TheGeoffRe(y)port

photo credit: Howie_Berlin

Immediately after Heath Ledger died, especially for the time that it looked more likely that it was a suicide rather than accidental death, the reactions were remarkably interesting. There was the standard fan response - tributes and the like, but there was another response that I found to be remarkably interesting. It came in letters to the editor and blog comments and went roughly along these lines:

• “Why would he do this to himself?”
• “This guy had everything, and yet he’d kill himself”
• “How dare he do this?”

It wasn’t just disbelief - this was an angry response. The very same comments could be heard about Britney Spears’ latest breakdown, or whichever celebrity it is who has been caught drink-driving or checked into rehab. There is a real anger that these people would have everything - and “everything” is the word that gets used to describe it - and yet that’s not enough for them.

It seems to me that this anger doesn’t look much different to the sort of righteous indignation we get from fundamentalists at having their nicely boxed theologies challenged. Celebrity, and with it the concept that fame and fortune are somehow the pinnacle of human endeavour, is the state religion. So it doesn’t go well when someone’s actions come along and challenge that. 

Ever since I saw the movie with Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving (possibly the most underrated Australian actor in the business, I’ve had a bit of a “thing” about “V for Vendetta”. So after I made some noises about the graphic novel when we saw it at Borders on our honeymoon, the lovely Rebecca duly took note and made sure that a copy came my way when it came to birthday time. It hasn’t taken long for me to devour the book, and it’s rekindled my intrigue.

At it’s heart “V” strikes at a number of things that resonate with me, as well as draws attention to a few things that I’m not as sure about. For starters, there is the revolution against a fascist totalitarian state. And it strikes at something deep inside (likely put there by WWII movies and computer games) that makes is just fantastic for someone to be beating up the fascists. There’s just something deep down that wants to barrack for the guy who is starting the revolution. I came out of the movie the first time ready to bust some heads.

But it poses some big questions, particularly around justice. V kills - not indiscriminately but with the moral self-certainty of a vigilante. The ethics of “just-war” type thinking, mixed in with the problem of cheering for a terrorist (particularly in today’s climate) give a great opportunity to re-evaluate exactly what you believe in these situations.

The graphic novel is noticeably different from the film (partly out of necessity: the novel was written in the early 80s and set in the late 90s) but the film certainly stayed true to the heart of the comic. It’s a really fun read, but I must admit I couldn’t read “V” talking without hearing Hugo Weaving’s voiceover ringing through my head.

I’m aware that this makes me a hypocrite, having already joined in a synchroblog for “Australia Day”, but I think that this is an issue that rates a mention. I was spurred into posting this after getting hassled by little Paulie for having a reference to “Invasion Day” in my Instant Messaging status.

I think that it is a disgrace that our national holiday occurs on a day that commemorates white settlement in Australia. I am deeply proud to be an Australian, and I think it is a very important thing to have one day in our year that we can sit back and be thankful for the wonderful country that us good guys live in. But I think it stinks that our only real chance to do that is on the day that white people came to settle in Australia.

Reconciliation with our indigenous people in Australia, both on a practical as well as a symbolic level is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) and most important issues facing our country over the next couple of decades. But a mindset that says that we should celebrate the birth of our nation on the date of the arrival of the first fleet (because like it or not, that’s what Australia Day is saying), is a mindset that alienates and increases the psychological and idealogical gap between indigenous Australians and the rest of this nation.

It’s time for this nation to grow up, to recognise that not everything great that happened in Australia was brought about by European settlement, and to find a national day that can unite, rather than divide this beautiful and great nation of ours. I’m suggesting Federation Day, which given that it falls on January 1, should have the holiday landing on January 2. What’s more Australian than giving an extra day to recover from your New Years party with a national public holiday?

For More Information:

• Australia Day - Wikipedia
• AustraliaDay.gov.au on “Australia Day and Reconciliation”

(crossposted from Amateur Theology because I think as many people as possible should see this.)

