Coercion - flight or flight, takes our freedom
the oppressor screams, the one recourse - submit or be submerged!
Care-filled creativity, in my heart the spirit kindles
third way thrown open before my eyes.
Why wait for liberation when in Christ's cross I am free -
here, now
-------
Why should I not want to follow Christ,
my joy
what could I possess that would not diminish it?
-------
Vivid memory becomes a dream,
where once walked I
a dream also
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
How are you voting on FRIDAY?
We vote every day, though we often do not realise it. Whenever we buy food or watch a film, we are supporting the people who made and sold it. Whenever I talk to people about the effects of their lifestyle and mention changing it, I always get the same responses: 'it won't make any difference' or 'one action won't change anything'. Yet, if I mention not voting, people get really cross: 'why aren't you taking responsibility?', and 'people fought and died for this right!'. I'd like to suggest that this attitude is a little hypocritical, and outline a few other means of achieving social change that, if we care about changing the world we live in, we should also participate in (although of course, this is by no means an exhaustive list!).
First, there's the boycott. Boycotting a shop, company, or even a country is arguably more effective at changing them than the way you vote, as you don't need a majority. For instance, if a company looks set to loose even 10% of its customers because they are unhappy with the way it is acting, that company will likely sort out its ethics pretty quickly! For instance the Stop the Traffik campaign, supported by people refusing to buy chocolate produced unfairly, has convinced big companies (including nestlé and cadbury), to start making some of their products Fair Trade. Just not buying stuff can make a difference!
Next, there's non-violent direct action. Although politicians may make beautiful promises, your vote means nothing if you don't hold them to account after polling day. There's a lot of people who are cynical about the more extreme forms of this, or even who consider it not worth protesting at all. However, consider this: 50% of the people reading this only have the vote at all because of people who were willing to demonstrate, to chain themselves to things, or even jump in front of horses! Non-violent action not only shows the state that people feel strongly about what they are demonstrating for, but raises consciousness among the people who see and hear it (prompting them to consider whether they themselves should be taking action). It's also a massive encouragement to the other members of a movement to see their brothers and sisters taking a stand against injustice! Come to think of it, some of the things we most value about our western democracies (such as votes for women, no racial discrimination), came about not because of political debates or 'X's on polling cards, but because people took to the streets!
Finally, there's the old idea of 'being the change we want to see in the world'. This can be really satisfying because, even if you don't effect the world as a whole, the few individuals you do help may have their lives changed considerably. A society is just the sum of it's parts - and we are the parts. Therefore, when our leaders are not working for justice, or are not doing it quickly enough, it's time for us to step in. This can be as simple as being loving in everything we do (after all, our problems come from hate - from un-love - in the first place). However, it can be much bigger than this. For instance, there are groups in the US that agree to support each other's health bills, and hence short-circuit expensive insurance companies, and beat the state to providing health care. One of the most beautiful examples though, comes from the 1930s and Gandhi's resistance of the british empire in India, where Indians were not allowed to make salt - Gandhi and his followers simply marched to the sea, and did precisely what the law forbade [1]. "It was illegal for Indians to make their own salt yet they were taxed heavily on the salt they brought from the state. The result was more hardship for the poorest to the benefit of the wealthy [...] Perhaps Gandhi was advised by friends on how to tackle this injustice. 'Go to Delhi and dump a sack of rice outside Lord Irwin's house', 'Find a way to put salt into his water supply', 'send bags of salt to London with a petition for tax relief'. But Gandhi did none of these things nor in any way petitioned the government or even protested the injustice. He could see that in this case the power for change lay in the hands of the people through making their own salt, thus rendering the state law impotent [...] Power isn't scared of megaphones and placards; he's scared we may turn our backs on him altogether."
During the last few weeks, I've spent many hours talking, reading and thinking about the current election. However, if I fail have even that dedication afterwards in seeking justice, am I any less apathetic than those who are insulted for not voting at all? Perhaps it is apt to finish with a quote (also paraphrased from Keith Hebden) "Fascists and racists gain power not because of what we do on election day, but because of what we fail to do on every other day". Whatever you do on election day, please remember: politics is so much more than a tick in a box.
