Yesterday, I attended my first lecture in "The Triune God", one of the theology subjects I am studying this semester.
This subject is concerned both with Trinitarian theology and with the Christian understanding of God as a Triune being: that is, one Being with three Persons. The former concerns the specifically Christian doctrine of the Trinity; the latter is how Christians speak of God, how Christians understand the nature of the Godhead.
The focus of this lecture was the placement of Trinitarian theology and the Christian understanding of the Triune God at the centre of Christian faith. All the other teachings of the church - the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Salvation - are founded in and predicated upon the Christian teaching about the Triune nature of the Godhead. There are several reasons for this centrality, but one of the most important is that it goes to the identity of Christian faith.
The Trinity is the specific and particular claim about God made by Christian faith. Only Christianity understands the Godhead in Trinitarian terms: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is the creator, source, and basis of all life; the Son is the Father's decisive act in creation; the Holy Spirit is the Father's ongoing presence in and engagement with the world. God is one Being in which reside three Persons who exist in relation with one another and with the created order. The Son and Holy Spirit are not separate beings, or created beings, or subordinate beings; they are co-eternal and coeval with the Father, of one Being and "of one substance" as the Nicene Creed affirms.
But the other, often not considered point here is that this issue of Christian identity is important for interfaith dialogue. Too often, in my view, interfaith dialogue is predicated upon ignoring the differences between faiths and concentrating on the things held in common by different faiths. In other words, the differences between faiths is seen entirely in pejorative terms, it is seen as a negative; and to counter this "negative", it is necessary to focus on the "positive" of commonality.
I can understand why this attitude exists: partially, it is an attempt to counteract prejudice and ignorance; and, partially, it is deeply psychologically satisfying. However, I think it is misguided. I'm not suggesting that we ought not concentrate on the commonalities; what I think is that we should change our attitude to the differences. Indeed, I think we should celebrate them.
As an example, I look at the phenomenon of the so-called "interfaith minister". This is the subject of a documentary series currently running on the wonderful Compass program on the ABC. These "interfaith ministers" essentially conduct services that not only draw on the rituals and traditions of the major faiths, but also of movements such as neo-paganism and gaianism. I must confess that I viewed this development with considerable reservations, for three essential reasons.
Firstly, it seemed to me that this movement was based on wish-fulfilment: that is, the desire to "unify" the faiths so that people could have the comfort of a religion that pointed to a single, overriding truth that enabled them to avoid having to wrestle with the difficult questions posed by religious diversity. Again, while this may be psychologically satisfying, it strikes me as possibly the least appropriate basis upon which to found an approach to faith.
Secondly, it seemed that this movement was a process of manufacturing a "faith" that essentially doesn't stand for anything or amount to anything. You simply can't throw together a mish-mash of theologies and rituals and expect that it will amount to anything substantial or relevant. Yes, it might be satisfying from the perspective of making you "feel good" or enabling you to get away with not thinking deeply about faith, but there is a vast difference between a spirituality that is founded upon an understanding of God and God's relation to the universe (and which grapples with all the questions, doubts, and ambiguities which this entails), and a "spirituality" that is just a construction whose purpose is to facilitate the desires and inclinations of the individual.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I think this movement toward "interfaith ministers" can actually do a lot of harm, not least because it fails to honour the differences between faiths, and to acknowledge the beauty, power, truth, and poignancy that resides within, and is articulated by, these differences. In other words, the "interfaith minister" movement simply papers over the differences between faiths, as if dialogue could actually be facilitated by pretending these differences don't exist, and that the way forward is to just bung the symbols and rituals of different faiths together and essentially ignore their theologies. But this fails to understand that it is the differences between faiths that is the basis of individual faith conviction; that theological integrity resides, not in cobbling together some religious hodge-podge of beliefs and practices, but in simultaneously asserting the truth of faith claims while at the same time acknowledging and respecting the claims of others.
In other words, the "interfaith ministry" movement is a cop-out, just the latest manifestation of the infection of faith by self-helpism.
And this is why yesterday's lecture resonated so strongly for me: because it reinforced the necessity for me, as a Christian, to articulate the truth of the Christian faith; and, at the same time, to celebrate and see the majesty and beauty and legitimacy that exists between and across faiths because of their differences. It is not difference by which we should be frightened; it is the mediocrity of superficial "unity".
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: An unlearned carpenter of my acquaintance once said in my hearing: "There is very little difference between one man and another, but what there is is very important." (William James)
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Time and Tide
Yesterday, I was cleaning out the inbox from my email (that's the kind of exciting thing I get up to when my Dearly Beloved is not about), when I stumbled across my quiz results for the Select Smart Belief System Selector web quiz. I had taken this quiz in a moment of idle curiosity some years ago, and the results were sitting in my inbox, forgotten until I rediscovered them.
Now, I take these quiz thingies with more than a grain of salt, largely because, methodologically speaking, they are quite simplistic in their either/or format, and are thus open to manipulation. You can pretty much produce the result you want by thinking about the answers you need to provide in order to arrive at said results. Self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable process. (That's why, among a whole host of other reasons, I think the entire Myers-Briggs getup is a load of dangerous pop-psychological garbage - but that's an entire other issue!)
Anyhoo, these qualifications aside, I normally try and answer these quizzes as honestly as possible, even when I think the best answer I can give to the questions provided doesn't really reflect my point of view at all. I'm usually pretty sure of what the result will be notwithstanding, although, on occasion, I do manage to surprise myself - or is it that the quiz surprises me?
The point being that, last time I took this quiz, these are the top ten results (in percentage terms) that my quiz produced (the results go up to 26 rankings, but I'm not going to impose them all upon you):
#1: Humanist (100)
#2: Unitarian Universalist (92)
#3: Theravada Buddhist (85)
#4: Atheist/Agnostic (81)
#5: Liberal Quaker (76)
#6: Neo-Pagan (63)
#7: Taoism (60)
#8: Orthodox Quaker (54)
#9: Mainline Liberal Protestant (47)
#10: Mahayana Buddhist (46)
Now, there are a few interesting results here that require a bit of discussion in light of my present status as a Christian who is studying theology and hoping to candidate to the ordained ministry of the Uniting Church in Australia.
The Humanist rating doesn't surprise me much at all, given that, at the time, I was not a member of the church and still identified myself primarily in terms of the Stoic moral philosophy I had first encountered in my early 20s. Neither was I terribly surprised by the appearance of Theravadan and Mahayanan Buddhism in the top ten. Aside from the fact that Buddhism is a non-theist faith, thus aligning it somewhat with the humanist philosophical tradition, Theravadan Buddhism might be described as the "monastic" tradition of Buddhism, reflecting my own sense that had I been born in another era, I might have ended up as a member of a religious order; whereas Mahayanan Buddhism, whilst the more "popular" school of Buddhist practice, nevertheless preserves the traditions of meditation and contemplation toward which I am personally strongly inclined.
The atheistic/agnostic tag did surprise me somewhat. I have never been an atheist personally, despite all my struggles with coming to an understanding of faith over the course of my life. Moreover, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are not interchangeable; they are not similes, and do not represent the same thing; but this confusion between the two is not uncommon. I can only surmise that the appearance of this rating in my top ten reflects the level of scepticism I held at the time about matters of faith; and which, to an extent, I still hold today as a necessary part of faith. That is to say, my belief that faith, and the claims of faith, must be held with a certain humility in the understanding that God is not who we think God is, that God is wider than our thoughts and our capacity to comprehend, and is revealed as a transcendent mystery and not a mapped-out, pinned down, packaged in a box certainty.
The appearance of Universal Unitarian, Liberal Quaker, and Orthodox Quaker puzzled me, as I knew - and still know - next to nothing about these traditions and their theological perspectives. Perhaps I'm more ecumenical than I thought! The Taoism suggestion wasn't that much of a surprise, as I have read the Tao Te Ching (as well as the Analects of Confucius and the Book of Mencius) and found much within it that resonated with both Buddhist and Stoic moral philosophy. The Neo-Pagan rating had me frankly scratching my head; to be brutally honest, I think the "pagans" are a bunch of cultural-imperialist, cherry-picking from other traditions to suit themselves tossers! Especially the "druids" and all the others who carry on with "Celtic spiritual" practices, not least because the truth is almost next to nothing is now known of the ancient druidic traditions and beliefs, and what they actually stood for and practiced (the Romans did a very thorough job of wiping them out).
The interesting one is the appearance of Mainline Liberal Protestant. Although at number nine and less than 50%, it does, perhaps, reflect the fact that I was starting to drift toward a Protestant church as a possibility for re-connecting with a faith community. Indeed, I had certainly started to become increasingly aware of the Uniting Church in Australia, and was intrigued by its bringing together of three denominational traditions, and also impressed by its commitment to social justice. Now, I know the Uniting Church does not define itself as a "liberal" church - it is far too broad and diverse a community for any single label to do it justice. But perhaps what this quiz result reflected was that, although I still predominantly identified myself in humanist/Stoic terms, perhaps the possibilities of faith and a place in a Christian community were starting to make themselves apparent.
The upshot is that, stirred by curiosity as a result of stumbling across this quiz, I decided to do it again. And this time, the top ten results came out like this:
#1: Mainline Liberal Protestant (100)
#2: Liberal Quaker (88)
#3: Orthodox Quaker (84)
#4: Hinduism (82)
#5: Unitarian Universalism (81)
#6: Eastern Orthodox (74)
#7: Roman Catholic (74)
#8: Neo-Pagan (73)
#9: Seventh Day Adventist (71)
#10: Sikhism (66)
The most significant outcome of the quiz was that Mainline Liberal Protestant has shot up to the #1 position. Hardly surprising given the fact that I am now a practicing Christian and member of the Uniting Church (bearing in mind my caution about applying the term "liberal" exclusively to the UCA), and reflective also of the theological conclusions and resolutions to which my struggles with faith have arrived.
