10 Years On...

Yes, its ten years on (not since my last blog post, but close...)... Ten years on since the world changed in profound ways as the result of the terror attacks on the Word Trade Centre and the Pentagon in the US. It's hard to remember life before the very bizarre "the war on terror" that followed and remains with us to this day.

One of the things that has changed, of course, is the perception of Muslim people in our world. 

Research has shown that there has been a dramatic rise in the levels of demonisation that Muslim people have experienced across the globe since the 2001 attacks. There seems to be a new xenophobia in town, or at least new expressions of old xenophobia that has been lurking not too far from the surface of our communal life. This developing mindset has coloured our own our nation's views on worthwhile pursuits like multiculturalism and the processing on asylum-seekers.

Personally, I don't know that many people who identify as "Muslim". I could count them on one hand. But when you know someone, it certainly cuts through all the xenophobia that swirls around you... When I was a school chaplain, one of the teachers at my school was a devout Muslim - a lovely, lovely man. One day, I was preparing to do some religious teaching in a class that this teacher was presiding over and he asked me if he could say something before I began. I wasn't too sure if I should let him (him being "Muslim" and all) but it was his class, what was I going to do? Besides, he was such a great guy... So, he spoke to the class for two or three minutes about the importance of God, and that even if God wasn't high on their agenda at the moment, if they listened, maybe later on in their lives their agenda might change and something they heard today might come back to them and be useful. He then handed back to me... but I was at a loss for words... I felt as thought the religion lesson had been well taught - well, it had been to me at least... 

I was so impressed with his words and his inclusion of me in his spiritual world. He had been far more gracious towards me than I would have been towards him. Something quite profound changed in me as a result of that exchange... It helped me to see that while we can spend a lot of time trying to work out who is "us" and who is "them, that mostly, I think, in a lot of ways, it is just all "us" out there, trying to work it all out and make the most out of our lives.

My encouragement on this suspicious anniversary is to go and hug a "them" today... Well, at least say "hi"... particularly if you are planning on hugging them next... Anyway, I'm sure you'll work it out...

Shalom

Steve

Turn the Other Chook

This is one of the best tag lines I've ever seen / heard / read... and for a great product / cause.

Given that Christmas is coming, Tear Australia has once again launched it's "Arguably the World's Most Useful Gifts - Christmas 2010" catalogue to give folks a non-consumerist option for their Christmas present buying this year.

Here's how it works...

Check out the link and have a look around the site. "Useful Gifts" is not limited to buying useful gifts at Christmas time, there are ways contribute throughout the year and even the opportunity to run your own "Useful Gifts" shop.

Check it out...

Shalom

Steve

Challenging the Chaplains

I remember going to the cricket one day with a group of friends, and one of them asked me how work was going (I work in the training department of SU Qld, the largest employing authority for state school chaplains in Queensland). I got about one or two sentences into my reply when he said, "You know, I really wish you guys didn't do what you do. I mean I like you and all, but I don't like the idea that there are chaplains in schools." Quite an interesting conversation took place after that. It is not the last one I have had, nor am I the only person who has been having these conversations. There has been a bit going on about it in the media over the last few years. 

The first 'outsider' view I wanted to share as part of my blogging 'come back' is about chaplaincy - a subject that is close to my heart. Not only do I work for SU Qld, but I have also worked as a chaplain in a high school. Compass, the ABC program that looks at issues of spirituality and religion in Australia, recently did a program called "Challenging the Chaplains." It looks at both sides of the "Chaplaincy debate" and challenges the place and value of  School-based Chaplaincy. 

I haven't got any comments I want to make about the program particularly. Maybe just to encourage you to watch the video, read some of the comments that people have made afterwards and reflect on it yourself.

To go to the Compass website and watch the program, "Challenging the Chaplains", click here ...

