From Frankincense to Franchise - the Corporatisation & Politicisation of Christianity

From Frankincense to Franchise - the Corporatisation & Politicisation of Christianity

Modern day Christianity is being over-run with the desire for money and power as a result of "prosperity doctrine" and "dominionism". Christ has been corporatised and politicised. Instead of blessing Christ with frankincense and myrrh, corporate Christianity brings Him franchises and movie rights. Instead of "the truth shall set you free" many fundamentalist churches and televangelists preach that "the tithe shall set you free".  Instead of "go into all the world and preach the gospel", right-wing fundamentalists are forcing their interpretation of biblical law on the world, ignoring the biblical principles of love, forgiveness and grace.

Over the last few decades an  element within the Christian Right has been actively taking steps to establish the United States as a Theocratic Republic which would be subject to the Laws of God detailed in the Old Testament.

This element has become known as Dominionists and their aim is to establish God's Kingdom on Earth through the creation of a Christian state which favours Christians and persecutes those who do not ascribe to their self-righteous expectations of morality and their strict interpretation of biblical law.  Dominionists are politically conservative and fundamentalist Christians who are highly influential in politics, with even former President George W. Bush believing in their creed.

Whilst Dominionism may not be well known to many people, the concept of it is embraced by world-wide Evangelical churches and its insidious message broadcast across the globe by such well known proponents as Pat Robertson, Dr James Dobson and Focus on the Family, Tim LaHaye, Jerry Falwell, Charles Colson, Phyllis Schlafly, Rick Joyner, Promise Keepers and others.  RJ Rushdoony, a "Reconstructionist" (a form of Dominionism) wrote a book called "The Institutes of Biblical Law" in which he calls for a return to Old Testament law, including the death penalty for crimes such as murder, rape, homosexuality and adultery.

The policies of Dominionism include:

• Anti-abortion
• Anti-homosexuality
• Anti-Islam
• Anti-immigration
• Anti-multiculturalism
• Anti equal rights
• Pro war
• Pro gun ownership
• Pro death penalty
• Military expansion
• Smaller government
• Supporting Big Business
• Lower taxes for the wealthy
• No social security system 
• No public education system
• No public health system
• American hegemony 
• Abstinence

Many of these policies are based on exclusion, fear, racism and xenophobia.

Dominionism has transformed God from Omnipotent to Omniphobic.

Dominionism has transformed God from a God of Love to a God of Law.
Dominionism essentially ignores the New Testament laws of "love your God" and "love your neighbour" whilst embracing many of the laws of the Old Testament and ignoring the tenets related to fairness and love.

They have also misused scripture to demand smaller government, labelling attempts at public service delivery as communist.

President George W. Bush, a member of the Christian Right and in accordance with this Dominionist policy of smaller government, privatised or outsourced many core government services, including Defence and Security (most famously outsourcing to Blackwater which operates outside of the same constricts that the US Department of Defense does), Law Enforcement, Education (including the expansion of Charter Schools which allows for private corporations to run public schools and which are not subject to the same governance, rules and regulations that government education departments are), Health, Prisons, Road Construction and Maintenance, Public Transport, Administration, Communication, Air Traffic Control, Municipal Services and Postal Services.

During George W. Bush's administration, privatisation resulted in trillions of dollars being wasted by the USA Government on the fallacy that private companies are more efficient than public ones at delivering services. Yet, private companies are dedicated to earning profits for shareholders, whereas government departments are dedicated to delivering services.

The Republicans gave massive tax cuts to the richest Americans whilst ignoring lower and middle income earners.  Both the Republicans and the Tea Party (many of whose members are Dominionists) call for lower taxes whilst supporting exorbitant military expenditure and cutting social services, education and health which disadvantaged the poor and low income earners.  It was this unrestrained military expenditure and encouragement of corporate and individual greed that led to the Global Financial Crisis, costing thousands of jobs and bankrupting many people.

The Texas Republican Party Platform document of 2004 stated "we call for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education and the prohibition of the transfer of any of its functions to any other Federal Agency".

This policy appeals to Dominionists as it matches their aim of replacing the public education system with private Christian education.  Whilst Christian schooling is not overtly sinister, put into the context of the Dominionist desire for supremacy and domination it is particularly concerning.  Gary North, a leading Dominionist, stated "Until the vast majority of Christians pull their children out of public schools, there will be no possibility of creating a theocratic republic".

Pat Robertson, head of the 700 Club has declared that Christians are to take over the government of the United States. They are well on their way to achieving this through the influence that they wield within the Republican Party and the Tea Party.  At the moment we are seeing conservative Christians with Dominionist views, namely Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, campaigning to be the Republican Party nominee at the next Presidential election.

Dominionists are more interested in benefits for big business than in caring for the poor.  They care for power and prosperity - attested to by their political lobbying for big business, small government, corporate greed through unregulated markets and removal of government social service programs.  Prayer has been exchanged for Political Power.

They have campaigned to remove the minimum wage, which even now provides insufficient income for many workers.  Michelle Bachmann stated "If we took away the minimum wage, if conceivably it was gone, we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely, because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."  There might be more jobs under a Bachmann plan, but the "working poor" would become the "destitute poor" and with the Dominionist opposition to social services, public health and public education, the poor would become beggars, would become untouchables and undesirables in their own land.  Taking away the already meagre minimum wage will encourage corruption and crime as workers do what they can to keep their families fed and the bills paid.  Corruption flourishes in countries with inadequate wages.

Dominionism as a concept is finding fertile ground among conservative Christians because many of their influential preachers and evangelists have twisted the Bible message into one of materialism through their "prosperity" doctrine.  Put simply this doctrine claims that God will bless Christians with material wealth.  There are many biblical scriptures which condemn this materialistic attitude.  Hebrews 13:5 says "keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have because God has said 'never will I leave you, never will I forsake you' ". 

"Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of God" is being replaced with "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the big screen TV".

It is the materialism of prosperity doctrine which has resulted in many Evangelical and Pentecostal churches embracing Dominionism, even though many don't call it that.

The genuine love that these Christians have for Christ has been exploited and manipulated by influential preachers who have channeled this passion into a heartfelt belief in a Christ vastly removed from the one in the Bible: a materialistic, corporate Christ, not the selfless, loving Christ of the New Testament.

Jesus never said "follow me and I'll make you rich and famous beyond your wildest dreams". 