Interestingly, both the Buddhist and the Taoist influences seem to have declined, despite the ongoing reverence for, and resonances with, both traditions that I continue to feel to this day. I think this reflects two developments: firstly, that I have come to a particular and specific theological conviction in terms of faith practice and identity; and, second, that they have not so much disappeared from my life as moved from the psychological and philosophical foreground to the background. In this respect, they reflect the change which the influence of Stoic moral philosophy has undergone in my life; Stoicism now forms part of the philosophical bedrock of my Christian spirituality, but is no longer part of my up-front, "headline" theological thinking.
I was surprised by the Neo-Pagan rating still making it into the top-ten, especially given my views about "pagans", expressed above (it dropped from 6th to 8th position on the list, but actually increased in percentage terms). And I'm frankly astounded by the Seventh-Day Adventist aspect, especially since I regard Seventh Day Adventism as, at best, a kind of quasi-Christian sect inhabiting the extreme fringe of the Christian world (along with Mormonism, Christian Science, and other products of the so-called Second Great Awakening in 19th Century America). The relevance of the Liberal and Orthodox Quaker elements, and of the Universal Unitarianism, remains, as with the previous quiz result, a complete mystery to me.
The two developments which really grabbed my attention, however, were the appearance of Hinduism and Sikhism in the top ten, as well as Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Regarding the former, whilst I have a little knowledge of Hinduism, I am hardly an expert; and I have next to no knowledge of Sikhism other than that it is (I think) an offshoot from Hinduism. Given the affinities between Hinduism and Buddhism (although there are, obviously, critical differences), I would have thought that the disappearance of Buddhism from the top ten would have mitigated against both Hinduism and Sikhism making an appearance; but apparently not!
And as for the emergence of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy into the top ten, well, I think that can be explained in two ways. Firstly, it simply reflects the affinities between all denominations of the Christian community, the shared theological traditions, worship practices, liturgical resources, and doctrinal bases. My location with a mainline Protestant church necessarily involves my location within the wider Christian church, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy included. Secondly, I think my finding a place within a Christian faith community, and the theological and philosophical conclusions which doing so necessarily involves, combined with my theological studies at an ecumenical faculty, means I have re-engaged with the Catholic traditions in which I grew up, and from which I became alienated in my youth; and this necessarily precipitates an affinity for the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic and Orthodox churches in many respects being mirror images of one another.
An example of this is sacred music: I have always loved the Western Church's tradition of sacred music, and in recent years have discovered the sublimely beautiful sacred music tradition of the Eastern Church. Partly because they are similar and serve similar purposes; but also because of the differences. For example, whereas in the Western church, the voices of the upper register tend to get emphasised, in the Orthodox tradition, the voices of the lower register tend to be more prominent. Rachmaninov's stunning All Night Vigil and Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom being ethereal, spell-binding examples.
So what can be made of these results? Probably not much. But I do think they reflect, however imperfectly, the philosophical, theological, and intellectual journey on which I've been engaged for much of my adult life, and the incredibly rich and diverse opportunities for growth and understanding that have been opened up to me as a result.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: To change your mind and to follow him who sets you right is to be nonetheless the free agent that you were before. (Marcus Aurelius)
Now, I take these quiz thingies with more than a grain of salt, largely because, methodologically speaking, they are quite simplistic in their either/or format, and are thus open to manipulation. You can pretty much produce the result you want by thinking about the answers you need to provide in order to arrive at said results. Self-reporting is a notoriously unreliable process. (That's why, among a whole host of other reasons, I think the entire Myers-Briggs getup is a load of dangerous pop-psychological garbage - but that's an entire other issue!)
Anyhoo, these qualifications aside, I normally try and answer these quizzes as honestly as possible, even when I think the best answer I can give to the questions provided doesn't really reflect my point of view at all. I'm usually pretty sure of what the result will be notwithstanding, although, on occasion, I do manage to surprise myself - or is it that the quiz surprises me?
The point being that, last time I took this quiz, these are the top ten results (in percentage terms) that my quiz produced (the results go up to 26 rankings, but I'm not going to impose them all upon you):
#1: Humanist (100)
#2: Unitarian Universalist (92)
#3: Theravada Buddhist (85)
#4: Atheist/Agnostic (81)
#5: Liberal Quaker (76)
#6: Neo-Pagan (63)
#7: Taoism (60)
#8: Orthodox Quaker (54)
#9: Mainline Liberal Protestant (47)
#10: Mahayana Buddhist (46)
Now, there are a few interesting results here that require a bit of discussion in light of my present status as a Christian who is studying theology and hoping to candidate to the ordained ministry of the Uniting Church in Australia.
The Humanist rating doesn't surprise me much at all, given that, at the time, I was not a member of the church and still identified myself primarily in terms of the Stoic moral philosophy I had first encountered in my early 20s. Neither was I terribly surprised by the appearance of Theravadan and Mahayanan Buddhism in the top ten. Aside from the fact that Buddhism is a non-theist faith, thus aligning it somewhat with the humanist philosophical tradition, Theravadan Buddhism might be described as the "monastic" tradition of Buddhism, reflecting my own sense that had I been born in another era, I might have ended up as a member of a religious order; whereas Mahayanan Buddhism, whilst the more "popular" school of Buddhist practice, nevertheless preserves the traditions of meditation and contemplation toward which I am personally strongly inclined.
The atheistic/agnostic tag did surprise me somewhat. I have never been an atheist personally, despite all my struggles with coming to an understanding of faith over the course of my life. Moreover, the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" are not interchangeable; they are not similes, and do not represent the same thing; but this confusion between the two is not uncommon. I can only surmise that the appearance of this rating in my top ten reflects the level of scepticism I held at the time about matters of faith; and which, to an extent, I still hold today as a necessary part of faith. That is to say, my belief that faith, and the claims of faith, must be held with a certain humility in the understanding that God is not who we think God is, that God is wider than our thoughts and our capacity to comprehend, and is revealed as a transcendent mystery and not a mapped-out, pinned down, packaged in a box certainty.
The appearance of Universal Unitarian, Liberal Quaker, and Orthodox Quaker puzzled me, as I knew - and still know - next to nothing about these traditions and their theological perspectives. Perhaps I'm more ecumenical than I thought! The Taoism suggestion wasn't that much of a surprise, as I have read the Tao Te Ching (as well as the Analects of Confucius and the Book of Mencius) and found much within it that resonated with both Buddhist and Stoic moral philosophy. The Neo-Pagan rating had me frankly scratching my head; to be brutally honest, I think the "pagans" are a bunch of cultural-imperialist, cherry-picking from other traditions to suit themselves tossers! Especially the "druids" and all the others who carry on with "Celtic spiritual" practices, not least because the truth is almost next to nothing is now known of the ancient druidic traditions and beliefs, and what they actually stood for and practiced (the Romans did a very thorough job of wiping them out).
The interesting one is the appearance of Mainline Liberal Protestant. Although at number nine and less than 50%, it does, perhaps, reflect the fact that I was starting to drift toward a Protestant church as a possibility for re-connecting with a faith community. Indeed, I had certainly started to become increasingly aware of the Uniting Church in Australia, and was intrigued by its bringing together of three denominational traditions, and also impressed by its commitment to social justice. Now, I know the Uniting Church does not define itself as a "liberal" church - it is far too broad and diverse a community for any single label to do it justice. But perhaps what this quiz result reflected was that, although I still predominantly identified myself in humanist/Stoic terms, perhaps the possibilities of faith and a place in a Christian community were starting to make themselves apparent.
The upshot is that, stirred by curiosity as a result of stumbling across this quiz, I decided to do it again. And this time, the top ten results came out like this:
#1: Mainline Liberal Protestant (100)
#2: Liberal Quaker (88)
#3: Orthodox Quaker (84)
#4: Hinduism (82)
#5: Unitarian Universalism (81)
#6: Eastern Orthodox (74)
#7: Roman Catholic (74)
#8: Neo-Pagan (73)
#9: Seventh Day Adventist (71)
#10: Sikhism (66)
The most significant outcome of the quiz was that Mainline Liberal Protestant has shot up to the #1 position. Hardly surprising given the fact that I am now a practicing Christian and member of the Uniting Church (bearing in mind my caution about applying the term "liberal" exclusively to the UCA), and reflective also of the theological conclusions and resolutions to which my struggles with faith have arrived.
Interestingly, both the Buddhist and the Taoist influences seem to have declined, despite the ongoing reverence for, and resonances with, both traditions that I continue to feel to this day. I think this reflects two developments: firstly, that I have come to a particular and specific theological conviction in terms of faith practice and identity; and, second, that they have not so much disappeared from my life as moved from the psychological and philosophical foreground to the background. In this respect, they reflect the change which the influence of Stoic moral philosophy has undergone in my life; Stoicism now forms part of the philosophical bedrock of my Christian spirituality, but is no longer part of my up-front, "headline" theological thinking.
I was surprised by the Neo-Pagan rating still making it into the top-ten, especially given my views about "pagans", expressed above (it dropped from 6th to 8th position on the list, but actually increased in percentage terms). And I'm frankly astounded by the Seventh-Day Adventist aspect, especially since I regard Seventh Day Adventism as, at best, a kind of quasi-Christian sect inhabiting the extreme fringe of the Christian world (along with Mormonism, Christian Science, and other products of the so-called Second Great Awakening in 19th Century America). The relevance of the Liberal and Orthodox Quaker elements, and of the Universal Unitarianism, remains, as with the previous quiz result, a complete mystery to me.
The two developments which really grabbed my attention, however, were the appearance of Hinduism and Sikhism in the top ten, as well as Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Regarding the former, whilst I have a little knowledge of Hinduism, I am hardly an expert; and I have next to no knowledge of Sikhism other than that it is (I think) an offshoot from Hinduism. Given the affinities between Hinduism and Buddhism (although there are, obviously, critical differences), I would have thought that the disappearance of Buddhism from the top ten would have mitigated against both Hinduism and Sikhism making an appearance; but apparently not!
