Faith is not what we believe. Thats belief. Rather faith is the willingness to take a risk to act on what we say we believe. Thats faith.

So if communities become increasingly risk averse there is no way they can be communities of faith, regardless of what they say they believe.

Abraham is the father of the faith (in fact the father of three faiths) because he was willing to follow the call of God even though he didn’t know where he was going, was willing to provide hospitality for strangers who came to his tent even though he didn’t know who they were and was willing to ride out to rescue his relative who had been kidnapped even though he did not know how he was going to do it.

The disciples were encouraged to become people of faith by responding to Christ’s call to stop being ‘fishermen’ (which they knew how to do) and start becoming ‘fishers of men’ (which they didn’t know how to do) trusting that over time they would learn how to do it. And the good news for them and for us is that, in the end, in spite of the many ridiculous mistakes they made  - they were actually able to do it.

I think we know what we are called to do: to love God and love our neighbour. Most of us (in all three faiths) would say that we believe that these are in fact the greatest commandments. If we have faith, we will take the risk to live that out in our in the way we relate to everyone, in ever increasing concentric circles of care, starting with our family, then our community, our church, our work, our world.

Okay. We don’t know how to do it. But like the disciples we should trust the Lord that over time we will be able to learn how to do it if we try.

But I would like to make one proviso. So we do not do too much damage when we make the mistakes we will make learning to love God and our neighbour.

While love is willing to sacrifice for others, it should only sacrifice its own. You only have the right to sacrifice your time, your energy, your money – not an other’s or what you owe to an other. If your sacrifice impacts an other, then you need to have their permission to proceed. You have no right to sacrifice what belongs to an other in the name of love, because it is not loving at all.

Take care, Dave

In a much-cited article entitled “Resist not evil:” Conservatism in The Sermon on the Mount, published in The Busy Signal, J.A. Meyerson states that ’The main thrust of the Nazarene’s doctrine is: if you the poor are abused, exploited, stolen from, made to suffer or otherwise racked with injustice, grin and bear it. Those concerns are worldly, and you ought instead to be focused on heaven. This life, after all, doesn’t matter, and in the next one, you will be rewarded and your tormentors punished. So keep your head down, take your punches and deal with it!’

Meyerson says ‘Christ begins his sermon by issuing the beatitudes, probably the most fertile grounds for leftist quotations, but with the least reason. “Blessed,” Christ proclaims, “are the poor in spirit,” “they that mourn,” “the meek,” “they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness,” “the merciful,” “the pure in heart,” “the peacemakers,” “they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” and “ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake”.’ Then he says, ‘The blessings he heaps upon the poor are all very nice, but he does not end them by saying, “and woe to those who have put you in this position; let’s topple their order and establish a more just society!” Instead he counsels, “Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” (Matthew 5:12) Cry me a river, folks; this is your lot in life. Trust that things are going to be better once you’ve died’.

So Myerson sums up Jesus’ ‘thesis, expressed in the Sermon on The Mount’, as essentially conservative, basically saying ‘workers of the world: suck it up.’ [1]

I enjoyed reading Meyerson’s article because of its energetic engagement with many of the things that I care about, and because of the substantive issues it raised. And I would like to make some comments about some of those issues.

The first issue is about Meyerson’s (mis)representation of Jesus view of ‘heaven’. It is clear Meyerson sees ‘heaven’ as ‘life after death’ and suggests Jesus is saying, as many conservative Christians do, ‘that things are going to get better when you die’, ‘you ought to be focused on heaven’; ‘this life doesn’t matter’; ‘in the next one you will be rewarded and your tormentors punished.’ Which aids and abets the status quo.

Now in the Bible there are four books with four versions of the gospel story. And the one thing that they all agree on is: that the ‘gospel’ according to Jesus is all about the ‘kingdom of God’  – or as it is sometimes called ‘the kingdom of heaven’.

