Divine Trauma

Inevitable Over-population

2012-02-15T15:08:00.000+10:00

There's plenty of evidence across nature to support the idea that population sizes are controlled by resources. Farmer's spot this one easily. Rabbits and locusts peak in numbers one year, over-populate and die off so the following year there are fewer.

We humans can't be much different. We move to where the food and water are. Lots of water and food allows for high population count. A country like Australia can't support high population because we don't have lots of food and water, and we can't really eat coal and iron.

I don't think that we are really capable of restraining ourselves on a large scale. We consume a lot, not just food and water. The pragmatist in me thinks its inevitable that we'll all go to war with each other to secure food and water. The Christian in me hopes that we can avoid that war by making love real and sharing more equally those basics for life.

Church Mission

2012-01-10T09:45:00.001+10:00

If the mission of the church is to only make disciples, then what are we making disciples for? Being a disciple is about a new way of living, about a new humanity and a new society that Jesus called the kingdom of God.

So perhaps the mission of the church is not conversion by itself but transformation of human society. It's nothing less than political change, but not political change through the political process. This political change comes about through the personal process.

The goal can only be the creation of the kingdom of God here on earth through the lives of disciples. If one's church isn't doing that, is it really pursuing the work of God?

Aspects of Jesus

2012-01-07T05:00:00.000+10:00

I like thinking about Jesus from the point of view of a disciple who does not yet know that Jesus will be resurrected. It's a thought experiment that forces a perspective. The disciples are recorded in the gospels as confessing Jesus as Christ before his crucifixion or resurrection, but there isn't much to support how they reached that conclusion. In short: why call Jesus the Christ if the ultimate sign of God's approval has not been given?

For my thought experiment, I'm left to ask which aspect of Jesus was convincing. Jesus the teacher? Jesus the wonder-worker? It was, after all, the pre-resurrection Jesus who did most of the preaching and wonders and so on. Lately, I think we could identify a few aspects of Jesus to consider.

The teachings; the words he said. Maybe this is Jesus as philosopher or ethicist. There's a lot to be gained in the world if the teachings were adopted without any creedal statements. Are they enough for a declaration of faith? There were other Rabbis at the time, some of whom had similar things to say, but did they have followers who called them Christ?

The signs; sometimes mistakenly called miracles. The gospels call them signs. They're supposed to point to something, or represent something. The ancient world is full of thaumaturges, so what's special here?

The acts; the things he did. Think of these as different to signs, but equally demonstrative. When he paraded into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey, I'm sure it wasn't an accident. He deliberately told his disciples to get him a donkey. He probably knew that it was a religiously and politically significant act. Also consider the last supper, in which he washed feet and took over the meanings of the Passover meal for his own purposes. Acts with meanings.

The character; what people met in relation. When Jesus had conversations with others, not teaching sessions. What was it about the character he showed then?

It's possible to separate these things, but we're left with a pile of pieces. The teachings could have been anonymously written down. The signs could have been from other wonder-workers, or several others. The acts could have been from several others. The character is the exception, though. Without the others, we wouldn't see the same character. Put the pieces all together, though, and we're left with Jesus that people called Christ.

Paying for Utopia

2011-12-08T19:00:00.000+10:00

My attention came to Isaiah 61 today. Jesus quotes from here when he announces his mission in the synagogue. "The spirit of the Lord is upon me..." and so on. Typically, the idea is that when someone quotes from a passage, they invoke the whole passage. The exact parameters of a passage of text are hard to define, but that's the point of exegesis and argument.

I looked a little further in the chapter, to read this:

Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,
foreigners shall till your land and dress your vines;
but you shall be called priests of the Lord,
you shall be named ministers of our God;
you shall enjoy the wealth of the nations,
and in their riches you shall glory.
Because their shame was double,
and dishonour was proclaimed as their lot,
therefore they shall possess a double portion;
everlasting joy shall be theirs.

To be clear, "they" refers to the captives and the mourners and "you" refers to "Zion, the City of God" as the place and the people who live there. So, because the Zionites (not Zionists) were beaten down, they'll be raised up again, to the point that Zion will be exalted. What an amazing city it'll be! People won't have to work hard because they're enjoying riches!

But whose riches? Strangers. Foreigners. The people who will do the work are strangers and foreigners. Ironically, that's probably why Israel was invaded by the larger powers around them in the first place (despite the judgements proclaimed in the texts). The other powers needed slaves, a lower class to do the work. In this Isaianic utopia, all the wealth comes from foreigners to make life easy for the Israelites.

We can't use this kind of text to generate a vision of an equitable society. What it shows is an inverted society, where oppressors are oppressed. The sense of social justice in this passage is to treat people as they were treated; an eye for an eye, an exploitation for an exploitation. This vision demands vengeance as part of the restoration of the world. Tomorrow's utopia will be paid for by today's bourgeoisie, but will turn today's workers into tomorrow's oppressors. The dark side of this vision is that it requires someone to be the future oppressor, enjoying the utopia at the expense of others.

Faith and Reason

2011-12-05T12:13:00.000+10:00

Last week was the feast of Andrew the Apostle. Maybe because I share his name, or maybe not, I had a discussion about him that day, feeding off Ecclesiasticus 14:20.

Happy is the person who meditates on wisdom
and reasons intelligently

We all worked through some of the pros and cons of privileging faith or reason, and I brought up the tradition of faith seeking understanding. Eventually, it came around to Andrew. The key question I asked was about his initial encounter with Jesus, way back before signs or crucifixions or resurrections.

The next day John again was standing with two of his disciples, and as he watched Jesus walk by, he exclaimed, ‘Look, here is the Lamb of God!’ The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. When Jesus turned and saw them following, he said to them, ‘What are you looking for?’ They said to him, ‘Rabbi’ (which translated means Teacher), ‘where are you staying?’ He said to them, ‘Come and see.’ They came and saw where he was staying, and they remained with him that day. It was about four o’clock in the afternoon. One of the two who heard John speak and followed him was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his brother Simon and said to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which is translated Anointed*).

I'm going to impose some titles here to help bring out my question.

Andrew starts with Rabbi John, then spends an afternoon with Rabbi Jesus, and finishes his afternoon by bringing his brother to meet Messiah Jesus. What was the reasoning that took place to change Andrew from calling Jesus a teacher to calling him the Christ? He went to Jesus looking for rabbinic reasoning, but got more than that.

We'll never know, of course, because no one took minutes of the proceedings. So it's just speculation and hypothesis for us, with a healthy dose of reasoning intelligently.

Early Church Soap Opera

2011-12-02T12:21:00.001+10:00

WARNING! I'm about to ignore scholarship.

The lists of the Twelve are slightly different from one gospel to the next. Traditionally, we've dealt with this by saying things like, "Thaddeus, also known as Judas (not the Iscariot one!)."

But I wonder if it was symptomatic of a fight, or a disagreement about who Jesus called the Twelve. Was there a thirteenth wheel in the group?

It's all soap operatic speculation to while away a Friday afternoon.

Gospel Statistics

2011-11-25T05:00:00.000+10:00

Some statistics for you. It's a count of some of the titles used in the gospels to refer to Jesus. Down the left is a group that identifies who used the title, along with the book that records it. Across the top are the four titles that I looked at. This is the NRSV translation. Probably should have done it in Greek, but I didn't. This is an approximation.

Who	Book	Christ	Lord	Messiah	Teacher	Total Count
Angels	Luke		1	1		2
	Matthew		1			1
Criminals	Luke			1		1
Crowd	John		1	8		9
	Luke		3		3	6
	Mark				6	6
	Matthew				1	1
Demons	Luke			1		1
Disciples	John		28	2	3	33
	Luke		16	1	2	19
	Mark			1	3	4
	Matthew		9	1		10
Jesus	John	1	2		2	5
	Luke		3	3	2	8
	Mark	2	3	3	1	9
	Matthew		7	6	4	17
Narrator	John	2	5	1		8
	Luke		13	1		14
	Mark	1	2			3
	Matthew			6		6
Political authority	Luke				1	1
	Matthew			2		2
Religious Authorities	John			2	2	4
	Luke			3	6	9
	Mark			2	3	5
	Matthew			2	6	8
Sick	Luke		3			3
	Mark		1			1
	Matthew		11			11
Tax collectors	Luke				1	1
	Matthew				1	1
Total Result		6	109	47	47	209

I know, I know. Statistics and the Bible are dangerous bedfellows. You can't really prove anything from them. Just look at things like the Green Bible. It doesn't take much tweaking to find common words in the Bible and think that they're a theme. All I wanted to see here was if there were any major differences in style and titular usage between the gospels and the people who used them.

It's no surprise that "Lord" gets used a lot, especially by disciples. Jesus can be a bit self-referential with it too. Although it's not shown in the table, it's also true that a lot of this usage is by people who want things. It seems that (especially in the synoptics) that if you want something, you call him Lord. It gets a bit whiny after a while.

Also no surprise is that the religious authorities don't say Lord. They ask about whether Jesus is Christ/Messiah, though, and appear to hold Jesus as a teacher.

The one that did catch me out a bit was how often Jesus refers to himself as Messiah. I'd expected it to be a feature of the narrator, or the crowd, or the disciples, but in the end it's mostly used by Jesus himself - about 25% of the references are by Jesus.

So, if these data are anything to go by, "Lord" is the winner, with more than half, and about 81% of those used by adorers and petitioners. But in terms of recorded self-identity, Jesus sees himself as Messiah more than anyone else does.

But hey, that's just statistics in historiographical texts.

The Same As Dead

2011-10-31T12:32:00.000+10:00

I tweeted something the other day.

It's a truism of stories. By the time we get to Happily Ever After, the characters aren't interesting any more and drop out of the story. Telling the story of someone who lived happily ever after isn't what we do. In fact, they're as good as dead. We can reminisce and remember, but we can't interact. There's certainly no struggle.

I wonder whether this idea was also in the consciousness of messianic authors. The visions of a religious utopia, presided over by God (and / or his appointed human agents) sound much like a happily ever after, and to my mind, an everlasting death. Although the general conditions of such a utopia are discussed (lambs sitting down with lions, etc.), there is very little other detail.

We can read those passages as incomplete, intentionally or otherwise. If the author didn't mean to leave out the details, then they just weren't being exhaustive in their work. If the author deliberately left out those details, they've made an assumption about their readers.

Another way to read them would be as aspirational. The author has written about specific features of life that they would like to see changed. We can treat them as a giant Ought, limited to a specific issue or circumstance. The blanks are still blank, however. Even Marx has been accused of this. He critiques the capitalist system nicely, identifying its failings, but when it comes to proposing his alternative there are still some features missing. Someone still needs to collect garbage and clean toilets - and if we have machines for those tasks, someone still needs to clean and repair the machines that collect garbage and clean toilets.

Happily ever after is the same as death. No matter who's writing the story, the moment we remove the struggle we may as well stop telling the story.

Christian distinctiveness

2011-09-28T12:40:00.000+10:00

I like this topic. Sure, we call ourselves Christians, but what does that mean? Do we have different clothing, different food, different economies? I sometimes ask Christians, "What do you do, that you only do because you are a Christian?"

"Being nice" doesn't count, for example. There are plenty of nice non-Christians. One possible view is covered over at Inhabitatio Dei.

Christian distinctiveness | Inhabitatio Dei: "Here is the point of distinctiveness, according to the author: not that the Christian possesses an alternative cultural reality over against the ones in which they are set, but rather, that, regardless of their cultural setting, they manifest a distinctive character of involvement in it."

From that analysis (and you should really read the whole article), the distinctive is that we don't build cities as Christian cities. We don't build nations as Christian nations. Being Christian transcends the structures of humanity in the name of love (see the parable of the Samaritan, for example). Christians are marked by what we don't do, rather than what we do.

There seems to be something lacking from that, though - yes, I realise the irony of saying that in the face of a kenotic interpretation - and I can't help but feel that it's only the emptying without the action. Badiou's view on truth, expounded in his excellent analysis of Paul, relies on a distillation to a single, positive, axiomatic command. "You shall love..." It's not a prohibition, because prohibition instills the corresponding urge to commit that sin. Rather, it is the positive definition of what must be done.

Christianity, defined as absence alone, doesn't seem adequate to me. Absence of the world from the Christian, coupled by the presence of the command to love, is a fuller picture. Perhaps this is what is meant by, "they obey established laws, but transcend them by love (5:10)." And maybe that's the reason that it's so difficult to pin down precisely what it is that Christians do only because they are Christians.

A Divine Impossibility

2011-09-23T12:35:00.000+10:00

After listening to several episodes of the Iconocasts podcast in the last 12 months, the folks at Jesus Radicals have started writing on the fundamentals of their position as well. Most of their podcast episodes seem to assume that we in the audience already know what they mean, and that would be a fair assumption if the audience were already Jesus Radicals. Either way, I'm delighted to see a blog series starting up on
the intersection of Christianity and anarchism.

Church Dogmatics

2011-09-15T12:15:00.000+10:00

After reading this post I think I need to make time in my life to read Church Dogmatics.

Consequences

2011-08-31T11:35:00.000+10:00

All systems of knowledge are, in one way or another, axiomatic. No matter how thorough our logic is, we ultimately begin with a premise and make the assumption that it is true. Everything else unfolds from that, whether by syllogism or dialectic or whatever. If the rules of logic hold true, then they only hold true for the consequences of a premise. And that's logic 101. It's also part of the basic argument that John Lennox uses about rationalists and faith.

We always start with an axiom or a premise and infer its consequences. It's great technique to use those inferences to determine whether the axiom is true. In the more complicated questions, the logic can be quite convoluted. Not everything is just a matter of "David is unmarried. Is he also a bachelor?" When it comes to questions of God, both theists and atheists have appealed to nature to support their arguments, and in both cases there is an interpretative element to the logic that's based around some axiom. Ultimately, I think axioms are inescapable. We need to postulate them in order to understand the world, and we need to test them to make sure we aren't being deceived, but we can't do without them.

I'm also interested in the consequences for another reason. If we have an axiom that holds reasonably true (albeit beyond proof either way) then we should take time to figure out what that means for our daily lives and then do it. I don't think there's enough of this going on, and I think that's because we're happy not to have to do that work. And that, I think, is the point of any philosophy that matters.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it."
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach

The Simulation Argument

2011-08-22T20:39:00.000+10:00

I know I'm eight years behind the game on the Simulation Argument, but that's a lot more recent than my catchup with other thinkers. If you're like me and also just playing catchup, the argument says that only one of the following three propositions is true.

(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof);
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

It sounds odd and is definitely counter-intuitive, but the logic is sound. I think that they can be re-written a little for clarity.

(1) there are no beings capable of creating a computer simulation of sentient life
(2) there are no beings capable of creating a computer simulation of sentient life, who also have the interest in creating such a simulation
(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation

Or, to put it in grand theological terms.

(1) there is no being capable of creating a universe with sentient beings
(2) there are no beings capable of creating a universe, who also have the interest in creating such a universe
(3) we are almost certainly living in a created universe

Even just putting it into those terms makes me feel as though there's a fault somewhere in the logic, or that I've engaged in some trickery. It reminds me of the classic formulation of theodicy.

Only two of these are true.
(4) God is omnipotent
(5) God is omnibenevolent
(6) There is evil in the universe.

The simulation argument appears to be a negative expression of the same form. With that sense of structure in mind, let's abstract it some more.

Consider an act (A) which is conceivable but just a little bit beyond our capability
Only one of these is true.
(1) There is no agent capable of (A)
(2) There is no being capable and interested in (A)
(3) There is almost certainly (A)

Or perhaps in the very simple form, "If there is an agent who is willing and able to perform (A), then (A) has almost certainly happened."

When (A) is conceivable and just a little bit beyond our capability, we're more likely to take the argument seriously. However, if we define the act (B) as something far beyond our capacity to imagine or achieve then we have a hard time with the whole thing. In the very simple form, "If there is an agent who is willing and able to rebuild the universe out of subatomic matchsticks then it has almost certainly happened." If we can imagine a posthuman technology capable of creating a simulated universe, why can't we imagine a being (posthuman, transhuman, transcendent, or other) capable of subatomic matchstick constructions?

In its complex form, the simulation argument sounds all well and good, but with your friend and mine, the reductio ad absurdum, it starts to fall apart. I'm not convinced that it's a fatal flaw in the argument, but it's much less convincing at the far end of the scale.

Psychopaths and the Law

2011-08-01T21:06:00.000+10:00

The latest episode of The Philosophers Zone is all about psychopaths. It brings a great perspective to the issue of mental illness and the law, specifically around psychopaths and their awareness, or lack thereof, of what is morally right and wrong.

