Media priorities: selective compassion?

This week I read a BBC news article on the plight of Syrian refugees in Jordan. As usual, it's a case of the media defining what we should pay attention to and where our sympathies should be directed.

The article described the living conditions of refugee families in Jordan, highlighting problems such as lack of heating (a problem now as the winter is harsh) and a lack of functioning toilets.

It also mentioned how poverty was forcing some children to drop out of school in order to work, and some women were turning to selling their bodies to support themselves.

These are very serious problems, and they are not just restricted to the refugees in Jordan. I'm certain issues such as these are a reality for refugees in many countries (although lack of heating is less of a problem in warmer climates, of course).

This is an ongoing challenge for countries who host large numbers of refugees, especially in refugee camps. And the refugees seem to come from ever more countries of origin and in ever-increasing numbers.

But what struck me was that the problems reported are not only the case for people who have been forced to flee their homeland because of conflict, persecution, or a range of other reasons.

The problems reported are strikingly similar to the everyday reality for millions, if not billions, of people who live in their own homeland. To me, this is an even more serious problem. 

For emergency accommodation to lack what many would consider basic facilities (toilets, heating in cold climates) is one thing. But for a family's regular and only home to lack these things is quite another. 

The UN has designated November 19 'World Toilet Day' in order to raise awareness of the fact that 2.5 billion people in the world do not have access to a toilet. If your maths isn't too good, that's about one out of every three people living on earth!

Even if that figure includes refugees, there is still an enormous number of people who permanently live somewhere without proper sanitation. This is a major contributor to the spread of preventable diseases.

Many children in developing countries, especially in rural Africa, are unable to attend school simply because their labour is required to contribute to the family's survival. This may include basics such as fetching water or digging the family's vegetable garden.

I don't want to minimize the suffering of refugees one bit. But I am concerned for those for whom living 'like a refugee' is their normal daily reality without even leaving home.

With the help of some friends, I'm trying to make a difference in a small way. In a small village in the west of Uganda, villagers (primarily children) walk up to 2 hours each way to fetch water from a swamp. This is their nearest water source, and it's not even clean!

By installing two 12,000L rain water tanks on the village church, Mujjinwa Baptist Church, we hope to provide the village with a safer and closer water source. This will prevent many diseases, give the children more time to spend at school, and provide water during the dry season.

Please consider helping by making a donation this week at our campaign page: http://watertanksandbeesforuganda.causevox.com/

The semantics of tragedy

The events of the last 24 hours, with Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 falling from the sky having been shot by a missile over the Ukraine, has raised again the semantic distinction between ‘accident’ and ‘crime’. One tweeter called it a ‘crime against humanity’ because of the ‘tens of AIDS researchers’ killed. Many tweets made reference to ‘the MH17 accident’, while others wanted to steer clear of that nomenclature:

JCH999: Has flight #MH17 been classified an accident now? All media are saying it "crashed" yet I'm pretty sure it was SHOT DOWN. BIG DIFFERENCE!

KJBar: PM on #MH17: 'This is not an accident. This is a crime. It was shot down. It did not crash.' http://tinyurl.com/pnemnfg v @abcnews

   shadowb0lt: Calling #MH17 an "accident" is a bad joke. This is nothing less than an abominable act of war.

sh1bumi: #MH17 recorded talks between Seperatists and Russian Gov: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbyZYgSXdyw … Shooting was an accident

MarkTregonning: Where is #Abbott's evidence this is not an accident? That Russian-backed forces did it? He may be right-but evidence shld be given.

danielrhamilton: #MH17's crash is looking more like a crime than an accident. If so; what a wicked and evil act. The perpetrators must be found. #Ukraine

A ‘crime’ is “an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law” (Oxford). An ‘accident’ is “an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly or unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury” or “an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause” (Oxford). These definitions do not rule out an overlap between accident and crime, as the first definition of ‘accident’ could constitute a crime if it is something punishable by law.

Australian PM Tony Abbott was reported as saying adamantly that the MH17 incident was no accident (at least by the second definition above). Rather, he said, “it was shot down. It did not crash. It was downed, and it was downed over territory controlled by Russian-backed rebels. It was downed by a missile which seems to have been launched by Russian-backed rebels.”

