Peace and mission again

A while ago I suggested that there is a link between peace and Christian mission, and that we are called to pray for our rulers for that reason (1 Tim. 2:1-4). Now, a wonderful and far more interesting reflection on Byron’s blog says a similar thing. Check it out.

ae

Queen Victoria on Church and State

The following is part of the proclamation made by Queen Victoria when Britain accepted responsibility for government of India. This is, I think, a stunning of example of what it could look like for a government to be unashamedly Christian, but not totalitarian. The words in italics below were added by the Queen herself to the original draft.

Firmly relying ourselves on the truth of Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of religion, We disclaim alike the right and the desire to impose Our convictions on any of Our subjects. We declare it to be Our royal will and pleasure that none be in anywise favoured, none molested or disquieted by reason of their religious faith or observances, but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the law… And it is Our further will that, so far as may be, Our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in Our service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability and integrity, duly to discharge. (Quoted in Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions, 274).

Jesus and Government revisited

As some will know, last year I wrote a series on this blog titled “Jesus and Government“. Because it is a little unwieldy as a series, I have turned it into a single document which is now available on the essays page, or by clicking this link. The approach I have taken to this question is really summed up by the fact that the title is “Jesus and Government” and not “Church and State”. I think half the work is done just by starting from the right place. As Gregory of Nazianzus said: “He pays taxes, but from a fish; he is king of those who demand them”. So, for those interested in these questions, I hope you’ll have a look.

The wickedness of ignorance

The last couple of weeks have seen two horrendous public displays of ignorance. First, reactions to Rowan Williams’ lecture of religion and law in Britain have been marked by particularly horrible ignorance—almost none of those attacking the Archbishop have, it seems, actually read the lecture. Second, in Australia, various comments about the upcoming apology to the Stolen Generations have betrayed an almost total misunderstanding of the role of government, what saying sorry actually means, what forgiveness is (it can’t be demanded… duh!), and the moral nature of acts (yes, sometimes bad things are done with good intentions; no, that doesn’t make it ok!). This has all been frustrating to the point of maddening.

But this ignorance is not a minor frustration; at rock bottom it is actually wicked. Because what is at stake here is the truth, and what is true is what is good. Ignorance serves to obscure and confuse and cloud out reality. It fosters falsehood and thereby cultivates evil. Ignorance is wicked. The Book of Proverbs is very clear that speaking quickly, and without understanding, is at the heart of foolishness; and it is equally clear that foolishness is wickedness, just as righteousness is wisdom.

‘The foolish woman is loud;
  she is ignorant and knows nothing.
She sits at the door of her house,
  on a seat at the high places of the town,
calling to those who pass by,
  who are going straight on their way,
  ”You who are simple, turn in here!”
And to those without sense she says,
  ”Stolen water is sweet,
    and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.”
But they do not know that the dead are there,
  that her guests are in the depths of Sheol.’
                (Proverbs 9:13-18)

“While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent…” (Acts 17:30). Lord, spare us from ignorance. Father, deliver us from evil.

Pacifism revisited

Halden has recently posted what he calls a one-two punch on non-violence. It’s a nice piece of writing that has swiftly revived this old chestnut. I can’t help but feel, however, that it’s hardly a knockout combination. I’ve explained in a series on Byron’s blog why I’m not quite a pacifist; and to my mind, Halden’s argument gets stuck in the same kinds of mistakes I’ve tried to point out there.

In my opinion, Christian pacifists fail to adequately reflect on the role of government under Christ. Any thought that, because God has given political authority a special, provisional role to play in this age, Christ’s command could be different for a judge or a soldier than for any other Christian, is dismissed as “Constantinianism”. Ultimately, however, I feel that the pacifist argument is just not complex enough. Halden says, “I can’t imagine a more minimalistic ethic than one that says we shouldn’t kill each other. Not killing people is easy.” Maybe that’s the whole point: it’s too simple.

