GUIDELINES and ETHICAL FAITH SHARING

Those who have seen Pirates of the Caribbean would recall the scene when Miss Swann shouted parley, as Port Royal was under attack and the pirates had reached the governor’s residence. She was taken aboard “The Black Pearl” and to Captain Barbossa, where she tried to bargain for the “cessation of hostilities” on Port Royal. Thinking she had the better of Barbossa and his crew she was disappointed to discover that she will not be released after she handed over the much need gold medallion. As Captain Barbossa cunningly observed: “Firstly, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.”

Just recently (June 24^th) a set of guidelines have been produced by the Christian Muslim Forum (set up in 2006 http://www.christianmuslimforum.org/) on how Christians and Muslims in the UK can share their faith in an ethical way. The ten (10) guidelines are intended to help Christians and Muslims better able to witness in ways that will enhance the common good. Guidelines, as Captain Barbossa noted, are not rules!

I am sure that many believers from both of these faith communities would identify with the ten guidelines and wish to affirm them. On the other hand, there will also be those who may not identify with these for various reasons – including that of the diverse theological understandings in relation to both faith and conversion. Among other things, some from the latter group of dissenters may point out that these guidelines seem to originate within the framework of a particular understanding of both Christianity and Islam and do not necessarily give cognisance of intra-diversity in either.

In the meantime, here are some questions: what do we mean by conversion? Where does this idea originate from? Why should one convert? Is not the Divine glorified and our faith deepened when we can share our faith in lives that are lived (in faithfulness) whatever the way? If God is one, and both Christians and Muslims are monotheists, why should one leave one’s faith for another? Or is it that in reality both operate on the premise that “my God is better than your God”? In which case, is it that at heart of the matter both are polytheists rather than monotheists?

My view is that conversion distorts the image of the Divine. However, a more substantive and deeper issue for me is why do people of faith need guidelines? If our Sacred Books are inspired and divinely authored texts, and we the believers and readers are under the influence of the Divine (however named), what has gone wrong and where/when were these distorted (and our practices) that we now need guidelines? How did we manage to create the distortions and what is the source of religious arrogance? Why do we need guidelines to walk the way of the Divine (a way of love, openness, hospitality)?

It may be that in pursuing the deeper questions that we will discover that the guidelines are not about the Divine, but about us humans and the ambiguities that we embody. Perhaps, the conversion we need is one that re-turns us to the elusive many-oneness of the Divine.

Meanwhile whatever guidelines we opt for, may the poetics of love (in word and deed) be etched deeply on our hearts and in our lives!

copyright June 27, 2009

Bloody Nativistic Politics – Racism is Alive

What does the BNP’s gaining seats in the European Elections mean for British politics? How did this happen in liberal England? There is certainly a lot of disappointment and blame around. Would this demise serve as a blessing in disguise – a sort of wake up call for white (and some Black) British liberals to the fact that racism is real, alive and will kick you where the sun does not shine when you least expect it?

There is the view that racism is no longer an issue in Britain as there are enough in place and enacted by law to “catch it”, “bin it” and “kill it”. Instead, what needs addressing is equality or equal access across the board and social integration, as the real culprit is multiculturalism and the “ghettosiation” of ethnic groups. Hence, the mantra of government and experts – assimilate so that we can find that fleeting cohesive British national identity.

Consequently, as Arun Kundnani writes on the dismantling of significant bodies: “the Commission for Racial Equality has been subsumed into a more nebulous Equality and Human Rights Commission, local racial equality councils have been pressured into reinventing themselves as promoters of assimilation and community-based anti-racist organisations have had their funding removed on the grounds that they cater exclusively to the needs of minority groups.” [IRR, June 2009]

Even some churches with their long involvement of anti-racism work have closed down their racial justice office or have integrated it under a diversity umbrella. Some ecumenical bodies with a long history of strong involvement in anti-racism work have also been affected. While funding may be a reality, one cannot deny that people are still uncomfortable to talk about and explore the evil of racism. The reality is that racism has not disappear - it has simply reinvented itself.

