As someone who likewise believes the theological unpacking of Bluey is the most important work the 21st century church can do, this is such an excellent addition to that discourse.
It's also helping me process some other feelings that I haven't really had language for. I recently re-read JD Vance's article in The Lamp and kept asking myself, "Okay, how did you go from this to...whatever the hell it is you're doing now?"
And I think you've given me the key I needed to think about it. This emphasis on the "order" of things, rather than on Christ's subversion of human orders. There's a pretty bog standard way of interpreting the Gospel as "getting back to God's way of doing things," and that produces a very different ethic than if you're starting from, "Jesus is God's condemnation of our way of doing things." Even then, it's easy to assume that if God is condemning the "ways of the world," then what God must be asking is that we replace those ways with a divine order.
... Except that's not at all what Christ proclaims. It's not at all what is meant by, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." There is no "order" which infallibly conforms the heart to that of Christ. And to insist that there is means refusing to risk oneself, to undergo the terrible roller coaster of being truly sanctified.
Of becoming, perhaps, the sort of man who needs to be taught by their 6-year-old how to process their feelings and throw them into the ocean.
Thank you again for this. I'm glad I saw this at exactly the right time.
Thanks for reading, Lyle. Glad it resonated. This sentence of yours made me stop, "becoming the sort of man who needs to be taught by their 6-year-old how to process their feelings and throw them into the ocean." Yes. Brilliant.
I really love this statement: “There is no "order" which infallibly conforms the heart to that of Christ.”
It resonates with Ryan Huber’s characterization of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ethics as one based on formation over anything else… meaning that the only way we can abide by any kind of “Christian” ethics is to follow Christ wherever he may lead us in our personal and relational pursuit of HIM. The pursuit of Christ certainly has some standard guideposts for everyone, but each of us are conformed to his image in different slants and facets, which reflect his characteristics differently. Bandit’s brand of fatherhood reflects a facet of Christ-like fatherhood that is distinct from certain western depictions of masculinity (I guess) but it is Christ-like nonetheless.
Just as a further complication- firstly Bluey is short for blue heeler, the Australian cattle dog, clearly. But. Australian vernacular calls redheads Bluey, because the Celtic redhead was considered “fighty “ and a fight in Australia is called a blue!
AND Blueys sister is a red heeler, as is the mother. Phew. So the family have married “out of class” so to speak.
This in incredible, Jared! So well articulated. The two lines "When we hear more about conformity to “God’s design” than we do the liberating subversion of God’s reign, we are entering the realm of natural theology." and "The faith denies us much of the stability we might seek in conceptual “orders” and rather invites us onto the void and into the venture of God’s coming kingdom." gives me chills. Well said.
I hope that you and your family are doing well too! Whenever I've seen something you post pop up on facebook I've always appreciated your perspective. After taking a deeper dive into all that you've posted on there I was even more intrigued. I resonate with everything I have seen so far. I held myself back from, literally, liking every single post. We clearly share a similar perspective on the condition of America's version of Christianity. Considering how contrary its views are, I would be greatly interested in knowing how your time at the school we share in common shaped, changed, or developed your views to what they are today.
Thanks for this. One of the roots of this in American thinking is 19th century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, and his use (misuse?) of “Scottish common sense reasoning”. He uses this to argue for hierarchical gender roles. It’s a while since I read him, but his argument tends to be that the Bible says so, and if we look at the world around we see it is true, and we can trust the evidence of our senses. Hodge gets picked up by CBMW in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. It is helpful to read this as “natural theology”.
I find it incredibly ridiculous that people like that article-writer (and many other ‘conservative’ pundits) seem determined to beat anything soft, kind, gentle, and compassionate out of men and boys. (I also find it a worrisome trend given I’m the mother of two boys.)
Bro, so many things resonated with me here. As a single widower and proud girldad of 3 who is spiritually deconstructing and becoming a more Jesus feminist egalitarian thinker, this piece hits me everywhere. I think this entire conversation needs its own conference or podcast or series or live in person communities. It’s hitting on so many tension points. Thank you! - proud Bluey fan and Bandit admirer!
I am very familiar with Bluey, thanks to nieces and nephews. My impression has always been that the character of Bandit thoroughly depicted the quintessential loving and involved father including, but not limited to, the playful teasing, the roughouse play, and the extraneous giving of sugary treats, all traits I associate more with fatherhood than motherhood.
I wholeheartedly agree that so-called natural theology misses the world upending message of Jesus Christ. As I understand more of the Bible, I see that deliberate reversal of the 'natural' order of things constantly. I was recently writing about ravens, and was struck by how the Bible begins by regarding the scavenging raven as a symbol of uncleanness, and ends by Jesus using the raven as a symbol of God's provision. It is not that God is creating disorder in the world, rather He is creating a new world altogether.