Shalom

Steve

My Apologies For My Blogging Slackness

I just wanted to apologise for my blogging slackness. I've been very busy with work and I've started some post-grad study at uni in politics and government. I can say that my blogging on spirituality in the public sphere, with an emphasis on the political realm, has lead me down this path. Maybe one day, I'll actually know what I'm talking about. Oh, and I also lost my ipod, which was a major source of podcast information and inspiration...

Oh, and I have a wife and kids... They are quite time consuming as well... but also quite nice really...

The really sad thing is that there has been quite a lot going on that I would have liked to babble on about. I would like to have shared a few more thoughts on different people's reactions to Julia Gillard being an atheist. I got some great emails sent to me by different people claiming that she was the anti-Christ etc etc, and then she went and trumped God's own party (the coalition in case you were wondering) by pledging $65 million more than them for the contunuation of chaplaincy over the next three years. I don't know why, but I just thought that was really funny...

Then there was the "ban the burka" debate... now this is fascinating. Bans are already in place in European countries like France and Belgium, and the discussions have already started here. Amazing stuff - what does it mean to be a free society? Should Muslim women be free to wear the burka or should they be freed from wearing it? Anyway, I just haven't had the time to go into it... but I'm sure it's not the last we've heard of it.

Also, I finally finished the "His Dark Materials" trilogy after about a year of reading. Those three books together were about a metre thick. You might have heard of the movie, "The Golden Compass". Well it was that set of books - the "anti-Narnia", a supposed atheistic fantasy novel. That stuff was there, and it was also a ripping good read! I'm back into "Doubts and Loves " by Richard Holloway, but can't seem to get motivated to keep going with "God Delusion".

And then on the weekend, in The Australian Magazine I think, there was an article about guilt and how in some ways modern society has done away with it, along with religion, but in another sense it has just transferred it to a different set of "deadly sins" (one of which was to have religious belief)... There was some interesting discussion about whether the loss of guilt in our modern world had been a good thing or a bad thing. Interesting stuff going on out there...

Anyway, I saw the light on and thought I'd drop in... just touching base, checking in etc etc... I'm not sure when I'll get onto this beast again but I hope it's soon. There are heaps of interesting things going on out there that are greenspace blog-worthy. If I don't get to them and start talking about them, make sure you do...

Shalom

Steve

Gillard Won't Play the Religion Card

It has been a fascinating last few weeks in politics. The events around Kevin Rudd’s demise and Julia Gillard’s ascendancy to the role of Prime Minister have dominated the news cycle. Some of the articles in the news have focused on some of Julia Gillard’s unique characteristics as a Prime Minister: that she is a woman, that she is unmarried, living in a de-facto relationship; that she doesn’t have children; and that she is an atheist. 

Last week, there was an interesting ABC Online article called “I Won’t Play the Religion Card”. In the article, Gillard shared that she is an atheist and that she won’t be pressured into pretending that she is a person of faith for political benefit. 

I find it so interesting, but not surprising, that she has to make a statement like that. There is this often talked about perception in Australian politics that it is advantageous to be affiliated with some kind of  branch of the Christian faith, even when Australians are less and less affiliating themselves personally with it. Kevin Rudd knew it and was was more than happy to have a weekly press conference out in front of the local church he attended (with the church shown prominently in the background). And John Howard new it too and closely linked a number of his policy decisions and directions with his Methodist roots.

(Another article from the previous week worth looking at is one from the Courier Mail, entitled, "Julia Gillard Offers Rule Without Religion")... The theme of religion and politics in Australia is always bubbling along just below the surface, regardless of who is in charge. I wrote in an earlier post that I thought it would be interesting with Rudd and Abbott going head-to-head at the next election, but what will it mean now?

It certainly won't be last time we hear of this, in fact, what I think will happen, is that something that has been puttering along in the background of Australian politics is going to come more to the forefront. Australian Christian lobby and interest groups are going to have to re-adjust to new religious/political landscape after 14 or 15 years with a religious person in charge of the country.

