Stanley Hauerwas - 'Thinking, Writing and Acting Politically'

Prof Stanley Hauerwas delivers the 2013 New College Lectures

We have just completed the 2013 New College Lectures that were delivered by Professor Stanley Hauerwas from Duke University. His lectures had the title 'The Work of Theology: Thinking, Writing and Acting Politically'. In the three lectures Professor Hauerwas revisited positions he had taken in the past, and reframed them to help clarify and understand how he has engaged in theology as a practical discipline. Hauerwas suggested that the talks were in a way inspired by Karl Barth who wrote an essay entitled, “Rudolph Bultmann—An Attempt to Understand Him.” However, Prof Hauerwas suggested that they might best be characterised as a series of thought experiments entitled, “Stanley Hauerwas—An Attempt to Understand Him.” There were three lectures in all on consecutive nights (17-19th Sept) preceded by a shorter address to the residents of New College at a formal dinner prior to the lectures (16th September). You can download the lectures plus the formal dinner address HERE.

‘How I Think I Learned to Think Theologically’ – In the first lecture Professor Hauerwas explored the character of practical reason as an exemplification of the kind of reasoning that is intrinsic to the theological task. In this first lecture he drew heavily on the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and MacIntyre's argument that if we are to consider questions of justice and rationality, then we must recognise that such questions are not the same for all people. Hauerwas (acknowledging MacIntyre) argued that "...a person of practical reason is able to think for themselves only by thinking with others." He suggested that this will also depend on who you are and how you ultimately understand yourself. The ideas explored of course owe much to Aristotle and the way he distinguishes between scientific knowledge and practical wisdom. Having provided an account of practical reasoning Hauerwas then turned to a reflection on how he might have learned to think theologically drawing in particular on his memoir 'Hannah's Child'.

‘How To Write a Theological Sentence’ – In his second lecture Hauerwas drew heavily on Stanley Fish’s book ‘How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One,’ and explored how difficult it is to write a sentence that expresses what we should say theologically about God. Before discussing Fish he again reminded us that how we understand and communicate theology reflects '...how Christians find themselves in the world' and that for theological writing to have impact it must make the familiar strange. Theology also needs to be writing about God rather than writing about what theologians in the past have said about theology. He explained that one of the key foundations of the theories of Fish is that syntax has an inexorable logic '...a ligature of relationships that makes a statement about the world that we can contemplate, admire, or reject'. He then used this to consider effective theological thinking and writing. In doing this, he drew many examples from the work of Robert Jenson. For example, his sentence 'God is whoever raised Jesus from the dead, having before raised Israel from Egypt' was unpacked and the power and work of 'whoever' discussed. Theology he suggested frequently confirms the familiar and that a sentence like Jenson's makes the familiar strange and engages us. This he argued should be the quest of any theologian.

‘How To (Not) Be a Political Theologian’ - In the final lecture Professor Hauerwas considered how politics has been at the heart of the first two lectures by drawing attention to current developments in political theology and in what ways he is, and is not, a political theologian. Of course, whether he is a 'political theologian' as some claim, will depend on how one defines 'political theology'. In the first section of his talk he considered how in Christian America there has been a sense of 'moral obligation to be political actors in what [is seen] to be democratic politics.' This talk drew heavily on John (Howard) Yoder's work, a critique of the work of Richard Niebuhr on 'Christ and Culture', and Walter Rauschenbusch's argument that the social gospel is the '...religious response to the historic advent of democracy.' With this as a backdrop he explored the relationship between Christianity and politics and suggested that, in a sense, the development of Christian thinking about politics and government resulted in '...the loss of the politics of the church.' Hauerwas suggested that Yoder's thinking is a strong counter argument to Niebuhr and Rauschenbusch and that the church can serve democracy by being a community that respects adversaries within and outside the church, rather than simply becoming a '...tributary to whatever secular consensus seems strong at the time'.

A section of the audience of almost 400 on the first night of the lectures

The lectures where challenging and yet very practical. As always, Professor Hauerwas provoked all in attendance to examine varied assumptions and offered insightful and enjoyable critique, analysis and synthesis of the work of some key thinkers. He engaged the work of these theologians as he tussled with the challenges of thinking, writing and acting politically by using himself as a case study and backdrop to his thinking. Once again, you can download all three lectures plus his after dinner address below.