Coupled with this materialistic dogma, is a predisposition to punish all who don't meet the high moral standards set by these Christians and an intolerance and exclusion of "liberal" Christians and non-Christians including Muslims, atheists, environmentalists, socialists, homosexuals and the list goes on.

The bible tells us that the wages of sin is death.  In Ephesians 2 we are told that whilst we were dead in our sins, God made us alive in Him through his grace.  John 3:16 tells us that "God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved".  The bible is a gospel of grace and inclusion of all.  John 3:17 says "for God did not send His Son into the world to condemn, but that the world through Him might be saved."

Many of these conservative Christians are focused on punishment of crimes with little understanding and no desire to address the causes of crime. For instance, asylum seekers often enter other countries in order to escape persecution and war (ironically these have sometimes been caused by despots and wars sponsored by the USA).  Yet Dominionists call for their imprisonment and deportation, often demonising them as terrorists, contrary to the scriptures in which we are told to love and care for them.  Deuteronomy 10:18-19 says "He administers justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the stranger, giving him food and clothing. Therefore love the stranger ....".

Dominionism is more interested in punishment than in correction. The motivation to punish is borne of hatred, anger and revenge coupled with a fear of losing the life they desire and the power they crave. The motivation for correction is borne of love through self-sacrifice, reaching out to others and loving them.

Instead of showing love, Dominionists show contempt and condemnation. They focus on abortionists and homosexuals, actively campaigning against them, declaring that these people are condemned to Hell and that God hates them - contrary to the message in John 3:17.  They condone and preach animosity and fear of those who practice other religions or other ways of life.

Instead of reaching out to those who are different, who are poor and downtrodden, Dominionists join with Uber-Capitalists to subjugate them, to dehumanise them, to further disenfranchise them, to deny workers their rights.  All men are equal in God's eyes, but not in the eyes of the extreme Religious Right.

Dominionists are the new Sadducees, the new Pharisees; with potential to be a type of Christian Taliban.  Their legalism and harsh interpretation of the bible may well result in a Totalitarian regime where they fully implement their antiquated and prejudicial laws.  Isaiah 10:1-2 states "woe to them who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless".

Like the money-changers that Jesus ejected from the temples, the Dominionists and many others in the Christian Right have turned churches into ongoing business concerns at the expense of the poor and the weak. They prey on superstitious fears that cause some to tithe in order to avoid God's wrath, exhorting an image of God as a Mafia Godfather who will strike people down unless He is paid "protection money".  To sweeten the tithe, they often preach Capitalism rather than Christianity, exhorting people to tithe through the promise of reward with the assurance that God will return to them tenfold or hundredfold what they give.

These should not be the reasons for tithing.  Tithing, and for that matter any giving, should be out of love, not because of fear, greed or personal benefit.  Of course churches need money to survive and to run their programs, but they should not be obtaining this money through messages of fear in what amounts to extortion or in exploiting people's greed through exorbitant promises of untold wealth.

We now see the rise of the "mega-church" with churches taking over other churches through a mergers and acquisitions program that would make any corporate raider proud, with the result that many of these mega-churches have essentially franchised themselves nationally and in some cases, internationally.  Before sowing into these mega-churches, Christians should remember that it is a fine line between Kingdom Building and Empire Building.

Jesus didn't ask us to build huge churches, drawing people into buildings; instead He commissioned us to go out into all the world, to mix with people of all nations and all types in order to preach the gospel.  Some of us have become idolatrous of these mega-churches, wearing their t-shirts and collecting memorabilia in the same way that people worship their favourite rock star or football team.  Yet, where is God in all this? Religious fervour is easy to exploit, and very profitable.

Modern Christianity has been hijacked with cleverly marketed messages aimed at manipulating the congregation's love of God and fear of rebellion in order to gain support for the Dominionist goal of power through a theocratic state.  People who dare criticise this Religious Propaganda Machine are condemned as "bleeding heart liberals", as having sold out to the world.  Yet it is the extreme Religious Right who has swapped the Truth of God's Love for the worldly Lie of Prosperity and Political Power.

Christians in particular should be standing up against this perversion of the Gospel and all people should be opposing any attempts at Totalitarianism and Fascism whether it be in the form of malevolent dictatorships of any religious or political persuasion, or in the name of Democracy or Christianity.

There are enough problems in the world without Christians adding to them.  Issues such as poverty, terrorism, war, famine, illiteracy and poor health should be the priority of Governments, Churches and individuals working together.  To solve these problems the world needs love; it needs people to love and respect each other and to acknowledge and embrace the differences between individuals and communities.

Doctrines of hate and intolerance whether masquerading as religion, politics or personal opinion only fuel the problems facing the world and do not solve them.

The world needs less fear, less greed and more grace, more love.

Before embracing the heresy of Dominionism, we need to remember the message of Mark 8:36 -

"what shall it profit a man, if he should gain the whole world, and lose his soul".

National Debt: the Child of Capitalism and Prosperity Religion

The United States economy is struggling under a crippling debt and has recently been downgraded from AAA to AA+ by the economic ratings agency, Standards & Poor (S&P).  Whilst the USA is not the only country to be downgraded recently, they are certainly the largest and most influential on world markets.

Much attention has been given to the recent dispute over increasing the debt ceiling, which was required for the US government to pay the interest on its debt.  The Republicans who control Congress refused to pass the bill by the Democrats, who control the Senate.  The Republicans blamed the Democrats for poor fiscal management.  However, it is the Republicans who have accumulated the most debt over the last 30 years.

The recent request to increase the debt ceiling is nothing new, in fact, the Republicans have increased the debt ceiling more times than the Democrats ever did in order to pay for their massive budget blow-outs.  President Ronald Reagan raised the debt ceiling 18 times, whilst President George W. Bush raised it 7 times.

During the Global Financial Crisis then President George W. Bush decided to stimulate the economy through tax cuts to the wealthy and a trillion dollar buy-out of banks whilst continuing to spend billions in Iraq and Afghanistan as lower income earners lost their houses, their jobs, their incomes.

Under George W. Bush spending on essential government services such as health and education was cut in favour of boosting the Defence budget and funding the "War on Terror" through invading Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he privatised core public services, costing the USA government trillions of dollars as contracts were awarded to companies whose boards included senior politicians such as Rumsfeld and Cheney.  Republicans, the Tea Party and those conservatives who believe in small government seem to not understand that government is dedicated to delivering a service. It is the service that is the priority for government, whereas profit is the priority of private industry.  It is a fallacy to assume that private industry is always less expensive, more efficient or more capable of delivering government services than the government is.

