The excess of arrogance

The famous poet, theologian and philosopher, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, once said: "Every reform, however necessary, will - by weak minds - be carried to an excess, which itself will need reforming."

This has never been so true as when measured against the reformations of society - repeatedly brought about by the groundswell of broad opinion which reject the excesses of the governing body of the day. This applies to kings and queens, to governments and empires and to dictatorships and cults alike. In modern times we have seen this play out in many political coups, military overthrows and international interventions, where the time arrives when the collective conscience of many is no longer capable of tolerating the stench of self-serving abuse carried out by the ruling order of the day.

Even South Africa is no stranger to this concept, as was seen with the eventual triumph of democracy over the evil of apartheid. This was, of course, not achieved overnight, inasmuch as the construction thereof was deliberatley designed by the self-serving architects of the day and supported by many others, locally and internationally, as it served their purposes, over decades. These collaborators included huge multinational organisations, governments, local corporates and even at least one interpretation of the scriptures espoused by the Dutch Reformed Church of SA.

But eventually the excesses of this self-serving ideology became so intolerable that the sheer weight of the world's condemnation led to its demise and the people were once again able to take their rightful place in the Godly order of creation - as equal citizens, with promises of a better land, opportunity and hope.

Coleridge himself was no stranger to excesses - he became addicted to opium at an early age and his marriage ended in divorce. This resulted in his moving to a modest London home and with the help of a friend and benefactor, coming to terms with his addiction and eventually escaping it.

South Africa's new democracy was embraced and heralded with much euphoria - a euphoria I would like to suggest has enabled us to excuse, to some extent, the 14 years of exuberance and celebration which has been the domain of the leadership and priviledged few of this country. Those still waving the palm leaves of celebration have forgotten every fundamental aspect of the nature of leadership which South Africans voted for in 1994. They may even have forgotten the very nature of leadership which was voted out. For if they remembered, they would themselves see the writing on the wall.

Our leaders call themselves 'rulers'. We hear less and less of the 'governing' or 'majority' party, and more and more of the 'dominant' or 'ruling' party. We see members showing their indignation when one of their own is criticized, and yet capable of issuing verbal attacks on all and sundry at the drop of a hat. More recently, even society's 'mirror, mirror-on-the wall' - that court jester of old, the satirist and cartoonist - is now been accused of disrespect and will have his day in court for speaking his mind (and that of millions of others).

We see the President of the ANC lambasting our judiciary for 'thinking they are gods' - and nothing happens. A week before, Archbishop Emeritus Tutu, the emodiment of a srvant leader himself, suggested the same of the government and he was accused of blasphemy, sacriledge, hate speech, inciting violence and disrespect.

We have seen countless examples of this new 'leadership' demanding respect, demanding subservience, and demanding loyalty of every South African. It has even become objectionable to suggest that one does not support the party, or that one might not particularly like one of its candidates or representatives.

This is an excess of arrogance.

And this, I dare say, is where new ideologies are born. When any group of individuals becomes so arrogant as to ignore the pleas and wishes of any of its electorate, with regards to law, the application thereof, the relationships it nurtures with its neighbours or the trade it carries out, then we see the birth of new laws to deal with the dissent. This happened under the excesses of apartheid the world over, under the excesses of regimes over millenia and will happen here again too. And it happens when the government of the day refuses to investigate complaints of corruption, complaints about the arms deal, complaints about ministers or complaints about state organs. It happens when the government refuses visas to peace emissaries, in favour of economic trade relations. It happens when the government unilaterally decides to eliminate the Scorpions, or refuses to discipline young and angry youth within its structures. It happens everytime the people speak and the government says 'No!"

For it is ultimately the weeker minds who see themselves as above and beyond the reach of the majority - or the reach of the better good - which has its way of silently creeping up on them. These people blind themselves, and those within their influence - to the power of the people, to say "No - we have had enough. We have had enough of the arrogance. We voted for leaders, not dictators, we voted for servants, not rulers, we voted for stewards, not corruptors, and we voted for people who cared about what we need and say, not those who turn deaf ears and cling unashamedly to their own self-serving oratories."

In our haste to wash our hands of responsibility, we crucify God again - our God whose love is justice.

Jesus - my Saviour

I look to the cross... you hung and died for me there.

I look to the cross... you turned the world around.

I look to the cross... you changed the course of history.

I look to the cross... you changed the course of my life.

I look to the cross... I still don't get it all right.

I look to the cross... fearful that I crucify you still.

I look to the cross... its empty...

And I remember, you died, you lived again and you love me still.

God screamed to me all the way from the USA!!