Here, apart from in the second sentence, Abbott consistently uses verbs that express processes of deliberate action that require a ‘doer’ (Agent) - to shoot, to ‘down’. Only in the last clause does he specify the Agent: a missile.

A missile does not have its own volition. It must be operated by a human being. But Abbott is careful not to be too categorical about who the human being(s) might have been. He mentions them only as part of the description of the missile (which missile? one that seems to have been launched by Russian-backed rebels). And he chooses ‘seems to have been launched’ instead of ‘was launched’ to allow for the fact that the details of the incident are still quite hazy. He presents it as a suggestion or speculation rather than an assertion.

The potential human agents, ‘Russian-backed rebels’, are in turn identified by political affiliation (Russian-backed) and orientation to the law (rebels), rather than by any other feature or characteristic. This is perhaps not surprising as the perpetrators have not been specifically identified. But it is interesting that the action is construed politically, rather than morally. For example, Abbott could have chosen to say ‘a missile which seems to have been launched by irresponsible or careless or murderous individuals’.

Abbott’s construal of the event is as a non-accidental tragedy. An accident would not involve the sense of human volition or the use of processes that imply deliberate action. It may have been accidental in the sense that the perpetrators didn’t mean to shoot a commercial passenger plane, but the action of shooting itself was presumably not accidental. 

But as another tweeter pointed out, the labelling of a significant incident such as this as accident or not often depends largely on political agendas:

dellcam: U.S. agenda dictates response:

* #MH17: Not an accident.

* 4 kids children on #GazaBeach: A terrible accident.

My heart is grieved by this tragic loss of many lives, and I pray that God will bring comfort and peace to the families and friends of those who died and somehow turn this terrible situation to good. But let us not lose sight of other tragic losses of life, whether ‘accidental’ or not, that occur every day in other parts of the world where people don’t have the means, opportunity or ability to get on an aeroplane and go somewhere else.

Where can I go from here?

In the latest round of campaigning for the federal election, opposition leader Tony Abbott has announced that he wants to reduce the number of boats of asylum seekers coming to Australia to a maximum of three boats per year (see article). Apparently there were only 3 boats a year during the last years of John Howard's government (1996-2007), and that's his model.

The proposal is to stop offering residency to people who are recognised as refugees. He reckons he can get it down to that level within the first term of government if his party wins the election this September. That's three years.

But wait, what's a refugee? According to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951 - which Australia is a signatory of), a refugee is: “Any person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country.” (see here for more information).

It seems to me that in all the media hype and politicising of "the boats", we have lost sight of the fact that there are human beings on the boats and they are seeking refuge from something. This is not a holiday cruise for them, but a last-ditch resort to save their lives. It is absolutely no surprise to me that, after assessment of their request for asylum, 90% of asylum seekers arriving by boat are considered to be genuine refugees. Surely, only those who are genuinely in need of getting out of a desperate, life-threatening situation would consider a perilous boat journey (and the other parts of the journey before that) worth the risk.

In many cases, a family can only afford to pay the people smugglers to get one member of the country, so the rest of the family stays behind in the hope that one day they might be able to follow. I often sense that people misinterpret this as a cunning, manipulative plan to get one family member in and then the others will follow. They almost certainly hope they will follow, but the motives are for the preservation of life, not the subversion of an immigration policy.

Perhaps we have too high a view of life in Australia. I love it here just as much as any of us, but I think some people assume that everyone in the world would naturally want to live here and people will make up any story to be able to come and live here. That may be true in some cases (and is probably historically the reason that my husband and I have had to spend a lot of money and time applying for a 'temporary partner visa' for him to be able to stay here). But in other cases, and certainly in the case of people seeking asylum, it is definitely not their preferred choice. Entrusting yourself to a people smuggler is a huge risk, and starting life in a new country with an unfamiliar language and culture is a huge upheaval. Next time you meet someone who is seeking or has been granted refugee status, ask them - if the circumstances in your home country were different, would you rather be there or here?

