Be careful what you wish for because history starts today

Last night I went to a preview screening of "Call + Response" - a rockumentary on slavery, especially child slavery.

It's basically made up of interviews and snippets of child slavery, especially of child sex slaves, with music videos scattered throughout. One of the songs is by Five for Fighting - called 'World'. It has some really powerful lyrics: check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVT6hFsIB1c

27 million slaves throughout the world. It took 20 years to abolish the African slave trade movement (with William Wilberforce). What excuse do we have?

Be careful what you wish for. Start now.

The social theory of music

Secular/pop music makes me feel like I can stick my head in the sand and forget reality. It helps me believe that life can’t be any better – that the best result is to deafen myself and my feelings by music. It leads me to believe that the way things are is how they will stay, and the best thing that I can do is to go along with the flow. Trying to push against the flow doesn’t work, because the flow is too powerful: i.e. song lyrics stick in your head like a broken record, the actual lyrics aren’t normally edifying or thought-provoking, but rather about sex or a virtually meaningless relationship with someone. There so often lacks grit and deeper thinking about other issues.

Maybe that’s why it is so popular; because it helps people forget. Most people don’t listen to music with the intention/hope of thinking further/deeper about society, but rather to relax and forget about it. Marx reckoned that religion was the opiate of the people, but perhaps today’s popular music is that opiate. It would make an interesting thesis topic. I’m sure somebody’s already looked at the social effect of music, but I wonder about the social/intellectual effect... ‘Twould be interesting.

A voyager's life - on the waves of faith

I found this poem on a friend's blogsite, and it really encouraged me. May we all take up God's challenge to step away from the coastline.

A harbour town’s a refuge, where you come in from the storm,

But the comforts of the coastline can hold you far too long,

And your mind becomes a little dull and your soul gets sapped away,

And your ship gets old and shabby as you laze those days away.

I think it’s time to set the sail and slip out on the tide,

And sail along the seaways that the salt wind shall provide.

For I have lived a landsman’s life in everything but name,

A voyager they called me but my life was still the same,

As all the land-locked people who would ask me what I’d seen,

And I’d tell them of my voyages, of the man I once had been.

I think it’s time to set the sail and slip out on the tide,

And sail along the seaways that the salt wind shall provide.

And now I hear that rushing wind come blowing on the town,

One by one all my fears come crashing to the ground,

The wind demands an answer to the question: “Will you go?”

I may be weak but I will not say no.

I think it’s time to set the sail and slip out on the tide,

And sail along the seaways that the salt wind shall provide.

I’ll sail away, I’ll sail away

Sail away.

What I learnt from Islam (Part I): Amr bil Ma'ruf [معروف]

I'm reading an extraordinary piece of academic work at the moment: The Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject by Saba Mahmood.

The book is meticulous in its argument against the prevailing assumptions of liberal academia that "freedom and autonomy" are innate desires in all human beings, with the implication that 'faith communities' or 'religions' are oppressive because they require some form of submission.

I can't do justice to Mahmood's argument [or even the first 3 chapters that I've devoured] in this blog post.

What I will admit is that Mahmood does a considerably better job at clearly articulating the multiple possibilities of human agency arising from different traditions than do many Christian scholars (Stanley Hauerwas notwithstanding; in fact I was led to Mahmood via Hauerwas' praise in the latter's The State of the University: Academic Knowledges and the Knowledge of God).

In this series of posts, I hope to expose us to Islamic language as used by those of the Islamic revival movement as a parallel to the use of Christian language. I think these can offer some lessons for the Christian on "body politics", i.e. the unshamed living of Christian language as politics without the need to "translate" it into more palatable forms.

On definitions, the word body I'm allowing for the double meaning of the term within the Christian tradition: (i) the individual body and its actions, desires...etc, and (ii) in the Pauline tradition of "one body" being the Church with all its members as a social body. By politics I have in mind J.H. Yoder's broader understanding beyond parties and Public Relations noobs, but rather political in the sense that the Church is a structured social body that makes decisions, assigns roles, distributes power, and whose practices and traditions are normative in the lives of its members.

