

As a contrast, note that in the 17th century Jeremy Taylor’s two books Holy Living and Holy Dying were hugely popular. With the latter being the big seller! It was instruction on how to use every day to prepare for suffering and death. Live every moment in readiness for your death! Be ready for the death of others; use your time wisely to be ready for suffering. I am sure that they had a very different attitude to us.

The first step is the affirmation is that God is good – a theology of providence

Providence is the outworking of God’s sovereignty by which his purposes are achieved in and through all events even despite any apparent or real opposition to his will and purposes. It refers to all of God’s gracious actions in the world – food, rain, clothing, seasons; and the general care through government, social institutions, family, friends. It can include conscience; morality; intelligence. Providence asserts that God is good and loving.

• Genesis 1-2 God made the world ‘good’
• Psalm 136:25 (“his steadfast love endures forever”);

Providence is an assertion of meaning in life. The doctrine of providence is contrary to

• Deism  (the idea that God is not involved in the world)
• Fatalism (the idea that nothing can be avoided and that everything just happens)
• Chance (the idea that everything is random)
• Eternal dualism (the idea that there is an eternal conflict between God and evil that has no end).

The greatest good, of course, is Christ: We must resist the temptation to think of providence – or suffering – independently, that is separately from that which makes a Christian doctrine of providence truly Christian, which is Christ (Ephesian 1:4ff).  In the end it is true that “Jesus is the answer”!

At this point though, the problem of providence remains:  if God is so good why is there still evil?  And to some extent the answer is, controversially, because he’s good! This is, of course, a statement of faith, though we can begin to understand it if we continue to think it through!

The reality is that this world is good, but it is not “the best of all possible worlds” but it is the best, the only way to get to the best of all possible worlds. That “best of all possible worlds” is yet to come. It is the New Creation where there is no pain and no suffering.  “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” (Rev. 21:4)

So if that is the ultimate aim, a world with no pain, then why does not God arrange it so that we go straight there? And the answer is that some things are just impossible. A round square; a married bachelor.  More seriously some very important things cannot be done, except in certain ways, as we shall see………

The second step: the freewill explanation of evil and suffering

Much, though not all, of the evil and tragedy of the world can be seen as the result of human sin: we drive too fast and cause accidents; we don’t share food and medical resources; we hurt others.  We could do otherwise, but we don’t.  As human beings we have the free-will to be able to choose and this means we can choose badly. And the point is that God cannot make a person without free-will. If you make a person who is able to love, then they will be able to hate. If you let someone have the freedom to choose, then they will sometimes choose the wrong thing.

In short, you can make an animal or a robot without free-will but you cannot make a person without free will. God does not like the bad choices we make and he weeps over them too. But in order to achieve the greater good of people in communion with God the possibility of evil has to enter the world.

Of course, this does not explain all suffering! But bear in mind what I said about there not being one, simple answer for something as complex as this!  There is more.

The third step: the greater good explanation

This part of the explanation says that although tragic suffering is, in one sense, definitely evil (it would be foolish, even scandalous to suggest that suffering was not a terrible thing),  in another sense it is a positive good because without it we could never be the people that God wants us to be.

To take a simple example: how does one learn patience? Only by being kept waiting. How does one learn to be joyful?  Only by being confronted with times are difficult.  If nothing is ever a problem then you can never learn to overcome it. How do you learn to love? Only by dealing with the possibility of not loving!

It might take some time for you to think through this, and the implications of a world where  no one is ever kept waiting, hurt, disappointed,  frustrated, or has to deal with anger, offense, loss or the unexpected. The only way that human, emotional, spiritual growth can take place is in the face of adversity.  And so, without denying the evil, it can be turned into good. This is the nature of God who is able to turn around that which is meant for evil and use it for good.

I would never be too quick to suggest to people who have suffered that “Oh, this is for your good!”  Bad things are bad things and in the first instance we have to empathize and deal with that fact. But, ultimately, the worst evil -  the death of Christ for instance – can be turned around for good.

The Scripture speaks frequently of the way that suffering, of various kinds, can be used for good:

1. Suffering reveals the nature of God

2 Cor 4:7-18 –  it shows the power of God; reveals the life of Jesus; and encourages us

2. Suffering shows the faith of believers

1 Peter 1 v.7 – trials shows the genuineness of faith

James 1:12 – temptation reveals faith

3. Suffering produces perseverance

2 Thessalonians 1:3-10  – it leads to perseverance and faith

4. Suffering can be a means to encourage others

2 Corinthians 1:3-11 – believers are consoled so they can console others and so they will learn to rely on God

5. Suffering shows the power of God

2 Corinthians 11:22-30 – it shows our weakness and God’s power

6. Suffering can lead  to repentance

2 Cor 7:5-13  – Godly grief that led to repentance

7. Suffering can be a discipline

Hebrews 12:3-11 – the pain of discipline; suffering that produces righteousness

John15:2 Pruning branches that bear no fruit

8. Suffering can lead to maturity

James 1 v.3 – testing produces endurance and maturity

9. Suffering can lead to blessing and reward

Matthew 5:10-12 – persecution (leads to) reward

1 Peter 3:13-18 -suffering for doing right brings blessing

10. Suffering is a way to be like Christ

Philippians 3:10 – Paul desires to know the sufferings of Christ to become like him

Colossians 1:24-2 we should rejoice in suffering because this means ‘completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body’

11. Suffering enables witness to non-Christians

2 Cor 6:1-10 – suffering commends the gospel

Philippians 1:12-18- helps the spread of the gospel

2 Timothy 2:1-1 – join in suffering for the witness of the gospel

But despite all this talk of positive benefits I can well imagine people still thinking that it would be good if God would just get rid of the worst pain and suffering. People complain, “Why not do something about this or that, that’s terrible!” Well let us consider what would happen if God took away the worst suffering and evil that there is in the world.   It’s simply the case that if the worst imaginable evil disappeared from this world then something else will become the worst imaginable evil and people would complain about that, “why should that happen, that’s terrible!”  The fact is that if you’re going to get rid of evil you have to get rid of all of it.  And that takes us to the final answer….

The final step is to remember that the problem has been solved!

People ask, “Why doesn’t God do something about it?” The answer is that he has! In the death of Christ on the cross he has borne the pain and suffering, the sin and evil of the world. The way to heaven – where there is no more pain and suffering – is open.

It is true that we live in an interim period – after the death of Christ and the salvation of the world, but before the final consummation of all things. And in this interim period pain and suffering continues. But this is also itself a time of great grace and love, because this is the time of opportunity for people to turn to Christ and be saved.

The humour of this kind of “end of the world” cartoon reminds us that there is a certain disdain for crazy preachers who proclaim the end of all things, but we ought to remember that Jesus came into Galilee as an end-time preacher, saying, “The time has come, the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14-15). It might be good if the church was more willing to sound equally crazy in saying that the kingdom of God is a lot closer than many realize, and that we are nearly there at every moment of time!  The Celtic Christian tradition has a saying that heaven and earth are only three feet apart, and that in the “thin” places the distance is even less. This is a way of saying that there are times and places when it seems that the veil between heaven and earth is lifted and we are able to get a glimpse, a sense of the holy.

The “thin places” can be found everywhere, in conversation, in prayer, in the classroom, in worship, in the street. This is partly because the idea of the “end” of the world has two distinct meanings. It can refer to the temporal end, the time when it finishes; and it can refer to its meaning or purpose. From a biblical, or eschatological point of view these two dimensions of “the end” are connected because the meaning of all events is to be discerned from examining those events which occur at “the end times”.

And God, by grace, has helped us in this by locating the resurrection of Jesus Christ, an event which, theologically, belongs to the end of time, in the midst of time. An analogy of this is that although the “end” (the purpose or meaning) of this talk really belongs at its “end” (the temporal “end”) I can actually anticipate this and bring the future into the present and say:

The mission of the church (participating in the mission of God) is to help people understand that the purpose of life can be found, and experienced right now as well as in the future, in what God has done through the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus individually in the eternal life we can experience now; and corporately in the life of the kingdom of God in which we share; and cosmically in the redemption of the whole of creation.

This means that the church’s mission is to bring the future into the present. There is a joke about a man trying to explain complicated directions to a disorientated tourist who finishes up saying, “Well, if I were you I wouldn’t start from here”! But, in terms of finding one’s way to the kingdom of God, you can start from anywhere! God is gracious, if you want to start with him, he simply does not mind about time or place.

The lecture then proceeds to discuss the relationship between the biblical story and the ‘scientific’ story of the events of this world. Christian mission can be characterised as bringing these two stories with their different ‘endings’ together. The difficulties involved in this are explored and it is then related to the understanding of God as Trinity. The lecture concludes that “in the end, mission emerges out of hope which is connected to our understanding of the Trinitarian God. And the church’s hope, and thus the church’s mission should focus on all three dimensions of that hope, individual, communal and cosmic. Only because the church has a hope does it engage in mission. And anything that is done without hope is not a part of the mission of God.”

What is the future of faith? What future is there for the church? These were the matters discussed on the ABC’s Sunday Night Talk  (July 18) with Jon Cleary, myself, Andrew McGowan (Warden of Trinity College at the University of Melbourne) and Dr Margaret Beirne, a Catholic sister of Charity and senior lecturer in Biblical studies at St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox theological college.

You can read Jon’s comments and download the whole program as a podcast from the ABC site.

Before the program started I made some notes on what I thought. Note carefully, that these are only notes. But they might stimulate your own thought on the topic.

• Prophetic Problem 1: it’s very hard to prophesy, especially with respect to the future!
• Prophetic Problem 2: everyone has the same difficulty: that of distinguishing  what one would like to see happen and what one expects actually will happen. We all have our biases.
• Prophetic problem 3: The church is always in crisis and only occasionally realizes this!

