michael journal 30.4.07

We had the first lecture for Education, Service and Community Engagement and it was most inspiring. For one thing, the lecturer mostly used a whiteboard and we weren’t all looking at computer screens throughout, so I felt alert at the end of the day. Secondly, and just as important, the content of the lecture was so thought-provoking. The idea of Theology of Liberation has put a new light on Catholicism for me. I am aware that I have associated Catholicism with the oppression of various people. Catholics aren’t allowed to think for themselves (they must think exactly what the church tells them), women don’t have equal rights and many feel so brainwashed and damaged by their upbringings with the strong emphasis on sin, that all they can do later is to reject it.
However, following the first lecture I felt relieved to have heard about the truly good intentions at the base of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Whilst I am sure that the argument against women in the priesthood is one about which I will always feel uncomfortable, I realize that in closing my eyes to everything about the Catholic Church, I am throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Actually what is more important is to accept the good that is carried out in the name of Christianity. Either one is for something or against something and considering myself Christian I must align myself with other Christians wherever possible.
Liberation Theology looks at what the message of the Gospel looks like from the perspective of the poor. It is Christianity from below. It means that where you live makes a difference to how you view religion. Clearly if people are out there on the street at soup kitchens, this will make politicians uncomfortable as they themselves are not concerned on a daily basis with the welfare of their own people at ground level but more with their political power. Anyone pointing out the plight of the poor is going to be threatening. The work of Gutierrez, displaying such commitment, would be threatening to anyone even slightly unsure of the work they were doing in the world. When the essence of one’s work is not founded on something meaningful it is extremely unsettling to witness another working out of complete commitment to their belief. As I heard about the deep devotion and the hope in the lives of those in South America living under such difficult circumstances just from the knowledge that people in Australia were thinking of them, I felt inspired to be grateful for my life and all I could do. At the same time I felt ashamed by the minimal work I actually do for charity.
I also felt concerned as we were made aware of the inequality in standards of living present in the world. Of course we are in the rich world and there are millions of people living without basic necessities. The video we watched about shopping in America was grotesque and yet our constant buying here in Australia is much closer to that reality than to that of the lives of the starving in Africa. If theology is “critical reflection on praxis in the light of the Word of God”, (Robert McAfee Brown) becoming aware again of these realities is disconcerting in the extreme. Whilst it is comfortable for me to point an accusing finger at politicians who do too little for the poor, what am I actually doing other than giving some money? If “Commitment means encountering the poor” (Brown) then I am clearly not committed. But as it says in “Signs of a Crisis”(Jim Wallis) “who has time to be a citizen?” In order to give the meagre amount of money I give to charity I am working all hours. But perhaps the “encounter with the poor” would bring more comfort through the reality of an interaction than just sending in the money.
Clearly, as a teacher, I need to know what I think about this. If the human conscience is a “clue to the word of God” (Brown), I am surely being spoken to about needing to do more charitable works.
Liberation from the “power of fate” and also from “personal sin and guilt” (Brown) is also a very powerful proposition. This could potentially lead to the world be changed totally. Once again it is an exciting thought but alarming to think of how little I do in order to bring about this Kingdom of God. It leads me to think that I too am working for the
‘Anti-Kingdom’.

Reading the Signs of a Crisis (Jim Wallis) I found alarming because although it was clearly written a while ago, it seemed more current than ever. It doesn’t matter which political leader is being spoken of, there is always disappointment about how little things have changed since the most recent leader was elected and how things have stayed the same.
Looking again at the greed so prevalent in our society and being some one who lives as part of it, also made me very uncomfortable. I believe like many others that I am doing my best but am I really?
I avoid watching violent films, and attempt to treat people I come into contact respectfully. I prevented my children from watching violent films to protect them from the images to avoid some of the toxins as talked of in “overarching sign of our crisis is our poisoned environment. From our toxic wastes to our toxic values, from the pollution of our air and water to the pollution of our hearts and minds” (Wallis), hopefully I thereby avoided some toxicity in my children as they grew up.
Although I go and vote I am aware that I do nothing else. The idea that “The ritual of public polling has now almost completely replaced genuine citizen participation in political life” (Wallis) rings true in my life and once again makes me feel uncomfortable. I am grateful for the opportunity to vote but I also know that I should be doing more politically because this is what it is to be Christian on earth.
The issue of societies surviving or not sometimes being dependent on the decisions made about sustainability is also confronting. Learning about ecological footprints and how large my own is, also induces guilt. What can I do to reduce mine? Of course I turn off lights and use little water but how can reduce it further? Having lived in Iceland for two years I saw that somehow they managed to survive having subjected the country to almost total deforestation. The Icelanders lived in extreme poverty until very recently. I would be interested to read what Jared Diamond had to say on it, but from what I saw of Icelanders 20 years ago, they were not environmentally conscious or caring. However, the social structures in place certainly cared for all people equally with remarkable funding for health and education and there seemed to be almost no poverty as there was in Europe at the time. There was an amazing awareness of Spirit in the culture, maybe it was this depth that enabled them to get through the dark winters with singing and story telling being the main entertainment although more recently the Icelanders were as prone to materialism as any First world country.
To complete the first journal entry I would say that I have found this course and the readings very interesting and informative.