[1] This is a (rough) quote from an article by Keith Hebden in the (free) magazine 'A pinch of salt', that looks at Christianity and Anarchism
First, there's the boycott. Boycotting a shop, company, or even a country is arguably more effective at changing them than the way you vote, as you don't need a majority. For instance, if a company looks set to loose even 10% of its customers because they are unhappy with the way it is acting, that company will likely sort out its ethics pretty quickly! For instance the Stop the Traffik campaign, supported by people refusing to buy chocolate produced unfairly, has convinced big companies (including nestlé and cadbury), to start making some of their products Fair Trade. Just not buying stuff can make a difference!
Next, there's non-violent direct action. Although politicians may make beautiful promises, your vote means nothing if you don't hold them to account after polling day. There's a lot of people who are cynical about the more extreme forms of this, or even who consider it not worth protesting at all. However, consider this: 50% of the people reading this only have the vote at all because of people who were willing to demonstrate, to chain themselves to things, or even jump in front of horses! Non-violent action not only shows the state that people feel strongly about what they are demonstrating for, but raises consciousness among the people who see and hear it (prompting them to consider whether they themselves should be taking action). It's also a massive encouragement to the other members of a movement to see their brothers and sisters taking a stand against injustice! Come to think of it, some of the things we most value about our western democracies (such as votes for women, no racial discrimination), came about not because of political debates or 'X's on polling cards, but because people took to the streets!
Finally, there's the old idea of 'being the change we want to see in the world'. This can be really satisfying because, even if you don't effect the world as a whole, the few individuals you do help may have their lives changed considerably. A society is just the sum of it's parts - and we are the parts. Therefore, when our leaders are not working for justice, or are not doing it quickly enough, it's time for us to step in. This can be as simple as being loving in everything we do (after all, our problems come from hate - from un-love - in the first place). However, it can be much bigger than this. For instance, there are groups in the US that agree to support each other's health bills, and hence short-circuit expensive insurance companies, and beat the state to providing health care. One of the most beautiful examples though, comes from the 1930s and Gandhi's resistance of the british empire in India, where Indians were not allowed to make salt - Gandhi and his followers simply marched to the sea, and did precisely what the law forbade [1]. "It was illegal for Indians to make their own salt yet they were taxed heavily on the salt they brought from the state. The result was more hardship for the poorest to the benefit of the wealthy [...] Perhaps Gandhi was advised by friends on how to tackle this injustice. 'Go to Delhi and dump a sack of rice outside Lord Irwin's house', 'Find a way to put salt into his water supply', 'send bags of salt to London with a petition for tax relief'. But Gandhi did none of these things nor in any way petitioned the government or even protested the injustice. He could see that in this case the power for change lay in the hands of the people through making their own salt, thus rendering the state law impotent [...] Power isn't scared of megaphones and placards; he's scared we may turn our backs on him altogether."
During the last few weeks, I've spent many hours talking, reading and thinking about the current election. However, if I fail have even that dedication afterwards in seeking justice, am I any less apathetic than those who are insulted for not voting at all? Perhaps it is apt to finish with a quote (also paraphrased from Keith Hebden) "Fascists and racists gain power not because of what we do on election day, but because of what we fail to do on every other day". Whatever you do on election day, please remember: politics is so much more than a tick in a box.
[1] This is a (rough) quote from an article by Keith Hebden in the (free) magazine 'A pinch of salt', that looks at Christianity and Anarchism
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Poems...
Here's one which I think is kinda cool:
Writing:
I come to sit at my page,
my pen, an olive branch
As I pour myself out,
letter by letter
The paper a mirror,
I am reconciled, to me.
I really like this one as well, which I found scrawled on a peice of paper, and have now rescued :-)
Smile:
Eyes doth glint and gleam,
as stars
That smile, that bright beam,
outshines the sun
Intense, overwhelming as a wave,
that hits me back,
yet draws me in
Like a fire, so hot my cheeks burn red,
my whole being shall be engulfed,
yet my very soul strong force pulls in,
helpless, amid the blazing heat
Writing:
I come to sit at my page,
my pen, an olive branch
As I pour myself out,
letter by letter
The paper a mirror,
I am reconciled, to me.