The fundamental issue as seen from the perspective of faith (as distinct from sociology) is that the question is not about the role of the church in the world of the future, but it is about the role of the world in the future of the church.

That is,

• sociologically the world is the broader concept and the church a small part of it but
• theologically, the church as the body of Christ is the broader concept – it is the future and the destiny of all things – the world was created so that there might be a church, a community worshipping God, a body of Christ. The church is the future of the world.

The future of the church and of faith lies in having Jesus Christ at the centre. That can happen in a number of ways, via a number of traditions but any church which is not explicitly, overtly focused on Jesus has lost the centre of faith.

Now to a few of the other major issues.

Firstly, the future will indeed be a spiritual world. Faith is not disappearing as has often been predicted. Note (Peter) “Berger’s blunder” concerning The Sacred Canopy (the sociologists text of the 1960’s and 1970’). The ‘sacred canopy’ over society has not been folded up and put away. Secularism has not won out (as Berger subsequently admitted). The world today is as religiously orientated as ever. Religions are not disappearing. The question is which will be healthy, life-affirming and  spiritually enriching.

Secondly, the future of the western/Australian church cannot be discussed without reference to global influences (note particularly the work of Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom). The church of the future will be dominated by non-western influences (proviso: USA) and based in the south and it will be characterized as; evangelical; Pentecostal; morally conservative; spiritually enthusiastic; theologically orthodox; eschatological/future orientated; missionary. (ie. Very different to where typical western mainline secularized churches are going).

The majority of Christians are already now in south/east rather than north/west.  And this majority church is, amongst other things,  both poor and missionary. (Did you see the ABC’s program about the mission of African priests to the Catholic church in Tasmania? And one of this years most anticipated new Australian plays (according to the Age newspaper) is Gwen in Purgatory by Tommy Murphy (dual winner of the NSW Premier’s Literary Award) about an African Christian missionary in suburban Australia: you know something is happening when there are plays being performed about a subject!)

Thirdly: in terms formal structures things are changing quickly.  It was some time ago that Loren Mead wrote his influential book The Once and Future Church: we have moved from an Apostolic paradigm; to Christendom; and now to Emerging.  I would simply say that “denominationalism is dead”. This is not to say that denominations will disappear but people (at least in non-Catholic/Orthodox circles) no longer identify themselves spiritually in terms of a denomination (as they used to: “I am a Baptist” or “I am a Methodist”). People change denominations/church according to other factors (theology; worship style etc).  In this situation there is a need (possibility) for a new grass-roots ecumenism (of local networks ?). We certainly should shift from the current situation of ‘ignore your ecclesiastical neighbour’ (how many times have you just been to visit the worship service of the church nearest to your own?).

There has been a shift towards congregationalism (even in episcopal churches ). IN the future we can expect less ‘top-down’; less clericalism(? ); more diversity in form with many bases (geographic and non-geographic).

Fourthly, after decades of faith being seen as private we will have to see more of a public church/faith. But not in the form of ‘Christendom’.  Christians will  have to engage intellectually and experientially with atheism/hard secularism/and even progressivism.  [Progressivism is so passé. Theologically unorthodox progressivism will fail. Non-orthodoxy is ultimately self-defeating (why would anyone really bother?) but temporarily parasitical (only getting converts from within the church)].

Fifthly, the form of spirituality is fragmened in form but united in ethos (as with the amorphous ‘New Age’ spirituality).   The church needs to exhibit humility, offering faith to people. It must be Christocentric and Trinitarian in form and have a very clear spirituality.  Those parts of the church which have engaged in other (often very useful) activities without maintaining a clear focus on Christ will continue to diminish. The mainline churches have largely dropped the ball in this regard. They have simply not been sufficiently overtly spiritual and Christ-centred. That is what the church is about and if people only get other activities then they can usually find that done more effectively elsewhere. The uniqueness of the church lies in making Jesus real to people and not in anything else (not vaguely spiritual or even ‘generic-God’  focused and not even just in being fellowship, justice or education orientated: these are important but will wither if not associated with a deep spirituality).

There are any number of ways of being Christ focused:

• Renewal movements: evangelical; liturgical; contemplative; home church
• The contemplative tradition – the quiet/reflective life (eg Peterson: the Contemplative pastor)
• The Holiness Tradition – the virtuous life
• The charismatic tradition – the spirit powered life
• The social justice tradition – the compassionate life
• The evangelical tradition – the Christ/cross/Bible centred life
• We have focused on “gathered church” but there is a greater role for “scattered church”.

Sixthly (but it really should be promoted in this list) there is the indigenous situation in Australia. Our failure to deal with this issue (and therefore with related issues such as asylum seekers/racism) is a moral and spiritual roadblock for Australia.  Revival/renewal should be sought ‘from the centre/the heart of Australia. Will it happen?

There are,  of course, any number of other issues that will impact the future of faith including the presence of the persecuted church (more needs to be said about the fact that more people died for their faith in the twentieth than any other century); the influence of biotechnology, ecology and the status of women.

In recent times the concept of human rights has become increasingly important. It is now very common for people to seek to resolve everything from the most serious to the most trivial via human rights. The first ‘dilemma’ is deciding what is meant by ‘human rights’.  Issues include: religious liberty; torture; the use of landmines; the right to self-determination; corporal punishment; dowries; the Northern Territory intervention; gay marriage; vilification laws; single sex private clubs; construction industry unionists; bikie gangs; access to justice; children and young people’s rights; disability; economic; social and cultural rights; asylum rights; terrorists and family/friends/congregation. At a structural level there are issues relating to charters and common law; the Freedom of Belief Review; the role of inter discrimination; national conventions.  What are we to make of all this?

These are notes on an address given to the Annual Conference (2009) of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations within the Uniting Church in Australia and subsequently to a seminar of the ACC in Victoria (2010)

The concept of universal human rights is not static. ‘Human rights’ as they are generally understood and discussed today are the rights of lawyers and lawmakers and not so much the rights of theologians and philosophers.  This is not necessarily bad, but it has implications!  Modern rights begin with Enlightenment influenced 18^th century philosophical rights expressed in the US and French Declarations. But in the modern era they are most associated with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the two subsequent principal covenants:  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) and subsequent treaties on various topics (including racial discrimination; torture; the rights of the child and the family). MOre recent developments have included the proliferation of national and state charters and bills.    The matter is made even more complex by the differences between these various legal rights and popular conceptions of human rights – which are very diverse – and more theological and philosophical conceptions of human rights.

The central point of human rights is that they are attributed a status as high priority convictions; they are rights of all people; they trump other laws; they are independent of law; no other, weaker norm can provide adequate protection; the costs imposed by the right are tolerable and can be distributed equitably; it is feasible in the large majority of countries. They primarily relate to claims made on societies, often governments.  The more modern rights are egalitarian and more social. These rights are not absolute, they can conflict; they are not completely transhistorical; they can be “withdrawn” at times. Christian theology has contributed hugely to the notion of human rights, and still has more to offer.

1. Preserving the foundation of human rights: Human rights need to have a theological (philosophical) foundation. It is doubtful that any purely secular theory of rights can satisfactorily demonstrate why particular human rights ought to exist. This is not to say that there cannot be a purely pragmatic reason given or that a set of rights cannot be developed simply by consensus. Indeed that is the primary way it has been operating for some time. But the loss of a substantial foundation exposes human rights to a process of deterioration.  The general understanding of human rights has been moving through stages: from the philosophical to the pragmatic and now, with some to a desire to marginalize the theological foundation on which they are built. There is something of a dilemma in finding ways to work with those who work only on the basis of pragmatics and consensus while retaining an obvious commitment to a theological approach.  Trinitarian theology is connected with social human rights. God is the source of all good. Rights arise from the reality of the creation of humanity in the divine image. Human rights reflect the communal pattern of the Trinity. Freedom and equality are central biblical concepts (eg. a right theology of baptism extends beyond the purely private to very public, social dimensions (Gal. 3:26-7 for more on this see the appendix below).

2. Developing the theology of human rights: The Christian focus is upon human responsibilities directed towards God. But in modern statements these states of responsibility are expressed as basic rights of individuals.  To say that a person has certain rights is only possible because we understand that God holds others responsible for them. This, in turn, emerges out of a covenant relationship. Talk of rights apart from both responsibilities and relationships is not really adequate. We need to consider the possibility of Christians and the gospel helping society go beyond the concept of human rights into a new way of thinking.

The great dilemma of human rights thinking, indeed of all social involvement by the Christian is how it is possible to affirm that which is right; promote the healthy; and work for common good; while at the same time saying clearly that this is not the main issue and reminding people that real life comes irrespective of the presence of economic security, good health and even the presence of human rights. There is no question that Christians should not seek the welfare of the city (Jeremiah) or the good of their neighbour (Jesus) nor is this meant to detract in any way from support for human rights, this is however a claim that the kingdom of God is not ‘of’ this world (even though it is ‘in’ this world and profoundly influencing it). There is a profound connection between the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘secular’:  (1) Individually, there is no higher right than to hear the gospel and to be able to receive the salvation which God offers. This right translates in the wider community to a more general ‘religious liberty’ because the right to hear the gospel necessarily involves the right to reject it, or even to accept another.(John 1:12; Romans 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:16). This is the foundation for both a general theory of religious liberty and subsequently for all other individual (eg political and democratic) liberties. But the greatest human right is to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ. The evangelist who declares Jesus is a worker for the most fundamental human rights. (2) Corporately, it cannot be said that ‘groups’ or ‘communities’ have ‘human’ rights in the same manner as individuals. Yet the responsibility (or, if one prefers, the right) to be a part of the church of Jesus Christ can translate into a general right of community, culture, association etc.