And as for the emergence of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy into the top ten, well, I think that can be explained in two ways. Firstly, it simply reflects the affinities between all denominations of the Christian community, the shared theological traditions, worship practices, liturgical resources, and doctrinal bases. My location with a mainline Protestant church necessarily involves my location within the wider Christian church, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy included. Secondly, I think my finding a place within a Christian faith community, and the theological and philosophical conclusions which doing so necessarily involves, combined with my theological studies at an ecumenical faculty, means I have re-engaged with the Catholic traditions in which I grew up, and from which I became alienated in my youth; and this necessarily precipitates an affinity for the traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Catholic and Orthodox churches in many respects being mirror images of one another.
An example of this is sacred music: I have always loved the Western Church's tradition of sacred music, and in recent years have discovered the sublimely beautiful sacred music tradition of the Eastern Church. Partly because they are similar and serve similar purposes; but also because of the differences. For example, whereas in the Western church, the voices of the upper register tend to get emphasised, in the Orthodox tradition, the voices of the lower register tend to be more prominent. Rachmaninov's stunning All Night Vigil and Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom being ethereal, spell-binding examples.
So what can be made of these results? Probably not much. But I do think they reflect, however imperfectly, the philosophical, theological, and intellectual journey on which I've been engaged for much of my adult life, and the incredibly rich and diverse opportunities for growth and understanding that have been opened up to me as a result.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: To change your mind and to follow him who sets you right is to be nonetheless the free agent that you were before. (Marcus Aurelius)
Thursday, July 19, 2007
I Passed! I Passed! I Passed!
Well, the mailman dropped my first semester results into the mailbox this afternoon, and even with one eye closed in expectation of the worst, I was able to see that I passed New Testament Greek! Indeed, I scored 63%, only a couple of percentage points off a Credit!
Now, you might not think that 63% is anything to get excited about - but that's not taking into account the fact that I would have been happy with 51%, largely due to the fact that Greek was a really hard struggle, and I discovered to a painful degree my ineptitude when it comes to languages. So 63% frankly looks like I really kicked arse!
As for my other results...oh, well, I scored 71% for Biblical Texts (a few agonising points short of a Distinction!) and 75% for Christology (bang on a Distinction). But that's not important - what's important is the fact that I passed New Testament Greek!
woo-hoo!
And I'm sure my Greek lecturer will be glad that I won't be back to clutter up the class next year!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Success is never having to admit that you're unhappy. (Robert Evans)
Now, you might not think that 63% is anything to get excited about - but that's not taking into account the fact that I would have been happy with 51%, largely due to the fact that Greek was a really hard struggle, and I discovered to a painful degree my ineptitude when it comes to languages. So 63% frankly looks like I really kicked arse!
As for my other results...oh, well, I scored 71% for Biblical Texts (a few agonising points short of a Distinction!) and 75% for Christology (bang on a Distinction). But that's not important - what's important is the fact that I passed New Testament Greek!
woo-hoo!
And I'm sure my Greek lecturer will be glad that I won't be back to clutter up the class next year!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Success is never having to admit that you're unhappy. (Robert Evans)
Spoke Too Soon...
I really should have known better.
This morning, I received a call from the UFT to say that the Epistemology subject in which I had enrolled was cancelled due to lack of numbers. A quick scramble through the handbook revealed another subject I can undertake - Faith and the Learning Process - but I really should have realised that there was bound to be one last minute snafu in stall for me!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Experience is just the name that everyone gives to their mistakes. (Oscar Wilde)
This morning, I received a call from the UFT to say that the Epistemology subject in which I had enrolled was cancelled due to lack of numbers. A quick scramble through the handbook revealed another subject I can undertake - Faith and the Learning Process - but I really should have realised that there was bound to be one last minute snafu in stall for me!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Experience is just the name that everyone gives to their mistakes. (Oscar Wilde)
Waiting, Waiting....
Well, second semester of the academic year kicks off next week, and I'm still waiting for my first semester results (I think they get posted today). I'm particularly anxious about my New Testament Greek result: if I pass, I won't have to repeat this (compulsory) subject! Although I enjoyed many aspects of the subject, and found it quite revealing and interesting, I now have a full and thorough appreciation of the fact that languages just aren't part of my gifting! So the prospect of having to do it all over again is not a pleasant one...
Not that I'm griping about the delay. I appreciate the fact that the good folk at the United Faculty of Theology's administration office are overworked at the best of times. Just wish there was some way of getting the results sooner so that I would know. Maybe the UFT should explore setting up some sort of online system whereby each student is assigned an account that enables them to access their results (and only their own results)....
There's been a bit of fiddling around with my subjects for Semester Two. Partly my fault, partly the fact that sometimes subjects get cancelled for various reasons. But now they're all settled, and I'll be studying:
Not that I'm griping about the delay. I appreciate the fact that the good folk at the United Faculty of Theology's administration office are overworked at the best of times. Just wish there was some way of getting the results sooner so that I would know. Maybe the UFT should explore setting up some sort of online system whereby each student is assigned an account that enables them to access their results (and only their own results)....
There's been a bit of fiddling around with my subjects for Semester Two. Partly my fault, partly the fact that sometimes subjects get cancelled for various reasons. But now they're all settled, and I'll be studying:
- Epistemology: Theory of Knowledge and Knowing
- The Triune God
- Mark and the Synoptic Gospels
I'm confident that this lot should give me an interesting and thought-provoking mix! Now if only those results would arrive....
Talk to you soon,'
BB.
Quote for the Day: Success is merely delayed failure. (Graham Greene)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The Cold Curse
You may recall my post about my first sermon, in which I lamented the fact that I spent the whole week beforehand struggling with a massive headcold.
Well, it's happened again. This Sunday, I am rostered to lead our local Uniting Church congregation in the "Prayers for the People" section of the service - and, yep, you guessed it, I am presently being ravaged by a magnitude 5000 headcold, replete with all the unpleasant features by which such maladies are accompanied.
Where the heck did this come from? Here I was, thinking that because I've already had a dose of the lurgy this year, I'd be pretty well immune to whatever the 'flu season could throw at me. But, noooo, the universe has decided that it hasn't quite finished tweaking my pride or pulling the rug out from under my feet.
So here I am, at some God-awful hour of the morning, lamenting yet again about the universe's particularly pernicious sense of humour - especially where Yours Truly and leading public worship is concerned! Some days I feel like asking for a refund...
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Some days, I say, some days it just don't pay to get outta bed.* (Foghorn Leghorn)
*Oh, if only I could go back to bed and get some SLEEP!
Well, it's happened again. This Sunday, I am rostered to lead our local Uniting Church congregation in the "Prayers for the People" section of the service - and, yep, you guessed it, I am presently being ravaged by a magnitude 5000 headcold, replete with all the unpleasant features by which such maladies are accompanied.
Where the heck did this come from? Here I was, thinking that because I've already had a dose of the lurgy this year, I'd be pretty well immune to whatever the 'flu season could throw at me. But, noooo, the universe has decided that it hasn't quite finished tweaking my pride or pulling the rug out from under my feet.
So here I am, at some God-awful hour of the morning, lamenting yet again about the universe's particularly pernicious sense of humour - especially where Yours Truly and leading public worship is concerned! Some days I feel like asking for a refund...
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Some days, I say, some days it just don't pay to get outta bed.* (Foghorn Leghorn)
*Oh, if only I could go back to bed and get some SLEEP!
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Another Step Forward
Last night, my Dearly Beloved and I took another step forward in the application process to candidate for the ordained ministry of the Uniting Church. Along with another applicant, we presented ourselves before the full Maroondah Presbytery and made submissions as to why we should be affirmed in our application and go forward to the Selection Conference in September.
We had already met with and been interviewed by the Presbytery's Candidates Committee, which involved a detailed and in depth examination of our faith journey to this point in our lives, and our reasons for applying to candidate as ministers. The interview was very thorough, with lots of probing and thoughtful questions, and conducted in an atmosphere of respect and support for the interviewees. We already knew that the Candidates Committee were going to recommend to the full Presbytery meeting that we be affirmed in our application, but that, of course, didn't mean we still didn't have to present ourselves before the Presbytery and make our case.
This involved each of the applicants making a short speech to the Presbytery and then answering any questions from the floor. We had to keep our speeches short because, aside from not wanting to bore anyone to tears, the Presbytery had a very full agenda to get through - which made the task of providing the meeting with a reasonable insight into our lives, our faith journey, our spiritual gifts and passions, and our reasons for applying in a bite-sized presentation very tricky indeed!
But we managed it. After doing so, we went out of the meeting room with a number of support people to await the Presbytery's verdict. Naturally, we were slightly apprehensive, and very grateful for the presence of the support people by whom we were accompanied. And then we were called back - feeling, I have to admit, slightly like prisoners being called back to court to hear the verdict! - and were informed that the Presbytery was very enthusiastically affirming and supporting all the applications.
A break for supper was called. All the applicants were immediately flooded by the rest of the people present at the meeting with their warm congratulations and expressions of support. It was wonderfully affirming and heartening to be the subject of such generosity and kindness, especially given the nerves that had accompanied the process. Needless to say, we went away feeling both slightly exhausted and on quite a high!
So, we have successfully negotiated the congregational and Presbytery phases of the application process - we now have to prepare for the Selection Conference in September. I am sure this will be an equally nerve-racking event - although we were glad to hear from one of the candidates present at the meeting last night that she quite enjoyed the conference! - but I am sure with a little help from our friends, and a little grace, we will have as enriching and positive an experience as we did last night.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4: 6-7)
We had already met with and been interviewed by the Presbytery's Candidates Committee, which involved a detailed and in depth examination of our faith journey to this point in our lives, and our reasons for applying to candidate as ministers. The interview was very thorough, with lots of probing and thoughtful questions, and conducted in an atmosphere of respect and support for the interviewees. We already knew that the Candidates Committee were going to recommend to the full Presbytery meeting that we be affirmed in our application, but that, of course, didn't mean we still didn't have to present ourselves before the Presbytery and make our case.
This involved each of the applicants making a short speech to the Presbytery and then answering any questions from the floor. We had to keep our speeches short because, aside from not wanting to bore anyone to tears, the Presbytery had a very full agenda to get through - which made the task of providing the meeting with a reasonable insight into our lives, our faith journey, our spiritual gifts and passions, and our reasons for applying in a bite-sized presentation very tricky indeed!