The video that the below clip is from is perhaps the best description I’ve heard of for why there’s something deeply wrong with the consumption-centric system that our economy is based on. It puts out the big picture for what Brian McLaren describes in his new book “Everything Must Change” as “the suicide machine”. So please - set aside 20 minutes to watch the whole video here, and understand what’s wrong with the system that our world economy is centered around. The Story Of Stuff

Hat tip to Paul

My wedding is in 33 sleeps. That’s coming up, really, really quickly. And it’s important, it’s big, and it will be very exciting. But it’s not the key part. The important thing is that in 33 sleeps, I’m going to be married. And that’s a whole different kettle of fish. Because while the people who are making small talk (and there’s nothing wrong with that at all) are asking “How’s the wedding preparations going?”, the people who I’m in really close relationship and who are wanting to find out what’s really going on are much more likely to ask something along the lines of “How are you going with preparing to be married?”

It’s a curious phenomenon that a culture who isn’t really sure what it wants to do with marriage, really wants to do something big and impressive for a wedding. And while I’m in awe of my bride-to-be’s ability to resist the pretentious and expensive in favour of the personal and home-grown, there is constant pressure to go bigger, more spectacular, more more more more more. We want to celebrate our wedding, we want it to be a very special day, but we don’t want to incur the sort of costs that are going to send us and our immediate families into debt. And ultimately - it’s a party. A big party, a nice party, a party with a beautiful sacrament in a church beforehand,  but it’s a party.

But preparing for a marriage. Wow. Marriage will surely be one of my life’s biggest challenges, and it’s a big call to be going into this thing. There’s so many ways I can stuff it up - and probably some of them that I will. There is no doubt in my mind that Rebecca and I should be taking this step together, but I’m nevertheless terrified by the scale of this commitment we’re entering into. It’s exciting, and it’s a happy feeling, but it’s undoubtedly mixed with fear and terror.

So how’s the wedding preparation going? Good. How’s the marriage preparation? That’s a bigger and better question.

The day that Steve Bracks (former Victorian Premier) resigned, he said that part of what he was proud of was that during his time in Government, they had changed the conversation to one around education, healthcare, blah blah. Now regardless of whether or not you agree that he did that, the point is a valid one. If you control the conversation, you control what is perceived to be valuable.

I think part of the reason that it appears the federal government is likely to lose the upcoming election is that they are no longer able to dictate the conversation with regard to media. Howard has used lots of the same lines as he used against Latham and Beazley, whereas Rudd at least seems to be offering something that sounds different enough that he has been able to change the way that the conversation is dictated.

Today is Blog Action Day. It’s a day when thousands of blogs all over the world, in all kinds of genres and niches are posting about the environment. In fact, you are reading one of those very posts. Because the conversation has changed. Where before the conversation around environmental concerns were mostly from the edges, or at least how much giving a token consideration to the environment would cost economically - it is now the mainstream that is talking about ways to take seriously the challenge to leave this earth in the same condition we start with.

As Christians, it’s time we stopped hiding behind ignorance or apathy and start trumpeting the cause of the environment. Because doing something about God’s creation is a kingdom purpose. And when the wider conversation aligns with the principles of the kingdom we have a responsibility to amplify that voice. We need to get behind people like Tri Robinson who are advocating the cause of the environment.

But even more - we need to get out there and do something. Whether it’s making lifestyle choices that can cut down on your transportation, limiting your use of extra plastic bags, choosing slightly more expensive but carbon-neutral energy options. Despite what Kermit might say - it’s relatively easy being green.

…comes from Paul at “One for the road“:

It is clear from some comments left on the internet that some Christians feels that you can clearly not reconcile the claim that Jesus is the only way to God with the fundamental tenant of Islam that there is no God but Allah – therefore it is impossible to be both. …

If you can be Jewish and a Christian can you not also be Muslim and a Christian? Indeed the attraction of say the 5 pillars of Islam, the disciplined life of prayer etc is something that can be intrinsically attractive as a way of practicing faith – and can be related to the rules of faith by Christian religious communities/orders (e.g. rule of St Benedict).

A question closer to home for me to ask myself would be can I both be a follower of Jesus and a worshipper of consumerist individualism? (Full post here - “Can I be a Christian and a Muslim”)

Well, I feel busted.

OK, I’m angry. And what’s more, I’m likely to make you angry. Possibly for the same reason as me. Possibly because you vigorously disagree with what I say. Either way. But here’s the back story:

After Scott and Christina kindly posted a link through to the video of the Australian Christian Lobby’s big politician thing “Make It Count”, where there were a whole bunch of church leaders at the National Press Club in Canberra, as well as being simulcast all over the country via online streaming. It was a pretty big deal and we had both Howard and Rudd addressing the issues they saw as affecting and being particularly relevant to christians. Thousands of people across Australia were watching, and I certainly saw a lot of value in hearing what the two leaders had to say.