Maybe there are now more places in turmoil causing more people to flee for their lives than there were during Howard's government. In that case there needs to be attention paid to the reasons for people needing to flee their countries - more diplomatic pressure, perhaps. And maybe the whole industry of people smuggling has grown exponentially since then, particularly because Australia and other countries are not offering resettlement of many people applying offshore for asylum. Whatever the reason for the increase in the number of people coming by 'irregular maritime arrival', if people really need to flee where they live, I'm not convinced that Australian "border protection" policies will stop people smugglers from trying to bring them here while there's money to be made from it.

The meaning of murder

Here's a cheery topic for May: Murder - what does it mean? Can you murder something that is not human? A plant, say? I have sometimes thought of myself as a plant-murderer because I'm not much of a green thumb.

What about insects? If so, then I must confess to being a mass-murderer! Spiders (especially huntsmen!), cockroaches, flies, mosquitoes, ants... the list goes on. 

Or what about a goldfish or other kind of aquatic creature? When I was little my family looked after a yabby for my mum's friend who was a primary school teacher. The yabby was a class pet. It was a hot summer. The poor yabby couldn't withstand the heat and when we came home one day we found it had died.

Mammals? I've orchestrated the killing of numerous rats and mice. Maybe the odd possum on the road.

Of course, it's ridiculous to think that murder includes plants and insects. It's possibly less ridiculous to include fish and reptiles, and getting a bit more uncomfortable once we get to mammals. And that's probably because mammals are getting closer to humans in terms of being warm-blooded.

Any dictionary will tell us that murder is when one person kills another person. It has to be unlawful (i.e. not with the permission of someone legally authorised to give that permission, as with capital punishment - and that's a topic for another day). It has to be premeditated, not accidental, otherwise it's considered manslaughter instead.

I was prompted to think about this after the recent disturbing news of the man in Ohio who had kidnapped three young women and held them hostage in his house for a decade. He probably fathered the 6-year-old child found with the women, and the reports talked about accusations of him forcing one of the women to miscarry other pregnancies. The report in the Sydney Morning Herald said this:

As more grim details emerge about the long captivity of the three women rescued from imprisonment in a dilapidated home in Cleveland, prosecutors said they would seek murder charges, potentially carrying the death penalty, against Ariel Castro, accusing him of forcing at least one of the women to miscarry.

Could causing a woman to miscarry constitute murder, according to the basic definition I put forward above? What was killed? An unborn human child. Was it unlawful? Presumably no one gave him authorised permission to do so. Was it pre-meditated? Hard to say, if it's true that he would 'starve Ms Knight for weeks, then repeatedly punch her in the stomach ''until she miscarried''', that would probably be considered pre-meditated.

One interesting factor in all this is the status of the unborn child (or possibly children) miscarried during those terrible years. If the prosecutors want to bring a charge of murder against Castro, they will have to establish that the unborn child should be considered human. I wonder if their case against him will be made difficult by the Abortion Laws in Ohio that allow abortion of foetuses up to 24 weeks (more than half the usual full-term gestation period). Foetuses at 24 weeks (but sometimes earlier) are usually considered 'viable', that is, able to survive outside the womb.

It seems that it's partly also a conflict of wills. In most cases the murderer wants the other person dead, but the person who dies doesn't usually want to die (except in the case of euthanasia - again, a topic for another day). In this case, it was the will of the man who caused the miscarriage and the mother's will was not taken into account - much less the 'will' of the unborn child.

Is the family history?

I recently read an article that made me quite sad about the explicit untruths and inaccuracies that are allowed to be published in reputable publications. It was an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald written by Guardian columnist George Monbiot, in which he claimed that those who advocate heterosexual marriage have fabricated a history of the family as a heterosexual institution.

Rather than go on for ages about all the things that bothered me about the article, I’ll just focus on one, the following paragraph:

The unbiblical and ahistorical nature of the modern Christian cult of the nuclear family is a marvel to behold. Its promoters are followers of a man born out of wedlock and allegedly sired by someone other than his mother's partner. Jesus insisted that ''if any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters … he cannot be my disciple''. He issued no such injunction against homosexuality: the threat he perceived was heterosexual and familial love, which competed with the love of God.