3. Strengthening the practice of supporting human rights: It is precisely because of this strong theological foundation that Christians work for human rights. These fundamental gospel rights work their way out into other rights.  This extended liberty is such that not only do Christians have freedom of conscience but so do Muslims, bikies, trade unionists and even terrorists. Human Rights from a Christian perspective is not just about ourselves, or defending the church. It is about defending freedom of conscience for all people – and this is a gospel issue because God is not a God of compulsion.   Liberty derives from gospel of grace.  Christians should continue to support the notion of human rights. This means recognising the presence of gross human rights abuses in our world today. Christians have a responsibility to be engaged in care for people right around the world. One dilemma here is helping people understand that defending freedom of conscience/religion is not mere self-interest but something which is at the heart of human rights for everyone.

4. Defining fundamental concepts:  the issue of human rights actually raises important issues relating to the way that we understand our society. There are a number of intertwined issues: (1) the good of the community (there are some ’strong secularists’ whose convictions about human rights and the nature of society are more akin to social engineering); (2) the nature of a secular society (‘Human rights’ can be used as a way of enforcing secularism – as distinct from maintaining the neutrality of  a genuinely secular society); and (3) the role of religion in that society (pushing for a purely privatized role divorced from public issues).

5. Extending the moral language: the concept of human rights is very important and their influence needs to be extended. But how that occurs will be very contextual. In some places basic rights have to be developed, in places where they have already been detailed extending them does not necessarily mean ever more detail. There are differences of opinion, which is often influenced by the specific culture one comes from, as to the best general way of implementing human rights (bills, charters, common law etc). But just as Christian theology has provided a foundation for rights so too it can provide a basis for other approaches. The reality is that our public moral language is very limited. Rights is the language of law and just as to a man with a hammer everything is a nail, so to to a man with a law degree… An emphasis on a rights-based morality to the exclusion of other vocabularies will undermine understanding of public good, partly because of the perception of individual self-determination as the universal good.  The language of rights is unsuited to express the goods of many parts of community life (including marriage, sexual fidelity, the bonds and duties of family life and parental care). The dilemma here relates to the way we can help society develop a larger repertoire of moral social vocabulary including, virtue, responsibility, love, altruism and duty (which doesn’t sound very good to many because of the underlying Enlightenment view of the person as an autonomous independent being).

6. Testing and protecting rights: So far the conversation has dealt with rights in general, but there are many specific rights to be defended and extended.  The dilemma is in helping society identify genuine specific rights for all people (including, at times the ‘right’ to be wrong/rebellious/even, at times, sinful!) while seeking the good of society with behavior which is God-directed. In this Christians can be seen as (generally) taking one of two approaches to defending rights: (1) By presenting and arguing for specific rights which are Christian (eg concerning human dignity, freedom, sex, family, association, welfare etc).  (2) By defending the foundation of rights – including the freedom to be wrong – which may mean defending rights that are not ‘Christian’ (the right to be Muslim, atheist, sexually immoral from a Christian point of view) but the principles which allow for this foundation are Christian (involving grace and non-compulsion).  The view one takes on this depends on one’s view of the overall relationship of church/kingdom and society. (1) When one argues for specific Christian values it strengthens the moral state of society, but there is a danger of over-identifying church and state and trying to implement too much Christian legislation to ‘make’ people good, and also a danger in not offering to others the liberty which we expect for ourselves. (2)  Those who argue, from a Christian perspective,  for the libertarian foundation of society are defending the genuinely secular (not irreligious) nature of society and the grace of the gospel. The danger here is of allowing a re-definition of justice to mean ‘letting people do whatever they want’ and a danger of supporting the same moral vacuum which underlies secularism.

Finally, there will be differences of opinion on how rights and responsibilities are best secured in our society whether through (1) common law; (2) non-binding aspirational statements; (3) declarations which rely on enforcement by other bodies (as the UNDHR relies on the national laws of signatory countries); (4) Acts of Parliament; (5) Constitutional Declarations. The question is not whether Australia should have human rights it is how they are to be defined and defended. At this point my responsibility is to try and think biblically and theologically about the issues (rather than express personal opinion – the apostle Paul is a good example of distinguishing the two). Theology has a lot to say about rights, responsibilities and relationships but it will not always tell us everything. Is a Charter a good idea? It is such a contextual issue. Nor is it, fundamentally, really an either/or decision (no one completely rules out charters or common laws). From a theological point of view the fundamental problem doesn’t lie with a charter or common law, but with faulty (usually overly strong secularist) attitudes which lies behind pushes with regard to both laws and charters. The answer lies in changing people’s mindsets – changing their worldview – hopefully to the gospel but if not then to a view more amenable to gospel principles.

Appendix on the social and political implications of baptism

The following material is adapted from from Brian Edgar, The Message of the Trinity, IVP, 2004, pages 280-287

1. The social implications of baptism

Baptism is rarely understood as having broad public implications or a radical social agenda. It is usually understood as a personal commitment of faith, the sign of spiritual union with Christ and the point of entry into the life of the church. But when the apostle Paul expounded the meaning of baptism for the Galatians he did not just discuss its personal, experiential and ecclesial implications (Gal. 3:26-27). As Richard Longenecker comments, he addressed three pairs of relationships which ‘cover in embryonic fashion all the essential relationships of humanity, and so need to be seen as having racial, cultural and sexual implications.’[i] When he said, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” he was addressing profound social implications of three fundamental sets of human relationships which extend beyond the limits of the church. Ben Witherington has referred to Galatians 3:28 as ‘the Magna Carta of Humanity’[ii] a fundamental statement of equality before God, and a kind of constitutional statement which sets a foundation for the way life is to be lived.

Some believe that Paul’s teaching is purely about salvation (all believers have the same position in Christ) and that it does not actually have social implications. Others believe this teaching also has social implications to be addressed. But both of these positions assume that salvation is something personal and that the only question to be debated is whether it has broader, social implications. A better view is that the distinction between ‘personal’ and ‘social’ is arbitrary and that salvation is not something personal with social implications, it is both personal and social in nature. Christ came to redeem the whole world, not merely individuals from within it. He came to inaugurate a new kingdom and to transform relationships as well as enter into union with each believer. As long as we continue to understand salvation individualistically then people will have a deep suspicion of what should be an equally essential social dimension to God’s salvation of the world. The fact is that what begins with the mystical ends with the political.

2. Neither slave nor free – labor and slavery today

In the Roman empire of the first century slavery was not thought of as immoral and it is reckoned that a majority of people were actually slaves. Paul’s claim that in Christ there is neither slave nor free was, therefore a radical statement which challenged prevailing moral attitudes, although it was, no doubt, popular among slaves! It was a revolutionary step to suggest that the lowest of the low in social terms could become a son or daughter of God! Some have suggested that Paul was not very concerned about the morality, or perhaps was even a supporter, of slavery, but there is no doubt that Paul created the atmosphere for change.  He encouraged those who could to get out of it (1 Cor. 7:21) and insisted that economic and social issues were not to define participation in ministry or in relationships within the Christian community. Paul required that if there was a slave and his master in the church that Christian status should take precedence over social status (Philemon 15-16; Eph. 5:21). Note also that Paul is very careful with his terminology. Although in other contexts he speaks of ‘slaves and masters’ in the context of being ‘in Christ’ he very carefully speaks of there being neither ‘slave nor free’ because he could not suggest that in the kingdom it did not matter whether one was a slave or a master! Being a ‘master’ (that is, a slave-owner) was a state incompatible with being ‘in Christ’.

What does this mean for us? Today, despite universal condemnation both traditional slavery and related abuses still exist in many places. The United Nations reports that the sale of children, child prostitution, child pornography, the exploitation of child labour,[iii] the forced use of children in armed conflicts, bonded labour, the sale of human organs and the exploitation of prostitutes all exist today and constitute a form of slavery. In India a form of slavery exists as the Dalits (‘broken people’ formerly known as ‘untouchables’ and ‘harijan’) suffer from the officially outlawed but still operative caste discrimination. Relegated to the worst jobs they are often openly oppressed and may be assaulted if they do what is forbidden by the caste system. They are often barred from temples and they are made to live in separate areas, use separate wells for water, and be separated in shops and schools. The Christian’s responsibility is clear; it is to act in accordance with the basic principles of the gospel. Dante Alighieri (1265 – 1321 A.D.), the renowned Italian poet suggested in his typically graphic and literary manner that the darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.

3. Neither Jew nor Greek – wealth and poverty today

The implications of being baptized in Christ do not stop there. In fact the Jew–Greek distinction was probably the most important of the three.  Here Paul points out that because Jew and Gentile are united in Christ any distinction between them is now irrelevant in matters relating to salvation and any actual separation of Jew and Gentile in the church had to end. Christian Jews could not regard themselves as superior in any way or require Gentiles to embrace Jewish law even if they continued to adhere to it themselves. Jewish and Gentile believers could, and should worship together (1 Cor. 3:4) and because they shared equally in the gift of salvation there could be no distinction in ministry which would suggest that one was more competent, or that one was more restricted in what they could do, or that one was in any way superior to the other. To believe that all are ‘one in Christ Jesus’ meant that it was impossible to try and restrict the grace of God to one ethnic group or to disadvantage any particular national group. Nor could James allow for any distinction in church between the person ‘with gold rings and fine clothes’ and ‘the poor person in dirty clothes’. The instruction that there was to be no partiality in church is followed immediately by the reminder that ones’ faith is dead if it does not involve helping a brother or sister in need (James 2:1-13).  The implications of this began within the life of the church but they did not stop there (also see Acts 6:1-7). Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles could not remove discrimination and bias in terms of ministry within the church and then walk out and continue the kind of political oppression that Romans exercised over the Jews or the religious disdain that Jews had for Gentiles! Nor could the rich leave church and ignore the need for equality called for by both James (James 5:1-6; 2 Cor.8:1-15). These distinctions had to die.