I'm guessing that Julia Gillard won't have the same connection and empathy with certain religious agendas and religious groups might find themselves looking for new ways to get the government's ear...

'Twil be very interesting... Watch this space - I'll try to keep up...

Shalom...

Steve

Federal Budget 2010 - How will the world's poor fare?

TEAR Australia's "ChangeMakers" advocacy group, have released an article entitled "Federal Budget 2010 - How will the world's poor fare?". It talks a bit about the budget in general, about Australia's overseas aid commitments, and makes some suggestions about some political action we could take to help the world's poor through political action.


As a Christian person, I think my decision on who I vote for in the next election should be heavily influenced by how the party approaches its commitments to the world's poorest people.

Anyway, take a look and see what you think... if you dare...

Shalom...

"God and Caesar"

(For those of you on Facebook, this “note” is a blog post on my blog called “Steve’s Greenspace” – about the relationship between personal and public spirituality. The posts come across to Facebook as notes and all my “friends” get them inflicted upon them. If you don’t want to receive them, please feel free to not read them, but please still be my friend... Steve)

Angela Shanahan wrote an interesting article in The Weekend Australian a number of weeks ago called “Godless politics has gone too far for democracy”. It is worth reading... In the article, she recounts a question asked by an audience member on the ABC’s “Q & A” panel show. A young man asked the panel whether people with strong religious beliefs should be allowed to participate in politics.

The philosophy or attitude behind this question is one that is on the rise in Australia at present. I wonder if it coincides with the rise of a more overt and activist atheist movement in the country – not sure, but maybe... Anyway, the philosophy is one about the meaning of secularism and how it relates to democracy. The philosophy promotes an understanding of secularism which means “no religion” in the public sphere, rather than “all religions” in the public sphere (and not just all religions, but all worldviews and voices). It comes out of a misunderstanding of the meaning of “the separation of church and state” and of a New Testament phrase - “Give Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:15-22).

Angela Shanahan takes a look at these ideas as part of her article as well. The misunderstanding of the “God and Caesar” idea promotes the idea that religion is one thing, politics is another thing, and the two shouldn’t mix. When church leaders enter into political debates, politicians are likely to politely respect their opinions but kindly invite them to go back to what it is that they are good at (IE – not politics). When Jesus said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s”, he had no intention of encouraging people to leave their spiritual lives at the door of the public arena. He was simply giving a clever answer to a question that had been designed to trap him into an answer that would cause him trouble.

The Jews were a conquered people, struggling under Roman rule, and Religious leaders came up with a question that was sure to get Jesus into trouble with his hearers – “Should we pay tax to Caesar?” If Jesus answered “yes” then he was supporting the people’s oppressors; if he answered “no” then he would be encouraging dissent or even rebellion. So, Jesus (who doesn’t feel the need to fall into people’s traps for him) says, “Give me a coin. Whose face is on it?” The answer was “Caesar’s”. Well then, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.” Jesus is not much of a game player and he doesn’t give a lot of airplay to the game players. The question wasn’t a serious one, so rather than engage with it, he turns (as he often does) the potential trap into an opportunity to promote his own hobby horse – “give your life over to God”.

This is a technique I’ve seen many politicians use. ("Well Kerry, that is a good question, but what the people of Australia really want to know is...” ). Maybe Jesus should have gone into politics... But I digress. Jesus’ message to people, over and over, was “take God seriously in your life, or don’t, but whatever you do don’t flounce around in-between.” And this was his message for all of life – not just what some regard as the “spiritual” parts. It even applies to the world of politics...

Shalom...

Blowing the Cobwebs off this Blog...

It has been ages since I've made a post on this blog and there have been many blog-able things going on. I've been a little busy with work and life, and the blog is the thing that suffers when that is the case. I just don't have, what my wife calls, "the mental real estate" to think and write about stuff when too much is happening on everywhere else in my life... Today, I just wanted to let people know that there is a great article in today's Australian called "Looking for the Real Abbott". It is about Tony Abbott's "Conservatism" and "Catholicism" (again) and how the media has been dealing with it. This article kind of builds on from my previous post (back in the dark annuls of history that it is)...

