Mom's the word.

I was going through some old letters of mine and i found this quote i wrote down. It was said by my Mom on a video of her i have before she died:

'The simple things in life are where the treasures are'.

Absolutely

Picturing Poverty

A friend sent me this link to a blog posting titled, 'Stuff White People Do: travel to exotic locations, meet adorable children, and shoot them'. Basically, the blog posting argues that white people travelling to exotic locations taking pictures of the other are engaged in exploitation and appropriation.

As she says:

Appropriation and exploitation -- As a white person living in the U.S., it is not only my privilege but my feel-good habit/hobby/vacation option to swoop into a country about which I know nothing, drop a few boxes of shoes, take pictures with children while their parents/aunts/cousins/grandparents watch, and to in the process somehow claim these children as my own. I vicariously experience their suffering, capture it in a still frame, and somehow feel more alive in my neoliberal, disconnected, consumerist living experience. I, the almighty white woman, have been to Africa and nursed her children out of the throes of malnutrition and disease. Her children are my children. Madonna, meet Malawi.In these photographs, children are exploited to build social capital. It is so last year, so K-mart middle America to take a vacation; real liberals wouldn’t do that. I can’t help but think of the commercials for Sasha Cohen’s new movie, Bruno, in which he adopts an African baby because Angelina and Madonna have one, and in which he also states, “I’m really into issues. Darfur’s a big one. So what’s next, what’s Dar-five?” Your “experience” in South America can become just another item to check off the bucket list, a line on your resume, fodder for a great graduate school application.

Further, she argues that these pictures assuage 'White Guilt':

Sometimes I think this phenomenon is another one of those things we white folks do to feel better about our privilege, a visual reminder that, though we might not be able to do much about the fact that we like our Nikes and we like them cheap, we can sleep in the only concrete room in a village for a week, drop a few boxes of malaria meds, and call it even. And even come home with invaluable souvenirs to remind us of just how much those sweet little children looked up to us! I have four cars while a billion people (most of whom don’t happen to be white) on the planet are starving, but I went on a missions trip, and look how happy I made this malnutritioned little boy'.

Alongside the movie, Enjoy Poverty, which I haven't seen yet, but which i've heard makes similar points, how are 'we', (white people in developed countries who travel to 'Other' countries, take pictures for whatever reason and care about the world, in particular those countries which have been systematically colonised and pillaged), to deal with these issues?

A number of initial comments i think can be made to her blog post. Firstly, not all pictures of 'Africans' are Others, are unknowns, just dark, poor bodies. Rather, they are friends, companions, people white people have lived with and known and care about deeply. Secondly, the idea that these photos build up a sense of 'self-worth' for white people, i think is mis-leading or not the full picture. For many people who travel to these countries, for whatever reason, these pictures are, or can be, reminders for how worthless we should feel about ourselves sometimes. They are reminders of that existential anger and frustration at having been born into such privilege and opportunity, while containing the knowledge that our privilege is not the result of natural progress, evolution, or ability - but largely of exploitation. Photos which remind us of our 2% position in the world, and then move us into action to redress that, is surely, not entirely bad? Though i'm probably wrong...

What i think is very interesting in her post is the reference to social capital building. I'd also add, cultural capital too. Not only do we gain access into certain classes with having experienced such a trip (our social capital, networks, people, we move within), but we also gain cultural capital, being able to talk and reference global poverty and our experience and narratives in our job interviews or with peers. This cultural capital, this coded language of global poverty and our experience affords us access into success in many spheres of life and within social elite classes.

One further thought. Perhaps this is all a hangover from the technology and travel revolutions of the 1950s and 1960s. More than ever before, people from developed nations can travel almost instantly into exotic and poor locations and witness it all, in all its brutality. Before, these places were distance, mystery, dangerous. Now we can go there, see it for ourselves, and the need to capture this, own this, remembers this is what drives our need for pictures of these exotic locations. Often what is photographed is poverty, not necessarily race or people. The same photographer who captures camps in Ghana, may be the same who captures street kids in Paris.

No conclusions though.

Knowing Nothing

So after reading a bit of Brian McLaren, i'm getting into some Bruce Cockburn, a Canadian folk song writer and a bit of an activist and Christian. According to wikipedia.