But we managed it. After doing so, we went out of the meeting room with a number of support people to await the Presbytery's verdict. Naturally, we were slightly apprehensive, and very grateful for the presence of the support people by whom we were accompanied. And then we were called back - feeling, I have to admit, slightly like prisoners being called back to court to hear the verdict! - and were informed that the Presbytery was very enthusiastically affirming and supporting all the applications.
A break for supper was called. All the applicants were immediately flooded by the rest of the people present at the meeting with their warm congratulations and expressions of support. It was wonderfully affirming and heartening to be the subject of such generosity and kindness, especially given the nerves that had accompanied the process. Needless to say, we went away feeling both slightly exhausted and on quite a high!
So, we have successfully negotiated the congregational and Presbytery phases of the application process - we now have to prepare for the Selection Conference in September. I am sure this will be an equally nerve-racking event - although we were glad to hear from one of the candidates present at the meeting last night that she quite enjoyed the conference! - but I am sure with a little help from our friends, and a little grace, we will have as enriching and positive an experience as we did last night.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4: 6-7)
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Me Explained Finally (Sort Of)
And now, just to make the whole picture complete....
There you go - wasn't that just fascinating?
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: An egotist is a person of low taste, more interested in themself than in me. (Ambrose Bierce)
| You Are a Licorice Jelly Bean |
 You are an acquired taste. The less people fight your strange ways, the more they like them. |
There you go - wasn't that just fascinating?
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: An egotist is a person of low taste, more interested in themself than in me. (Ambrose Bierce)
Me Explained Once More (Sort Of)
I think this one was a little closer to the truth....
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Statistics are like bikinis: suggestive in what they reveal and vital in what they hide. (Aaron Levenstein)
| You Are an Old Soul |
 You are an experienced soul who appreciates tradition. Mellow and wise, you like to be with others but also to be alone. Down to earth, you are sensible and impatient. A creature of habit, it takes you a while to warm up to new people. You hate injustice, and you're very protective of family and friends A bit demanding, you expect proper behavior from others. Extremely independent you don't mind living or being alone. But when you find love, you tend to want marriage right away. Souls you are most compatible with: Warrior Soul and Visionary Soul |
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Statistics are like bikinis: suggestive in what they reveal and vital in what they hide. (Aaron Levenstein)
Me Explained Again (Sort Of)
As per the quiz below...not too sure about the outcomes for this one...would have thought I was a dark, mystrious espresso blend...
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Coffee is something that, in England, tastes like a chemical experiment. (Agatha Christie)
| You Are an Irish Coffee |
 At your best, you are: wild, spontaneous, and outgoing At your worst, you are: too extreme and reckless You drink coffee when: you want to keep drinking booze Your caffeine addiction level: low |
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Coffee is something that, in England, tastes like a chemical experiment. (Agatha Christie)
Me Explained (Sort Of)
I found this cute little quiz here and decided to risk it. Have to say I'm pretty chuffed with the result - I reckon they got me down pretty good!
BTW, you should check out my Dearly Beloved's blog to see what kind of bra she is - and as for what kind I am...that's a secret!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them. (Samuel Butler)
| You Are Somewhat Machiavellian |
 You're not going to mow over everyone to get ahead... But you're also powerful enough to make things happen for yourself. You understand how the world works, even when it's an ugly place. You just don't get ugly yourself - unless you have to! |
BTW, you should check out my Dearly Beloved's blog to see what kind of bra she is - and as for what kind I am...that's a secret!
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Man is the only animal that can remain on friendly terms with the victims he intends to eat until he eats them. (Samuel Butler)
Economic Growth Explained
Apropros of the post on "Capitalism Explained" (see below), I've just stumbled across this cartoon by Wiley. As I've said before, Wiley is my favourite cartoonist since Larson, and this one really tickled my fancy. (Click on the image for an enhanced view)
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Economics is the one profession where you can gain great prominence without ever being right. (George Meany)
Globalisation Explained
A friend sent me an email with the following gag attached. I thought it so good, it warranted a spot on the Comfy Couch.
Question : What is the truest definition of Globalization?
Answer : Princess Diana's accident.
Question : How come?
Answer : An English princess with an Egyptian boyfriend crashes in a French tunnel, driving a German car with a Dutch engine, driven by a Belgian who was drunk on Scottish whisky, (check the bottle before you change the spelling), followed closely by Italian Paparazzi, on Japanese motorcycles; she was treated by an A m er i c an doctor, using Brazilian medicines. This is sent to you by a MALAYSIAN, using Bill Gates's technology, and you're probably reading this on your computer, that uses Taiwanese chips, and a Korean monitor, assembled by Bangladeshi workers in a Singapore plant, transported by Indian lorry-drivers, hijacked by Indonesians, unloaded by Sicilian longshoremen, and trucked to you by Mexican illegals.....That, my friends, is G l o b a l i z a t i o n !
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Capitalism is the process whereby American girls turn into American women. (Christopher Hampton)
Question : What is the truest definition of Globalization?
Answer : Princess Diana's accident.
Question : How come?
Answer : An English princess with an Egyptian boyfriend crashes in a French tunnel, driving a German car with a Dutch engine, driven by a Belgian who was drunk on Scottish whisky, (check the bottle before you change the spelling), followed closely by Italian Paparazzi, on Japanese motorcycles; she was treated by an A m er i c an doctor, using Brazilian medicines. This is sent to you by a MALAYSIAN, using Bill Gates's technology, and you're probably reading this on your computer, that uses Taiwanese chips, and a Korean monitor, assembled by Bangladeshi workers in a Singapore plant, transported by Indian lorry-drivers, hijacked by Indonesians, unloaded by Sicilian longshoremen, and trucked to you by Mexican illegals.....That, my friends, is G l o b a l i z a t i o n !
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Capitalism is the process whereby American girls turn into American women. (Christopher Hampton)
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
My Blog Is So Tame!
Who woulda thunk it? According to the blog rater I pinched from Caro's blog, I score a G rating because no "bad words" were found?
Don't they take being theologically controversial into account? Hmpf!
BB
Quote for the Day: Swearing: something invented as a compromise between fighting and running away. (Finley Peter Dunne)
Don't they take being theologically controversial into account? Hmpf!
- No bad words were found.
http://mingle2.com/blog-rating
BB
Quote for the Day: Swearing: something invented as a compromise between fighting and running away. (Finley Peter Dunne)
Friday, June 29, 2007
Atheists and Theists of the World - Unite!
Well, I certainly got a response to my letter to the editor, published in The Age newspaper yesterday. Of course, I don't know how many people wrote to The Age, or whether the consensus view was for or against the case for mutual engagement that I outlined, but this letter published in today's edition is obviously the most vitriolically opposed (scroll down to the letter entitled "Problem With God").
A number of issues arise. Firstly, the author of this letter obviously only had access to the much truncated version of my letter that was eventually published; this may have affected the tone of this individual's response. Secondly, I don't know how extensive this responding letter was edited; that is, whether the published portion represents the thrust of the letter or just its most inflammatory aspects. Thirdly, and following on from the second point, I don't know how representative this letter was of the responses received, or whether The Age simply elected to publish the most trenchant response in order to generate a confrontational dichotomy.
Assuming, however, a minimum of editing and that the letter as published does accurately represent the author's views, this response is indicative of the approach adopted by fanatical atheists determined to misrepresent people of faith as irrational, superstitious fools who literally believe in anything. Briefly stated, the features of this letter are as follows:
A number of issues arise. Firstly, the author of this letter obviously only had access to the much truncated version of my letter that was eventually published; this may have affected the tone of this individual's response. Secondly, I don't know how extensive this responding letter was edited; that is, whether the published portion represents the thrust of the letter or just its most inflammatory aspects. Thirdly, and following on from the second point, I don't know how representative this letter was of the responses received, or whether The Age simply elected to publish the most trenchant response in order to generate a confrontational dichotomy.
Assuming, however, a minimum of editing and that the letter as published does accurately represent the author's views, this response is indicative of the approach adopted by fanatical atheists determined to misrepresent people of faith as irrational, superstitious fools who literally believe in anything. Briefly stated, the features of this letter are as follows:
- The patronising tone is typical of militant atheism. But this tone is quite deliberate, and serves a specific purpose. In the same way that certain fundamentalist Christians (for example) begin every theological sentence they utter with the phrase "Biblically speaking" in order to both assert their moral superiority and denigrate their opponents' theological credibility, so militant atheists use this kind of tone to imply both their superior reasoning capacity and undermine the rational credibility of their opponents.
- The next feature is obfuscation. Note how the author states that I complained about journalist Catherine Deveny "highlighting the absurdities of irrational belief". But a careful reading of my letter, even in its edited form, reveals that I did no such thing. What I did say in my letter was that Ms Deveny would be better served refraining from taking the easy option of mocking the abuses of faith that cultural practice or personal vanity sometimes impose, and instead make the effort to understand the interior, lived experience of faith. But this obfuscation, like the patronising tone, is quite deliberate: it is intended to project the militant atheist as the defender of reason and reasonableness against the raving illogicity of theism.
- The next feature is dismissal. The author refers to " 'the lived experience of faith', whatever that is", suggesting that my characterisation of faith as an actuality that informs the life of the theist is, in fact, just a clever confabulation of empty words. The writer then goes on to tell me what this experience actually is: 'the "feel-good" trust in an imaginary friend, or the "fellowship" from "belonging" to a "communion" with a "higher purpose"'. In other words, faith is either a quaint superstition in someone who doesn't actually exist, or a cosy social club for people too afraid to face the world and who accordingly invest themselves with a higher moral purpose as a compensation. Again, the objective is portrayal: the militant atheist has intellectual depth and credibility, whereas the theist is essentially a phoney - and a coward, to boot.
