Politics - What is it good for?

This topic has been going around and around in my head for the last two months, and despite numerous attempts I haven't managed to complete a blog post. This has mainly been because of the breadth of the topic. A topic I will continue to explore and expand on further as I work through my studies (in Psych, Socio, and Theo). Therefore it's not going disappear off my radar, nor is it going to be exhausted in this post. The topic is Christian involvement in politics.

This area is often met with responses including: great angst, anger, and apathy. The focus of my own angst and anger is toward the latter group. Before I explain why, I'll address some of the concerns of this group.

One of the main concerns is that there should be a separation of church and state. This maxim isn't often heard in New Zealand, although it is in the United States. In NZ it is expected we will never again see a Christian political party enter parliament for two main reasons. The first being the fall out after the Christian Heritage Party fell out of grace. The second being the reality that NZ is now a post-Christian nation. This however is not yet true of the US, where religion is still an embedded in politics. In fact one of the primary objections to Christian's in the States is that they are 'too political'. This point is raised in the research of David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons in 'Unchristian'. They note this as a legitimate concern, however they also note these judgments are based on observations of conservative Christian's, who are primarily more extreme evangelicals and fundamentalists. These individuals conflate their political leanings with their (botched) theology and consequently the public conflates the two as well. Although I have a myriad of reservations related to their beliefs (and their biblical basis), I do endorse the fact that they are political. However, as I will explore in a later post, I do not endorse they're current political involvement.

This takes me to my second concern, what Christian's - or in reality most citizens - understand by the word politics. The word, just like its subject matter, is contested. Most people associate politics with elections or political parties (and their disagreements) or with interference and injustice by authorities. I think a better definition is provided by the University of Auckland, Politics department: Political studies is about relationships that involve power, authority, influence, conflict, co-operation, selfishness and altruism. In other words it's the study of social relations - of people.

This point is precisely why politics is important. It's the ongoing story of our society. Politics is history in action. A history which impacts on us, but which also should be influenced by us. The word politics comes from the Greek word polis. The polis was the city and every citizen (excluding women, children, and slaves) participated in the running of the city in an active way. They made up the demos - we get democracy from this Greek word - the populace of that city. This was early democracy where all the citizens would all meet together and all have equal opportunity to have their say. But also with equal opportunity to fulfill their duty to be a good citizen, part of which meant potentially being called to manage the affairs of the city. Therefore in the polis, politics was not the high life of the few, but the everyday life of the many (albeit with many exclusions).

This no longer holds true for modern society, since we are in a post-democratic era. The term post-democratic is also contentious, however it generally means that contemporary participation in political life is limited or restrained. So for instance political participation for most people is limited to: voting every 3 years (and even then many opt not to); filling out Census forms every 5 years; occasionally signing a petition or referendum; watching or reading the news; and a bit of a debate at parties. Given this superficial participation the general populace can be forgiven for seeing politics as irrelevant or elitist, and believing it to be beyond their control.

The thing is they're right, as it often is out of their control. Recent examples of this have been the ignoring of referenda, such as the anti-smacking legislation or the sales of state assets, or in more recent times the passing of the 'GCSB Bill'. As a consequence for many politics seems fruitless; it has nothing to offer them and any resistance is routinely overlooked. This is part of the reason why voting turn outs are so poor, as many don't see the point - due to indifference or past disappointment. These past experiences are ever present and these concerns very real - however lack of political involvement achieves very little.

Some sociologists would disagree with me on this point, noting that refusal; that is defying the system has merits. I acknowledge where they're coming from, but I disagree. Despite being sick of slogans like be the change you want to see in the world or change comes from the inside out, I recognise the need for citizens to be proactive. To be active participants in society; to be a prosumers. That is I recognise our responsibility to be more than consumers.

There is a need be aware consumers. There is a need to produce culture, instead of being purely a product of culture. There is a need to be active in culture, instead of passive.

There is a need for culture making.

[Look out for Part 2 of this post  in the near future]

“Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference”

I was trawling through Facebook last night when a status caught my attention. The status was from a school friend, about three tranies he has seen ‘twerking’ at his local supermarket. After checking Google search to investigate what ‘twerking’ was – a sexual dance – I returned to the status and scrolled down his comments. One comment disturbed me. This comment asserted that those who did not conform to typical female and male sexual identities were ‘filth.’ This position had then been supported by the individual who made the status.  The comments that followed these statements strongly disagreed with this statement.