Anyway... I like this quote by him, which McLaren uses:

"All these years of thinking ended up like this: in front of all this beauty, understanding nothing".

Auckland History and Quotes

Firstly some quotes:

'Laugh at ministers all you want, they have the words we need to hear, the ones the dead have spoken'. Rabbit in John Updike, Rabbit is Rich.

'It can surely be said that the Psalter presents a struggle of the just against the unjust', Jose Miranda, Communism in the Bible (from the opening pages of a book i've started, Walter Bruggemann's theological commentary on the Pslams.)

From the book i've just finished reading on Auckland, which i discuss a bit below:

'It [Auckland City Councils etc] has been drowned by the cacophony of promotion by business lobbies that we live in an Economy not a Community", p.299.

I especially like that quote.

A recent book i've just finished reading is Gordon Mclauchlan's 'Auckland, the Story of a Colourful City'. It is an interesting read about some of the Auckland's history from just around contact to the present Super City discussions. However, it spends most of its time in the 19th C. I've taken some pictures of some of the places he mentions as important, and i'll put them up soon. Some of the highlights for me were:

Onehunga as the first town in the British Commonwealth to have a female Mayor. She was apparently very capable and become Mayor before women were enfranchised in 1893, or maybe it was the same year. Go Onehunga.

St Pauls was originally located in Emily Place, were that triangle of land/picnic seats still exists by Shortland Street. The rock there represents where the biggest Church in Auckland stood at the time and it was impressive, internationally, for its size and style. And, it was impressive in Auckland over looking point Britomart. It was the biggest building in Auckland for years. It is nice that the monument exists to its original location.

The Settlers dumped all their crap and wees into Okahu Bay, which insulted Maori who did not even use crap for fertilizer. Literally, settler's shat on Maori in Auckland.

Mt Eden, or, Maungawhau (which means "Mountain of the Whau Tree") was an important landmark where Captain William Hobson in part made his decision to move the capital from Russell (i think...) down to Auckland. It is named after George Eden, first Earl of Auckland, whom Hobson admired greatly (namely numerous things after him!) Looking over the isthmus, he saw the potential of the area, it's rapid, unplanned growth. Which has, McLauchlan argues, led to the culture of economic risk/success which has dominated the city more than others in New Zealand. On Mt Eden, where i was up today, there is a rather pathetic monument to surveyors who cut up Auckland into the city is today - in particular, Matthew Felton.

Alex, i really think you'd enjoy this book. There is a lot of geographical and town planning information in the city's history.

More from a Generous Orthodoxy - 'Would Jesus Be A Christian?'

This is the title to Brian McLaren's third chapter, and it is a question which I once saw on the St Matthews website (phrased as 'Is God Christian?'). My inital answer to such questions , is no. I agree with Sir Desmond Tutu who said: "I give great thanks to God that he has created a Dalai Lama. Do you really think, as some have argued, that God will be saying: "You know, that guy, the Dalai Lama, is not bad. What a pity he's not a Christian"? I don't think that is the case — because, you see, God is not a Christian."

McLaren's chief criticism here is that when he looks at much of western (evangelical) Christianity today he doesn't think Jesus would fit in at all and further that most Christians wouldn't even like Jesus if he showed up today. Statements that he admist are contentious and exagerations. The point McLaren wants to make is all about what it means to call Jesus 'Lord'. For McLaren, Lord means Master - but there are 3 senses the word 'master' can take. The first sense is that of authority and kingship - words which for many feel 'barbarously archaic', with associations of monarchy and absolutle undemocractic power. He asks us to imagine living in a time of fear of constant violence and vulnerability from whatever 'warlord' happened to be in power. If this was the case, then the idea of a good king, a just king would be good news, right?

However, it is not good news for us living at the end of modernity according to McLaren, as we're already told we are controlled by almost everything (class struggle, genes, physcology, colonialism, social contrustuctions etc etc). "Against this backdrop, theistic determinism is just another determinism, and in that case, talking about God as the all-powerful, all-controlling Lord/King is just more bad news' (90) God becomes the our puppet master.