Privatisation, essentially the surrogacy of government service and responsibility, was not done to better society but to pander to the extreme capitalism of multi-national business. All manner of service has been privatised including security and defence, law enforcement, education, health, prisons, road construction, public transport, administration, communication, air traffic control, municipal services and postal services.  Often privatisation produces no cost savings to either the government or to the consumer, and rarely does it result in better service.

The USA is not any safer, healthier, better educated or more efficient because of the divestment of government responsibility to the private sector.  Under the Republican government of George W. Bush, the private sector was rarely held accountable for service delivery or compliance with national and international legislation.

The religious right has also encouraged this extreme capitalism and campaigned for downsizing of government, arguing that churches are best placed to care for people in terms of charity, health and education.  Of course, these churches will charge either the government or the consumer (or both) for these services so it is in their financial interest for these services to divested to them.  The religious organisations interested in providing these services are effectively commercialising and politicising the gospel for money and political power.  Very little love or tolerance is preached in their religious messages whilst embracing a "prosperity" teaching which is at odds with the austerity and anti-materialist message of Jesus.

The religious right has gained an incredible amount of influence in the USA government.  Rather than use this power to hold government accountable for its treatment of its citizens and the lies and excesses of the War on Terror, the religious right encouraged anti-muslim sentiment to justify the War and demanded privatisation of government services; contributing to the massive debt increases under the Republicans.

The Republicans have shown themselves to be more interested in boosting big business than in caring and providing for their own citizens, other nations they involve themselves in, or in improving conditions for workers, the poor, the disadvantaged.   Even small business operators struggled in this extreme capitalism as globalisation saw the influence and power of big business undercut, undermine and take over or wipe out many small businesses, costing livelihoods and jobs.

The USA government, particularly under Republicans, has been funding and encouraging the greed of unfettered capitalism at the expense of its citizens, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. This greed has resulted in massive increases in the USA national debt, company debt and personal debt as companies and people chase the dream of a capitalist utopia, ostensibly through the myth of wealth creation using "other people's money".

The USA government needs to get back to basics in order to address the poverty, health and education issues facing its society and to reduce its public debt.  Government should be concerned with governing.  This includes delivering essential, core services required for the improvement of society through an efficient and dedicated public service not through an unfettered and unaccountable market-place.  Government should not be abdicating its social, political and fiscal responsibilities to private industry or to religious organisations. The massive United States national debt is the product of this abdication.

For the sake of the United States and world economies, the US Government needs to be returned to the people for the benefit of the people, not to big business for the benefit of big business.

Socialism, Capitalism & the Parable of the Talents

The Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30 and the Parable of the Minas in Luke 19:11-28 are often used to justify the recent reinvention of Jesus as a capitalist.  In both parables a rich man gives his servants money (a different amount to each according to his ability) and expects them to invest it on his behalf.  One servant in each story is scared of his lord and buries the money, handing back the same amount he was given. The servant is rebuked and cast out for being lazy and slothful.

Both of these parables have been used to justify capitalism rather than socialism. Yet for any economic system to be successful and contribute to the betterment of society, there is a requirement for hard work, honesty, integrity and fairness.

The Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25 and the Parable of the Minas in Luke 19, both show a rich man giving his money to his servants to earn him more money.   At all times this money remains the property of the rich man.  Two of the servants double the man's money, the other hands back what he was given.  This servant is described as lazy and wicked.   The "lazy" servant describes the rich man as a hard man who he is afraid of.  The rich man admits that he "reaps where he has not sown and gathers where he has not spread seed".

Below are two interpretations of these parables, both from an economic perspective and both with the same conclusion - that the parables are not an endorsement of capitalism.  As parables they don't just relate to how we manage money, they also relate to how we manage anything, including gifts, service, increasing the Kingdom of God; they show that we should not bury our gifts but use them productively.

Let's look at these parables as applied to Capitalist and Socialist systems.

Traditional Interpretation

Traditionally, the rich man is seen as representative of Jesus and the servants as representing us. In this analogy, the lazy servant failed to invest the money entrusted to him.  He buried it out of fear of his Master.  If anything, this parable highlights the crippling power of fear in our lives.   It shows that we can achieve great things if we don't allow fear to dominate.    It also shows that the servant was disobedient.  He had been asked to produce a result and he deliberately failed to do so.  What if he had tried to increase the rich man's wealth and instead lost what he had been entrusted with? Would he have still been cast out?

In our own professions we are required to produce results for our employers or businesses.  If we do so we are blessed with an income and possibly with promotion.  The lazy servant deliberately failed to produce and was dismissed.

This interpretation does not declare categorically that capitalism is God's preferred political system.  Even Socialism needs productive workers to have enough resources to care for the people.

The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats immediately follows the Parable of the Talents.  It is significant and indicates that money is not meant to be accumulated purely for individual wealth but to be distributed according to the needs of people who are worse off.

From a doctrinal perspective, the traditional interpretation indicates that we must work our way into heaven; that salvation is earned, not given to us by the grace of God. Ephesians 2:8-9 states, 'For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not our own doing; it is the gift of God - not the result of works, so that no-one may boast'. Verse 10 goes on to state that we were 'created for good works'. However, we are not saved by works and can not work our way into heaven.

Alternative Interpretation


Looking at these parables from purely a financially perspective, they could be interpreted in another way; in this case, the servant is the hero.

In both parables, the rich man states that the servant should have invested the money in order to earn usury.  The bible generally condemns the system of usury, or earning with exorbitant interest and did not allow Jews to charge usury to other Jews. Additionally, the concept of "reaping where he had not sown and gathering where he had not spread seed" indicated that the rich man was using immoral methods, or extortion, for gathering his riches.  The servant could be seen as the model of behaviour in that he didn't yield to the corrupt methods of his master; he returned the money, he didn't steal from him, nor did he participate in the extortion requested of him.

Galations 6:7-8 explains the deceit of the rich man, "Do not be deceived, God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please the flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life."

Extortion is condemned throughout the bible and if anything this parable is a condemnation of the immoral economic practices of the rich man.  The behaviour of the rich man contradicts the Beatitudes, such as "blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven, blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy". The rich man also has responsibility with the money he expected his servants to earn for him.