I really like this one as well, which I found scrawled on a peice of paper, and have now rescued :-)
Smile:
Eyes doth glint and gleam,
as stars
That smile, that bright beam,
outshines the sun
Intense, overwhelming as a wave,
that hits me back,
yet draws me in
Like a fire, so hot my cheeks burn red,
my whole being shall be engulfed,
yet my very soul strong force pulls in,
helpless, amid the blazing heat
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Why Christians Should Think About Anarchy
It is time we began to consider anarchy seriously. Our vocation is to love the people of this world, to stand in defiance of injustice, suffering and oppression. The thing is, much of the injustice in the world, today and in the past, has been sanctioned, if not propagated by, one state or another. Should we not, therefore, at least consider whether there is something wrong with statehood itself?
The bible-writers did. Kind David was more commited & intimate in his relationship with God than I and many I know, yet he was so corrupted by power as to break almost all of the commandments during his reign as king. A little before King David's time, the Hebrew tribes didn't have a king at all, or any real kind of state. And this is how God intended for them to be. When they asked for a king, the prophet Samuel told them that a king would 'lord it over them' and unjustly take their possesions. When in the end the decide to 'become like other nations' (the opposite of their vocation), God says 'It is not you but me they have rejected'. Does this this mean executive power of an individual is a form of idolatry? Like I said, we've a right to ask...
The bible-writers did. Kind David was more commited & intimate in his relationship with God than I and many I know, yet he was so corrupted by power as to break almost all of the commandments during his reign as king. A little before King David's time, the Hebrew tribes didn't have a king at all, or any real kind of state. And this is how God intended for them to be. When they asked for a king, the prophet Samuel told them that a king would 'lord it over them' and unjustly take their possesions. When in the end the decide to 'become like other nations' (the opposite of their vocation), God says 'It is not you but me they have rejected'. Does this this mean executive power of an individual is a form of idolatry? Like I said, we've a right to ask...
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Lovarchy
I stumbled upon an interesting site today: http://www.lovarchy.org. Admittedly I don't quite get what it's about, but something struck me about the name. Love-archy must mean the rule of love, right? Well, if God is love, then you could say that 'lovarchy' is synonymous with 'theocracy', a way of describing the rule of God. It is one of the greatest mysteries of the Christian faith the way that love is entrenched in every part of it. To love God and our neighbour with everything we have is the highest ethical command. A mark of the true Church is how we love each other. Jesus was sent because 'God so loved the world'. And, ultimately 'God is love'. What a strange statement - 'God is love'. What does it mean?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Poverty in the Bible
The bible does not just talk about poverty as one issue of many. Nor does it soley give us perspesctives or commands on 'dealing with' the poor. The Bible happens within the context of poverty - that is where it's story takes place! It contains a message that speaks directly to the hearts of the disenfranchised, the weak. And rather than offering a social critique that's made simpler and easier for those already finding life too hard, it has the cheek to say that it's message is too hard for the rich and privalledged, that the wise and intelligent cannot understand it. [1] This understanding is something many of us in the Church are only just comming to realise. Although I, and many others, live lives fraught with wealth and privalege, we dare to hope that one day we will live in a kingdom where there is no rich, poor, war or debt. I'm outlining some of the reasons for this below, in the hope that more people will be inspired to start asking the questions that will change the world.
To start with, in the Hebrew Bible, most of the Prophets were poor (e.g. Amos), and so many of its heroes were the weak and marginalised (David was a shepherd boy, Gideon was the weakest of his tribe, Abraham became a nobody, a wondering nomad [3]). The bible is a story told from the margins of history, the victims of the powers and kings that we learn about in our histroy classes today.
Then comes Jesus. The teaching of Christianity is not from an individual of elevated position, who through kindness writes on behalf of those 'below' them. No, rather the greatest teacher of Christianity, the 'supreme interpreter' of the faith, is a carpenter's son, who leaves even that to become a homeless Rabbi, with 'no place to lay his head'[2]. In fact, the only place in the scriptures where Jesus has any money at all are where he has to borrow it (for a demonstration), or where he performs a miracle, taking a coin from a fishes mouth. His main listeners would have been the peasants and workers of his day (note that he visited mainly towns and villiages, not the centres of power). Most of his recorded parables spoke directly into the situations of the powerless. He was poor, and he was the hero of the poor.
