Saturday's Australian contained an interesting opinion piece by Christopher Pearson titled Rudd Needs To Learn That Real Christians Are Cultural Conservatives. In a previous post on this very blog I claimed the opposite, so I was very intrigued to read Pearson's article.
For those who don't know, Christopher Pearson is, somewhat amusingly, both openly gay and vocally anti-gay. He believes he is able to circumnavigate his problem by remaining celibate. In a weird way you have to have some sort of respect for a man so dedicated to the conservative agenda that he would actively campaign against his own instincts and desires.
Pearson's article is a response to the piece that new Labor leader Kevin Rudd wrote in the October issue of The Monthly magazine where he attempted to reaffirm Christianity as a religion of social justice.
Pearson can't handle it. Apparently, this will lose Rudd "a lot of votes". According to Pearson the primary aspect of Christianity is the Incarnation. Well, yes, obviously a Christian is someone who believes in the Incarnation and the Resurrection. However, I would contend that as Jesus "died for our sins" that lends a certain amount of weight to the idea of "sin". While to many the Crucifixion could seem like a bit of a "get out of gaol free" card - "we can vote for a government that locks innocent people fleeing persecution up behind razor wire and not have to feel bad because Jesus died for our sins" - I hardly believe this was Jesus' intention. And this is where I believe an interesting debate lies; the idea that the worship of God is more important to the religion than the Word of God. My stance on the issue of worship is that as a supposed perfect being, God should have a little more humility than to desire to be constantly praised. After thousands of years of being lauded surely God would just be thinking "Alright, I've got a mirror, I know I'm awesome, so how about you go feed some kids in Bangladesh or some shit?" That is to say, the teachings of God (compassion, tolerance etc) are the essential elements of the religion. God revealing Him/Her/Itself in the form of Jesus was surely only to facilitate this?
As Rudd points out in his essay, Christianity was initially an oppressed religion borne of an oppressed people (the Jews), and while it is no longer an oppressed religion, it should remain a religion for the oppressed.
The situation nowadays, where many "Christians" are heavily aligned with a self-centred political philosophy that actively campaigns against minority groups and the less fortunate is very strange indeed. It's a wonderful example of the corrupting influence of power.
Pearson can't help but indulge his own public self-flagellation by bringing up the subject of homosexuality. Citing Leviticus and his belief that "...2000 years ago the Jews took a very dim view of homosexual acts."
It frequently amazes me how the both the "Christian" Right and conservative commentators constantly harp on about the evils of homosexuality. The Bible contains one line in Leviticus (a book hardly noted for its modern relevancy) about homosexuality, yet it is treated like it's the major theme of God's Word. These people seem to ignore the fact that the essence of The Bible are the concepts of compassion, tolerance and respect. "Christian" anti-gay activists use the religion as a shield to hide their own prejudices.
But, also, it is even more astonishing is that these groups ignore the fact that Christianity's primary source of guidance is the New Testament; books that were written to supercede the teachings of the Old Testament. And so to this point one could say that a significant aspect of the religion is theological progress. How can one be positive that the New Testament is a definitive full stop on all spiritual matters? These were teachings of the times and for the times, as the Old Testament was beforehand. And as we should all realise; times change. One could accuse me of pre-empting the Word of God here, and, well, yes I am. But as I'm suspicious of His/Her/Its existence in the first place it's not such a big deal for me.
Rudd's piece was written in the memory of German Christian theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a man who was executed by the Nazis for his opposition to their policies. Pearson very cunningly was able to dig up some anti-abortion quotes of Bonhoeffer's in order to dampen any prospects of him becoming a progressive champion. I find it very deceitful the way conservative commentators try to paint those who are pro-choice as "pro-abortion". Nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody goes around slapping fives shouting "Hey, let's go get an abortion today!" But there are circumstances where it is completely inappropriate for someone to have a child. Can you imagine how horrific it would be for someone to have a child that was the product of rape? And not just for the mother, how would the child feel if it were to ever find out? The fact that most of these "pro-life" commentators are male speaks volumes about this example.
The title of Pearson's article contains some specious reasoning. The Howard years have shifted the political landscape in this country significantly to the Right. It is not just those who describe themselves as Christians who have become more culturally conservative, but a broad spectrum of society in general. Part of this is due to Labor's inability to offer an alternative vision. There is hope that Rudd's piece in the Monthly is an indication that he is willing to articulate a more progressive outlook for the country and not just win back a critical mass to the ideas of political social justice, but maybe having some influence in winning back those who describe themselves as Christians to Christianity as well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The thing is, how on earth do we know "What Would Jesus Do" most (all?) of that stuff was written after he was dead anyway. Its hard to say definitively who is interpreting it right or wrong. Most religious people are not in the slightest bit spiritual, they are awed by the randomness of life and want to know that the efforts they have made will pay off somehow, that they will be rewarded for their sacrifice(and thus conversely someone else must be punished for not choosing the same path). If you are so inclined to live a religious life, I don't think it would matter which religion you chose, they would all be equally satisfying to that end, because they are so intrinsically about exclusion. Jesus himself would probably be horrified by what his philosophies have amounted to, but then he didn't exactly create christianity - did he? It all happened in his wake. I really like Rudd and believe his interpretations of Christianity are in the right direction, but at the same time, I think they are also just bloody common sense and you don't need to be a christian to come to the same conclusions, so why should we congratulate them for it? And why do they feel the need to advertise it (on both the conservative and more liberated side of things)? Cos they want a nice big, cosy pat on the back is why- its not enough to "do the right thing", they need to be SEEN to be "doing the right thing" and to prove that they know better than others what that might be. And Rudd is included in that (though it pains me, cos I really do like him).
My uncle (brought up Irish Catholic) told a great joke at christmas: An anglican man died and went to heaven and when he got to the pearly gates he noticed a large concrete wall blocking one part of heaven off from the rest. He asked St Peter what was behind it, and he whispered his reply -"Shhh, that's for the catholics, they think they're the only ones up here"
I think religion is unhelpful, really but I understand the attraction, and I don't think we've yet come up with an adequate replacement for the role it plays in allaying the general anxiety of living in the world.
Anyway, Blah Blah Blah, I wouldn't usually blab on like this, but its an interest of mine and I thought your post was really interesting and well written.
Post a Comment