The lectures and after dinner address

'A Theologian at Work', address to New College Formal Dinner, 16th Sept, 2013

‘How I Think I Learned to Think Theologically’, New College Lecture, 17th Sept, 2013

'How To Write a Theological Sentence' - New College Lecture, 18th Sept, 2013

‘How To (Not) Be a Political Theologian’ - New College Lecture, 18th Sept, 2013

Presenting the New College Lecture's medal to Prof Hauerwas

Professor Stanley Hauerwas is an American theologian, ethicist and public intellectual. He currently teaches at Duke University serving as the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke Divinity School with a joint appointment at Duke University Law School. He is considered by many to be one of the world's most influential living theologians and was named 'America's Best Theologian' by ‘Time Magazine’ in 2001. His work is frequently read and debated by scholars in fields outside of religion, theology, or ethics, including political philosophy, sociology, history and literary theory.
 

Pushing back on 'Brand Christmas'

Christmas nativity knitted by my wife with pure Aussie wool!

As I pointed out in a recent post (here) our latest edition of Case Magazine has the theme 'Selling Christmas'. We attempted to unpack just some of the many possible sub-themes. One of these was to question who owns Christmas and how Christians might deal with the seizure of 'our' brand for largely commercial purposes. I've just watched the evening news with it's annual focus on Christmas sales, the customary shots from the North Pole as Santa leaves, and messages from our Anglican and Catholic Archbishops given permission by the station to have 15 seconds to bring some focus on Jesus as the 'real' reason for the season. All too obvious, that Christmas for most has little to do with Jesus.

In our lead article, Simon Angus reminds us that for most people Christmas means gifts. Commercially, ‘Christmas’ is a brand that no self-respecting business would want to ignore. And yet, as Angus points out, Christians think much less about the brand that they once owned, than the commercial entities do.

We debated the meaning of this photo last year - One family 'pushing back'?

How do we respond to the stealing of 'our' brand, for as Angus argues, this time of mass celebration is not sustained purely by religious observance or even tradition, but rather by ‘Brand Christmas’. We could adopt one of the extremes of either decrying the commercialisation of Christmas, or mindless assimilation. But instead, he suggests a third way for Christians at Christmas in our non-Christian communities, celebrating the Messiah's birth within the midst of all that passes as Christmas, proclaiming or 'gossiping the gospel'; what Peter Jensen calls a 'grassroots whispering campaign'.

One of my grandchildren playing with our woollen nativity

"Christians ought to push back on the notion that gifts are the sole reason for, or climax of, the traditional Christmas gathering. This would be as obviously ridiculous as if, at the first Christmas, the host of angels suddenly turned their attention and worship from baby Jesus in the manger to the precious, but ultimately inanimate and inconsequential gold, frankincense and myrrh of the wise men upon their arrival. They didn't, and nor should we."

This pushing back can take many forms.  My daughter Nicole Starling has much to say on her blog about the development of Christmas traditions in the Christian home (HERE); this is one example of what Simon Angus is getting at when he said:

"...where Brand Christmas goes assiduously after our children's material desires, there seems an important work for Christian parents to educate their young in the true meaning of Christmas from the outset. Attending family church services, singing carols and hymns , at home, reading the accounts of Jesus' birth, crafting nativity scenes, and spending time in family prayer..."

I pray that readers of this blog and supporters of CASE might have some success this year 'pushing back' on Brand Christmas, and that we might manage lots of gospel gossip with family, friends and neighbours.


If you are not a Case subscriber you can purchase a single issue online via our website HERE.

'Selling' Christmas

When we chose the theme of Christmas for the next issue of Case Magazine we knew that it could potentially have many different facets. Our choice of ‘Selling Christmas’ as the cover theme reflects the issues that our authors have explored. Christmas is historically one of the most sacred days in the Christian calendar. But it is known today more for its commercial contribution to the economy than its celebration of the birth of the Son of God. As Simon Angus reminds us, for most people Christmas means gifts. Commercially, ‘Christmas’ is a brand that no self-respecting business would want to ignore. And yet, as Simon points out, Christians think much less about the brand that they once owned, than the commercial entities do.

Brand Christmas

Simon Angus argues that this great time of mass celebration is not sustained purely by religious observance or even tradition, but rather by ‘Brand Christmas’. Rather than adopting the extremes of decrying the commercialisation of Christmas, or mindless assimilation, we need a better informed response. The answer suggested turns us away from finger-pointing to instead look closer to home, targeting the real powerbrokers in the economy.