They hinted at the purpose of punishment and how that changes when the guilty party is mentally ill. The notion that a person should be punished disappears when the capacity for moral awareness is absent. However, that doesn't mean that the culprit shouldn't be incarcerated. In that case, the incarceration is for the protection of society and to, for want of a better word, force treatment upon the perpetrator.

Generally speaking, I'm ok with this. I think it still allows a legal system to identify who committed the illegal act, but also the liberty to apply a different kind of sentence for the mentally ill than for others.

Tax Free Threshold To Rise

2011-07-13T12:18:00.000+10:00

I'm just delighted to see that part of the balance of the Gillard carbon tax is an increase to the tax free threshold from $6,000 to $18,000. Of course, I'd like it to be higher, but this is a great step in the right direction. It's the best way to apply tax cuts.

I don't know about the rest of the package, though, except that there'll be $23 per tonne of CO2 and some tax rate increases for the high earner bracket. Both of these seem like good ideas.

As for families in worse financial conditions, I'd have to say that if they were the low income earners then the burden is in the wrong place.

Overall, dealing with carbon-based pollution is going to cost money, and applying a consumption-based tax is a way to put the power of choice into the hands of the spenders. It's quite a liberal concept. Of course, wealthy people will be in a position to buy-off their pollution - another reason why the burden should be shifted away from low incomes to high incomes. Money buys freedom, but it shouldn't be a license for carelessness and disregard.

Comments Policy Update

2011-06-20T20:14:00.002+10:00

Did you make a comment on a post but you haven't seen it yet? Then you should read the new Comments Policy for this blog.

Mobile formatting is go!

2011-06-15T08:27:00.002+10:00

I just turned on the mobile formatting for this blog. If you view it on a mobile device and have troubles with it, leave me a comment so I know whether to persist with the option.

Lennox Lennoxing

2011-06-09T19:25:00.000+10:00

I've listened to two lectures delivered by John Lennox, both recorded by The Veritas Forum. Inasmuch as I normally despise apologetics, the titles of the two lectures intrigued me enough to take the time.

Lennox is, without doubt, a proficient and entertaining public speaker. Everything from his accent to his sense of humour to his subject matter make for an engaging talk. I can't help, though, think that these two lectures fell victim to similar problems as those I noticed in a talk by AC Grayling. Both lectures appear to have been preaching to the choir. They had all sorts of little quips in them, each belittling the arguments of his opponents with a lashing of sarcasm. Maybe that's just the way Lennox talks, though.

Most specifically, I wanted him to elaborate on his claim that the mind is more than neurological firings. He didn't, but he asserted it quite strongly. He's clearly opposed to materialism but I haven't yet heard him advocate for a position of idealism in which he explains consciousness or the mind, even in part.

The rest of his argument appears to be working in and around the teleological arguments for the existence of God. Instead of Paley's Watch, he talks about his Aunt's Cake. The arguments are much the same, but seem much more personable focused on a cake than the technical nature of sprockets and gears. It's hard to argue with the kindly old man and his kindlier older aunt over her cake than it is over the stuffy sounding fellow who tripped over a watch in a field.

The next step is to browse some of his books. Perhaps his writing is more revealing than his speaking.

Cultural Superiority

2011-06-07T12:50:00.000+10:00

I was once in an argument (let's not insult anyone by calling it a debate) about multiculturalism. I took the position that no culture was really any better than any other, whereas my opponent insisted that there were still barbaric cultures in the world.

I've almost changed my mind.

But let me clarify. I still think that human cultures are flawed - all of them. There are social norms in every culture which are defective and loathsome, no doubt. Do some cultures have more of them than others? Or, more accurately, is the sum total of barbarity greater in some cultures than others? From the perspective of a kind of moral accounting, in which evils are quantified on a cosmic scale, we could actually create such a score card. It would be a kind of anti-utilitarianism. Rather than trying to quantify maximum happiness or satisfaction of preferences, it would be quantifying barbarity or unhappiness or prevention of preferences. Immediately we're left wondering how to quantify various acts or attitudes. Should we rate them on a 1-10 scale? Multiply them by population sizes? The task would have the same troubles as survey research, and then some. It's not impossible, but it has flaws and perspective problems.

Another way of looking at it is (no surprise here) Kierkegaardian. For Kierkegaard, every effort of humanity to build something is always met by a divine "No!" No matter the intent, every human system is flawed and, to paraphrase Romans, "falls short of the glory of God." Whether it's the Danish state church, the Soviet State or the capitalist free market, each and every instance is another attempt by humanity to create a system. Systems always produce hierarchies and these hierarchies mediate access between people and from people to God. Kierkegaard's solution is to insist on the subjectivity of the individual who encounters God without the mediation of systems or hierarchies.

In Kierkegaard's view, it doesn't matter if we can create a moral score card of cultures. What matters is that we recognise that no matter how good those cultures are, they are always an impediment to salvation, as well as the very thing that we need to be saved from.

Coffee and The Representation of Absence

2011-05-31T20:23:00.001+10:00

Zizek's recent talks at Birkbeck have included the illustration of a man ordering coffee. It's from a film, but I haven't yet found the name of the film. So, at the risk of butchering some otherwise fine dialogue, here's a paraphrase.

The man ordering coffee says, "I want coffee without cream." The waitress replies, "I'm sorry, we've run out of cream, but I can still bring you coffee without milk."

Zizek makes the point that in this exchange we see the importance of the representation of absence. Even though black coffee is black coffee, whether caused by the absence of milk or the absence of cream, the specific absence makes the difference.

I think a similar logic is at work in the question of existential goodness. In other words, a person might give aid to a needy person because they follow the Christian command to love, and another person might do the same thing because they've concluded that it maximises the total amount of happiness in the world. The distinction between the two is only the unseen motivation.

In a pragmatic view, the two should be judged the same. The need was met. Are we then just quibbling about the details if we consider motivation? How about a third case?

A person gives aid to a needy person because they know that doing so they will make the needy person dependent on aid, and later can exploit this dependency. The need was met, but the motivation is vastly different.

The representation of absence can be quite important, especially in cases where something is defined by its absence, or defined by the absent motivation. Sometimes it's a necessary addendum, albeit secondary. After all, there's no point ordering coffee without cream if you don't even get the coffee at all, whether without cream or milk.

Rapture Redux

2011-05-24T12:57:00.000+10:00

Some pithy thoughts about Harold Camping's predictions. Twitter didn't seem to be the right place for this.

1. Followers gave away their possessions leading up to the event. But why leave it until the last moment? If it's important to give away all you have, then do it anyway.

2. Judgment Day predictions come and go all the time. This is just another one.

3. Camping is probably a sincere and devout believer, even as much as he's wrong about this. Christians need to be gracious, even if our fellow believers piss us off or do some other stupid thing (e.g., odd peripheral doctrines, false claims of illness, and so on).

4. There was an interesting sense of expectancy because this had such a high profile. Such certainty is intimidating.

5. The whole thing has an escape clause of, "I was wrong, but the Bible is right!" It just saps credibility.

Last one (for now):

6. After the rapture, the earth was meant to be abandoned by God for judgment. What if that's true? What if the world as it is has been abandoned by God's direct intervention, but his command to love remains? The burden falls to us and us alone, and our punishment or reward is to live in the world of our own making.

I like the last one best.

Rapture

2011-05-20T12:18:00.000+10:00

I know I'm giving it attention when I shouldn't.

I can't help it, though. It's silly. It's big. It's a target and I'm giving in to temptation.

See you all on the 22nd.

Warning! Speculation!

2011-05-18T13:41:00.000+10:00

This is something of a woolly idea at the moment, a comparison of axiomatic foundations for revealed knowledge.

The easiest thing to criticise about a revealed religion is the foundation of revelation. All three religions of the book are open to this problem. The text is sacred because it is named as revealed. Revelation makes it authoritative. Readers who were not privy to the revelation must assent to the underlying workings which produced the text.

I speculate that there is a similar structure at work with physics texts. Readers who were not privy to the calculation need to assent to the underlying workings. The reader may never have worked through the various mathematical proofs of the theory, so is one step removed from the creation process.

But (ah hah!) the science is peer-reviewed! Unfortunately, so is canon. Lots of texts didn't make it into Christian canon, as reviewed by a learned body. In both cases, we trust the authoritative body (editorial boards, synods, etc.) which is comprised of people who are insiders to the privileged knowledge. Therefore, the implicit trust is in the reviewing body who approve the individual's text as authoritative. The primary trust is not in the mode of production of the knowledge, but in the mode of production of the review.

If someone outside that venerated group is unable to comprehend the production of the knowledge (has no mystical experience, cannot grasp calculus), they're left only with the choice to trust people who can comprehend it. We are alienated from the truth because there is a veil over its mode of production and must rely on testimony to overcome the alienation.

With such similarities in the production of authoritative texts, any comparison between the two can't be done in this arena. We're forced back into looking at reason and revelation as modes of production in themselves. It makes me wonder if, like natural theology or revealed theology, there is Reasoned Theology. If so, it sounds like the greatest excuse ever developed for lots of books on apologetics. And I can't stand apologetics.

The darndest things

2011-05-09T12:50:00.000+10:00

I was going to start a new feature on this blog, called Pentecostals Say The Darndest Things. I even had a few lined up. Try this little gem.

Pente: I'm just thinking about the house with the deck and the pool that I'm going to have.
Me: How long's that going to take you to save up for it?
Pente: God's going to give it to me. He gives me the desires of my heart, and that's what my heart desires.

And it honestly sounds like a fun sport, but I think I'd be hopelessly blown out of the water by Fundies Say The Darndest Things. It's a mission for them, but it's just a hobby for me.

Nevertheless, I might drop one in from time to time, as the mood takes me.

Musing over the future

2011-04-29T09:48:00.000+10:00

This morning's drive to work spawned an idea in my mind about the future of this blog. But like all good things, it will have to be synthesised repeatedly until it's properly Hegelian.

Watch this space.

Life After Easter

2011-04-27T12:59:00.000+10:00

Today's episode of Things I Think About And Find Someone Else Writing About is all about
Life After Easter over at Jesus Radicals. Take this quote, for instance.

If Jesus came to Earth only to die for our sins and to be resurrected to conquer death, He never had to utter a single word; He never had to call a single disciple; He never had to perform a single miracle. None of the actions of His life had any impact on His death and resurrection. We cannot, as the unfortunate Apostles’ Creed, brush off the life of Christ by only remembering that “He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried” and so on. We must ask ourselves, and each other, what happened between the birth and the suffering? And what does that mean for us?

Herein lies my single great objection to the relentless, single-minded pursuit of "Souls! Souls! SOULS!" that permeates much of contemporary protestantism and is little more than a hyper-distillation of selected passages from Romans. It's a reminder that Jesus commanded his disciples to "make disciples" and not "mark notches." It's also a reminder that disciples are more than just people with a stamp in the divine passport. Disciples are required to obey their master, and he gave just one command; one simple, emancipatory, command.

Love one another.

The conversion to disciple does not entail endless and effortless drifting through a cloudy afterlife, but requires immediate and sustained action on the part of the new disciple. Life after Easter is work, to bring about the kingdom of God through mass obedience to the command to love, and all that this entails. Life after Easter is profoundly material.

Sucker Punch as Apocalyptic

2011-04-10T10:51:00.002+10:00

I'm convinced that Sucker Punch (yes, the movie) can be read as apocalyptic. On the surface it's easy to see it as a video game, or source material for costuming, or as a trivial action-fest. But it has all the features of apocalyptic literature.

From memory, my preferred definition of apocalyptic is a text written to an oppressed people, from the point of view of a single mediator who collapses the dualism of space and/or time. The text is meant to be encouraging (inspiring?) for the oppressed people, telling them that ultimately they'll have victory.

And if you've seen Sucker Punch, this ought to pop out of the screen at you. The girls in the institution are oppressed by the orderlies (including the crucifixion of lobotomy), making them an ideal community as audience. The mediator is Baby Doll. She's the only one who sees both sides of the dualism (even the multiple layers of the heavenly aspect of the dualism). Through her the heavens are revealed, but they are only directly visible to her. All the action sequences that take the place of the dance scenes are those heavenly revelations. They feature dragons, beasts, fires, wars, earthquakes and other symbols common in apocalyptic literature. At the end of it all, there is a victory (no actual spoilers here), complete with an epilogue of encouragement and inspiration to the fellow characters, and to the cinema audience.

None of this makes the film any better or worse as a film, but it gives a new way of reading the film. Contrary to Christian apocalyptic, in which the "weapons" for Christians are acts of faithfulness and love, in Sucker Punch the weapons are entirely sexual. As Baby Doll dances, she immerses herself into the heavenly world of symbols, but is actually using sexual titillation to fight back against the men who oppress her, manipulating them. On the other side, also, the oppressors use sex as weapons, but sexual violence of forced prostitution. If anything, the message of the film is for the girls who are forced into sex slavery to use their sexuality against their oppressors in order to achieve freedom. Outside the film, this isn't the best way to overcome oppression, but it's within the frame of reference of the film itself.

So Sucker Punch is apocalyptic, quite overtly. I'd love to have the time to analyse it more thoroughly. The symbols of dragons, Nazi clockwork zombies, warrior robots and so on are interesting choices for the men in power (the mayor, the orderlies, the father, etc.). And so is the choice of the old man as angelic messenger who lays out the missions and dispenses wisdom. If you go to see it, watch it as apocalyptic.

Politics is about looking seriously at maps

2011-04-01T10:23:00.000+10:00

Campbell Newman is quitting the Lord Mayoralship of Brisbane to run as a candidate for the Premiership of Queensland. Regardless of the ship he's spinning, I quite like the importance his spin doctors have placed on maps, and the pointing-at thereof.

The ABC reports today about the move, along with a great picture of him and Jeff Seeney pointing at a map. It's very commanding, as though the leader is receiving advice from a trusted lieutenant. And yet, it's casual, over a coffee (branding included at no extra charge).

Pointing at maps is important. It shows strategy and team work all in the same image. After all, we need to remember how well it worked for Julia and Kevin.

I think the problem for Julia and Kevin is the lack of coffee cups. That glass of water just doesn't convey friendliness at all.

Today's lesson in politics is therefore: give a great impression about team work and leadership by getting together in public with a colleague and pointing at maps. Having coffee on the table, consumed or not, is better than water.

Faith, Kierkegaard and Underpants Gnomes

2011-03-30T21:59:00.000+10:00

Faith is a problem. It's not rational. It can't be argued for in the same way that we might argue for a political position or a deal on a new car. Faith works under a different logic. Kierkegaard's famous book, Fear and Trembling, delves into this problem. So this is a little of Kierkegaard 101, I'm sure, but I'm going ahead with it anyway.

Kierkegaard introduced the concept of the leap of faith. For him, it wasn't the same concept that we tend to think of today; a leap off the edge of a cliff onto unseen but solid ground. A bit like this scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

In fact, if you dig around YouTube you'll see more than a few uploads of this scene and plenty of those with some commentary about a leap of faith. This, however, isn't Kierkegaard's metaphor at all. He proposed the leap as being like the leap of a dancer. The dancer leaps high off the ground, up into the air, and then lands nimbly where they wanted to be all along. The idea is that a person wants to get from where they are, to where they want to be, but cannot see any direct way to get there. So they must leap into the heavens, so to speak, disconnecting from the ground of rationalism and into encounter with God through faith, only to land again precisely where they want to be. Kierkegaard insists that the mechanism of faith is a mystery, but that it's only possible through the individual taking the leap of faith away from rational planning and into the heavens. The form of faith, according to Kierkegaard, is to give up rationalism, leap into the divine, and then receive the thing believed for in the first place.

The Underpants Gnomes from South Park have the same logic. They want profit, and they start by collecting underpants (disconnect from rationalism). Not knowing how it will work, they industriously labour to collect underpants in the faith that it will bring profit.

One of the boys understands it, and is ridiculed by another. It's the same with Kierkegaard's exposition of faith. Some people understand it, and the rest ridiculed him. Nevertheless, the form of faith is the same for the dancer and for the Underpants Gnomes. Phase 1: Act. Phase 2: Mystery of faith. Phase 3: Blessing received.

Kierkegaard's point, therefore, is that the mystery of faith requires that the individual is grounded in the choice to leap, grounded in the act of faith itself. Faith can't be attained by arguing for it. Faith is its own ground. Unfortunately, this sounds as silly as the Underpants Gnomes. Faith demands that the individual leave behind everything, even the very ground on which they base their life, in order to encounter the divine and receive the blessing.