Today Jews and the nation of Israel still utilize the Jew-Gentile distinction but other cultures divide up the world using other categories – different forms of racial, ethnic, religious, national and cultural distinctions. Many of our world’s problems stem from clashes concerning the way ethnic, geographic, religious and national identity should be applied. The question is, ‘What divisions would Paul address today?’ and what would James say to us? We have our identity as American, Australian or whatever, as well as ethnic and racial heritages – and often we are proud of them. But if these national or geographic distinctions mean that we treat people morally differently, and if they encourage us to feel and behave less responsibly towards people in other places than we do towards those in our own then something has gone very wrong and we need to listen to Paul, James and the other apostles (Gal.3; James 1-2; Acts 6). Should moral distinctions be made on the basis of geographic boundaries? Of course not, but the truth is that we do treat people morally differently according to geography and nationality. This occurs whenever there is an acceptance of poverty, sickness or suffering in other countries which would not be accepted in our own.

This moral dichotomy between ‘us’ and ‘them’ came home to me very sharply when I became aware that the clearly stated fundamental Australian government aid and development policy objective was that ‘Australian overseas aid is given in order to advance Australia’s national interests’! And this was the headline declaration of the whole program. I suppose I had naïvely assumed that the primary purpose of overseas aid was to relieve poverty and deal with injustice! Well, it was – in part. But the framers of this policy had, with surprising honesty, detailed what many governments in fact do – give aid (at least partly) on the basis of self-interest. This principle had practical ramifications. It meant a priority of aid to counties strategically useful to Australia and it meant preventing companies in recipient countries from implementing aid programs in order to give preference to Australian suppliers who could profit from it. It also diverted money into pseudo-aid programs primarily aimed at preventing terrorists using other counties to attack Australia. A noble cause, except that it is taken from the budget set aside for aiding the poorest people in other countries.  All this is consistent with what happens in most counties, and while we are used to broken promises in every political sphere is there a moral dualism in operation when for nearly 40 years almost all of the developed nations which promised in 1970 to spend 0.7% of Gross National Income on development aid have consistently failed to fulfil their promise and the amount of aid has been around 0.2 to 0.4%.[iv] We cannot be like the mythical character who thoughtfully commented to a friend, ‘You know sometimes I’d like to ask God why he doesn’t do something about famine and injustice, when he could do something about it.’ His friend replied, ‘Well, what’s stopping you asking him?’ and the rather sheepish but revealing answer is, ‘I’m afraid he might ask me the same question!’ Note however, that my main point is not to debate overseas development aid but to ask whether our national borders have become moral boundaries, and whether biblical principles have anything to do with removing them.

[ii] B. Witherington III, Grace in Galatia, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1998) 280.

[iii]. See web-site of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

[iv] See  http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance#Almostallrichnationsfailthisobligation

Some recent headlines (of May 20) have declared that ‘life has been artificially created’ but the J. Craig Venter Institute says, a little more precisely, that they have succeeded in creating the first living organism – a bacterium – with a completely synthetic genome.  Perhaps that is not as dramatic as saying ‘we have created life’, but it is a bit more accurate and it is, nonetheless, a great scientific achievement.

Every living creature has its own sequence of DNA which is the blueprint for what the organism is. A sequence of DNA designed on a computer has been created from the four chemical bases adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T) which make up DNA and this has been placed into a donor cell which grew and replicated itself. So now the world has a new bacteria which previously did not exist.

So what?

Well, in the short term new bacteria could be designed to do the things that bacteria do. Bacteria are already used to cleanup many types of water and soil pollution. The right bacteria could, for instance, help clean up the huge oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Bacteria are also used to treat municipal waste water before it is released back into the environment. They are also used to breakdown soil pollutants. It might be possible to use new bacteria to create bio-fuels. And there might be medical uses as well. Bacteria not only cause infection, some sorts are good at helping in the healing of wounds. And in the same way that we now artificially synthesize insulin (instead of retrieving it from the bodies of dead people) bacteria could perhaps synthesis other products.

Of course, there are risks in this as well. A new bacteria might have properties that we don’t know about and might cause either environmental or health problems. So there are questions of being able to work out safely what would be involved in good health outcomes for people and safe and productive commercial practices. This will be complicated by questions about the commercialization of life, and the patenting and ownership of life forms. None of this will be easy.

But on top of this, the greater significance is that it is another step along the way of people being able to re-form and re-structure life forms and in the long term it will have much greater significance. In short, we are in the process of re-creating, or at least re-forming life.

And so there are important theological questions tied up in this. Should we be ‘creating life’ in this way? Well, first of all, this is not ‘creation’ in the way that God creates. It is the re-formation of already existing matter. So we have not taken over God’s job. But it does involve a design which is novel, and a form of life that is new.

Does this mean ‘playing God’? Well there is a sense in which we are called to ‘play God’, that is, to represent God in the world. As God’s stewards we are to use our intelligence and our wisdom to care for the world, and this means intervening in what is going on. It is not so much a case of whether we will affect the world but how we will do that. Will we do it wisely and carefully?

But should this stewardship involve creating new forms of life?   Again, there is a sense in which we already do this. Creating a bacteria is not as significant as creating a new, unique human being, but that is what we do all the time. God has enabled us to produce new people – we are, to use the technical term, pro-creators. We procreate. Which means we, in a sense, stand in for God and make the decision about a new life.

But, of course, we don’t control the form that this new life takes. Except that we have started to do that with genetic engineering, and, in various places, sex-selection and selection against embryos with genetic disorders.

In all of this we have to use our intelligence, wisdom and our creative abilities. Now some people will resist the idea of creating new forms of life, as usurping God’s position. But others will think that being in the image of God mean that we are to be creative, just like God is creative. I think that is not unreasonable, although it is a profoundly important issue – one filled with all sorts of potential – good and bad.

In any case, I think – no, I am sure – that it is inevitable that we will move on to create other forms of life, and will modify and change exiting forms of life – including the form of the human person (again, something we are already doing with chemical and medical technology). So in that situation the question is how we bring Christian wisdom and Christian values to bear on the situation.

Questions that need to be resolved include discerning more clearly the nature and significance of ‘species’ and whether/to what extent there are boundaries that should not be crossed; and the appropriate rate of any change that is seen as helpful.

We need great wisdom as we embark on this stage of life and development.

If you want to read more on this topic click on the Biotheology link where there are a number of related articles.

This blog was the basis of a conversation with Sheridon Voysey on Open House, broadcast nationally on May 23, 2010  on Sydney Hope 103.2, Melbourne Light FM 89.9, Canberra 1Way FM 91.9, Wollongong NineFourONe 94.1, Adelaide Life FM 107.9, Hobart Ultra 106five, Riverland / Mallee, SA 100.7 and the Vision Radio Network.

The term ‘bioethics’ is usually construed too narrowly (as bio-medical ethics relating to the person) rather than as a parallel to the wide range of issues covered by biotechnology (including gene manipulation, nanotechnology, biodiversity, ecology, biopharming , reproductive medicine and stem cell research etc), and there is a tendency to overlook the significance of the overall connectedness of human, animal and plant life.

Therefore what is required is a new field of biotheology to go alongside the more traditional sub-disciplines of systematic theology such as theological anthropology (doctrine of humanity), Christology, pneumatology, ecclesiology etc.An intentional focus on biotheology will enhance the understanding of the human person as a part of the full spectrum of life created by God and it will provide greater form and depth to reflections on the diverse and difficult issues which biotechnology generates and with which bioethics needs to deal.

This is an argument I developed in a paper first delivered as the Annual ISCAST (Vic) lecture and later published as ‘Biotheology: Theology, Ethics and the New Biotechnologies’, in the Evangelical Review of Theology, (2006) Vol. 30, No 3, 219-236. It is also available on the ISCAST site and downloadable here:  Biotheology: theology, ethics and the new biotechnologies

In this paper I propose six biotheological principles which are designed to give ethical cohesion and theological structure to this new field

The aim is to establish a set of principles which will provide a framework for ethical and theological reflection on all levels of life and being—human, animal, plant and inanimate, both present and future. They are:

(1) respecting the intrinsic value of all life;

(2) valuing human uniqueness;

(3) preserving organismal integrity;

(4) recognising ecological holism;

(5) minimising future liability; and

(6) producing social benefit.

These principles operate in the same way as the biomedical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and so forth. That is, they do not automatically provide an answer for all the specific issues that can be raised, but they do provide a framework which controls the form of the discussion and they provide guidelines as to the essential issues that need to be addressed.

The first part of the lecture is reproduced here:

Biotechnology

The ethical issues dealt with under the heading ‘bioethics’ should logically parallel the scientific and technological issues which are covered in ‘biotechnology’. However, the breadth and diversity of the territory covered by biotechnology (including gene manipulation, nanotechnology, biodiversity, ecology, biopharming (the use of genetically modified crops to produce pharmaceuticals, vaccines, hormones etc), reproductive medicine, stem cell research etc) is rarely matched in the field of bioethics where discussions are usually restricted to a much narrower area relating specifically to the treatment of the human person. This means that bioethics rarely situates the human person in the broader context which biotechnology presupposes and there is a tendency to overlook the significance of the connectedness of human, animal and plant life. Bioethics as it is usually understood is better referred to as biomedical ethics.

This paper aims to contribute by bringing bioethics into line with biotechnology – which will mean re-framing the ethical context; it also aims to encourage the development of the complementary field of biotheology as a theology of life which belongs alongside the more traditional sub-disciplines of systematic theology such as theological anthropology (doctrine of humanity), Christology, pneumatology, ecclesiology etc. An intentional focus on biotheology will enhance the understanding of the human person as a part of the full spectrum of life created by God and it will provide greater form and depth to reflections on the diverse and difficult issues which biotechnology generates and with which bioethics needs to deal. After further outlining the situation with regard to biotechnology and bioethics I will propose six biotheological principles which are designed to give ethical cohesion and theological structure to this new field.

