last night's australian story - "friends in deed" - was excellent. it told the story of three men who played significant roles in the 10 nation Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) led by australia. the three men were ben mcdevitt, the afp assistant commissioner responsible for the police side of the mission, diplomat nick warner and john frewin from the military. mcdevitt arguably had the toughest jobs of ridding the solomon islands police force of corruption, basically rebuilding it from scratch, and bringing about the arrest of rebel militia leader harold keke, which was almost miraculously accomplished without a shot being fired. due largely to the efforts of mcdevitt, warner and frewin, the solomons has returned to peace and the rule of law. it's a wonderful success story accomplished by level-headedness, determination, bravery and ingenuity. a very big hats off to these great ambassadors of our country.
while watching the program last night, my mind snagged on the term 'failed state', which was used to describe the solomon islands before the intervention. for whatever reason, my word association processor immediately came up with 'failed marriage', and it got me thinking about separation/divorce from the perspective of what i was watching. while there's not a lot of similarity between a state and a marriage, i think there are some interesting parallels in the larger context of failure and intervention.
to a certain extent we have the attitude that internal conflicts in other countries need to be sorted out by themselves, but there is an acknowledgement that what is happening, especially in near or neighbouring countries, impacts on the region and our own national interest. however, we don't seem to have this same acknowledgement that relationship difficulties between a couple significantly impact others (more than just the immediate family), but usually view it as just something the couple need to sort out (or not). sadly, it's often worse in a christian context, because marriage difficulty is usually treated as anathema, something to be left at home and not mentioned at church where you are expected to wear the facade that everything is happy and rosy and you're living the 'victorious life'.
so is 'outside intervention' a good idea in the context of relationships? i think it can be, but definitely not if it is pre-emptive intervention. in the case of the solomon islands, the government knew they were in dire straits and asked for assistance. i think its a tragic indictment on our lack of real involvement with each other that this kind of request for help is rarely made by couples, and when it is, the assistance is almost always sought from a counsellor or therapist who doesn't know the couple outside of the therapy room. while professional input of this kind is often helpful (though just as often not), doesn't it make more sense for people who know the couple well and have a significant degree of 'personal interest' in the relationship to be the ones helping out? why does it seem more difficult for a couple to go to the people close to them for help? this is a community issue because it's not just a case of the couple not wanting to talk about what's going on, but often also a clear, though usually unspoken, message from others that, for whatever reason, they don't want to know about it, so the ones going through the difficulties feel isolated and left to sort it out themselves.
another aspect of the solomon islands intervention was that it was a 10-nation assistance mission. i think this is another helpful example for 'relationship intervention', because if more people are involved there are more ideas and perspectives brought to the table, and the impact of any individual self-serving agendas is also reduced. while in this context you can't really talk about others solving any of the problems (and even in a country context it is the people themselves who must have the will to change for the peace to last), a mix of friends and family, most productively, i think, together (ie. in a kind of 'intervention meeting'), can offer a combination of advice and feedback to the couple which is greater than if each was to do so individually. of course, there is a (pretty small) limit to the number of people for which this would be helpful, as it would just become chaotic and do more harm than good.
one other example from the solomon islands case i think is pertinent is the gun amnesty. apart from the surrender of harold keke, probably the most significant turning point for the solomons was the rebels handing in their weapons. these were then melted down and the remains buried, with a plaque erected at the site as a reminder of the chaos and violence that widespread proliferation of guns can lead to. anyone who is or has been in a long term relationship knows about the weapons partners use against each other, proliferating and growing in strength as time goes by if not 'disarmed'. for a relationship in crisis (and even for those not on the rocks), i think a kind of weapons amnesty might be a good idea. this could be something like an informal ceremony with others present in which the partners would 'give up' their weapons, stating the things they use to try to wound the other and promising not to use them again. i think it's important that it's not done the other way around, each partner accusing the other of using this or that, and also that there is no rejoinder to each 'confession'. the aim is not to continue the battle, but to lay the weapons on the table and by doing so remove their potency.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
maggie's words on words and the word
you may have noticed the link to maggie dawn's blog (among others) on the right of the screen. maggie has a heap of wisdom and insight, and i think you'll find it very worthwhile to check her out.