- After all this posturing comes condemnation. The author details various atrocities and horrors perpetrated in the name of faith and / or religion, and on the basis of these, condemns faith in its entirety as irredeemably corrupt and destructive. Of course, the author is careful not to detail all the positive and constructive and humane endeavours undertaken by millions of people around the world and across history on the basis of their lived experience of faith. But beyond this, the author's purpose is simple: any crime perpetrated in the name of God is sufficient to discredit faith in toto. As if: a) people of faith were incapable of being outraged by, and responding to, wrongdoing perpetrated in the name of their faith; and b) religious belief alone is capable of producing crimes and horrors and atrocities. In short, people of faith are by definition mindless automatons incapable of independent thought; faith as a lived experience does not involve wrestling with conscience, or holding in tension the claims of institutional authority with the promptings of individual conviction - it is just a process for mass producing clones who are happy to be complicit in inhumanity.
- Finally, the writer finishes with another round of obfuscation spiced by a dose of pretence to objectivity. Obfuscation in the form of suggesting that I claimed the "consequences of irrational belief" could be separated from religious practice - which I patently did not. The pretence to objectivity is the reference to the crimes of Hitler and Stalin, a passing acknowledgement to non-religiously motivated crimes that is intended solely to boost the militant atheist's "credentials" as an objective, non-partisan humanitarian (an especial irony given atheism was the official theological position of the Soviet Union).
So what is to be made all of this? Reflecting on the last 24 hours, I have become convinced that the problem is not the rise of "assertive atheism". Rather, the problem is that the debate has degenerated into a slanging match between entrenched militants on both sides, whose objective is not to engage in meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding, but to assert their claims to truth to the exclusion of all others. The result is that moderates, both theist and atheist, are being trodden on and silenced, leaving the field to the fanatics and agents provocateur on both sides.
The solution to this can only come through an alliance of moderate, thinking atheists and moderate, thinking theists. By this, I mean those atheists who do not automatically assert that the phrase "thinking person of faith" is an oxymoron; and, likewise, those theists who do not automatically assume the term "atheist" denotes a rabid, aggressively blustering anti-theist. In other words, those theists and atheists who understand they have more in common with one another through a commitment to genuine dialogue and engagement, than they do with the hard-liners on their "own side".
Not that I'm suggesting for a moment that such an alliance should involve each side meekly accepting the views of the other, or conveniently looking the other way in respect of those positions or arguments with which they disagree. Rather, it is the commitment to a genuine process of exchange, in which each side, with humility and integrity, seeks to genuinely understand the other, and apply this understanding to their own assumptions and insights. In short, a process of mutual enrichment based on mutual respect and a shared determination to reject fanaticism.
Of course, I understand that forging such an alliance will be extremely difficult. But I think we owe it to ourselves to try; and I think the cost of not making the attempt will be far too high. Certainly, allowing the fanatics on either side to rule the roost will be to no-one's benefit.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Farce is a genre that's closer to tragedy in its essence than comedy is. (Samuel Taylor Coleridge)
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The Need For Engagement
I am a regular reader of The Age Online - which, as the name suggests, is the Internet version of Melbourne's terrific The Age newspaper. Indeed, it's part of my daily routine to read The Age Online to get my fill of what's been happening in the world.
One of the great aspects of TAO is its opinions section. That's because it provides a forum for all sorts of views on all sorts of issues. Many of the views expressed I disagree with; others I find myself in furious agreement with. Then again, some others I find I partially agree with and partially disagree with.
Of course, like every other paper, TAO has regular columnists who provide us with their thoughts on a daily or weekly basis, and "guest" commentators who are either commissioned to write a piece on a particular issue, or whose opinions are sourced from other media outlets. One of TAO's regular columnists is a person by the name of Catherine Deveny. Ms Deveny has been writing for TAO for a couple of months now, and I've noticed a pattern with her columns: she seems to take a particular delight in both wearing her oft-proclaimed atheism on her sleeve, and taking as many potshots as she can against anyone who believes in God.
Ms Deveny's style is simple: she locates any story she can about something absurd or vicious or idiotic being done in the name of God and / or religion, and proclaims, ipso facto, that this "proves" what an appalling thing it is to be a person of faith, and how much more enlightened and superior are those of us who aren't possessed by such a dreadful malaise.
I don't know what Ms Deveny's agenda or motives are. Perhaps she had an awful experience of institutional religion at another time in her life (something to which I can relate) and is angry and bitter and determined to "educate" the world as to the inhumanity of faith. Perhaps she genuinely believes the whole experience of faith is evil and destructive, and sees the need for a "crusade" to eliminate religious belief from the human condition. Or perhaps she just takes a particular pleasure from writing deliberately provocative and accusatory statements about faith and then sitting back and smugly viewing the resulting outrage as proof of her postulate.
Which is a pity. As I've said elsewhere on this blog about Richard Dawkins, the unfortunate thing about these all-religions-are-bad types is that whatever legitimate criticisms they make are buried beneath a veritable landslide of invective, hostility, and sneering name-calling (never mind the intellectual laziness and dishonesty - ironically, the very things which belief in God is supposed to produce - which litter such works). But the bigger disservice they perpetrate is that in adopting such a vindictive approach, they in fact destroy the good they might otherwise do by offering a reasoned and alternative critique of faith. People of faith cannot live in a vacuum; they must accept that others think differently, and attempt to engage with that difference in order to have a healthier, more robust understanding of their own faith.
But that of course requires that those who do not share a belief in God must likewise be prepared to engage with the interior experience of faith, and not simply rest content with mocking some of the absurd agglomerations that humans sometimes impose upon faith through cultural practice or personal vanity. Engagement takes real intellectual vigour and strength; mocking is the easiest thing in the world.
Alas, Ms Deveny's latest column fails this test - just as so many of her previous columns have done likewise. She takes a story about some girl in the UK suing her school because they won't let her wear a "purity ring" - apparently, a sign that, as a "Christian", she has taken a pledge of chastity until she gets married - as yet another indicator that all people of faith are morons. Or, in Ms Deveny's own words, we're all "barking mad". Moreover, the fact that this same school allows Muslim girls to wear headscarves is adduced by Ms Deveny as further evidence that faith is a matter of "mumbo-jumbo" and would be best jettisoned altogether.
Well, I wrote a letter to the editor, didn't I? Not in righteous anger, mind, merely pointing out that Ms Deveny's column might serve some useful purpose if it was about genuine engagement and not self-righteous mockery. Well, the letter was published, albeit in truncated form (you will need to scroll down the page to the letter entitled "Understand the Experience of Faith").
However, given the editing applied to this letter, I have reproduced it below in full.
One of the great aspects of TAO is its opinions section. That's because it provides a forum for all sorts of views on all sorts of issues. Many of the views expressed I disagree with; others I find myself in furious agreement with. Then again, some others I find I partially agree with and partially disagree with.
Of course, like every other paper, TAO has regular columnists who provide us with their thoughts on a daily or weekly basis, and "guest" commentators who are either commissioned to write a piece on a particular issue, or whose opinions are sourced from other media outlets. One of TAO's regular columnists is a person by the name of Catherine Deveny. Ms Deveny has been writing for TAO for a couple of months now, and I've noticed a pattern with her columns: she seems to take a particular delight in both wearing her oft-proclaimed atheism on her sleeve, and taking as many potshots as she can against anyone who believes in God.
Ms Deveny's style is simple: she locates any story she can about something absurd or vicious or idiotic being done in the name of God and / or religion, and proclaims, ipso facto, that this "proves" what an appalling thing it is to be a person of faith, and how much more enlightened and superior are those of us who aren't possessed by such a dreadful malaise.
I don't know what Ms Deveny's agenda or motives are. Perhaps she had an awful experience of institutional religion at another time in her life (something to which I can relate) and is angry and bitter and determined to "educate" the world as to the inhumanity of faith. Perhaps she genuinely believes the whole experience of faith is evil and destructive, and sees the need for a "crusade" to eliminate religious belief from the human condition. Or perhaps she just takes a particular pleasure from writing deliberately provocative and accusatory statements about faith and then sitting back and smugly viewing the resulting outrage as proof of her postulate.
Which is a pity. As I've said elsewhere on this blog about Richard Dawkins, the unfortunate thing about these all-religions-are-bad types is that whatever legitimate criticisms they make are buried beneath a veritable landslide of invective, hostility, and sneering name-calling (never mind the intellectual laziness and dishonesty - ironically, the very things which belief in God is supposed to produce - which litter such works). But the bigger disservice they perpetrate is that in adopting such a vindictive approach, they in fact destroy the good they might otherwise do by offering a reasoned and alternative critique of faith. People of faith cannot live in a vacuum; they must accept that others think differently, and attempt to engage with that difference in order to have a healthier, more robust understanding of their own faith.
But that of course requires that those who do not share a belief in God must likewise be prepared to engage with the interior experience of faith, and not simply rest content with mocking some of the absurd agglomerations that humans sometimes impose upon faith through cultural practice or personal vanity. Engagement takes real intellectual vigour and strength; mocking is the easiest thing in the world.
Alas, Ms Deveny's latest column fails this test - just as so many of her previous columns have done likewise. She takes a story about some girl in the UK suing her school because they won't let her wear a "purity ring" - apparently, a sign that, as a "Christian", she has taken a pledge of chastity until she gets married - as yet another indicator that all people of faith are morons. Or, in Ms Deveny's own words, we're all "barking mad". Moreover, the fact that this same school allows Muslim girls to wear headscarves is adduced by Ms Deveny as further evidence that faith is a matter of "mumbo-jumbo" and would be best jettisoned altogether.
Well, I wrote a letter to the editor, didn't I? Not in righteous anger, mind, merely pointing out that Ms Deveny's column might serve some useful purpose if it was about genuine engagement and not self-righteous mockery. Well, the letter was published, albeit in truncated form (you will need to scroll down the page to the letter entitled "Understand the Experience of Faith").
However, given the editing applied to this letter, I have reproduced it below in full.
Many people today describe themselves as "atheist" or "agnostic" or simply as "non-believers" for a variety of reasons ranging from their own experience of institutional religion to a straightforward scepticism about the existence of God. Personally, I welcome the increasing public profile of such persons, partly for the social diversity they provide, but mostly because they require persons of faith to engage with that scepticism and bring it to bear on their own understanding of faith.
