My nagging questions over Blair’s “conversion” to faith and serving as a self-made faith ambassador cannot go away. I am especially unable to buy into all the hype over his Faith Foundation. The fact that faith got Blair on the cover of Time (June 9, 2008) makes me even more wary. And in that cover story we find one his pals, Bill Clinton, endorsing the project with these words: “I have learnt that there’s not only life after politics”. There is “also good life, if you find something your truly believe in.” As I noted in an earlier piece it is unfortunate that these politicians could not discover this “something” that they truly believe in while in office. It is not that I am cynical about the Blair Faith Project/Foundation. It is that with my hermeneutic of suspicion working extra time, I am landed with too many unanswered questions that overshadow my hermeneutic of trust. And more often than not, my hermeneutic of suspicion is not very far from some truth!
I can agree with Blair that “faith needs to be claimed back by those who believe in co-existence”. Yet, this is not new – even if Blair says it. And who are the “those”? Are there not enough good faith projects in which people from all faiths are already involved in? What difference will the Blair Faith Foundation make? Besides, isn’t part of the problem is the fact that there are too many people who have rigid claims of faith and even God? What assurance do we have that the people who claim to believe in co-existence may not re-inscribe the very thing they seek to exorcise, ending up chaining faiths to other unhelpful ideas that will justify and ensure their own existence?
What’s in this for a former high powered leader whose record in terms of relations to the Muslim world (as perceived by Muslims) is not that hot. Moreover, what is the relationship of Blair’s project with his lucrative consultancy post with insurers and bankers? I suppose these insurers and banking specialists are above the board and honest companies and faith will now determine how they do business, since Blair will be one of their consultants. Perhaps his faiths ideas can influence them to do business differently.
But let us look closer at the Faith Foundation. Working globally and collaboratively, it will be dedicated to prove what we already know: how the different faiths can help tackle the worlds’ social ills. What is new about the idea that faiths can be used to improve the lot of humankind and to rescue it from “irrelevance” and “extremism”? My question is who will rescue faith from leaders - be they faith or political leaders? It is wishful thinking to believe that the social ills of the world can be address without tackling an economic system and the systemic evils of such a system that impoverish whole nations and peoples: an economic system in which the western world is the gatekeeper with the support of “corpocrats” from the majority world in ensuring the spread of the dis-ease. Would the Blair Faith Project wish to address this? Would the folks for whom he is serving as a consultant, be open to change their policies?
The cynical bit of me wants to return to the conversion of Blair and I guess this has to do with my own distaste with how conversion continues to be misused. What I sense here is a very gifted charismatic politician who calculates where, when and how he is going to shift his allegiance in terms of ecclesial membership to move from one set of Constantine’s progeny to another? He may have changed institutions (both ecclesial and political), but I wonder how much of the game plan has really changed. Is this about personal survival, show, rhetoric, competing with peers, and the generating of more income under the cover of doing something for civilization? Tony Blair’s conversion, I think, is still waiting to happen and in that sense there may still be some hope for his faith foundation and initiative.
In the meantime, instead of Mr Blair gallivanting in jets all over the world, he should try reducing his carbon footprint by walking the ghetto areas, concrete jungles and parallel communities in Britain and get the faiths to work together to improve life for British citizens from across all faiths and no faith. Let the "civilising faith" he dreams of begin its outworking at home. Walking the talk in real communities at home is more authentic and fits in with the great commandment that cuts across all faiths: love God and love neighbour.
I can agree with Blair that “faith needs to be claimed back by those who believe in co-existence”. Yet, this is not new – even if Blair says it. And who are the “those”? Are there not enough good faith projects in which people from all faiths are already involved in? What difference will the Blair Faith Foundation make? Besides, isn’t part of the problem is the fact that there are too many people who have rigid claims of faith and even God? What assurance do we have that the people who claim to believe in co-existence may not re-inscribe the very thing they seek to exorcise, ending up chaining faiths to other unhelpful ideas that will justify and ensure their own existence?
What’s in this for a former high powered leader whose record in terms of relations to the Muslim world (as perceived by Muslims) is not that hot. Moreover, what is the relationship of Blair’s project with his lucrative consultancy post with insurers and bankers? I suppose these insurers and banking specialists are above the board and honest companies and faith will now determine how they do business, since Blair will be one of their consultants. Perhaps his faiths ideas can influence them to do business differently.
But let us look closer at the Faith Foundation. Working globally and collaboratively, it will be dedicated to prove what we already know: how the different faiths can help tackle the worlds’ social ills. What is new about the idea that faiths can be used to improve the lot of humankind and to rescue it from “irrelevance” and “extremism”? My question is who will rescue faith from leaders - be they faith or political leaders? It is wishful thinking to believe that the social ills of the world can be address without tackling an economic system and the systemic evils of such a system that impoverish whole nations and peoples: an economic system in which the western world is the gatekeeper with the support of “corpocrats” from the majority world in ensuring the spread of the dis-ease. Would the Blair Faith Project wish to address this? Would the folks for whom he is serving as a consultant, be open to change their policies?
The cynical bit of me wants to return to the conversion of Blair and I guess this has to do with my own distaste with how conversion continues to be misused. What I sense here is a very gifted charismatic politician who calculates where, when and how he is going to shift his allegiance in terms of ecclesial membership to move from one set of Constantine’s progeny to another? He may have changed institutions (both ecclesial and political), but I wonder how much of the game plan has really changed. Is this about personal survival, show, rhetoric, competing with peers, and the generating of more income under the cover of doing something for civilization? Tony Blair’s conversion, I think, is still waiting to happen and in that sense there may still be some hope for his faith foundation and initiative.
In the meantime, instead of Mr Blair gallivanting in jets all over the world, he should try reducing his carbon footprint by walking the ghetto areas, concrete jungles and parallel communities in Britain and get the faiths to work together to improve life for British citizens from across all faiths and no faith. Let the "civilising faith" he dreams of begin its outworking at home. Walking the talk in real communities at home is more authentic and fits in with the great commandment that cuts across all faiths: love God and love neighbour.
© copyright jagessar 2008
image credit: www.cloudsofheaven.org/