Mother Earth is a Dirty Bitch

2011-03-29T09:09:00.000+10:00

From a recent talk recorded by the BdBC, in which he touched on the topic of the Japanese earthquake:

I think that, if anything, Japan demonstrates that, yes, we are killing Mother Earth but Mother earth is a dirty bitch who doesn't care about us. - Zizek

Sure, he's going for laughs but at the same time he isn't. All too often we anthropomorphise the world around us and assume that it has human qualities like intent. Mother Earth is just thermodynamics at work, and we only think of it as evil because it interferes with our own plans and intent. The ancient goddess Fortuna is the most successful attempt at anthropomorphising the forces beyond our control, because she was thought of as fickle and capricious. Today, we'd probably call her a sociopath or a psychopath. She does what she does, without regard for the ones affected, and for reasons inscrutable to us.

So yes, Mother Earth is a dirty bitch who doesn't care about us, whether we experience an earthquake or a refreshing cool breeze in Summer. "Mother Earth" is the contingency of thermodynamics personified by us. We need to stop looking for the "behind the scenes" of reality, because there's nothing there. All we have is the scene.

What makes a theologian

2011-03-21T12:42:00.000+10:00

Roland Boer has posted in the last fortnight about the credentials of Scott Stephens*, the online editor of the ABC's Religion And Ethics portal, and a recent interviewer on ABC's Compass. Clearly, there's some bad blood between Roland and Scott, and I don't really want to get involved in what is probably best left between those two.

But it makes me ask myself the question, "What really makes a theologian?" I know I think of myself as an amateur theologian, so the question is quite personal to me.

In one sense, any words about God are theo-logy; and anyone who does this over a sustained period could be called a theologian. But this opens the gate for a lot of bad theology. Maybe we should require formal qualifications, but I'm sure any student of theology has encountered well-qualified theologians that we think are doing bad theology. Is bad theology a good enough reason to call it non-theology?

On the other hand, are there some unqualified people who actually do good theology? Probably. I'm sure there was a time before qualifications in which people did good theology, so there's no reason that it can't happen again.

Maybe the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In other words, as long as the theology is good I'm not fussed about the qualifications; with the strong qualifier that the process of attaining qualifications should be the right training for a person to produce good theology. It's a probability game: qualifications are more likely to result in good theology, but it's no guarantee either way.

So then we have to ask; what makes good theology?

* I should also confess that I know Scott and studied in his classes about eight years ago. I'd call him a friend that I've not seen for a number of years. I don't know Roland, but I usually enjoy reading his blog and have one or two snippets of his writing in my library.

Striving with no guarantee of success

2011-03-11T12:36:00.001+10:00

Reading from Luke 13:19-29 today, I'm reminded that there is an obligation on Christians to make an effort to do the difficult thing: follow Jesus, with all the sacrifice and service that this entails. In the passage he insists that we strive.

‘Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able. When once the owner of the house has got up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and to knock at the door, saying, “Lord, open to us”, then in reply he will say to you, “I do not know where you come from.” Then you will begin to say, “We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.” But he will say, “I do not know where you come from; go away from me, all you evildoers!” There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, from north and south, and will eat in the kingdom of God.

It's not enough to sit back and enjoy the kingdom of God, as though "once saved always saved" were true. The kingdom demands a consistent and repeated effort of Christians.

And I don't see any indication of "success" at all. It's not even a matter of misunderstood success; we can't just say that we succeed by having a happy family rather than the false success of big house and a nice car. No, it looks as though it's the sincere intention of effort that is important in Jesus' message. Sincere intention of effort, and not just sincere intent; that's a necessary part of Christian being.

Gospel before Jesus

2011-03-10T12:38:00.000+10:00

Reading Mark 8:27-38 today, and comparing it against the equivalent in Matthew and Luke, it struck me that only in Mark does Jesus mention the gospel message.

For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. (35)

In Matthew and Luke, Jesus only talks about losing one's life for Jesus' sake. In some texts, it's only for the sake of the gospel and not for Jesus' sake.

What's Mark getting at? Or, what did Matthew and Luke miss? Can it be that even Jesus saw the gospel as more important than himself, not only in life - since this is the moment that he began to teach about his own death - but also in reputation? It's one thing to die a noble death that's remembered, and another to die an obscure death for the sake of something larger. I think we see in Mark that the gospel message must not be obscured by the person of Jesus. Given the other pointers in the text around v35, there's no way that we can say that Mark wants the gospel message ahead of Jesus. But suppose that's what Jesus wanted. Have we not given preference to Jesus the person over the gospel message each time we talk about a "personal relationship with Jesus" at the exclusion of our responsibilities for action?

It sits better with us to keep the two as inseparable - the man and the message. And that inseparability holds true for Christians - that we and the gospel message must be one and the same.

Are there Double Standards in the Intervention

2011-02-25T10:31:00.000+10:00

I listened to a discussion about the Northern Territory Intervention this week and heard one of the speakers make this interesting claim. The incidents of alcohol abuse, drug abuse, sexual abuse and child abuse which formed the basis of the justification for the Intervention are also found throughout the remainder of the Australian population. We're left to infer that this renders the Intervention discriminatory, or that there should be an equivalent action taken in the rest of society.

This is going to make me sound heartless at first, but it needs to be said. I'd like to see some statistics about the incident rate across Australia, sorted by location rather than ethnic group, to help me understand this claim better. I don't doubt that the abuses are found everywhere (just look at any leaked video about a football team party, or trawl through the facebook status updates over the weekend) and across all segments of Australia. I would, however, like to know if it's uniformly distributed or whether we have problem areas; be they remote communities, suburban communities, or wherever.

Secondly, even if there is only a single case of abuse, surely some kind of intervention is required. We commonly think that the police should intervene and arrest the perpetrator. But how can we prevent things like this from happening in the first place? Or, what are the cultural and social conditions required to prevent abuse? And furthermore, should we apply those in the Northern Territory instead of the Intervention we now have?

Ten theses about the church as a social ethic | Ekklesia

2011-02-09T12:10:00.000+10:00

Ekklesia has an interesting summary of a book by Stanley Hauerwas. From their blog:

"Whether you find him inspiring or exasperating (and I sometimes find him both!), the work of US theologian Stanley Hauerwas provides a challenging alternative vision of church as subversive, exemplary community - rather than the cement or glue of society, as in the top-down Christendom model.

Most famously, he has declared: “The church does not have a social ethic; the church is a social ethic” - or not, I would add, looking at its actual performance in many instances.

Back in 1981, Hauerwas published Reforming Christian Social Ethics: Ten Theses. The appeal echoed Luther's famous 95 Theses, which disputed the ideology and practice of church in his era - though not sufficiently to stop his followers persecuting Anabaptists and sanctioning state churches, sadly. But then reformation is a continual (radical) process, not a one-off event."
Ten theses about the church as a social ethic | Ekklesia

The ten theses themselves give a decent framework for the church as a social entity, perhaps over-against any other social entity in history, including governments and corporations.

Alain de Botton on the nanny state

2011-02-08T15:02:00.000+10:00

A recent topic of conversation on this blog has been the role of government in the affairs of private citizens. So when I stumbled onto this piece of Alain de Botton, I thought I should link to it - not because I agree with it, but because it adds grist to the mill.

"In this scheme, the state should harbour no aspirations to tinker with the inner well-being or outward manners of its members. The foibles of citizens should be placed beyond comment or criticism, for fear of turning government into that most reviled and unpalatable kind of authority in libertarian eyes - the nanny state.

Compare this with how religions handle things. Religions have always had much more directive ambitions, advancing far-reaching ideas about how members of a community should behave towards one another."
BBC News - A Point of View: In defence of the nanny state

Under his analysis, the modern (post-Mill) state perceives its own role to confine itself to defending rights in order to secure liberty for the citizenry, whereas religions are prescriptive in the minutiae of lives in order to create a specific kind of world. He claims that in doing this the state weakly misses an opportunity to effect a positive change in the world, but he doesn't go so far as to completely endorse a religious method of total control.

I think that all of this depends heavily on what the role of the state ought to be. For a libertarian, the role of the state should be as unobtrusive as possible, securing liberties through implied or actual violence (police, military, etc.). But is this really the best that we can do, to enforce the right not to be harassed while we pursue our own ambitions?

Invoking the Devil

2011-01-31T16:35:00.000+10:00

This is almost a whinge. Almost.

Astute readers of this blog will have figured out that I have a kind of leftist leaning in politics. Simply, I think that if we form ourselves into towns, states and nations, then we have things in common like roads, parks and water. Things in common should be funded by shared money, and traditionally we've collected this money through the form of taxation. Sure, no one especially enjoys paying tax, but for me I think that it's fine as long as it's spent on things that benefit the community being taxed. If everything's going well, we ought to see the benefits in the lives of the most vulnerable in society: the sick, the lame, the orphan, the widow, and so on.

Often, when I write on political things, someone will suggest that my views were applied by Stalin or Mao, implying that views like mine will result in the deaths of millions under an oppressive regime.

Ouch.

I'm no Stalinist - that man presided over a horror, no question about it - but I'm not so sure that invoking Stalin is even a good argument, even an argument-by-similarity. If I look hard enough, I'm sure I'll even find that I have something in common with Jeff Buckley, but that's not enough to make me an avant-garde musician.

I suppose I could just deny that Stalin or Mao were ever "true socialists" or "true communists" and that (somehow) I know the One True Way which will lead us to a proper utopia. Maybe I should denounce them to themselves?

Perhaps I should find a capitalist devil to invoke. It's not hard to find them. Take Mobutu of Zaire. He was a staunch anti-communist and ruled over a land with astonishing mineral resources, and yet the population suffered under low living conditions. Is he representative of all capitalism? He was certainly similar enough to the American position for them to back him during his reign. Bush called him, "our most valued friend in Africa." This guy would make a great Capitalist Devil.

The hard thing to do in the face of diabolical invocations is to take them seriously without the baggage. In other words, to ask whether the policy can be turned into an evil. Can a pro-freemarket position about industrial relations lead to another Mobutu? Can a pro-regulation position about the finance industry create another Stalin? In most cases, the answer would be no, but it's worth a moment of self-reflection.

The other hard thing to do is to resist invoking the devil at all. One sin does not turn a person in to the lord of darkness, and it's absurd to even take a discussion in that direction. As easy as it is to bring Mobutu out to fight Stalin, it's little more than schoolyard name-calling.

So it's not quite a whinge. I just don't see the need to bring the devil to the debate.

Supply and Demand After Disaster

2011-01-17T09:48:00.000+10:00

The economic model of supply and demand is often applied as justification for changes in price. In the years immediately prior to the 2010 financial crisis this was evident in the price of commodities like aluminium and copper as against the global stocks of those materials. It's no surprise to anyone that as the global stocks diminished, market prices rose.

After the floods in Queensland (and now Victoria) the prices of goods produced in destroyed agricultural areas has already begun to rise. Fruit and vegetables are being sold at higher prices, and I expect that if they're left to market forces they will remain high for about a year, or at least until the farms are rehabilitated and able to produce crops again. That was the experience of banana prices after a cyclone destroyed banana crops in north Queensland earlier in the decade.

Diabolically, we could apply this to other goods and services. Demand for food is the same and supply has dropped. Demand has climbed for other things like electricians, builders and housing. In a pure supply and demand economy, these service providers would be well within their rights to raise prices. Imagine for a moment that we apply the same increases in food to these services as well. Rent doubled or trebled? It sounds ludicrous, and yet the local papers are already reporting trades scams and exorbitant prices.

This is one risk of an unregulated freemarket economy. Our society needs strict economic regulation to take into account the additional demand from society: a demand for human dignity. This is an opportunity to look for cracks in the regulations, and to ensure that our society is built around the needs of the people rather than the exclusive needs of the economy.

Simultaneous πíστiς

2011-01-06T22:01:00.000+10:00

With the first essay of The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ under my belt, I can start to bring the threads together in my mind. I think this passage covers the main thrust of the essay.

"Because the faithfulness of Christ implies that people can have faith in him and because an injunction to have faith in him assumes that he is faithful, both the faithfulness of Christ and faith in Christ are ideas that fit the context of each passage that uses πíστiς Xρiστoȗ. This is the primary cause for difficulty in making a strong case for one view against the other." - Debbie Hunn, Debating the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Twentieth-Century Scholarship, p30

This is an attractive notion, that πíστiς Xρiστoȗ somehow has a double meaning that was understood by the original readers, and which is lost in translation. It's not uncommon for this to occur in Biblical studies, and gives Biblical scholars plenty of years of work to unravel.

But I can't help feel that it's too conciliatory, that by trying to endorse both views it doesn't say anything at all. That feeling might just be an unrealistic desire for certainty on my part, because deep down I want the debate to definitively resolve the question. It's too early to make up my mind, though. At this stage, it's grist for the mill.

Influenced by Crossan

2011-01-05T15:10:00.000+10:00

I've just finished listening to an interview with John Dominic Crossan and although I've not read much of his work, I've reached some similar conclusions. I imagine that I've probably been influenced by him indirectly through others. Maybe the most important commonality is the assertion that Jesus is the defining point of what it means to be Christian, and not the Bible. That's not an easy relationship to live with, but it does take into account the fallibility of human texts without losing the significance of Jesus as the revelation of God, and as teacher, as lord and so on. I might have to add one of his books to my reading list when I've finished the current exercise.

Pistis Christou

2011-01-04T14:36:00.001+10:00

I've taken a break from reading ever since I trawled my way through The Monstrosity of Christ. Zizek and Milbank aren't authors to read quickly. Next on my list is this little gem: The Faith of Jesus Christ.

It's a collection of essays on the New Testament phrase pistis christou which is translated either as "faith in Christ" or "the faithfulness of Christ" or similar. As you can imagine, this has some nice theological consequences because the phrase is typically used in relation to salvation, as in "you are saved by faith in Christ" in contrast with "you are saved by the faithfulness of Christ."

I hope to be post a little about it as I go, with my own reflections about what the various authors have written.

Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist

2010-12-21T12:44:00.001+10:00

It's all over the twitters! Ricky Gervais turns the tables on theists and demands proof in his column, A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I'm An Atheist

His big point is to place the burden of proof on the theists, rather than the atheists. I imagine he'd be surprised to see such a fuss made about this point. It's not new. It's the application of scientific method (specifically empiricism) to God. In short, the idea is that God can't be objectively measured or observed, and that means there's no reason to believe that God is real[1].

Case closed. Right?

Well, yes and no. It provides compelling argument against a particular concept of God, while opening questions about the application of cross-disciplinary analysis. One at a time, though. The interesting question is whether the scientific method is the superior method for answering all questions. Whether God is real is a metaphysical question, but scientific method is not metaphysics. Should we use aesthetic methods to analyse the federal budget? Why is scientific method considered superior to aesthetic methods? Is it even appropriate, or is it like using a hammer when a screwdriver is appropriate? The use of scientific method is great when applied to scientific questions, but it's not a universally-applicable method.

As for the compelling arguments against God and heaven, he makes a great point. He talks about God as the one who lets people into heaven or sends them into hell.

And that’s where spirituality really lost its way. When it became a stick to beat people with. “Do this or you’ll burn in hell.”

This is brilliant. Religion based on a two-ways thinking of reward and punishment is driven by selfishness and fear. Instead, Ricky wants us to do unto others as we'd have them do to us. It's not unique to Christianity, but it's right near the centre.

And although I don't think that Ricky's plea is quite as strong as Jesus' command to love, it's a great start. We should be good to each other for no reason and no reward. That's going to be hard enough, and the right step towards genuine love.

Notes
1. I hesitate to say whether God "exists" or "is" because those are other kinds of questions.

Nuclear hostages

2010-12-16T12:27:00.000+10:00

A lot has been written already about nuclear deterrence theory, and I've not read it all. The one part of it which sticks in my mind and won't let go is the role of civilians as hostages. After all, what is the deterrent other than the threat against civilian targets (people and places) to be exercised if certain demands aren't met?

Therefore, the key difference between a country maintaining a nuclear deterrent and a man with a gun to the head of a bystander is the number of hostages.

US pressure on UK about Iranian banks

2010-12-14T12:39:00.001+10:00

Senior US officials urged British banking regulators two years ago to take more draconian action against Iranian banks suspected of financing nuclear and missile programmes, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks show.
WikiLeaks cables: US pressured British regulator to act against Iranian banks | Business | The Guardian

This is some promising news from the wonderful world of Wikileaks. I'm pleased to see non-military methods at work to stop nuclear proliferation. It's unfortunate that the evidence of involvement by these Iranian banks wasn't available in the cable, but I imagine that if there was inscrutable and solid evidence, there would be more than just financial pressure on banks.