Paul Kelly (editor-at-large - what a great job title) says that the media are doing Tony Abbott a dis-service by presenting his faith in a particular way that matches a religious "narrative" about him that makes good viewing or reading, but does not present the factual story or a well-rounded picture. He puts up as an example, the ABC's Four Corner interview with Tony Abbott called "The Authentic Mr Abbott" from last Monday night, saying that Liz Jackson goes out of her way to encourage the "Mad Monk" narrative, focusing on anything negative that can be connected to his faith.

Also in the article, Kelly goes on to talk about the different approach that Kevin Rudd takes to dealing with his faith in public and asks whether the faith of our two leading politicians will become an election issue. While he says it "currently lurks in the background", I think it might be more prominent than that. The targets are seemingly too huge to resist... So, we shall see what develops... (anyway, the article is a good read)...

Shalom...

Tony Abbott Talks About Sex...

Tony Abbott wants his 3 daughters to preserve their virginity until they are married. Well, this is what he said in an interview with the "Women's Weekly" magazine, and the storm is brewing nicely in the tea cup. Some are in uproar, saying that Abbott should keep his opinions on women's sexuality to himself, and that his comments are just another example of his Catholic conservatism being inappropriately expressed in the public and political realm. Others are wondering what the fuss is all about. "What else would Tony Abbott want for his daughters?" they ask, challenging politicians from all parties and religious backgrounds to come clean on their own views, (which they assume are the same as or similar to his). This might free him up from the specific criticisms that are being leveled at him - but probably not...

I wonder had a non-religious politician had expressed the same views, would they have received the same criticisms or attention? (of course, it helps that he is the Opposition Leader)... But everyone knows that Tony Abbot is "religious" and "conservative" - he has these labels reapplied in the newspapers every time he opens his mouth. His view on virginity would be a common view expressed by religious people of many persuasions. The hope he expressed for his daughters would be a hope shared with many parent - both religious and non-religious. As an editorial in The Australian pointed out, "You don't have to be a Christian to believe that sex before marriage is wrong..." (but if you are a Christian, or religious, and you believe this, and God forbid, express it, then you'd better watch out)...

One of the comments in The Australian today was interesting. In Lauren Wilson's article, "Making a Gift of Yourself", she refers to Julia Gillard's response to Abbott's comments. She writes, "Gillard declared Mr Abbott had 'confirmed the worst fears' about his conservative social views, virginity became shorthand for questioning his fitness to rule a liberal secular Australia."

So, does having Christian views on personal behaviour exclude you from being able to carry out a political role in Australia? Can you have Christian views, but not express them? Is that okay? Can you have personal views on an issue, express them, but not push them in your political role? Is any of this possible and/or permissable?

We have two political leaders who have clearly and plainly identified themselves as Christian people. We'd better hope that it's okay for our leaders to be Christians and to be politicians or even Prime Ministers, because that is the choice we face in the election coming up later this year.

I wonder what Kevin Rudd thinks about the virginity of his daughter, or do I...? Rudd might be a bit smarter than Abbott, and he might keep this opinion to himself so as to avoid the criticism. It is a shame that he might feel he has to. Lucky for him that he had a Julia Gillard on his team. She was probably more than happy to respond on his behalf... :)

Shalom...

Whatever Happened to Secular Democracy ?

On the 28th of December, Ross Fitzgerald wrote an article in The Australian called "Whatever Happened to Secular Democracy?" In it, he complains about how religion is making its presence felt more and more in Australian politics. Although it is not really clear what solution he is proposing, he seems to be putting forward that either Christians shouldn't be in politics; that Christians shouldn't try to influence politics; or that Christians should slice off the Christian part of themselves when in politics.