Jared, where from the Bible, church history, and the lives of the saints can we get some foundational elements of masculinity, and femininity, in your view? I agree with your main premises in this article. But it seems to me that everyone, (perhaps especially - debatable - but no less than) Christians: those who follow and are given a new spirit from Jesus and truly confesses 'Jesus is Lord' have certain demands on them based on their sex. I'm concluding this from the fact that the curse following the fall meted out differing implications for males and females; also from New Testament passages that address instructions differently to husbands, and to wives; also from mere differences in biology. So, I give little credit to a natural-theology view, perhaps. But, as you said, not so much that the Bible is subordinated. So, if the biblical view has fundamental differences between the two sexes, how would you safely, minimally define the gist of biblical masculinity? Because I agree that natural theology is over-emphasized in the emergent Christian Nationalism. What is the corrective view from orthodoxy as you see it? I ask with genuine curiosity, nothing combative. Your piece struck me because it addresses what is a real error that could be easy for me to have fallen into. I am a political conservative - some would perhaps label me of the 'MAGA' camp after having a discussion of politics. But I see the highest calling for every human is to Love God with your whole self and love your neighbor as yourself. I prize the Lordship of Christ over all. May he be forever blessed! Thank you in advance for any response you may be able to offer. Cheers!
Thank you for this article. It brought to mind Rachel Held Evan’s observation that, in Hebrew, “Eve” is better translated as “God’s helpmeet”. I also learned recently (although I can’t evidence the veracity of the source atm) that serpents were a symbol of female sexuality and generative power). That really provides a different perspective into the first 3 chapters of Genesis.
I should revise that. I read in a post by Christina Cleveland (her area of scholarship is the Black Madonna on another platform) that the serpent was a symbol of divine feminine wisdom in ancient cultures.
Hi Greg, it does have a long tradition, you’re right. While I’m absolutely focusing on its conservative reception in a particular media ecosystem right now, I’m both aware of the broader conversation and think we can distinguish between many variations.
Omission of every possible angle or puzzle piece does not equal a demerit or interpretive misvalue. It simply presents one side and invites more dialogue. Glad you commented to kick off more conversation.
As someone who likewise believes the theological unpacking of Bluey is the most important work the 21st century church can do, this is such an excellent addition to that discourse.
It's also helping me process some other feelings that I haven't really had language for. I recently re-read JD Vance's article in The Lamp and kept asking myself, "Okay, how did you go from this to...whatever the hell it is you're doing now?"
And I think you've given me the key I needed to think about it. This emphasis on the "order" of things, rather than on Christ's subversion of human orders. There's a pretty bog standard way of interpreting the Gospel as "getting back to God's way of doing things," and that produces a very different ethic than if you're starting from, "Jesus is God's condemnation of our way of doing things." Even then, it's easy to assume that if God is condemning the "ways of the world," then what God must be asking is that we replace those ways with a divine order.
... Except that's not at all what Christ proclaims. It's not at all what is meant by, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice." There is no "order" which infallibly conforms the heart to that of Christ. And to insist that there is means refusing to risk oneself, to undergo the terrible roller coaster of being truly sanctified.
Of becoming, perhaps, the sort of man who needs to be taught by their 6-year-old how to process their feelings and throw them into the ocean.
Thank you again for this. I'm glad I saw this at exactly the right time.
Thanks for reading, Lyle. Glad it resonated. This sentence of yours made me stop, "becoming the sort of man who needs to be taught by their 6-year-old how to process their feelings and throw them into the ocean." Yes. Brilliant.
“Jesus is God's condemnation of our way of doing things” is just a fantastic line.
I really love this statement: “There is no "order" which infallibly conforms the heart to that of Christ.”
It resonates with Ryan Huber’s characterization of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ethics as one based on formation over anything else… meaning that the only way we can abide by any kind of “Christian” ethics is to follow Christ wherever he may lead us in our personal and relational pursuit of HIM. The pursuit of Christ certainly has some standard guideposts for everyone, but each of us are conformed to his image in different slants and facets, which reflect his characteristics differently. Bandit’s brand of fatherhood reflects a facet of Christ-like fatherhood that is distinct from certain western depictions of masculinity (I guess) but it is Christ-like nonetheless.
Just as a further complication- firstly Bluey is short for blue heeler, the Australian cattle dog, clearly. But. Australian vernacular calls redheads Bluey, because the Celtic redhead was considered “fighty “ and a fight in Australia is called a blue!
AND Blueys sister is a red heeler, as is the mother. Phew. So the family have married “out of class” so to speak.
Phew.
This in incredible, Jared! So well articulated. The two lines "When we hear more about conformity to “God’s design” than we do the liberating subversion of God’s reign, we are entering the realm of natural theology." and "The faith denies us much of the stability we might seek in conceptual “orders” and rather invites us onto the void and into the venture of God’s coming kingdom." gives me chills. Well said.
