On Dualistic Politics

For those of you reading this on Steve's facebook page, this post was written by his blogging partner Scott.

One question which seems invariably left out of the ‘capitalism vs. communism’ debate is “what is the size of the polity you are attempting to govern?”

Wherever great power is wielded, great damage is done. This is natural law amongst a society of imperfect humans. And I wonder why it is simply assumed that a nation of 20 million can be governed appropriately by any centralised political process. Whose idea was this?

The larger the body politic becomes, the smaller each individual’s voice becomes. Individuals exist with reduced power, choice, and even value in the realms of national politics. Their place in society becomes one of unemployment rates and other per-capita statistics. And even great left-wing acts of egalitarianism see systematised solutions to unique problems that are capable of causing as much harm as good.

The irony inherent in the functionality of communism in its various iterations over the last century was that they invariable involved a process of centralisation of political, social and economic power within the hands of the controlling party (and often a controlling individual). In the absence of the diversity of power broking and opinion within and between these three realms that exists in capitalism, there was also an absence of accountability. They committed the greatest sins of the right wing.

It is impossible for a large nation to cater to all the needs of its citizens regardless of its professed political ideology. Localisation of political power through local government invariably leads to greater inefficiencies and discrepancies in social and legal function between areas, but also leads to greater capability to cater to specific community needs. Even local councils in Australia are, in my opinion, too large. But I’m still glad we have them.

Labels: Politics

  Posted by Scott @ 1:44 PM   1 comments

A Note on Nature

For those of you reading this on Steve’s facebook page, this was written by his blogging partner Scott.

The way things occur in nature is not and can not be used to describe some ideal of human behaviour. Perfection is not as simple as that.

This is not a statement about environmentalism. It is a statement about humans displaying animalistic behaviour. Competitive behaviour is regularly described and celebrated as ‘natural’ behaviour. But this simplistic notion pays complete disregard to the destruction that competitive behaviour regularly causes in the natural world. Similarly promiscuous behaviour is encouraged by some philosophers who rejoice its naturalness. Apparently 98% of all species on earth are non-manogamous. Some would have us believe then that it is natural, and therefore good, for humans to enjoy multiple, simultaneous partners. But cannibalism is also a somewhat common ‘natural’ behaviour. So too is abandonment of young. So too is murder. Are these behaviours that humans should adopt simply because they are ‘natural’?

The natural world is not perfect. It is not some ideal against which we might measure our behaviour. Much of the natural world is good, and much of it is destructive. Much like humanity. The mark of wisdom is discernment. And the mark of humanity is a distinction between that which is animalistic, competitive and selfish, and that which is of a higher order – love, altruism, language, art and culture. We see beautiful glimpses of this in the natural world – in an Elephant mother’s complete and selfless protection of her child.

We are not animals. Humans at their best behave in a way almost alien to the largely competitive and selfish animal kingdom. They seek harmony amongst themselves and with their living environment. Humans are at their worst when they behave destructively. And to celebrate destructive behaviour just because it is ‘natural’ is unwise and inhuman.

  Posted by Scott @ 1:34 PM   0 comments

Biblical Literacy in Australian Schools

Biblical Literacy in Australian Schools

For those of you reading this on Steve’s Facebook Page, this was written by his blogging partner Scott.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2010/01/abbott-and-the-bible

The link to this article was emailed to me by an extreme right-wing Christian group whose perspectives I largely disagree with but I read for two reasons: simple curiosity about different worldviews (sometimes challenging my own worldview) and also to remain aware of some of the cultural currents that exist in the society I inhabit.

I disagree both with Terpstra’s dualistic politics and poor journalism (i.e. self-righteous subjectivity). But he is very insightful to point out one of the fundamental values of biblical literacy even in our increasingly atheistic society – that of history. The study of our own history – the history of humanity as a whole, of cultures, and of individual families – is the study of our own identity – of why our predecessors thought, felt and acted as they did, and indeed why we ourselves think, feel, and act as we do. The fact that Christianity and the Bible have featured so centrally in the history of western culture is central to our understanding of ourselves – even our understanding of our atheism, as atheism in our culture has only grown in reaction against our Christian heritage. I personally am not religiously or politically threatened by the growth of atheism in Australian society. What troubles me is the loss of culture and identity, which is occurring strikingly fast as our collective memory shortens; a product, I believe, of the increasing homogenisation of our society around dogmatic ideals of consumerism and constant economic growth.

I agree with Abbot, Terpstra, and many others who believe that biblical literacy should be taught in Australian Schools. This is not indoctrination (though I’m aware it will regrettably be taught as such in many schools), though neither does it need to be a cynical foil of our enlightened scientific reason (as it will also regrettably be taught as such in many schools, along with many other current elements of historical study). The bible is our history and our identity. Its pages reveal the thoughts and motivations behind much of the social and political architecture of western society, built over many centuries of changing society, politics, war, art, economics and technology. To disregard this; to even detest this, is the most despicable and destructive form of arrogant ignorance. We are not called to love our history. Nor are we called to perpetuate it. But if we hope to be generative, dynamic human beings we sure as hell better know and understand it.