However, for McLaren, 'Good news under these circumstances would be a leader who liberated us from all determinisms, who deconstructed oppressive authority and the self-interest of leaders and nations, who destabilized that status quo and made way for a better day, who delivered us not only from corrupt power, but also from the whole approach to power that is so corruptible' (90). 'Jesus comes as a liberating, revolutionary leader, freeing us from the dehumanization and oppression that come from all "the powers that be" in our world (including religious powers)"

'His kingdom, then, is a kingdom not of oppressive control but of dreamed-of freedom, not of coercive dominance but of liberating love, not of top-down domination but of bottom-up service, not of a clenched iron fist but of open, wounded hands extended in a welcoming embrace of kindness, gentleness, forgiveness and grace' (91).

The second sense is the sense of Master/Servant. Here again Jesus challenges the old meaning of slave/master. Jesus takes off his garments and washes his own servants feet. Literarlly demonstrating 'mastery - by serving' (92). 'The last are first and the first are last'.

The last sense is Lord as teacher - but as a teacher which i'd argue reflects critical pedagogy. A way of learning which is practised and relevant to real life/culture and context. Not abstract understandings of dogma.

These themes of Christ as being more than what Christianity makes him out to be/ or claims for itself, i think is important and refreshing. And it is something i want to look at again with McLaren's chapter on Incarnation...

I'll finish with Gandhi:

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time. "

Adventures in Missing the Point and Chimps

I've just finished reading Brian McLaren's and Tony Campolo's Adventures in Missing the Point. It is an interesting and quick read through a range of topics. Some of which were more interesting than others. But overall worth the read. In particular it was interesting to read the way in which one of them would write a chapter and the other would offer response to it at the end. It is really good to see these different counterpoints etc. What was most interesting for me though was finding out other stuff to read! McLaren's chapter on Truth used examples from Primatologist, Jane Goodall's book, Reason for Hope. She is pretty well known, but what i found most interesting, which McLaren drew out was that from her objective, rationalist model of scientific observation of primates she made a subjective connection based on love. It wasn't a rejection of modernist objectivism which science is founded upon, but it was an extension of it, there was a breaking of the object/subject divide which McLaren then used to push boundaries of what we understand as Truth (with a capital 'T'). As Goodall says in her interaction and physical contact with David, the chimp, 'We had communicated in a langauge far more ancient than words, a language that we shared with our prehistoric ancestor, a language bridging our two worlds'. After David is killed by poachers, Goodall dedicates her life and work to activism on their behalf, as McLaren discusses, she moves beyond pure scientific objectivism (which never existed anyway) and into a 'story', a 'journey', an 'adventure', a 'passion'. This is something 'postscientific, postobjective. This is love'.

Can't wait to read Goodall's book!

Christianity Capitalism Communism Campolo

Some more quotes from Tony Campolo in Missing the Point, the chapter on Social Action:

Campolo quotes Bishop Dom Helder Camaro of Recife, Brazil:

'When i gave them food, they called me a saint ... Yet when i asked why they had no food in the first place, they called me a communist' (117).

Campolo then goes on to ask the question of marrying capitalism and Christianity:

'Yet how can capitalism be divinely ordanied when its most revered theorist, Adam Smith, writes in the Wealth of Nations that greed is what makes capitalism work? "It is mot from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard of self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love. What religion regards as foul, capitalism pronounces as good. It is from the "luxary and the caprice of the rich man" and from "his natural selfishness and rapacity" that society advances, Smith believed" (118)

He then exhorts:

"When those who wield economic power are out of control, and serve their own interests to the detriment of the masses, the poor, and the powerless, Christians must speak prophetically and pronouce God's judgement against such destructive self-interest'. (118)

It really is the prophetic role of the Church to lift it's eyes away from personal advancement, and the type of thinking which runs along the lines of: "What can/does God do for me" and put them towards: "how does God speak to the power structures/systems of the world" and then, "how can i get involved".

How many earths do I live on?

Thought this was provoking. Thought provoking if you will... Heard it at a forum on Food Security at University of Auckland.

Europeans live as there were the resources of four planet earths.

The United States lives as if there were eight planet earths.