over the last number of weeks maggie has written an excellent series of posts called words and the word, which started as excerpts from her talk on the authority of the bible at greenbelt this year. she gives a very informative and scholarly, though easy to read, analysis of the issue of the inspiration of scripture, including discussions about translation, compilation of the canon, the true Word of God, 2 timothy 3:16, and much more. there are 7 parts to the series, the last just posted (the link above is to the first, and each has a link to the next at the bottom).
highly recommended.
over the last number of weeks maggie has written an excellent series of posts called words and the word, which started as excerpts from her talk on the authority of the bible at greenbelt this year. she gives a very informative and scholarly, though easy to read, analysis of the issue of the inspiration of scripture, including discussions about translation, compilation of the canon, the true Word of God, 2 timothy 3:16, and much more. there are 7 parts to the series, the last just posted (the link above is to the first, and each has a link to the next at the bottom).
highly recommended.
Monday, October 11, 2004
post-mortem
literally, almost. maybe it's not quite that bad, but alan ramsey expresses my sentiments exactly (Nothing will save us from gullibility and greedy self-interest).
this was a triumph of negative campaigning and fear-mongering, a victory for short-sightedness, selfishness and greed, as clive hamilton, executive director of The Australia Institute, also writes in today's smh (Self-absorption wins the day). we've made the dollar god, and we're blindly prostrating ourselves before the altar. may god (the real one) help us, because the dollar is a mean and fickle mistress, with a history of enslaving her lovers and crippling their souls. what we reap we certainly shall sow.
one thing i can't understand is how so many of my fellow australians bought the interest rates lie. forget the fact that house affordability is at an all-time low, or that job security is so low - or maybe these were part of the tactic: deliver property prices that mean the mortgage takes up at least 50% of the average household's disposable income, then deliver job insecurity, and it's a sure bet that the "higher interest rates" scare tactic will hit home.
it only gets worse. there's a very good chance that the coalition will also have a majority in the senate (39 seats - they'll definitely have at least 38), so legislation will pass through unhindered and un-amended. that really is the most frightening result of this election.
the only silver lining i can think of is that the last time any leader has controlled both chambers was malcolm fraser between 1976 and 1981, which directly preceded the hawke/keating dynasty, and that is a hopeful precedent. i think it's more than likely that the 'mandate' (aka power) will go to the government's head and they'll screw us over (sale of remaining 51% of telstra, even-more-business-friendly-employee-exploiting industrial relations laws, removal of cross-media ownership rules) to such an extent that we'll finally see the light and get rid of them for a good long while. but Labor still has to play it right, and rowen atkinson's gratuitous advice is right on the money.
it seems that the trend in australia (similarly to the u.s.) is towards the conservative. this may be linked (in australia at least) with a resurgence in church-going, or it could just be a reflection of an increase in the upper-middle income demographic, which is where churches draw most of their members from. it really angers me, though, that there is such a strong perception that 'conservative' is more 'christian'. you'd be hard-pressed to find conservative or so-called family values in the gospels. on the contrary, you'd almost think jesus was anti-family by some of the things he said, and he made it pretty clear that the kingdom of god is a higher priority than the family. in fact, jesus was saying is that the kingdom, not the traditional, nuclear conception, is the real family, that it is to be open and organic, not closed, rigidly defined and self-protecting.
moreover, the conservative agenda tends towards increasing inequality in society, rewarding the 'haves' and leaving the 'have-nots' further behind (with the arrogant, superior, admonition that "if you just tried harder you could become a 'have' too"). many christians would implicitly, if not explicitly, agree with this attitude of 'god helps those who help themselves', not least those who hold to the 'blessing' or 'prosperity' doctrine so common in charismatic and pentecostal churches. but this is completely contrary to the kingdom values of equality for all, of giving a voice and place of honour to the exploited, the marginalised and disenfranchised, of the last being first and the first last.