Some assume that biotechnology began in 1972 when the first recombinant DNA technology

experiment was performed. However, although the most recent developments in molecular biology and genetic engineering are critically important, biotechnology has been a part of human history for thousands of years, at least since the ancient Sumerians and Babylonians used yeast to make beer, the Egyptians leavened their bread and the ancient Chinese used fermentation processes to preserve milk and produce cheese and wine. It has continued on through a wide variety of attempts to manipulate breeding processes, preserve foods, achieve artificial reproduction and generally control the processes of life and death and manipulate the forms in which life exists.

As a consequence of this, a sampling of biotechnological issues now includes various medical interventions and their effects on human life and death; reproductive technologies for humans and animals; gene analysis, modification and therapy for plants, animals and human; nanotechnology and issues relating to the human-machine interface; stem cell research and therapy; some biological mining and manufacturing techniques such as the leaching of ores and mine site rehabilitation; food and flavouring technologies; various agricultural techniques and crop modifications including improved food storage and nutritional quality, better pest resistance and increased water, temperature and salinity tolerance and biopharming; forestry issues involving faster tree growth, improved fibre, disease resistance and so forth; as well as aquaculture and various forms of animal research. The common points which run throughout are, firstly, the attempt to use biological processes to technological advantage in order to improve the quality of life and, secondly, the perceived connectivity between all forms of life.

This extraordinary array of issues comes about because of the way late twentieth century biotechnology brought together research done in a wide range of areas. This produced a synergy which set the scene for a biological revolution in the twenty-first century which will equal or surpass in significance the computing and information technology revolution of the last century.

One of the main reasons for this development relates to the way biotechnology has begun to unite a field which previously was divided in at least two ways. It was divided ‘vertically’ according to the levels of research which took place and ‘horizontally’ according to the areas which were being investigated. There are at least six levels of research which have come together; these are the sciences which operate at the level of: (1) molecules (e.g. molecular biology, especially research on DNA and recombinant technology); (2) cells (e.g. cell biology including work on stem cells, aging processes and reproductive technology); (3) organs (e.g. transplantation and xenotransplantation and the manufacture of replacement tissues); (4) species (e.g. the nature and dynamics of the way species function and interact and the influence of genetically modified organisms on them); (5) humans (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, the use of medical technologies); and (6) systems (e.g. ecology and the influence of biological technologies). The work taking place at these different levels has become much more integrated than previously, and this dynamic inter-relationship has implications for the way previously different areas of research have come together.

While much common thought persists with a strong differentiation between areas of research on say, bacteria, humans, animals and plants, those actually working in these areas now tend to view the situation much more fluidly. At the heart of this has been the ever increasing focus on the role of DNA in life processes. From a scientific point of view the distinction between, for example, ‘human genes’ and ‘animal genes’ is arbitrary. There may well be ‘genes which humans have’ but at the most fundamental level the genes are not perceived as intrinsically human or animal, DNA is simply DNA wherever it is found.

The obvious reality is that gene transfer is now possible in such a way that old distinctions are being called into question. Previously impenetrable barriers are now being crossed and the old taxonomies of species and the distinctions which have previously divided medical technology, animal and crop research and the study of ecological systems are being called into question. Trans-kingdom gene transfer, biopharmaceuticals, nanotechnology and other such areas of research increase the trend towards a level of integration not generally matched in the ethical or theological fields.

Bioethics

The term ‘bioethics’ was coined in 1971 by cancer researcher Van Rensselaer Potter in Bioethics: Bridge to the Future (Potter 1971). Potter had a broad view and used the term to relate to all issues related to life. He did not equate bioethics with human biomedical research. He argued that advances in biotechnology had implications for all life systems and societies and he expounded on this in his subsequent book, Global Bioethics which integrated a scientific view of the world with religious and philosophical systems.

However, Potter’s breadth of vision for a form of bioethics which matched the breadth of biotechnology was soon supplanted by a much narrower view dominated by medical researchers and ethicists. In 1976 Thomas Shannon published his influential book Bioethics (Shannon 1976) in which he dealt with abortion, handicaps, euthanasia, the right to die and the treatment of the terminally ill, research on humans and informed consent. In the second edition in 1981 he added material on genetics and reproduction. He noted that the study was complicated by the interdisciplinary nature of the problems and by the continuing advances of science, but defined bioethics as ‘a set of ethical teachings related specifically to medicine’.

The new field of bioethics continued on in the work of writers such as Gerald Kelly, John Ford, Richard McCormick, Charles Curran, Daniel Maguire, and Daniel Callahan. In 1986 H. Tristram Englehardt Jr., produced The Foundations of Bioethics (Englehardt 1986). In this standard text, bioethics was essentially about health care for humans including issues such as the beginning and ending of human life. This was, essentially, ‘Bioethics Mark I’.

There have been times when bioethics has come closer to taking on a broader perspective. In 1988 David Suzuki and Peter Knudson wrote Genethics: the ethics of engineering life.(Suzuki 1989) This popularised the new term ‘genethic’ and was influential in helping people think more broadly, but it remained outside the field of ‘bioethics’. In 1991, for example, Francisco Javier Elizari Basterra’s Bioethics continued to treat ‘bioethics’ as medical ethics and little more (Basterra 1991). In 1996 Gilbert Meilaender’s Bioethics (Meilaender 1996) still dealt primarily with issues concerning the beginning and ending of human life (abortion and euthanasia), although some genetics issues did make an appearance, though solely in terms of how it affected humans.

In Cutting edge Bioethics: a Christian exploration of technologies and trends (Hook, 2002) there was almost a return to Van Rensselaer Potter’s original conception of bioethics. However, it can hardly be said that since then bioethics as a whole reflects the area covered by biotechnology or deals with the issues in the more integrated manner it deserves. It is still dominated by the medical model. ‘Bioethics Mark II’ needs to be developed to draw its principles from a wider ethical and theological background.

What can be learned from the usual medical approach to bioethics is the effectiveness of having a simple, yet comprehensive set of principles which establish the essential ground to be covered in any discussion of a specific issue. Bioethics Mark I has established a set of four or five principles which provide a basis on which to consider specific issues. These principles, in one form or another, are well known among the medical community[1] and may be summarised briefly as:

(1) beneficence (requiring actions which promote the good of the patient;

(2) non-maleficence (prohibiting action which will cause harm);

(3) patient autonomy (meaning that practitioners should not interfere with the effective exercise of patient autonomy);

(4) justice (requiring that social benefits and costs be distributed fairly);

(5) confidentiality (patients are to retain control of information generated in connection with their treatment).

One can debate the value of these principles and the concept of a principled approach in general. It can be argued, for instance, that there is a tension between respecting the freedom of the person and securing their best interests. In fact there is a tendency for the third principle to trump all the others, which means, amongst other things, that the practitioner is divested of any significant ethical responsibility. Nonetheless the impact and the value of these principles should not be underestimated. Even though it is not always clear precisely what they imply in a specific situation, they have provided an agenda and set the ground rules for discussion.

What is needed now is a new set of principles which can perform the same function for the new field of Bioethics Mark II that these medical principles have performed for Bioethics Mark I. There is a need for a set of principles which will provide a single, theologically sound[2] and generally acceptable foundation for the whole field of gene technology ethics. .

Biotheological principles

The present aim is to establish a set of principles which will provide a framework for ethical and theological reflection on all levels of life and being—human, animal, plant and inanimate, both present and future. They are:

(1) respecting the intrinsic value of all life;

(2) valuing human uniqueness;

(3) preserving organismal integrity;

(4) recognising ecological holism;

(5) minimising future liability; and

(6) producing social benefit.

These principles operate in the same way as the biomedical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence and so forth. That is, they do not automatically provide an answer for all the specific issues that can be raised, but they do provide a framework which controls the form of the discussion and they provide guidelines as to the essential issues that need to be addressed. The following brief outline of the six principles can only elaborate briefly on the rationale for including the various principles and on the kind of issues they can address.

For the rest of the article see the download instructions above.

[2] Interestingly, Christian theologians were very involved in the early development of the field of bioethics in the 1970’s, but that contribution has diminished over the years and bioethics has become, in many places, a secular field and the Christian contribution, where it exists, is reduced to an ethical commentary, and often the ethical dimension is reduced to being purely utilitarian in form.

Humanity has a built in desire to initiate, build and create, and the newer biological sciences revolving around biology, genetics and nanotechnology means that technological tools are emerging which can mean nothing less than the re-creation of the human person. A symbiotic relationship between humanity and machinery already exists and there is now a debate between trans-humanists who are looking towards a shift in human nature, perhaps moving towards a post-human condition and bio-conservatives who see trans-human initiatives as nothing other than de-humanising.  The possibility of transcending previous limitations on what it means to be human is now before us.

There is a cartoon that shows a salesperson pointing out the benefits of the latest personal computer to a potential buyer. She says, ‘It’s beginning to show some human characteristics — faulty reasoning, forgetfulness and repetition’.

If you find this even mildly amusing then, at the very least, it indicates that you are actually human and not just a machine! As it stands at the moment the ability to read the text, interpret the pictures, understand the literal meaning, comprehend the much more subtle point that is being made, and then feel even slightly amused and, finally, show that emotion in a manner appropriate for your setting, are all abilities and characteristics of humans. Even when doing something as simple as reading a cartoon it takes a lot to be a human being and yet we do so effortlessly!