Conclusion

Neither parable explains the fate of the rich man or how he used his wealth.

Proverbs 28:8 explains how the rich man should  have used his wealth.  This proverb states "one who increases his possessions by usury and extortion gathers it for him who will pity the poor".  The bible is very strict about the conditions of usury and is very clear about helping the poor and not exploiting them.

Ezekiel 18:7-9 describes the moral behaviour expected of people in dealing with others, including showing justice, compassion and fairness. It says "But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right .... and hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment; he that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true judgment between man and man, hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God".

Isaiah 5:8 warns against greed and capitalism and certainly the globalisation that we see today with smaller businesses being "acquired" by larger ones, "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no place that they may be placed alone in the midst of the earth."

Neither of these parables is a ringing endorsement for unfettered capitalism. They do not espouse the "laissez-faire", "survival of the fittest" mentality of modern capitalism.   As stated above, it is interesting that the parable of the talents is immediately followed by the parable of the "Sheep and the Goats".

In this parable Jesus is on His throne in heaven and has separated the nations one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.  Those deemed to be goats are on his left hand and those deemed to be sheep are on his right. In Matthew 25:34-36, He says to the sheep, "Come you, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to Me".

The goats don't fare so well.  Jesus says to them in Matthew 25:41-43 "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, I was naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me."

Socialism is not about slothfulness, it is not about a "welfare" state. It is about redistribution of wealth for the benefit of society. For there to be wealth, there has to be profit.  Socialism is not against profit, it is against profiting from the exploitation of others - exploitation which is also condemned in the bible. For socialism to be effective it needs productive "workers".  The socialism of the bible acknowledges this and the secular socialism of Karl Marx acknowledges it.

Capitalism in general takes the wealth common to a nation, such as natural resources, and redistributes it to the rich.

An argument has been put forward that the charity of the bible is meant to be undertaken by the Church not by the State.  The flaw in this argument is that centuries ago the Church was the State or had great influence in the government of nations, whether it was the Sadducees and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin Council or the Catholic Church which ultimately ruled the former Roman Empire and influenced many other rulers.  Eventually, the influence of the Catholic Church in State matters waned, however, the responsibility to care for its citizens remained with the State.  Certainly the Church needs to provide charity, but not to the exclusion of the State.

Government is not designed to simply pass laws and collect taxes.  It is meant to govern the economy and the people.   To achieve this, the State needs to responsibly spend those taxes in a manner that protects and develops the nation.  The State has a responsibility to ensure that all people within its borders are cared for, that no-one is left behind.  It has a responsibility to contribute to the global community of which all nations are now members.

Government is to provide the infrastructure and framework for the efficient operation of the nation and to meet the needs of the people, this includes schools, hospitals, police, roads, trade and market regulations and so on.  The trend in privatising these services has resulted in higher operational costs and lower quality service as private business focuses on profit and not on service delivery. Government traditionally focuses on delivery of service, ensuring that the services meet acceptable standards within a value for money framework.

The bible needs to be read in context.  The context of the bible is that no-one is left behind, all are cared for, all are loved.  Certainly, the more money you have the more people you can help. The bible is not opposed to profits, it is opposed to exploitation and lack of charity.

Capitalism is not a system that lends itself to caring for the individual.  It is a system which encourages exploitation, unfair and deceitful practices.  Capitalism results in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.  Capitalism is about personal wealth.

Matthew 6:19-21 says "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.  For where your treasure is, your heart will be also".

If you treasure the accumulation of wealth and don't redistribute it, then your heart will be focused on selfishness, not on charity.

Capitalism is self-centred and focuses on the accumulation of personal wealth for a small segment of individuals at the expense of many.

Socialism is based on creation of wealth to be utilised and redistributed as needed for the benefit of every person in society.

Our responsibility is to build the Kingdom of God and care for each other, to care for the poor, the stranger, those who are not the poster-children of success, those who have been the victims of exploitation, greed and tragedy.

In the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, Matthew 25:45 Jesus declares:

"'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to the least of these, you did not do it to Me". 
---

For further comment on Biblical Socialism refer to the following article:

"Biblical Socialism - to each as anyone has need"
( http://thepandarant.blogspot.com/2010/11/biblical-socialism-to-each-as-anyone.html)

The Temptations of Christ

One of my favourite scriptures in the bible is Hebrews 4:15, which reads: "For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathise with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin".

Years ago I had become very discouraged with my own weaknesses and felt that I couldn't relate to the perfection of Jesus.  I knew that Jesus had been tempted by the devil when He was challenged to turn stones into bread, when He was challenged to leap from a tower and leave His fate in the hands of the Angels and when He was taken to the top of a mountain and promised the kingdoms of the world in exchange for worshiping Satan.

Whilst these temptations were significant, they weren't the sort of things I had personally been tempted with.  No-one had led me up a mountain and offered me the kingdoms of the world or to turn stones into bread or to leap from a high tower - not literally anyway. I'm sure these temptations can be applied figuratively to our lives, but at that time they really meant nothing to me and were not temptations that I could identify with.  As a result I felt that Jesus had no idea what it was like to be tempted as a human by the allure of the world.

I rationalised that Jesus found it easy to resist temptation because he KNEW that He was the Son of God.  He knew without doubt that God was real.  For me, the reality of God was a matter of faith without any empirical evidence that God really was there.  I believed He was real, but I couldn't physically prove it to anyone.

During this time one of my favourite movies was "The Last Temptation of Christ". A movie that had been banned at one stage at the behest of the Catholic Church.  The reason I liked this movie was that it showed the humanity of Christ and his struggles with both his divinity, humanity and temptation.  Many movies about Jesus only explore His divinity, His Godliness.  As I'm not a god, I found his divinity to be something I couldn't really relate to.  As a man, I could relate to His humanity.

The bible tells us that Jesus was the Son of God AND the Son of Man.  It was necessary for Him to be born of a woman so that he shared both divine and human qualities.  A fact that I had not comprehended until I understood Hebrews 4:15.

The divinity of Jesus is essential in bridging our relationship with God.  Yet this did not mean that Jesus was unaware of the struggles we face. The temptations of Jesus were not constrained to those three events in the Gospels. Hebrews 4:15 says that Jesus was tempted in the same areas that we are.  This means that He was tempted in ALL ways that we are, including lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and pride of life.  He would have been tempted with immorality, vanity, pride, greed, anger: just as we ALL are.  Yet He remained pure, without sin.  He was tempted, but he did not give Himself over to temptation.