Any use of non-violent methods to achieve objectives is better than violent methods. Nevertheless, I'm reminded that the country exerting the pressure here is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in war, and still maintains a very large stockpile of nuclear weapons as a deterrent. A single nuclear weapon is still one nuclear weapon too many, and is only made worse when that weapon is in the control of a demonstrably violent nation. We can have a world without nuclear weapons. We had one for a long time before the Manhattan Project and we can have it again if we want it.

The Wikileaks Conflict

2010-12-08T15:37:00.000+10:00

In the past week, there has appeared a lot of support for Wikileaks and its editor-in-chief, and there has been a lot of opposition to it and him. What many people are outraged about now is the action of a government to shut down an organisation that promotes itself as part of global journalism. By doing this, I think Wikileaks' supporters are missing the point and are playing into the hands of their opponents. It seems to me that there are three points of conflict in the entire debate.

The struggle to maintain or destroy Wikileaks as an organisation. At present this is the main focus of the media and social networking. You can see it as the government decries the actions of Wikileaks and as various organisations (Paypal, Visa, Amazon, etc.) withdraw their facilities from access by Wikileaks. The counter-arguments appear in newspapers and through the Wikileaks' use of Twitter and Facebook. This struggle is about whether the leaked information continues to be published and not about leaks in organisations themselves. This is about controlling the flow of information.

The criminal accusations against Julian Assange. This has the appearance of an ad hominem attack, designed to discredit Assange and, by implication, his work. The claims are quite serious, however, and should be taken seriously. Sexual assault of any kind, by anyone, should not be tolerated. If Assange is convicted, he will no doubt be imprisoned but the work of Wikileaks will continue. Wikileaks appears to be decentralised enough to withstand the loss of its founder.

The criminal accusations against various presidents, ministers, governments, officials, etc. In other words, the actual content of the leaked documents. Before the current round of leaked cables, there was little doubt that the actions of various individuals was criminal (e.g., the actions of the American helicopter crew in killing Iraqi civilians). A clever summary of this has appeared on the web. Refreshing the page loads new content each time. This is the forgotten area of conflict at the moment, and I think that's quite intentional. The accused have deflected the argument away from the content of the cables and press forward with their attacks on Assange and the existence of Wikileaks as an organisation.

It seems to me that anyone who wants to be involved in this issue has these three areas to consider. Opponents of Wikileaks are winning in the second area by having Assange arrested. They're especially winning in the third area by creating the first area. That is, they have successfully deflected attention away from the content of the leaked documents by creating a new focus for the argument.

For myself, this is a quick summary of where I stand on the three.
1. The activities of Wikileaks is important, whether or not is is conducted by Assange or even by Wikileaks. Crime and corruption in governments, corporations, institutions and other organisations should be exposed. Wikileaks could even retreat into obscurity and become an intermediary between individuals with information and journals who will report on them.
2. The investigation into sexual assault claims should proceed. Assange has done the right thing by cooperating with the investigation rather than remaining a fugitive.
3. People everywhere, especially journalists and bloggers, should read and comment on the leaked documents, and they should be noisy about it. Make more noise about this than anything else. It is clear that crimes have been committed, and that the perpetrators should be removed from office so as to prevent further harm. Any other legal consequences are a matter for the courts.

Religion, Public and Private

2010-11-22T12:56:00.000+10:00

Expecting a religious person to keep their religion private is much the same as telling someone that they can fall in love but must keep it a secret. It's a waste of time. Anyone seized by love will be quite unable to do what you ask. You'll see it in their eyes.

But that's no justification to bare the whole of the relationship to the world. Imagine a couple in love who broadcast their entire life to the world. All the whispers, the kisses, the lovemaking, the arguments, the drudgery of housekeeping... Some things are best nourished in private, and the same is true with religion.

Religion must have public and private aspects. There are parts of religion which are wholly internal just as much as there are parts which affect the public life of the believer. It's unrealistic and inauthentic to confine it in total to one or the other.

Zizek gets the RSA Animate treatment

2010-11-19T12:24:00.000+10:00

Quick! It's Zizek! You know you want to watch it. Eleven minutes of Zizek, turning something on its head, complete with clever pictures on a digital whiteboard.

Zizek!

Tolstoy's Christianity

2010-11-19T08:54:00.000+10:00

I've mentioned elsewhere that I've started on some Tolstoy[1]. He seems to have two different approaches to Christianity as a thing. On the one hand, he is adamant that the Christian conception of life is self evidently correct and understood by all to be the truth, but on the other hand he writes persuasively about it for those people who aren't yet living that way. In other words, Christianity is obviously right to everyone, and (even though you know this) you should be genuinely Christian (because you aren't living that way now).

He argues for Christianity using reason, and not just as an exercise in faith. Christianity is not a lifestyle choice, one alternative among many, but is the best way for humanity to live. And he argues that this is self-evident to everyone. Although most of his argument is centred around the issue of not resisting violence by force, his view is clear that Christianity is right because it is universally beneficial and better than the social view or the state view of life.

This, of course, puts him in contrast to Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard argued for Christianity on the basis of authority and revelation, not rationality or reason. Through the inheritance of scripture, the written words of people who witnessed Jesus in person, a person has testimony and instructions for how to be Christian, but that this testimony and instruction only has value through the leap of faith.

Both of them make a return to the individual (reader) and argue that as a result of this reason or faith, the right way to live is to obey the commands of Christ to love God and to love one's neighbour. For Kierkegaard, when the individual obeys Christ they become a kind of authentic human, freed from the structures of the humanly-established order to live in genuine liberty. For Tolstoy, individual obedience to Christ awakens the person from the hypnosis of the existing human order, and when many people do this then the kingdom of God becomes a physical thing, freeing people from the structures of states and institutions.

In short, for both writers, the kingdom of God is an emancipatory project for all people, contingent upon the individual obedience to the commands of love.

1. Coincidentally, this is my first exposure to audiobooks as well, courtesy of Librivox. It's an experience entirely different to reading, but I might write about that some other time.

Adjustment to the comments policy

2010-11-12T12:34:00.002+10:00

I've changed my mind a couple of times about whether to allow anonymous comments on this blog. I figured that it would allow people to contribute meaningfully without having to have an OpenID account, or something similar. But I've forgotten what the guys at Penny Arcade have to say about this.

So I'm shutting down the ability to anonymously post onto this blog. I still like freedom of expression and opinion, and in the interest of reducing bile in the comments, I'm taking away the anonymity.

Kierkegaard and Tolstoy

2010-11-03T12:21:00.000+10:00

I'm part way through my first real encounter with Tolstoy, through his book The Kingdom of God is Within You. Perhaps some important quotes will venture their way onto the blog in the coming days and weeks.

However, and I might be the last person in the world to pick up on this, the resemblance between Kierkegaard and Tolstoy are striking, even just in this book alone. Kierkegaard's three spheres of life are tremendously similar to Tolstoy's three philosophies of life. Similar, but not identical.

With a little hand-waving, one could make them superimpose on each other, but the more interesting approach is to find how they inform and critique each other. And more interesting still is that they both advocate a relentless pursuit of the teachings of Christ. Christ is, for both of them, the teacher par excellance, who instructed people how to live as though God was king of this world, and that if we are to take Christianity seriously, then it must be immediately (and militantly, if we invoke Badiou) obeyed by the individual, and not enveloped in the mists and shrouds of sacramental observances.

The rest of the book, and maybe some other Tolstoy work, await me.

Essay topic for NaNoWriMo

2010-10-25T13:10:00.000+10:00

I'm narrowing down a topic for the essay. Could be quite polemical. Looks like it'll relate to the physicality of the kingdom of God, even though the more I read around, the more I realise that it's an old topic.

NaNoWriMo

2010-10-12T11:02:00.000+10:00

During November, some people like to write novels and call it National Novel Writing Month. I'm no novelist, but I'm considering writing an essay instead. Unfortunately, the abbreviation would be the unpronounceable NaEsWriMo.

Undeterred, however, I'm starting to think about a topic. Suggestions welcome. Take a look at the tag cloud at the bottom of the page to see what sort of things I've already written about, including topics from before the split between Divine Trauma and Tabletop Manifesto.

No law against love, just a command

2010-10-08T15:38:00.000+10:00

It seems all too easy for us to over-complicate Christianity. There are complex angelologies and demonologies, catastrophic eschatologies and medieval metaphysics to name a few. Perhaps we're embarrassed about the origins of our faith, that it's too simple or lowly.

The solution, I think, is to remember that the whole of Christianity begins and ends with Christ. Once we identify Jesus (the peasant from Nazareth) as the total embodiment of God, we are obliged to obey his commands. And his commands were quite simple: love one another.

We can spend hours and hours figuring out what this means in daily practice. In fact, that's something we should definitely do. In fact, I imagine that if we did that, we'd spend less time with the trivia of our faith, and more time making the kingdom of God a material reality.

Post-election Gillard Analysis

2010-09-20T00:15:00.000+10:00

From ABC's The Drum comes an insightful piece by Glen Milne, exposing the wonders of political spin from a newly-elected government trying to renege on election promises.

"She would not like the comparison, and Tony Abbott can't make it, for reasons that will become apparent, but all of a sudden Julia Gillard is looking a lot like John Howard." Glen Milne, Gillard looking a lot like Howard.

This is clever and biting assessment of Gillard's spin. Before the election a carbon price was out of the question. And after the election? See how Milne scrutinses Gillard's remarks.

"It's absolutely no secret, after particularly the election campaign that was, that the Government believes we need to work towards a price on carbon. The Government has consistently said that we want to work towards a price on carbon."

Oh really?

Note the lawyers' parsing: "...after, particularly, the election campaign that was". Hang on; it's only been less than a month since voting day. But clearly already, Gillard has already segmented time - and promises -according to the election and post election periods. Post election, apparently, the old order no longer applies.

I won't steal any more thunder from him. Go and read it for yourself.

Of flags and books

2010-09-13T13:09:00.000+10:00

Pastor Terry Jones wanted to burn copies of the Koran. Most of us know about this story. A google news search will give you all the relevant details, along with plenty of bluster.

Before I go any further, I should say that I think the proposed action goes against Christ's command to love. I don't want to go into a laboured explanation of this point, but it's enough to say that Christ commanded his followers to love, and burning a book which is valued by someone else doesn't seem to fit that bill. One could argue more abstractly that by burning a detrimental book[1], one loves the other by saving them from it. At the same time, there is an argument to say that concentrating on texts one opposes is a distraction from loving the people associated with that text. I'll let you think about it in your own time.

I think what's more interesting to me is the reaction from the "land of liberty" itself. America is founded on principles of liberty, with a bill of rights geared to give people a rights-based mentality. There have been plenty of public debates there about the legitimacy of flag-burning as a means of protest. Usually these debates will invoke the famous remark (allegedly) from Voltaire, which appears in a number of forms, but they all look a bit like this:

I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to your death the right to say it.

It's usually taken to mean that the liberty of speech is more valuable than the content of speech. Many people are swayed by this approach and, although they love their flag, will let others burn it in protest.

So how about the Koran? Or the Bible? Or the Baghavad Gita? Or any other religious texts? Semiotically, they're both symbols that convey meaning. The text conveys its meaning more clearly than a flag, though, but is that enough difference to adjudicate that burning a flag is acceptable, and burning a book is not? What this reveals is that privileging the liberty of speech over the content of speech requires that everyone agree to that preference. When the content of speech has primacy over the liberty, an act like book burning will almost certainly enrage someone.

The question for civil society to think about is whether liberty of speech or content of speech is more important, and whether the necessary social conditions are present to even give people that choice.

From a theological point of view, it must be questioned whether burning a Koran is within the command to love, and whether burning a Koran is using a liberty for self-indulgence (Gal 5:13).

1. At least a book that is considered detrimental by one person and not another. For example, some Christians believe that Dungeons and Dragons is a harmful game and would encourage burning the rule books.

It's just like football

2010-09-01T12:29:00.000+10:00

The election result, that is. 90 minutes of to-and-fro, and then the final whistle. Now we're in the penalty shoot-out where it's down to five to make the decision. The best of five.

Yes, it's a sport metaphor on this blog. Normally I don't enjoy sport, but I make an exception for football.

So what's the problem? Nothing. A hung parliament is the right recipe to get some fire back into politics. Politicians will have to argue a case and reach compromise, and to argue a case means that you need to have a case to argue. So go back to your philosophy and figure out what you stand for, rather than who you stand against, and go for it. Just stop being lukewarm, because the electorate has spewed you out of our collective mouth.

(And that makes for two irregular occurrences on this blog: sport, and a quote from the Apocalypse. I'll try not to let it happen again.)

I Blog and I Vote

2010-08-20T12:26:00.001+10:00

I like elections and election campaigns. All sides of politics are put back into promotion and selling, convincing me to vote for them. I get to throw them out, or keep them in. This might sound arrogant to you, but based on the last election results, where I live now is the most marginal seat in Australia, won by only 64 votes out of 82,000. And that was with a swing against the sitting member.

So what does that mean for my vote? Just like every election, I based my vote on care for the most needy. To steal some biblical phrases, we'd call them "the least of these" or "the widows and orphans." The way we treat the marginalised is the measure of us, and that applies to us as individuals and, more importantly, as a community. If you read some of my previous entries on this election, you'll get the idea. I've looked at more policies than those I wrote about, and I would have liked to blog about them all, but time is against me this year.

But here's the summary. The Labor Party and the Liberal Party are like Pepsi and Coke this time around. The differences are trivial on the issues that matter. From what I've seen, the campaigning between the two has been more like Australian Idol than a genuine battle of ideas, with the added element of negative advertising. They've appealed to the hip pocket of middle Australia, but in the end they don't offer much that's different to each other.

And the Greens? Yes, I've looked at them too. Full points goes to them for not being the Dr Pepper in this metaphor. They aren't just another flavour of the same, most evident in the issues that I did write about.

So this is how I'm going to vote.
1. Below the line. Every preference is my preference, not theirs.
2. ALP and Liberals last.
3. Greens first.
4. Fill in the rest with preference away from nationalistic parties.

Yes, this year I'm voting Greens and I encourage you to do the same.

EDIT: I use a tag for all my posts about the Australian Election 2010. It will explain my position a little better if you read them as well.

Making golf courses useful

2010-08-19T10:59:00.000+10:00

In the news this week:

The Department of Housing has confirmed it has reached an agreement with the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder over a new site for an Indigenous short-stay facility.

The council was asked to suggest alternative locations for the centre after community opposition to the Government's preferred location of Vivian Street.

A spokeswoman for the department says plans are underway to buy a section of land at the Boulder Golf Club.

She says the sale is subject to the outcome of community consultation, which is expected to continue until mid-September.
ABC Online, Golf land to be used for short-stay facility

It reminds me of this piece by George Carlin.

I'm just sorry that George didn't live long enough to see it happen.

Policy Comparison at the ABC

2010-08-16T13:26:00.000+10:00

Regular readers will know that I've compared a couple of policies across the Labor, Liberal and Greens parties as we approach the election. This is clearly a popular pasttime. The ABC has done something similar, but without the value judgements, and mostly without the Greens. They have a page which serves as a launching point for you to make your own comparisons. The section headings operate like search tags, though, and will take you to stories about those issues.

Nevertheless, you can learn a lot from these links. Our national broadcaster has done a lot of work for you by bringing together the stories about the election. You should look through it before you vote. Make your vote a deliberate and informed choice.

The Boats, The Boats

2010-08-13T13:26:00.000+10:00

Refugees. Illegal immigrants. Queue jumpers. Terrorists in disguise. In the past decade, our media and politicians have called them all sorts of things. The images are of brown-skinned people, dressed shabbily, crowded onto boats and staring at the camera. Foremost in people's minds is the question, "Who are these people? Are they genuinely fleeing persecution, or are they lying to sneak into Australia?"

Before I look at the major parties' policies, I'll briefly go over three points. The size of the problem, our historical response to the problem, and our moral obligations.

The size of the problem is important. Just from the TV and the newspapers it looks as though it's frequent and it's large, as though the boats are another form of public transport. Famously, a couple of graphic representations have been crafted to show the scale of the situation. Relative to the population, it's small. Relative to other refugees, it's small. Relative to the number of people who overstay visas, it's small (the count was about 47800 people, around five years ago). If we, as a community, are concerned about illegal residency, the bulk of the problem is here, not on boats, but it doesn't make for good video-bites and sound-bites to deport a hundred backpackers.