It is all very interesting... And it seems that many people thought so as well. There were about 180 comments attached to the online version of the article and space given to 6 related letters to editors in The Weekend Australian.

Just a few thoughts...

Firstly, it seems to me that Ross (and others) doesn't really understand what a "secular democracy" is or what is meant by "the separation of church and state". Neither concepts are designed to keep religion out of politics, but to ensure that no one religion is owned by the state or that the state is owned by one religion for that matter... If people elect Christians into various political offices, then that is democracy in action. If Christians lobby for what they want to see happen in politics, then that is democracy in action. If Christians in politics act Christianly (or otherwise) in the performance of their duties, then that is democracy in action. If people don't like any of that, then they can also engage in the democratic process and get their agendas on the table and try to make whatever it is they want to have happen, happen. They can also elect representatives who aren't religious if they want to. This happens all the time. So, "secular democracy" means that religion has a place in public life, whether people like ior believe in a religion or not. To actually exclude religion from public life would be undemocratic and not in the spirit of secularism.

Secondly, everyone has some kind of worldview, schema, philosophy of life etc etc that they live by - some are "religious" and some are "secular". These are the values that guide people's actions - even politicians! To ask a person to engage in politics and slice off their source of values as they do so, is crazy talk... No-one would ask this of a non-religious person. I think the challenge for Christian politics is to engage in democratic processes in a Christian way, that doesn't just promote the wellbeing of Christians, but of all the people they were elected to represent.

Thirdly, religion is political. People who go on about keeping religion personal and out of public life do not understand the scope of the spiritual agendas of most religions. "Personal salvation" and "personal faith" are only parts of the story. Both Old and New Testaments talk about economics, politics, citizenship, war, peace, refugees, the poor, the environment etc... The Jewish concept of "Shalom" is about cosmic renewal, and God's interest in all areas of life.

I think that the concept of "Shalom" is a useful one for Christians in politics. Understanding these things, we can see a place for religion and spirituality in public life.

Shalom...

Christianity and Politics

I just listened to a very interesting podcast by Tony Campolo entitled "Christianity and Politics". It was recorded before Barack Obama became the President of the USA and includes a great quote from him.

I'd recommend a listen to it if you are into such things. It can be found by clicking here ...

Shalom...

Steve

The Rise of "The Mad Monk"

Is anyone else concerned that the nick name of the new opposition leader is "The Mad Monk"? Tony Abbott ended a pretty tumultuous week for the Coalition by getting voted in as the new leader of the party by 1 vote. He certainly seems to have a big job ahead of him to unite the party and start moving ahead towards the next election.

Not everyone is thrilled with the choice of "The Mad Monk" as new leader. Some have concerns with the "mad" part, saying that he is a bit erratic and outspoken, while others are more concerned with the "monk" part. In The Australian today, there were a number of articles about him, describing him as "Conservative" and as a "Devout Catholic". These terms appeared almost always together, painting them as related traits, if not as the same thing. In Tony Abbott's case, this is probably true. In Australia, there has been a long relationship between Conservative politics and the mainstream Christian churches. And for each of us, there is certainly some connection between our worldview or spirituality and our political ideology.

Eva Cox, the Chairwoman of WEL (Women's Electoral Lobby) said that Tony Abbott, "lets his personal religious views interfere with his political role and I think that that's a problem." In 2004, talking about the relationship between his faith and politics, Abbott said, "Christian politicians can not check their faith into the parliamentary cloakroom and be otherwise indistinguishable from everyone else. Still, modern society is not a community of believers and the parliament is not the place to make rules for one." I think that Tony Abbott "gets it". He is no dummy and has clearly thought through his own position on this.

I don't know anyone who checks their world view or spirituality into the 'cloakroom' before before doing their job or living their life. We all certainly have to apply our world view appropriately in the context we find ourselves in at any given time. Our world view is the means by which we engage with and interpret the world, and this most importantly applies to those areas of life where difficult decisions need to be made or strong points need to be debated (EG - in politics!). On one hand, I find it odd that some people expect politicians to 'check their faith' into the cloakroom and then perform their political role.