Jesus understands our weakness no matter how discouraged we get, no matter our disenchanted we become with ourselves or others.

He understands because He has been there and is still there for us.

Big Brother, Doublethink & the Memory Hole - Politics in the Modern World

Big Brother, Doublethink & the Memory Hole - Politics in the Modern World

Cold War, War on Drugs, War on Terror ... more than 70 years of continuous warfare.

Is this the realisation of the "Perpetual War" that George Orwell wrote of in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four?

These wars had to be fought to ensure the continuation of democracy and capitalism - so we've been told.  We feared communism and socialism, we feared the insidious and subversive nature of drugs and now we fear Islamic extremists.  We fear people who are not like us, outnumbering us in "our own" land.

Our modern western society has eerily disturbing similarities to the world portrayed by Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The purpose of "Perpetual War" was to artificially create fear in the minds of the population to believe that they were at war with an enemy who was ill-defined, yet identified as the source of many of society's ills; without any logical argument or proof behind the accusations.  In Orwell's perpetual war citizens had to swear undying allegiance to "Big Brother" and the State without question.  This was not that different to George W. Bush declaring that "you are either for us or against us".  Big Brother employed "thought police" to monitor the behaviour, reactions and opinions of citizens to weed out those who were traitors to society.  President Bush passed the Patriot Act which restricted media and free speech and gave law enforcement unprecedented powers of monitoring, censorship and arrest.  Journalists were "embedded" in military operations so the media would only report "authorised" information.

Orwell's Big Brother would often change the enemy.  One day an ally would be an enemy and an enemy would be an ally and citizens were expected to forget the previous status of the relationship as history was rewritten and contrary evidence destroyed in the "memory hole".   The enemy being fought today may not be the enemy being fought tomorrow.  We have seen parallels with this in modern society. During the 1980's Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, the Mujahideen were all supported, financed and armed by the United States.

However, during the 1990's Saddam Hussein became the enemy.  Osama bin Laden formed Al Qaeda and became the enemy.  From the Mujahideen, the Taliban was formed and following 9/11 became the enemy because they were harbouring Osama bin Laden.  Histories were rewritten and denials issued of the support that the USA gave to these groups. Lies were manufactured to justify the invasion of Iraq; for instance the blatant lie that Hussein and bin Laden were cooperating with each other, the lie that Hussein still held weapons of mass destruction in 2003 and denial of the original reasons for invading Iraq to fit the latest propaganda.  In a purely Orwellian act, the USA buried these histories in the "memory hole" and continued on as though the history never existed whilst their citizens were left wondering "why do our enemies hate us so much".   The reason given by George W. Bush was that "they hate our freedoms"; this could not have been further from the truth.

Two prime examples of this "memory hole" include Colin Powell stating in February 2001 "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.  He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbours of Iraq".

Then in July 2001, Condeleeza Rice stated "We are able to keep his arms from him.  His military forces have not been rebuilt".

In August 2002, Dick Cheney stated "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction".   The United States government from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and others commenced declaring that Iraq clearly was in possession of WMD and had to be disarmed.  He was given warning after warning and in Monty Pythonesque logic Ari Fleischer declared that "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world".  So if he weighs the same as a duck then he must be made of wood ...

In March 2003, the United States and its "Coalition of the Willing" (a Newspeak euphemism if there ever was one), invaded Iraq on the basis of disarming Saddam Hussein who was allegedly in possession of vast amounts of WMD.   President George W. Bush declared on 17 March 2003, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised".

In March 2003, Donald Rumsfeld stated "we know where they are, they are around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat".

On 28 May 2003, Lt Gen James Conway "...we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites.  Believe me, it's not through lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there".

On 30 May 2003, President Bush continued with his lies by stating "but for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them".

The Coalition of the Willing never found any of these banned weapons or manufacturing plants.

In May 2003, Paul Wolfowitz stated "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on".

In Nineteen Eighty-Four the "memory hole" was used to rewrite history by destroying evidence and manipulating the memory of the population.  The use of the modern "memory hole" has resulted in ongoing cleansing of history and as a result many have forgotten the reasons for the USSR invading Afghanistan, they  have forgotten the role that the USA played in this.  Because of this memory lapse we are now at risk of the United States being brought down by the very strategy that they used to bring down the Soviet Union.

In the late 70s, the strategy was for the USA to fund and arm dissidents (the Mujaheddin) to wage terrorist attacks against the Soviets, in order to drag the USSR into a prolonged and expensive war.   The USSR invaded Afghanistan and the USA continued funding Islamic extremists to fight a "jihad" against the Soviets. Eventually this war drained the economy so much that it contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union.

In 1986, the leader of the Mujaheddin warned America that the jihadists were going to look for another enemy once the USSR was out of Afghanistan and that the enemy would be the USA. Most of the Jihadists did not know that they were being recruited and funded by the USA.

Since 9/11, Al Qaeda has engaged the USA in a protracted, expensive war which has seen America and her allies invade both Iraq and Afghanistan and wage wars that can't be won and which the USA can't afford.  The War on Terror has cost the USA close to $1 trillion. This money has been borrowed from China.  The Global Financial Crisis, whilst also caused by the greed of the banks, was not helped by the American debt owed to China.  If America is not careful, it may very well suffer the fate of the Soviet Union.

Greed has blinded successive US governments to the potential threat of over-committing to war zones and trouble spots.  The concept of Perpetual War is seen as profitable, after all not only is there an entire industry built around the manufacture of products and services consumed in war, for instance ammunition, weapons, armour, security, but there is also an entire industry around the rebuilding following war.  The US markets this under the banners of "security" and "democracy", yet the locals in those countries often see it for what it is: power, hegemony and money-making for multi-national companies who have no concern for the local economy or local citizens.

Again to quote Orwell's 1984, when asked why the party clings to power, the answer given was not that it was for the good of the people but "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power ... Power is not a means, it is an end ... One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship".   In this case, "the Party" is not a particular political party it is the government.

Of course this quote, does not solely apply to the US government, it could equally apply to any number of governments across the globe, particularly those established following a revolution, e.g. the Soviets,  Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Suharto, the theocratic rule established following the Iranian revolution.  Some governments were established by more surreptitious "revolution" or by blatant force, for instance Israel, the Taliban, Gaddafi.  All the while the big players, such as the US or the USSR were there funding and establishing their own influences in these revolutions so that they were the beneficiaries. One doesn't have to be the ruler to hold the power.

