Below is a sermon I delivered today, entitled “A Reflection on a Green Economy”. I acknowledge here my free use of the resources provided on Uniting World’s website. I am particularly indebted to the resources provided on this website of Dr Clive W Ayre. Unfortunately, his words and mine have become so intertwined I found it hard to extract either cleanly. So apologies to Dr Ayre, and I trust he will not be too displeased with my use of his ideas. I also sourced the memo from former World Bank economist Lawrence Summers from Ross Smillie's excellent book Practising Reverence.
I reproduce my refelction here because I am really tired of the “economy” apparently determining everything. It doesn’t. Nor should it. There are other measures of life and well-being we need to consider. In this spirit of anti-economism, I make the following theological and biblical offering.
Today has been set aside in the Uniting church as the time to celebrate World Environment Day. This day was established by the United Nations in 1972 to stimulate worldwide awareness of the environment and encourage political attention and action. In this reflection, some of the material I will be is from UnitingWorld’s resources, and written by
The United Nations has declared 2012 the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All and the theme for World Environment Day this year is Green Economy: Does it include you?
Should the idea of economy include Christians? What do the economy, the environment and the bible have to say to each other? As it happens, they do speak to each other on a number of levels. God’s spirit is at work in humanity, in nature, in creation. And God requires that we practice justice and have reverence for all life.
This means that Christians have a responsibility to explore biblical understandings of justice, and how this is carried out. The Christian tradition is clear about the dangers of pursuing wealth to the exclu¬sion of all other things, and the bible is clear that resources are to be shared and carefully used. Secondly, acknowledging the sacredness of the earth is central to the vision of how God calls us to live together, both with each other and our environment on this planet.
In the last two centuries, some unfortunate trends have developed as to how we measure what is good. The natural environment, in the eyes of many, has become just a resource to be exploited, with little thought for immediate and future consequences. Alongside of this, we find people’s value measured primarily in terms of their financial assets. The best way I can demonstrate this is to show you a short video. It was filmed in the Niger Delta, an oil-rich place that Western oil companies have been drilling for some years. It is the home to many thousands of indigenous people, who have lived on this land for many thousands of years. They live on it, and farm it for their food. This youtube video shows what most of it now looks like. Amnesty International has produced this clever parody of Shell’s own publicity, to expose their hypocrisy. See it here at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejym4mKelhM&feature=topics
As you can see in this short film, the environment is ruined for those who live there. They will never benefit from the wealth generated by the oil. Their land, their crops and they themselves are not valued in this economy. Shell Petroleum has consistently refused to spend money to clean up the mess they have made. The people of the Niger just aren’t important to them. In this economy, the poor black people do not matter. In this economy, the cost of restoring the degradation and ruin to the environment is not counted.
What is measured as good is the price of the oil. If we just look at what we call a resources boom, then the economy looks good. If we count the true cost of getting and using those resources, then we have a large problem. The problem with this standard Western way of judging whether the economy is good is that no one is counting the damage as part of the cost.
You have all probably heard of the World Bank, an organisation which is an international financial institution that provides loans to developing countries for capital programs.
The World Bank's official goal is the reduction of poverty. According to the World Bank's Articles of Agreement (as amended effective 16 February 1989) all of its decisions must be guided by a commitment to promote foreign investment, international trade and facilitate capital investment. In 1991, the chief economist at the World Bank, a man named Lawrence Summers, encouraged the placing of dirty industries in developing nations.
The reasons he gave for this were lower wages and lower costs associated with potential health problems workers may develop. He issued a memo saying “I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest waged country is impeccable and we should face up to that”.
This memo was leaked and Summers later issued an apology, but we cannot fail to perceive that this economic vision made one class of people far less valuable than another, and showed a callous attitude to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people on our planet, not to mention the way the environment itself would suffer from the threatened toxic waste. And we can see Summers’ comment played out in places like the Niger delta. Surely the Christian church needs to find a voice and protest against such injustice.
It is not just that so-called good economics comes at the price of water and clean environment for the people who live in this region. The Christian Church has a particular calling to re-vision a much more holistic view of how we see and use God’s world, and how we look after the life that God has created on our planet. If we see the whole world and everything in it as the house of God, we may be more likely to treat everything and everyone with dignity and respect.
I am thinking that we often assume that only humankind, or perhaps even the Church, constitutes the house of God. But this is not the way scripture sees it. Psalm 24 states in verse 1 that the earth is the Lord’s, and all that is in it, and in our call to worship from Psalm 104 we have recalled the care with which God looks after all his creatures. The Genesis 9 covenant with Noah we heard read today clearly includes not just human life, but all life. Humans are part of the web of creation; we are part of life in the biosphere known as planet earth and we are reliant on it. Our health can only be good if the planet’s health is good. Our economy can only be considered good when all people are benefitting from it. And we need to find other ways of measuring what is good for us – the development of the ‘economy’ as we know it in financial terms should be but one measure.
Instead of just having economies associated with ‘growth’ and ‘progress’, we also need to measure things like people’s happiness, their satisfaction with life, how long they live, and how much of what they consume impacts on the life and health and happiness of others.
We need to value the things that cannot be counted, such as the beauty of a wilderness, river or forest. We need to put a price on clean water and fertile soil. Because poor people, ecosystems and animals are not able to pay, their rights and well-being are not seen as important in our current system. Consumer choices and economic growth should not be the only measure of good stewardship and well-being. Surely God intended us to treat our neighbours everywhere fairly and with love, and his creation with care.
I want to share with you now another example of what happens when Western mining companies move into areas populated by poor, black people. The description on this video introduces the topic as :
Nestled between the blackened pits of the TATA and CCL coal mines, the community of Ramgarh district in the state of Jharkhand has been left without access to basic drinking water. Before the mining companies came in, water was accessed by digging a mere 6-8 feet below the ground but now the deepest wells, about three to five times the depth, are running on empty. Continuous mining has dried out the traditional community wells. While the groundwater is being spirited away, rain water has no chance to replenish the falling water table. The rains collect and stagnate with the pollutants in the mining pits.
You can watch the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hi3shePMMo
It may not surprise you to learn that the Uniting Church has a policy on these issues. In July 2009, the Uniting Church Assembly adopted the statement, An Economy of Life: Re-imagining hu¬man progress for a flourishing world. The statement calls on Australian governments to:
... develop economic systems and structures which recognise that human and ecologi¬cal flourishing require much more than the creation of wealth by ensuring that public policy seeks to address first and foremost the wellbeing of all people, especially those most vulnerable and the environment.
The kind of economic system the Uniting Church is upholding is often referred to as a ‘green economy’. This name recognises that until recently when we’ve been thinking about our economy, we’ve only considered it from the perspective of financial and material growth. Referring to a green economy helps us to remember that a healthy economy is one that is sustainable, benefits all people and respects the sacred gift which is God’s good creation. The principles of a green economy include a commitment to the common good, equitable use and distribution of resources and a belief in the importance of the integrity of creation.
A green economy recognises that unlimited growth on a finite planet is not possible. We need to re-imagine these terms to see ‘progress’ and ‘growth’ as the flourishing of all life, rather than the accumulation of wealth by a few at the expense of the many. Progress needs to be seen in terms of the bringing about of the reign of God so we see a world that is more just, equitable, respectful, compassionate and loving. If members of God’s family continue to suffer because some of us are taking too much or many of God’s wild creatures continue to experience the threat of mass extinctions, we are not growing a more holistic household of God on our planet.
Jesus gave us a Gospel that should be good news for all the Earth. He called on everyone to bring good news to the poor, free the oppressed, and announce the year of the Lord’s favour, which means release from debt. If we continue to destroy the environment that many of our most poor and oppressed peoples depend on to live for the sake of a few Western companies gaining tremendous wealth, or for the sake of our own comfortable lifestyles, then we cannot say we are following these commands of Jesus with any integrity.
And in the light of the covenant God made with Noah, we need to understand that ‘salvation’ should be seen as extending beyond human beings to include the creation itself. The development of a green economy needs to be understood in the context of the understanding that creation, all creatures great and small and their habitats, as well as all people, are equally important and should be cherished by God’s faithful servants – us. It is essential for us to revise and broaden our definition of economy to include the natural world and defy any attempt to put a dollar-only value on it. We should value it because it is God’s good creation, not because of its monetary worth.
As church we have a responsibility to re-imagine the world that God created in a more holistic sense, and contribute to designing systems and structures that help us live together in ways that take the whole into account. We are at a critical point in history, facing some con¬siderable challenges including the damaging effects of human-induced climate change, the depletion of cheap abundant energy and a global food shortage. These challenges are global and they are connected to each other as both cause and consequence. They are the results of social, political and economic systems that have come to do more harm than good; systems built on values of greed, power and materi¬alism. We have developed a global economic system that is now diminishing, rather than improving our capacity to live sustainably on our planet.
I am going to leave the last word today with Paul in the letter to the Romans. Paul speaks of creation groaning, waiting to be delivered; and as we wait, he encourages us to overcome fear. This raises a good question for us: do we, as a nation, make our decisions about resources and resource sharing, based on fear of doing without, or do we make them according to the gospel of the one who called us to love our neighbours and to give without expecting any reward in return?
The Christian life is not judged by comfort and prosperity and reward by God - especially not financially - but by suffering with Christ. It is a challenging message. Our initial question asked whether we saw ourselves as part of a Green Economy. I hope that we, as the Uniting Church, can re-image a world where creation is treated with respect and all peoples are seen as equal, and that "green" will be seen as meaning also fair and sustainable and just. And I hope that by doing so, we can ensure the future of our planet and its fragile ecosystems for the grandchildren and great grand children of all the peoples of the earth.
Sunday, 3 June 2012
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
When the sacred and secular collide: contemplating ANZAC
Tomorrow, on 25 April, much of Australia will stop what it is doing, and in religious ceremonies all over the country, will observe Anzac Day - a day which is increasing described as the most sacred day in our national calendar.
It has also been described as the day that best describes the nature of our national character. Even for those who don’t normally participate in the worship life of the Church, Anzac Day is the day where many of the public gather in reverent public rituals or liturgies. At shrines, memorials and monuments in every town and municipality across the country, people gather to remember and honour the fallen, and to honour and express gratitude to those who survived and can participate in marches.
I remember as a small child going to the Anzac march in Newcastle with my grandfather, who has served in the 12th Light Horse in Palestine in WW1. This would be followed with beer and two up (though not by me I hasten to add!) in the Merewether RSL. I also remember ceremonies at my school, where at a certain time we would all stop, go out into the playground, and recite the ode and sing the recessional hymn. While I was struck with the hushed solemnity of both march and service, I am not sure I really understood exactly what it was all about. While feeling sorry for soldiers who had died, the ceremony was little more than a solemn religious occasion which I was required to take part in once a year.
What is it about this day that makes it ‘sacred’? What do the public mean when they speak of some of the larger memorials as ‘shrines’? Why is that we find bible verses inscribed at these monuments and shrines? In an increasingly secular and atheistic society, why do more and more people – particularly young people – gather each year at religious services?
The war memorial in Hyde Park is a great example of a place where the sacred and secular collide in an outstanding way. For those of you who have not seen it, the shrine itself is in the style of classical architecture and its only inscription, “Let silent contemplation be your own only offering” is from the Greek leader Pericles. The first thing to note is that it is called a ‘cenotaph’, which is NT Greek for ‘empty tomb’. Already in the name, we find the Christian idea of resurrection subtly woven into the structure. At the centre of this ‘empty tomb’ is a sculpture called ‘The Sacrifice’. It comprises a bronze group of sculptures depicting the recumbent figure of a young warrior who has made the supreme sacrifice; his naked body lies upon a shield which is supported by three womenfolk, representing his mother, wife or lover and sister. In the arms of one is a child, representing the future generations for whom the sacrifice has been made. You can see it at http://www.flickr.com/photos/_autumn_leaf/225122586/
The group rises phoenix-like from symbolic flames of sacrifice, which radiate from the base. The women represent the living — the soldier the dead. He signifies the past — they hold the future in the child one of them carries. Together the figures are meant to embody the abstract concept of sacrifice. The description tells us that the figures are welded together structurally into one form, so they also represent a complex unity signifying national sacrifice. The figure of the young man is clearly cruciform, and evokes the cross of Jesus.