‘Sold out’ Christmas

Rembrandt's 'The Adoration of the Magi' Wiki Commons

But our theme has a second dimension. Christians and non-Christians alike might well ask whether the church has ‘sold out’ in relation to the true significance of Christmas. Have we allowed others to capture our time of celebration of Christ’s birth for commercial and even political purposes? Several of our articles touch on this important theme, with a challenge for Christians to focus on what matters at Christmas time. Diane Speed, for example, guides us through centuries of accumulated tradition surrounding the Magi, recounting how the mysterious Magi have been used for purposes from religious fundraising to political propaganda, but she also shows how they may be seen ‘as our representatives in the text, worshipping the Christ Child’.

Selling the true meaning

There is a third motif in this issue: how might the Christian church ‘sell’ the true meaning of Christmas? Indeed, might it be able to enrich contemporary understanding of old traditions? John McClean argues that the age-old understanding of the incarnation, the very heart of the meaning of Christmas and Christianity, is not obsolete but defensible within contemporary scholarship. While the incarnation might be seen as a problem in that it is a hard truth to comprehend, and to sell, McClean points out that it is worth the effort, for it solves a greater problem than it creates.

But how might the church go about communicating its message clearly to a world committed to the trappings but not the truth of Christmas? Dan Anderson sees some hope in developing a distinctive Christian community calendar, which functions as ‘an education in the memories and expectations of the group’ and ‘allows an individual to become the bearer of a communal identity: to “act out” that identity and communicate it to others’. Christmas and Easter are reminders of a Christian liturgical calendar that once had greater significance, but has been abused and has lost much of its embedded meaning and witness. Yet this doesn’t mean we should reject the idea altogether. Like many of our authors in this issue, Anderson calls for biblically informed reflection on Christmas, and encourages us to ‘question the narrative identity enacted in both the communal calendars of our surrounding society and that which we have inherited from the Christian tradition’.

In an enjoyable foray into Australian poetry and songs Anna Blanch shows us how different poets have expressed their experiences of Christmas in ways that resonate with life down under, from the light-hearted fun of ‘Aussie Jingle Bells’, to Les Murray’s thought provoking ‘Barranong Angel Case’. Peter Stiles too, draws on Australian literature as he makes his case, encouraging Australians to let go of their dependence on the Northern Hemisphere traditions at Christmas. Yet both Blanch and Stiles lament the lack of serious poetry and song connecting the celebration of Christ’s nativity with the Australian context: a challenge for our literary readers.



Our issue ends with some recommendations for Christmas reading. If we are to enter into gift giving this year, what better gift can we give than books that strengthen our understanding of the central eternal narrative of Christmas? We have asked a variety of Case Magazine contributers to recommend books that they have found enjoyable or helpful. I’ve also included a short review of some children’s books (which I might post separately) that might lead to meaningful discussions with the younger members of your circle of family and friends as we contemplate God’s purpose for our lives.

If you're a Case subscriber you will receive this issue before Christmas. If not, you can purchase a single issue online via our website HERE.

A right view of indoctrination? From the CASE Archives*

"... no true education can escape the responsibility of communicating a view of life - that is, of 'indoctrinating.' The cult of the open mind is a way of camouflaging the poverty of an education which has no view of life to communicate. Indoctrination is not an educational crime; it is an educational necessity, in religion as in table manners. The crime is to indoctrinate in such a way as to destroy the freedom and responsibility of the pupil. It is by no means impossible - and the world's greatest teachers from Socrates onwards have proved it to be the very heart of teaching - to present a strongly held faith in such a way as to challenge the beholder to come to terms with it on his own personal responsibility. That there is no necessary opposition between doctrine and freedom is clear when personal freedom is at the very heart of the doctrine."

The above is a quote from a book written by M.V.C. Jeffreys who wrote most of his publications in the first half of the 20th century. He was a Professor of Education at the University of Birmingham. The quote is from his book 'Glaucon' and was first published in 1950. We could argue about what we mean by indoctrination, but I'm happy to accept the Oxford Dictionary definition for the purpose of the post. That is, to "teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically".

Richard Dawkins is a big critic of parents holding a faith position and teaching it to their children. He claims that it is indoctrination and that it is a form of child abuse. Is this fair? I think not! Surely it is the right of all parents to teach to or share with their children the things they believe. What parent would not try to teach their children the things that they think are important. How different is it for a parent to passionately teach their children about Climate Change, the killing of endangered species, the dangers of atomic energy or the unparalleled merits of the New York Yankees (or the Rabbitohs in Sydney) and a parent who teaches their children about their faith?