One individual noted how surprised they were that such statements could be made after the passing of the Marriage Equality Bill on the 17^th of April. But why were they surprised? Did we expect that the passing of the bill was going to result in a change in public opinion, or a change in public discourse? I expect some of us did. I however did not, for as Thomas Reed, the former US politician once noted, ‘One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in the world are to be cured by legislation.’ The Facebook debate proved this point, the passing of the bill did not change the public perception. In this regard National MP, Jonathon Young spoke truthfully when he noted on the 17^th the bill “is not as clear as many people think ... I believe our society is more divided than this house is on this issue.”

I agree with this position, since I have seen little consensus in the circles I am part of, especially in those with a Christian influence. This is not surprising given that Christians have been consistently critical of any legislation legitimating the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual, Queer/Questioning) community. To frame it another way Christians have consistently been against any move which gives rights to LGBTQ individuals. That being said, there have been some local churches that have supported the LGBTQ. Although this has often been due to having LGBTQ individuals in their congregation, i.e. the (in)famous St. Matthews. The majority of supporters though are youth with a Jesus complex and a mentality of ‘WWJD?’ (What Would Jesus Do?). Such a position amounts to little when there is no action accompanying the slogan.

Despite there being vocal Christians on both sides, the majority are silent. Christians are conservative about being conservative. Although this is preferable to the traditional tactics of calling down fire and brimstone on God’s behalf, and employing outdated dictums phrases – such as ‘God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’. There is no doubt though that these approaches are still inadequate. As Green MP, Kevin Hague said shortly during the third reading of the Marriage Equality Bill, ‘There is no room for nuance and middle ground. What history will record is whether you voted for inclusivity ... or against.’

These words mirror Desmond Tutu’s (former Anglican Bishop) during Apartheid, ‘If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.’ I bring up this challenging quote, since many individuals see parallels between the oppression of blacks and of sexual minorities. However, not everyone agrees, nor likes the comparison between the two.

This was evident in the Facebook debate mentioned earlier. Since the person who posted the status and called LGBTQ individuals ‘filth’ had African heritage. They noted that they would confront anyone who referred to them as ‘filth’. Yet, they saw no double-standard in this position. Despite the fact that African’s and African-American’s have been subjected to similar and sometimes worse labels, they were still unable to recognise, let alone sympathise with the oppression of the LGBTQ community.

Research into the oppression of the LGBTQ community is a relatively new field. In 1999, Town identified three practices which serve to undermine and oppress homosexuals in school settings. These being: silence; pathologisation (treating homosexuality as a disease); and group behaviour. All of these practices have been evident in the marriage equality debates.

Pathologisation is seen in the Facebook comment describing LGBTQ individuals as ‘filth’. The connotations of this description are of these individuals being dirty and deviant. Research done by Matthew Ripley in 2011, found that most heterosexual individuals conflate, that is combine, sexual practice and sexual orientation. In other words homosexuals are defined by their homosexual acts.

In sociological terms they are ‘marked’, in other words distinguished or discriminated from the rest of society. This makes it ‘us’ and ‘them’. Proof of this thinking is seen in how LGBTQ individuals are seen as ‘unnatural’ or ‘abnormal’. While heterosexuals are (seen without question as being) ‘natural’ and ‘normal’. Sexual binaries like this are not only unhelpful and untrue, but deeply offensive to the LGBTQ community.

In the Facebook debate mentioned earlier, conflation and sexual binaries were both used by those against the LGBTQ community. I am sure that if you as a reader think back to the conversations you have on this topic you will find both tactics being used. I encourage you as a reader to look out for these tactics in the future, and to challenge them. The use of these tactics calls for new discourses, meaning new ways of talking about and with sexual minorities.