However, for the exchange to be genuine, the encounter must operate both ways: those who are sceptics must seek a genuine understanding of the interior experience of faith, and use this to shine a light on their own reservations about religion or the existence of God. Only by doing so can people of each persuasion develop a genuine understanding of, and appreciation for, the other.
It is therefore disappointing that Catherine Deveny's latest column (Age 27/6) continues what is her apparent obsession with mocking the exterior absurdities that people sometimes attach to religion, as opposed to any genuine effort on her part to engage with the interior experience of faith. Does she really think things like "purity rings" are the hallmarks of belief in God and the expression of faith? Does she not understand that most Christians reading an article about a girl suing a school over an item of jewellery will roll their eyes in despair, knowing how superficial critics of faith will seize on this as yet more "evidence" of the absurdity of belief in God? Can she truly not distinguish between the lived experience of faith and the cultural agglomerations and personal vanities that are sometimes imposed upon it?
It is clear Ms Deveny sees herself as some kind of Australian equivalent of Richard Dawkins. My appeal to her is to drop this pretension and meaningfully engage with the interior reality of faith, and not merely some of the bizarre or absurd accoutrements of religion. By all means be sceptical or critical; but please do it from a position of genuine engagement, and not sneering self-righteousness.
Not that I expect Ms Deveny will change. But all we can do is keep trying to put the case that the phrase "thinking Christian" (or Muslim or Jew or Hindu, or Buddhist, etc) is not an oxymoron. Hopefully, there are enough "thinking atheists" who will likewise see the need for engagement and will respond.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: A critic is a failed writer - but then, so are most writers! (T S Eliot)
Saturday, June 23, 2007
IT - IS - FINISHED!
At long last, after nearly two and a half years, and 166,000 words, I have finally finished writing my novel.
Yeah, okay, so I now have to re-read the whole thing all over again and do what will no doubt be a multitude of corrections - but I've actually finished writing! Who woulda thunk it?
After I've done the corrections, I will need to find a few friends with whom I can stretch the limits of friendship and ask to test read the manuscript...but I'm sure I'll have no trouble finding volunteers! ;0)
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Literature is the art of proclaiming in front of everybody the things one is careful to conceal from one's immediate circle. (Jean Rostand)
Yeah, okay, so I now have to re-read the whole thing all over again and do what will no doubt be a multitude of corrections - but I've actually finished writing! Who woulda thunk it?
After I've done the corrections, I will need to find a few friends with whom I can stretch the limits of friendship and ask to test read the manuscript...but I'm sure I'll have no trouble finding volunteers! ;0)
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Literature is the art of proclaiming in front of everybody the things one is careful to conceal from one's immediate circle. (Jean Rostand)
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Beautiful Islamic Art
The Art Gallery of NSW is currently exhibiting a collection of magnificent Islamic art from the Khalili Collection, one of the largest and finest collections of Islamic art in the world.
Dr Nasser David Khalili is an Iranian Jewish scholar who collects art in order to promote understanding and peace between cultures. His collection ranges across the entire span of Islamic history, and includes manuscripts, statues, glassware, furniture, and jewellery, and totals over 20,000 objects. Dr Khalili is also involved with the Maimonides Foundation Trust, which promotes peace and understanding between Jews and Muslims.
Sadly, I won't be able to make it to Sydney in order to view the exhibition; but the Art Gallery has an excellent website - and although the site is incomplete (the online exhibition has yet to be posted), what's already there looks fantastic, and I'll be re-visiting the site to check out the exhibition images once they come online.
The music accompanying the exhibition also sounds wonderful; I'm thinking that when the CD becomes available, a copy might just join my collection of sacred music.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Dispute not, unless in kindly fashion, with the people of the Book, save with such of them as have acted wrongfully toward you; and say to them, "We believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God and your God is one, and to him we are self-surrendered". (Qur'an, Sura 26:45)
Dr Nasser David Khalili is an Iranian Jewish scholar who collects art in order to promote understanding and peace between cultures. His collection ranges across the entire span of Islamic history, and includes manuscripts, statues, glassware, furniture, and jewellery, and totals over 20,000 objects. Dr Khalili is also involved with the Maimonides Foundation Trust, which promotes peace and understanding between Jews and Muslims.
Sadly, I won't be able to make it to Sydney in order to view the exhibition; but the Art Gallery has an excellent website - and although the site is incomplete (the online exhibition has yet to be posted), what's already there looks fantastic, and I'll be re-visiting the site to check out the exhibition images once they come online.
The music accompanying the exhibition also sounds wonderful; I'm thinking that when the CD becomes available, a copy might just join my collection of sacred music.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Dispute not, unless in kindly fashion, with the people of the Book, save with such of them as have acted wrongfully toward you; and say to them, "We believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God and your God is one, and to him we are self-surrendered". (Qur'an, Sura 26:45)
Friedrich Nietzsche: Not The Devil In Disguise
I've been reading and thinking a lot about Friedrich Nietzsche lately.
Nietzsche does not enjoy a good press among Christians. Those Christians who have any knowledge of his work tend to think of him as one of the great 19th Century humanist bogeymen, a vitriolic anti-theist who vilified the church, mocked faith, and made such outrageously provocative statements as "It's indecent to be a Christian these days" and, more famously, "God is dead".
So it's hardly surprising that Christians tend to take a dim view of Nietzsche. But I have a somewhat different view of poor old Friedrich; indeed, I think he is one of the most misunderstood and wrongly maligned figures in human intellectual history. And the reason why I hold this view is grounded in the social and historical context in which he operated.
By Nietzsche's lifetime, the church, in Europe and elsewhere, had come to be seen not as the agency through which society was challenged and renewed, but as one of the pillars of the establishment supporting the status quo. The church was middle-class, complacent, and conservative, smugly assured of its own moral superiority, and deeply suspicious of any move toward change or re-ordering. The country parson with his butterfly collection, the metropolitan priest with his well-made house, the bishops and prelates with their palaces and political privileges: all these were viewed as emblematic of a church that was out of touch with the reality in which most people lived, and indifferent to the fate of those for whom it should have been caring.
So it comes as no surprise that Nietzsche's devastating critique should have burst into this insular, self-satisfied world with the force of an exploding bomb. This was especially the case given he was himself the son of a clergyman; and although Nietzsche was devoted to his father, and later paid for a beautiful headstone to be laid on his father's grave, in which was inscribed a passage from 1 Corinthians 13:8 - Love never dies - Nietzsche was excoriated by the Christians of his time. Indeed, in the parish registry that records his birth, someone later wrote: Friedrich Nietzsche - a known anti-Christ.
But was this fearful, demonising reaction warranted? True, Nietzsche wrote many harsh and uncompromising things about Christianity, much of which can be arguably viewed as excessive or overstated. But within this excess and overstatement lay a core of legitimate criticism overlooked by Nietzsche's detractors; indeed, they often failed to see that this over-the-top style itself served an important purpose.
Firstly: what was Nietzsche's principle objection to Christianity? Well, he didn't object to Christianity as such, he objected to the platitudes and home-spun homilies to which he felt conventional, unthinking faith gave rise. For example, Nietzsche argued that traditional Christian consolations that experiences such as sickness, failure, and suffering were "all part of God's plan" or "would turn out for the best" were highly destructive, because they involved a denial of life and prevented humans from achieving their full potential. Nietzsche based this objection on his principle that the truly healthy person does not seek to avoid or minimise suffering or hardship, nor do they even accept it as part of the reality of being; instead, they actively embrace "negative" experiences as part of the totality of existence, a totality that needed to be engaged with as a whole in order for a person to live a truly happy life.
Nietzsche argued that the "religion of happiness", the view that happiness is either the absence or minimisation of suffering, was implicit in traditional Christian consolations. By arguing that negative experiences were all "part of God's plan", Christians of the conventional variety denied humans their capacity to respond to the vicissitudes of life, and thereby caused themselves and others to lapse into apathy and lassitude. Likewise, by suggesting that everything would "turn out for the best", they provided false comfort that only exposed people to even greater suffering once "the best" did not eventuate. Nietzsche argued that a far better approach was be to meet suffering and hardship head on; that instead of tying to console ourselves, we should appreciate the value of hardship, its capacity to add meaning and fulfilment to our lives. This was the attitude to life which Nietzsche attributed to the "superman", a concept later misappropriated and warped by the Nazis to justify their theories of racial superiority.
Nietzsche compared the complacent, self-satisfied Christianity of his own time with the faith of the early church. He argued that the early church, in its attitudes, had been much closer to the "superman", the truly healthy human being, because it enabled people to engage with life and deal with suffering in ways that added meaning to existence. By contrast, the conventional Christianity Nietzsche saw around all around him was content with platitudes and maxims that unhealthily restrained human nature, restricting its capacity to wrestle with suffering and emerge as something greater than it had been previously. In other words, Nietzsche believed that Christianity could only have value if it was direct, vigorous, and muscular, instead of timorous, conventional, and apathetic.
Secondly: what was the point of the hyperbolic language in which Nietzsche often couched his criticism? Simply, it was to get a reaction. But a reaction not for the purpose of attention-seeking or self-aggrandisement; on the contrary, Nietzsche was trying to rouse those whom he saw as fatally asleep, and he felt the best way he could do this was to alert Christians, through the medium of harsh language, to the existential danger of their condition. Nietzsche felt that once they were awake, and once they had sufficiently recovered from the shock of waking, they would be able to rationally analyse their position, and thereby be motivated to change their approach to life and faith.
Alas, he was only partially successful. He certainly shocked many Christians out of their complacency; but they never really got over the experience. Instead of turning the energy of their shock into reforming Christianity, they utilised it to attack Nietzsche and denigrate him as an "anti-Christ" and a subversive. Well, he may certainly have been a subversive, but it was a subversion that was desperately needed.
And how is any of this relevant today? Quite simply because there has been much discussion among Christians (and people of faith generally) as to how they respond to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins, and their loud and vociferous attacks on faith and religion. Some argue that they should be simply ignored. But I think this would be a mistake for two reasons; one, because it would leave the intellectual field to Dawkins and co, and I don't think they deserve it; and, two, because sticking our heads in the sand would do an injustice to both ourselves and our critics. Others believe we should use Dawkins' and Hitchins' own weapons against them, and deal insult for insult, gross generalisation for gross generalisation. But I also think this, too, would be a mistake, because descending into the sewer of ignorance is, ultimately, an ineffective weapon; you only end up tainting yourself.