Western nations were quick to publish and remind citizens of the genocides perpetrated by Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, among others.  What wasn't publicised was the complicity and support that the west, in particular the USA, gave to genocides and gross human rights abuses throughout the world.  Declassified White House and CIA documents show that the USA funded, trained and were directly involved in the overthrow of many governments across the globe.  This included overthrowing the socialist-leaning President Sukarno and replacing him with President Suharto.  The CIA then provided names of left-wing sympathisers to Indonesian forces in order for those people to be arrested, tortured and executed.  Suharto was responsible for over a million deaths in Indonesia.   Suharto's troops received training from the British Army.  Former UK Prime Minister Thatcher described him as "one of our best and most valuable friends".  Former US President Bill Clinton described him as "our kind of guy".  This was at a time when Suharto's crimes were well known.  Imagine Thatcher and Clinton saying the same about Hitler or Stalin, yet he massacred over a million of his own people.

The USA will often boast of its democracy and its plan to bring democracy to the world.  In 1973, Chile was under the leadership of socialist President Allende who had been democratically elected.  The USA valued capitalism above democracy and sponsored a military coup which resulted in the death of Allende and the establishment of General Pinochet as Supreme Leader.  It also resulted in right wing death squads hunting down left wing sympathisers and imprisoning, torturing and murdering them.  The torture techniques were taught to them by the USA in their infamous "School of the Americas".  All of this in the name of capitalism.  It wasn't in the name of democracy and Allende was not a terrorist, he was not a despot: he's crime was to be a Socialist.

The USA funded the overthrow of numerous socialist or left wing governments across the globe using bloody revolutions, torture, murder to install US friendly despots who often were abetted by the USA to undertake genocides against their own citizens, particularly those of a socialist persuasion.

The main difference between the USSR and USA in their support of genocide is that the USA tended to not shit in their own backyard - they did it in other people's backyards and in the name of democracy.  However, it was not democratic but pure, unadulterated hegemony and extremist capitalism.

There is a danger in blindly following one ideology whilst criminalising another.  Rather than defend the indefensible, we should be standing up against tryanny, terrorism and human rights abuses regardless of who is perpetrating them.   GK Chesterton summed it up when he stated " 'My country right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'my mother, drunk or sober' ". 

In a piece of Orwellian "doublethink", the world's biggest arms dealers are the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia, who also just happen to be the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.  In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the concept of doublethink was "to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies" or "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them".

So to reiterate, the five permanent members of the UN "Security" Council are also the world's largest arms dealers.  To quote Orwell's doublespeak, "War is Peace".

President George W. Bush popularised the term "Compassionate Conservative" as a description of his extreme right wing conservatism.  "Compassionate Conservatives" claim that they use old-fashioned conservatism to compassionately address the problems of society.  Effectively, it is about divesting government of the responsibility to deliver social service programs, by funding their delivery through religious organisations and big businesses. "Compassionate Conservative" is pure Orwellian doublespeak. There is no compassion in the conservatism of the extreme religious right in the United States.

Former President Bill Clinton described "Compassionate Conservatism" as "I want to help you. I really do. But you know.  I just can't".  Compassionate Conservatives are generally of the extreme Christian Right Wing and have shown themselves to be pro-big business, pro-war, support low tax for the rich and higher tax of the poor, bigoted, opposed to human rights, opposed to the Bill of Rights, opposed to government social welfare programs which aim to assist the poorest people in society, opposed to public schooling and public health.

They are Compassionate in name only and have completely ignored the compassionate message of Jesus, whom they claim to so fervently follow.

They want free speech, or more accurately the freedom to criticise non-Christians, but are often the first to complain about outspoken Muslims or other non-Christians.  They want freedom of worship, or more accurately, freedom for Christians to worship however and wherever they want, but not for non-Christians; often waging anti-Islamic campaigns.

"Compassionate Conservatism" is a doublespeak which has duped many Christians and conservative voters, appealing to their xenophobia with catchy, dumbed-down slogans of hate and fear.

Australia has not been immune from this destructive and duplicitous Orwellian politics.  We have seen the rise of the religious right influencing government and religious "values" used in political campaigns.  Then in a form of doublethink, these same "values" were used to justify war as community dialogue and public debates often became hate filled diatribes against refugees, asylum seekers and anyone who did not have the "same values as us".

The Australian Government made great use of the "memory hole" following the debacle over asylum seekers in 2001, firstly with the issues around the Tampa affair, then the fabricated "Children Overboard" affair, the denials and accusations over SIEV-X and the dehumanising policies of giving no voice to the asylum seekers and denying the media access to them or the military.  In a prime piece of doublethink an immigration issue was turned into a military one by unfairly linking asylum seekers to terrorists and unleashing the SAS on the refugees rescued by the Tampa.  The Navy was subsequently used to police our waters in order to "stop the boats".

This global and ongoing distortion of truth, manipulation of the population and misreporting of history was summed up in one of Big Brother's slogans:

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past".

Orwell is often seen as the poster-boy of the right wing, portrayed as anti-socialist.  Yet, Orwell was a Socialist and detested imperialism, totalitarianism and fascism. He described himself as a Democratic Socialist who supported free speech and free elections. He believed that Stalin had betrayed Socialism.  He fought with the republicans against the Fascist government in the Spanish Civil War.   He chose to become a Socialist because he saw the squalor and poverty that people in Britain were living in and blamed this on the greed and failure of Capitalism.

His books, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four warned against the tyranny of government regardless of whether the government claimed to be Socialist, Fascist or Capitalist.  Some people have used these two books as an attack on Socialism, yet they were critical of the hypocrisy of Stalin who claimed to be a socialist, yet was a mass-murdering capitalist and Adolph Hitler who claimed to be a National Socialist (or Fascist) and showed himself to also be a mass-murdering dictator who oppressed and killed any who dare speak out or who was of a race or social group that he either feared or hated.