Yes, indeed God does still speak to us! Today proved to be a particularly challenging one for me - what with almost impossibly tight deadlines ahead of this year's Good Friday service, (of no small feat organising these, with 3000 participants and the silent street procession), and just as I was settling down to my first cup of coffee at about 2pm, alarm bells rang.

Working through a media interview, Pastor Dube launched a scathing attack on Bishop Tutu and on Diakonia Council of Churches - and by implication the SACC too. His various claims ranged from accusing both of inciting hate speech and violence, to being divisive and counter revolutionary in both their spoken and unspoken words. Does this seem possible? Wait...

...it gets better! He then suggested that, "before its too late", the Bishop should beg Jacob Zuma's forgiveness, and he should restrict himself to preaching about love and the likes. Finally he called on Diakonia to "come clean" and to distance itself from the sentiments of Archbishop Tutu. (The importance of Diakonia's ongoing commitment to providing platforms for every spectrum of society to contribute to the transformation of society can never be underestimated. If we lose this we, the nation, lose our democracy once and for all.)

The group calls themselves the KZN ANC Relgious Leaders Commission - and they remind me so graphically of those same old apartheid voices who decried every other church for speaking truth to power on issues of justice. The state church supported to the hilt the policies of that regime, even providing it with a theology of its own to sustain and condone its practices. And it was this same blind belief which led a nation of people for decades, whilst subjecting millions of others to the ravages of poverty, poor education, almost zero service provision and a myriad of other social ills. For this blindness proved comfortable, proved familiar and proved a safe haven for those who themselves had bitten of the corruption apple.

The advice offered by this group goes to Bishop Tutu - to never use the public domain, including media conferences, to say anything inflammatory about Mr Zuma - rather seek a private audience with the President (sic). Clearly this same advice doesn't apply to Pastor Dube I notice, who had made no attempt to engage with either of the parties who were now in his firing line.

Could it be that Pastor Dube is aspiring to a space or two above his 58th position on the ANC party list? Or could it be that Pastor Dube is adapting his theology to support the new regime? Of course, it could also just be, and I quote the Arch himself: "What a tremendous relief it is to realise... we don't need to prove ourselves to God!"

By now Im sure you're wondering where the title of my blog is going? Well, here it is. I subscribe to Sojourner's daily 'verse and voice' - a great social justice organisation based in Washington, USA. And today's verse arrives just now: "One night the Lord said to Paul in a dream: "Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no-one will lay a hand on you to harm you, for there are many people in this city who are my people." And the quote for the day? Well, its the very quote I have used in the last paragraph - that one from the Arch himself. Indeed God had used the voice of the internet to speak comfort and reassurance and His presence into this moment.

Please pray that the church should never again be obliged to give its unquestioned support to the government, that the church would always remain non-partisan if it is to remain relevant to the mission of Christ! The church's engagement with the ANC found its goal in 1994, when it became the governing party. (Others like to use the word "ruling" - suggesting that servant leadership is a long forgotten prerequisite to respected and truly successful leadership.)

Of course, these glasses are really misted over today - my temperature rose more than once and crying always tends to mist things over too. So these glasses are very tinted today. For it has been a silly and sad day, all in one.

New metaphors for a new world

I recently came across an article written some time back by the ever-inspiring Jim Wallis who suggests that when Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God, his language was charged with urgent political, religious, and cultural electricity, but if we speak of the kingdom of God today, the original electricity is largely gone, and in its place we often find a kind of tired familiarity that inspires not hope and excitement, but anxiety or boredom.

Why is "kingdom language" not as dynamic today?

Wallis suggests that, in our world, kingdoms have given way to republics, democracies, and democratic republics. Where kings exist, they are by and large playing a limited ceremonial role in relation to parliaments and prime ministers, evoking nothing of the power and authority they did in Jesus’ day. In addition, for many today, kingdom language evokes patriarchy, chauvinism, imperialism, domination, and a regime without freedom—the opposite of the liberating, barrier-breaking, domination-shattering, reconciling movement the kingdom of God was intended to be!

If Jesus were here today, I’m quite certain he wouldn’t use the language of kingdom at all, which leaves us wondering how he would articulate his message.

If we believe that the secret message of Jesus has radical transformational potential today—and feel called to try to communicate it, we’ll always need to go back to Jesus’ original words and story, seeking to understand how kingdom language worked in his own day. But then we must discover fresh ways of translating his message into the thought forms and cultures of our contemporary world, if we are to “teach what Jesus taught in the manner he taught it.”