It reminds me of those old Warner Brothers cartoons with the sheep dog and the coyote, where they used to clock in, fight like blazes, then clock off and go home arm in arm. This was funny because it was a bit ridiculous. I don't know any politicians who don't profess some kind of faith who are expected to leave their world view and values in 'the cloakroom' before doing their job. So, I think that there is a double-standard going on here to an extent.

On the other hand, I don't think that politicians should push their personal beliefs, spiritual or otherwise, in the political arena. The role of politicians is to represent the needs, wishes and desires of their electorate, and to do this in such a way so as to reflect their personal faith stance or world view.

Being a politician in a truly democratic society, seems to me to mean that you would need to ensure that you were representing all the views of your electorate with integrity, and work out the way you would do that "Christianly" (whatever that looks like)... As well as this, in a truly democratic , and even secular, society, those of the Christian faith have a right to engage in the political processes and have their voices heard. Politicians certainly have a right to be Christians and participate in the process without slicing themselves up into spiritual and non-spiritual beings.

Whatever that looks like... So, to all you Christian politicians out there - good luck with that...

Shalom...

Good News Week - Religion Awards

The folks from Good News Week are pretty well known for their low tolerance of religion in most of its forms. This week on their website, they've dedicated their 2009 awards section to religion and there are four candidates (from the Pope to an Islamic magazine) copping their ire here this week. Click here to take a look (then just scroll down a little bit)...

These guys think religion is silly and have picked a few good examples here to back up their case - as most people who don't like religion tend to do. For those of us who are spiritual and religious, we need to do our best not to give people so much ammunition to back up their case. We need to stop being silly because of our religion! Anyway...

I'm reminded that Jesus also thought that a lot of religion was silly or that any kind of religion could make you silly if you let it. When he told the story about the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), he cast the first two characters as religious people who, upon seeing a wounded man lying beaten, robbed and dying at the side of the road, walked on passed because they had important religious things to do. They missed what a lot of normal (meaning "not religious") people would not have missed - that this person was hurt and in danger, and in need of help. Religion can make people silly. It can make them not see what is obviously going on around them and miss out on doing something important that could really make a difference.

Richard Dawkins - the world's most famous atheist - has often quoted Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg, who said, "With or without [religion] you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion." This is a pretty stinging criticism of religion, but one that is not too difficult to find many cases that back it up.

We need to come back to what the Bible says about worthwhile religion; that, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:27). I think that this kind of religion is not only the kind that God would find "pure and faultless", but that others would find hard to fault and poke fun at as well. Let's make sure we keep "the main thing, the main thing" here.

Let's see people make fun of that...

Shalom...

Marketing or Mission ???

The Weekend Australian ran an article on Saturday called, "Churches Unite to Promote Jesus". The article is about the $1.5 million "Jesus - all about life" marketing campaign that is being run in NSW by The Bible Society of NSW. The aim of the campaign is to highlight that Jesus has the answers to even the most complex questions of modern life.

Can Jesus be marketed? Should he be? Hasn't he always been? - some would ask...

I've always thought that Jesus needed to be "mission-ed" (I don't actually think that this is a word)... By that, I mean that I always thought that Jesus needed to be shared with others and understood through caring relationships; through sharing life with others; and through acts of kindness and compassion. When God wanted to do his most important work for the world, he became one of us and moved into the neighbouthood to make a lasting difference. For me, Jesus is not information to be shared, but a relationship with God and an agenda for life to be engaged in. Can a marketing campaing be consistent with this?

It could easily be argued that an important part of the process of understanding and getting to know Jesus is about information. How do I go about understanding who Jesus is and what he is on about? I guess I need some information to know whether I should even bother trying... The aim of this campaign seems to be to get people talking about Jesus at work, at school, with friends etc...