It's easy to be accused of indoctrination. In September 2009 President Obama was accused of indoctrination (here) due to his national address to the nation's school children.  Jim Greer the chair of Florida's Republican Party stated, "I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." In fact, there are accusations of this sort against the President all over the web. Personally, I think the claims are grossly unfair, but how do we make such judgements? How and why did Jim Greer reach his conclusion that it was indoctrination?

Is it just possible that some of the people who object to parents teaching their children about faith, labelling it as indoctrination, might 'indoctrinate' their own children, or even find it acceptable when others 'indoctrinate' children with ideas with which they agree? I read a blog recently in which the writer told how her 3 year old had chanted to her at dinner that night “Reduce! Reuse! Recycle!”. She suggested that the learning of this chant to encourage recycling is "good indoctrination".  Who decides when indoctrination of children is good, or bad? Given that indoctrination simply means to instruct or teach someone a "doctrine" - which in turn means a body of knowledge, sets of principles, a collection of teachings - then it is nonsense to assume that it is always wrong.

Photo of Mother & Child I took at Clare Hall Cambridge

M.V.C. Jeffreys' view was that indoctrination rather than being wrong or immoral is appropriate and unavoidable. What he saw as wrong was indoctrination that can "destroy the freedom and responsibility of the pupil". In defence of Christians who are accused of indoctrination regularly, it is relevant to remind people that the very basis of Christian faith is freedom. Christianity isn't about simple adherance to a set of rules or even moral principles; although the Bible does suggest ways that we should live. Those who present the Christian faith in this way are teaching a false gospel. While we can teach a child about faith in Christ, we cannot make them believe. It is wrong for a parent or teacher to seek to coerce children into believing that which they believe themselves. It is also a quest that is doomed to failure. As Joshua reminded the Israelites as they prepared to enter the Promised Land, ultimately all of us must choose who we will serve. Joshua challenged the Israelites to consider if they were going to serve the gods of the Amorites or the God of their ancestors, Yahweh (Joshua 24:14-15). Likewise, Jesus called his disciples to choose to follow and to believe in him. And as Jesus taught the stakes are high:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

Why shouldn't parents teach their children the doctrines that will allow them to make a choice as to the reality of God as taught in the Bible? Especially when they believe that there are eternal consequences.

The Bible teaches that the Christian faith is not about being enslaved to the views of others, whether as a child or as an adult, it is about being set free to live as God had intended.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.  (Romans 8:1-4)

* This is a revised version of a post I wrote in May 2010.

Theology and the future: A practical matter

Photo courtesy of Wiki Commons

As I wrote in a previous post, the New College Lectures this year will have the theme 'Theology and the Future'. They will be held on the 27-29 September at New College at the University of New South Wales. This is an important series of lectures of great practical significance. While for some, the title might suggest otherwise, our speakers will tussle with this very practical theme, and demonstrate that theology has great relevance for life. What we believe about God should influence how we understand the past, live within the present and contemplate the future.

In an edited collection of essays in honour of Jürgen Moltmann titled 'The Future of Theology' (1996) Miroslav Volf suggests that Theology is important not just to think "..from the perspective of God's future but also towards a new human future." Volf frames this collection of essays by outlining a few of the serious challenges of theology:

1. Plurality - We inhabit a plurality of often contradictory social worlds and we are surrounded by a plurality of cultures that are moving ever closer. This is associated with a plurality of theologies.
2. Marginalisation of theology - There has been a progressive marginalisation of theology in the public discourse (I have discussed this in previous posts here & here).
3. Increased specialisation and abstraction - Academic theology has seen increased specialisation that has led to narrower areas of research and scholarship and higher levels of abstraction that fail to connect with parishioners.
4.  The challenge of social issues - Beyond the moral challenges of our time, we need to consider how theology addresses significant social issues such as concern for happiness and misery, the life, death and suffering of millions, ecological crisis, poverty, issues of gender and sexuality, intersecting and overlapping forms of oppression and so on.

The challenges that Volf and others identified in 1996 are still some of the many challenges we face today, in fact, some are more intense than ever. Where should theology focus its attention? Volf asks:

"Do these problems singly or together require a radical rethinking of classical Christian perspectives on God, humanity, and the world, or would attempts at minor adjustments or even retrieval of genuine Christian tradition be more appropriate?"

Theology is an immensely practical pursuit. What could have more relevant for the Christian than understanding what they know of God and the implications this knowledge has for their relationship to him, their life in the world and indeed, their future? It isn't trivial to say that our theology has a relationship to how we dress, how we drive, how we parent, pay our bills, plan our futures, choose partners and so on. Tim Chester has even discussed the theology of washing up! But does the average Christian think this way? Why do so many (even within the church) fail to see the practical implications of theology for life and our future?