Labels: Culture, Education

  Posted by Scott @ 6:14 PM   0 comments

For those of you reading this on Steve’s Facebook page, this blog was written by his blogging partner Scott.

The other day I was talking with a very dear friend, and she was sharing with me her angst about some friendships of hers that aren’t mutual. She feels angry and let down by the fact that she is constantly putting the energy into these relationships, and the other parties are not bringing their fair share to the table. She’s been contemplating moving on from these relationships. No doubt we are all familiar with this scenario.

The other side to the coin, however, is that the other parties involved are not actually as relationally capable as my friend is. They are less healthy people, with less relational infrastructure in their lives and a comparatively lower capacity to love. I pointed this out to my friend, along with the observation that as much as my friend is brining everything she has to these relationships, so too are the other parties. It’s just that they have less to give. In fact, in these circumstances, it would be unreasonable for my friend to expect the other parties to behave in the same manner as herself.

This was difficult for my friend to come to grips with, primarily because her assumption within these relationships was that they were mutual friendships, though she had begun to see that through no fault of either party these relationships were by default not mutual. She was angry that her expectation of mutuality was not met, but it became apparent that her expectation for mutuality in the first place was unreasonable.

So what should my friend do? Should she move on from these relationships, or should she re-orient her expectations and continue to extend herself towards these people without expecting much in return?

The answer to this question lies entirely in my friend’s balance of relationships. I have come to the belief that it is necessary for a healthy adult to exist in a balance between three different types of relationships, what I will here call mentor relationships, peer relationships, and disciple relationships.

Mentor relationships are those in which the individual learns from a wiser and more knowledgeable mentor who is comparatively further down the path of growth. The mentor provides energy for growth to the individual. Peer relationships are those in which an individual journeys along the path of growth with friends who are on the same level. They involve a mutual exchange of energy. Disciple relationships are those in which the individual assists a disciple who has not journeyed as far as the individual; where the individual becomes a mentor to the disciple. The individual gives energy to the disciple.

As we progress through different stages of life, the healthy balance of these relationships changes. A baby has only mentor relationships with its parents. Children begin to develop peer relationships. Through the course of adolescence individuals will begin to encounter disciple relationships, but still require a proportionately much higher amount of mentor and peer relationships. As the individual progresses through adulthood, particularly as they become parents, they become less reliant on mentor relationships and more generative in disciple relationships. The wise elder will likely have no mentors, few (if any) peers, and many disciple relationships.

My friend, as a young adult, still requires much input from mentors and significant peer relationships in order to healthily grow. However, since these requirements are relatively well fulfilled in her life, she also has the capacity to give a small amount of energy into disciple relationships. Is her current predicament a suitable context to begin discipling her friends? Or is she already extending herself in other disciple relationships, and would she be placing too high a demand on herself to disciple too many people, causing her to burn out? These are the questions around which I encouraged her to make her decision.

Another note which I feel needs to be made is that in my experience, as particular relationships become increasingly intimate, the distinction between mentor, peer and disciple becomes increasingly blurred. Particular long-standing mentor relationships in my life have at times edged closer to peer relationships. In intimate peer relationships I am at times a mentor and at times a disciple. And as disciple relationships endure the test of time, we begin to discover that our disciples have not only become close friends and peers, but our disciples even begin to mentor us.

  Posted by Scott @ 9:38 AM   0 comments

::Politics & Humanity - Australia's Refugee/Asylum Seeker Debate Got this email from the inimitable Ross Farley (who I work with at Tear Australia). He does what I do in that he takes two bits of information that you may not normally put together, and then he puts them together with dramatic/sarcastic/deadpan yet so painfully obvious kind of way that it makes us squirm at our own stupidity and inhumanity. Thanks Ross!

*****************************************************

Hi,
There is lots of public discussion about asylum seekers so I thought I would get up to date on the current statistics. Then I thought I may as well pass on this information. So here is what I discovered.

_1. Refugees_

* There are currently about 10.5 million refugees in the world.

* The UNHCR has a resettlement program that finds new countries for
refugees. Various countries allocate the number of refugees they
are willing to take every year. (Australia has recently increased
its allocation to 13,500 places.) Unfortunately the total number
of places made available to the UNHCR for refugee resettlement is
only 76,740 per year.

* Many argue that all refugees should apply to the UNHCR and wait
for processing. It is a matter of simple arithmatic that they
would have to wait an average of 136 years to be resettled. (10.5
million refugees divided by 76,740 places) That is a very long
queue. (That figure of 136 years also assumes that there are no
more wars or natural disasters in the next 136 years to add to the
refugee numbers.)

* If the 100 wealthiest countries took an extra, one-off intake of
about 105,000 refugees each, then the argument that refugees
should wait their turn could begin to have some validity. After
that every wealthy country would also need to dramatically
increase the number of refugees they were willing to accept.