The core message of Jesus is the ‘gospel of the kingdom of heaven’. That’s why Jesus began his famous Sermon on the Mount with the words ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’. (Matt. 5.3) In the sermon Jesus calls on his disciples to ‘seek first the kingdom’, to make it a priority, and to continually pray that the ‘kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven’.(Matt.6.33,10)

All throughout his ministry Jesus constantly preaches and teaches about the ‘kingdom’. All his parables are basically earthy stories about ‘the kingdom of heaven’. Only John records Jesus saying anything about ‘born again’ – twice on one occasion. Matthew, Mark, and Luke never record Jesus saying anything about being ‘born again’ at all. But all the gospel writers record Jesus speaking about the ‘kingdom of heaven’ again and again – some 114 times!

In the beatitudes, it is clear that, for Jesus, the ‘kingdom of heaven’ is a place where the meek ‘inherit the earth’ (Matt.5.5); where those who give mercy will ‘receive mercy’ (Matt.5.7); where the hungry will be ‘filled’ (Luke 6.21) and those who hunger and thirst for justice will be ‘fulfilled’ (Matt.5.6). It is a place where those who mourn will be ‘comforted’ (Matt.5.4) and those who weep now will ‘laugh’ once more (Luke 6.21). It is a place where peacemakers will walk proudly as ‘sons and daughters of God’ (Matt.5.9) and all those who are pure in heart ‘will see God’ (Matt.5.8)

So, as far as Jesus is concerned, heaven is a way of life; and it is a way of life that people should be able to experience here and now, on earth, in this life, as well as in the next. Which is why he uses the present tense, rather than the future tense at the beginning and the end of the beatitudes, saying ’yours is the kingdom of heaven’, so take it and make it your own. Jesus teaches his disciples to pray ‘May your kingdom come, may your will be done on earth as it is heaven’ every day (Matt.6.10) so that people can see God face to face, live as God’s children, be filled and fulfilled, find the comfort and the mercy that they need, wipe away their tears and have a smile that no one can wipe off their face, here and now, on earth, in this life, as well as in the next.

The second issue is Meyerson’s (mis)representation of Jesus view of the ‘system’. Incredibly, Meyerson tries to suggest Jesus ‘puts a happy face on the political and social systems which oppress’. When in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Jesus says we are faced with a choice: to be – or not to be – the change we want to see. And in Luke’s account of the beatitudes, Jesus makes the choice – and its consequences for us – painfully clear.

‘Looking at his disciples, he said:

20″Blessed are you who are poor,

for yours is the kingdom of God.

21Blessed are you who hunger now,

for you will be satisfied.

Blessed are you who weep now,

for you will laugh.

22Blessed are you when people hate you,

when they exclude you and insult you

and reject your name as evil,

because of the Son of Man.”

23″Rejoice in that day and leap for joy,

because great is your reward in heaven.

For that is how their ancestors treated the prophets.

24″But woe to you who are rich,

for you have already received your comfort.

25Woe to you who are well fed now,

for you will go hungry.

Woe to you who laugh now,

for you will mourn and weep.

26Woe to you when all people speak well of you,

for that is how their ancestors treated the false prophets.”

Luke 6. 20-26

In Luke’s account of the beatitudes Jesus is using classic Jewish parallelism to  compare and contrast two completely different positive and negative scenarios.

So Jesus is saying that we need to think about the consequences of our choices.

Jesus calls us not to aid or abet the status quo, but to be poor, and be with the poor in spirit; to be hungry, and be hungry for justice; to be sad, because we are weeping with those that weep; and to be unpopular, because we are committed to follow the way of Christ with integrity, struggling to challenge the system and change the system.

The third issue is Meyerson’s (mis)representation of Jesus view of the ‘struggle’. Meyerson tries to suggest that Jesus did not encourage people to struggle against the system, but only to struggle to accept the system and comply with the system. Meyerson interprets Jesus saying, “Resist not evil” as meaning ‘Take it easy, you Saudi women who are stoned for the crime of having been raped, you American Indians who have been infected by disease and anguish while your land is stolen and your family murdered, and you Ugandan homosexuals who fall in love under the threat of execution, flogging and incineration’. ‘This is your lot in life’. ’Suck it up.’