There was an interesting interview on ABC Life Matters with David Willis (Bible Society - NSW) and Sharon Williams (Taurus Marketing) about the campaign they have put together and their thoughts on these kinds of questions. This is followed by another interesting interview on "Christot-ainment" which is worth listening on to.

Maybe there is a place for this kind of marketing alongside mission. Part of the history of the Christian faith has been "proclaiming the word" to others. This might just be one of the ways that this is done in the 21st century. Maybe its okay, as long as it doesn't replace real Jesus-like engagement with the world around us.

What do you think?

Shalom...

An Aussie Bill of Rights & Freedom of Religion

You may or may not know that there has been a national consultation going on about how to best protect Human Rights in Australia. Some of this discussion has been around whether Australia needs a Bill or Charter of Rights like many other Western countries have, although a number of other processes have been suggested and are up for discussion.

If you're interested in finding out a little more about the process, click here to go to the consultation website, and / or click here to listen to a podcast about the current progress on the consultation.

But all that is just the entree. The main course for this blog post is yet another podcast I listened to the other day. It was from the ABC's "Life Matters" program, and it was very interesting. It had a number of people from different religious groups in Australia, talking together on a panel about how a Bill of Rights might effect freedom of religion in Australia.

To listen to this one, click here ...


Shalom...

Sex, Lies and Politics

Much has been written over the last week or so about John Della Bosca’s extra-marital affair. For those not up on such things, JDB was the NSW health minister and it was revealed the other week that he had been having an affair with a younger woman. I think he has since resigned as a result of the situation, although he was not asked to do so, and some say he should not have had to. He is certainly not the first politician to have been caught out in this area. It seems to me that two of the big inter-related questions of the week have been, “Is it any of our business?” and “What does it matter?”

The first question deals with whether a politician’s private life is any of our business; and the second question deals with whether it matters that politicians express dubious personal values and virtues, given that we voted them in not to not have private affairs, but to manage our public affairs (sorry, I couldn’t help it...).

Over the weekend, there have been a few good articles in The Weekend Australian that have highlighted these questions. Two of these are:

• "Off Limits or Public Interest?" by Lenore Taylor
  
• "Experts Split Over Sex Revelations" by Caroline Overington

One of the underlying questions for me in relation to thinking through the questions above is, “What is politics?” If politics is simply the management of the economy or the development of infrastructure for productivity etc, then it might be fair to argue that as long as politicians are delivering the goods in these areas, then they can do what they like, and with whom, between the sheets, on the kitchen table or in the back seat of the car. But what if politics is more than that? What if it has to do with shaping the culture of the society, promoting positive values and encouraging citizens to be the best humans they can possibly be? If this was the case, wouldn’t politicians then be expected to be the “exemplars” (the embodied examples) of those values and cultural hopes; and the drivers of a more positive picture of what “the common good” could mean?

I know this sounds naive, but I am not alone in wishing that this was the case. In the recent BBC “Reith Lectures” series, Professor Michael Sandel delivered four lectures on "A New Citizenship". It was a fascinating series and I listened to these lectures over and over again. Professor Sandel proposed that religion and morality needed to be invited back into the centre of civic life, so that a new conception of “the common good” could be developed and realised. He said that he fully expected there to be robust discussions, debates and disagreements as a result of such a course of action, but that it was necessary to avoid a colourless, and perhaps dangerous society ensuing. He said that governments tended to reduce discussion and debates on important civic issues to economic terms because it was easier to avoid the complexity of these kinds of discussions by hiding behind the safety of economic arguments.

What would the role of politicians then be in this process? All Professor Sandel would say on this is that he would expect more from our politicians in such a system. And I agree. I think we can and should expect more from both our politicians and our political system. We should not allow the quality of our civic life to be reduced in any way, particularly by those who we have been voted in to drive, promote and protect it. To a degree, we get what we expect.

I say, “Expect more!”

Shalom...