New discourses though will need to be informed by these sexual minorities. For discourses which do not consult with these minorities will risk misleading the public and misrepresenting these individuals. Therefore what is needed is for the public to not only tolerate, nor to just accept the LGBTQ community, but to relate with them. This will start to work on the root problem – our attitudes. This problem comes back to the title of this piece, which is a statement made by Winston Churchill. This statement recognises the impact our attitude makes, for our attitudes inform our thoughts, which in turn inform our speech with others. Our speech however also impacts on how we relate with others. This leads us to Town’s third practice whether oppression against homosexuals, is done through ‘group behaviour’.

Group behaviour is influenced and informed by the current discourses or lack of discourses. This is witnessed  in Town’s two other practices of homosexual oppression; silence, and pathologies of homosexuals. This relates to research undertaken by DePalma and Elizabeth Atkinson in 2010. They noted that group behaviour toward LGBTQ individuals is influenced by institutional homophobia and therefore nothing but institutional policy will change public sexual discourse and policy. This policy they assert would have to be made into legislation.

Now as I said earlier, legislation is inadequate to change public discourses and mindsets. So let me explain myself in this supposed contradiction. Laws such as the Marriage Equality Act are inadequate by themself, but when combined with governmental education, enforcement and intervention they can be successful in effecting change. In relation to this point DePalma refers to the success of the racism campaign that followed the murder of the British black male, Stephen Lawrence in 1993. They suggest that if homophobia was confronted through education, as racism was, that homophobia could be dealt with.

DePalma believes that the education of children in the correct discourses and the (re)education of adults in appropriate discourses will bring about a ‘conceptual shift’. By conceptual shift they mean  a change in the way society thinks about the LGBTQ community. This point was also stated by Chris Auchinvole on the 17^th shortly before the vote was cast. Where Auchinvole alleged that public discussion would be the ‘beginning of a change process’.

I agree with Auchinvole, but I believe this process must not only be discussed in ‘our homes’ and ‘our churches’ as he puts it, but also in our institutions, which includes schools and businesses, and throughout the nation. But also I assert that the discussion must not only include the LGBTQ community into the discussions, but that the discussions must be informed and chaired by them. This will need to initiated and funded by the government, and must make use of the media, through the use of radio talk nations, current affairs TV shows, advertising campaigns and public meetings. This will help remove the entrenched homophobic discourses in society and the resulting stigmas attached to LGBTQ identities.

Therefore, although the Marriage Equality is a good start, further policy and legislation is needed to educate the public. Only intervention at the institutional level will bring about change at a societal level. But don’t forget you are part of society, you can choose to be informed by and to inform society. To paraphrase Churchill, your attitude is a little thing that can make a big difference. Your attitude matters.

"...Let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!"

The issue that I was assigned for my blog post this week was the area of ‘difference’ and particularly in relation to disability. At first I decided I would write about the negative connotations and consequences of having disabilities or disorders in New Zealand. But the other day I came across an article from 2004, which asked the question; “Is homosexuality a disability?” Now I think that the Western World has changed considerably in their perception of homosexuality since then. But there is still a negative stigma associated with it, especially in the church. It is one of the taboo topics which is frequently thought about, but infrequently taught about in church circles. For that reason I’ve decided to thrust it into the Christian community.

Up until 2009, New Zealand applied the “Gay panic defence” in a court of law, when the law was abolished after being used in the defence of Clayton Weatherston. Prior to that case it had been used in Ferdinand Ambach’s defence, after he brutally killed a gay man Ronald Brown (aged 69) who apparently made sexual advances towards him. Although there was substantial evidence against Ambach he was found guilty of manslaughter and not murder. The gay panic defence was also used in 1964 after 6 teenagers kicked to death a gay gentleman called Charles Aberhart. Although those prosecuting had proof that the youth were at Hagley Park (the crime scene) for a “spot of queer bashing”, they were nonetheless found not guilty after alleging that Mr Aberhart had provoked them by making a sexual advance.

I am glad that this ‘get out of jail free card’ policy has been rightfully removed. The issue is that it was Christian values which were at the core of law and society which supported this law. This was at a time where there was no separation between church and state. But now that there is separation, and both state and society have shifted in their values, we need to ask “What went wrong?” This is the easy part as the public have no issue in being brutally honest in pointing out our failings. The hardest part is convincing them to give us a second chance, to prove ourselves as relevant in today’s society. 