So how should we respond? Quite simply, by adopting a Nietzschean approach, by becoming "supermen" who engage with and embrace our critics, who wrestle with their criticisms and incorporate them into our life experience in order to become something greater than the sum of our parts. That does not mean we must meekly accept any old calumny which Dawkins or Hitchins choose to throw at us, nor that we refrain from arguing back or pointing out the flaws, errors, inconsistencies, and downright untruths of their position. Rather, it means that we should see Dawkins and Hitchins not as our enemies, but as people doing us a great and necessary service; for beneath the hyperbole and prejudice are legitimate criticisms that should spur us to reform and renewal - without in any way compromising our opposition to their anti-theism.
Afterall, it was Karl Marx, that arch-atheist of all atheists, who, writing about Nietzsche, declared: "Shame on you, Christians! Shame on you that it took an atheist to demonstrate to you the essence of your own faith!".
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Philosophy is common sense in a dress suit. (Oliver Braston)
Nietzsche does not enjoy a good press among Christians. Those Christians who have any knowledge of his work tend to think of him as one of the great 19th Century humanist bogeymen, a vitriolic anti-theist who vilified the church, mocked faith, and made such outrageously provocative statements as "It's indecent to be a Christian these days" and, more famously, "God is dead".
So it's hardly surprising that Christians tend to take a dim view of Nietzsche. But I have a somewhat different view of poor old Friedrich; indeed, I think he is one of the most misunderstood and wrongly maligned figures in human intellectual history. And the reason why I hold this view is grounded in the social and historical context in which he operated.
By Nietzsche's lifetime, the church, in Europe and elsewhere, had come to be seen not as the agency through which society was challenged and renewed, but as one of the pillars of the establishment supporting the status quo. The church was middle-class, complacent, and conservative, smugly assured of its own moral superiority, and deeply suspicious of any move toward change or re-ordering. The country parson with his butterfly collection, the metropolitan priest with his well-made house, the bishops and prelates with their palaces and political privileges: all these were viewed as emblematic of a church that was out of touch with the reality in which most people lived, and indifferent to the fate of those for whom it should have been caring.
So it comes as no surprise that Nietzsche's devastating critique should have burst into this insular, self-satisfied world with the force of an exploding bomb. This was especially the case given he was himself the son of a clergyman; and although Nietzsche was devoted to his father, and later paid for a beautiful headstone to be laid on his father's grave, in which was inscribed a passage from 1 Corinthians 13:8 - Love never dies - Nietzsche was excoriated by the Christians of his time. Indeed, in the parish registry that records his birth, someone later wrote: Friedrich Nietzsche - a known anti-Christ.
But was this fearful, demonising reaction warranted? True, Nietzsche wrote many harsh and uncompromising things about Christianity, much of which can be arguably viewed as excessive or overstated. But within this excess and overstatement lay a core of legitimate criticism overlooked by Nietzsche's detractors; indeed, they often failed to see that this over-the-top style itself served an important purpose.
Firstly: what was Nietzsche's principle objection to Christianity? Well, he didn't object to Christianity as such, he objected to the platitudes and home-spun homilies to which he felt conventional, unthinking faith gave rise. For example, Nietzsche argued that traditional Christian consolations that experiences such as sickness, failure, and suffering were "all part of God's plan" or "would turn out for the best" were highly destructive, because they involved a denial of life and prevented humans from achieving their full potential. Nietzsche based this objection on his principle that the truly healthy person does not seek to avoid or minimise suffering or hardship, nor do they even accept it as part of the reality of being; instead, they actively embrace "negative" experiences as part of the totality of existence, a totality that needed to be engaged with as a whole in order for a person to live a truly happy life.
Nietzsche argued that the "religion of happiness", the view that happiness is either the absence or minimisation of suffering, was implicit in traditional Christian consolations. By arguing that negative experiences were all "part of God's plan", Christians of the conventional variety denied humans their capacity to respond to the vicissitudes of life, and thereby caused themselves and others to lapse into apathy and lassitude. Likewise, by suggesting that everything would "turn out for the best", they provided false comfort that only exposed people to even greater suffering once "the best" did not eventuate. Nietzsche argued that a far better approach was be to meet suffering and hardship head on; that instead of tying to console ourselves, we should appreciate the value of hardship, its capacity to add meaning and fulfilment to our lives. This was the attitude to life which Nietzsche attributed to the "superman", a concept later misappropriated and warped by the Nazis to justify their theories of racial superiority.
Nietzsche compared the complacent, self-satisfied Christianity of his own time with the faith of the early church. He argued that the early church, in its attitudes, had been much closer to the "superman", the truly healthy human being, because it enabled people to engage with life and deal with suffering in ways that added meaning to existence. By contrast, the conventional Christianity Nietzsche saw around all around him was content with platitudes and maxims that unhealthily restrained human nature, restricting its capacity to wrestle with suffering and emerge as something greater than it had been previously. In other words, Nietzsche believed that Christianity could only have value if it was direct, vigorous, and muscular, instead of timorous, conventional, and apathetic.
Secondly: what was the point of the hyperbolic language in which Nietzsche often couched his criticism? Simply, it was to get a reaction. But a reaction not for the purpose of attention-seeking or self-aggrandisement; on the contrary, Nietzsche was trying to rouse those whom he saw as fatally asleep, and he felt the best way he could do this was to alert Christians, through the medium of harsh language, to the existential danger of their condition. Nietzsche felt that once they were awake, and once they had sufficiently recovered from the shock of waking, they would be able to rationally analyse their position, and thereby be motivated to change their approach to life and faith.
Alas, he was only partially successful. He certainly shocked many Christians out of their complacency; but they never really got over the experience. Instead of turning the energy of their shock into reforming Christianity, they utilised it to attack Nietzsche and denigrate him as an "anti-Christ" and a subversive. Well, he may certainly have been a subversive, but it was a subversion that was desperately needed.
And how is any of this relevant today? Quite simply because there has been much discussion among Christians (and people of faith generally) as to how they respond to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins, and their loud and vociferous attacks on faith and religion. Some argue that they should be simply ignored. But I think this would be a mistake for two reasons; one, because it would leave the intellectual field to Dawkins and co, and I don't think they deserve it; and, two, because sticking our heads in the sand would do an injustice to both ourselves and our critics. Others believe we should use Dawkins' and Hitchins' own weapons against them, and deal insult for insult, gross generalisation for gross generalisation. But I also think this, too, would be a mistake, because descending into the sewer of ignorance is, ultimately, an ineffective weapon; you only end up tainting yourself.
So how should we respond? Quite simply, by adopting a Nietzschean approach, by becoming "supermen" who engage with and embrace our critics, who wrestle with their criticisms and incorporate them into our life experience in order to become something greater than the sum of our parts. That does not mean we must meekly accept any old calumny which Dawkins or Hitchins choose to throw at us, nor that we refrain from arguing back or pointing out the flaws, errors, inconsistencies, and downright untruths of their position. Rather, it means that we should see Dawkins and Hitchins not as our enemies, but as people doing us a great and necessary service; for beneath the hyperbole and prejudice are legitimate criticisms that should spur us to reform and renewal - without in any way compromising our opposition to their anti-theism.
Afterall, it was Karl Marx, that arch-atheist of all atheists, who, writing about Nietzsche, declared: "Shame on you, Christians! Shame on you that it took an atheist to demonstrate to you the essence of your own faith!".
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: Philosophy is common sense in a dress suit. (Oliver Braston)
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Who's Afraid of Industrial "Reform"?
As the Australian Federal election starts to loom large on the horizon of most Australians' political consciousness, and as opinion polls continue to suggest that the Labor Opposition are in with a real chance of breaking the Howard Government's decade-long stranglehold on power, industrial relations is shaping up as one of the key battlegrounds for the hearts and minds of the voting public.
In some respects, the pitches thrown at voters by both sides are somewhat predictable. The Howard Government continues to trot out the tired old whipping horse of secretive "union power" should the ALP win the next election; the ALP continue to pose as the party that champions decency and fairness in the employment relationship. Yet, beneath these familiar masks lurk some subtleties that may have escaped most people's attention. For in reality this is not a battle between parties with opposing perspectives on industrial relations, but a contest to determine who can best massage their message and thereby convince the public of their right to electoral support.
In part, this is played out in the overt messages that are issued by both the Coalition and the ALP. The Coalition continue to trumpet their record as "economic managers", pointing to Australia's "record low" unemployment figures as proof of the veracity of Coalition industrial policy, and in particular, the so-called "Workchoices" changes to industrial relations legislation. The ALP responds by arguing that the Howard Government have simply benefited from "reforms" instituted by the Hawke/Keating Labor Governments, while at the same time strongly playing up the social injustice implications of the Government's industrial policy.
But this posturing only hides the less attractive reality. The "official" unemployment figures are highly suspect, both methodologically and qualitatively. Aside from the fact that the "unemployment" rate only counts those who are formally registered with the Government's privatised "Jobs Network" (and many tens of thousands of people are not so registered, for a variety of reasons), the integrity of the figure suffers from rules such as the stipulation that an "employed" person is defined as someone who has an hour or more of paid employment per week. So if you are unfortunate enough to suffer from irregular or highly variable hours of work, you are counted as gainfully "employed"! The truth is that the real unemployment / underemployment rate in Australia is at least double the "official" (and supposedly "record low") rate. But this is the kind of duplicity that is to be expected from a Government who have made an artform out of dissembling, distorting, obfuscating, and downright dishonesty.