Volf asks the question:

"Could it be that the problem is not so much that theological language is foreign but that theologians themselves are deracinated - they have severed their ties with concrete communities of faith, the sole crucibles in which the virtues and practices of which they speak can be forged in culturally specific ways, and become free floating intellectuals, proudly suspended by their superior knowledge above the hustle and bustle of ecclesial life, speaking from nowhere to nobody in particular?"

Volf is writing for theologians but the laity cannot escape the claims. Is part of the problem of Christianity's loss of relevance in the public square that far too few of us consider what our theology is, how it is supported by Scripture and what relevance it has for our lives? How often do we fail to comment on all manner of social issues? How seriously do we apply our theological understanding to life? Indeed, how different are our lives to those who completely reject theology?

I can't promise that our lectures will answer all these questions (they cannot), but they are not to be missed because I have no doubt that they will be challenging.

New College Lectures

The three speakers we have chosen to share their perspectives on this theme are:

Prof John McDowell (Newcastle University) will consider 'Theology & the Future of Education'
Rev Dr David Starling (Morling College) will consider 'Theology & the Future of the Church'
Rev Dr Michael Jensen (Moore College) will consider 'Theology & the Future of Humanity'

Each speaker will be followed by a discussant who will respond briefly before we have open questions. The discussants will include Archbishop Peter Jensen.

27-29 September, 2011 at New College, UNSW Sydney, 7.30pm - 9.00pm

Special Edition of Case Magazine

We have also asked our lecturers to write articles based on their addresses for the September edition of Case Magazine (this will be released just after the Lectures). In addition to the above speakers we have asked two other theologians to write for the same edition of the magazine:

Dr Greg Clarke (Bible Society) will write on 'Theology & the Future of the Bible'
Dr Rhys Bezzant (Ridley College) will write on 'Theology & the Future of Worship'

The above edition of our quarterly magazine will be available to regular subscribers and on sale as a single issue just after the New College Lectures.

Acts of God

The latest edition of Case Magazine is out with the theme 'Acts of God'. As I outlined in a previous post:

"One of the marks of a Christian must surely be the response of sympathy, identification with others who suffer and, action to help and serve others. We are to be disturbed by suffering and the calamities that befall our fellow humanity."

If you are a CASE Associate you receive Case magazine quarterly. If you'd like to sample the content we always provide one of the articles and one book review as free downloads. On the CASE website you will find:

Death Porn? Media Ethics in Disaster Zones (Paul Richards, Mark Hadley & Dominic Steele)

No Room for Evil (Andrew Errington) - A review of David Bentley's book 'The Doors of the Sea' 

If you enjoy these samplers why don't you become a CASE Associate for just $55 per year (or $35 for students) and support our work. You can also purchase single copies of each quarterly magazine HERE

Where is God in the midst of disasters?

Television stations reported recently that in the midst of almost concurrent disasters in Australia, New Zealand and Japan that they began to receive reports of ‘disaster fatigue’ from their viewers. How do we respond to disasters? Do we show concern for a while, and then lose interest? Do we respond with greater empathy to some disasters over others? Why? Are we more concerned for citizens of our own nation than for other? How much is a life worth? Surely, all lives equal. Do we act as if we believe this?
 

One of the marks of a Christian must surely be the response of sympathy, identification with others who suffer and, action to help and serve others. We are to be disturbed by suffering and the calamities that befall our fellow humanity. 

In Romans 9 Paul reminds his readers that the Christian is to hate evil and hold to what is good. We are to show genuine love, serve others and stand beside others, both in hope and in tribulation. We are to “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep” (Romans 9:15).  Paul drew on the example of Christ to exhort and challenge the Philippian Church to consider whether their lives were characterised by a concern for the circumstances of others (Philippians 2:1-4).  We are to be of one mind with Paul on this, a mind that reflects the example of Jesus. We are to show love, sympathy and look to the interests of others.  The example that is to shape our response is seen in the incarnation; the Son of God came as a servant and “humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Phil 2:7-8)

In the next issue of Case magazine, which will come out within the next 2 weeks, we address some of the questions that disasters raise for us. In our lead article Mattheson Russell deals with the fundamental question, how do we reconcile a sovereign God with the problem of evil? Dani Scarratt looks at one significant event, the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, and considers how it had an impact on how Christians make sense of disasters.  We also consider the way the media portrays disasters and share the views expressed at a live debate hosted by Christians in the Media (CIM) titled 'Media Ethics in Disaster Zones'. The speakers were Paul Richards and Mark Hadley, with closing comments by Dominic Steele. Geologist David Cohen considers what man can do to prepare for, predict and deal with natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis. Finally, Andrew Errington reviews David Bentley Hart’s book 'The Doors of the Sea: Where was God in the Tsunami?' that contrasts two rival ways of looking at “natural evil” and the sovereignty of God.