So firstly, let's look at the Qu'ranic admonition "Amr bil Ma'ruf wa Nahy an al Munkar - امر بالمعروف و نهى عن المنكر " - roughly "“enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong” [TMQ Ale-Imran: 110]"

According to the revivalists:

"The Muslims, as individuals, are required to enjoin that which they are commanded with and forbid that which they are ordered to abstain from - if anything happens in front of them that necessitates that – according to the knowledge each individual has.Consequently, enjoining the ma’roof and forbidding the munkar becomes an individual obligation (fard ayn) for which the Muslim will be sinful if he did not undertake it, and he is not excused for abandoning it.

Thus the Muslim, in his daily life with his wife, children, relatives, neighbours, customers, acquaintances or anyone else who they happen to meet; each one of such people needs be given the naseeha (advice) if he failed to do a duty or was disobedient. How can this not be the case when there are sins that only he may be aware of. Such as a sin committed in front of him at a sitting where no one else is present other than the one who committed the sin. If he did not advise him then he will be sinful, while others will not be sinful, because it did not take place in front of them and they have no knowledge of it. No one else can take his place, and in his sphere, nobody other than him can fill it.

For every munkar that appears in his sphere, no one other than him is responsible."

In short, as Rashid Rida (1865-1930) summarises, "Calling to excellence and the doing of good and the forbidding of evil is a definitive duty [fard hatm] incumbent upon every Muslim." Rida defines this as all encompassing of every sphere of life.

How does this parallel / help us to better grasp the Christian understanding of repentance (metano) and sanctification/purification (hagiasmos), and in particular the duty of each to exhort and call self and others to repentance and holiness? What implications would this have for 'body politics'?

The Wisdom of Banksy

Known for spray-painting live animals and sneaking his work into prestigious galleries, [Anonymous UK street artist] Banksy is going from strength to strength.

But very little is known about the secretive "guerrilla artist".

The subversive political messages Banksy conveys through his stencils and sculptures can be found on streets, walls and buildings across the world, from London to New York.

(source: BBC News, 8/2/07)

Some of Banksy's [punk-prophetic] sketches below:

'Welcome to London'

'The Fall of Man'

'God Getting Busted'

'TV has made us into monsters'

'Feed the World'

'Fighter Applause'

When will the Church learn to be the Church? Congo and the goats

I was only 11 or 12 in 1994 when the Rwandan genocide saw the slaughter of between 800,000 to 1 million mostly Tutsi men, women and children.

This was in a country lauded as "Africa's most Christian country" and "a missionary success story" on account of conversion rates and church attendance.

Nearly a decade and a half later, the church should still be in agony over how its members could possibly turn around and butcher their brothers and sisters and mothers and fathers in the faith, along with their neighbours. However, I don't think they are unique in this apparent paradox.

Reconciliation is just proceeding in Rwanda, but in adjacent Congo a similar scenario is once again brewing. I read this article yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald and I just couldn't function - eat, think straight, sleep properly - nor should I have been able to.

*** If you haven't read this harrowing article ('Nowhere for women to hide') from SMH, please read it: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/nowhere-to-hide/2008/11/21/1226770737892.html ***

What has also haunted me were the lines by 'Colonel Oliver' in the movie Hotel Rwanda, where he voices why the Western liberal world would do nothing to stop the killing there:

"They think you're dirt, they think you're dung. You're worthless!... You're black. You're not even a nigger. You're an African."

Only an African; or for the Church, only an African Christian perhaps.

Jesus of Nazareth points to a radically different position to the liberal West, setting it straight for his followers:

"Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (from Matthew chp.25)

The World Council of Churches (WCC) have sent a delegation to agitate for peace and reconciliation. It is my hope and prayer that through this type of action, the Church will no longer be the ones who are responsible for the suffering of others, but rather be the ones who refuse to cease suffering for others.

This article gave me some hope that finally, we are learning what it means to be the Church (and live out our repentance):

Churches can't be silent on D.R. Congo humanitarian catastrophe

"It is impossible to preach God's love in Jesus Christ while being silent about the effects of such a grave humanitarian catastrophe," a group of church leaders told D.R. Congo President Joseph Kabila in Kinshasa yesterday.

(for the full report, see the World Council of Churches news site)

Please, let us do what we can must!