ultimately, no matter what the government, believers are called to live according to the radical, society-transforming agenda of the kingdom. there is a grave danger, though, that christians in this country will become complacent in a political environment which they are told is in line with their values, or even worse, think that the government's agenda is basically 'christian' so nothing else needs to be done. is it foolish to hope that the opposite can happen, that a soul-less, materialistic society will drive believers back to their true values of compassion and justice?
this was a triumph of negative campaigning and fear-mongering, a victory for short-sightedness, selfishness and greed, as clive hamilton, executive director of The Australia Institute, also writes in today's smh (Self-absorption wins the day). we've made the dollar god, and we're blindly prostrating ourselves before the altar. may god (the real one) help us, because the dollar is a mean and fickle mistress, with a history of enslaving her lovers and crippling their souls. what we reap we certainly shall sow.
one thing i can't understand is how so many of my fellow australians bought the interest rates lie. forget the fact that house affordability is at an all-time low, or that job security is so low - or maybe these were part of the tactic: deliver property prices that mean the mortgage takes up at least 50% of the average household's disposable income, then deliver job insecurity, and it's a sure bet that the "higher interest rates" scare tactic will hit home.
it only gets worse. there's a very good chance that the coalition will also have a majority in the senate (39 seats - they'll definitely have at least 38), so legislation will pass through unhindered and un-amended. that really is the most frightening result of this election.
the only silver lining i can think of is that the last time any leader has controlled both chambers was malcolm fraser between 1976 and 1981, which directly preceded the hawke/keating dynasty, and that is a hopeful precedent. i think it's more than likely that the 'mandate' (aka power) will go to the government's head and they'll screw us over (sale of remaining 51% of telstra, even-more-business-friendly-employee-exploiting industrial relations laws, removal of cross-media ownership rules) to such an extent that we'll finally see the light and get rid of them for a good long while. but Labor still has to play it right, and rowen atkinson's gratuitous advice is right on the money.
it seems that the trend in australia (similarly to the u.s.) is towards the conservative. this may be linked (in australia at least) with a resurgence in church-going, or it could just be a reflection of an increase in the upper-middle income demographic, which is where churches draw most of their members from. it really angers me, though, that there is such a strong perception that 'conservative' is more 'christian'. you'd be hard-pressed to find conservative or so-called family values in the gospels. on the contrary, you'd almost think jesus was anti-family by some of the things he said, and he made it pretty clear that the kingdom of god is a higher priority than the family. in fact, jesus was saying is that the kingdom, not the traditional, nuclear conception, is the real family, that it is to be open and organic, not closed, rigidly defined and self-protecting.
moreover, the conservative agenda tends towards increasing inequality in society, rewarding the 'haves' and leaving the 'have-nots' further behind (with the arrogant, superior, admonition that "if you just tried harder you could become a 'have' too"). many christians would implicitly, if not explicitly, agree with this attitude of 'god helps those who help themselves', not least those who hold to the 'blessing' or 'prosperity' doctrine so common in charismatic and pentecostal churches. but this is completely contrary to the kingdom values of equality for all, of giving a voice and place of honour to the exploited, the marginalised and disenfranchised, of the last being first and the first last.
ultimately, no matter what the government, believers are called to live according to the radical, society-transforming agenda of the kingdom. there is a grave danger, though, that christians in this country will become complacent in a political environment which they are told is in line with their values, or even worse, think that the government's agenda is basically 'christian' so nothing else needs to be done. is it foolish to hope that the opposite can happen, that a soul-less, materialistic society will drive believers back to their true values of compassion and justice?