Historically, we've seen an increase in the numbers of boat people, without a commensurate increase in personnel to assess their claims for refugee status. "In 1998-99, 926 boat people were detained, in 1999-2000, 4174." The number of people in detention rose, and the length of time they were in detention rose as well. Courts were unable to handle the increased demand, and the terrible situations in the detention centres arose. Hunger strikes. Suicides. It became "prudent" to send them offshore. It's cheaper to run a detention centre in Nauru, and it's harder for the Australian media to investigate. The solution was to find more space for the queue, rather than find sufficient capacity to evaluate claims for asylum.

But what's the problem? Why can't we just let them all into the wider community? The problem lies in the notion of government as the ordering force in society. Government has a role to provide the rule of law and security for citizens and residents. They are even given the right to use violence, in the form of the police and the military, to accomplish this. As Max Weber put it, the state is the entity that claims a "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence." So governments want to protect the community from...

...from? Well, from terrorists hiding as refugees, said Wilson Tuckey, Liberal Party MP in 2009. And maybe from ethnic gangs that form in ghettos in the suburbs of Australia. There have certainly been plenty of cases of ethnic violence in Australia, some allegedly caused by Sudanese, some by Serbians and Croatians, some by Anglos. In all cases, this view of government shows that the moral responsibility of government is to impose order.

But what about our moral responsibility to genuine refugees? It doesn't take much googling to see that the situation in countries like Sudan and Afghanistan is terrible. Women living in the DR Congo fear for their safety and her lives. The process to assess asylum claims is required for this situation. People who are in such peril in other countries want to take refuge in safe countries. No one should argue that. Furthermore, a wealthy and peaceful country has the resources available to provide that refuge. The next time you go shopping, look around you at the products on sale. More clothes. More jewellery. More electronics. We have more than enough money in Australia, and yet we spend it on ourselves for things we don't need when there are others who have neither the money nor the opportunity to even have clean water and regular food.

And with that in mind, let's look at the policies from the big three.

The Greens have a policy on immigration and refugees. It has three main points: No mandatory detention, end offshore processing, climate refugee visas. The first one sends a shiver of fear through anyone who thinks that governments should enforce order to protect society. Refugees can disappear into the community, true. In that way they'd become like any other illegal resident, from backpackers to Chinese sweatshop workers who overstay visas. The second point is good. Asylum claims should be reviewed here, with the people here close to services that they need, like medical care and psychological care. The third point is also good, and quite forward thinking. Sea levels are rising (for whatever reason) and there will soon be a number of people who need somewhere else to live.

The Labor Party has, well, nothing on their website. I looked for immigration. I looked for refugee. Only when I looked for asylum did I find some commentary. No policy, just a press release. Let's work from that. They want a regional centre (Timor?), which is another way of saying that it won't be in Australia. Sri Lankans are welcome again, because they improved internal security. I wonder whether there will be such a need for asylum claims from a country that has improved internal security. And not much more than that. A regional centre that assess claims by people fleeing countries with improved internal security and humans rights performance? This is not the action of the strong protecting the weak, it's the strong showing some concern for the average.

And the Liberals? For a start, it's listed under National Security issues, so already we see their approach. The policy is called Restoring Sovereignty and Control to our Borders. Despite its ominous name, the policy focus in on people smuggling with a final point about "a compassionate and fair refugee and humanitarian program" for refugees who "come to Australia through legitimate processes." Although I'm pleased that they've not ignored genuine need, I'm stunned that they think a person in fear of their life will queue up at an Australian embassy to follow "legitimate processes."

Fleeing in fear is just that. People leave homes, possessions, culture, and sometimes family, to preserve themselves. Bellowing "STOP THE BOATS" is a shameful trivialisation of the issue. There are people on those boats, and people should be treated as exactly that, people. If the problem is people smuggling, then say it as it is, and deal with it as people smuggling.

And lastly, perhaps as poetic reminder, another country once sent plenty of boats to this land. Those boats brought soldiers, violent criminals, petty thieves who stole bread for their families, and a whole host of other social problems (alcohol abuse, disease, etc.). By the standards of some Australian political parties, not even the First Fleet would have landed.

Indigenous Policy, Some developments

2010-08-09T09:38:00.001+10:00

I posted last week about the indigenous policies of the Liberals, the Greens and the ALP. The weekend news has had some developments. The Australian has reported,

Under pressure over Labor's lack of progress on its promise to hold a referendum to recognise indigenous people in the Constitution, Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin held talks yesterday with Aboriginal leaders Galarrwuy Yunupingu and Marcia Langton at the Garma festival, near Gove in northeastern Arnhem Land.

The article goes on to show that both Rudd and Howard proposed amendments to the constitution on this issue, but neither saw it through to the end.

I also agree with these comments by Prof. Marcia Langton (from the report).

"She has said nothing about indigenous people. If she has nothing at all to say about indigenous people . . . that will set a very bad tone for the relationship should she win the next election," Professor Langton said.

While it's important for the campaigning to be spread across the relevant ministers and senior figures, it's also important that the candidate for Prime Minister speak across the whole range of policies.

Perhaps the least impressive aspect of this is the return to reliance on community consensus rather than community persuasion. Strategy like this doesn't look like leadership, it looks like vote-winning through focus groups. I'm left wondering what the ALP believes. The members of the ALP aren't ignorant, I'm sure. Jenny Macklin has an honours degree in economics. Kevin Rudd has a first class honours degree in Arts (major in Chinese history). Julia Gillard has degrees in Arts and Law. These are are all people who have the ability to think and argue, but in this campaign I don't yet see it.

Indigenous Policy

2010-08-06T22:12:00.000+10:00

Indigenous quality of life is a great metric for the success of Australia. These are the conquered people of this continent, who previously had sovereignty over the land in a diverse mix of tribes (or nations, depending on your translation). I say conquered because no treaty exists between the British invaders and the conquered tribes. Legally, the Anglo-Australian state recognises citizens regardless of place of birth or colour of skin, and that's a good start, but to think that the Aboriginal peoples are anything but conquered is to forget the violence brought by Europeans in taking the resources of the land.

But suppose that we take the view that we all peacefully co-exist now, and that we are all Australians, and that The Apology has put it all behind us. The sociological group of Australians who live in the worst conditions are the Aboriginal peoples. If the prosperity of society means anything at all, it will be evident in the lives of people in the worst conditions. Middle Australia is doing fine, rest assured. Just look at the rate of ownership of mobile phones. We apparently have "one of the highest rates of mobile phone ownership in the world." A lot of Middle Australian money has contributed to that rate.

But enough from me. Let's look at the major parties' policies on indigenous issues.

The Liberal party doesn't have an explicit policy for it. They've bundled it into a Community policy. That's a good move because it acknowledges the necessity of equality across the community, that everyone should be regarded in the same way. It covers a few areas, including mental health (with a focus on early intervention, hospital beds, youth sites) childcare (child care rebates and child care centres), families (a single-page about what Labor did wrong) and paid parental leave (26 weeks paid). Overall, it makes the assumption that we're all living within reach of hospitals and child care centres. That doesn't bode well for remote communities, where most indigenous people are.

The Greens have a separate policy for indigenous affairs. Although I'd mark it down for being a separate problem, at least it has some explicit words around it. It (like my preamble) pays attention to the prior occupancy and the lack of a treaty, and wants those issues dealt with. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is the demand for implementation of the recommendations of seven reports into indigenous affairs. Money has been spent on research and investigation, and recommendations have been given; so I understand why the Greens want to see some action from all that expenditure. I'm still undecided about some of the points to do with native language education and so on, because it feels as though we should then fund schooling in Mandarin for the Chinese enclaves throughout Australia (for example). The jury is out on that.

And last on my list of Big Three is Labor. They don't have a policy for indigenous affairs, but they have a hot topic, just like the Libs. One key advantage that Labor has over the Liberals is the ability to take action on the issue. Looking at the ALP tags on indigenous affairs shows a lot of activity, from job creation and doctor placement through to sports programs and accommodation for trainees from remote communities. Of course, I read it with some skepticism because it's election time, and this skepticism would be allayed if I had an idea of their policy. Where is the ALP going with all this? Do we just see a series of random "photo opportunities" here, or a clear strategy to improve living conditions for aboriginal people?

This is important for my vote. Our treatment of aborigines is woeful, like the sans papiers in France. This is a "symptomal torsion" as Badiou would say. Fix this problem and along the way we will solve so many other problems.

A regular occurrence

2010-08-04T17:07:00.000+10:00

This article in the Australian about a multiple shooting incident in a US workplace has a subtle remark near the end.

"Many US states have loose gun ownership laws and massacres in public places are a regular occurrence."
Beer warehouse driver shoots 8 co-workers dead | The Australian

If the Australian is right, we have come to expect this violence as regular in the US. It's part of the American landscape, claims this view, for an individual to shoot several random people and then themselves as a means of dealing with some intractable problem.

It makes it sound like it's part of the weather patterns, or the migratory habits of local fauna.

Tax Policies

2010-07-29T13:16:00.000+10:00

This is the time of year when Australians avoid thinking about tax. That's not supposed to happen until late October. But we have an election (yay!) so tax is important again.

It's important because it directs how people behave. Taxes are increased as a disincentive, and deductions are given as an incentive. I'm not impressed about incentives, though. They require individuals to learn about the incentive and find a way to game it. If someone works two jobs, they probably will never find out about it. This is probably an argument for the flat-deduction now available.

But let's look at the Big Three and their policies on tax.

The ALP had a specific policy on tax. It was ambiguous, whereas I want some concrete actions. There was even an odd promise about tax breaks for interest earnings. Brace yourselves for, "a new 50% tax discount for up to $1,000 of interest income from saving deposits held with any bank, building society or credit union, as well as interest on bonds, debentures and annuity products." Calculate how much money you need to have in savings to earn $1000 a year (NAB offers 6%pa on 12-month term deposits, for example) and ask yourself whether you would use that money for savings or for paying off the mortgage. But the "50% tax discount" grabs your attention, doesn't it?

The Liberals had a lengthy PDF about economic principles. Reading this thing (it's 48 pages long, by the way) takes more effort than the ALP and the Greens policies, so there's a lot of detail in there. And most of it is about company tax and business tax. To get the most out of the Liberal policy, start your own business. Maybe you can use the savings from your ALP term deposit.

The Greens have a policy on economics too. It's punchy and numbered, like all their policies. Thankfully it's easy to read. The Greens want to place the burden on consumption and the excessively wealthy, with a mention of a "shift in the tax system from work based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution." This move away from income tax and towards consumption tax sounds great, except for the apparent opposition to the GST, which is a consumption tax. Some more clarity is required, I think.

But none of them seem interested in raising the tax-free threshold. Even the Henry report called for this.

Recommendation 2: Progressivity in the tax and transfer system should be delivered through the personal income tax rates scale and transfer payments. A high tax-free threshold with a constant marginal rate for most people should be introduced to provide greater transparency and simplicity.

Tax cuts, if applied, should be applied from the bottom up and not from the top down. The beneficial effect on low-income earners is more significant in relative terms, and in absolute terms everyone gets the same cut. Furthermore, since the current tax-free threshold is below the poverty line, the very act of taxing low-income earners is taxing the poor further into poverty.

Currently, none of the three political parties explicitly advocate for this, and some of them are actually opposed to it. I'm disappointed yet again (as I was for the last few elections) that this simple idea remains ignored.

Election ignores marginalised: Anglicare

2010-07-28T16:43:00.000+10:00

Time for some election commentary. I like a good election and I have every hope that this could be a good one. So let's start with the most important issue of politics: the marginalised, or the biblical widows and orphans.

"The poor and marginalised will be left out of this year's election debate as leaders focus on middle Australia, the Christian charity Anglicare says.

Recent Australian elections had been fought to 'capture the hearts and minds' of the population's middle 40 per cent, Anglicare Sydney CEO Peter Kell said on wednesday.

'And this election is shaping up to be, unfortunately, no different,' he told reporters in Sydney."
Election ignores marginalised: Anglicare

And there goes my hope for a good election.

If the Anglicare report is correct, then this is a shoddy piece of work by the two major parties, and reflects poorly on the mind of the voter. It shows that people vote through self-interest and not through community-interest. A vote for self-interest asks how the new government will treat my life, my bank balance. A vote for community-interest asks how the new government will treat the community, especially the most vulnerable.

Whereas it's easy to say that the political campaigners are evil and nasty to play the election this way, it's much harder to say that the electorate laps it up. So when you think about your vote, think about how it affects the marginalised, the widows and the orphans.

ABC Portal on Religion and Ethics

2010-07-15T12:54:00.000+10:00

The ABC recently launched a portal for Religion and Ethics and, as should be expected, it's come under fire with the usual line of argument from non-religious people: Why should my taxes pay for religion?

Now I'm in favour of the ABC portal, and not just because it's being edited by someone I know. Here are two reasons why I think it's worthwhile.

First, the portal is about coverage of religious and ethical issues, not the propagation of religion itself. Articles are written both from within and without the religious point of view. Up front is a piece by Rowan Williams as well as the question of whether it is ethical for government to fund religion. Taken individually, both articles advocate a position on religion, but taken together they show a diversity of opinion about a related topic.

From what I know about the editor - a theologian who is critical of church and state equally - and the little I know about the ABC charter, a biased approach to coverage of religion and ethics would just not eventuate. For as long as religion and ethics are part of the life of people in Australia, there should be coverage of it.

And that leads to my second reason to have the portal. The argument that the portal is an abuse of tax dollars looks like this, "My tax dollars pay for X despite my opposition to X." In light of what I've written above, perhaps it should be, "My tax dollars pay for coverage of X despite my opposition to X." If I look at the ABC site, I see coverage of a wide variety of things. Some interest me, some don't. Some excite me, some disgust me. Nonetheless, they are all features of Australian society and the issues they contain should be covered by the national broadcaster. Certainly there will be a threshold of interest (I'm sure there won't be a portal for flower arranging) but for features of significance like sport, children and environment there is enough societal interest to warrant this expenditure. Imagine a person who is opposed to further population of the planet and who thinks we should stop having children. If the argument that "my tax dollars should not be spent on things I oppose" were valid, there would be no 'children' section on the ABC website. Australia has children all over the place, so the ABC has a section for children. Australia has religious activity all over the country, so the ABC has a section for religion.

Campers too Camp for Christian Camp

2010-07-08T12:03:00.000+10:00

On the problem of pluralism and morality, today's story is about a campground run by Christians and a homosexual camping group who tried to make a booking there.

"MARK COLVIN: Can a corporation have religious beliefs? Is there a Christian doctrine against homosexuality? And can a commercial operation be exempt from discrimination laws?

Those are just some of the questions being raised in a discrimination case being brought against a camping group run by the Christian Brethren. It refused to take a booking from a group called Way Out, which was set up to tackle homophobia."
PM - Rejected campers file gay discrimination case 07/07/2010

This will be interesting to watch. From what can be read in the ABC report, most of the right questions will be asked. Admittedly, they'll be from the point of view of civil liberties and not theology, but in a secular system of law with legislation about discrimination, that line of questioning makes a lot of sense. I expect that a key issue will be whether the campsite a business or a religious organisation, and whether it's necessary to enforce that distinction. The second issue will be how religions treat people who intentionally break the moral tenets of that religion. Unfortunately, it might just turn out to be a repeat of previous arguments with nothing new added to the debate.

The problem is about judgements and authority, though. Do the campground owners have authority to refuse service to people who contravene a particular sexual ethic? If they do, I wonder whether they would refuse a booking from the Sweatshop Owners Association (James 5:1-6), or the Debt Collectors Society (Luke 6:30-35). The Christian bible has more to say on both those issues than it does on homosexuality.

Regardless of how the courts decide, the constant association of Christianity with the policing of sexual activity is wearisome.

Universally addressed to the individual

2010-07-05T12:41:00.000+10:00

The gospel is a message of repentance. As Paul puts it in Galatians, it's the call to turn way from a life according to the flesh and to turn towards a life according to the spirit. Especially interesting is that the gospel is also the pathway to the kingdom of God on earth. In short, the gospel calls people to repent and promises to manifest the divine reality.