The rich complexity of human life includes within it humour and imagination and the desire to continually want to go beyond our present state and position and press into new territory, to learn new things, to extend our abilities and even to transcend our very nature. Whether in cartooning or in science human imagination has always exceeded present reality, and thank goodness for that. Imagination is intelligence playing around and having fun. Thousands of years ago the Greeks imagined Icarus flying, and today we can (though a Boeing 747 is far less graceful and romantic a way to fly than on feathered wings!). The alchemists dreamt of transmuting lead into gold and although that is still beyond us we can turn sand into glass, iron ore into steel and petrochemicals into plastics. The ancient myth of the ‘fountain of youth’ – that there was a fountain from which one could drink in order to gain eternal life – is just that, a myth. And yet there are researchers who are not interested just in eliminating one disease here and another cause of death there, but who are investigating and manipulating the most fundamental aging mechanisms of the human body so that there can be an almost unlimited extension of human life. Telomere therapy may well be the means to allow people to live indefinitely. How would you feel about living to be, say, 400 years old? In 1818 Mary Shelley imagined the artificial creation of ‘human’ life in her story ‘Frankenstein’s Monster’, an idea that was so thoroughly bizarre and terrifying that for almost 200 years it was the classic horror story. And, of course, the history of film from Hel (the very feminine robot of Fritz Lang’s 1927 silent classic ‘Metropolis’) to Hal (the manipulative computer in ‘2001: a space odyssey’) is replete with examples of robotic machines that are uncannily human. The relationship between the human and the non-human machine is one that has been the subject of much speculation.

This article first appeared as God, persons and machines: theological reflections on the ISCAST web-site as part of  Christian Perspectives on Science and Technology (the peer reviewed on line journal of  ISCAST).
Alternatively, you can download it here:  God, Persons and Bio-machines: theological reflections
  In addition to that, the abstract and the first part of the article are reproduced below.

Abstract

The desire to transcend the limitations of human nature along with the development of new biological technologies, nanotechnology and an increasing understanding of genetics is transforming the human person and leading towards the development of cyborgs. The process of merging the mechanical with the biological has begun, the re-creation of the self is underway and the future holds even more changes in store. A symbiotic relationship between humanity and machinery already exists. There is now a debate between trans-humanists who are looking towards a shift in human nature, perhaps moving towards a post-human condition and bio-conservatives who see trans-human initiatives as nothing other than de-humanising.

In developing a theologically appropriate attitude towards these changes there are three important issues relating to the nature and action of God and the nature of humanity which have to be resolved. The first issue concerns the value of the various orders and structures of the natural world, the species and kingdoms and other previously impenetrable barriers which exist within in the natural world between various forms of life. To what extent are these appropriately blurred or overcome? The second concerns the nature of God’s action in the world, the role that humanity plays in representing God and the appropriateness of understanding humanity as co-creators or, preferably, as pro-creators with God. The third concerns the meaning and status of human nature and the limits to our future human-controlled evolutionary development.

Cyborgs

With test-tube babies, the re-programming of stem cells, gene manipulation and bio-printing (a process which utilises a modified ink-jet printer to spray out cells — instead of ink — onto successive layers of gell — instead of paper — in a computer generated pattern to build up a three dimensional replica of a bodily organ) the merging of the human and the mechanical no longer seems so unlikely — though for many it is still as horrific. The moral dimension is never far from the physical. In 1960, two writers, Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline, wrote a speculative article about the difficulty of space exploration and the incredibly large amounts of time it would take to get anywhere really interesting (Clines 1960).[1] They proposed that the rigors of extended space travel could be alleviated if it was possible to alter the form of the human person so that machines and electronic devices became a part of them. They called such people ‘cybernetic organisms’ or cyborgs for short. In an earlier era, where human relationships with animals were more significant than relationships with machines, people speculated about centaurs — half human and half horse, or the Sphinx — lion with a human face. It is just as natural in an age where machines are more important for people to speculate about the integration of human and machine. Donna Haraway defines cyborgs as ‘creatures simultaneously animal and machine, who populate worlds ambiguously natural and crafted’. They have ‘dangerous possibilities’ (Haraway 1991 p.149).

The re-creation of the self has started: changing the form of our bodies though surgery, chemicals, hormone-producing implants, prosthetic limbs, organ transplants, xenotransplantion, artificial hearts, pacemakers, bionic ears, soon perhaps the replacement of damaged optic nerves in blind people with electronic technology to restore vision. These changes do not only affect the body but also character, through gene therapy and medication which treats mental disorders and alters sexual orientation. What changes will the control of neurochemistry bring about?

The process of merging the mechanical with the biological has begun.[2] Machines are now implanted into people and made acceptable to bodies through the use of various drugs which suppress the immune systems’ rejection of them. We might not yet have all the technology of the six million dollar man but we are moving along quite nicely. Although I think that the vision of the television hero, ‘the six million dollar man’, is likely to remain unfulfilled in the form in which it was envisaged simply because the writers did not imagine that machines would actually start to change in their nature and become more biological.

The future holds even more changes in store. The genetic/biological revolution is merging with the science and technology of machines. Machines are changing. They are becoming more organic. The future of machines at the human machine interface lies with biotechnology. The unifying principle for life is DNA which links animal, vegetable and human life. The work that has been done in molecular biology and the creation of organic machines means that the possibility of creating cyborgs that are even more sophisticated and which involve a higher level of interaction of human and machine than previously imagined is very real. The merging of human and machine means a blurring of the boundaries of that which is human and that which is machine.

One great example of this convergence is the connection of James Watson with Leonard Adleman[3]. Watson is one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA and he wrote Molecular biology of the Gene which Adleman read. When doing so he realised that DNA could be used as a computer. Computers store data in strings made up of the numbers 0 and 1. Living things store information with molecules represented by the letters G, A, T and C. This was the beginning of DNA computing, and it was as recent as 1994. As long as computers are silicon based they are not ‘us’ but as they become DNA they can become part of us. The work has a long way to go, but it does go on because of the huge advantages with DNA computers[4]: there is a very cheap and unlimited source of supply, they are incredibly small but potentially hugely powerful because of ability to have parallel processing, and they can merge with people! Work in this area has continued as various people have developed logic gates and miniscule machines with self-sustaining power supplies and commercially viable projects using the power of parallel operation.

We are all cyborgs now

But if cyborg is a symbiotic relationship between human and machine the question has already been asked, most notably by Donna Haraway in her cyborg manifesto (1985), whether we are already cyborgs now. Haraway says, we are all cyborgs; our lives depend upon and are intimately connected with machines. The fact that we could live, and that some people do live, without machines is irrelevant for those of us that cannot imagine life without machines.

There is a tendency today to anthropomorphise machines (ascribing human characteristics to machines: ‘my computer hates me’; ‘ask Google’;) and technomorphise people (viewing people as machines: ‘the brain is a computer’; ‘memory banks’). Whether willingly or unwillingly we are dependent on machines almost every moment of out lives. We are humans whose lives are integrated with machines that we have made. We are not physically cyborgs but culturally we are because of the impact of machines such as cars, computers and coffee machines. They have profound impact on every area of life, our comfort, recreation, knowledge and education. Our lives are controlled and formed by machines: where the car can go; what Google can tell us; what is shown on the TV; the way we work (for example. evidence to show that computer use in business can alter the decision making mode away from collaboration towards individual, sequential thinking). Our social relationships have not only been changed by machines but now extend to machines. As Ray Kurzweil has said, ‘the only question is whether we become machines or machines become us’.

There are two aspects to this cyborg movement. There is the physical development and its implications for human morphology with the cyborg as a technological/biological issue in which machines become more organic, utilising molecular nanotechnology leading to ultimate control over human physiology and morphology, meaning it will be possible to build and re-build almost any part of our body atom by atom. Developments in artificial intelligence and DNA computing which can be seamlessly integrated into our brains will also be profound.

Then there is the cultural development related to being cyborg and the implications for human identity. This is cyborg as an idea or concept or perhaps a metaphor through which we determine ourselves through our interactions as part of a technoculture. In this sense cyborg is a term through which the nature of humanity is being explored.

How do we interpret this cyborg nature? There are positive interpretations of this movement. For some it is part of the modern thrust for exploration: In terms of a modern myth it means, in terms of Star Trek, ‘to boldly go where no man has gone before’. For others it is a metaphor (signifier) of a move towards a positive technocratic society with a new form of transhumanism leading to posthuman society. Philosophical interpretations of this human search for self transcendence includes Friedrich Nietzsche’s belief in Superman (literally ‘overman’) as humanity that has overcome the false values and flaws of humanity and has reached a state where humanity is no longer affected by pity, suffering, tolerance of the weak, the power of the soul over the body, the belief in an afterlife or the corruption of modern values. In Thus spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche, through Zarathustra, says

I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome [surpassed]. What have you done to overcome [surpass] him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment.

At the same time there are negative interpretations. For some, rather than the idealism of Star Trek, there is the fear of the computer Hal in ‘2001: a space odyssey’. There has long been speculation that machines will one day take over, as anyone who has read Isaac Asimov’s science fiction will know. His rules of robotics, well defined in many stories are designed to ensure that robots stay in their places and do not become humanity’s master rather than its servant. But of course, there is another way of ‘taking over’ by assimilation rather than by confrontation, an approach that is far more likely as machines change and as humans bring it about themselves. Is this another illustration of the story of the tower of Babel, which stands as a warning that it is possible for humanity to over-reach itself?

This (Tower) is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing will now be impossible for them; so the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the earth. (Gen. 11:6-7)

Are we building our own towers today? The industrial revolution of the eighteenth century and the information and computing revolution of the twentieth century will be technically and morally surpassed in significance by biotechnological revolution of the twenty-first century.

In all this there is now a debate between the transhumanists who are looking towards a shift in human nature, moving perhaps towards a post-human condition, and the bioconservatives who see transhuman initiatives as nothing other than de-humanising tendencies.

Three fundamental theological issues

I believe that at present there are three important theological issues which have to be resolved. These issues emerge in various discussions related to different biotechnologies time and time again and they are all important in any discussion of the human-machine interface. One of these issues has to do with God, one with humanity and one with the world…….

The full article can be downloaded via the link above.

[2] However viewing ‘the body as a machine’ is something of a philosophical return to Rene Descartes who argued that the human body was simply a machine made out of dead matter.