All theologies are heresies

I like this from sociologist and theologian, Tony Campolo:

'Far from any individual's theology being The Right One, in one sense all theologies are heresies. For theologies, like heresies, are major or minor distortions of the truth' (Missing the Point, p.34).

And maybe, the truth is that we'll never know the truth, so there is no absolute truth, just distortions, creations, abstractions, additions, complications?

If it's not in the bible then....

Just some things i found interesting from reading these two books by Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy and Adventures in Missing the Point (with Tony Campolo).

'The phrase accept Christ as your personal saviour is not in the Bible. Even personal saviour is absent from the pages of the Bible. In fact, the Bible seems to make the focus of salvation on us as a people, not on me as an individual'. (Missing the Point, p.19.)

In the Bible, being forgiven is the starting line not finishing line of salvation (ibid)

Nowhere in the Bible is the term 'sinners prayer'. Only in the last 150 years have Alter calls or invitations for salvation been done, likewise with raising of hands or walking done aisles (ibid, p.20)

The phrase, 'The Word of God' when used in the Bible never refers to the Bible, as it hadn't been compiled yet. (Generous Orthodoxy, p.181).

Generous Orthodoxy and the Seven Jesuses

I've just finished reading Brian D. McLaren's a Generous Orthodoxy, and though i'm a little behind on his bandwagon, i still want to blog on the parts of the book i really enjoyed, if for no other reason than to help my own thinking. This first post will focus on the first part of McLaren's book, dealing with Jesus.

In a Generous Orthodoxy McLaren offers a different approach to orthodoxy (or 'right/correct thinking) and the Christian faith. Instead of seeking to create an orthodoxy of set of firm doctrinal or systematic creeds McLaren wants to be inclusive (hence the 'generous') and find room for a range of positions both Christian and non in his way of aligning our religious convictions with 'Someone' (God). The almost oxymoronic title is not lost on McLaren as he spends much of Chapter 0 talking about how we can bring a generous approach to our thinking about beliefs. His way of approaching this is to call himself a missional/evangelical/catholic/Anabaptist/incarnational/mystical/green/emergent/Methodist/post-protestant/liberal-Conservative etc etc

Literally being 'all things to all people', a phrase St Paul used and to which he returns to often (particular the chapter on Incarnation, to which i'll return). I find this very refreshing, seeking to find commonalities instead of lines of separation. It is telling, however, which traditions/style he pulls out from the different strands of Christianity. For example, from evangelicals (purposefully lowering the 'E'), of which he considers himself one, he really only likes their passionate action and culturally in tune media appropriation... Probably not what most evangelicals would wanted him to have taken from their faith so much...

'The Seven Jesuses I Have Known'

Ultimately McLaren is a Christian because of the person of Jesus Christ and his relationship with that person (49). However, the shape of that relationship (or rather, the shape of McLaren's understanding of Jesus) has changed over the years. He lists 7 stereotypes of Jesus, which i feel many of us would be familiar with:

1. Conservative/Protestant Jesus. The key to this Jesus is that it focuses the good news almost exclusively on the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was born to die, and saves us by dying on the cross. The cross is the focal point. How Jesus absolves human evil through God's mercy is explained through various metaphors:

a) The Legal Metaphor: God is judge, humanity is guilty deserving the death penalty. Jesus, a perfect representative willing takes the death penalty, justice is satisfied.

b) The Economic Metaphor (or i've heard it as the ransom metaphor): God is the good master, and we are his servants, but we run away (or are kidnapped) by the 'evil one', who makes us his slaves. Jesus is offered as the ransom if the 'evil one' will let humanity go. Satan takes Jesus and potentially frees us all, and also gets double crossed as Jesus also defeats him/it. 'In this metaphor the business language of selling, buying, price and payment is paramount'.

c) The Governmental Metaphor: The Human Race has rebelled against the King. To be restored we must repent and resubmit to God's will. But because we are so munted we can't do it, so Jesus steps in and through his obedient life and voluntary death acts as our representative and submits to God's will. As our rep, his example extends to us if we believe. Political terms like, representation, reconciliation and citizenship are used in this metaphor.

d) A Military Metaphor: Humanity has been conquered by an alien power or powers (sin, devil, death). Jesus goes into battle with the powers and appears defeated, but his death turns out to be victory. Terms like, battle, defeat, conquering are common.