There are some truths in this passage that mask the untruths and inaccuracies of his interpretation of the Bible. I think it’s true that the modern 'nuclear family’ (mother, father and biological children living together) is not itself a Biblically mandated institution. Rather, it is a cultural manifestation of the Biblical principles of lifelong monogamy (Gen 2:23-24, Ex 19:14, Mt 5:31-32), multiplication (Gen 1:26-28), and passing on the knowledge of God and His promises and commands to the next generation (Gen 12:1-3, 17:7, Deut 6:1-9). We must be careful to separate out what is merely cultural from what is necessarily Christian. Sometimes they work together, but often they do not. In the case of the nuclear family, it’s a cultural phenomenon that seems compatible with the Biblical principles. Living in community with other families or generations of an extended family could also work, and in fact the descriptions of the early church in Acts suggest this kind of arrangement (e.g. Acts 2:42-47).

The Bible passage Monbiot refers to here is Luke 14:25-26. In the passage immediately before this (Luke 14:15-24), Jesus had been talking to people at a dinner party at the home of the ruler of the Pharisees, telling a parable of a rich man who gave a great banquet and invited all his friends but when the time for the banquet came, they all sent their apologies because they had work to do, or economic concerns to act on, or family to attend to. So the man had to find other guests among the poor and homeless - those whom respectable people wouldn’t normally invite to a banquet - to fill the house for the banquet. There should be nothing to distract them, and even if there was, they would recognise the value of the offer and accept it.

In the passage in question (Luke 14:25-26), the scene changes to Jesus speaking to the enormous crowds that were accompanying him. But I think Luke wants us to make the connection with the previous passage, as the point is the same. Jesus extends an invitation to everyone, including those who have all kinds of potential distractions, and we must count the cost of accepting his generous and valuable offer.

As Jesus says elsewhere (Mt 6:24), you cannot serve two masters - we either serve Jesus as King, or our family, or our job, or whatever. The same underlying principle was inherent in the command given to God’s people at the revelation of his commandments at Mount Sinai (Deut 6:4-5) - "you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength". We are to be undivided. But we are also to love our neighbours (including our family as well as complete strangers) as ourselves, and so Jesus’ challenge to ‘hate’ our own parents and siblings does not absolve us of family responsibility. Our family responsibility rather becomes part of the way we love and serve God and obey his commands.

While it’s true that Jesus did not issue any direct injunction against homosexuality, it’s grossly misleading to say that Jesus perceived 'heterosexual love’ as a ‘threat’. In the passage Monbiot quotes, Jesus was merely warning his would-be disciples that following him would mean they could not let their family get in the way of their allegiance to Jesus and obedience to God. On the contrary, Jesus explicitly condoned faithful heterosexual marriage, as on several occasions he spoke strongly against adultery and sexual immorality. He had hard words to say to the Samaritan woman he met at a well (John 4:1-30), who had been married five times and was now sleeping with someone other than her husband. To the woman caught in adultery in John 8, Jesus said ‘from now on sin no more’. He wanted (and still wants) people to live God’s way, the way they were created for, walking in the light rather than in darkness (John 8:12).

Christianity is not incompatible with multiculturalism

Last July, I blogged in response to the shocking news about Norwegian Anders Breivik, who killed around 70 of this countrymen and was unhelpfully labelled 'Christian' although his actions demonstrate otherwise and his motivations seemed rather more racial, political and fearful than religious.

This week Breivik has been facing trial in Norway for his actions (see reports from BBC, The Guardian, ABC). At one stage he was allowed to make a 30-min statement, which became 70 min! I find that rather disturbing, but I suppose if that is a right of anyone standing trial then he is entitled to it.

Apparently one of his arguments was that 'Multiculturalism is a self-destructing ideology'. He seems to think that the 'Christian minority' he is supposedly trying to defend cannot be compatible with multiculturalism. I have already argued that the labeling of Breivik as 'Christian' was unhelpful, and here we see further evidence. There is no incompatibility between Christianity and multiculturalism.