Joey, thanks so much for reading and subscribing! It's really good hearing from you. I'm glad this resonated. Hope you're well!
I hope that you and your family are doing well too! Whenever I've seen something you post pop up on facebook I've always appreciated your perspective. After taking a deeper dive into all that you've posted on there I was even more intrigued. I resonate with everything I have seen so far. I held myself back from, literally, liking every single post. We clearly share a similar perspective on the condition of America's version of Christianity. Considering how contrary its views are, I would be greatly interested in knowing how your time at the school we share in common shaped, changed, or developed your views to what they are today.
Thanks for this. One of the roots of this in American thinking is 19th century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, and his use (misuse?) of “Scottish common sense reasoning”. He uses this to argue for hierarchical gender roles. It’s a while since I read him, but his argument tends to be that the Bible says so, and if we look at the world around we see it is true, and we can trust the evidence of our senses. Hodge gets picked up by CBMW in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s. It is helpful to read this as “natural theology”.
I find it incredibly ridiculous that people like that article-writer (and many other ‘conservative’ pundits) seem determined to beat anything soft, kind, gentle, and compassionate out of men and boys. (I also find it a worrisome trend given I’m the mother of two boys.)
Bro, so many things resonated with me here. As a single widower and proud girldad of 3 who is spiritually deconstructing and becoming a more Jesus feminist egalitarian thinker, this piece hits me everywhere. I think this entire conversation needs its own conference or podcast or series or live in person communities. It’s hitting on so many tension points. Thank you! - proud Bluey fan and Bandit admirer!
Great work Jared.
Thanks Bob, had to cut it off—so much more to say!
I believe it 😅
I am very familiar with Bluey, thanks to nieces and nephews. My impression has always been that the character of Bandit thoroughly depicted the quintessential loving and involved father including, but not limited to, the playful teasing, the roughouse play, and the extraneous giving of sugary treats, all traits I associate more with fatherhood than motherhood.
I wholeheartedly agree that so-called natural theology misses the world upending message of Jesus Christ. As I understand more of the Bible, I see that deliberate reversal of the 'natural' order of things constantly. I was recently writing about ravens, and was struck by how the Bible begins by regarding the scavenging raven as a symbol of uncleanness, and ends by Jesus using the raven as a symbol of God's provision. It is not that God is creating disorder in the world, rather He is creating a new world altogether.
This, for some reason is the first article I've read from your Substack, after subscribing and I'm so glad I found your newsletter and this article.
As many others have commented, thank you for putting to words what some of us have been feeling and thinking.
Excited to read more of your work, doc.
Jared, where from the Bible, church history, and the lives of the saints can we get some foundational elements of masculinity, and femininity, in your view? I agree with your main premises in this article. But it seems to me that everyone, (perhaps especially - debatable - but no less than) Christians: those who follow and are given a new spirit from Jesus and truly confesses 'Jesus is Lord' have certain demands on them based on their sex. I'm concluding this from the fact that the curse following the fall meted out differing implications for males and females; also from New Testament passages that address instructions differently to husbands, and to wives; also from mere differences in biology. So, I give little credit to a natural-theology view, perhaps. But, as you said, not so much that the Bible is subordinated. So, if the biblical view has fundamental differences between the two sexes, how would you safely, minimally define the gist of biblical masculinity? Because I agree that natural theology is over-emphasized in the emergent Christian Nationalism. What is the corrective view from orthodoxy as you see it? I ask with genuine curiosity, nothing combative. Your piece struck me because it addresses what is a real error that could be easy for me to have fallen into. I am a political conservative - some would perhaps label me of the 'MAGA' camp after having a discussion of politics. But I see the highest calling for every human is to Love God with your whole self and love your neighbor as yourself. I prize the Lordship of Christ over all. May he be forever blessed! Thank you in advance for any response you may be able to offer. Cheers!
Thank you for this article. It brought to mind Rachel Held Evan’s observation that, in Hebrew, “Eve” is better translated as “God’s helpmeet”. I also learned recently (although I can’t evidence the veracity of the source atm) that serpents were a symbol of female sexuality and generative power). That really provides a different perspective into the first 3 chapters of Genesis.
I should revise that. I read in a post by Christina Cleveland (her area of scholarship is the Black Madonna on another platform) that the serpent was a symbol of divine feminine wisdom in ancient cultures.
Hi Greg, it does have a long tradition, you’re right. While I’m absolutely focusing on its conservative reception in a particular media ecosystem right now, I’m both aware of the broader conversation and think we can distinguish between many variations.
Omission of every possible angle or puzzle piece does not equal a demerit or interpretive misvalue. It simply presents one side and invites more dialogue. Glad you commented to kick off more conversation.