Rayner Hoff, the sculptor, intended two other figures to be placed in the memorial. One, called The Crucifixion of Civilisation, was denounced by the church. It depicts a naked female figure on a cross representing peace, with a pyramid of broken soldiers, corpses, weapons, helmets, and the debris of battle at the foot. Hoff described the symbolism of his central figure: "Adolescent Peace is depicted crucified on the armaments of the ravisher, the war god, Mars."
This monument, had it ever been built, would have undoubtedly contradicted the glorification of war. Interestingly, it was opposed primarily by the Catholic church of the day, who denounced it as “only fit for Protestants”. You can make of that what you will! The National War Memorial in Adelaide is similar. On the front, the figure within the arch represents the spirit of Duty, bearing in its hands a sword shaped as a cross. This figure is the vision seen by the group standing on the stage in front. http://www.anzacday.org.au/education/tff/memorials/sthaust.html Also like the Hyde Park memorial, we have a depiction of the aftermath of war on the reverse wall. Another winged spirit is depicted in the arch, but this time it symbolises the attributes of womanhood, and reminiscent of the Pieta, the spirit carries on its left arm the limp figure of a dead hero, while in its right hand it holds a cross-like sword.
The inscription reads: ALL HONOR GIVE TO THOSE WHO NOBLY STRIVING, NOBLY FELL THAT WE MIGHT LIVE.
In other less dramatic memorials around the country we find quotations from the bible, the most popular being John “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”. Such memorials are frequently described as sacred places, and often have a small daily service, invoking ritual and religion for those who are present.
The feeling of sacrifice that permeates Anzac Day surely can only be explained by its conscious and unconscious references to the sacrifice of Jesus. Hence on Anzac day, we find the non-church going public willing to speak of fallen soldiers as making the ultimate sacrifice. Canon David John Garland, the man credited with the instigation of the modern Anzac day in the early 1920s, described it thus: The memorial in its noble dignity proclaims, as befits a Christian people, the great sacrifice of Calvary; and unites therefore the sacrifice of those who also laid down their lives for their friends. Its inscription is no less dignified than the memorial itself: Their Name Liveth for Evermore…On Anzac Day we gather collectively, and plead for them the Sacrifice of Calvary, to which they united themselves by offering their souls and bodies as a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice, after the example of Him who by word and from the pulpit of the Cross taught that “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Clearly, Jesus’ death and resurrection was related to the meaning of the sacrifice of young lives in war. It was, after all, the death and resurrection of Jesus that made it possible to see any hope at all in the mass slaughter of young men. In Jesus’ sacrificial act on Calvary, and his subsequent resurrection, we see the groundwork for the belief that those who had died defending others would still live on, and their memories would continue to be honoured.
So Anzac day has a theology that is capable of bringing thousands of people in touch with the divine, and it offers them a fleeting experience or encounter with the Godhead, though perhaps not too many who attend would articulate their feelings quite in these terms.
Despite these heavily religious overtones, or even perhaps because of them, Anzac Day commemorations do not always sit comfortably with many Christians. While we recognize the meaning in Jesus’ sacrificial death, we also hear his words when he calls us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. When his enemies came against him with military force, Jesus did not resort to reciprocal violence to defend himself or his cause. He allowed the machinery of might and power to add him to its seemingly endless blood-stained list of sacrificial victims. Jesus gave us no endorsement and no precedent for taking up arms in military conflict.
So where does that leave us on the day when our nation commemorates those who have fought and fallen in war? How do we meet our communities as they attend religious ceremonies to mourn the sacrificial dead? Can we participate in honouring the fallen without betraying the gospel of the Prince of Peace? Does Anzac Day provide us with a bridge into the secular community?
I think it possible, as long as we can resist aspects of the commemoration that have been manipulated to support the system that produced all the killing in the first place. In the verses we have heard from the book of the Revelation (Rev. 7:9-17), we find an enormous crowd, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and languages, gathered before the Lamb who was slain, dressed in white robes and waving palm branches as they worship God with loud voices. And Revelation tells us that this enormous crowd are “they who have come out of the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb?
This is interesting in light of our question, because here we have a great crowd of the fallen, those who have made the ultimate sacrifice of being martyred in the great ordeal. This passage invites us to think about how the vision it presents might connect with the Anzac commemorations. We could go in at least two very different directions with it.
The biblical vision could be used quite uncritically to support the standard Anzac agenda. Here are the great crowd of the glorious fallen gathered before the throne of the God in whose service they laid down their lives in the great ordeal. We could easily connect that with the Anzac Day services and blithely go along with using the honouring of the fallen to reinforce the implied message that the idea of ‘fighting to defend God, King and country’ is indeed a sacred purpose for which one should be prepared to make such a sacrifice.
But honouring the fallen does not require us to swallow the propaganda of war. We can honour the fallen and acknowledge their sacrifice without having to support the system that sacrificed them. We can even hope and pray that those who were killed in war might find their place among the great multitude of white-robed martyrs who worship God before the Lamb who was slain without suggesting that there is some sort of moral equivalence between them and the Lamb. They do have this in common: they are both the sacrificial victims of a system that relied on the notion that some must be sacrificed in order to preserve the security of established interests.
We can honour the memory of those who have been sacrificed in war without having to endorse either the ideologies that they were sacrificed to defend, or the actions by which they defended them. For at the same time as Jesus accepts the worship of the white-robed multitude, he honours them as fellow victims with him and wipes away every tear from their eyes. Far from neglecting their memory, it is in remembering and honouring this multitude of victims that Jesus turns the spotlight of truth on the violent system that demanded their lives.
Perhaps, on Anzac Day, we too can bring these things together. Just as Jesus exposed the systemic oppression of the people and called all to the kingdom of God, so too we can honour the fallen while allowing their memory to raise pertinent questions about the powers that were prepared to sacrifice them. The Great War has often been described as the war to end all wars, and the Christian notion of sacrifice to improve the lot of others seems to have been adopted in this explanation. It is quite likely that those that survived the war across the various nations felt that they owed the fallen a debt of blood, and it was necessary to ensure that the millions had not suffered and died in vain.
The soldiers of the Great War in particular believed that they had laid the groundwork for building a renewed society under God, one that guaranteed justice and equity to all citizens at home and an international order that made the recurrence of such destructive conflict impossible in the future – an ideal that closely parallels the Christian ideal of the Kingdom of God. But anyone who studies history knows that any war appears to only sow the seeds of the next war.
Without resorting to violence, Jesus confronted, challenged and resisted the victim-makers to such an extent that they had to sacrifice him to protect their various interests. He proclaimed love for enemy. When God raised him from the dead and he returned, he appeared to speak powerful words of reconciliation, love, peace and forgiveness.
Perhaps on Anzac Day especially, at the rising of the sun, and at its going down, we should remember the victims of war sacrificed to earthly empires, and remember all those who have become victims of the corruption, madness and greed that characterises our world. As we gather here as the people of God, we should stand with all of the victims, and with all those who have been sacrificed down through the ages. And we should bear witness along with them that the powers of corruption and death can be defeated by the power of love and life, through words of reconciliation, love, peace and forgiveness, spoken not just to our friends, but to our enemies as well. Perhaps then can peace be a real possibility in our world.
It has also been described as the day that best describes the nature of our national character. Even for those who don’t normally participate in the worship life of the Church, Anzac Day is the day where many of the public gather in reverent public rituals or liturgies. At shrines, memorials and monuments in every town and municipality across the country, people gather to remember and honour the fallen, and to honour and express gratitude to those who survived and can participate in marches.
I remember as a small child going to the Anzac march in Newcastle with my grandfather, who has served in the 12th Light Horse in Palestine in WW1. This would be followed with beer and two up (though not by me I hasten to add!) in the Merewether RSL. I also remember ceremonies at my school, where at a certain time we would all stop, go out into the playground, and recite the ode and sing the recessional hymn. While I was struck with the hushed solemnity of both march and service, I am not sure I really understood exactly what it was all about. While feeling sorry for soldiers who had died, the ceremony was little more than a solemn religious occasion which I was required to take part in once a year.
What is it about this day that makes it ‘sacred’? What do the public mean when they speak of some of the larger memorials as ‘shrines’? Why is that we find bible verses inscribed at these monuments and shrines? In an increasingly secular and atheistic society, why do more and more people – particularly young people – gather each year at religious services?
The war memorial in Hyde Park is a great example of a place where the sacred and secular collide in an outstanding way. For those of you who have not seen it, the shrine itself is in the style of classical architecture and its only inscription, “Let silent contemplation be your own only offering” is from the Greek leader Pericles. The first thing to note is that it is called a ‘cenotaph’, which is NT Greek for ‘empty tomb’. Already in the name, we find the Christian idea of resurrection subtly woven into the structure. At the centre of this ‘empty tomb’ is a sculpture called ‘The Sacrifice’. It comprises a bronze group of sculptures depicting the recumbent figure of a young warrior who has made the supreme sacrifice; his naked body lies upon a shield which is supported by three womenfolk, representing his mother, wife or lover and sister. In the arms of one is a child, representing the future generations for whom the sacrifice has been made. You can see it at http://www.flickr.com/photos/_autumn_leaf/225122586/
The group rises phoenix-like from symbolic flames of sacrifice, which radiate from the base. The women represent the living — the soldier the dead. He signifies the past — they hold the future in the child one of them carries. Together the figures are meant to embody the abstract concept of sacrifice. The description tells us that the figures are welded together structurally into one form, so they also represent a complex unity signifying national sacrifice. The figure of the young man is clearly cruciform, and evokes the cross of Jesus.
Rayner Hoff, the sculptor, intended two other figures to be placed in the memorial. One, called The Crucifixion of Civilisation, was denounced by the church. It depicts a naked female figure on a cross representing peace, with a pyramid of broken soldiers, corpses, weapons, helmets, and the debris of battle at the foot. Hoff described the symbolism of his central figure: "Adolescent Peace is depicted crucified on the armaments of the ravisher, the war god, Mars."
This monument, had it ever been built, would have undoubtedly contradicted the glorification of war. Interestingly, it was opposed primarily by the Catholic church of the day, who denounced it as “only fit for Protestants”. You can make of that what you will! The National War Memorial in Adelaide is similar. On the front, the figure within the arch represents the spirit of Duty, bearing in its hands a sword shaped as a cross. This figure is the vision seen by the group standing on the stage in front. http://www.anzacday.org.au/education/tff/memorials/sthaust.html Also like the Hyde Park memorial, we have a depiction of the aftermath of war on the reverse wall. Another winged spirit is depicted in the arch, but this time it symbolises the attributes of womanhood, and reminiscent of the Pieta, the spirit carries on its left arm the limp figure of a dead hero, while in its right hand it holds a cross-like sword.
The inscription reads: ALL HONOR GIVE TO THOSE WHO NOBLY STRIVING, NOBLY FELL THAT WE MIGHT LIVE.
In other less dramatic memorials around the country we find quotations from the bible, the most popular being John “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”. Such memorials are frequently described as sacred places, and often have a small daily service, invoking ritual and religion for those who are present.