Jim also suggests that the search for the best translation is an artistic pursuit as well as a theological one. It involves not just a deep understanding of Jesus’ message, but also a substantial understanding of our contemporary culture and its many currents and crosscurrents. Whatever metaphors we choose will likely have a limited shelf life, and each will be open to various misunderstandings — just as Jesus’ own metaphors were, and they will be subjected to the tint of our individual and collective glasses.

Wallis then goes on to suggest some useful metaphors and I have added a couple more for our consideration:

The dream of God. I frequently try to put the prayer of the kingdom (what we often call “The Lord’s Prayer”) into my own words so that I don’t just recite it on autopilot. But I often struggle with how to paraphrase the clause “your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Since the language of “will” can take us down a trail of control, domination, and coercion, and since I don’t believe those ideas are in Jesus’ mind, I have looked for other words. The Greek word that lies beneath our English word “will” can also be translated “wish.” But to say, “May your wish come true” sounds fairy tale-ish and creates other problems. But I have found the idea of “the dream of God for creation” does the job nicely. “Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in heaven” could thus be rendered, “May all your dreams for your creation come true.” This language suggests a more personal, less mechanistic relationship between God and our world. It would resonate, for example, with a mother who has great dreams for her child, or an artist who has great dreams for a novel or symphony he is creating.

The call to faith is the call to trust God and God’s dreams enough to realign our dreams with God’s, to dream our little dreams within God’s big dream. The call to receptivity is the call to continually receive God’s dreams—a process that seems to be a lifelong one. The call to baptism is the call to publicly identify with God’s dream and to disassociate with all competing isms or ideologies that claim to provide the ultimate dream (including nationalism, consumerism, hedonism, conservatism, liberalism, and so on). And the call to practice is the call to learn to live the way God dreams for us to live.

The revolution of God. For people like Martin Luther King Jr., attuned to fighting injustice, corruption, oppression, racism, and other forms of social evil, the “revolution” or “revolutionary movement” of God naturally flows from the metaphor of the dream of God for creation.

This metaphor claims that we human beings have created a totalitarian regime—a regime of lust (where too many people are reduced to sex objects or hyped into sexual predators), a regime of pride and power (where some thrive at the expense or to the exclusion of others), a regime of racism, classism, ageism, and nationalism (where people are identified as enemies or evil or inferior because of the color of their skin or the physical or social location of their birth), a regime of consumerism and greed (where life is commodified, where people become slaves to their jobs, where the environment is reduced to natural resources for human consumption, where time is money, which makes life become money). This regime is unacceptable, and God is recruiting people to join a revolutionary movement of change.

The revolution cannot use the corrupt tactics of the current regime; otherwise, it will only replace one corrupt regime with another. For example, if it uses violence to overcome violence, deceit to overcome deceit, coercion to overcome coercion, fear to overcome fear, then the revolution isn’t really revolutionary; it’s just a matter of lateral conversion or regime change. The very success of such a revolution would reinforce confidence in its tactics.

So perhaps we need a modifier in front of revolution to show how the goals and tactics of this regime are radically different: the peace revolution of God, the spiritual revolution of God, the love revolution of God, the reconciling revolution of God, the justice revolution of God. In these ways, we get much closer to the dynamic hidden in Jesus’ original language of kingdom of God.

The mission of God. The Latin term missio dei has long been used to describe God’s work in the world. Its etymology (the root miss means “send”) reminds us that God sends us into the world to be agents of change: We have a task to do for God. True, there is more to the kingdom than mission; being in relationship is essential to life in the kingdom, so kingdom life is not just doing work. But this metaphor still has great value, as long as we complement it with more relational language.

We might adapt the metaphor and speak of the medical mission of God, adding the relational connotations of caring and healing. Imagine that everyone on earth has become infected with a horrible virus. The virus makes people physically sick and mentally insane. Its symptoms vary from person to person and place to place: In one place it causes violence, in another sexual aggression, in another lying, in another paralysis, and so on.
Imagine that a doctor develops a cure. He brings the cure to you and says, “Once you take this medicine, you’ll begin to feel better, but I’m not just giving you the cure for your sake. As soon as you feel well enough, I want you to make more of the cure and begin bringing it to others. And tell them the same thing: they are being healed not just so they can be healthy but also so they can become healers for the sake of others.” Just as the disease spread “virally,” now the cure will spread. A healing mission—where you are healed so you can join in healing others—would be an apt metaphor for the kingdom of God.

The party of God. Jesus often compared the kingdom to parties, feasts, and banquets. Today we could say that God is inviting people to leave their gang fights, workaholism, loneliness, and isolation and join the party, to leave their exclusive parties (political ones, for example, which win elections by dividing electorates) and join one inclusive party of a different sort, to stop fighting, complaining, hating, or competing and instead start partying and celebrating the goodness and love of God.