This view of Jesus, McLaren argues, focuses 'directly, nearly exclusively, on the problem of individual moral guilt'. Still, McLaren felt uneasy with this Jesus as he grew out of his teens/twenties: 'Jesus' cross in the past saved me from hell in the future, but it was hard to be clear on what it meant for me in the struggle of the present. And more importantly, did the gospel have anything to say about justice for the many, not just the justification of the individual? Was the gospel intended to give hope for human cultures and the created order in history, or was history a lost cause, so that the gospel only could give hope to individual souls beyond death, beyond history - like a small lifeboat in which a few lucky souls escape a sinking ship?' (55)

McLaren asks if this focus on Jesus' death marginalises his life - his teachings and kind deeds etc. He began to feel as if the 'gospel became simply an individualistic theory, an abstraction with personal but not global import' (55).

2. The Pentecostal Jesus:
A Jesus who was here in the present, could be experienced etc.

These Jesus for McLaren was all tied up with figuring out who was spirit filled and who wasn't, debates over speaking in tongues etc etc (man these feel so pointless to me now! and I used to care so much as a teenager!)

Problems McLaren soon faced with some Pentecostal Jesus ideas were one of expectations. 'Did God promise miracles on demand?' 'I refuse to blame the victim'... The person was already sick! The Jesus i knew came to help them, not blame them or make them feel worse' (58-59)

Other questions concerned him, 'Were there social and historical dimensions to the gospel that went beyond personal health, prosperity, and happiness for believers now and in 'eternity'? (59)

3.The Roman Catholic Jesus:

For McLaren, the Roman Catholics focus on how Jesus saves the church by rising from the dead, through this God has defeated 'death and that comes with it - fear (when will death come), hurry (how much time do i have in this short - terminal life) greed (you only go around once, so grab all you can), envy (why does her short life go better than mine), injustice(evil often prosper and live long), materialism (most toys wins) etc etc etc. 'Through Resurrection Jesus changes forever the whole equation of existence' (60).

This Jesus is attractive because if death isn't the last word, then it makes 'sense to do right, even if your cause is, humanly speaking, hopeless'. (60) It puts human life in a whole new context, you can be first here and last in God's eyes and requires a whole new way of living.

4. Eastern Orthodox Jesus:

McLaren prefaces his introduction to this Jesus through his reading of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. Here Jesus, the Spirit and God are engaged in an 'eternal dance, sharing in love, honour, happiness' etc and God is inviting more and more people into this dance. Through Jesus God restores the rhythm and beauty of this dance of creation. The Eastern Orthodox Jesus saves by 'simply by being born, by showing up' (63). As Jesus takes on human life, so human life is taken up into God's life. It was through the Eastern Orthodox Jesus that McLaren first engaged with the idea of Jesus as saviour (in the Hebrew sense of the word) of the world, not just a few individuals.

5. Liberal Protestant Jesus:

For Liberal Protestants, according to McLaren, the focus is on the 'words and deeds of Jesus Christ'. The story between his birth, death and resurrection. 'His teachings and acts of love, haling, justice, and compassion offer a way of life that, if practised brings blessing to the whole world'. It is our job then, to exemplify this, not just in personal relationships, but within/towards political structures and cultural systems of the world.

6. The Anabaptist Jesus:

Focused more on the ethical teaching of Jesus and less on theological disputes. Their focus is on how we conduct ourselves in everyday life, in which the church is not an institution, but rather a continuation of a band of disciples.

To be honest, i really didn't get what McLaren found distinctive here....