Out of all this comes the Church, a group of followers of this radical and unconventional leader, who they call their King! Not only do they perform simple 'acts of charity', they form what appears to be a new society (or should I say Kingdom?) among them. Although most of them are poor, they share with each other so none go hungry. Even their enemies had to admit '[the Christians] feed our poor in addition to their own' (Emporer Julian - a persecuter of the Christian movement)[4], sometimes going without themselves in order to feed their neighbour. They were the victims of poverty, spiritual and physical. They were the answer to poverty. They were the Church.
[1] Mark 10:15;24-25, Luke 1:51-53, 1 Corinthians 1:27
[2] Luke 9:58
[3] Amos 1:1, 1 Samuel 16, Judges 6:15, Genesis 12:1
[4] Eberhard Arnold, The Early Christians in their Own Words, p11 (which itself cites: Julian, Sozomen, V.17; see also Harnack ET, vol. 1, p. 162)
(note - many of the biblical references here are not singular occurences in the bible, and are repeated in other places also)
To start with, in the Hebrew Bible, most of the Prophets were poor (e.g. Amos), and so many of its heroes were the weak and marginalised (David was a shepherd boy, Gideon was the weakest of his tribe, Abraham became a nobody, a wondering nomad [3]). The bible is a story told from the margins of history, the victims of the powers and kings that we learn about in our histroy classes today.
Then comes Jesus. The teaching of Christianity is not from an individual of elevated position, who through kindness writes on behalf of those 'below' them. No, rather the greatest teacher of Christianity, the 'supreme interpreter' of the faith, is a carpenter's son, who leaves even that to become a homeless Rabbi, with 'no place to lay his head'[2]. In fact, the only place in the scriptures where Jesus has any money at all are where he has to borrow it (for a demonstration), or where he performs a miracle, taking a coin from a fishes mouth. His main listeners would have been the peasants and workers of his day (note that he visited mainly towns and villiages, not the centres of power). Most of his recorded parables spoke directly into the situations of the powerless. He was poor, and he was the hero of the poor.
Out of all this comes the Church, a group of followers of this radical and unconventional leader, who they call their King! Not only do they perform simple 'acts of charity', they form what appears to be a new society (or should I say Kingdom?) among them. Although most of them are poor, they share with each other so none go hungry. Even their enemies had to admit '[the Christians] feed our poor in addition to their own' (Emporer Julian - a persecuter of the Christian movement)[4], sometimes going without themselves in order to feed their neighbour. They were the victims of poverty, spiritual and physical. They were the answer to poverty. They were the Church.
[1] Mark 10:15;24-25, Luke 1:51-53, 1 Corinthians 1:27
[2] Luke 9:58
[3] Amos 1:1, 1 Samuel 16, Judges 6:15, Genesis 12:1
[4] Eberhard Arnold, The Early Christians in their Own Words, p11 (which itself cites: Julian, Sozomen, V.17; see also Harnack ET, vol. 1, p. 162)
(note - many of the biblical references here are not singular occurences in the bible, and are repeated in other places also)
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Guayaquill poem
Well, it's been too long since my last post, that's for sure! I'm back in England now, and officially finished my time with action teams, which has left my quite low. I'm settling in slowly though. Anyway, today I'd like to share a poem I wrote in Ecuador, after looking up at the clouds, and remembering a time back home when I'd been out at night far away from any city.
I sigh for clouds that once, with stars, shone silver white,
are dimmed, darkened like dust,
by the glare of these bright bulbs.
Such sorrow, I say!
To see this beauty: tamed and tarnished.
But why weep I for clouds, while hungry children stand?
Because 'tis not of clouds I write,
but YOU.
I'm not really sure what this is about - it sums up my feelings about a lot of things really.
I sigh for clouds that once, with stars, shone silver white,
are dimmed, darkened like dust,
by the glare of these bright bulbs.
Such sorrow, I say!
To see this beauty: tamed and tarnished.
But why weep I for clouds, while hungry children stand?
Because 'tis not of clouds I write,
but YOU.
I'm not really sure what this is about - it sums up my feelings about a lot of things really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)