The feeling of sacrifice that permeates Anzac Day surely can only be explained by its conscious and unconscious references to the sacrifice of Jesus. Hence on Anzac day, we find the non-church going public willing to speak of fallen soldiers as making the ultimate sacrifice. Canon David John Garland, the man credited with the instigation of the modern Anzac day in the early 1920s, described it thus: The memorial in its noble dignity proclaims, as befits a Christian people, the great sacrifice of Calvary; and unites therefore the sacrifice of those who also laid down their lives for their friends. Its inscription is no less dignified than the memorial itself: Their Name Liveth for Evermore…On Anzac Day we gather collectively, and plead for them the Sacrifice of Calvary, to which they united themselves by offering their souls and bodies as a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice, after the example of Him who by word and from the pulpit of the Cross taught that “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
Clearly, Jesus’ death and resurrection was related to the meaning of the sacrifice of young lives in war. It was, after all, the death and resurrection of Jesus that made it possible to see any hope at all in the mass slaughter of young men. In Jesus’ sacrificial act on Calvary, and his subsequent resurrection, we see the groundwork for the belief that those who had died defending others would still live on, and their memories would continue to be honoured.
So Anzac day has a theology that is capable of bringing thousands of people in touch with the divine, and it offers them a fleeting experience or encounter with the Godhead, though perhaps not too many who attend would articulate their feelings quite in these terms.
Despite these heavily religious overtones, or even perhaps because of them, Anzac Day commemorations do not always sit comfortably with many Christians. While we recognize the meaning in Jesus’ sacrificial death, we also hear his words when he calls us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. When his enemies came against him with military force, Jesus did not resort to reciprocal violence to defend himself or his cause. He allowed the machinery of might and power to add him to its seemingly endless blood-stained list of sacrificial victims. Jesus gave us no endorsement and no precedent for taking up arms in military conflict.
So where does that leave us on the day when our nation commemorates those who have fought and fallen in war? How do we meet our communities as they attend religious ceremonies to mourn the sacrificial dead? Can we participate in honouring the fallen without betraying the gospel of the Prince of Peace? Does Anzac Day provide us with a bridge into the secular community?
I think it possible, as long as we can resist aspects of the commemoration that have been manipulated to support the system that produced all the killing in the first place. In the verses we have heard from the book of the Revelation (Rev. 7:9-17), we find an enormous crowd, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and languages, gathered before the Lamb who was slain, dressed in white robes and waving palm branches as they worship God with loud voices. And Revelation tells us that this enormous crowd are “they who have come out of the great ordeal; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb?
This is interesting in light of our question, because here we have a great crowd of the fallen, those who have made the ultimate sacrifice of being martyred in the great ordeal. This passage invites us to think about how the vision it presents might connect with the Anzac commemorations. We could go in at least two very different directions with it.
The biblical vision could be used quite uncritically to support the standard Anzac agenda. Here are the great crowd of the glorious fallen gathered before the throne of the God in whose service they laid down their lives in the great ordeal. We could easily connect that with the Anzac Day services and blithely go along with using the honouring of the fallen to reinforce the implied message that the idea of ‘fighting to defend God, King and country’ is indeed a sacred purpose for which one should be prepared to make such a sacrifice.
But honouring the fallen does not require us to swallow the propaganda of war. We can honour the fallen and acknowledge their sacrifice without having to support the system that sacrificed them. We can even hope and pray that those who were killed in war might find their place among the great multitude of white-robed martyrs who worship God before the Lamb who was slain without suggesting that there is some sort of moral equivalence between them and the Lamb. They do have this in common: they are both the sacrificial victims of a system that relied on the notion that some must be sacrificed in order to preserve the security of established interests.
We can honour the memory of those who have been sacrificed in war without having to endorse either the ideologies that they were sacrificed to defend, or the actions by which they defended them. For at the same time as Jesus accepts the worship of the white-robed multitude, he honours them as fellow victims with him and wipes away every tear from their eyes. Far from neglecting their memory, it is in remembering and honouring this multitude of victims that Jesus turns the spotlight of truth on the violent system that demanded their lives.
Perhaps, on Anzac Day, we too can bring these things together. Just as Jesus exposed the systemic oppression of the people and called all to the kingdom of God, so too we can honour the fallen while allowing their memory to raise pertinent questions about the powers that were prepared to sacrifice them. The Great War has often been described as the war to end all wars, and the Christian notion of sacrifice to improve the lot of others seems to have been adopted in this explanation. It is quite likely that those that survived the war across the various nations felt that they owed the fallen a debt of blood, and it was necessary to ensure that the millions had not suffered and died in vain.
The soldiers of the Great War in particular believed that they had laid the groundwork for building a renewed society under God, one that guaranteed justice and equity to all citizens at home and an international order that made the recurrence of such destructive conflict impossible in the future – an ideal that closely parallels the Christian ideal of the Kingdom of God. But anyone who studies history knows that any war appears to only sow the seeds of the next war.
Without resorting to violence, Jesus confronted, challenged and resisted the victim-makers to such an extent that they had to sacrifice him to protect their various interests. He proclaimed love for enemy. When God raised him from the dead and he returned, he appeared to speak powerful words of reconciliation, love, peace and forgiveness.
Perhaps on Anzac Day especially, at the rising of the sun, and at its going down, we should remember the victims of war sacrificed to earthly empires, and remember all those who have become victims of the corruption, madness and greed that characterises our world. As we gather here as the people of God, we should stand with all of the victims, and with all those who have been sacrificed down through the ages. And we should bear witness along with them that the powers of corruption and death can be defeated by the power of love and life, through words of reconciliation, love, peace and forgiveness, spoken not just to our friends, but to our enemies as well. Perhaps then can peace be a real possibility in our world.
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
The culture of good deeds and morality: why the church has missed the boat – and the point.
There was a very interesting article this week on the Guardian’s Facebook page (http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/commentisfree/belief/2011/dec/14/church-of-england-future-bleak). Apparently in the latest instalment of the annual British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey (http://ir2.flife.de/data/natcen-social-research/igb_html/index.php?bericht_id=1000001&index=&lang=ENG) it is clear that most people raised in non-religious households stay non-religious.
The author of the article, Nick Spencer, points out that in the BSA “everyone – 94% to be precise – brought up without religious affiliation in Britain today stays without religious affiliation. Basically, if your parents bring you up outside a faith, you stay outside a faith.” In a nutshell, younger generations by and large are not attending church. Further, the research suggests that since 1983, the number of people self-affiliating to the Church of England has halved, and most of those no longer doing so are not becoming Buddhists or Pentecostals. They are going off and joining the no-religion camp, which has apparently increased from 31% to 50%.
Nick Spencer says that this must read like a nightmare for anyone concerned about the future of the Church of England. I would expand this to say it reads like a nightmare for anyone concerned about the moderate Christian Protestant church in the Western world generally.
There has been a great deal of talk about changing the church, and various new types of church – such as ‘fresh expressions’, ‘mission-shaped’ thingummy bobs, ‘e-merging church’, and other such things – keep popping up as the saviours of the institutionalised Christian faith. The theory behind such things seems to be that if you make church more accessible and interesting then people will be more likely to come along and join in.
This survey would seem to put paid to this idea, in that those surveyed are not interested in religion, be it organised, institutionalised, messy, mission-shaped or in a pub. It isn’t just a case of rejecting old-fashioned church services or values. The younger generation presumably see the church as either a waste of their time, irrelevant or both.
I have to say that watching the American primaries to elect a Republican candidate is enough to turn anyone (including me) off Christianity. The Christian right appear to be advocating for an era somewhere back in the 1950s, with one candidate opposed even to the use of birth control. This group are conservative also in their policies, with no sympathy for the poor or the welfare recipient. They actively discriminate against people on the basis of race, creed and sexual orientation. No wonder younger, thinking, folk look at this group and decide that the church is not for them.
Many denominations still discriminate against women, who form half of the population. This is not exactly attractive to a younger group either.
So where does this leave the institutionalised Christian church? On one level, this research suggests that it will have to change profoundly to tempt non-religious people back into its fold. This may well be a good thing for the Christian church overall. Perhaps it will again become largely a small group movement, meeting in homes or public places.
And where will this leave the paid people of the church? Most of those I know who are ordained or who work as Pastors, etc, like working for the church. Trouble is, without the faithful folk who contribute each week to the workings of the traditional, institutionalised church, there is no income flow, and so presumably no paid workers for the gospel. Surely this would put the continued existence of the church at grave risk in Western countries such as Australia.
So if we want people to be paid and to be set apart to spread the good news, then this research is not good news. What then are we to do?
Nick Spencer poses two questions about the demise of the church.
In the first question he raises, he basically asks where those who claim no religious affiliation will get their morals, ethics and values from. He seems to fear that there may be no "common human values" anymore and that there will be no external moral standards to which people can be called to account.
His second question relates to retention levels in religions, and the likelihood that you will remain affiliated to a certain group if you were brought up in it. He says
For Anglicans and those of other Protestant traditions the figure is a mere 49%. The Catholic church fares a little better, with 62% of those brought up a Roman Catholic staying a Roman Catholic (although how seriously Roman Catholic is, of course, another matter). Better still are those brought up in non-Christian religions (unhelpfully not distinguished in the BSA chapter: it would be good to know how it differed from one minority religious group to another), 87% of whom remain in the faith.
This last would suggest that religion is an important part of culture, something lacking particularly in Anglo society in Western countries.
But I want to return to Spencer’s first question, and tie it to his second. There are plenty of moral people out there in our society who are not religious. Yet they believe in basic justice and human rights. They work through various secular and religious organisations such as Amnesty International and World Vision and Oxfam for refugee justice, to eliminate poverty, to free political prisoners and so on. They support GetUp! and other groups committed to challenging political and social injustice. They marched for peace, and supported reconciliation with our indigenous peoples. They try and protect what is left of our old growth forests and endangered species. They are, in fact, with their time and money, supporting organisations that are doing the work of the church, and carrying out the teaching of Jesus.
And so to Spencer’s second question: many Australians actively foster a culture of being generous, fair minded and prepared to make the effort to right many of the wrongs they observe. In Spencer’s own words, they see “no need of religious mumbo-jumbo”, and that “there is simply no reason why those brought up outside a religion should want to enter it”, particularly if their moral compass leads them to actively espouse and work for values of justice and fairness.
So why are these people, culturally inclined to such good works, not filling our churches, the places where such a culture of good works based on the ministry and teaching of Jesus should be found? Partly it is to do with the religious Christian right, as mentioned above. There is plenty of research showing they are not attractive to thinking young people; and because they get the headlines, all Christians become tarred with their brush.
I am also inclined to believe that we in the churches have become more concerned about form than substance; more interested in rhetoric than action; and so in terms of the larger issues of society, we have become more inwardly concerned than outwardly focussed. As a result, thinking, moral people have found other groups to join and other places to be. Like the Pharisees in Matthew, we have “neglected the greater matters of mercy and justice” in favour of worrying about tithing – or its equivalent modern counterpart.
For those of you who read this blog regularly, you can guess what is coming next. When our church starts acting like Jesus, and carrying out his teaching, we will become more attractive to those who seek righteousness in our society. If you are a church person, ask yourself the following questions. When was the last time that your congregation actively stood up for an oppressed group by donating money, writing letters, lobbying the government or gave up using stuff that caused the oppression in the first place? How many of your congregation actively fight for legislation to limit climate change? How many congregation members are concerned about the fate of island nations such as Tuvalu? Is your coffee and tea fair trade? Who made your clothes and what action are you taking against companies who enslave children and pay some of the most vulnerable people in our world tuppence to work in awful conditions? Does the suicide of Indian cotton farmers ensnared in a web of deceit and debt promoted by Monsanto concern you? Have you actively worked for peace in the Middle East? Does the plight of our indigenous peoples concern you? Have you joined a campaign for third world debt to be cancelled?