[3] The technology is still in development, and didn’t even exist as a concept a decade ago. In 1994, Leonard Adleman introduced the idea of using DNA to solve complex mathematical problems. Adleman, a computer scientist at the University of Southern California, came to the conclusion that DNA had computational potential after reading the book Molecular biology of the Gene, written by James Watson (now in its fifth edition, published by Pearson/Benjamin Cummings, 2003), who co-discovered the structure of DNA in 1953.

[4] There are several advantages to using DNA instead of silicon. As long as there are cellular organisms, there will always be a supply of DNA. The large supply of DNA makes it a cheap resource. Unlike the toxic materials used to make traditional microprocessors, DNA biochips can be made cleanly. DNA computers are many times smaller than today’s computers. DNA’s key advantage is that it will make computers smaller than any computer that has come before them, while at the same time holding more data. Unlike conventional computers, DNA computers perform calculations parallel to other calculations.

The Christian doctrine of God as Trinity is fundamentally simple, thoroughly practical, theologically central and totally biblical. It is not, as sometimes suggested, an abstract or philosophical construction with an unusual perspective on mathematics which makes three equal to one! It is not a doctrine which is incomprehensible in presentation, irrelevant in practice, unnecessary theologically or un-biblical in form. It is in fact the distinctive Christian doctrine and essential for Christian life and discipleship.

This is the conviction which pervades my book The Message of the Trinity: Life in God (Leicester: IVP, 2004) in the Bible Speaks Today Series (General Editors: John Stott, Alec Motyer and Derek Tidball).

The aim is to show that the doctrine of the Trinity means that God can be known intimately and personally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Although the term ‘Trinity’ does not itself appear in the Bible it is a thoroughly biblical doctrine. The word itself comes from the Latin trinitas which connects three (tres) with one (unus) but the idea precedes the word. The early Christians could not avoid the idea of God as Father, Son and Spirit as they reflected on the events surrounding the person of Jesus Christ and their own experience of him as Lord. Consequently, the doctrine of the Trinity is not found or proved in a single verse of Scripture alone, for it permeates the thinking and the writing of the early church. It is something found in the whole testimony of scripture concerning the story of salvation and is an unavoidable implication of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Message of the Trinity is published by IVP.

The Table of Contents and the Introduction can be found below and a sample of one of the chapters can be found here:   Chapter 10 is entitled, “Resurrection: commissioned to discipleship”. (Link to no 2 below)

Contents

Introduction

Part 1. The Trinity of love

1. The God of grace, love and fellowship (2 Corinthians 13:13)
2. A Trinitarian Blessing (Ephesians 1:1-14)

Part 2. The Trinity in the Old Testament

1. The Lord our God is One (Deuteronomy 6:4-9)
2. The Wisdom of God (Proverbs 8:22-31)
3. The Spirit of God (Ezekiel 37:1-14)

Part 3. The Trinity in the experience and teaching of Jesus

1. Incarnation: divine coming (Luke 1: 26-56)
2. Baptism: heavenly empowering  (Mark 1:1-14)
3. Mission: spiritual encounter (Matthew 12:22-32)
4. Teaching: knowledge of God (John 14: 15-31)
5. Resurrection: commissioned to discipleship (Matthew 28.16-20)

Part 4. The Trinity in the experience and teaching of the early church

1. The Day of  Pentecost (Acts 2:1-47)
2. Christian Experience (Romans 8:1-17)
3. Christian Community (1 Corinthians 12:1-11)
4. Christian Security (Galatians 3:26 – 4:7)
5. Christian Unity (Ephesians 4:1-16)

The Day of the Lord  (Jude 20-21)

A modified form of the Introduction may be found below.

1. The doctrine of the Trinity is comprehensible

Unfortunately, the doctrine of the Trinity has developed a reputation as a belief which is difficult to understand. This is not helped when it is expressed in mathematical terms (as though the aim was to explain ‘three in one and one in three’) or in philosophical terms such as those in use in the fourth century (such as ‘person’, ‘hypostasis’ ‘ousia’ and ‘essence’). This is not to say that such terms are completely unhelpful because when in the third and fourth centuries a crisis emerged regarding how to reconcile belief in one God with the worship of Christ the Fathers of the church realized that such questions ‘cannot be answered in purely biblical language, because the questions are about the meaning of biblical language itself’. The introduction of non-biblical terminology and thought forms offered new and creative opportunities for exploring the nature of God, but it also introduced risks. The increasingly philosophical and speculative nature of trinitarian discourse led away from biblical simplicity and the comprehensibility of the doctrine of the Trinity suffered as a result. This is illustrated in Augustine of Hippo’s well known and oft quoted comment on the persons of the Trinity, ‘When the question is asked ‘What three?’ human language labors altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer, however, is given, ‘Three persons’ not that it might be spoken but that it might not be left unspoken.’  This kind of agnosticism about the characteristics of the three persons of the Trinity means that the attributes of God are inevitably discussed in terms of the divine one-ness and the implications of the three persons for understanding the divine nature is minimized. The aim of this book is to show that God can indeed be known as Trinity, as Father, Son and Spirit, through reading and prayerful reflection upon the Scriptures.

2. The doctrine of the Trinity is logical

Is the doctrine of the Trinity logical? Yes, but logic alone does not enable the Trinity to be understood. It is more a matter of faith. Many are convinced that the Trinity is comprehended when it is expressed in reasonable, logical terms and one common attempt to explain it logically is to utilize the analogy of someone who is simultaneously a father, a son and a husband. Despite the superficial attractiveness of this, it really isn’t very helpful. For example, I have those three roles or relationships, but it is always essentially the same me who has them because when it is all boiled down I exist in one way and in one way only. I am not like Father, Son and Spirit who interact and relate together. I am just me. And the whole point, of course, is that God is not like you or me.  We have to admit that we really cannot imagine what it means to exist in that way, but that does not mean that the idea is illogical. Just as it is impossible for a rock to imagine what it is like to exist as a person, so it is impossible for us to really imagine what it means for God to exist in more than the one way in which we do. But just because we cannot imagine it is no reason to say that there cannot be another form of existence which is different to our own. The problem lies with our imagination rather than the concept. We have at least one advantage over the rock which cannot conceive of being human because we human beings can at least conceive of the idea of God, even if we cannot actually imagine what this means! This is not unusual, there are many things we can conceive of which are difficult to imagine. For example, I am not sure that I can really imagine a million of anything. When I try it seems pretty much the same as when I imagine ten million, even though there is a considerable difference between them. It is possible for us to conceive of the difference without being able to imagine it.  We can conceive of God as Father, Son and Spirit even if we cannot imagine what it would be like for God to live in that way. It is not foolish to believe in, think of, or worship a God we cannot fully understand. There is a tremendous mystery involved in worshipping God but no irrationality.

3. The doctrine of the Trinity is practical

The most influential figure of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), argued that ‘the doctrine of the Trinity provides nothing, absolutely nothing, of practical value, even if one claims to understand it; still less when one is convinced that it far surpasses our understanding… (it) offers absolutely no guidance for conduct.’ A little later in the face of the severe criticism of both reason and Scripture as foundations for theology, the father of modern liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), chose to base his theology in human religious experience. Consequently he found little use for the Trinity and relegated it to a mere 14 pages -  a kind of post-script to his otherwise lengthy (751 page) description of The Christian Faith. These twin accusations of impracticality and irrelevance led many into what is essentially a unitarian understanding of God and the effects of this are still felt today.

One example of this is the common attitude that worship is best understood simply as something that people do for God. When understood in that way the responsibility of worshippers is to offer praise, thanksgiving, prayers and the thoughts and desires of one’s heart to God in gratitude for his grace. Worship is, therefore, what we do before God. But as James Torrance shows this is insufficiently trinitarian and is even human centred to the point that worship becomes a work rather than a grace. It is unitarian because pastor, priest and people are on one side, offering worship to God who is on the other side, hearing the prayer and receiving the worship. Trinitarian worship is the gift of participating through the Spirit in the incarnate Son’s communion with the Father. Trinitarian worship means having God coming onto our side and lifting us up. Worship is fellowship (or participating or sharing) in the life of God. The Trinity provides ‘a participatory understanding of worship and prayer.’  Worship, therefore, is properly centred upon God not only as the object of worship but also as the leader and the inspirer of worship. This takes nothing away from the act of offering praise and thanksgiving but rather than focusing on what we can do for God the emphasis falls upon the work of Christ and the life of the blessed Trinity. That is, upon the Son who takes us into the Father’s presence through his sacrifice and intercession and on the Spirit who is the enabler and the inspiration of worship. In this way worship becomes an act of grace rather than a work that we do. Worship understood as a work with a stress on our faith, our worship, or even my worship and my commitment cannot bring one into the presence of God any more than good deeds can bring one to salvation. None of this rules out the human element of response in worship, the problem is that it has become the pre-eminent, and often the only theme in much contemporary worship. The Fathers of the Reformation referred to this as ‘legal worship’ born out of an obligation that worship depends upon what we do and upon our enthusiasm, commitment and action rather than ‘evangelical worship’ which is the outcome of the grace of God shown in Christ Jesus through the Holy Spirit. The unitarian way of worship ultimately engenders great weariness while trinitarian worship is led by Jesus Christ (Heb. 8:1-2) and emphasises grace before gratitude. This one example shows how the doctrine of the Trinity is a practical, grace-filled doctrine which will take us into the heart and life of God.