I have been challenged by this issue and, not surprisingly, have further questions that I want explore.  I was encouraged by Mattheson Russell's reminder that Christians are not immune to doubts, nor can we escape feelings of anger and sadness at the suffering of the world. Russell opens this edition of Case by encouraging us to think theologically about disasters. He reminds us that it is okay to ask questions of God.  God is responsible for the world, but he has made a world made of natural and moral independent agencies.  Russell helpfully teases out what it means to talk of God as sovereign in a world where bad things happen. He draws on the doctrine of providence and discusses how this affirms that God “acts in the world in specific and purposeful ways.”  Finally, he considers how we reconcile the presence of evil in our world with a sovereign God who is responsible and acts providentially? He concludes that “evil is not morally ‘consonant’ with the goodness of God” nor is it part of God’s good plan for those he created. Ultimately there will be no victory in evil and suffering, victory will only be seen in Christ. We are to fight against evil, empathise with those who suffer and look to the day of Christ’s return.

I suspect that how well we understand the nature of evil, suffering and the relationship of each to God matters profoundly in at least two ways. It affects the way we view God, and it affects how we view and relate to one another. It troubles me that in spite of their significance, we often throw our hands in the air and say, “these questions are too hard for me”.

We’ve tackled this topic, because while we know questions, doubts and even anger are understandable responses to disasters, but retreat from hard questions is not.  And notwithstanding our questions, there is one response that must be evident within the life of all Christians, and within the life of the church – empathy. There is no place in the heart of the Christian for indifference.  We are to weep with others who weep. As well, we are to respond to their needs. This should be grounded not in our own strength, skills or qualities, but in our overwhelming sense of wonder at the grace of God in forgiving us and sacrificing his own son as atonement for the sins of a broken world. 

The Busy Life

Issue 18 of Case magazine dealt with the theme ‘City Life’. One of the articles in the issue was written by Tim Chester and was titled ‘The Busy Christian’s Introduction to Busyness’. As the name suggests, it offers an introduction to his book with a similar name 'The Busy Christian's Guide to Busyness' The article and his book offer helpful advice to those of us who struggle to maintain a right balance between work and life.

The main focus of Chester's article is the need for a balance between work and rest. He argues, that the Bible teaches “that work is good and rest is good”, and points out that in our modern world we have two dominant and competing ethics, a work-centred ethic and a leisure-centred ethic.

The work-centred ethic says work is good and leisure is bad or work is central and leisure is peripheral. The leisure-centred ethic says that leisure is good and work is bad or leisure is central and work is peripheral.

Chester suggests that both ethics are exploitative.

“The work ethic is the ideology of capitalism. It’s designed to create a willing workforce to enrich the owners of the means of production. It not only justifies overwork, it makes it a moral good! …….But the idyllic life advocated in the leisure ethic is equally exploitative. It’s only really possible at the expense of other people’s servitude. Greek and Roman leisure was built on the backs of slaves. And the new leisure ethic feeds of other people in the same way – whether it is the state or the family or exploited workers.”

He points out that in contrast to the work-centred ethic and the leisure-centred ethic, that the Bible presents us with a liberating God-centred ethic in which we work for the glory of God and we rest for the glory of God.

The goal is more than a balance between the two. The goal for both is the glory of God. Neither work nor rest is ultimate. some people rest to work, others work to rest. But in the biblical worldview God is ultimate. He gives value to both work and rest. Both are to be relished, enjoyed and used for God’s glory. ‘Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God’ (1 Corinthians 10:31).

He concludes his Case article by suggesting that defining work-life balance may not be as complicated as we imagine. The Bible gives us a clear pattern and that pattern is six days of work and one day of rest. Rather that a yearly (or even life) pattern of work and binge 'rest', he argues that we would be better to ensure that we adopt a weekly pattern to life, and to build opportunities for work and rest on a regular basis.

You can also download my introduction to Case #18 here.

You can view an excellent 2 minute video from Tim Chester on the main ideas in his book below.