I could go on and on, as the troubles of our planet are many. My point is that if our churches did even some of these things, passionately, committedly and in accordance with the gospel, then people wouldn’t have to look elsewhere for a group that worked to free the oppressed, bring good news to the poor, and proclaim liberty to the captives. If we recovered this good news and put it into practice, we may even begin to see the year of the Lord’s favour emerging in our own time.
Amen.
The author of the article, Nick Spencer, points out that in the BSA “everyone – 94% to be precise – brought up without religious affiliation in Britain today stays without religious affiliation. Basically, if your parents bring you up outside a faith, you stay outside a faith.” In a nutshell, younger generations by and large are not attending church. Further, the research suggests that since 1983, the number of people self-affiliating to the Church of England has halved, and most of those no longer doing so are not becoming Buddhists or Pentecostals. They are going off and joining the no-religion camp, which has apparently increased from 31% to 50%.
Nick Spencer says that this must read like a nightmare for anyone concerned about the future of the Church of England. I would expand this to say it reads like a nightmare for anyone concerned about the moderate Christian Protestant church in the Western world generally.
There has been a great deal of talk about changing the church, and various new types of church – such as ‘fresh expressions’, ‘mission-shaped’ thingummy bobs, ‘e-merging church’, and other such things – keep popping up as the saviours of the institutionalised Christian faith. The theory behind such things seems to be that if you make church more accessible and interesting then people will be more likely to come along and join in.
This survey would seem to put paid to this idea, in that those surveyed are not interested in religion, be it organised, institutionalised, messy, mission-shaped or in a pub. It isn’t just a case of rejecting old-fashioned church services or values. The younger generation presumably see the church as either a waste of their time, irrelevant or both.
I have to say that watching the American primaries to elect a Republican candidate is enough to turn anyone (including me) off Christianity. The Christian right appear to be advocating for an era somewhere back in the 1950s, with one candidate opposed even to the use of birth control. This group are conservative also in their policies, with no sympathy for the poor or the welfare recipient. They actively discriminate against people on the basis of race, creed and sexual orientation. No wonder younger, thinking, folk look at this group and decide that the church is not for them.
Many denominations still discriminate against women, who form half of the population. This is not exactly attractive to a younger group either.
So where does this leave the institutionalised Christian church? On one level, this research suggests that it will have to change profoundly to tempt non-religious people back into its fold. This may well be a good thing for the Christian church overall. Perhaps it will again become largely a small group movement, meeting in homes or public places.
And where will this leave the paid people of the church? Most of those I know who are ordained or who work as Pastors, etc, like working for the church. Trouble is, without the faithful folk who contribute each week to the workings of the traditional, institutionalised church, there is no income flow, and so presumably no paid workers for the gospel. Surely this would put the continued existence of the church at grave risk in Western countries such as Australia.
So if we want people to be paid and to be set apart to spread the good news, then this research is not good news. What then are we to do?
Nick Spencer poses two questions about the demise of the church.
In the first question he raises, he basically asks where those who claim no religious affiliation will get their morals, ethics and values from. He seems to fear that there may be no "common human values" anymore and that there will be no external moral standards to which people can be called to account.
His second question relates to retention levels in religions, and the likelihood that you will remain affiliated to a certain group if you were brought up in it. He says
For Anglicans and those of other Protestant traditions the figure is a mere 49%. The Catholic church fares a little better, with 62% of those brought up a Roman Catholic staying a Roman Catholic (although how seriously Roman Catholic is, of course, another matter). Better still are those brought up in non-Christian religions (unhelpfully not distinguished in the BSA chapter: it would be good to know how it differed from one minority religious group to another), 87% of whom remain in the faith.
This last would suggest that religion is an important part of culture, something lacking particularly in Anglo society in Western countries.
But I want to return to Spencer’s first question, and tie it to his second. There are plenty of moral people out there in our society who are not religious. Yet they believe in basic justice and human rights. They work through various secular and religious organisations such as Amnesty International and World Vision and Oxfam for refugee justice, to eliminate poverty, to free political prisoners and so on. They support GetUp! and other groups committed to challenging political and social injustice. They marched for peace, and supported reconciliation with our indigenous peoples. They try and protect what is left of our old growth forests and endangered species. They are, in fact, with their time and money, supporting organisations that are doing the work of the church, and carrying out the teaching of Jesus.
And so to Spencer’s second question: many Australians actively foster a culture of being generous, fair minded and prepared to make the effort to right many of the wrongs they observe. In Spencer’s own words, they see “no need of religious mumbo-jumbo”, and that “there is simply no reason why those brought up outside a religion should want to enter it”, particularly if their moral compass leads them to actively espouse and work for values of justice and fairness.
So why are these people, culturally inclined to such good works, not filling our churches, the places where such a culture of good works based on the ministry and teaching of Jesus should be found? Partly it is to do with the religious Christian right, as mentioned above. There is plenty of research showing they are not attractive to thinking young people; and because they get the headlines, all Christians become tarred with their brush.
I am also inclined to believe that we in the churches have become more concerned about form than substance; more interested in rhetoric than action; and so in terms of the larger issues of society, we have become more inwardly concerned than outwardly focussed. As a result, thinking, moral people have found other groups to join and other places to be. Like the Pharisees in Matthew, we have “neglected the greater matters of mercy and justice” in favour of worrying about tithing – or its equivalent modern counterpart.
For those of you who read this blog regularly, you can guess what is coming next. When our church starts acting like Jesus, and carrying out his teaching, we will become more attractive to those who seek righteousness in our society. If you are a church person, ask yourself the following questions. When was the last time that your congregation actively stood up for an oppressed group by donating money, writing letters, lobbying the government or gave up using stuff that caused the oppression in the first place? How many of your congregation actively fight for legislation to limit climate change? How many congregation members are concerned about the fate of island nations such as Tuvalu? Is your coffee and tea fair trade? Who made your clothes and what action are you taking against companies who enslave children and pay some of the most vulnerable people in our world tuppence to work in awful conditions? Does the suicide of Indian cotton farmers ensnared in a web of deceit and debt promoted by Monsanto concern you? Have you actively worked for peace in the Middle East? Does the plight of our indigenous peoples concern you? Have you joined a campaign for third world debt to be cancelled?
I could go on and on, as the troubles of our planet are many. My point is that if our churches did even some of these things, passionately, committedly and in accordance with the gospel, then people wouldn’t have to look elsewhere for a group that worked to free the oppressed, bring good news to the poor, and proclaim liberty to the captives. If we recovered this good news and put it into practice, we may even begin to see the year of the Lord’s favour emerging in our own time.
Amen.
Thursday, 8 December 2011
Finding a climate of hope in a climate of doubt about climate change
Today I found myself doing two very different things. One was writing a letter to the editor about a new “carbon tax calculator” that was sent out by a National Senator as ‘proof’ that the government calculator was incorrect and by inference, the work of insidious people who wanted your money – and nothing else.
The second thing was writing a short Christmas message for the local paper for the fourth week of Advent. That meant encountering Mary, the mother of Jesus in Luke’s gospel. I was particularly looking at the Magnificat.
You might be wondering at this point what these two things have to do with one another. As it happens, quite a lot.
I will start with the issue of climate change. I have been reading a book that is called Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan. It is frightening reading. By tracking down payments of large sums of money, and various bureaucratic paper trails, it shows very clearly that the so-called debate about climate change isn’t a debate at all among climate scientists. In fact, there is an astonishing consensus among such scientists. The ‘debate’ has been created by fossil fuel corporations, such as Exxon and Mobil. They have ‘mission statements’ that aim promote confusion about climate change amongst the general public, and also target “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science” as being “out of touch with reality.” (Climate Cover-up p.43)
To achieve these goals, they have in their pay various other kinds of scientists, such as geologists, who muddy the waters of climate science with their vested interests and scientific credentials.
One such scientist is geologist Professor Ian Plimer. Professor Plimer is a director of three mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland’s Ivanhoe Mines, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals. As non-executive Director and Deputy Chairman of Kefi, he owns 3.6 million shares which would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in today’s market. In an article titled “Why I’d put global warming on ice,” Plimer claims that his commercial interest in mining “does not colour his arguments, which he says are based on pure science” and “does not affect the independence of his beliefs.” Hmmmmmmmm.
Climate Cover-up openly provides all of its sources, unlike our political parties and the fossil fuel industry. It is a very sobering read.
In our own fair country, Senator Ron Boswell from Queensland has thoughtfully sent out a media release entitled “New on-line calculator shows the true cost of Carbon Tax”. It was presented as a true alternative for small businesses to the online government carbon price calculator – which, by the way, was put together by the CSIRO and Choice and which makes it workings quite transparent and which can be found at http://www.yourcarbonprice.com.au . How it calculates the figures can be found at http://www.choice.com.au/green-home/saving-energy/carbon-climate-change/bringing-home-the-cost-of-carbon.aspx
The government calculator takes into account geography, type of household, local temperatures, age of inhabitants, number of inhabitants, whether it is a household, commercial premises, and what energy-saving devices or activities might be planned. Senator Boswell’s calculator does not take any of this into account, and does not allow for the government rebates. It does not say how this calculator arrived at the figures it comes up with.
According to the government site’s calculator, we will be better off by $20. According to the other calculator (http://www.carbontaxcalc.com), it will cost us over $200 per year. This is suspiciously similar to the unsubstantiated figures that circulated some months ago that claimed we would all be at least $200 worse off.
So maybe its creators can’t do complex maths, you are thinking. I now draw your attention to who devised this calculator, the Institute of Public Affairs. Despite its claims to be “an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom”, this institute is a think tank that has many funding links to large corporations, including the fossil fuel industry. The IPA has received funding from mining companies (BHP-Billiton, Western Mining Corporation), pesticide companies (Monsanto), tobacco companies (Philip Morris, British American Tobacco), oil companies (Caltex, Esso Australia, Shell, Woodside Petroleum) and as well as from numerous electric companies. (See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs )
That this right wing think tank has been funded by those whose business it is to have climate change denied has been known for some years. The Age newspaper in 2004 stated that: “The Institute of Public Affairs, which receives funding from companies such as ExxonMobil, the most sceptical of the world’s fossil fuel giants, also engages in the debate, scouring the web and email groups for evidence that climate change is natural.”
In other words, the IPA is neither unbiased or can be believed to be presenting a tool that is at all objective.
I can only assume the good senator is much more interested in petty politics and representing large cashed up corporations, rather than representing what is best for the people of Australia. I take exception to the fact he is promoting a calculator that has been funded by large corporations with vested interests in a fossil fuel economy.
Then we have Mary, the mother of Jesus singing a political manifesto that states categorically that the rich and ruling types of the world will be pulled down from their thrones or places of power in order that the poor may be lifted up – presumably to something resembling equality. No wonder that her boy Jesus declares in Luke four that he has come to free the oppressed, bring good news to the poor and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.
So how is this and climate change related?
The leaders of climate change denial are selling a popular message. Robert Manne, in his excellent article in the online version of The Drum (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3722126.html),
How can climate change denialism be explained? states that
the reason is reasonably straightforward. The majority of people in Western countries live now in a state of material comfort beyond the imaginings of all previous generations. Who amongst us would not prefer to believe that there are indeed no limits to the material comforts we may enjoy? Who would not prefer to believe that this level of material comfort will go on expanding forever? To take the conclusions of the climate scientists seriously is to embrace the need for massive economic change and even for possible economic sacrifice.
So that’s it. Faced by an apparent choice between the continuation of our lifestyle or the wellbeing of our planet, it would seem that we are going to choose the continuation of our lifestyle over the fate of the planet, and more importantly, over the fate of those brothers and sisters that Jesus commanded us to love – particularly the ones in places like Kiribati and Tuvalu.