The network of God. A promising new metaphor works with the idea of a network or system. God is inviting people into a life-giving network. First, God wants people to be connected, plugged in, in communication with God, so God can transfer to them what they need—not just information but also virus-debugging software, along with love, hope, empowerment, purpose, and wisdom. As well, each person who is connected to God must become integrally connected to all others in the network. In this way, the network of God breaks down the walls of smaller, exclusive networks (like networks of racism, nationalism, and the like) and invites them into the only truly worldwide web of love. The network becomes a resource for people outside the network as well, and of course, people are always invited to enter the connectivity themselves.

The metaphor of an ecosystem could work in a similar way: We are currently living in an imbalanced, self-destructive ecosystem, but God is inviting us to live in a new network of relationships that will produce balance, harmony, and health. The metaphor of a community works along similar lines. One thinks of theologian Stanley Grenz speaking in terms of “the community of God,” or Dr. King’s preferred phrases, “the beloved community” or “the inescapable network of mutuality.”

The dance of God. In the early church, one of the most powerful images used for the Trinity was the image of a dance of mutual indwelling. The Father, Son, and Spirit live in an eternal, joyful, vibrant dance of love and honor, rhythm and harmony, grace and beauty, giving and receiving. The universe was created to be an expression and extension of the dance of God—so all creatures share in the dynamic joy of movement, love, vitality, harmony, and celebration. But we humans broke with the dance. We stamped on the toes of other dancers, ignored the rhythm, rejected the grace, and generally made a mess of things. But God sent Jesus into the world to model for us a way of living in the rhythm of God’s music of love, and ever since, people have been attracted to the beauty of his steps and have begun rejoining the dance.

The uBuntu of God. South Africa’s current conditions of misunderstanding and intolerance of difference, of leadership disconnection with the people and of business misalignment with holistic human development are screaming for something fresh. If Jesus were waling our streets today, I am absolutely convicned he would be talking about the uBuntu of God. He would be telling us stories reflecting the manner in which we relate to each other as people sharing the same space (in all its manifestations!), which has become so unsustainable and demands change. Here’s an old solution that has been with us for a long time, but has been neglected for way too long. The ancient Afrikan philosophy of ubuntu is the quiet antidote needed right now.

There are many other metaphors we could explore. In a sense, Jesus’ creative use of parables sets an example for us to follow. It inspires us to ongoing creative communication—seeking to convey the kingdom through the symbolism of words as he did in the short fictional form of parable, and also in poetry, short story, novel, or essay. But it doesn’t stop with the symbolism of words. It just starts there...

Peace

There is no Way to Peace.

Peace is the way!

(On a wall in a Swedish establishment in Jerusalem.)

Divide and conquer? Is this the new ANC modus operandi?

In the past week we have seen some pretty outrageous statements being made by those who would desperately seek to cling onto power... as though they were in any danger of losing it.
We have heard the ruling party accusing an archbishop of blasphemy - for suggesting that their dictatorial governance hints at a God-like superego. We have heard Zuma suggesting that whites can be divided into tribes - based on their passports and language of preference. We have seen the last nail in the coffin of independent judis prudence with the NPA almost on the brink of withdrawing its prosecution of a man whose counterpart was found guilty of gross corruption. And we have seen an government opting to protect its recently signed trade agreements with mainland China at the expense of humanitarian rights in Tibet. Finally we have heard the same government cry foul of those who seek to suggest that sports and politics are inextricably linked to our moral values.

Of course every one of these statements or contentions echoes from the halls of a not-so-distant corridor - which is still haunted by the busts of the architects and practitioners of another ideology hell-bent on personal and ethnic preservation.

And it was the same group who perfected to a science the art of 'divide and conquer' - by classifying and re-classifying groups of people into manageable minorities which could then be understood, removed and displaced at will, and at the convenience of the ruling party. I am of course referring to the apartheid governments practice of homelands and bantustans which could only have existed through an understanding of ethnicity and groupings based on language, physical appearance and passbook status.

The same regime, which our current government fought to overcome, also balked at the notion of mixing sport and politics, when the rest of the world saw fit to heed their moral consciences in an attempt to strike at the very hardened hearts of the guilty.

It was the same regime who branded outspoken men and women of the cloth as heretics and expressed their distaste at their prophetic utterances. And it was the same Caesar who systematically applied its own rule of law to support its ideology and protect those guilty of hideous crimes against humanity, as well as its economic policies and social sins.

In the words of the prophet..."is this what we fought, suffered, were tortured for and died for?"