Thursday, October 07, 2004
christians and politics
been struck down by the 'flu this week and only now managing to get my head back above water (more or less). it's definitely not a pleasant place to be, but the bright side is that it forced me to catch up on some sleep, though even that would have been much better if 'the little one' (freya - 18 mths old tomorrow) hadn't had her own health/sleep issues. she's had a runny nose for several weeks, which obviously affects her sleep because of breathing problems. over the weekend it got so bad, though, that the mucous was seeping through to her eyes and crusting them up. not really an issue when she was sleeping, and apparently not painful, but a bit distressing when her eyes were so 'crusted up' that she couldn't open them when she woke up, and she wasn't too impressed when mum & dad tried to clean them up either. then yesterday afternoon she got really listless and had a high temperature so it seems she's caught the flu from me, the poor thing. thankfully we have an excellent doctor (who’s also a homeopath), and he's given us some good remedies, and freya was already noticeably improved by the evening, and slept quite well (relatively speaking) last night.
speaking of family (how's that for a segue), one of the hot topics around aussie blogs in relation to the election is the Family First party (a handful of posts, which include links to articles and other blogs on the subject, from the saint here, here, here, here and here; also this from backyardmissionary, which has a comment with a link to this blog by a member of the hawkesbury aog church). at the church we've started attending (though still spasmodically), a couple of people, including the service leader (not the pastor, who wasn't present), made statements on sunday in support of Family First. i actually found it quite offensive – not the content of what they said, but the fact that they endorsed a particular political party from the front, with the inherent authority that carries, in effect telling the people present how they should vote.
i suppose the assumption is that a voting christian should vote for a christian party. the irony with Family First is of course that they vehemently deny the 'christian party' tag (as much, one wonders, as an atheistic party would?), though they have very strong ties to the australian Assemblies of God evangelical/pentecostal denomination. obviously the first question is, regardless of whether or not the party is christian/religious, if the individuals themselves are christian, what kind of image is it sending to be dishonest and dissembling in the face of media questions on the aog links. this is what you would (sadly) expect from politicians, but hopefully not from christians, or does the former take precedence in this case, the ends (seats in parliament) justifying the means?
for me this illustrates the more fundamental question, which is whether a christian can or should be a politician at all, because of the self-promotion, dissembling, dishonesty and power-seeking which seem requisite with that job. is it possible to be a successful politician and be a follower of jesus, with the attributes of complete honesty and integrity, seeking to be the last instead of the first, the servant instead of the lord, taking the lowest seat instead of the place of honour, always promoting others instead of ourselves. call me naive or ignorant, but it would seem to me that these things are completely at odds with a life in politics in a modern day democracy.
it is a human desire to want to influence the way one's country is run, wanting the 'values' (getting really sick of that word) one believes in to be universally upheld. the first question must be, even if one legislates one's values, does that mean they will be accepted by the people? of course not, but does it matter? isn't it good enough that it is the law, so those who disagree must abide by it anyway? but isn't the point of christianity the changing of mind and heart? isn't this what we want for all the people? would not legislating our 'values' be counter-productive to this endeavour, creating resistance in those who do not appreciate being bludgeoned into acquiesence? do we really believe changing behaviour will lead to changing of the heart and mind? the great tragedy is that, at least from what you see and hear in most churches, this is exactly what christians believe...
my basic philosophy in relation to democratic politics is that the way to change what politicians do and decide is to change the people. politicians are obviously part of the population, and by and large reflect and pander to the will of the people, basically because that's the only way to get elected. though i don't believe democracy is inherently christian, this tenet of changing the people instead of seeking political power would seem to me to be congruent with christian principles.
though god at times (at least in the old testament) used nations to carry out his justice on other nations (which is nothing to be proud of), i think he's mostly indifferent about who has political power. what he's more interested in is how his people live, and living as a community according to his commands, pursuing justice and relief for the oppressed, cannot help but be a political act, highlighting and critiquing the nation's laws where they are unjust and oppressive. this is the way that i believe christians are called to change their world.
speaking of family (how's that for a segue), one of the hot topics around aussie blogs in relation to the election is the Family First party (a handful of posts, which include links to articles and other blogs on the subject, from the saint here, here, here, here and here; also this from backyardmissionary, which has a comment with a link to this blog by a member of the hawkesbury aog church). at the church we've started attending (though still spasmodically), a couple of people, including the service leader (not the pastor, who wasn't present), made statements on sunday in support of Family First. i actually found it quite offensive – not the content of what they said, but the fact that they endorsed a particular political party from the front, with the inherent authority that carries, in effect telling the people present how they should vote.