_Visa overstayers_

* Visa overstayers are illegal immigrants who came to Australia on
tourist visas and do not leave.
* The countries of origon with largest numbers of these illegal
immigrants are UK and USA.
* In 2007-2008, the number of visa overstayers was 48,500 compared
to 25 boat people arrivals. They outnumbered boat people by 1,904
to 1.
* Of the last 12 years, 2000-2001 had the most boat people arrivals.
That same year Australia had 60,000 visa overstayers. They
outnumbered boat people 14 to 1.
* Consider the differences. Asylum seekers usually enter Australia
openly and hand themselves over to the authorities and ask for
asylum. Visa overstayers pretend to come for a holiday when the
intend to stay. Refugees are also fleeing danger. What is so
dangerous in the UK and USA?
* Why is there such a public outcry about refugees but not about
visa overstayers?

I hope this is helpful and maybe I have saved you some research time.

Thanks,
Ross

_Sources
_www.immi.gov.au
www.unhcr.org
www.refugeecouncil.org.au

Labels: Asylum Seekers, Culture, Discipleship, Faith, Humour, Refugees, Resources, Tear, Theology

  Posted by Stephen @ 4:53 PM   0 comments

Fair Wages and Interest

I believe in a fair wage. That is, I believe workers should earn for their labour sufficient money to pay for food, shelter, education, transport, sanitation, etc. etc.

I figure most people would be quite happy to agree with me that a fair wage is a basic right for all workers across the globe, though sadly it is a right that often isn’t recieved.

The bit where people are less likely to agree with me is the further extrapolation of this basic concept. Within any economy there is finite capital in circulation, and thus if it is unfair for any one person to receive less then a fair wage, then it is also unfair for any one person to receive a wage so high that it prevents others from receiving a basic fair wage.

The most obvious contrast to point out is a hypothetical transnational textile corporation, with the CEO earning in excess of US$ 1 million per annum whilst the factory labourers in Bangladesh are earning US$ 500 per annum (which, mind you, is above the legal minimum wage of US$ 300 per annum, which again is still higher then what many workers actually receive). The CEO is earning maybe $US 320 for an hours work in a 60 hour week (nobody’s suggesting CEO’s don’t work extremely hard), but the factory worker is earning US$ 0.17 for an hour’s work in an equivalent 60 hour week.

Do you get my point here? There’s a point where the pay for an hour’s labour is too low, but I also propose that there is a point where the pay for an hour’s labour is too high (not because abundance is wrong, but because selfish hoarding that causes another person to go without is wrong).

And now, we turn our attention to interest. The idea of ‘dead money’ is anathema to capitalism – no matter what, your money should be ‘working for you’. I think this is a brilliant expression, because it communicates the fact that capital that is earning interest is earning profit for labour that you yourself are not actually performing. When your capital earns interest, you are, in essence, receiving a profit without ‘earning’ it through a labour input.

As such, I suggest that earning interest from investments is actually an unfair wage – it is money that we haven’t actually worked for. Whatever a fair wage for an hours work is – be it US$ 0.17 or US$ 320 or anything in between, a fair wage for zero work is still zero.

Now, my brother is a property investor, and I guess that what he would point out right now is that he does input labour from which he is earning a profit. He works many hours a week in order to earn from his investments. This is not what I’m arguing against (though I would still ask the question of whether the quantity of money he earns from an hour’s labour is a fair wage). What I am arguing against is the $8 my bank gave me for investing $1000 in a 3 month term deposit. For literally 5 minutes work (filling out a single form) I received $8. That’s $96 for an hours work. And if I leave that money there, with absolutely zero labour input from now on, that term deposit will keep on rolling over and accumulating. After a year it will be $32 for that same 5 minute’s work ($384 for an hour’s work – more then what the corporate CEO is earning).

I know that I’ve over-simplified things here. I know that there are a million and one other factors and influences and mechanics and inflations and equivalences and equities and market influences and whatever else that I haven’t taken into consideration. But what I’ve illustrated in simple form is a simple concept. Is that a fair wage?

I suggest that it is not.

And just so you know that I practice what I preach, every cent of interest I’ve earned from my bank over the past 2 years I’ve given straight towards 3^rd world community development.

The next question I have to wrestle with: What do I think/do about superannuation? My very culture is dependant on a retirement ‘nest egg’ because we are no longer a culture that values economic support of our elderly. Can I justify receiving profits from interest earned by my superannuation? Can I justify being an economic burden on my children and/or welfare support when I have the capacity not to be?

  Posted by Scott @ 3:07 PM   2 comments

::Free Stuff - Some MP3's of me at Soul Survivor 2009 This is a cross post from our community's website.

Following are links to some talks I did at Soul Survivor in 2009. The theme for Soul Survivor was the 360 Degree Gospel. I had three sessions on the Politics of Jesus and included is a copy of the main night session that I did.

The first three are workshops (sorry if you don't quite get the questions and comments coming from the participants) whilst the fourth session is a monologue. Hope you find them helpful.

• The Politics of Jesus 1 - The Politics that come from wild places
• The Politics of Jesus 2 - The Politics of baptism
• The Politics of Jesus 3 - The Inevitable Politics of Following Jesus
• The 360 Degree Gospel - Main Night Session

Labels: Jesus, missio Dei, Politics, Soul Survivor

  Posted by Stephen @ 11:16 AM   0 comments