Ironically it is the Christian homosexuals who are our saving grace through saving face in this issue. We need to love and support our fellow brothers and sisters, as they maintain a Christian faith while being ostracized on numerous fronts. We need to disregard our outdated outlook and remember that Christianity convictions aren't perfect. The slave trade was endorsed by generations of Christians before a conscience developed against it. Antisemitism was accepted for centuries before people developed a heart after Hitler's Holocaust. The point being that even Christian's consciences are fallible. 

I would like us all to recognise that we are all made in God's image and how can we call anything 'unnatural' which God has made. I have to wonder whether we are guilty like Peter of calling something impure which God has made clean through the death of Christ. Since God is not capable of creating or committing sin and if homosexuality is genetic in nature (which I acknowledge is debatable) then how can we say that God created a person who is unnatural. Also since all people are sinful, why should homosexuals be given less grace that the rest of us?  

A Trio in Crime, May Mean Jail Time

We are all too used to a joke involving a pilot walking into a bar, but what about someone walking into an airport masquerading as a pilot. Thinking of this scenario reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance in “Catch Me If You Can”. The film in question is based on a true story where Frank Abagnale Jr. cons millions of dollars as a Pan Am pilot, doctor and legal prosecutor. Not only did he impersonate all three of these rather prestigious positions, but he acted them out in the work environments respectively.

Similarly Bryce Casey (DJ at the radio station, The Rock) impersonated a pilot at Auckland Domestic Airport, last Saturday at 2:30pm attempted to access a restricted area. The incident at the airport was a television stunt done for the TV program WANNA-BEn. WANNA-BEn has a reputation for pulling such stunts, and has successfully pulled them off in several venues, including cinemas, concerts, and stadiums. However, this time far more serious action was taken out against them.

To their credit men involved got in touch with the authorities on Sunday, as soon as they became aware of the hunt for the pilot perpetrator. Bryce Casey (32), Ben Boyce (33, WANNA-BEn star) and their producer, Andrew Robinson (26) were arrested and charged for breaching Section 56A of the Civil Aviation Act. On the 20^th a further 3 men were arrested in the morning and charged at the Counties Manakau District Court later on that afternoon. If found guilty those involved could be fined $10,000 or face up to 12 months prison time.

The idea of incarceration has been endorsed by the Airline Pilots Association and Paul Lyons (Aviation Security Co-ordinator) who stated that “incarceration for a short time, for a time of reflection, would be appropriate”. Lyon’s was satisfied that Casey was unsuccessful in his efforts to access the airport’s restricted area. Although Glen Kenny (President of the Pilot’s Association), did voice concern at how closely Casey’s uniform resembled a real pilots uniform.

Boyce acknowledged that “there was never any intention to cause trouble at the airport. Nor was it our intention for Bryce to breach security.”  In an interview with TV3, Boyce noted that Casey “doesn’t look like a pilot, he’s unshaven, he’s got tattoos” and “didn’t have any ID”. In attempt at damage control, Boyce apologised on Facebook and Twitter last Tuesday, but for many it seemed too little, too late. It certainly didn’t placate John Key, who labelled the trio as an irresponsible “bunch of clowns who should know better”. The trio’s poor timing has been especially criticized, due to the stunt’s proximity to September 11 and the Rugby World Cup.

My thoughts on this stunt echo the criticisms of the authorities. But I would also like to say that New Zealand has a terrible reputation of hanging, drawing and quartering anyone who falls from grace. The public eye is ravenous for gossip and speculation and has an unsatisfying thirst for anyone who enters the crossfire. I think it is time to start building up the people who represent our country, rather than tearing them down. No other time is this witnessed so obviously and copiously than prior to an election. So I would like to encourage all New Zealanders and especially anyone who shares in the media traffic, via whatever channel from Facebook to broadcasting to the tabloids to show a little grace. After all what makes us human being’s is our incessant failings and every human being shares two common ties, we are fallen and we have been forgiven.