i suppose the assumption is that a voting christian should vote for a christian party. the irony with Family First is of course that they vehemently deny the 'christian party' tag (as much, one wonders, as an atheistic party would?), though they have very strong ties to the australian Assemblies of God evangelical/pentecostal denomination. obviously the first question is, regardless of whether or not the party is christian/religious, if the individuals themselves are christian, what kind of image is it sending to be dishonest and dissembling in the face of media questions on the aog links. this is what you would (sadly) expect from politicians, but hopefully not from christians, or does the former take precedence in this case, the ends (seats in parliament) justifying the means?
for me this illustrates the more fundamental question, which is whether a christian can or should be a politician at all, because of the self-promotion, dissembling, dishonesty and power-seeking which seem requisite with that job. is it possible to be a successful politician and be a follower of jesus, with the attributes of complete honesty and integrity, seeking to be the last instead of the first, the servant instead of the lord, taking the lowest seat instead of the place of honour, always promoting others instead of ourselves. call me naive or ignorant, but it would seem to me that these things are completely at odds with a life in politics in a modern day democracy.
it is a human desire to want to influence the way one's country is run, wanting the 'values' (getting really sick of that word) one believes in to be universally upheld. the first question must be, even if one legislates one's values, does that mean they will be accepted by the people? of course not, but does it matter? isn't it good enough that it is the law, so those who disagree must abide by it anyway? but isn't the point of christianity the changing of mind and heart? isn't this what we want for all the people? would not legislating our 'values' be counter-productive to this endeavour, creating resistance in those who do not appreciate being bludgeoned into acquiesence? do we really believe changing behaviour will lead to changing of the heart and mind? the great tragedy is that, at least from what you see and hear in most churches, this is exactly what christians believe...
my basic philosophy in relation to democratic politics is that the way to change what politicians do and decide is to change the people. politicians are obviously part of the population, and by and large reflect and pander to the will of the people, basically because that's the only way to get elected. though i don't believe democracy is inherently christian, this tenet of changing the people instead of seeking political power would seem to me to be congruent with christian principles.
though god at times (at least in the old testament) used nations to carry out his justice on other nations (which is nothing to be proud of), i think he's mostly indifferent about who has political power. what he's more interested in is how his people live, and living as a community according to his commands, pursuing justice and relief for the oppressed, cannot help but be a political act, highlighting and critiquing the nation's laws where they are unjust and oppressive. this is the way that i believe christians are called to change their world.
Friday, October 01, 2004
girard and ventura
thanks to whoever it was who came across this blog via this search (in italian), because it also came up with this excellent recent article on rene girard by michael kirwan. the article gives a brief background to girard's theories on religion and violence, as well as a basic description of those theories and their implications in regards to the recent hostage killings in iraq.
this paragraph in particular caught my eye:
while on the subject, i highly recommend michael ventura's brilliant essay the lessons of guernica on the evidence that conflict makes antagonists resemble each other (though it's not clear if he owes the insight to girard). as ventura writes:
this paragraph in particular caught my eye:
"Of the many perspectives that this insight opens up, it is worth mentioning at least one. Girard asserts at one point that he is interested in 'conflict as a subtle destroyer of the differential meaning it seems to inflate'. What this means in plain language is none other than the paradox that violence makes antagonists identical to one another, even when their mutual hatred stresses only the differences (racial, religious) between them."i think this is an extremely important observation, one that needs to be highlighted again and again in a political climate that gains so much mileage out of preaching a polarised, 'us good them evil', view of the world. of all the lies and deceptions which have been told us by our leaders since september 11 2001, this is, in my view, the most odious and destructive.
while on the subject, i highly recommend michael ventura's brilliant essay the lessons of guernica on the evidence that conflict makes antagonists resemble each other (though it's not clear if he owes the insight to girard). as ventura writes:
"Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him. The moment you adapt your enemy's methods, your enemy has won. The rest is suffering and historical opera."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)