Robert Manne further points out that
What it revealed, broadly speaking, was that the poorer the country, the more likely are its people to believe in the reality of dangerous human-caused climate change. While 31 per cent of Americans and 38 per cent of Japanese thought climate change was a very serious problem, 75 per cent of Kenyans and 85 per cent of Bangladeshis did. Those who do have reason to fear climate change but have little to lose in the curbing of emissions are the people who believe in what the climate scientists are telling them. Those who do not at present fear climate change but recognise they have a lot to lose by tackling it have simply and conveniently ceased to believe what they hear.
As Christians, we surely should be exposing these corporations and their CEOs who sit on their fossil and tobacco and insecticide-fuelled thrones, and deposing the ruling powers that prefer money and profits over justice and people.
But Robert Manne believes that the citizens of our consumeristic society – all of us - are unwilling to risk the loss of any of their comforts. He thinks that “the climate change denialists - the lobbyists and propagandists of the fossil fuel corporations; the right-wing commentariat in the blogosphere and the media; the anti-political correctness and anti-collectivist ideologues in the think tanks and the academy; the angry older generation of engineers and geologists” are offering us an the alibi that is too good to refuse.
Who on earth do we Christians think following if we can’t even speak out to help our brothers and sisters who are already suffering the effects of climate change?
Just what do we think Jesus would have to say to us should he turn up to hear the case for Tuvalu versus our own fossil-fuelled comfort?
Are we really so complacent that we are only hearing the voices we want to hear – instead of the thousands of scientists who are trying to tell us that we must change before it really is too late?
It would seem that when we are required to choose between the interests of the fossil fuel corporations or the conclusions of the climate scientists, we, with little or no hesitation, have signed up to the ideology of greed and might as represented by the vested interests of fossil-fuel dependant corporations.
Good Christian people, it is time to remember from whence we came this Advent. It is time to relearn the words of the Magnificat and put them into action. It is time to share our resources – really share them. It is time to rethink what is really important to the Lord we serve as we celebrate his coming into our world.
The second thing was writing a short Christmas message for the local paper for the fourth week of Advent. That meant encountering Mary, the mother of Jesus in Luke’s gospel. I was particularly looking at the Magnificat.
You might be wondering at this point what these two things have to do with one another. As it happens, quite a lot.
I will start with the issue of climate change. I have been reading a book that is called Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan. It is frightening reading. By tracking down payments of large sums of money, and various bureaucratic paper trails, it shows very clearly that the so-called debate about climate change isn’t a debate at all among climate scientists. In fact, there is an astonishing consensus among such scientists. The ‘debate’ has been created by fossil fuel corporations, such as Exxon and Mobil. They have ‘mission statements’ that aim promote confusion about climate change amongst the general public, and also target “those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extant science” as being “out of touch with reality.” (Climate Cover-up p.43)
To achieve these goals, they have in their pay various other kinds of scientists, such as geologists, who muddy the waters of climate science with their vested interests and scientific credentials.
One such scientist is geologist Professor Ian Plimer. Professor Plimer is a director of three mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland’s Ivanhoe Mines, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals. As non-executive Director and Deputy Chairman of Kefi, he owns 3.6 million shares which would be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in today’s market. In an article titled “Why I’d put global warming on ice,” Plimer claims that his commercial interest in mining “does not colour his arguments, which he says are based on pure science” and “does not affect the independence of his beliefs.” Hmmmmmmmm.
Climate Cover-up openly provides all of its sources, unlike our political parties and the fossil fuel industry. It is a very sobering read.
In our own fair country, Senator Ron Boswell from Queensland has thoughtfully sent out a media release entitled “New on-line calculator shows the true cost of Carbon Tax”. It was presented as a true alternative for small businesses to the online government carbon price calculator – which, by the way, was put together by the CSIRO and Choice and which makes it workings quite transparent and which can be found at http://www.yourcarbonprice.com.au . How it calculates the figures can be found at http://www.choice.com.au/green-home/saving-energy/carbon-climate-change/bringing-home-the-cost-of-carbon.aspx
The government calculator takes into account geography, type of household, local temperatures, age of inhabitants, number of inhabitants, whether it is a household, commercial premises, and what energy-saving devices or activities might be planned. Senator Boswell’s calculator does not take any of this into account, and does not allow for the government rebates. It does not say how this calculator arrived at the figures it comes up with.
According to the government site’s calculator, we will be better off by $20. According to the other calculator (http://www.carbontaxcalc.com), it will cost us over $200 per year. This is suspiciously similar to the unsubstantiated figures that circulated some months ago that claimed we would all be at least $200 worse off.
So maybe its creators can’t do complex maths, you are thinking. I now draw your attention to who devised this calculator, the Institute of Public Affairs. Despite its claims to be “an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom”, this institute is a think tank that has many funding links to large corporations, including the fossil fuel industry. The IPA has received funding from mining companies (BHP-Billiton, Western Mining Corporation), pesticide companies (Monsanto), tobacco companies (Philip Morris, British American Tobacco), oil companies (Caltex, Esso Australia, Shell, Woodside Petroleum) and as well as from numerous electric companies. (See http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs )
That this right wing think tank has been funded by those whose business it is to have climate change denied has been known for some years. The Age newspaper in 2004 stated that: “The Institute of Public Affairs, which receives funding from companies such as ExxonMobil, the most sceptical of the world’s fossil fuel giants, also engages in the debate, scouring the web and email groups for evidence that climate change is natural.”
In other words, the IPA is neither unbiased or can be believed to be presenting a tool that is at all objective.
I can only assume the good senator is much more interested in petty politics and representing large cashed up corporations, rather than representing what is best for the people of Australia. I take exception to the fact he is promoting a calculator that has been funded by large corporations with vested interests in a fossil fuel economy.
Then we have Mary, the mother of Jesus singing a political manifesto that states categorically that the rich and ruling types of the world will be pulled down from their thrones or places of power in order that the poor may be lifted up – presumably to something resembling equality. No wonder that her boy Jesus declares in Luke four that he has come to free the oppressed, bring good news to the poor and proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.
So how is this and climate change related?
The leaders of climate change denial are selling a popular message. Robert Manne, in his excellent article in the online version of The Drum (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3722126.html),
How can climate change denialism be explained? states that
the reason is reasonably straightforward. The majority of people in Western countries live now in a state of material comfort beyond the imaginings of all previous generations. Who amongst us would not prefer to believe that there are indeed no limits to the material comforts we may enjoy? Who would not prefer to believe that this level of material comfort will go on expanding forever? To take the conclusions of the climate scientists seriously is to embrace the need for massive economic change and even for possible economic sacrifice.
So that’s it. Faced by an apparent choice between the continuation of our lifestyle or the wellbeing of our planet, it would seem that we are going to choose the continuation of our lifestyle over the fate of the planet, and more importantly, over the fate of those brothers and sisters that Jesus commanded us to love – particularly the ones in places like Kiribati and Tuvalu.
Robert Manne further points out that
What it revealed, broadly speaking, was that the poorer the country, the more likely are its people to believe in the reality of dangerous human-caused climate change. While 31 per cent of Americans and 38 per cent of Japanese thought climate change was a very serious problem, 75 per cent of Kenyans and 85 per cent of Bangladeshis did. Those who do have reason to fear climate change but have little to lose in the curbing of emissions are the people who believe in what the climate scientists are telling them. Those who do not at present fear climate change but recognise they have a lot to lose by tackling it have simply and conveniently ceased to believe what they hear.
As Christians, we surely should be exposing these corporations and their CEOs who sit on their fossil and tobacco and insecticide-fuelled thrones, and deposing the ruling powers that prefer money and profits over justice and people.
But Robert Manne believes that the citizens of our consumeristic society – all of us - are unwilling to risk the loss of any of their comforts. He thinks that “the climate change denialists - the lobbyists and propagandists of the fossil fuel corporations; the right-wing commentariat in the blogosphere and the media; the anti-political correctness and anti-collectivist ideologues in the think tanks and the academy; the angry older generation of engineers and geologists” are offering us an the alibi that is too good to refuse.
Who on earth do we Christians think following if we can’t even speak out to help our brothers and sisters who are already suffering the effects of climate change?
Just what do we think Jesus would have to say to us should he turn up to hear the case for Tuvalu versus our own fossil-fuelled comfort?
Are we really so complacent that we are only hearing the voices we want to hear – instead of the thousands of scientists who are trying to tell us that we must change before it really is too late?
It would seem that when we are required to choose between the interests of the fossil fuel corporations or the conclusions of the climate scientists, we, with little or no hesitation, have signed up to the ideology of greed and might as represented by the vested interests of fossil-fuel dependant corporations.
Good Christian people, it is time to remember from whence we came this Advent. It is time to relearn the words of the Magnificat and put them into action. It is time to share our resources – really share them. It is time to rethink what is really important to the Lord we serve as we celebrate his coming into our world.
Sunday, 16 October 2011
Giving to God what is Gods: an exploration of Matthew 22:15-22
The passage set in the lectionary today (Matthew 22:15-22) has long been used as the ‘proof text’ for why religion and politics should always be separate. But was this really what Jesus was saying? We think that a careful examination of the text casts doubt on this view, especially when the passage is read in the context of the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew has a lot to say about the kingdom of heaven, and this perhaps is what best defines the Matthean Jesus’ understanding of what needs to be given to God. And Matthew 24 and 25 suggest that in Matthew’s view at least, the kingdoms of God and Caesar are bound to collide in various ways.
We thought that this passage was best explored by another imaginative journey back in time. So we are travelling to the first century, to the time when Jesus spent time wandering around Palestine, delivering his message of the good news to people who lived in the rural areas. We also know from the gospels that like any faithful Jew of the time, Jesus spent time in the Temple. This passage (Matthew 22:15-22) tells of one of those times.
Jesus has been debating with Pharisees and other Jewish leaders in one of the courts of the Jerusalem Temple. In our imaginative story, the debate has been overheard by Boaz and Miriam, who have been lurking nearby in one of the other courts of the Temple – probably the Gentile or the Women’s court. They are attempting to make sense of the Pharisees’ question, and Jesus’ reply to it.
Boaz: Miriam! Were you listening to the debate this morning? The Galilean preacher, Jesus, was having a most interesting discussion with some of the Pharisees.
Miriam: Yes, Boaz, I did hear much of the debate you speak of. I am of the opinion that the Pharisees and Herodians were trying to trap Jesus – you know, make him say something treasonous or blasphemous.
Boaz: (doubtfully) Are you sure they were Herodians and Pharisees? The Pharisees do not like the Herodians nor do they mix with them. The Herodians are too close to the Temple priests.
Miriam: Perhaps the Herodians were just hanging around then to listen in to the debate. It had to be the Pharisees doing the actual debating, as it followed the customary Jewish pattern for such arguments.
Boaz: Yes, I think you are right. But you mentioned a trap. What do you mean by that?
Miriam: Well, just think about it. Jesus was in the Temple, teaching his Galilean followers and other admirers of his teaching, all gathered around him. And the Pharisees asked about paying taxes to the Emperor. I am sure they expected Jesus, as a radical Jew, to say NO! Do not pay those heathen Romans.
Boaz: I see. You are saying that this question was designed to put Jesus in a bind. If he answered "Yes," that would surely alienate his followers, many of whom would consider him to be the Messiah, and thus the one who would deliver them from Roman rule.
Miriam: That’s right. And if he said "No," he could be arrested for treason by the nearby soldiers, who always seem to be hanging around the Temple looking for someone to arrest.
Boaz: And if he tried to side step the question or talk around the issue he would be seen as less than authoritative.
Miriam: I must confess I thought that the Pharisees had him. You know, it seemed to me that there was no answer to this question that would be acceptable to everyone listening.