It operates on two levels, both as the critique of how we currently live and as the vision for how we ought to live. The vision always seems to display a picture that is utopian, a new world in which all problems are solved. The lamb will lay down with the lion, the hungry will be fed, the sick will be made well, etc. These kinds of images give hope to plenty of people that God cares and that God is going to act, and rightly so, but there's a catch. This utopian vision isn't separate from the call to repentance, but is necessarily linked with it. In fact, the call to repentance is the necessary prerequisite to the kingdom.

Perhaps a more clear way of looking at it is to say that the gospel is a call to repentance so that the kingdom of God can be real. All the biblical promises of a new world of peace, etc., are contingent upon the biblical call to repentance. Repent of your former way, live the new way, and you will see the kingdom of God.

Looking at it like this means that the gospel is universally addressed to the individual. That is, the gospel is not addressed to humanity as a whole, but is addressed to every human individual so that all of humanity will live in the divine reality. Ultimately, the response and responsibility is in each individual. No theocracy required. No hierarchy required. Just the single individual obeying the call to repentance.

(This post was brought to you by Kierkegaard and Badiou)

Just Don't Feel That Way, OK?

2010-06-29T12:29:00.000+10:00

Timana Tahu to take racism battle to Human Rights Commission | The Australian: "'Nobody could ever doubt Timana's sincerity in what he did last Friday,' Gallop said. 'He cares deeply about ensuring others don't feel the need to take a similar stance and we are also committed to that.'"

Even though it's old news, the woeful part of this quote is that it refuses to identify Johns' remarks as racist. The actions that the NRL will take are to ensure that people don't "feel the need to take a similar stance" implying that as long as people feel OK with racist comments, the comments can continue. This is the harm principle at work, roughly equivalent to saying that people are free to fire machine guns through a school as long as the bullets don't hit anyone.

A better approach is to make racism the focus for eradication, rather than ensuring that the targets of racism feel good about whatever else happens around them.

Pentecostal Papacy

2010-06-02T12:14:00.000+10:00

Benedict is speaking in tongues and jumping to the jam of the great I AM. w00t!

Not really. It's not that the Bishop of Rome is getting ready to bounce at Planet Shakers, but that the Pentecostals are creating a sprawling denomination. Once upon a time, the Assemblies of God in Australia were a loose confederation of independent churches, banding together out of mutual theology and cooperation. More recently they've become the Australian Christian Churches and seem to be creating a hierarchy within the confederation. Brian and Bobbie now oversee churches in eight countries. They haven't quite cracked the Asian or South American markets yet. Paul and Jo oversee three campuses in Brisbane.[1] James and Samantha oversee churches in Townsville and the Sunshine Coast.

It would be easy (and perhaps cheap) to criticise this trend by asking whether these arrangements give enough time for them to conduct pastoral duties for the whole flock. I'm sure someone has already tried to make the point. But what's more interesting is the semblance of history repeating itself. With the growth of the movement, there is the implementation of bureaucracy and centralised doctrine. In a confederation, the interpretation of Scripture is more difficult because there are others to convince; whereas under a papacy the top voice is unchallenged. All teaching cascades from the holy father (senior pastor) out to the dioceses and parishes (campuses). And a bureaucracy is necessary to support the structure. Attendance counts, budgets, office managers, interns, etc, are all part of the hierarchy and the function of this church.

The Pentecostals, so long in contrast to the older denominations, are now moving down the same path. I wonder if they will implement Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith any time soon.[2] Either way, I can't help but hear the words of Kierkegaard echo down the years.

The established order, however, at that time insisted and always insists on being objective, higher than each and every individual, than subjectivity. The moment when an individual is unwilling to subordinate himself to this established order or indeed even questions its being true, yes, charges it with being untruth, whereas he declares that he himself is in the truth and of the truth, declares that the truth lies specifically in inwardness—then there is the collision. Practice in Christianity

The Danish State Church was the established order of his time, complete with sprawling hierarchy. It stands as a warning to all who are part of large church, whether pentecostal or catholic, that we cannot let the church become the established order, otherwise it has failed to be the church because it "always insists on being objective, higher than each and every individual." Rather, Christianity must be the result of the individual Christians who subordinate themselves to Christ and nothing else.

-
[1] Bless me father, for it has been many years since my last confession, but I confess to being a founding member of Metro. For my sins, I will spend several years in a Baptist congregation.
[2] Your laughter is just a sign that you won't expect it. No one expects the Inquisition.

It's alive!

2010-05-23T21:56:00.000+10:00

Unless you've been living under a rock (or perhaps with your head in the sand) you would have heard about the stunning announcement from the J Craig Venter Institute about the creation of synthetic life. This remarkable, amazing research bears thinking about theologically, and not just ethically.

For a start, it has the potential to threaten the notion that organic matter cannot be created form inorganic matter. Many Christians (and other religious believers, I'm sure) would hold the belief that this was impossible, that life could only be created by the intervention of a creator, and not through chemical processes. But now, since it has been developed in a laboratory, by humans no less, one argument to support the existence of God has less sure footing.

This is good for two reasons. First, it weakens the case for natural theology (clutching at straws, if ever there was a-clutching). There are now fewer arguments to derive God from "evidence" in nature. The argument has been exposed as tenuous. Second, it makes us more aware that the material is all there is. The dualism of the ancient near east has held on for too long, insisting on the heavens as a real place, with complex angelologies and demonologies to accompany it. All of this is a distraction away from being Christian.

Being Christian does not demand an exhaustive metaphysical account of the universe. It demands a daily choice to follow Christ. It is a waste of effort, time, breath and ink to try and use theology to systematise the cosmos. Jesus did not command his disciples to do anything of the sort. His command was to love.

Unfortunately, I anticipate that the everyday Christian (especially the fundies) will find another circular or flawed argument to flail about as an alleged proof of the fallacy of the Venter research. It'll be about as convincing as the "But Darwin's theory is just a theory, not a fact" argument that still floats about. And once again, it will distract us all from being Christians.

Papal Penance

2010-05-19T12:45:00.001+10:00

Further to my previous post on the pope's latest comments, read this article at The Drum.

ABC The Drum - Bravo, Benedict, bravo! On the finally penitent pope

(yes, I know... it's another Scott Stephens piece)

Catholic Confession

2010-05-12T12:40:00.000+10:00

'The greatest persecution of the church doesn't come from enemies on the outside but is born from the sins within the church,' Benedict told journalists travelling with him to Portugal. 'The church needs to profoundly relearn penitence, accept purification, learn forgiveness but also justice.'
Pope Benedict silences child abuse conspiracy theorists on Portugal visit | World news | The Guardian

Two things delight me about this move by Benedict. First, he demands that the church take responsibility for its own sins. There are critics all over the world, and mostly outside the church, who have pointed out the evils of church institutions, but this is a rare moment that a leader of the church does the same thing. Regardless of denomination, this is an important call.

Second, the call is the same as some of the earliest sayings of Jesus, "Repent, for the kingdom of God is near." It's a call to change, to turn away from evil because God's justice is near. And I don't mean that in the sense of a Final Judgement, but in the sense that the act of turning away from evil is the first step to the manifestation of God's justice. Turning from evil opens the way to forgiveness between people and to love between people. Forgiveness and love, not reward and punishment, is God's justice.

Henry Review of Tax

2010-05-05T08:17:00.000+10:00

This week's bland news for Australia is the Henry report into tax reform. Overall, it will have little immediate difference to Australia since most recommendations won't come into effect, and of those that do, it will be quite some time before they do.

Most attention has been given to the mining super-profits tax. I understand the policy that the resources are public assets and the people should get benefit from them, but I'm sure the shareholders won't care. Now we can watch the fight between big business and big government. Of course, taken to its conclusion, the resources are the public assets of the people who live in that region, not just in that nation. If a mine near Mt Isa earns enough to pay this tax, perhaps the money should go to the city of Mt Isa.

More important are the host of changes that are smaller and probably won't be enacted. I think especially of this recommendation:

The Henry Review also recommends that the tax-free threshold for personal income tax be raised to $25,000 and that there should be a simple, transparent two-step tax scale, with 97 per cent of the population paying 35 per cent. After five months of reading and discussion, surely the Government could have formed a view about that. Well, actually they obviously have formed a view - that it's too hard and they should just shut up about it.
Tax reform more like a Robin Hood shuffle - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The tax-free threshold has been too low for too long. It hasn't risen with inflation at all. Raising the threshold is a tax cut that has the biggest relative benefit for the lowest earners, and the same absolute benefit for everyone. It's absurd that poverty level of income (single income, family of four) is just below $30,000 per year, but that we tax low income nonetheless. It's immoral to tax the poor back into poverty.

If only one recommendation was accepted, it should have been this one: raise the tax-free threshold.

Biblical Texts (again)

2010-04-28T09:09:00.000+10:00

My thoughts on the nature and authority of biblical texts continue to develop over time. The last post about this was a retreat into ambiguity, I think. Although I still think that it's important to elevate the involvement of the human author, I think there is still something to be gained by classifying the texts.

Kierkegaard moved in this direction when he insisted that we should take any text from the New Testament and just do it. As far as he was concerned, any New Testament command must be obeyed. It had the status of unquestionable authority. As has been pointed out elsewhere, he didn't give the Old Testament this kind of lofty status.

While I won't go so far as to advocate for the inerrancy of the New Testament, I'm happy to leave those texts as canonical for Christianity. That makes it the core of the Christian scriptures. And as for the Old Testament? I like to think of it as apocryphal. I don't quite take the approach of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglicans though:

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine;

Rather, I think the apocryphal works are the texts of the situation of the Christian Event. They describe the ideology, philosophy and theology of the time but are not the foundation of Christianity.

I think they're still worth reading, but only as situational documents. There's much better reading with the Christian Scriptures, and much more that can be followed.

What morality looks like

2010-04-22T09:51:00.000+10:00

The court case which arose from the inquest into the death of Diane Brimble has closed, and the defendant has been found not guilty of the charges. The article in the Sydney Morning Herald takes a look at the situation, and compares the verdict and the public interest in the court proceedings against the public interest in the inquest. Our moral outrage, it seems, is confined to inquests and not court cases.

More important than commentary about the state of public opinion is the overall point of the article; that is, the court case was about legal responsibility between people but could not be about moral responsibility between people. From the article by Geesche Jacobsen:

"Despite the inquest's approach, the case was not about moral responsibility, about what ought to have been done. And ''bad, loutish or maybe even insensitive behaviour'' as Justice Howie called it, is no crime.

Should she have been photographed during sex?

Should she have been kicked off the bed?

Should she have been left lying on the floor, having defecated?

Should people - young men and four young women from another cabin - have laughed about her, even looked at her, and done nothing?"
Dianne Brimble saga ends with lives still to heal

Jacobsen highlights that the prosecution's case was only about legal responsibility.

There was no general duty to help a stranger in distress, however unusual that seemed, Justice Howie told the jury after the prosecution acknowledged in the final days of the trial it could not prove Wilhelm had had a duty of care towards Brimble. No legal duty.

Although there was no legal duty of care, I share Jacobsen's dismay that no one helped a person in need. I also share this sentiment from Scott Stephens[1] that we no longer recognise what morality looks like.

By failing to pursue the critique of religion into the sanctuary of global capitalism itself, by reducing discussion of morality to well-being and personal security, and by neglecting to advocate some alternate form of virtuous community, they end up supplying the pathologies of capitalism with a veneer of rationality.
Hillsong for the unbelievers

If morality is reduced to "well-being and personal security" such that there is no moral duty between people, then we are in need, more than ever, of the gospel. It's a poor reflection on human nature that we have taken the ideas of personal choice and individuality beyond the realm of community responsibility. An individual is free to choose, and will experience the consequences of those choices, but if those choices lead that person into trouble then the gospel insists that the strong help the weak.

In the parable of the Samaritan, the traveller chose to journey along the road and the consequence was severe assault and theft. The priest and Levite did not help, but the Samaritan did. Now, which of these fulfilled their legal responsibilities? All of them. And which of them embodied the gospel? The Samaritan.

We've are too comfortable with the notion of personal choice and personal responsibility, to the extent that we feel we can abandon compassion. This is woeful, and the gospel calls us to live better than that. The gospel tells us to look after the people around us, to take care of the stranger in need, to be good neighbours to all.

-
[1] Yes, I know I refer to him often. He's usually right about things like this.

Forgiveness and Penal-substitution

2010-04-21T12:32:00.000+10:00

Lately I've been thinking about forgiveness and the penal-substitutionary explanation for Jesus' crucifixion (yes, even before AUFS brought it up, despite my delay in writing). I think, perhaps quite simply, that forgiveness itself is enough obstacle to oppose the idea of substitutionary punishment.

Forgiveness is, after all, an act of the will that leads to reconciliation. Suppose two people argue and hurt each other, when they forgive each other they are reconciled. No one needs to be punished. Furthermore, during Jesus' ministry there doesn't appear to be any obstacle to Jesus just simply forgiving people. He said it to the lame man in Matthew 9.

Now, you might argue that Jesus can do this because he's divine, and we can't because we're not. But even a little later (Matt 18) Jesus commands his followers to forgive others. So if the authority to forgive is freely given, what is the point of a substitutionary punishment?

It's a simple thought, I concede, but is enough to cause a problem with the doctrine of penal-substitution.

Atheism stumbles over Easter

2010-04-15T13:07:00.000+10:00

I'm happy to be reading again, along with a little "Blogger" button that let's me just grab the page I'm reading and start commenting. Ain't technology grand?

Courtesy of Online Opinion comes this opinion piece. Atheism repels feeble Easter attacks - On Line Opinion - 15/4/2010. It's the usual atheist approach to religion, beginning with the scientistic declaration of the primacy of positive evidence over the absence of evidence.

Atheists simply accept that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural—no more, no less. There is no element of indoctrinated belief about atheism. Atheism is founded on the concept of evidence.

Supposing this is true, then I imagine that I'm an atheist. A declaration of "Jesus is lord" is the central declaration of Christianity, marking the claim by the believer that they acknowledge the lordship of Jesus. There is credible historical evidence that Jesus the Jewish Peasant lived in second century Israel, teaching and gathering followers. However, when the follower declares that "Jesus is lord" this is a statement of faith, a statement of devotion. This kind of statement doesn't even require a supernatural being to be involved. What it does require is discipline by the Christian; discipline to learn, understand and obey Jesus' teaching.

Whereas "Atheism is founded on the concept of evidence" faith is founded on the concept of conviction and fidelity. The believer encounters a truth that redefines their world, and goes on to live in fidelity to that truth. This kind of truth is not in the same language game as facts and evidence, making a scientific assessment of an individual truth difficult. The closest we have so far is something like Badiou's ontological theory of the Event. Even this, however, insists that truth does not arise from the systematised facts of the situation, but that it cannot be named or accounted by that situation. The desperate search for the facts of a truth is a waste of time because it is impossible.

I'll give the author some credit for this gem, though.

Religious leaders have never encouraged their congregations to use their brains throughout history, and this situation has not improved in modern times.

Mostly true! This is a double-edged sword, though. On one side, few religious leaders (especially contemporary pentecostal Christian ones) encourage intellectual engagement with the Bible, preferring them to read short, disconnected snippets of the text. The broader themes and intra-biblical dialogue is lost this way, resulting in some wild and crazy theologies. On the other side of the sword is the necessary property of the gospel: it is universally addressed. It's not a message exclusive to the intellectual, or exclusive to the working class. As a universally addressed truth, it ignores those distinctions and presents itself equally to all.

Again, an atheist has come to religion with the hammer of science; seeing everything as a nail. Despite the clumsiness of their approach, they still have valid critique of religion in general (and often Christianity in particular) that the Christian must address.

More AC Grayling Critique

2010-04-14T22:44:00.000+10:00

I confess that I wrote my previous piece on AC Grayling before I'd heard the whole talk. That was a mistake. It so happens that I found two more points to object to, so perhaps I should have waited and bundled it all together. Nevertheless, let's continue with objection 4.

Remember that Grayling identified that science can help religion, but religion can't help science because religion has nothing useful to say about the Higgs boson? This, apparently, was enough justification to discredit religion; that is, if religion cannot contribute to a single area of science, it is useless. Now let's find out what Grayling has to say about how science gives answers to questions of

those matters of the heart and mind of human beings which concern them most—questions about love and their relationships and their response to beauty. And the answer is no, they don't because that's not what science is about.