Recently I have been reading the book of Revelation, and one of the most exciting parts for me is where the writer, the apostle John, tells that he "looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with plan branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!"' (Rev 7:9-10).

This is not the only place in the Bible that speaks of people from all nations coming to salvation through Jesus (the Lamb who was slain), either. Both the Old Testament (the Jewish sacred book included in the Christian Bible) and the New Testament have many references to this idea. The Old Testament tells us that when Solomon built the first temple, he prayed to God: "when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name's sake (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you" (1 Kings 8:41-43).

In the New Testament, we see Jesus commissioning his disciples after his resurrection. He says "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20).

There are many other places besides. I get the impression from Revelation that the final state will not be a homogeneous people all of one colour and language, but a multicultural group united in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb who was slain for every one for them no matter what their language or ethnicity. Awesome!

Soundbites and cliches (part 2)

Last week I wrote some thoughts about the unhelpful effect of media ‘soundbites’ or uses of labels in un-thought-through ways. Referring to the perpetrator of the Norwegian bombing and shootings as a ‘Christian’ in early reports added to the public misunderstanding of what Christianity is actually all about (and see this article for a comparison with the effect of 9/11 on the public perception of Muslims). It also left its legacy of giving religion sceptics a foothold to say ‘well, see? It’s not just Islam that makes people violent – it’s all religions!’ In fact, you can take religion out of the equation and it turns out that people are often just inclined to be violent and treat one another badly (compare obvious examples such as Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao). But I digress...

I recently rewatched some episodes of ‘The Vicar of Dibley’, which I remember enjoying watching with my family when I was younger. Now I find it rather cringe-worthy, not just in terms of the humour that often descends into the slapstick, but in terms of the way the Dibley church (including church services, the Vicar’s conduct, relationships between parishioners, and lack of knowledge of the Bible) is presented. Obviously it’s a fictional church, and the characters and storylines are designed to be humorous, but it makes me wonder why that would be considered legitimately humorous material. Fiction or not, it’s no laughing matter when people who are supposed to be followers of Jesus behave like that.

But what I think is most unhelpful, in terms of the public understanding of Christianity, is that the mismatch of the characters and storylines with biblical Christianity is not being pointed out as something funny or strange in itself. I think viewers (particularly British viewers) are supposed to feel like that community is perhaps not far from their experience at all, and so the humour comes from the caricature of people you might almost have met before or could imagine in small village life. That is, there is supposed to be a degree of closeness to reality in it to make the humour work. And because the viewers are supposed to feel like that is what village church life is like (with some exaggeration), it plants untrue and unhelpful ideas about what the life in the church of Christ is like. A much more helpful picture of church can be discovered in the pages of the Bible (especially Acts 2:42-47, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy 3-4), but few seem willing to discover it for themselves.

Currently, Australian comedian Judith Lucy is appearing in a series called ‘Judith Lucy’s Spiritual Journey’ which I haven’t seen yet (and it’s on the wrong night for me to be able to watch it) but I don’t anticipate that her treatment of Christianity will be any more helpful to those who might seriously want to know. I don’t doubt Lucy’s personal sincerity in wanting to discover the answers to her questions “Why are we here? What happens when we die? How do you find a reason to get out of bed in the morning”, but given that her spiritual journey has been produced as a television program, I can’t help but be cynical about how the religions will be presented and how much value that will have for public understanding. Entertainment, yes, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with entertainment. But entertainment based on religious exploration by those who are not in a position to properly understand or accurately present the crucial features requires critical viewing, which I fear is lacking to a large extent.

Soundbites and cliches (part 1)

One of the biggest media stories at the moment is the tragic events in Norway over the weekend. A young man (whose name I will not mention here – why give him the satisfaction?) caused the deaths of over 70 of his countrymen, apparently as an attempt to send a message to the government that he was not happy with their policy on immigration. Not just their general immigration policy, it seems, but particularly their openness to Muslim immigrants. It’s tragic that a citizen of a democratic nation felt the need to use violence to make a point rather than his democratic rights to petition the government on the issue that’s bothering him.