And both leaders said a number of things that were of value. However, for some reason, there was only one thing that the crowd felt was deserving of spontaneous applause. It wasn’t a humanitarian measure that prompted spontaneous applause, nor was it mentions of conscience votes on stem cells, RU486, or comments on refugees. Instead, this room full of christian leaders believed that the only moment most worthy of spontaneous applause was the moment when John Howard mentioned his involvement in the amendments to the marriage act to enshrine in law the standard of marriage being between “one man and one woman”.

I was already fairly worked up after hearing that, but I was pushed just a little further while I was listening to the Kevin Rudd, question answer part and heard the National President of the Australian Family Association ask Kevin Rudd for an assurance that he would not support an extension of “de-facto” relationship status to include homosexual relationships.

I was pretty ticked off. For starters, here’s how I’d see the issue of marriage in relation to homosexual relationships. For my thinking, there are two parts to what happens in a marriage: there’s a change in legal status (complete with a bunch of legal rights, particularly in the event of death of a spouse), and there is a spiritual dimension to marriage: the spiritual unification of two people. Now I strongly believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I also strongly believe that churches should not be holding weddings between homosexual couples. But I fail to understand why a country who has on the whole accepted that people are in homosexual relationships, is not willing to grant the legal dimension of marriage to couples wanting to commit to one another for life.

OK, so that’s my position. But I understand that for some people (including probably the majority of christians), the notion of compromising the institution of marriage, even if only in a “legal” sense is an unacceptable position. I’d like to hear why, but I want to make another point first.

De-facto relationships. To use the old-fashioned term: “living in sin”. At the moment in Australian law, couples in a de-facto relationship are given more “rights” (in the same sense as we talk about legal rights in marriage) than any form of homosexual relationships. So the part I cannot understand is why we’re so determined to ostracise homosexual couples to the point that we’re not even willing to give them the same status as couples whose only real commitment to one another is that they are living together. It defies belief. Both situations are against the teachings of Christianity. So why is the Australian Family Association so frightened of “compromising the family” in this way?

Just thought (particularly if you’re an RSS Subscriber who tends not to visit the actual site) that it might be worth drawing attention to the very valuable, insightful (and at times quite personal) comments on the “Theology of Contraception” post. It’s been impressive to see the quality of responses there: I didn’t realise this would hit quite on such a rich vein of opinion. So if you haven’t read them (or read them back when there was only a few comments there instead of 21) I advise a perusal. You can also check out Bec’s contribution over on her blog.

And it’s worth highlighting that Kate (wife of Rohan, all round nice person) has written a paper on the subject which they’ve kindly posted up on their blog. Set some time aside and read through properly, because she’s got some pretty solid thought there and it’s worth reading through.

“Roman Catholicism believes in sexual intercourse not only for procreative but also unitive intents. Wife and husband surrender themselves to one another and come to a fuller knowledge of one another.Contraception, it follows, is wrong because it divides the procreative from the pleasure principles.”

The above quote comes from a thought-provoking post from Scot McKnight on Jesus Creed - “Augustine on the Protestant Sex Ethic”. So as someone who has never had to worry about potential theological implications of contraception in the past, but is drawing ever closer to a time when such questions become relevant; I wanted to hear what some of my very learned and wise readers believe on the issue. As McKnight pertinently asks: “In your community of faith is there any discussion about contraception — or is it either simply ignored or assumed as legitimate for the Christian? How realistic is the procreation theory of sexuality? the “unitive” or “communion” theory?”

In my experience we’re doing a pretty OK job of talking about a theology of sex outside of marriage, and we’re even starting to get closer to pre-marital sex is not God’s idea of a good thing, but I wouldn’t need to worry about a second hand to count the number of times I’ve heard any discussion of theology around contraception amongst protestants. I’m sure part of that has to do with the stage of life I’ve been at, but I’m also wondering if that’s a reflection of a wider trend.

So I’m after practical theology from the married peoples out there and completely theoretical thoughts from those of us who are single. Thoughts on contraception and what that says about your view on sex itself? Thoughts on “the pill”? I’d love to hear any of it; if only to spark some discussion in an area that I think tends to be a little bit neglected.