You know if you said to the botanist who is examining some dicotyledon somewhere what is the meaning of life, or how should I best love my wife or something, the botanist should properly say well, just let me put my botany to one side and respond to you as another human being. But to think that the natural sciences are somehow going to answer everything would be to be scientistic, and no responsible scientist is scientistic, no responsible scientist thinks that science is going to have all the answers and that is why we have such a rich resource in the arts, in music, in drama, in the novel, in philosophy, in history, in the conversation we have with one another at that dinner party that Mr Hitchens is talking about when the possibilities for these things arise.
Religion and Science, Part 2 of 2

It seems that Grayling has double standards. Religion is flawed because it doesn't provide a complete overlap with science, but science is not flawed when it doesn't provide a complete overlap with the arts.

And lastly (again, I know) Grayling asserts that of all the oppression in the world, the oppression caused by religion should be removed promptly. Again I quote.

It's certainly true that most of our fellow human beings today as throughout history have been impoverished and oppressed in ways that make it very difficult for them even to have a chance to address these questions. A long time ago again Aristotle said the possibility of good lives for people does involve an element of luck: where you were born, when you were born, in what circumstances, whether your family has wealth, whether you can have an education. And it behoves us all I think, as being sensitive to the plight of our fellow human beings around the world, that we should strive to ensure that they do have the chance to think in these terms about what would make a good life, rather than mere survival.

Now of course one of the things that we would have to do is to reduce the oppressive effect of religions on them.
Religion and Science, Part 2 of 2

I contend, however, that to isolate religion here is scapegoating more than it is a solution to the problem. A larger problem is the oppression of capitalism and greed. Multitudes are still enslaved today through the capitalist structures that create Asian sweatshops and the slave camps of Dubai. It isn't religion that led to this, but the love of money. Grayling is right to say that we should work together to remove oppression, but he's wrong to isolate religion and put it at the top of his list.

With these extra two objections, I have to say that my disappointment is bigger than it was before.

A.C. Grayling at the Atheist Convention

2010-04-14T08:26:00.001+10:00

I was listening to selections from a talk by A.C. Grayling, given at the recent Global Atheist Convention. Based on the introduction, I'd hoped for some robust argument to provoke some discussion. To be honest, I was disappointed. Here are just three parts of his talk that I take issue with.

In the discussion of "science and religion" he posed the question about what each could offer the other. His answer was that science can help study the phenomena of religion, whereas religion can't help understand the Higgs boson. Not only has he presented this only from a scientific viewpoint, but he's been quite selective about his areas of interest. Should we instead be asking about how religion can contribute to discussions in the philosophy of science, or the social dimensions of science? While I'll be at the front of the line to argue that science and religion are incapable of contributing to each other in all areas, it was oddly dismissive of Grayling to target only the asymmetry between the two.

Going further, in his critique of religion, he bundles all religions together in order to build a picture of religion in general. Christianity, Islam, Roman religion... all with their own nuances that distinguish one from another, and with dialogue inside each one, but selectively lumped together as RELIGION for his own purposes. It's precisely the same technique as the woeful selection of proof texts used by the likes of the Westboro Baptist Church, harnessed only to support a preconceived notion.

Lastly, his analysis of the common ancestor of science and religion was a cheap shot. Ignorance, he proclaimed, was the common ancestor of the two and there has been a parallel evolution of science and religion ever since, in just the same way as from a common ancestor came Cro Magnon man ("Us," he said) and Neanderthal ("and them," he said). The invocation of "us and them" is a sorry indictment, and perhaps the genuine self-disclosed exposure of the talk. Just as he grouped the Nuremberg rallies with the skilled rhetoric in a megachurch, he himself uses the same techniques in order to appease and enthuse his audience.

I'd hoped for a reasonable talk, but didn't get it. Instead I heard biased argument from someone claiming to pursue a scientific method of inquiry. I'll leave this with some words from Scott Stephens, in his more lengthy review of the convention.

But the GAC was a different matter entirely. As was observed by several of the speakers at the Convention — Phillip Adams and Tamas Pataki being the most courageous - that initial sense of moral outrage seems to have been traded for satire, and the commendable desire to argue for the superiority of atheism over every rival outlook has devolved into self-indulgent bravado.

This style of atheism lacks the appropriate seriousness, and so ends up pandering to the fashionable cynicism and ethical disengagement that dominates Western societies.

Paraphrasing Dietrich Bonhoeffer's description of German Protestantism in the 1930s, the upshot of such atheism in our time is to make people feel better, or at least more smug, about their morally bankrupt lives.

Consequently, the GAC will prove to have been little more than a Hillsong for the irreligious - which is to say, an orgy of self-congratulation presided over by egotistic pseudo-celebrities.

To put it in a nutshell: the fundamental problem with the type of atheism on display at the Convention is that it is a conceit that perfectly suits our times by providing morally indefensible lives with an alibi, a kind of rational overlay.
Hillsong for Unbelievers, Scott Stephens

Edit: See also some comments from Margaret Coffey about the Global Atheist Convention. She shares similar disappointment about the actual content of the GAC. See, for example:
It seemed inside that group think prevailed, in the collective responses to quips, characterisations, and comic routines, in the apparent imperviousness to chauvinism, ignorance and simplicities on stage, and in the absence of critical questioning of speakers. I am still astonished that no-one challenged John Perkins’ depiction of Islam, that no one picked up on Richard Dawkins’ shift from naked ‘mental money’ to ‘gratitude’ still vested in all its cultural (including religious) clothing, that no-one responded to Peter Singer’s dull flattening out of Jesus’ ‘turn the other cheek’ remark, that no-one remarked the focus on Christianity and the figure of Jesus, the strenuous and mocking rejection of ‘the tragic vision’.

What do we preach?

2010-04-12T16:32:00.000+10:00

The proclamation of the gospel has, for far too long, felt like a sales pitch. First, convince the customer (unbeliever) that they have a need that they didn't know about. Second, provide the customer with a potential solution. Third, get the customer to take action. This is the basic structure of the "all have fallen short of the glory of God, including you, and need Jesus to get out of it, so believe!"

But does Christ need a groundwork of sin-awareness before we can preach Christ? Not according to van Driel.

Against those who would defend some version of felix culpa (and here van Driel names Schleiermacher, Gregory, Milton and Barth), Incarnation Anyway challenges Supralapsarians to ‘explore the meaning of the incarnation, the presence of God among us, as an excellent good in and of itself, and not take refuge in a doctrine of sin to beef up incarnation’s meaning. We do not need the bad to enjoy Christ’ (p. 131). Again: ‘we do not have to preach sin before we can preach Christ; we can preach Christ as the offer of love and friendship with God; and it is thereafter, in the light of that offer of friendship and love, that human beings discover themselves as sinners’ (p. 166).
Incarnation Anyway: Arguments for Supralapsarian Christology: A Review � P e r ∙ C r u c e m ∙ a d ∙ L u c e m

Although this is not enough argument by itself, it should serve as a caution not to burden the gospel proclamation with unnecessary baggage.

Christianity and politics

2010-04-12T15:33:00.000+10:00

We have an election here in Australia later this year, and although most of you aren't thinking about it yet, the idea of what it means to vote as a Christian is worth thinking about.

"My own view is that, in respect of the “Big Four” political issues - war and peace, the just distribution of wealth, human rights, the environment - orthodox Christian teaching supports a generally “left-wing” policy prescription. Conversely, in respect of a raft of vitally important social phenomena - sexual mores, marriage, drug-use, gambling, pornography, sanctity of life questions, to mention just a few - the Christian position is decidedly conservative."

On yet other issues, such as crime and punishment and censorship, Christian teaching is impossible to categorise in worldly terms.

Further, even the apparently clear-cut issues have a Christian twist. For instance, the Bible unquestionably takes the side of the poor over the rich, and posits charity as one of the greatest human virtues. But it also encourages thrift, self-reliance and obedience to (secular) law.

Most importantly, while Jesus’ sympathies were fiercely egalitarian, he was not a social reformer. His primary emphasis was upon individual salvation.

With all these considerations in mind, the great English theologian C.S. Lewis once observed that a fully Christian society would thrill almost no one. “Each of us,” he wrote, “would like some of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing”.

Tellingly, and wisely, Lewis added: “That is just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have all departed from that total plan in different ways.”

Ultimately, the best that each of us can do is to try to obey the dictates of conscience.

The ugliest feature of modern politics in Australia is that our mainstream politicians are discouraged from following their conscience (Christian or otherwise) when voting in parliament. Not to toe the party line on a given issue is to risk ridicule, ostracism, demotion - even expulsion.
Christianity and politics: a problematic mix - On Line Opinion - 1/3/2010

Get ready for the campaign.

Zizek reviews Avatar in New Statesman

2010-03-10T12:00:00.002+10:00

As always, Zizek turns his attention to a blockbuster to turn it inside out. His key critique is not so much about the film (but he certainly gives his opinion) but about the film and its audience.

"So where is Cameron's film here? Nowhere: in Orissa, there are no noble princesses waiting for white heroes to seduce them and help their people, just the Maoists organising the starving farmers. The film enables us to practise a typical ideological division: sympathising with the idealised aborigines while rejecting their actual struggle. The same people who enjoy the film and admire its aboriginal rebels would in all probability turn away in horror from the Naxalites, dismissing them as murderous terrorists. The true avatar is thus Avatar itself - the film substituting for reality." - Slavoj Zizek, New Statesman - Return of the natives

The problem is not how the film portrays the conflict between the industrialised colonisers and the native tree-huggers. Rather, the problem is that it fantasises the conflict confining it to the screen so that we can ignore it in the actual world around us.

Is he correct? In a way, he is. The film hasn't been followed by mass political action that supports the violent defense of ancestral lands. If everyone who "loved the movie" did so, our news headlines would have much different content. So it's an easy step to conclude that the problem is in the audience. We just aren't stirred enough, and we say, "It's just a movie."

Alternatively, suppose that James Cameron intended to stir political action of this kind. How would we see that evinced in the actual world? Would Cameron and the studios divert the profits to supporting the Naxalites? Possibly. But if the evidence of the intent is in the act that follows, Avatar-the-political-film is a failure, and Avatar-the-entertainment-for-cash is a success.

What's marriage really got to do with commitment

2010-03-08T12:23:00.001+10:00

An interesting op-ed piece about marriage and the state.

But I say, let them have it. That is, the churches can have marriage because I don't want it. Let them not recognise divorce. Have them suggest that only virgins should wear white. Allow them to marry only those whom attend their churches regularly - and not just for the last few months. Lend them their airs and lend them their graces.

But don't let the state have at it. Our private sexual relationships are none of the Parliament's or executive government's concern. The state should not be telling me or you that my or your relationship is less legitimate than another. Nor should it be paying any attention to my or your sexual relationships. Ever. And if you do believe that marriage is about love then why on earth is the state dealing in love? What's marriage really got to do with commitment - On Line Opinion - 26/2/2010

I like this approach because it sanctifies marriage as a religious activity over and above a legal activity. It makes the assumption that both parties are religious and intend to honour the lifelong commitment. What I don't like about it is the lack of legal protections associated with such intimate living. Suppose one partner walks away from the faith and no longer commits to the marriage. Although divorce is ugly, it happens to about half of marriages. Any couple that intermingles finances (from petty cash to life insurance) needs independent arbitration to disentangle all of that. Although I'm happy for marriage to remain a religious rite, the high rate of divorce indicates that some pragmatic approach be taken to help manage the arbitration process.

Ontology of the boudoir

2010-02-27T23:19:00.001+10:00

Ontology of the boudoir
Just go and read it, because "Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions."
And now I wonder if, because this blog exists, there is porn of it. :)

Apocalyptic action

2010-02-27T23:16:00.000+10:00

Halden's live-blogging of two Harink lectures on Peter let to this interesting quote.

Because of Christ’s transfiguration, we are called, not to passivity, but to radical apocalyptic action, which, in summary means to subject all our actions to the lens of Christ’s own agape, the radical love that gives itself away for others, even to death. - Apocalyptic action – Inhabitatio Dei

The genius of this is that, once again, we can see that Christianity is not about pie in the sky when you die, but must be focused on the here and now. The sooner we get rid of the phrase, "get into heaven" the better we'll all be.

Enemies of the Faith

2010-02-27T23:12:00.000+10:00

Four easy steps to conservatism. Thanks Roland!
Enemies of the Faith – the Radical Orthodox and Red Tory Version

Barth on the Christological centre of the Old and New Testaments

2010-02-27T23:10:00.000+10:00

I just read this quote from Barth. It seems that I have more in common with him than I previously thought.

Narrative and Ontology: Barth on the Christological centre of the Old and New Testaments

Velvet Elvis, Movement Two: Yoke

2010-02-27T22:38:00.000+10:00

This chapter concentrates on the problem of the authority and reliability of the Bible. Simply put, the problem is that the Bible was written by people, and was assembled into a canon by synod vote much later than the events described in the texts, and yet it is considered to be the authoritative Word of God. This kind of construction leads to a Bible that is neither complete nor self-consistent, and that treating it as absolute will cause problems. What, then, does Bell have to say about this?

He begins, as always, with a story. This story takes the form of a love story, in which he did not set out to love the thing he encountered (preaching the Bible) but once he'd been on a first date (his first sermon) he couldn't tear himself away. It became his lifelong passion. However, he quickly points out that the Bible is a difficult book, and is consequently misused by well-meaning Christians. Typical problems are misquoting a verse in isolation, using selections as proof-texts to justify evil, and so on. Other problems arise from the inconsistencies between the character of Jesus and the character of the vengeful God of the Old Testament.

Bell's solution to this problem is twofold. First, the Bible should be read and interpreted using Jesus' reference to Scriptures as a touchstone. In other words, we should use the Old Testament as Jesus used it. Second, the Bible must be interpreted rather than read at face value, and we should trust authoritative figures to approve interpretations. He argues for this by citing a rabbinic tradition that one rabbi would derive authority from the rabbi who taught them, each one pursuing a hermeneutic purity.

The rabbi was driven by a desire to get as close as possible to what God originally intended in the command at hand. (47)

Jesus is incorporated into this rabbinic tradition by the authority of his own teaching, and also because he came to fulfill the law rather than abolish it. Jesus' life shows "what it looks like when the Torah is lived out perfectly, right down to the smallest punctuation marks." (48)

This rabbinic tradition has continued from Jesus to the disciples and onwards, allowing Christians today to make new interpretations of Scriptures. This ought to produce an "endless process of deciding what it means to actually live the Scriptures" (50), from the Jerusalem Council onwards. Christians are expected to acknowledge that the canon is God's Word without confining themselves to sola scriptura. This acknowledgement should lead to "wrestling" with the text, just as Jacob wrestled with Yahweh. It should be a struggle, and leave the Christian with a limp as a sign of the struggle.

Reflections
Bell gets top marks here for pushing the case that Christians should interpret the Bible and not have some naive view that it can be read at face value. I couldn't agree more, and I'd like to see this turn into genuine and thoughtful engagement with the Bible. Caught up in this approach, however, is the danger of heterodoxy and the sectarian squabbles likely to ensue. The usual Church structures shudder at the thought of allowing (encouraging!) people to disagree with the pastor. Ultimately, Bell can do no more than let people interpret, but within the bounds of canon. Swim between the flags, people.

I've long been skeptical of the origins of canon, and the origins of texts. Although I like that Bell brings up the human origins of the texts, I'm not convinced that the vote at Hippo was entirely about marking the truth as it was about suppressing broadening heterodoxy. This idea that the vote was somehow divinely-inspired seems flawed, leaving out the insight available from other Christian thinkers of the first few centuries. Bell also performs his usual acrobatics in this chapter, alternating between "written by Man" and "God spoke" without ever resolving it. We're left with the feeling that he regards both statements as true or identical, rather than allowing them to be complementary or differentiating.

So his answer is interpretation that gets us as close as possible to what God intended. This kind of interpretation comes, not from peers, but from rabbis. Bell's model of authority is inherited, and seems a little like the Greek idea that the older generations were closer to the gods and were therefore closer to divine wisdom. Or perhaps he advocates an Hegelian approach, in which we will eventually synthesise our way to divine truth. This is a step in the right direction, but I don't think he takes it far enough. If we combine his ideas of heterodoxy, discussion and a Christological hermeneutic, I think we find our way to authentically lived Christian theology. Rather than trying to inherit a sense of "what God intended" from the rabbis, the discussion should be grounded in Christ. That is, after all, the key identifier of the Christian.

Christ as the definition, not the exemplar. This puts paid to the idea that Jesus was the only one to perfectly and completely obey Torah. The problem of "fulfill, not abolish" isn't resolved by a Jesus who obeyed every clause of Torah, but by the definition of a positive law, rather than a negative law. Yes, this is Badiou through and through, but more importantly it's how the problem was resolved by both Jesus and Paul. Jesus' "perfection" is not "full ethical compliance" but an inversion of a flawed and incomplete negative. Once again, Bell posits Jesus as an extension of Torah and the laws of the cosmos, rather than an interruption to nature. If Christ is foundational at all, then Torah should be read in light of Jesus, rather than the other way around. Bell grasps at this, but by this stage of the book is yet to completely commit to the idea.