In early reports of the situation, the perpetrator was described as a Christian, and subsequent reports explained that he himself called himself a Christian on facebook and was aligned with the Knights Templar organisation. The use of the descriptor ‘Christian’ is very misleading and unhelpful, as most media attempts to succinctly capture a person’s character and motivations are. Apart from the likelihood that he is psychopathic, his motivations seem political and racial rather than religious. So associating him with the term ‘Christian’ is, firstly, a red herring, and secondly, a clear demonstration of the lack of understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Apparently the perpetrator himself, in the manifesto allegedly written by him, admits that he is not a ‘religious’ Christian in the sense of being a follower of Jesus and having a personal relationship with God (see this article). Rather, he aligns himself with what he calls a ‘cultural Christianity’, which seems for him to be synonymous with western democratic social values.

Yesterday, as part of my daily bible reading, I was struck by the following verses from the book of Proverbs (chapter 11, English Standard Version), which is a collection of the wise sayings attributed to King Solomon:

The righteousness of the blameless keeps his way straight, but the wicked falls by his own wickedness. (verse 5)

The righteousness of the upright delivers them, but the treacherous are taken captive by their lust. (verse 6)

With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor, but by knowledge the righteous are delivered. (verse 9)

By the blessing of the upright a city is exalted, but by the mouth of the wicked it is overthrown. (verse 11)

Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense, but a man of understanding remains silent. (verse 12)

They each speak of the foolishness and destructiveness of doing evil, or plotting against or slandering one’s neighbour. The perpetrator of the crimes in Norway would have done well to heed this wisdom as part of his ‘cultural Christianity’. In a way, they are perhaps like an ancient form of ‘soundbite’! But I would argue that they are much more constructive and contain much more wisdom than today’s media soundbites, where in the absence of the full story a guess or incomplete piece of information will suffice, and there is scant regard for the consequences of connecting that piece of information with the events.

It reminds me of a report I saw in 2005 (Sydney Morning Herald, 10th June) about a tragic house fire in Wyong on the Central Coast of NSW which claimed the lives of four young children, three of whom were brothers. The mother of the three boys who died, and whose house it was, had gone out for the evening and had left the four children with two older siblings (12 and 13 years) and a cousin. Told like that, it sounds like a terrible tragedy and the reader would be expected to feel sympathy for the mother. But that is not the way it was told, as we get the following pieces of information (among others):

Lisa Forde, a mother of eight who rents the home where five of her children live with her...

Ms Forde lived in the rented house beside the Wyong River for four years. She and Mr Shepherd walked 50 metres down the street and across the road to Wyong Bowling Recreation Club to watch the Anthony Mundine-Mikkel Kessler fight on Wednesday night.

Mr Shepherd - who was outside the house yesterday drinking a long-neck as reporters milled around - said Ms Forde had gone to check the children when the fight ended.

Mr Shepherd, who said he had served two years' jail after being convicted on drugs charges, said Ms Forde had children by four men, two of whom were in jail.

At the very end, the reporter provides some balance with a positive character reference from Ms Forde’s neighbour, "She was a real good mother who only wanted what was best for her kids. This is horrible. How can you live with something like this?" but by then the damage has been done.

"I've got a little list"

There’s been a bit of a controversy this week about the Sydney Symphony Orchestra’s ‘The Very Best of G&S’ show at the Opera House. One of the songs, the Lord High executioner’s ‘List Song’ from the Mikado, which seems designed to have its lyrics tailored to the contemporary events of the day, mentioned Hillsong Church in an allegedly derogatory way. The lyric deemed offensive was as follows:

“That Hillsong lot on television, all joyfully singing psalms, I wish they would desist, and their happy claps resist.”

Apparently, Hillsong’s lawyers wrote to the Sydney Symphony, asking to see the lyrics. I suppose the fact that the song is basically the executioner listing the people who should not be missed by his execution campaign, makes it a bit unkind. But they’re not the only ones to be targeted. A blog comment by the show’s conductor, Guy Noble, notes that “Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Clover Moore, Justin Bieber’s dermatologist, lovers of the music of Brahms, any aunty who has a moustache, anyone with a mobile phone, Westfield” were also included in the list of social irritants.