London Riots

Often media in the form of gaming and motion pictures provide us with a mirror into the issues of our own society. Increasingly we are seeing that the scenes which were once projected onto a screen are being projected into our very reality. The West has often labelled the Third World as the source and setting of violence and has used the media to maintain this image. However, from the 6^th to the 10^th of August it wasn’t the Middle-East or Africa where violence made the news, but in Great Britain itself. The London Riots, which were not just isolated to London, also broke out in several other areas, namely Bristol, Midlands and North West England. This incident lead to shock and surprise as the British tried to figure out how they had gone from once having the world’s largest empire to stealing and squabbling amongst themselves.

A line from the Dark Knight’s antagonist; the Joker, that when you, “Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos...Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It's fair!” rings true here. As if there is one thing about chaos it’s impartial in who gets targeted, this was certainly the case in the London Riots. But in terms of our understanding of fairness, it is not fair that the young and the old are exploited due to being unable to defend themselves. 

The concept of fairness is one that is often used in Western Society. Religious ideas of fairness, such as karma and “reaping what you sow” are often embraced as they connect with our worldly wisdom. Likewise when life presents us with challenges, we begin to question what we have done to deserve this. Our views of justice are influenced by our perceptions of equality and equity. But frequently we use the terms interchangeably, when they have very different ramifications. Equity refers to the qualities of justness, fairness, impartiality, while equality is about equal sharing and exact division between people. Or in other words equality equals quantity, whereas equity equals quality.

The relevance of equity and equality is evident in the London Riots, as Zygmunt Bauman states in his article, that "these are not hunger or bread riots. These are riots of defective and disqualified consumers." He alludes to the great divide between the wealthy and the poor which has stimulated social inequality. The footage that was taken of the riots echoes his earlier statement, as luxury goods were looted instead of the most basic ones. Zygmunt claims that “looting shops and setting them on fire derive from the same impulsion and gratify the same longing”, which is to be equal citizens in the consumerist culture. 

Likewise anthropologist, Rene Girard has attributed “mimetic rivalry” as the cause of these acts. Mimetic rivalry has resulted from a “consumerist culture in which self-worth is measured by material gain and identities express through brands”. Through this belief a fallacy has formed that “the fullness of consumer enjoyment means fullness of life”. Instead of the truth that being part of a consumerist culture means that you too become a commodity to be consumed.

Luke Bretherton’s mentions in his article that “we are a society that rewards one “pocket” of self-interested risk takers for privatising profit and socialising the cost but is busy incarcerated another “pocket” for the same actions”. His point being that we encourage ingenuity when it comes to maximising profit, but we don’t recognise that this has the same impact as stealing. The old proverb that ‘one man’s loss is another man’s is used to justify the richer get richer, while the poorer get poorer. Can we really blame the people for acting their frustration when the justice system fails to recognise the victims? Why don’t we point the finger at the grand puppet masters; the “bankers, politicians, the police and journalists who think they can bend and break the law, acting with impunity and with no regard for the common life we all share and on which themselves depend”?  Have we forgotten that the Pharisee’s were at the brunt of Jesus’ condemnation and not those who were marginalised by them?

Bretherton notes that “Scapegoating seems to shape the government’s whole response to the riots. But in scapegoating particular groups, we see to avoid taking responsibility.” We need to first take responsibility for our own actions before we can change anyone else’s. As Confucius once said, “To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put the nation in order, we must put the family in order; to put the family in order, we must cultivate our personal life; and to cultivate our personal life, we must first set our hearts right”.

It’s Time to Rebuild the Church

Although Martin Van Beynen has a reputation of infamy due to sticking his nose often in very sensitive areas, I have to admit that he does have some valid points in his article “Save Space Just One Church Should Cover it”. That being said many of them would be near impossible to implement. Propositions such as the churches should “pool their money to build one building to serve all...their parishioners” are unrealistic at best.  Each congregation get attached to their church, as it’s their spiritual home, it has a special significance in their soul. It is often hard for congregations to determine what makes church, however, we need to remember that the church is “the body of Christ”, and we, the people make up the church and the building is merely for comfort and convenience. 

One area where the church is constantly in catch up mode is communication. Communication isn’t limited to verbal dialogue but to any aspect of church which conveys a message. What the congregation wears to church services conveys a message, what ethnicity is most dominate in a congregation conveys a message, who is in leadership conveys a message, but one that we so often forget is the building itself which also conveys a message. The design of a church gives an impression of its function and relevance to the wider community, likewise how regularly the complex is used and for what function also communicates an idea about that church congregation itself.