Boaz: Ah, but as you said, there was a good answer. Wasn’t there? I confess I gasped in admiration at Jesus’ answer. What cleverness and cunning he showed!
Miriam: Yes, to answer with the question he did was commendable and clever. Especially since in my opinion, they were piling all that flattery on top of him to lull him into a false sense of security. You know, ‘Teacher, you are so sincere and so dedicated to teaching the way of God! You are truthful and have no partiality for anyone!’ A lesser man would have fallen into the trap and answered in a way that would condemn him, either in the eyes of his followers or in the eyes of the Roman soldiers.
Boaz: Yes, it was a great question. It showed that he was on to their little plan. "Why are you testing me?” he shouts. “Show me the coin for the tax, you hypocrites!"
Miriam: You know, I thought this was the cleverest thing Jesus did. This was the Temple! We all know that no Roman coinage is allowed in the temple, not ever. Such coins are meant to be confined to the court of the Gentiles, where the moneychangers are.
Boaz: Indeed, you are right Miriam. The Pharisees are very much in favour of this policy, and have been very public about it. I couldn’t believe it when someone got a denarius out of his bag, right there, in the middle of the temple.
Miriam: I don’t believe a Pharisee would have done such a thing. I bet it was one of the Herodians.
Boaz: Well, they are only half-Jewish. I wouldn’t put it past them to have sneaked some Roman money in. I wish I could have seen the faces of the Pharisees. They must have been horrified when someone whipped out that coin!
Miriam: Yes, indeed. The minute that happened it was all over for the Herodians and Pharisees. That action would have really discredited them in the eyes of the people gathered there.’ Yes’, they would have been thinking. You lot really are hypocrites’.
Boaz: And rightly so. Fancy carrying an image into the Temple – even if it was only on a coin. An image is an image.
Miriam: That’s why Jesus goes on to press his advantage, I am sure. But Jesus goes further. "Whose image is this and what is his?" he says.
Boaz: "You shall not make for yourself an image". The commandments are very clear on this in the scroll of Exodus. Yet here they are, with a coin that is forbidden in the temple, and on it is an image.
Miriam: Well, I thought Jesus had won the argument at this point. An image in the temple, of all places. I confess I was surprised that he pressed on with the debate.
Boaz: Well, the response they made demanded an answer, I thought. Whose image is it? Those Herodians and Pharisees have to admit is Caesar's. The Roman Caesar, who demands to be worshiped as a god.
Miriam: Now you see what I meant by a trap? They well and truly fell into this trap set by Jesus. I was inwardly cheering, I admit. Jesus has trapped them, not the other way around. Surely at this point they wished for God to open the ground and swallow them. It reminded me of one the psalms: "May the traps they set for me spring on them!" (Psalm 57:7).
Boaz: I quite agree. Jesus’ reply to them was stunning. "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Give to God the things that are God's." What a response! Such teaching! These words must have rubbed salt into the wounds of the Herodians and the Pharisees. Did you hear the laughter, and the mockery that came from the crowd? They loved seeing those proud men humbled by Jesus.
Miriam: (hesitates) While I thought Jesus was very clever in turning the tables on the Pharisees and Herodians, what exactly do you think he meant? How do we tell what is God’s and what is Caesar’s? Does he mean not have anything to do with the Roman Empire?
Boaz: I didn’t understand it like that, Miriam. I am sure that Jesus was not saying that civil and religious authority are in opposition and have nothing to say to each other. You know from our own scriptures that God can and does use the authority of other nations for the divine purposes of salvation. Don’t you remember that in the scroll of Isaiah King Cyrus, the pagan Persian king, is described as a messiah? And that God says there that he uses any instrument he chooses to bring about change, including a pagan king? God expects us to to respond appropriately in both secular and religious matters.
Miriam: Now let me think here, Boaz. When Jesus says “give to God the things that are God’s,” he can’t possibly be endorsing the distinction you are making. Isn’t everything God’s? Jesus is talking about coins and taxes, but really he is talking about pledging allegiance to God’s kingdom – and even Caesar’s empire is part of that, surely.
Boaz: Are you suggesting then, that the two empires – God and Caesar’s – are somehow mixed up – and we should pledge allegiance to Caesar? That can’t be right!
Miriam: No, I don’t mean it like that. My understanding is that everyone bears God’s image – it says so in Genesis. We are all God’s children, in a way, you must agree.
Boaz: Well, yes, I suppose we are. Even the Romans. So how do you interpret this saying?
Miriam: Think about what you said a minute ago about God using even a pagan king as a messiah. In other words, God can and does use secular authorities for divine purposes of salvation.
Boaz: So Jesus is saying that we are to respond appropriately in both civil and religious matters, but that they should be kept separate.
Miriam: No! Boaz, sometimes you can be incredibly dense! That is not what Jesus is saying. Think about all the kingdom of God stuff that Jesus has taught. Remember how he said that he had come to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, give the good news to the poor and to proclaim the year of the LORD's favour? And that the rich rulers would be pulled down from their thrones? And that we are to strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness and justice? How could you do any of these things unless you got mixed up in the secular empire?
Boaz: I did hear that Jesus gave a speech to the Pharisees, where he described justice, mercy and faith as the matters of the law needing their attention, not the tithing of herbs. Is this what you mean?
Miriam: Yes. If Jesus was saying that the two should be kept separate, then he would have supported the tithing and ignored those broad justice issues. Jesus says that God looks to grant justice to those who cry out to him. He says that God who warns against oppressing the poor (James 2 & 5), and exhorts all to care for the orphans and widows (James 1:27). This is also what the prophets write.
Boaz: So to work for the kingdom means to challenge injustice where we see it, and to work to make things better for the poor. I begin to understand what you mean. You can’t make things better unless you change the way the empire works.
Miriam: That’s right. Jesus also says we should love our neighbour as ourselves. This must mean we expect them to be treated as equals, and that we should not do anything to harm them. Remember the prophet Micah? He says and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
Boaz: So we are to live in the way Jesus sets out by loving God, loving neighbour, and striving for justice to be done, especially to the poor and oppressed. This is what we give to God.
Miriam: Yes. But Jesus also requires us to hold the Empire and the rich to account, and to work for fair standards of law and justice for all people. This is what is Caesar’s, though as you can see, the two are mixed together. Our faith means we should champion those who are marginalised, oppressed or vulnerable in our society. To this, it means we have to enter the realm of Caesar.
Boaz: Well, Miriam, it is time I was getting back to my household. I have enjoyed our conversation. But I think today I will have the last word, and quote form the scroll of Jeremiah. He was speaking of King Josiah when he said: He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?” declares the LORD.
Who or what speaks to us authoritatively today? What do we see today as belonging to Caesar and to God?
In a thoughtful exploration of this passage, Father John Kavanaugh, S. J. of Saint Louis University, asks some pertinent questions:
What are we asked today to give to the empire? Is it our faith and moral practice? Our hopes and dreams? Our consciences? Our labour? Our children? And if we offer such sacrifices upon the altar of Caesar, have we betrayed the [things] that are most intimately ours and God’s?
I am grateful to Father John Kavanaugh for a number of the ideas that follow. I have paraphrased some of his material and added in my own. Father Kavanaugh’s original essay can be found at http://liturgy.slu.edu/29OrdA101611/theword_embodied.html
More than ever, in our own times, we live in conflict with these the two “kingdoms” of God and Caesar’s. If we are faithful disciples of Jesus, our religious values must be in conflict with a lot of civil policy.
It is hard to escape the political implications of the story of Jesus and Caesar’s coin. In Jesus’ time, the gospel confrontation described here most likely represented a struggle between the party of Herod, loyal to Rome, and the Zealots, who refused to pay tribute or taxes to the Empire. Jesus here is refusing to support either the anti-empire Zealot party line, or that of the pro-empire Herodians. He instead opts for a faith perspective that overarches both, without committing to any “party line”.
For us today, the “empire” can represent a number of entities. It can come in the form of different governments, all vying for our hearts and minds by appealing to our baser selves by offering us more money, less taxes, border security and tougher laws to punish the poor and marginalised of our country.
It can come in the form of those palaces of materialistic greed, the shopping mall, palaces run by enormous corporations. Here we are told we are “worth it”, and are tempted by every type of good imaginable. This empire appeals to our greed, our yearning for possessions, our need to keep up with others, and a sense of insecurity that calls us to buy the latest fashions and products that will eliminate all germs from our lives.
None of these empires appeal particularly to our generosity of spirit, our self-discipline, a spirit of sacrifice, or fairer system for our neighbours, either at home or abroad. We tend instead to prescribe self- discipline and sacrifice to the poor, and those least able to afford it. When we purchase goods in our shopping malls and other palaces of materialism, we will not think of those poor in other countries who created the goods, even if those creating them were children, were overworked, were underpaid, or even enslaved.
So what does the LORD require? According to Matthew and the prophets, the Lord requires a life of love and justice, a life that daily, in practical ways, requires we give time, and thought to how our purchases, our way of life and political systems affect those who are our neighbours in other parts of the world. It means that through our combined voices, our thinking, how we live both at home and in our community, our cities and our world, we will try and minimize the harm we potentially do to our neighbours.
So perhaps Jesus is raising some new questions for us through this passage. What can we do differently in our everyday life that will profoundly change the lives of our nearby and global neighbours? How do we challenge the structures that are created by the Empire that continue to oppress many people? And by what actions do we truly give to God, what is God’s?
We thought that this passage was best explored by another imaginative journey back in time. So we are travelling to the first century, to the time when Jesus spent time wandering around Palestine, delivering his message of the good news to people who lived in the rural areas. We also know from the gospels that like any faithful Jew of the time, Jesus spent time in the Temple. This passage (Matthew 22:15-22) tells of one of those times.
Jesus has been debating with Pharisees and other Jewish leaders in one of the courts of the Jerusalem Temple. In our imaginative story, the debate has been overheard by Boaz and Miriam, who have been lurking nearby in one of the other courts of the Temple – probably the Gentile or the Women’s court. They are attempting to make sense of the Pharisees’ question, and Jesus’ reply to it.
Boaz: Miriam! Were you listening to the debate this morning? The Galilean preacher, Jesus, was having a most interesting discussion with some of the Pharisees.
Miriam: Yes, Boaz, I did hear much of the debate you speak of. I am of the opinion that the Pharisees and Herodians were trying to trap Jesus – you know, make him say something treasonous or blasphemous.
Boaz: (doubtfully) Are you sure they were Herodians and Pharisees? The Pharisees do not like the Herodians nor do they mix with them. The Herodians are too close to the Temple priests.
Miriam: Perhaps the Herodians were just hanging around then to listen in to the debate. It had to be the Pharisees doing the actual debating, as it followed the customary Jewish pattern for such arguments.
Boaz: Yes, I think you are right. But you mentioned a trap. What do you mean by that?
Miriam: Well, just think about it. Jesus was in the Temple, teaching his Galilean followers and other admirers of his teaching, all gathered around him. And the Pharisees asked about paying taxes to the Emperor. I am sure they expected Jesus, as a radical Jew, to say NO! Do not pay those heathen Romans.
Boaz: I see. You are saying that this question was designed to put Jesus in a bind. If he answered "Yes," that would surely alienate his followers, many of whom would consider him to be the Messiah, and thus the one who would deliver them from Roman rule.
Miriam: That’s right. And if he said "No," he could be arrested for treason by the nearby soldiers, who always seem to be hanging around the Temple looking for someone to arrest.
Boaz: And if he tried to side step the question or talk around the issue he would be seen as less than authoritative.
Miriam: I must confess I thought that the Pharisees had him. You know, it seemed to me that there was no answer to this question that would be acceptable to everyone listening.
Boaz: Ah, but as you said, there was a good answer. Wasn’t there? I confess I gasped in admiration at Jesus’ answer. What cleverness and cunning he showed!