7. Jesus of the Oppressed or Liberation Theology:

This Jesus i identify with predominately i think. Not just because i'm a fan of liberation theologian and educational sociologist Paulo Friere and his Pedadgogy of the Oppressed, but rather because I believe that it puts the emphasis on the oppressed in society, which is exactly what Jesus did. For McLaren, the Jesus of Liberation Theology is the non-violent Jesus (some liberation theologians argue for a case of using violence against oppressors, which, it needs be said, is not unlike Evangelicals arguing for a Just War theology to justify supporting war). McLaren comments that Marxism and Communism were filling a gap that should have been filled by Christians - 'Christians who understood the revolutionary social and political implications of the teaching and example of Jesus, whose gospel was good news to the poor, along with a challenge of generosity for the rich'. (70). What both McLaren and myself like about this Jesus is the activist mindset of Jesus and his disciples in 'relation to systems of oppression' (71). It is also worth adding, which McLaren doesn't, that Liberation Theology stems from branches of Catholic Theology, birth in South America. I think it is important to add this, as it brings a historical context to Liberation Theology and the type of social justice tradition the Catholic Church has been involved in.

McLaren sketches there caricatures to illustrate a point. Each tradition focuses and brings something new to the person of Jesus. Each of the traditions has examples in scripture which can be used to support it. What McLaren wants to do is try and embrace each different tradition and orthodoxy, and utilise the best they each offer.

I found it particularly interesting because i have had similar experiences, though with only about 4 of the Jesus' (Conservative, Pentecostal, Liberal, Liberation - in that order). What i think it demonstrates most is how mediated Jesus is through our context/my reading of the text. While i do think some understandings of Jesus and what his 'politics' were are better than others, crucially i think what McLaren's example illustrates is how Jesus changes as we grow older. Sometimes in very radical ways, sometimes in very subtle ways.

Erich Fromm

"One cannot be deeply responsive to the world without being saddened very often"

This from social psychologist and humanist Erich Fromm. I really enjoyed Fromm's most famous (popular) book, The Art of Loving and could not recommend it enough. The above quote gives credence to the research that suggests those more knowledgeable about current events/issues etc are more likely to be depressed. In my opinion this is a start, the depression, the realisation both existential (that this life is what i have to accomplish the goal of being and doing) and of the scope of injustice in the world. However, it's only a start and we need to move past/through this existential angst and frustration and find a higher virtue from which to ethically act in the world. I actually have a bunch of quotes from him i like, and i especially enjoy his grappling with existentialism. For example in this nice quote:

'Man is the only animal for whom his own existence is a problem which he has to solve and from which he cannot escape'.

Gaps everywhere....

"Years of prosperity bypassed Aborigines, says report "

This story from the nzherald covering a report which details the widening gap between Aborigines and white Australians. The report states that even during times of economic growth, Aborigines did not benefit. The report found that there had been no improvements in 80% of the indicators they measured. Solutions were not just for the government:

"Meaningful change will also require commitment and actions by indigenous people themselves, with support from the private and no-profit sectors and the general community, as well as governments," it said

The report goes on to detail some of the indicators, such as children, health, domestic abuse, incarceration etc.

I wonder how long it is assumed a people (way of life, belief system, social norms, hierarchy of values etc etc) completely brutalised by colonisation is expected to have moulded into colonial beings and adapted to their 'multi-cultural' status? What is the result of forcing/coercing thousands of years of knowledge and culture into hundreds of years of rapid change/colonisation? The way in which cultures are simply expected to appropriate the dominant white/colonial/capitalist model of organising society and then 'get up to speed'/'pull their socks up' is extraordinary. This is perhaps the real problem, that Aborignes need to succeed in western model of development, ignoring their own ways of knowing and being.

The second gap relates to the gap in media reporting on swine flu. Hans Rosling examines the 'news/death' ratio between Swine Flu and Tuberculosis during the same 13 day period - Swine Flue =31 and TB = 63 066. For every Swine Flu death there was over 8 thousand news items. For every TB death there was 0.1 news items. You can watch the video below. Demonstrates how massive and powerful the media can be. Not that Rosling says concern over Swine Flu is unwarranted, but that the gap between the media reporting and the other health related concerns is huge. Demonstrates further just how much the media and the news frames and defines the issues we discuss, think about and therefore are willing to act on.

Comment from Brian McLaren in response to a question

"As I recall, Newbigin somewhere said that certainty comes through an intellectual system - but we work with a story, not a system, so it yields something other than certainty."

James K Baxter

Alone we are born

And die alone;

Yet see the red-gold cirrus

Over snow mountain shine

Upon the upland road

Ride easy, stranger:

Surrender to the sky

Your heart of anger