Over the last few decades we've seen the Alvin Toffler "Future Shock" vision come to pass where global corporations rule the world.  Now, instead of simply government's controlling the masses it is often a hybrid beast of government outsourcing to big business in order to effect social change.  As Naomi Klein has described in her book "Shock Doctrine", the rise of disaster capitalism has seen government and big business take advantage of disasters such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina to implement policies which would have been more difficult prior to the disaster.  After Hurricane Katrina, "charter schooling" was introduced to replace public schooling at a greater cost to taxpayers but a great fiscal benefit to business.  After September 11, the opportunity was taken by the US government and private organisations such as Halliburton and Black Water to remodel Afghanistan, Iraq and potentially the entire Middle East into "democratic" (read "Capitalist") states at great expense to the US economy (trillions in debt) but at great profit to big business. Whose side is the US government on when it reduces public housing, Medicaid, Medicare, public education at the cost of boosting big business and an expanded military presence.

The fear of socialism and communism was used to manipulate the masses into accepting whatever lie the government required.   Yet following the Global Financial Crisis which was brought on by years of unrestrained military expenditure and unfettered laissez-faire capitalism which made Big Business even bigger and crippled many of the world's national economies, corporations were then forced to return to Government with cap in hand asking for a bail-out.  In the economic wars, the left-wing Keynes was shown to be victorious over the amoral capitalism of Milton Friedman; however, economic histories were also rewritten in order for extreme capitalism to appear victorious in the midst of its moral and fiscal bankruptcy.

As Orwell said "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act".

It also may serve to save us from ourselves.

With all of the hysteria around patriotism and nationalism, around fighting terrorism and invading Iraq and Afghanistan, we really should remember our history, remember our own contribution to the world as it is, whether that contribution is good, bad or ugly.

Orwell summed up the danger of this hysterical nationalism in a statement that serves as a warning to all of us:

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them".

Where did they get the money for that?

You know the ones! Those lucky few who can spend thousands and thousands of dollars to travel overseas!  Often to countries that you haven't been to.  You know, countries like Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and with the value added thrill of not carrying legal documents or shacking up in dangerous refugee camps or prisons.  I know a lot of people would love an adventure holiday.  How many would pay up to $25,000 for the adventure of travelling 'illegally', to or through countries with poor human rights records and then, just to really spice things up, chartering a leaky boat with dozens of other fellow travellers so that you can spend days at sea with the hope of being imprisoned when you make landfall; praying of course that the boat doesn't sink or catch fire in the meantime.

Yep.  It must be good to be so lucky.  To have that much money to waste paying some unscrupulous capitalist to smuggle your family and maybe you from a country where there is a high chance of rape or murder to a country which might eventually accept that you really were in danger, and therefore are a genuine refugee.

Where DID they get the money for that?

Surely if someone can afford to spend anywhere between $5,000 and $25,000 on people smugglers then they must only be an economic refugee not a humanitarian one... surely?  After all, only poor people are persecuted, only people who don't own anything are oppressed.  Aren't they?

Let's set the scene:

(1) Marauding government or civilian hordes raping, pillaging, murdering your people group
(2) To save your family you flee ... often across a border into a neighbouring country
(3) You are now treated as illegal with all the benefits which that entails.
(4) You are now in a refugee camp.  Some of these camps suffer violence from locals whose country you have just fled to.
(5) Your life is on hold, you can't get a job, you can barely feed your family, your children are no longer receiving an education.
(6) You apply for a humanitarian visa, but this could take years.  You know of people who have been in the refugee camp for 5 years or more. By then your children will be adults with no education and no longer having dreams of being doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers.  A few years in a soul destroying refugee camp will do that to a child... and an adult...
(7) Let's call this 'Option 1'.

Let's rewind a few years:

(1)You are in a country with marauding government or civilian hordes raping, pillaging, murdering your people group.
(2) You and your extended family (aunts, uncles, cousins), decide that someone has to make a break for it to a country where the children will have an opportunity for an education, where you can recommence your life and you can make a worthwhile contribution to a new society.
(3) Let's call this 'option 2'.

The problem with option 2 is that it will cost thousands of dollars and risk the life of yourself and/or your family.  Option 1 is relatively free but costs you and your family your soul, your motivation, your dignity and you will have to abandon your house, your shop, your farm ... it costs you everything.

Of course there is Option 3, which is 'do nothing' and remain in your own county, but that means remaining in a high risk situation in which your family may be kidnapped, raped, murdered at any time.   It's your choice if you want to do that, but for the purpose of this article, let's run with Option 2.

So option 2 requires you to raise some cash.  You sell your house, your shop, your farm, the sheep, the crops . Your extended family have to pitch in and your uncles and aunts and cousins sell what they have in order for you to be the lucky one who will risk life and limb to reach a humane country and then to assist in bringing the rest of the family over.

You pay a people smuggler and the first thing they do is ask for your documents. If you have any, you give them to the smuggler.  Of course, some countries don't issue passports.  For instance, Afghanistan only issues an identification card, not a passport.  Some countries, including Afghanistan do not even bother recording birthdays.  For some Muslims it is unIslamic to celebrate birthdays.  Hmm... It would appear that accurate identity documents are already a problem.  Some countries, such as Somalia are not safe for you to apply for a passport.  It is tantamount to waving a flag and saying 'come persecute me'.  Then there are countries which don't recognise certain areas or people groups, for instance Kashmiris and Kurds.

What say you fled the country in a hurry?  Often times it can be difficult finding important things when there is a marauding horde outside your door baying for your blood.  How many Aussies could locate their passport in a hurry whilst being attacked?  For that matter, how many Aussies have passports?  But of course we are in a safe country and this could never happen here (let's forget what might have happened with the Brisbane Line in World War 2).  Then there is another issue with carrying documents.  If you are fleeing a country, do you think it would be safe to carry identity documents? This would come in handy for the government to identify you and continue their persecution of you and your family based on your religion, race, area of origin ... all those things that might be easy to determine from your real name and address.

As a result of any one or more of the above scenarios the chances are that you are not travelling with identity documents.  This may cause problems once you arrive at your destination, but for now all you are concerned with is the safety of your family and yourself.

Let's say this little adventure goes to plan and you arrive in Malaysia or Indonesia.  You were smuggled in. You are treated like a criminal.  So, just like Option 1, your life is on hold.  You can't work and can't educate your children.  In this country, you may be subject to corporal punishment, extortion and in some areas there is forced prostitution.  Is this the sort of life that you want for your family?  There is nothing to be gained from hanging around.  So you press on and make for Australia. After all, if you are imprisoned in a country lacking human rights, you might as well be imprisoned in a country with better human rights.