The question should be asked as to the ways the media and government policies played into the hands of the BNP – a threat to the very democracy that is purported to allow them to bethere in the first place. Whatever happened to responsibility in our conversation about democracy? It may be that the disillusionment of the electorate with the state of present day politics meant that Bloody Nativistic Politics got through the back-door.

One wonders, however, whether there are deeper issues here at play. What happens to a national psyche, for instance, bombarded daily by the media and politicians with anti-immigrant/Muslim rhetoric? How different is the BNP call for “Britain for Caucasian British” and the ruling party’s mantra of “British jobs for British Workers”. As Kundnani writes: “Years of New Labour borrowing from BNP nationalism has simply fuelled its steady rise, as New Labour's message and the BNP's have converged ever closer and issues of nationality, multiculturalism and immigration have dominated the political agenda.”

It is nonsense to suggest that BNP’s success is a mere result of plebiscite protests. It is even more rubbish for some voters to argue that they are not racist or fascist but that they voted for BNP to send a message to their parties (Labour and Conservative). Why did they not vote for a party other than the BNP? Such reasonings make me wonder whether we have before us an electorate who are unable to distinguish between right and wrong or a body of citizens trying to camouflage racist views .This may be why one lay commentator in responding to why BNP won seats observed: “There are a lot of racists around”!

New labour, New Conservative or New Liberal Democrats (or new whatever) will do well to interrogate and remember a few things: how middle and upper-class their politics are; how un-interrogated liberalism can serve to cover-up one’s own racist tendencies in current discourses; and that “racism” is around though the garb may be “new”!

June 12, 2009

Being Nasty, Altruism and Morality

Religions and their sacred texts all point to the dangers of envy and being spiteful. From Judeo-Christian Biblical narratives we read of number of juicy stories about the messy worlds of peoples of faith and the demise associated with spite and envy. Though some of the narratives seem to point out that the Divine redeems some really bad situations (as a result of spite and envy) into good, I suppose that there are many who will find it hard to imagine that there can be altruistic elements in being spiteful?

Can being nasty to others bring good to society? Do we have to be cruel to be kind? According to John Whitfield writing in New Scientist (16 May 2009) and drawing on a variety of research findings from among those in the sciences, humans are “a nasty species” and this may be because deep down we are caring and humane. Indeed, an interesting thesis that ought to help us take a second look at all those nasty people around us – except ourselves. I wonder what the person at the other end of my “nasty behaviour” would make of me adding that “it is because I care and I am humane that I am nasty to them”.

One argument, according to the piece, is that when people do bad things to bad people it not only makes them feel good – but it serves as a powerful motivation towards egalitarianism and entrepreneurship. This is another interesting thought and I suppose it all depends on motivation. For the flip side to this is that if humans are unable to rise up beyond being nasty, then we may “find dragging someone else down just as good” [p.43] and staying there may just become the vicious circle we get locked into – a nasty habit! A telling aspect of findings from some research is that high caste or upper class people tend to be nastier and more inclined to punish others more spitefully than those at the lower end will be inclined. Should I therefore assume that the more privileged are the only ones with a conscience and altruistic qualities?

Lest I do an injustice to the writer’s intention I must note that the bottom line or the moral in his article is that “while spiteful behaviour can be a powerful force for keeping a society functioning smoothly, the structure of that society must be able to contain and channel those spiteful urges.” [p.45] An unanswered and urgent question is who or what will oversee the containing and channelling given our present economic demise (and by whom?), the expenses scandals of our politicians and the gradual disintegration of some of our long established gatekeepers of morality and propriety.

As we wrestle with this, it will certainly do us good to scrutinise motives very carefully – a shortcoming of the research. For there is a thin line between altruistic punishment and envy-driven contest, the consequences of which can result in the privileged always ending up faring better! It may be human to be nasty and it may be that such behaviour/response can serve altruistic purposes. But what the findings of Whitfield still need to account for and reflect on is this: that it is also human to embody a “touch of the Divine” – to overcome instincts and to embody goodness so that the humane and caring merely flows as a habit.

copyright June 1, 2009