Having seen a full performance of the Mikado (by Opera Australia a few years ago), I can attest that it's a very funny song and the whole point of it is to poke fun at the joke-butts of the moment and draw the audience into an in-group of people who have the same attitudes about things relevant to their society. The Sydney Morning Herald (25^th June 2011) reported Maunder (who played Ko Ko, the executioner) as saying “If you are in the public arena, you are fair game... I'm very surprised anyone would have taken offence. It's affectionate and charming. It would be a mistake to say there was any malicious intent.”

But as always with these kind of 'what are they complaining about?' comments directed at Christians, I wonder whether the same joking treatment would ever be levelled at adherents of any other faith. Can you see the Australian Islamic community being written into the lyrics? I think not... The effect would be (as it is here) ‘We all think these people [insert name of individual or group] are a bit strange, but they sure provide us with something to laugh about together’. It’s great for creating an in-group of those who agree, but it also suggests that those who think differently are excluded.

While I have my criticisms of Hillsong, I think they have a right to draw attention to this public mocking disguised as musical culture. But it would have been a good opportunity to invite people to see what they’re all about, or to gently provoke discussion in the public arena about why it is that the Christian church is fair game for poking fun at in public while other faiths are off limits. I wouldn't have made it a legal issue, though. The Bible is full of references to the people of God being mocked by the world around them. It should be no surprise to Christians when they find themselves in the same situation. Jesus himself was mocked mercilessly even while he hung on the cross. The Gospels tells us that Jesus predicted that it would happen to him (e.g. Luke 18:32) and indeed it did, from various directions (e.g. Luke 22:63, Luke 23:11, Luke 23:36). He bore it with dignity, and rather than trying to take his mockers to court (he knew it was coming, after all), he mercifully offered to represent them, as he represents us all, in the highest court of God’s judgement.

Reason and Faith

During the Easter break I had the opportunity to read some thought-provoking online newspaper articles and their associated comments, on topics connected with religion. It's interesting that around Easter it becomes more acceptable for newspapers (including The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald, and some overseas papers) to allow Jesus to be discussed publicly. I'm thankful for the persistence of the folk at the Centre for Public Christianity (this time it was Simon Smart, John Dickson and Justine Toh getting a piece of the action) to make sure Jesus is not left out of public discussion, especially at these times.

If the truth be told, sometimes the comments are more thought provoking than the articles (not necessarily in this case). Two things particularly interested me about the comments, neither of them new phenomena. Firstly, I was appalled by the lack of respect for others shown by individuals on both sides of the divide. It must be the relative anonymity of the online comment platform that makes people feel they are free to treat others with such disdain. Would they do the same face to face?

Secondly, there is a very persistent argument from atheists that the natural consequence of education and intelligence is a break away from religion. As someone who has had the opportunity to receive many years of solid education and earn a doctoral degree, I find that a baffling claim. There are many intelligent, highly educated people who are also followers of Jesus. I meet with a group of them every week at one of the universities I work at, to read the Bible, pray, and participate in seminars about the intersection of faith and academic disciplines or academic work. There is a growing nationwide network of us who meet each year in Canberra for a national conference.

Education/reason and true faith are not mutually exclusive. The Christians I know have not been brainwashed but have spent considerable time and effort inquiring into Christianity, the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, and questions of the origins of life. Some have turned from atheism to Christianity after lengthy periods of enquiry. Some have grown up in Christian families but have still had to make their own decision to continue following Jesus, and for many this involved a lot of soul searching. I did not make the decision to follow Jesus lightly, and neither did the other Christians I know. Why would we blindly choose to follow such a costly faith?

Those of us in the academy (and those in other sectors) who are followers of Jesus need to take a bold stand for Christ, making ourselves known as rational, intelligent people who put our faith in Jesus. We must be prepared to explain our reasons for the hope that we have, in order to dispel the myth that belief in God is a result of brainwashing and ignorance.