Finally you make it to Australia and spend say a year or so in detention at Christmas Island or Villawood or some such detention centre.  Eventually the government accepts that you (and hopefully your family) are genuine refugees and you are released into the community.  You look for other people from your country and your religion, after all they are the ones who you identify with; they are the ones who understand what you have suffered and the fear that you have for your family and friends left behind.

You were someone in your country, maybe you were an engineer or a doctor.  But here that means nothing.  You need to work, so you end up driving taxis.  It is a living and you save as much as you can to send to your family and assist others to make the risky journey.

Some people criticise those who pay people smugglers and accuse them of not being genuine refugees or of taking the places of poorer refugees.  Of course, those who make this criticism often don't care for the poorer refugees either.  Keep in mind that Australia allows for both on-shore and off-shore applicants.  As we are so concerned with poorer refugees being disadvantaged by 'cashed up' refugees, why doesn't Australia increase its off-shore quota? Considering the quota only allows for around 10,000 or so refugees anyway, would it kill us to at least double it? This might encourage more people to apply from off-shore locations rather than making the risky journey in a leaky boat in order to make an on-shore application.

Those who criticise the 'rich' refugees for illegally(?) entering our country should keep in mind that Jewish and other refugees who fled Nazi Germany were often rich and used people smugglers to aid and abet their entry into other countries.  They were the lucky ones.  They were the ones who had the means to avoid the death camps, whilst those not so lucky or well-resourced, suffered horribly.  Does anyone begrudge them for escaping by any means possible?  Does anyone begrudge them entering other countries 'illegally' or for using people smugglers?  Does anyone care whether they were cashed up or not? Means testing has never been a criteria for determining the eligibility or validity of a claim for asylum on humanitarian grounds.

Those who are suffering and are willing to do anything, to pay anything to save their families are as legitimate as those who spend year after year wasting their lives in the limbo of a refugee camp in another country.

This is not an endorsement for people smuggling.  It is acknowledging the reality that whilst there is persecution and difficulty in migrating, people will do anything that they can to save their families and themselves.  Before judging those who would do this, ask yourself what you would do if you were in their situation.

More than 90% of boat people arriving in Australia are found to be genuine refugees.  Government rhetoric about 'stricter border protection' is politicising the genuine suffering that refugees are escaping from. Our borders do not need protection from the victims of persecution.  Australia should not politicise, criminalise or dehumanise the victims of crime.

Instead of judging those who risk their lives in circumstances that we don't understand or appreciate, instead of hating them, we should be compassionate, we should put ourselves in their situation.

Rather than judging, we should be identifying with them.  They are no different to us.

Their hearts yearn for the same things that our hearts yearn for: safety, security, happiness, love.

Let's identify rather than vilify!

Do Gooders - on a Mission from God!

Do Gooders! You know the type.  Always out there campaigning for "peace not war", for refugees, for human rights and the list goes on.  Do Gooders!  Usually those left wing, chardonnay sipping types who have adopted John Lennon's Imagine as their manifesto.

Do Gooders!  Defined by the Free Online Dictionary as naive idealists who support philanthropic or humanitarian causes or reforms.

The term "do gooder" is often used disparagingly by conservative voters to criticise those of us who actually believe that people can and should live together in peace, that people deserve to be treated with dignity - "to do to others as we would have them do to us".   Oh, isn't that a quote from the bible? Yes, actually, Jesus said it in Matthew 7:12.

Could it be that Jesus was a Do Gooder?  After all, he saved that adulteress from being stoned by an angry mob, even though stoning is what the law called for.  Could it be that Jesus wasn't too hung up on punishment, but on delivering mercy, compassion, justice and love?

Man, what a Do Gooder!

But then He was the Son of God!  Perhaps that excuses his mild and meek, do gooder attitude!  Although mild and meek doesn't explain Jesus at all.  It was He who threw the money changers out of the temple for perverting the place of God. 

Jesus came to save us from damnation, from Hell, from condemnation.  The world is in balance.  Physically and Spiritually.  Physical balance was described by Isaac Newton with his three laws of motion; you know, equal and opposite forces etc etc.  

Spiritually the world is in balance too: God and Satan, Heaven and Hell, sin and payment for sin.  The bible says that the wages of sin is death.  Spiritual death.  Spiritual death being eternal separation from God.  You sin, you go to Hell. One way to pay for sin was a blood sacrifice, usually a lamb, but that is so Old Testament.  Jesus became the Lamb of God and paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, even going to Hell and rising 3 days later from death.  This is why we say that Christians are saved.  We are saved from Hell because Jesus went there in our place.  We deserved to go Hell, but God through his love for us showed us grace that we did not deserve by sending Jesus to pay for our sins.  For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn, but that the world through Him might be saved. (John 3:16-17).

What has this to do with "do gooders"? 

Ephesians 2:8-10 tells us exactly what this has to do with Do Gooders:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.  For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

What are these good works that God has prepared for us?

These are just some of the good works that we have been called to do:

• Spread the good news.  Gospel literally means "good news".  What better way to do good than to spread good news.  Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you ...".  One of those things we should be teaching, is to do good!
• Caring for the poor, the oppressed, the widow, the stranger.  There are over 2,000 scriptures which refer to caring for the poor.  When the bible refers to the stranger, it means strangers in the land: travellers, immigrants, refugees!  The parable of the sheep and the goats, described in Matthew 25:31-46 which is summarised in verse 34-35 "inherit the kingdom prepared for you ... for I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came to Me."
• Making peace, not war.  In the beatitudes which Jesus delivered in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-11), He says "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
• Love everyone.  In Matthew 22:37-39, Jesus explains that the law is summed up in two great commandments: "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind ... and ... you shall love your neighbour as yourself ".  It doesn't say to love your neighbour if they are the same colour and religion as you.  Love your neighbour!
• Do Good!

Just to clarify.  We are not saved by good works, but to do good works!

Why has the role of  "do gooder" been left to the left wing?  Why are conservatives and the religious right so opposed to Do Gooders?  This isn't to say that the left is perfect and the right is going to hell.  The right wing certainly have their virtues as do the left wing.  The issue is with using "do gooder" as an insult, when it should be a compliment.

Christians are by commandment of God, called to be Do Gooders and we should be leading the way in doing good works, we should be teaching the world how to do good.

After all, Jesus set the standard for doing good.

--0--

This article has also been published at 'The Christian Left' blog:

http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/1/category/shane%20duran/1.html