Peter Garrett in Trouble

Has Peter Garrett sold out? For decades he was the rock 'n roll face of environmental activism, but at the moment, he is under criticism for selling out his values and beliefs as a Minister in the Rudd government. Recently, as Environment Minister, he approved an extra Uranium mine for South Australia, something that he was very strongly opposed to in his previous life and criticised the governments of the day for even considering.

For a bit more info, here is a Courier Mail article on this story, and a 7:30 Report news item from the other night.

So, what is going on? Has Peter Garrett sold out? It is hard to say from this kind of distance, but there are some things that I've been thinking about in relation to this and it has to do with how we understand "integrity". In the case of Peter Garrett, people are criticising him for not living up to, as a government Minister, what he stood for as a political activist and rock star. But is it possible to stand for the same things, but have it look completely different depending on the role or context you are in? Is it possible to be an activist and rage against the government (what a luxurious position to be in), and be in the government (being raged against) and actually be on about the same thing, but realise that you have to go about it in a completely different way?

I think the mistake that people make when they question the integrity of people in difficult positions, is they think that intergrity means "doing the same thing in every situation". My thoughts on intergrity is that is means "standing for the same thing in every situation" (but this might involve doing things completely different in each of these situations).

So, I'm backing Mr Garrett at this stage. There are a few things he has said that make me think that he gets this, and that he is willing to take the flack of being misundertood to make the most of his position as a government Minister for the sake of the government. I am so niave...

Any thoughts?...

Shalom!

Go Therese, Go...

I was interested to read the article on Therese Rein (Mrs Kevin Rudd) in The Weekend Australian magazine over the weekend. In it, she talks about her Christian faith...

"When I went to university I really needed to sort this out for myself," she says. "At that point, I personally committed to Christ. It's fundamental to my calling, to my values, and there are two particular pieces of scripture that hsout to me from the rooftops. They are about freedom for the captive and recovery of sight for the blind. They are all about inclusion, being there to feed the hungry and house the homeless."

The report goes on... Her worship is not confined to Sunday services, which she attends regularly for communion and "some quite time for me". She prays often and she sings. "Faith is a living thing."

I was really encouraged by this. Rein is committed to causes like homelessness, indigenous literacy, disability, teenage mental health etc etc... This seems to fit with the verses that she has referred to above, where Jesus tells his listeners, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

In my mind, it also fits with someone who has really grasped the core of the message of the gospel of Jesus. She understands that in accepting Jesus for herself, she accepts living out the priorities of Jesus as the norm for her life. And being Australia's "first spouse", she is in a wonderful position to do some great things on his behalf.

In an earlier post entitled, "Muscular Christianity", I questioned whether it is possible for Christians to be in politics and maintain their integrity? I also asked why Christians in politics almost always seem to be promoting the rights of Christians to do things they want to do, rather than to use their power and influence for the benefit of the marginalised and disadvantaged? I also wondered why we don't ever hear about the "Christian left" in politics? Having read this article, I'm wondering if in Therese Rein, there is some kind of answer to all those questions... And not only Therese, but maybe in Kevin Rudd as well. I know he comes across a pompous nerd to many; a man who uses too many big words and chucks tantrums if his inflight meal is not as he likes it. But, he is also the one who insisted that the parliament apologise to the stolen generation; signed the Kyoto agreement; relaxed tough policies on asylum seekers, introduced social inclusion units into government departments, and sought to tackle a number of other important social issues as part of his government's priorities. This is much more than our previous government was willing to do. (I have it from someone who knows someone who worked very closely with John Howard that his Christianity was quite nominal)...

Maybe there is hope for Australian politics. Maybe there is some room for a little optimism. Maybe God's good work can be done through the world of politics and politicians... (but maybe that's taking optimism just a little bit too far)... :)

Shalom...

PS - On Kevin Rudd and his own professions of Christian faith. Have a read of this article he wrote for The Monthly magazine in 2006 (before he was PM). It is called "Faith in Politics" and is a very interesting read...