Yes Minister meets Alice in Wonderland

2010-02-23T16:32:00.000+10:00

This is a little interruption from the Velvet Elvis event. Time is ever so fluid in the blogosphere.

Midway through last year I was head-hunted by the federal Department of Health and Ageing to write speeches for their ministers - a surprise as I had no experience or qualifications. As far as the department was aware, my limited skills were derived from reviewing video games for The Canberra Times. - Myles Peterson, Yes Minister meets Alice in Wonderland

Worth the read. This is written after Peterson had left the department and is a litany of woes about writing speeches for government.

Velvet Elvis, Movement One: Jump

2010-02-22T13:41:00.002+10:00

This first chapter (Movement One: Jump) revolves around a metaphor, as do most of Bell's encyclicals. In this case the metaphor is jumping on a trampoline. The act of jumping represents (Christian) life, and the springs of the trampoline represent (Christian) doctrine. Jumping is the actual living, but the springs assist the jumping. Furthermore, the springs are flexible so as to allow exploration, discussion and change. Bell returns to this metaphor throughout the chapter, but it is largely unchanged as he goes.

Writing to a Christian audience, Bell brings out familiar material to start this chapter. First, he asserts that there is more to life than the daily grind of working, sleeping and eating.

What is fascinating to me is that at the center of the Christian faith is the assumption that this life isn't all there is. That there is more to life than the material. That existence is not limited to what we can see, touch, measure, taste, hear, and observe. One of the central assertions of the Christian worldview is that there is "more". (19)

Secondly, he puts forward that every human is ultimately following in the footsteps of someone else (parents, teachers, etc.), and that this is the basic framework of an individual's worldview. "Everybody follows somebody." (19) Specifically, the Christian follows Jesus Christ, with three particular characteristics. The Christian follows what Jesus taught, the Christian thinks that this is the best possible way to live, and that this way puts the Christian in touch with the "ultimate reality"of the universe.

You find yourself living more and more in tune with ultimate reality. You are more and more in sync with how the universe is at its deepest levels. (21)

This kind of life Jesus was living perfectly and completely in connection and cooperation with God, is the best possible way for a person to live. It is how things are. (21)

Being a Christian is a kind of flourishing, in which the Christian engages with the universe itself, becoming part of how the universe was always intended to operate.

Returning to the metaphor of the trampoline, Bell attempts to make doctrines less intimidating. As the springs of the trampoline, doctrines help to live the life, but they aren't the life itself. They aren't, however, a complete and accurate picture of God. God is utterly transcendent and incapable of textual embodiment. For Bell, any doctrine that claims to completely describe God is a false doctrine.

The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up. (25)

This kind of doctrinal certainty is, in Bell's extended metaphor, like brickwork. It's inflexible and divides the insiders from the outsiders. With reference to the gospel tradition of inversion, he points out that Jesus reversed the positions of insiders and outsiders, the pharisees and the sinners. Those who define the brick-doctrines are the self-proclaimed insiders who exclude those who don't understand or agree. The inflexible nature of brick-doctrines is responsible for this.

The flexibility of the springs is necessary, he argues, for people to ask questions about God. Although he cites a long list of questions, they're all the same basic question about the problem of evil. That is, if God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does evil exist? Bell doesn't engage with the question, instead indicating that the reader should do that for themselves, perhaps fruitlessly. It's entirely possible that there is no answer for this, but the correct response is not to give up on God, but to live with the mystery. And mystery, when revealed, will lead to other mysteries. What's important is that the Christian continue to jump, to live the Christian life.

And jumping is joyful. Bell closes the chapter by finishing his story about being on a trampoline with his son. He had fun on the trampoline with his son, and thanked God for it. This, then, is the whole point of the Christian life.

The point is our joy. That is when God is most pleased. (35)

Reflections
Overall, this chapter could be summarised as, "Follow, obey, enjoy, ask questions if you must, expect no answers." Its reminiscent of a story about Pascal who advised, "Kneel down, move your lips in prayer, and you will believe!" with the added condition that "you will enjoy!" This is ideology at its strongest, as a little trip through Louis Althusser's theory will show.

Surprisingly, both Althusser and Bell agree that everyone is following someone, although Althusser might phrase it as "always-already in ideology" but that's a minor point. Ideology is inescapable, but that's no reason to let a particular ideology dominate the individual. The integration of ideology and institution is perhaps the most destructive of them all, resulting in a mediated belief system. This is the object of Kierkegaard's attack against the Danish state church in The Book on Adler. Christian truth is universally addressed, and not mediated through any institution. The only way to prevent this is to ensure that the individual is actively engaged with that truth, including having the tools and techniques required for this. Christian education (that is, theological education in content and technique) is necessary.

Whereas the potential for a Christianity mediated through the institution of the Church is the lesser of the two critiques, the more troubling part of Bell's view is the insistence on joy for the individual. That sounds like I'm just being a grumpy old bugger, that I think joy is irrelevant. Let me be clear, though, that I'm not kicking joy out but I want it to be in the right place. Joy is good, but the idea that "God is most pleased" when we feel joy gives Christianity an Epicurean spin that it shouldn't have. It seems to me that the Christian life should be marked by a pursuit of showing love, and joy should be consequential.

This brings us back to the start of the chapter, in which Bell says that being Christian puts the individual in touch with the deepest workings of the universe, a universe that God has created and which is disconnected from humanity except through God. Conversely, I see that the universe is a cold, hard place in which natural forces reign - including the self-interest of survival. Natural behaviour is self-interested, whereas Christian behaviour is not. Christian behaviour is love, and that's not self-interested. What this means is that following Jesus and obeying his teachings actually puts the Christian in opposition to the natural forces of the universe. Christianity is an interruption to natural desires and drives, not a complement to them.

If there is anything that should be taken away from this chapter, it's the sense that this is encouragement for the doubting Christian. It should be encouragement to persevere in the Christian life, despite the presence of evil. It should be encouragement to question doctrine and theology, and not simply swallow what comes from the pulpit. Eventually, the end should be Christians who have thought about, prayed about, and researched about the hard questions of faith and found answers.

Velvet Elvis, Introduction

2010-02-17T16:29:00.006+10:00

For whatever reason, I've been given a copy of Velvet Elvis to read. I haven't read anything like this for a while, probably not for eight years or so. I thought I'd write some notes about it as I go.

Introduction

Right from the beginning, the first thing to note about the book is that it's written in the same tone that the author speaks. It's a series of short paragraphs, interspersed with single sentences, or even single words. The pauses in the text are deliberate and paced. If you've ever heard Bell speak, or seen one of his nooma videos, then you get the idea. Or rather, you get

the

idea.

In his introduction, he draws a parallel between theology and art, identifying that in the same way that artists draw inspiration from each other in order to pursue their own artistic endeavours, so too must Christians with doctrines. No doctrine is the final word, just as no art is the final word. In other words, he identifies himself with the Reformed tradition (or "reforming" as he puts it). Perhaps his most interesting statement in this assertion is

Times change. God doesn't, but times do. (11)

Around this axiom he builds an argument to bring an unchanging God into contact with culture. This is an interpretive encounter, an interpretive instruction, as though Christianity is the result of viewing an absolute God through the lens of a changing culture. Christianity will always change, but the reason for a changing Christianity is not a changing God, it's a changing culture, and Christianity remains valid as long as attention is on God.

Reflections

I began the summary with comments about style, so style will be first here as well. Although the general understanding of a Velvet Elvis is as the quintessential kitsch, Bell attempts to redefine his association with it and I'm not sure he succeeds. We're left with an image of his book as an attempt at art, rather than actual art; or rather, an attempt at theology, rather than actual theology. The book appears to be toying with the notions of the problem of evil, the heterodoxy of the Church, and other familiar themes of theology but without the substance. Bell is painting on velvet, and the result - despite any actual skill he has - is cheapened a little. It feels like the difference between authentic aboriginal art, and the aboriginal art found in a tourist souvenir shop. The ideas are there (check the endnotes to see glimpses at his sources), but it's not satisfying.

This is most evident in the broken paragraphs and the streams of questions. It's a style that seems to have more in common with books of aphorisms, koans and proverbs. The reader might be in a better position to think of Bell, not as a teacher or a writer, but as a guru, a wise man, or a mentor. Velvet Elvis, at its worst, is clever wordplay that sounds thoughtful. At its best, it's a trigger for thoughtful reflection by the reader. Throughout the book it will do both, but with more of the clever wordplay.

Bell is softly bringing his audience around to questions of interpretation, and perhaps towards postmodernity. Although he won't go so far as pluralism or relativism, he wants to step out of the confines of tradition by making some wiggle room for opinion and culture. Such a move views culture as neutral, not as ideology. It allows the values of contemporary society to take the role of lens, or perhaps coloured glass, without accounting for the distortion of that lens or colour. This model appears to be a confusion of the epistemological problem of knowing about a transcendent God, and the inculturation of the Church. It also leaves open the question about knowing an absolute God. How does the viewer know that the lens is pointing at God, when all we know about God was derived from what the previous viewer saw? The metaphor is limited, of course. Nevertheless, the only ingredients appear to be an absolute God, the changing times, and the viewer. There's no mention, as yet, of the transformative power of God, or the interruption of the gospel. These might come later in the book.

It's clear, however, that Bell is right about the need for theology to continue to develop, but not simply because the times change or because culture changes. Theology continues to develop because theology encounters itself and is manifest in the life of the Church as it embodies Christ. Theology is not driven by cultural changes; but the opposite is true, theology must drive the change in the world.

A little roundup of links

2010-02-03T14:11:00.003+10:00

While everything is quiet in my own mind, here are some of the interesting things I've been reading of late.

Roland Boer's comments on systemisers struck a chord with me. I tip between the urge to build one because of the rationalist world in which I live, and the urge to destroy them because they will always fail and always drive someone out.

Halden Doerge's scathing assault on the 9 Marks. He's right, it's a bucket of shit[1]. See the previous comments about systemisers.

Ben Myers is reposting a piece by Scott Stephens. Scott's always had the ability to say something so controversial that it's easy to misunderstand, and end up being offended about the wrong thing. That sounds like a summary of almost every interview that Zizek's done with the mainstream media. No wonder these two are on speaking terms. Still, Scott's piece is worth the read.

I think I've done enough name dropping for now.

[1] And not the good kind of shit, either.

The disappointment with Jesus

2010-01-21T08:17:00.003+10:00

Over at Narrative and Ontology, Phil has some remarks on one of his projects.

Around about six years ago I decided to read the New Testament as little as possible, focussing all my attention and energy on the Old. The aim was (and is!) to be able to see the witness of the New in all its particularity and difference. Christians tend to work in the other direction: we are thoroughly acquainted with the New and thus complain when the Old Testament doesn't seem to fit the paradigm. "Is the God of the Old Testament really Jesus' father?" Doing things the other way round raises a different question: "Is Jesus really the Son of the God of Israel?"

Take the time to read his first post on the issue. It looks like he plans to write more about it later.

My only trepidation in the project is the difference between Christianity as somehow continuous with Judaism, or Christianity as an interruptive break from everything despite its origins being historically situated within Judaism. I've argued elsewhere for the latter, taking my cue from Kierkegaard, Zizek and Badiou. The question becomes one of authority. Does Jesus have authority which is derived from the God of Israel because he is the Son, or does Jesus have authority independent of a Big Other?

Martin Luther King said other things too

2010-01-20T12:11:00.002+10:00

My blog feed has had a few comments about other aspects to Martin Luther King's political activities. It's worth noting them here, even if they are a little tautological.

Adam Kotsko points to an old article on King's "missing years" between 1965 and 1968, along with the missing messages from that time.

Inhabitatio Dei points to the same article, and throws some comments in as well.

And a little clip from Where's My Jetpack? in which King decries America as arrogant, with God's judgement just around the corner.

It's little wonder that he made someone angry enough to shoot him. He probably never meant to be a one-trick pony, just fighting for certain civil rights. Unfortunately, that's mostly what's he's remembered for.

I feel the same about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Too often remembered only for his role in the assassination plot against Hitler, too little remembered for Act and Being and Sanctorum Communio.

Another kind of response to the Haiti earthquake

2010-01-15T08:15:00.004+10:00

A response from Sojourners about Pat Robertson,

Sam Harris, Richard Dawkin, and Christopher Hitchens have nothing on the greatest evangelist of atheism today, Pat Robertson.

and a statement from the Catholic bishop of Miami,

Our hearts and prayers go out to the good people of Haiti as they suffer yet again more devastation, this time by a terrible earthquake. ... On this occasion, I strongly call upon President Obama to immediately grant Temporary Protective Status to all Haitians in our community.

Most of all, I'm pleased to see the Church taking humanitarian and political action in response to the suffering of others.

The Superstitious Pat Robertson

2010-01-14T11:17:00.003+10:00

Pat Robertson has declared that the recent Haitian earthquake is the result of a pact with the devil, a pact entered into by the Haitians to free themselves from French colonial rule.

You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other.

And in case you think I'm quoting him out of context, this is from his own website.

His comments were based on the widely-discussed 1791 slave rebellion led by Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, where the slaves allegedly made a famous pact with the devil in exchange for victory over the French. This history, combined with the horrible state of the country, has led countless scholars and religious figures over the centuries to believe the country is cursed.

In other words, bad things happen to you because you did something evil.

As the young kids say these days: Theology Fail.

lolcat Translation

2010-01-13T12:24:00.004+10:00

There is a lolcat translation of the Bible.

Wun last thing about forskinz
My handrietin sux LOL!
Sum peepl wantz u to cut ur forskin off. Dis iz bcz dey iz afraid peepl wil treet them bad bcz dey is Christians. Dey jus wantz to talk about ur bodi LOL. i nevr bragz about anithin xcept Jesus. Forskinz iznt importnt. Jesus's work iz all dat mattrz realli i jus wantz evribodi who duz Ceiling Cat's work to be happi.
So doant giv me so much trubl no moar.
kthnxbai.
Galatians 6:11-18

Armageddon can't be far away.

Our burden

2010-01-07T08:05:00.005+10:00

Listening, as I was, to a podcast from The Economist, I was enthralled by the delightful chatterings of the hosts as they speculated about what will be in the headlines for 2010. They usually do this on a weekly basis but since it was the end of the year, the crystal ball came out with a telescope attached.

Since these guys are part of the team that decides what the headlines will be, the whole exercise is a disguised ad in which they entice readers to buy this week's editions, but since I can't be bothered reading The Economist, listening will have to do.

And as I listened, I heard the conversation move across the realm of economic predictions, and the idea floated was that in 2010, the various national economies which had avoided a depression are going to have to pay for the stimulus spending that took place in 2009. Which other country will Germany help: Italy? Surely not! The Western nations are all spent out, both nationally and as individual shoppers, so...

- and this is the slip that made me pause -

...the prime hope is that the Asian countries will bear the burden of spending in 2010.

Spending your cash is not about buying something you need, or buying something you want. It is now your responsibility to shop. Buy more than you did last year, or last week. Buy more, not because you need it or you want it, but because it is your duty. Citizens of the world, shop for humanity! Your economy needs you.

This is a case of "Think Global, Act Local" enslaved to the economy. Growth is necessary and can only be facilitated by growth in consumer spending. That's our duty, and now our burden in the economy. The mistakes that led to the GFC were made by a minority in the finance industry, and must be corrected by the majority in the workforce.

Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Shop less. Your soul needs you.

Stephen the Martyr

2010-01-06T12:23:00.004+10:00

In some church calendars, December 26 is the celebration of Stephen, the first Christian martyr. At first glance that seems like an odd sequence, but on second glance[1] it works quite well.

It reminds the reader that to celebrate Jesus' arrival and to follow Jesus is ultimately the path to martyrdom, figuratively or literally. Stephen died for proclaiming that Jesus was the Son of God and pointing out to the Jewish leaders of the day that they'd missed this one and had executed the Son of God.

The easiest solution is to execute Stephen as well. Make corpses while the sun shines, so to speak.

But it really does show that to celebrate Jesus is to follow Jesus, and Jesus died at the hands of the powerful. Stephen is a sobering element to Christmas. The baby grew up, criticised the established order, and was killed for it. And so were his followers.

1. Is that a real and common expression?