Miriam: Yes, to answer with the question he did was commendable and clever. Especially since in my opinion, they were piling all that flattery on top of him to lull him into a false sense of security. You know, ‘Teacher, you are so sincere and so dedicated to teaching the way of God! You are truthful and have no partiality for anyone!’ A lesser man would have fallen into the trap and answered in a way that would condemn him, either in the eyes of his followers or in the eyes of the Roman soldiers.
Boaz: Yes, it was a great question. It showed that he was on to their little plan. "Why are you testing me?” he shouts. “Show me the coin for the tax, you hypocrites!"
Miriam: You know, I thought this was the cleverest thing Jesus did. This was the Temple! We all know that no Roman coinage is allowed in the temple, not ever. Such coins are meant to be confined to the court of the Gentiles, where the moneychangers are.
Boaz: Indeed, you are right Miriam. The Pharisees are very much in favour of this policy, and have been very public about it. I couldn’t believe it when someone got a denarius out of his bag, right there, in the middle of the temple.
Miriam: I don’t believe a Pharisee would have done such a thing. I bet it was one of the Herodians.
Boaz: Well, they are only half-Jewish. I wouldn’t put it past them to have sneaked some Roman money in. I wish I could have seen the faces of the Pharisees. They must have been horrified when someone whipped out that coin!
Miriam: Yes, indeed. The minute that happened it was all over for the Herodians and Pharisees. That action would have really discredited them in the eyes of the people gathered there.’ Yes’, they would have been thinking. You lot really are hypocrites’.
Boaz: And rightly so. Fancy carrying an image into the Temple – even if it was only on a coin. An image is an image.
Miriam: That’s why Jesus goes on to press his advantage, I am sure. But Jesus goes further. "Whose image is this and what is his?" he says.
Boaz: "You shall not make for yourself an image". The commandments are very clear on this in the scroll of Exodus. Yet here they are, with a coin that is forbidden in the temple, and on it is an image.
Miriam: Well, I thought Jesus had won the argument at this point. An image in the temple, of all places. I confess I was surprised that he pressed on with the debate.
Boaz: Well, the response they made demanded an answer, I thought. Whose image is it? Those Herodians and Pharisees have to admit is Caesar's. The Roman Caesar, who demands to be worshiped as a god.
Miriam: Now you see what I meant by a trap? They well and truly fell into this trap set by Jesus. I was inwardly cheering, I admit. Jesus has trapped them, not the other way around. Surely at this point they wished for God to open the ground and swallow them. It reminded me of one the psalms: "May the traps they set for me spring on them!" (Psalm 57:7).
Boaz: I quite agree. Jesus’ reply to them was stunning. "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's. Give to God the things that are God's." What a response! Such teaching! These words must have rubbed salt into the wounds of the Herodians and the Pharisees. Did you hear the laughter, and the mockery that came from the crowd? They loved seeing those proud men humbled by Jesus.
Miriam: (hesitates) While I thought Jesus was very clever in turning the tables on the Pharisees and Herodians, what exactly do you think he meant? How do we tell what is God’s and what is Caesar’s? Does he mean not have anything to do with the Roman Empire?
Boaz: I didn’t understand it like that, Miriam. I am sure that Jesus was not saying that civil and religious authority are in opposition and have nothing to say to each other. You know from our own scriptures that God can and does use the authority of other nations for the divine purposes of salvation. Don’t you remember that in the scroll of Isaiah King Cyrus, the pagan Persian king, is described as a messiah? And that God says there that he uses any instrument he chooses to bring about change, including a pagan king? God expects us to to respond appropriately in both secular and religious matters.
Miriam: Now let me think here, Boaz. When Jesus says “give to God the things that are God’s,” he can’t possibly be endorsing the distinction you are making. Isn’t everything God’s? Jesus is talking about coins and taxes, but really he is talking about pledging allegiance to God’s kingdom – and even Caesar’s empire is part of that, surely.
Boaz: Are you suggesting then, that the two empires – God and Caesar’s – are somehow mixed up – and we should pledge allegiance to Caesar? That can’t be right!
Miriam: No, I don’t mean it like that. My understanding is that everyone bears God’s image – it says so in Genesis. We are all God’s children, in a way, you must agree.
Boaz: Well, yes, I suppose we are. Even the Romans. So how do you interpret this saying?
Miriam: Think about what you said a minute ago about God using even a pagan king as a messiah. In other words, God can and does use secular authorities for divine purposes of salvation.
Boaz: So Jesus is saying that we are to respond appropriately in both civil and religious matters, but that they should be kept separate.
Miriam: No! Boaz, sometimes you can be incredibly dense! That is not what Jesus is saying. Think about all the kingdom of God stuff that Jesus has taught. Remember how he said that he had come to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, give the good news to the poor and to proclaim the year of the LORD's favour? And that the rich rulers would be pulled down from their thrones? And that we are to strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness and justice? How could you do any of these things unless you got mixed up in the secular empire?
Boaz: I did hear that Jesus gave a speech to the Pharisees, where he described justice, mercy and faith as the matters of the law needing their attention, not the tithing of herbs. Is this what you mean?
Miriam: Yes. If Jesus was saying that the two should be kept separate, then he would have supported the tithing and ignored those broad justice issues. Jesus says that God looks to grant justice to those who cry out to him. He says that God who warns against oppressing the poor (James 2 & 5), and exhorts all to care for the orphans and widows (James 1:27). This is also what the prophets write.
Boaz: So to work for the kingdom means to challenge injustice where we see it, and to work to make things better for the poor. I begin to understand what you mean. You can’t make things better unless you change the way the empire works.
Miriam: That’s right. Jesus also says we should love our neighbour as ourselves. This must mean we expect them to be treated as equals, and that we should not do anything to harm them. Remember the prophet Micah? He says and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
Boaz: So we are to live in the way Jesus sets out by loving God, loving neighbour, and striving for justice to be done, especially to the poor and oppressed. This is what we give to God.
Miriam: Yes. But Jesus also requires us to hold the Empire and the rich to account, and to work for fair standards of law and justice for all people. This is what is Caesar’s, though as you can see, the two are mixed together. Our faith means we should champion those who are marginalised, oppressed or vulnerable in our society. To this, it means we have to enter the realm of Caesar.
Boaz: Well, Miriam, it is time I was getting back to my household. I have enjoyed our conversation. But I think today I will have the last word, and quote form the scroll of Jeremiah. He was speaking of King Josiah when he said: He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?” declares the LORD.
Who or what speaks to us authoritatively today? What do we see today as belonging to Caesar and to God?
In a thoughtful exploration of this passage, Father John Kavanaugh, S. J. of Saint Louis University, asks some pertinent questions:
What are we asked today to give to the empire? Is it our faith and moral practice? Our hopes and dreams? Our consciences? Our labour? Our children? And if we offer such sacrifices upon the altar of Caesar, have we betrayed the [things] that are most intimately ours and God’s?
I am grateful to Father John Kavanaugh for a number of the ideas that follow. I have paraphrased some of his material and added in my own. Father Kavanaugh’s original essay can be found at http://liturgy.slu.edu/29OrdA101611/theword_embodied.html
More than ever, in our own times, we live in conflict with these the two “kingdoms” of God and Caesar’s. If we are faithful disciples of Jesus, our religious values must be in conflict with a lot of civil policy.
It is hard to escape the political implications of the story of Jesus and Caesar’s coin. In Jesus’ time, the gospel confrontation described here most likely represented a struggle between the party of Herod, loyal to Rome, and the Zealots, who refused to pay tribute or taxes to the Empire. Jesus here is refusing to support either the anti-empire Zealot party line, or that of the pro-empire Herodians. He instead opts for a faith perspective that overarches both, without committing to any “party line”.
For us today, the “empire” can represent a number of entities. It can come in the form of different governments, all vying for our hearts and minds by appealing to our baser selves by offering us more money, less taxes, border security and tougher laws to punish the poor and marginalised of our country.
It can come in the form of those palaces of materialistic greed, the shopping mall, palaces run by enormous corporations. Here we are told we are “worth it”, and are tempted by every type of good imaginable. This empire appeals to our greed, our yearning for possessions, our need to keep up with others, and a sense of insecurity that calls us to buy the latest fashions and products that will eliminate all germs from our lives.
None of these empires appeal particularly to our generosity of spirit, our self-discipline, a spirit of sacrifice, or fairer system for our neighbours, either at home or abroad. We tend instead to prescribe self- discipline and sacrifice to the poor, and those least able to afford it. When we purchase goods in our shopping malls and other palaces of materialism, we will not think of those poor in other countries who created the goods, even if those creating them were children, were overworked, were underpaid, or even enslaved.
So what does the LORD require? According to Matthew and the prophets, the Lord requires a life of love and justice, a life that daily, in practical ways, requires we give time, and thought to how our purchases, our way of life and political systems affect those who are our neighbours in other parts of the world. It means that through our combined voices, our thinking, how we live both at home and in our community, our cities and our world, we will try and minimize the harm we potentially do to our neighbours.
So perhaps Jesus is raising some new questions for us through this passage. What can we do differently in our everyday life that will profoundly change the lives of our nearby and global neighbours? How do we challenge the structures that are created by the Empire that continue to oppress many people? And by what actions do we truly give to God, what is God’s?
Monday, 10 October 2011
What we need is cert-tan-ty
Up here in National party heartland, I am still lamenting the demise of my pet peeved newspaper. However, things seem to be looking up with the arrival of the Port Macquarie News yesterday. Its front page headline, in big black letters, screamed Oakeshott in their sites. The sub heading stated that the NSW Nationals Conference had a clear message for Lyne MP Rob Oakeshott: “You’re next.”
John and I are both intrigued by having someone in your sites. Was this a geographical double entendre? Was Rob Oakeshott lurking with intent on some hallowed piece of National Party ground? Or was it simply that neither the National Party or the Port News sub-editors can spell? Subsequent Google searches have failed to reveal an answer to this conundrum. But intrigued, I decided to look at the National Party’s website to see what answers lurked within the reported conference.
The first thing I want to note is that the National Party is right up to date with its use of its website and the reporting of its conference (this must be read with sarcastic tone in voice). On accessing their website, I tried desperately to find out what had happened at the NSW National Party conference, held at Port Macquarie over the weekend. By following links about the conference, I finally ended up on their calendar. Thursday Oct 6, Friday Oct 7 and Saturday Oct 8 all began with:
2011 Annual General Conference
We are all looking forward to the 2011 Annual General Conference in Port Macquarie this October.
Trouble is, each of these days had exactly the same message beneath the above welcome. It is tempting to assume from this that National Party members are like the goldfish in a notable community Bank ad, and are incapable of remembering what they are doing day to day and need to be reminded with certainty that they are at a conference, with the same message every day. As diverting as this calendar was with its identical entries for three different days, I wanted to find something of substance from this conference. Where were the motions? The content of the speeches? The revelation of the sacred sites the Federal member had stumbled onto? Anything that was vaguely newsworthy?
Wherever the conference reports might have been, they certainly weren’t here. In desperation I tried all sorts of word combinations on Google to find them. The Port News had two articles, and the ABC Radio, one. The ABC reported that Labor wasn’t too fussed about the Nationals motions seeking to curb wind farms and limit National Parks. The Port News reported that the conference debated 70 motions from the floor.
Seventy motions????? Well, where are they and what are they? I have only identified two from the ABC. I guess siting Rob Oakeshott might be a third. National Party, what are you hiding?
In the meantime, the Port News also reported that the NSW Nationals' leader Andrew Stoner aka Mr 72% and our current State member is considering a move to Federal politics. The Port News seems to think he fancies being Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps the seat of Oxley, with its complex problems of poverty, aging and indigenous issues is now too small an arena – or its problems too intractable. Not that it really matters. In this electorate, a shop front mannequin could be elected as long as the sign around its neck declared it to be a National Party Member.