Critique of Christian Philosophy

Peter Slezak, academic at the university of NSW in the school of the history and philosophy of science is a well known atheist. I first heard him debate at town hall against William Lane Craig in 2002. Recently he wrote an opinion article in the herald defending academia against claims of bias against students who disagreed with their own opinion.

In Wednesdays Higher Education Section of The Australian, he has written an opinion piece attacking Christian philosophers (eg. Alvin Platinga) as people who (he claims) bring unscientific presuppositions to their work.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24671695-25192,00.html

"The very idea that we have a choice among metaphysics is an illusion. There is no alternative to our best theories other than worse ones. Naturalism is just the picture provided by our current science and is, therefore, the best we've got. Fancy philosophical talk of metaphysical options can't change the fact that naturalism is the only game in town, since it is simply the totality of our theories in physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, geology and so on.

Does Christian theism provide a better account of quantum physics, cosmology or the structure of DNA? These theories constitute our best understanding of the phenomena in each domain. Naturalism is just shorthand for the overall picture they present....

There simply is no rational alternative to our best scientific theories until they are superseded. It is a seductive but meaningless metaphor to talk of "outside" the universe or a form of inquiry that might transcend our limited science."

On my reading of the article, it seems that there is a category mistake. Slezak is making statements about metaphysics (even if if he argues that there is no such thing) based on this idea of naturalism. Just because we have these scientific theories by no means leads to an argument for naturalism, however he seems to presume this link. Isn't this the very thing that intelligent design is criticised for (in the reverse, ie arguing from the scientific theories to deism/theism)?

What do people think of his argument?

PS I am not particularly interested in intelligent design

What will this mean? (If anything)

UPDATE!

Well, it's been called:

Barack Hussein Obama will be the 44th President of the USA.

What are the implications of this 'change'?

US Presidential Elections

5th November, 2008

Results should begin coming in at 1100 (AEST)

Theory and Praxis

Today I had a philosophy tutorial where we discussed the fear of death. We were looking at Epicurus who said that the world was simply material, thus in death we cease to exist. Therefore, he concludes, there is no need to fear death, as it is the absence of hardship and strife. He said this to justify the fact that this life is the one to be enjoyed, because if you worry about death you will have decreased happiness now, or if you hope for an afterlife you will suppress your enjoyment for this life.

I came to think of my own belief as a follower of Jesus. I don’t fear death because I have complete confidence that if I am ‘in-Messiah’, as Paul says, I will be declared ‘right’ at the judgement on the final day, and will be part of God’s glorious new creation. However, I began to think about what practical difference this makes between me and my philosophy pals who are not in-Messiah. Epicurus’ perspective moved him to seek maximum pleasure in life – not by rampant hedonism, but by living a quiet and reflective life, avoiding greed and excess.

The fact that followers of the risen Jesus have no fear of death is not meant to simply ease our minds and let us have a comfortable life, or to provide an evangelistic ‘entry point’ when talking to the scared (though it may well do these things), but to empower them for action in the present (1 Cor 15.56-58, Gal 6.14-15, Rom 6.4-14, 8.1-39). I die to myself and cease to follow the desires of my ‘fleshy’ body, knowing that God’s new creation has begun in me already by his spirit, not so that I can grim and bear this hard life and hope for ‘heaven’ where things will be better, where those ‘evil’ people will be absent. I die to myself so that I may put my life on the line without fear of losing it, that I might look at the things that I want, albeit good, and decide not to pursue them. Instead, I am to live sacrificially, on the edge, having no care of the opinion of the Christians or heathen, all for the sake of Jesus, knowing that I will receive far greater blessings in his new creation (Lk 14.25-35).

This is what is so compelling about faithful Christians in the past who went where no one would go to serve and love those rejected and scorned, such as ‘sinners’, lepers, slum-dwellers and the disabled. This is powerfully seen in the Christians of the early church in Epicurus’ own time. When disease broke out all over the over-crowed empire of Rome, the only way that the Romans saw to avoid getting infected was to expel and avoid the sick. However, the churches actively welcomed the outcast sick into their gatherings whether they were fellow followers or not, and set up services to take in those expelled by society. This was an unprecedented act of love to the Other and is said by some historians (such as Stark) to be a central factor to why Christianity spread so quickly in the years leading up to Constantine’s conversion, and to why Christianity is as popular as it is today (and where the welfare-state began!).