All of the buildings which Beynen mentioned in his article, were out of date with modern architecture, not just in style but also in their functional design. For this reason I hope that Beynen’s “nightmare scenario” never happens and churches adopt a more stylistic and systematic approach in their future designs. In this regard I think that the Christchurch Cathedrals congregation are on the right track in their brief “to design a building that would be sustainable, environmentally friendly, safe, durable, beautiful, innovative and versatile”. However, their temporary complex the “Cardboard Cathdredal” will cost $4 000 000 and therefore isn’t cost effective and is a waste of the congregations money and a waste of the potential resources that could be devoted to community earthquake victims. A point made in the comments section by “Bill” mentioned that “if Christians mean what they preach they should build modestly or share premises and use their insurance payouts to benefit the need”.

I think that Bill makes a great point; these churches should build modestly and ensure that the community will also benefit from the complex. This also is highlighted in the plans of the Cardboard Cathedral which wish to “carry on the Cathedral’s tradition of open hospitality and would [want it to] be a focus for a number of community ventures” and purposes, such as concerts, exhibitions, memorial services. However, does this miss the point of the church? Shouldn’t the church be actively living out Christ’s ministry, rather than providing an entertainment venue for the city? Now is the time to define the church as Christ’s body, by meeting the needs of the community and not meeting behind closed doors discussing the future of the church building. Why does the general populace see the church as beyond its expiry date? It’s because of the Christianity of judgementalism and exclusivism, that we are seen as flogging a dead horse. Let’s show them that the church is alive and kicking, let’s show them that the church is relevant to this day and has a desire to help rather than hinder, to encourage rather than judge. Therefore let’s cast aside our differences and denominations and practice what we preach.

Oscar Wilde once said, that “When liberty comes with hands dabbled in blood it is hard to shake hands with her”. The events of July 22^nd in Norway demonstrated how one person’s liberty can impinge on so many others exercising their most fundamental liberty, the right to live. Anders Behring Breivk (32) was responsible for the car bomb in downtown Oslo which killed 8 and the massacre of 69 victims on the nearby island of Utøya.

After such an event, the first question on everyone’s lips is always why? Breivk’s motivation was revealed in a 1500 page manifesto which he published hours before the events of the 22^nd, where he elaborated of a “Muslim invasion” and a “cultural Marxism” which he believed was threatening Norway and the rest of Europe. It has also established through this text that the basis for his beliefs were a form of Christian fundamentalism. When I first head of this at this I cringed and thought how could someone have missed the point of Christ’s ministry so extremely? How could they align themselves in a belief which is supposed to supersede racial, cultural and political boundaries not widen them?


However Henry Thomas Buckle’s statement that “Society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it” puts an interesting spin on the Norway killings. Although it was Breivk who committed these atrocious crimes, it was society’s discontent of Muslims which motivated him to commit them in the first place. Now don’t get me wrong, it was his choice to enact out this bloody solution, but this discontent has been fostered by the negative publicity of Muslims.


The West has adopted an ‘us and them’ approach to Muslims, the challenge for this world and particularly the church is to rethink racial issues and remember that we are not in a religious war. We need to keep in mind what Ephesians 6:12 says, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rules, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”. I bring this up as some have begun to speculate that the events of Norway were a part of God’s judgement on the country. I think that these people are missing the point that we aren’t in a battle between religions or between cultures, but in a battle against the demonic realm.


If we want to share the good news then public opinion is not going to assist us, if that was the case then Christ had no reason to come 2000 years ago. His insights transcended any life style or frame of mind which humanity had ever come up with. Human understanding can so easily be influenced from ungodly sources. Breivk is a great example of this; he was so devoted to his beliefs that he was willing to put them into practice in the most direct and way possible. There is evidence to show that these operations took years to plan. But it seems such a shame that someone can be so devoted to such a destructive cause and so determined to inflict damage on fellow human beings. What we need to remember is that if one person can achieve so much for a negative cause, then imagine what we can achieve in the name of the 'good news'?

Rose March in Central Oslo