Mr 72% continues in my bad books. He has not answered the request from the Wauchope Ministers’ Association for a meeting, though his Federal counterpart has and we have a time, date and place to meet with Rob Oakeshott. And despite my threatening Mr Stoner with a set of macramé steak knives should he continue to only address my husband when we have both written to him, the last letter (if you can call a photocopied piece of press release propaganda a letter) did just that. Business as usual continues in the party who appear to have a particular propensity to ignore the existence of literate married women.
It is time perhaps to admit defeat, and acknowledge that women like myself are just never going to be lucky enough to find ourselves in the National Party’s sites, web or otherwise.
John and I are both intrigued by having someone in your sites. Was this a geographical double entendre? Was Rob Oakeshott lurking with intent on some hallowed piece of National Party ground? Or was it simply that neither the National Party or the Port News sub-editors can spell? Subsequent Google searches have failed to reveal an answer to this conundrum. But intrigued, I decided to look at the National Party’s website to see what answers lurked within the reported conference.
The first thing I want to note is that the National Party is right up to date with its use of its website and the reporting of its conference (this must be read with sarcastic tone in voice). On accessing their website, I tried desperately to find out what had happened at the NSW National Party conference, held at Port Macquarie over the weekend. By following links about the conference, I finally ended up on their calendar. Thursday Oct 6, Friday Oct 7 and Saturday Oct 8 all began with:
2011 Annual General Conference
We are all looking forward to the 2011 Annual General Conference in Port Macquarie this October.
Trouble is, each of these days had exactly the same message beneath the above welcome. It is tempting to assume from this that National Party members are like the goldfish in a notable community Bank ad, and are incapable of remembering what they are doing day to day and need to be reminded with certainty that they are at a conference, with the same message every day. As diverting as this calendar was with its identical entries for three different days, I wanted to find something of substance from this conference. Where were the motions? The content of the speeches? The revelation of the sacred sites the Federal member had stumbled onto? Anything that was vaguely newsworthy?
Wherever the conference reports might have been, they certainly weren’t here. In desperation I tried all sorts of word combinations on Google to find them. The Port News had two articles, and the ABC Radio, one. The ABC reported that Labor wasn’t too fussed about the Nationals motions seeking to curb wind farms and limit National Parks. The Port News reported that the conference debated 70 motions from the floor.
Seventy motions????? Well, where are they and what are they? I have only identified two from the ABC. I guess siting Rob Oakeshott might be a third. National Party, what are you hiding?
In the meantime, the Port News also reported that the NSW Nationals' leader Andrew Stoner aka Mr 72% and our current State member is considering a move to Federal politics. The Port News seems to think he fancies being Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps the seat of Oxley, with its complex problems of poverty, aging and indigenous issues is now too small an arena – or its problems too intractable. Not that it really matters. In this electorate, a shop front mannequin could be elected as long as the sign around its neck declared it to be a National Party Member.
Mr 72% continues in my bad books. He has not answered the request from the Wauchope Ministers’ Association for a meeting, though his Federal counterpart has and we have a time, date and place to meet with Rob Oakeshott. And despite my threatening Mr Stoner with a set of macramé steak knives should he continue to only address my husband when we have both written to him, the last letter (if you can call a photocopied piece of press release propaganda a letter) did just that. Business as usual continues in the party who appear to have a particular propensity to ignore the existence of literate married women.
It is time perhaps to admit defeat, and acknowledge that women like myself are just never going to be lucky enough to find ourselves in the National Party’s sites, web or otherwise.
Monday, 19 September 2011
A rose by any other name.......
I have discovered that Wauchope is the sixth most mispronounced town in the world. Number 1 is Phuket. The only other Australian town listed is Mooball, which comes in third.
I wondered what effect this could have on the psyche of the town’s people. Did it make them angry to be referred to as ‘Warchoppy’ or ‘Wowchop’? Or did this verbal mangling of their town’s name just lead to a gales of laughter as red-faced tourists back away muttering apologies?
Wauchope is an allegedly Scottish name, first known in early medieval Scotland and England. Both have dibs on it, as the name is found both in the district called 'Wauchopedale' in the parish of Langholm, Dumfriesshire, and from the area in and around Wanchope Forest next to the Cheviot Hills on the border with Northumberland. Given how fluid the border was between Scotland and England in medieval times, it is not surprising that both lay claim to the name. According to the online surname database (http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Wauchope#ixzz1KKxKXxhH) the name means 'the valley of the foreigner(s)', and is derived from the Old English pre 7th Century word 'walh', foreign(er), which generally referred to pockets of Scotsmen, Welshmen or Bretons, or English in Scotland, with the Old English 'hop', Middle English 'hope', a small, enclosed valley.
Wauchope does lie in the Hastings Valley, and if you do ask the locals, they will tell you that there has been an influx of foreigners into their town precincts, mostly from Port Macquarie, to whom they (the Wauchopians) most emphatically do NOT belong. So Wauchope, the valley of foreigners, is an enticing option. But as attractive as this theory is as to why Wauchope is so named, the story offered by a couple of local historians is even more fantastic.
According to the Port Macquarie- Hastings Council website (http://www.hastings.nsw.gov.au/www/html/1079-origin-of-place-names.asp)
…the name Wauchope comes from a Scottish family named Wauchope that lived for some 700 years on a family estate in Edinburgh. In 1761 Robert Wauchope was born. When Robert's father died the family quarrelled about the sharing of the estate and the matter was taken to court. Robert lost the case and became so embittered that he retired to his portion, called Foxall and eliminated the letters 'ope' from his name. His son, born in 1786, was given the surname Wauch.
Like his father the son decided to follow an army career and became Capt Robert Andrew Wauch of the 28th Regiment of Foot. When he retired from the army he sailed for Sydney in 1836 with his wife and 3 children and came to the Hastings Valley.
He purchased 2297 acres on King Creek and 4 years later bought an additional 1168 acres. He built a house and called it Wauch House.
Following his death in 1866 in the Macleay the Government Gazette published the deeds of the blocks Capt Wauch had purchased 30 years earlier. For a reason never explained the deeds specified the properties should been called Wauchope.
In 1881 the postal authorities opened a post office in the nearby settlement and gave it the name Wauchope, even though the Government Gazette, because of a misprint, spelt it Wanghope. The error was not corrected until 1889.
Wanghope??? This is even worse than Warchoppy. And 8 years to correct the mistake? Only a Government Dept could take so long to recognise a typo that may have potentially created a cultural cringe in Wauchope’s citizens - even before culturally cringing was recognized as a potential colonial hazard.
We have found this story of Capt. Wauch repeated in various publications around the town and online, including Wikipedia. The trouble is, there doesn’t appear to be any substantiation for the story of Robert Wauch’s family lineage in any birth records that we have access to, including Scotland’s People. While there is no doubt Capt. Wauch existed, and while I acknowledge that the story of his family origins might be true, it does seem suspiciously like a folk tale, where the local hero was wronged by someone in the British aristocracy, thumbed his nose at them, and came out to Australia and made good. Australians do like an anti-hero, and perhaps Capt. Wauch presented them with this kind of opportunity.
Whether one identifies with Wauchope, the valley of strangers, or Wanghope, the typographical error, or Wauch that was really Wauchope, or Wauchope the 6th most mispronounced town in the world, Wauchope is a place where the long term residents are very proud of their town and their heritage. So much so that when I innocently asked if there was anywhere in Greater Port Macquarie that free-range chicken could be purchased, I was firmly informed that “WE ARE NOT PORT MACQUARIE.” Oops.
The newspaper that lay waiting in our driveway when I got home announced it was the paper of “Greater Port Macquarie”. So at least for some, the times - and the name - are a-changing.
I wondered what effect this could have on the psyche of the town’s people. Did it make them angry to be referred to as ‘Warchoppy’ or ‘Wowchop’? Or did this verbal mangling of their town’s name just lead to a gales of laughter as red-faced tourists back away muttering apologies?
Wauchope is an allegedly Scottish name, first known in early medieval Scotland and England. Both have dibs on it, as the name is found both in the district called 'Wauchopedale' in the parish of Langholm, Dumfriesshire, and from the area in and around Wanchope Forest next to the Cheviot Hills on the border with Northumberland. Given how fluid the border was between Scotland and England in medieval times, it is not surprising that both lay claim to the name. According to the online surname database (http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Wauchope#ixzz1KKxKXxhH) the name means 'the valley of the foreigner(s)', and is derived from the Old English pre 7th Century word 'walh', foreign(er), which generally referred to pockets of Scotsmen, Welshmen or Bretons, or English in Scotland, with the Old English 'hop', Middle English 'hope', a small, enclosed valley.
Wauchope does lie in the Hastings Valley, and if you do ask the locals, they will tell you that there has been an influx of foreigners into their town precincts, mostly from Port Macquarie, to whom they (the Wauchopians) most emphatically do NOT belong. So Wauchope, the valley of foreigners, is an enticing option. But as attractive as this theory is as to why Wauchope is so named, the story offered by a couple of local historians is even more fantastic.
According to the Port Macquarie- Hastings Council website (http://www.hastings.nsw.gov.au/www/html/1079-origin-of-place-names.asp)
…the name Wauchope comes from a Scottish family named Wauchope that lived for some 700 years on a family estate in Edinburgh. In 1761 Robert Wauchope was born. When Robert's father died the family quarrelled about the sharing of the estate and the matter was taken to court. Robert lost the case and became so embittered that he retired to his portion, called Foxall and eliminated the letters 'ope' from his name. His son, born in 1786, was given the surname Wauch.
Like his father the son decided to follow an army career and became Capt Robert Andrew Wauch of the 28th Regiment of Foot. When he retired from the army he sailed for Sydney in 1836 with his wife and 3 children and came to the Hastings Valley.
He purchased 2297 acres on King Creek and 4 years later bought an additional 1168 acres. He built a house and called it Wauch House.
Following his death in 1866 in the Macleay the Government Gazette published the deeds of the blocks Capt Wauch had purchased 30 years earlier. For a reason never explained the deeds specified the properties should been called Wauchope.
In 1881 the postal authorities opened a post office in the nearby settlement and gave it the name Wauchope, even though the Government Gazette, because of a misprint, spelt it Wanghope. The error was not corrected until 1889.
Wanghope??? This is even worse than Warchoppy. And 8 years to correct the mistake? Only a Government Dept could take so long to recognise a typo that may have potentially created a cultural cringe in Wauchope’s citizens - even before culturally cringing was recognized as a potential colonial hazard.
We have found this story of Capt. Wauch repeated in various publications around the town and online, including Wikipedia. The trouble is, there doesn’t appear to be any substantiation for the story of Robert Wauch’s family lineage in any birth records that we have access to, including Scotland’s People. While there is no doubt Capt. Wauch existed, and while I acknowledge that the story of his family origins might be true, it does seem suspiciously like a folk tale, where the local hero was wronged by someone in the British aristocracy, thumbed his nose at them, and came out to Australia and made good. Australians do like an anti-hero, and perhaps Capt. Wauch presented them with this kind of opportunity.
Whether one identifies with Wauchope, the valley of strangers, or Wanghope, the typographical error, or Wauch that was really Wauchope, or Wauchope the 6th most mispronounced town in the world, Wauchope is a place where the long term residents are very proud of their town and their heritage. So much so that when I innocently asked if there was anywhere in Greater Port Macquarie that free-range chicken could be purchased, I was firmly informed that “WE ARE NOT PORT MACQUARIE.” Oops.
The newspaper that lay waiting in our driveway when I got home announced it was the paper of “Greater Port Macquarie”. So at least for some, the times - and the name - are a-changing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)