This line of thought made me reflect on my own perspective of knowledge and action, as I am often confused by the complex relationship between theory and praxis. The ideas central to being in-Messiah and following his way are fascinating and exciting, and make me want to study and think them through so as not to have an integrated worldview. However, this is not how the good news of Jesus’ resurrection works. As he defeated death once and for all, I can be sure that if I am in-Messiah I too will share in that victory, meaning that nothing should hold me back in my service and sacrifice to his kingdom (reign) now.

Have we fallen in to the capitalist lie that it’s ok to sit back in our homes, pay off the mortgage and rack up super, live a quiet life (1 Thess 4.11), be involved in church and give away 10%? I don’t think my life demonstrates the profound truth of my victory with Christ very effectively yet...

“This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.” 1 John 3.16-20

“Freedom” in the 21st century (part 3) The problem with freedom…

Consider the man I was hearing about the other day. I don’t know him, he is an acquaintance of an associate. He is the father of 12 children to the same woman. Recently, he walked out on his family. Left them, decided he’d had enough. (Now isn’t the time to retrospectively consider the worth of marriage counselling). Everyone in the conversation shook their heads, judged him. But if we were to adhere to freedom, should we? That question brings out the essence of the problem with the way freedom is formulated.

What does our society mean by freedom? Something that has become apparent to me in the course of attempting to write these posts is that for our society to claim freedom, we first have to make value judgements concerning what we have a responsibility towards. As I pointed out earlier, the whole notion of freedom comes with the important caveat that in using your freedom, you musn’t impinge on any others. However who the others are in this is very much up to debate. This goes to the very heart of what I perceive to be the problem with the way freedom is formulated.

I’d argue that what we have isn’t freedom at all. Rather, someone has drawn up a list of what they think they should be able to do and then decided that any collateral damage doesn’t matter. I know this is somewhat crude, but to me it encapsulates it pretty well. This then has been given the nice marketing title “freedom” (who doesn’t want to be free?). For example (and I use this hesitantly since (at this point in time) bagging “late” capitalism is a bit like shooting fish in barrel that are all dead and at the fishmongers covered in ice), the idea that you are able to go off and do whatever you like to earn as much money as you can would fall under this. However, we are seeing just how many people are affected by that person’s decision. Why was freedom allowed in that situation, when it has affected many others through no fault of their own.

The same could be pointed out about social issues. To consider abortion as ok, there is a presumption made about whether what is inside the woman constitutes a life. (As an aside, one of the surprising things is that our (supposedly) modern world is acting in spite of what science and medicine have been able to achieve with respect to life in the early stage of pregnancy. Although Victoria seems set to push through the Option B for the abortion bill, allowing abortion up to 24 weeks, I am pretty sure that babies have been saved at 24 weeks. I find this both ironic and very sad. Mind you, what is so magic about the number 24!!).

What people mean by freedom is being able to do what they like. This freedom is paradoxical. When can anyone use their freedom without impinging on others?

I think we know that this philosophy isn’t watertight. It is because we implicitly see the bankruptcy of this ideal that we get indignant when we hear the stories of rogue traders who have brought down the economy, or the father who has abandoned his children. We hear these and we see the mirage that freedom is. But while seeing this, perhaps we are too wedded to the liberty freedom provides us elsewhere (at the expense of others, usually those less fortunate than ourselves) to give up on this ideal.

If I was to summarise: one person’s freedom is just another person’s bondage & slavery.

Jesus was very keen to offer freedom to people. True freedom that is. In fact Jesus wasn’t only keen to offer freedom, but he was the free God, the free Son. What did he chose to do with this freedom? It is in this direction, I hope to go next.

Economic Meltdown: Let's talk...

I think it's time we talked about this.

Thoughts?

How to ruin perfectly good military fatigues [and make them better!]

Step 1: Stencil or purchase a patch, prefereably with something meaningful to say

Step 2: Tack on the back of the military fatigue and start sewing

Step 3: Wear it around in public places or get a ridiculously good looking friend to do so