Photo by Byron Smith

On saying sorry

I was excited (and flattered, as I get a little mention) to read this article, written by members of the Social Issues Executive of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney. It is a well-written, thoughtful summary of an issue that has, frankly, gone on too long. It concludes with these words:

What about forgiveness? The problem with ‘sorry’ is that whoever says it has no control over the response. We are humiliated, and subjected to the grace and mercy (or not) of the other. We have no grounds upon which to expect or require or demand forgiveness. Christianity does teach that victims do well to learn from the God who mercifully forgives. But we have to be realistic: it has taken decades to hear ‘sorry’. It may take decades more for the hearers and their communities to say ‘we forgive, and want to go forward with you.’

But that said, as we put on a sign at church recently: Without “I’m Sorry” there can be no “you’re forgiven.”

Political Cases

In considering the recent Federal election in Australia, I wrote an article on the nature of political representation (unsurprisingly, heavily reliant on O’Donovan), which is published in the most recent CASE magazine, and is available on the web, thanks to their generosity, here. If you haven’t seen CASE, take a look: there’s lots of really interesting stuff. In particular, in the latest edition there is a fascinating article by Mike Thompson titled, “Should Western Christians Support the Promotion of Democracy as a Foreign Policy Objective?” In beginning his answer, Mike writes, “Perhaps one task of the Christian church in any age is to interrogate the horizon of obviousness…” I think this is a wonderful, and true, phrase.

And to keep us thinking about political representation, here is another great quote from David Bentley Hart:

…all of us I think, in those secret corners of our souls where we are all monarchists, can appreciate a good despot, if he is sufficiently dashing and mysterious, and able to strike an attractive balance between capricious wrath and serene benevolence. (David Bentley Hart, “Christ and Nothing”, First Things, October 2003).

A Better Senate

For a long time, it looked like it would be near impossible for one party to control the Australian upper-house, the Senate. However, last election the Coalition won a narrow majority in the Senate. Despite their statements at the time that this majority would not be abused, the Coalition has passed 100% of their own amendments and blocked 98% suggested by other parties since they won control. They have also passed extremely complex pieces of legislation within a day of their being tabled, and have reduced the hours during which the Senate sits. For my own part, though I don’t believe that the Senate should be able to hold the lower house to ransom – I believe it’s important for the government that is elected in the lower house to actually be able to govern; and the Australian system sometimes makes this difficult – I nevertheless feel that the Coalition’s record this last term is terrible. It smacks of a self-assured swagger that is not interested in genuine consultation and good government. So I believe that the combined campaign of the minor parties and the ALP to restore some balance in the Senate is a very good thing. Everyone should take their Senate vote very seriously. For more on all this, see here.

Market wisdom

All markets are embedded within a socio-cultural context and a politico-legal framework.  In other words, all markets are value-laden institutions.  This is especially true of the labour market.  People are not free to sell themselves into slavery, forced labour is outlawed and child labour is prohibited.  These are stark examples, however, more subtle ones easily come to mind, for example, the majority of workers arrive at work safe in the knowledge that their employer has not received an offer by another worker to do their job for less pay.  Strong social norms relating to fairness typically prevent workers from doing this to each other.  The failure to see the labour market as intrinsically a social institution is evident in the current IR debate.  Supporters of the IR laws typically represent the changes as deregulating the labour market, removing excessive and inefficient regulations, which get in the way of the labour market simply doing its job of allocating labour.  In fact, the labour market is not being deregulated but re-regulated in favour of employers.  The sheer physical size of the new legislation, more than 1000 pages, also provides face validity to this argument.

This quote comes from an article by Craig MacMillan titled “The bargaining disadvantage of labour and the new IR laws” published in Zadok Magazine.

Disappointment 07

Scott Stephens, a scholar from Queensland (don’t hold it against him) who sometimes writes on Faith and Theology, has written a great article for Eureka Street on Kevin Rudd’s disappointing leadership. I am pretty sure I will vote for Kevin, but have been frustrated, as it seems Scott has, by his stubborn refusal to stick his neck out, and so to accomplish anything at all. If he wins, he will win with a mandate to do nothing interesting.