4. The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational

In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity which is due largely to the influence of Karl Barth (1886-1968) who, in 1932 began his magisterial series of Church Dogmatics with a volume on ‘The Doctrine of the Word of God’ which showed that ‘the doctrine of the Trinity itself belongs to the very basis of the Christian faith and constitutes the fundamental grammar of dogmatic theology’. Just as grammar provides the rules for putting together the various elements of language so the doctrine of the Trinity  provides the basic structure and the ground-rules for all theological reflection. Any doctrine which is not trinitarian in character is not Christian. In the time prior to Barth the doctrine had languished as a result of the spread of liberal theology based on the work of Schleiermacher. Barth believed that, ‘in any continuation along this line I can see only the plain destruction of Protestant theology and the Protestant church.’  In a brilliant exposition of the Trinity Barth showed the way in which it could revitalise theological thinking. He tied the doctrine of the Trinity to the theology of God’s self-revelation. Revelation occurs precisely and only because God is Trinity. God’s nature as Father, Son and Spirit is identical to his nature as God the revealer, God the revelation and God the revealing. Revelation is the revealing of God-self and a direct implication of being Trinity.

Soon Barth was not alone in promoting the cause of the Trinity, although others often took a different approach to exactly how this doctrine should be understood. For example, in 1944 British author Leonard Hodgson advocated a much more ‘social’ view of the Trinity – one which stresses the three-ness more than Barth did – and in 1952 American Claude Welch critiqued both Barth and Hodgson, while over a considerable period of time influential German Catholic theologian Karl Rahner promoted a closer relationship between the doctrines of Trinity and salvation. Although trinitarian theology is now firmly entrenched in contemporary theological thought this has not occurred without dissenting voices. Classic liberal, pluralist, radical feminist and process approaches to theology have all had difficulty with it. But in recent times if one doctrine has provided anything  approaching an integrating focus it has been the doctrine of the Trinity. This is not to say, of course, that there is complete agreement, but a vital and refreshing dialogue is taking place. The notion that the doctrine of the Trinity is obsolete has been put in abeyance and it has been widely agreed that the doctrine of the Trinity can provide a solid foundation for theological thinking. Of course, not everything that is called ‘trinitarian’ is biblical or even helpful but properly understood the doctrine of the Trinity is as essential for theology as bones are for a body. The uniqueness of Christianity emerges entirely from it and without it everything which is truly Christian disappears.

5. The doctrine of the Trinity is essential

The doctrine of the Trinity is not only ‘essential’ in the sense of being important, but also in the sense that it describes the essence, the inner life of God who lives uniquely and perfectly as Father, Son and Holy Spirit as well as the external, salvific work of God who sent Jesus in the power of the Spirit to redeem the world. These two dimensions, the ‘inner life’ and the ‘outer work’ represent the eternal and temporal nature of God and are often referred to as the ‘essential’ and the ‘economic’ aspects of the Trinity. Together they remind us that God has not merely appeared to us in a trinitarian fashion in order to save the world while actually being internally different. God is trinitarian in essence. This means that we can have confidence that the God who is revealed to us really is the God of salvation and the God of love.

It is important to hold these two dimensions together. Allowing the economic and temporal aspect to become dominant eventually leads to modalism. That is, the various works of salvation are distributed to the three persons, so creation becomes solely the work of the Father, redemption is the work of the Son alone and sanctification the specific work of the Spirit. On the other hand, understanding the Trinity solely in terms of the ‘essential’ Trinity is no better. To focus on the inner life of God without due reference to the work of salvation, can lead to very speculative theology. ‘From the fourth century onwards’ notes Alistair Heron, ‘the doctrine of the Trinity was in grave danger of taking off into the air, of becoming a mystic formula concerning the inner life of God which could and did increasingly detach itself – especially in the west – from the history of Christ and the Spirit at work in human life.’ Some of the most creative advances in recent times has come from the exploration of the inner life of God but it is also a most speculative area of thought and some have built theological enterprises on top of dubious foundations which are insufficiently related to the work of salvation. In biblical terms the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be separated from the salvation of the world and any so-called trinitarian theology which neglects that dimension of thought will go astray.

6. The doctrine of the Trinity is structural

The doctrine of the Trinity not only foundational in the sense that it describes the nature of God, it is also structural in the sense that it provides a biblical pattern or model for the development of all other doctrines.

(a) The diversity and unity of the Trinity is a model for our thinking about the unity (John 17:20) and the community (1 Cor. 12:4-7) of the church. To say that God is triune is to say that God lives in community. The church reflects this truth and can never be authentically Christian if it is either autocratic and authoritarian or uncaring and unconnected. The church should reflect the life of the Trinity as a loving community of equal yet different and related persons in mutual submission.

(b) The Trinity is the source of mission because the sending of the church into the world is a continuation of the Father’s love which led to a sending of the Son and the Spirit. Trinitarian love (not fear, obligation or duty) is what lies at the heart of Christian mission (Matt 28:19).

(c) The doctrine of humanity depends upon the doctrine of the Trinity and without it our understanding of humanity would be deficient. Historian W. E. H. Lecky showed that the idea of the sanctity of human life in western society developed as a result of the Christian doctrine of God as Trinity.  It affirmed the value of persons and showed that to be human is to be personally related to a personal God and ultimately led to the establishment of a vastly higher standard of care for all people, whether slaves, gladiators, infants, the ill and dying or foreigners. In expounding the doctrine of the Trinity Augustine (354-430AD) used the idea of relationship in such a new way that it stressed the reality, the personality and the value of the individual in sharp contrast to the common idea of the day that the real person was an impersonal, inner ‘spark’. Charles Norris Cochrane spoke of this as ‘the discovery of personality’. Ultimately this transformed society’s attitude to the value of people. Everyone was important, everyone had value and everyone existed in relationship with others and with God.

(d)  The Trinity is also the Christian’s paradigm for social and political life. The community and equality of Trinitarian persons shows us the mode of God’s reign as king and ultimately counteracts political authoritarianism and tyranny. Lesslie Newbigin says that the Christian  understanding of God ‘shaped the barbarian tribes of the western extension of Asia into a cultural entity that we call “Europe” – it was this way of thinking that shaped public discourse.’  Conversely, Colin Gunton finds the source of many of today’s problems in a defective view of the Trinity. The more the modern western church stressed the monarchy (or the one-ness) rather than the tri-unity of God the more God was perceived as a ‘transcendent and apparently oppressive single deity’. This led to a lack of relatedness between people and God until the most extreme form of modernism became completely secular and abandoned God. He also argues that ‘in both the failed experiments of modern totalitarian régimes and the insidious homogeneity of consumer culture there is a tendency to submerge the many in the one’.  In searching for a more communal and personally related church and society the great need for our world today is for Christian theology to present a gospel of God as Trinity which not only converts individuals but which also provides a new foundation for public dialogue. The aim is to transform society by demonstrating that the world does not operate by impersonal processes; showing that the human person is not just a sophisticated machine or a biological organism; proving that relationships are real, important and achievable; and persuading people that though Christ and the Spirit there is meaning and purpose in life.

(e) The doctrine of the Trinity also enables us to think properly about the physical nature of the world in which we live. The world is neither merely mechanical nor biologically determinist. Its existence is contingent upon God who created it, who sustains and who will ultimately transform it. The doctrine of the Trinity tells us that the same God who has created the world has entered into it in Christ, lives within it through the Spirit and will redeem it. In God the world has a future. The Trinity accounts for the diversity, richness and openness of the world.

(f) The Trinity offers hope and a new vision to a fragmented world. That is, it also helps us understand the evil, injustice and suffering of the world. The suffering of the Son on the cross, forsaken by the Father is perhaps the most challenging dimension of trinitarian theology, yet it is also the richest and most positive statement about the way God has dealt with sin and suffering. Through Christ and the Spirit God knows, understands and deals with sin and suffering.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not only needed for an understanding of God, it is essential for the whole structure of theology.

8. The doctrine of the Trinity is Biblical

The doctrine of the Trinity is grounded firmly in the revelation of God recorded in Scripture. However, everyone reads and interprets the Bible from one or another point of view and in broad historical terms there have been two main approaches to the process of discerning the Trinity in Scripture. For much of the history of the church the Scriptures were read from the point of view of faith as sacred documents which contained the word and the wisdom of God. For a long time, and for many people this meant reading the Scriptures from the perspective of trinitarian theology as it was expressed in the creeds and councils of the third and fourth centuries. The doctrine of the Trinity was seen as a universal and timeless truth about God. Subsequently, a second and more critical study of the Scriptures began with the Renaissance and was developed through the time of the Reformation and the Enlightenment. This reading of Scripture ‘from below’ rather than ‘from above’ meant beginning with a high degree of skepticism and treating the Bible as a very human book grounded in a specific set of historical contexts. This process revealed a process of historical development, observed variations in approach between books of the Bible and concluded that many trinitarian statements were a result of the importation of foreign concepts. No longer was everyone convinced that trinitarian thinking was be found in the various writings of the New Testament and so some denied that it was an essential Christian belief while others proceeded to develop theologies of Trinity out of philosophical concepts independently of the biblical narrative.

Neither approach is entirely satisfactory.

(a) With regard to the more traditional approach it is necessary to reject any suggestion that the doctrine of the Trinity is best understood in terms of the philosophical categories and terminology of the fourth and fifth centuries (person, essence, hypostasis, eternal generation, procession, ousia and so forth) rather than with the New Testament presentation of the Father’s sending of the Son to redeem the world and the coming of the Spirit in fullness upon his people. Yet the traditional approach does rightly make the point that the Trinity is best discerned from the standpoint of faith.

(b) With regard to the post-enlightenment approach this study of the Trinity adopts many of the analytical, literary, historical and grammatical tools of modern scholarship while rejecting the skepticism which always assumes that the doctrine of the Trinity is a development of the later church and difficult (or impossible) to discern in the New Testament. It is, in fact, impossible to eliminate the trinitarian thinking which permeates, for example, Corinthians, Ephesians, John’s gospel and Romans. Although not always self-consciously formulated it is ‘one of the clearest inferences to be drawn from Scripture.’ This conclusion is not based upon slender evidence for, as Wolfhart Pannenberg comments, ‘the starting point for this teaching is not simply in a three-membered formula but in all that the NT has to say about the relation of the Son to the Father on the one side and to the Spirit on the other.’