The lecture on Moses was also very inspiring. I have always rejected the First Testament because I found it hard to relate to what appeared to be not in line with Christ’s teachings. I now have a new understanding of the prophets and the aim they had of evoking “a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us” as Bruggemann writes of the aim of prophetic ministry. Previously I have not seen the work of the prophets as that of promoting a new social justice through helping people to new understandings by aiding them in a “dismantling of the dominant consciousness” of the world in which they lived, rather I have seen there message to be an inner one. Clearly re-reading the prophets with this understanding gives it meaning to the reader at any time even if the contemporary laws are quite at odds with those at the time of the prophet. Suddenly there seems to be point in reading the First Testament for inspiration.
The idea that a prophet comes at a particular time for a particular community is also inspiring as a reminder for us, on a more humble level, that we also have particular tasks to do in our own particular lives just as the prophets had.

Michael wanted to “get God off the hook for Christ’s crucifixion” by making it clear that Christ had to die because the life that he led came into conflict with the Purity project of the time. (Leaders of the purity project deal with problematic people by murdering them.) From this perspective I can see that God can be let off as Jesus clearly presented a significant problem. However, if God is omnipotent surely nothing that he doesn’t desire can happen? The idea that the people in the purity project could have had greater power than God and made Jesus die against God’s will doesn’t make sense in a world where God is omnipotent.

We once again saw some confronting images (the image of Bishop Romero being shot for example) and I felt overwhelmed by my powerlessness to change the world and the horror of the cruelty we inflict upon one another as humans. I felt that the lecture was trying to address how we would respond to a student’s question “what sort of a God would allow evil to happen?” and I was no clearer at the end than I had been at the beginning. An omnipotent God surely wouldn’t allow such atrocities as the Rwandan genocide to happen and yet for some reason these things do happen, is it in order that humans learn to understand the power of freedom of choice and experience the horrors that certain choices bring with them?
Christ was clearly critical of the time in which he lived and was also clearly pained by what he saw and as such He sets us an example of how to view the world. Bruggemann talks of the numbness in which most of us live which can be penetrated by the passion of Christ and lead to transformation: “internalization of pain and external transformation” as he says “articulated grief is the gate of newness”. We can change our world as a result of the pain we go through. But this doesn’t explain at all why suffering has to happen in the first place. As Michael expressed it as Christians “we have responsibilities towards God’s kingdom- we need to cooperate”, we need to get active in our own world to do what we can to reduce the suffering.
The full day of JS423 was so inspiring! All the students had to speak on an issue of social justice and every single one was so well prepared and each person was fired up by what they had done. I could see that each person was a force to reckoned with and that the world through us teachers can become a better place. Liz, who spoke about refugees and internally displaced people gave an overview of the current state which when seen from the point of view of nations actually being motivated to help refugees in order to keep them off their own shores as explained in 'Human Cargo' is all the more disturbing.
It seems that self-interest is always at the base of inequalities and injustices and the fact that so many difficulties can be experienced as a result of the character of the person currently in charge of the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees) seems insane in a world where humans have responsibilities towards each others. As a result of the High Commissioner being liked or not liked as a person attitudes towards the organization itself are changed and as the nature of its work is to save lives this seems almost unbelievable.
In a similar way the article 'Unpacking theopolitical dynamite' seemed to be arguing from a subjective point of view what makes a text worthy of believing or not. I was not persuaded that any one has the right to claim that something is true and something else not when reading the Bible. I am sure that I can say what I may or may not wish to believe but that does not mean that I would force my opinions on other people and say that their beliefs are wrong.
On the other hand the reality of terrorist attacks being a response to the colonialism before and the lingering effects of colonialism and the 80:20 world we live in as Michael presented it I am able to accept. AlsoI agree that the image of fighters bombers is certainly as terrorist as any 'terrorist attack'. It is terrible idea that people learn through example and that victims see attack as the only way to liberate themselves from oppression as this is what they have experienced.