For the ALP's part, it is essentially attempting to have its cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, it argues that it is as economically "competent" (if not more so) than the Government, citing the aforementioned "reforms" under previous Federal Labor governments. On the other hand, it portrays itself as the friend of the working person / self-employed person / skilled tradesperson against the "big end of town"; the friend of the "battler" and the "aspirational class". This is a decidedly dishonest strategy, replete as it is with a sad combination of "me-too" politics and phoney class identification. The "reforms" of the Hawke/Keating Governments opened the door for the lamentable erosion of citizens' capacity to direct their own industrial / financial future that has been entrenched by the policies of the Howard Government; and even as it has been turning its back on its social-democratic foundations and mindlessly embracing neo-liberal economic orthodoxies, the ALP has been posturing as the party of social equality and conscience.
And it is this essential artificiality on both sides of politics that has underscored some of the recent manoeuvrings on industrial relations. Stung by a highly effective union campaign against the "Workchoices" legislation (an effectiveness derived in large part from the fact that the campaign drew on the real experiences of people victimised by the "reforms"), the Howard Government has dropped the "Workchoices brand", recruited the employers federations (isn't it funny how they're never called "bosses unions"?) to fund a multi-million dollar pro-Workchoices ad campaign, and have seized on the fact that the union movement has a campaign strategy for the forthcoming election to hysterically suggest an ALP-union conspiracy. Predictably, the ALP have attempted to destroy the claim of union control by assuring employers that unions will have neither a free rein nor a guaranteed future should the ALP win power, and has bent over backwards to water down its initially robust policy response to "Workchoices" as a sop to the powerful employer federations (no hint of a Coalition-business conspiracy, though).
But perhaps one of the most sweeping - and yet unnoticed, or at least, uncommented upon - aspects of the ALP's industrial policy has been its proposal to effectively make the governance of industrial relations an arm of the public service. It proposes doing this in two ways: by making the oversight of industrial relations the province of a "one-stop shop" entity called "Fair Work Australia"; and by abolishing the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). True, the AIRC has effectively been reduced to a shadow of its former self under "Workchoices", and its substantive functions outsourced to creatures of the Howard Government such as the Australian Fair Pay Commission and the Office of the Employment Advocate; but the proposed abolition of the Commission represents the effective abandonment of a framework that has made Australia’s IR system unique in the industrialised world.
As an independent judiciary, the AIRC has been the sole instrumentality capable of holding both capital and labour to account, restraining the excesses of both mindless union militancy and callous libertarian capitalism. The net result has been an economic prosperity and social cohesiveness the envy of the rest of the world, built largely on Keynesian principles of judicious intervention in the economy, and achieved without the appalling inequalities that characterise the “boom” economies of post-Thatcherite Britain and post-Reaganomics America.
That the Coalition should wish to see the Commission eviscerated is hardly surprising, given the dominance of neo-liberal ideologues on the conservative side of politics. That this feat will be enacted by the ALP should it win power not only indicates a similar neo-liberal ascendancy in what passes for progressive politics in Australia, it also points to a shockingly one-dimensional understanding of economics. In other words, it’s not actually about the economy - that is, the totality of the relationship between business, finance, employment, human dignity, bargaining power and social equity - it’s actually about convincing the electorate who can secure the biggest budget surpluses, maintain the lowest interest rates, and provide the biggest tax cuts.
Moreover, the name of the entity which the ALP propose will take over the role of the AIRC not only smacks of the jingoism for which the present Federal Government is notorious, given the politicisation of the public service under that selfsame government, it produces the alarming prospect that the entity itself will simply be a tool of party politics. There are already sufficient examples of this under the Howard Government for the potential loss of an independent AIRC to be truly worrying. Equally importantly, it makes a mockery of the rubric under which these “reforms” have been proposed: fair for all, not free for all.
Without an independent judiciary, industrial relations in Australia will become a free-for-all. And, as usual, the ones to suffer will be the most helpless: those with the least bargaining power; those without skills or only minimal skills; those stuck in the round of casualised work, unemployment, and underemployment. The Australian economy - that is, the nexus between human dignity and bargaining power in the workplace - is already on shaky ground; the “reforms” proposed by the ALP - and the further "reforms" that will almost certainly be implemented by the Coalition should they win the next election - may well cut the ground out from under working Australians completely and irrevocably.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: A poll is when people come to their census. (Anonymous)
In some respects, the pitches thrown at voters by both sides are somewhat predictable. The Howard Government continues to trot out the tired old whipping horse of secretive "union power" should the ALP win the next election; the ALP continue to pose as the party that champions decency and fairness in the employment relationship. Yet, beneath these familiar masks lurk some subtleties that may have escaped most people's attention. For in reality this is not a battle between parties with opposing perspectives on industrial relations, but a contest to determine who can best massage their message and thereby convince the public of their right to electoral support.
In part, this is played out in the overt messages that are issued by both the Coalition and the ALP. The Coalition continue to trumpet their record as "economic managers", pointing to Australia's "record low" unemployment figures as proof of the veracity of Coalition industrial policy, and in particular, the so-called "Workchoices" changes to industrial relations legislation. The ALP responds by arguing that the Howard Government have simply benefited from "reforms" instituted by the Hawke/Keating Labor Governments, while at the same time strongly playing up the social injustice implications of the Government's industrial policy.
But this posturing only hides the less attractive reality. The "official" unemployment figures are highly suspect, both methodologically and qualitatively. Aside from the fact that the "unemployment" rate only counts those who are formally registered with the Government's privatised "Jobs Network" (and many tens of thousands of people are not so registered, for a variety of reasons), the integrity of the figure suffers from rules such as the stipulation that an "employed" person is defined as someone who has an hour or more of paid employment per week. So if you are unfortunate enough to suffer from irregular or highly variable hours of work, you are counted as gainfully "employed"! The truth is that the real unemployment / underemployment rate in Australia is at least double the "official" (and supposedly "record low") rate. But this is the kind of duplicity that is to be expected from a Government who have made an artform out of dissembling, distorting, obfuscating, and downright dishonesty.
For the ALP's part, it is essentially attempting to have its cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, it argues that it is as economically "competent" (if not more so) than the Government, citing the aforementioned "reforms" under previous Federal Labor governments. On the other hand, it portrays itself as the friend of the working person / self-employed person / skilled tradesperson against the "big end of town"; the friend of the "battler" and the "aspirational class". This is a decidedly dishonest strategy, replete as it is with a sad combination of "me-too" politics and phoney class identification. The "reforms" of the Hawke/Keating Governments opened the door for the lamentable erosion of citizens' capacity to direct their own industrial / financial future that has been entrenched by the policies of the Howard Government; and even as it has been turning its back on its social-democratic foundations and mindlessly embracing neo-liberal economic orthodoxies, the ALP has been posturing as the party of social equality and conscience.
And it is this essential artificiality on both sides of politics that has underscored some of the recent manoeuvrings on industrial relations. Stung by a highly effective union campaign against the "Workchoices" legislation (an effectiveness derived in large part from the fact that the campaign drew on the real experiences of people victimised by the "reforms"), the Howard Government has dropped the "Workchoices brand", recruited the employers federations (isn't it funny how they're never called "bosses unions"?) to fund a multi-million dollar pro-Workchoices ad campaign, and have seized on the fact that the union movement has a campaign strategy for the forthcoming election to hysterically suggest an ALP-union conspiracy. Predictably, the ALP have attempted to destroy the claim of union control by assuring employers that unions will have neither a free rein nor a guaranteed future should the ALP win power, and has bent over backwards to water down its initially robust policy response to "Workchoices" as a sop to the powerful employer federations (no hint of a Coalition-business conspiracy, though).
But perhaps one of the most sweeping - and yet unnoticed, or at least, uncommented upon - aspects of the ALP's industrial policy has been its proposal to effectively make the governance of industrial relations an arm of the public service. It proposes doing this in two ways: by making the oversight of industrial relations the province of a "one-stop shop" entity called "Fair Work Australia"; and by abolishing the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). True, the AIRC has effectively been reduced to a shadow of its former self under "Workchoices", and its substantive functions outsourced to creatures of the Howard Government such as the Australian Fair Pay Commission and the Office of the Employment Advocate; but the proposed abolition of the Commission represents the effective abandonment of a framework that has made Australia’s IR system unique in the industrialised world.
As an independent judiciary, the AIRC has been the sole instrumentality capable of holding both capital and labour to account, restraining the excesses of both mindless union militancy and callous libertarian capitalism. The net result has been an economic prosperity and social cohesiveness the envy of the rest of the world, built largely on Keynesian principles of judicious intervention in the economy, and achieved without the appalling inequalities that characterise the “boom” economies of post-Thatcherite Britain and post-Reaganomics America.
That the Coalition should wish to see the Commission eviscerated is hardly surprising, given the dominance of neo-liberal ideologues on the conservative side of politics. That this feat will be enacted by the ALP should it win power not only indicates a similar neo-liberal ascendancy in what passes for progressive politics in Australia, it also points to a shockingly one-dimensional understanding of economics. In other words, it’s not actually about the economy - that is, the totality of the relationship between business, finance, employment, human dignity, bargaining power and social equity - it’s actually about convincing the electorate who can secure the biggest budget surpluses, maintain the lowest interest rates, and provide the biggest tax cuts.
Moreover, the name of the entity which the ALP propose will take over the role of the AIRC not only smacks of the jingoism for which the present Federal Government is notorious, given the politicisation of the public service under that selfsame government, it produces the alarming prospect that the entity itself will simply be a tool of party politics. There are already sufficient examples of this under the Howard Government for the potential loss of an independent AIRC to be truly worrying. Equally importantly, it makes a mockery of the rubric under which these “reforms” have been proposed: fair for all, not free for all.
Without an independent judiciary, industrial relations in Australia will become a free-for-all. And, as usual, the ones to suffer will be the most helpless: those with the least bargaining power; those without skills or only minimal skills; those stuck in the round of casualised work, unemployment, and underemployment. The Australian economy - that is, the nexus between human dignity and bargaining power in the workplace - is already on shaky ground; the “reforms” proposed by the ALP - and the further "reforms" that will almost certainly be implemented by the Coalition should they win the next election - may well cut the ground out from under working Australians completely and irrevocably.
Talk to you soon,
BB.
Quote for the Day: A poll is when people come to their census. (Anonymous)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