People like Meyerson make assumptions about the way to bring about change. Because Jesus didn’t share their assumptions about the way to bring about change, they tend to assume that Jesus was not really interested in bringing about change. The most common way of trying to change a system has always been to mobilise  a group of disenfranchised and disaffected people at the bottom to overthrow the people at the top, and, thereby, institute a change of regime. This can be done either violently, by revolution; or non-violently, by election. Either way, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Because no matter how many times you may change the regime, the system remains. Jesus’ much more innovative, alternative stratagem – was not trying to change the regime – but changing the system itself!

 Jesus wasn’t interested in ‘resisting evil’, ‘reacting to evil’ or ‘retaliating against evil’. He was interested in ‘overcoming evil with good’. Jesus’ basic stratagem was to deny hierarchy, advocate mutuality, and reframe all his relationships, over time, in terms of equality. Time and time again Jesus told the people who were with him to reject any kind of hierarchical modus operandi and embrace the practice of genuine mutuality (which, we know, is the only thing which can create the space for the transformation of the oppressive American, Saudi, and Ugandan relationships that Meyerson cites.)

Jesus told his disciples: ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant…just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’  (Matt.20: 20-28) ‘You are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you’ve only one Master and you are all equals. And do not call anyone on earth `Father,’ (even if you are a Catholic!) for you have one Father, in heaven. (And you are all brothers and sisters). The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts themselves will be humbled, and whoever humbles themselves will be exalted’. (Matt.23: 8-12)

To start with, the disciples related to Jesus as their ‘Rabbi’, as servants to their master, but over time, he reframed his relationship with all of them in clear, radically egalitarian terms. But after three years, Jesus said to them: ‘I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.’ (John 15:15) Knowledge is power and in sharing power they became friends.

The kind of changes we need involve system change, rather than regime change. So Jesus said that rather than spend all our time fighting the current regime, we need to be working slowly but surely for transformation of the entire system, by implementing his strategy of white-anting hierarchy, building up mutuality, and reframing inequality in terms of equality, one relationship at a time. As far as Jesus is concerned, there is no fast track, no quick fix, only a long ongoing pro-active struggle for total revolution.

Jesus publicly associated with the synagogue – by attending and participating, ‘as was his custom’, in congregational meetings. (Luke 4:16) But, Jesus never attempted to move up in the system. He moved out on to the edge. And, locating himself ‘on the side-lines’, rather than ‘in the main game’, gave Jesus some great advantages.

One, it gave him perspective. From the sidelines he was able to see the whole field, and see what needed to be done to improve the game. Two, it gave him opportunity. On the sidelines he was far enough away from the game to be beyond its immediate control, yet close enough to affect the way it played out. Three, it gave him time. On the sidelines he was able to develop his short-term alternatives to the system while he worked on his long-term transformat-ion of the system. Four, it gave him space. On the sidelines he was able to demonstrate the alternatives he developed in the eyes of everyone, so they could assess for themselves whether they wanted to adopt them – or not. Five, it gave him a position from which he could advocate change, without being in a position to impose the change he advocated on anyone. So people knew they were truly free to adopt the change – or not to – as they desired. And because that made the change process much less threatening to the people in the synagogue it gave Jesus greater freedom to experiment in his struggle for change.

For Jesus, the struggle for peace and justice involved five different tasks: confronting injustice in society; delivering the poor from exploitation by the rich; liberating the powerless from oppression by the powerful; freeing people from cycles of violence and counter violence which are a constant threat to vulnerable populations; and creating just communities which are intentionally committed to including outcasts. [2]

Many people say Jesus said a lot about love, but little about political, economic and social justice.  But Jesus constantly confronted the injustice in his society. Meyerson says disapprovingly that ‘In Matthew 4:24, we find Christ healing people for the first time, but asking no questions about why they should be sick while the rich have their health and demanding no aid to the ailing from an empire that takes no pity on the luckless and which callously allows ill-health to run rampant’. But in John 5:1-13 Christ goes out of his way to heal a man on the Sabbath – deliberately breaking the Sabbath law – in order confront a society with its obsession with the kind of piety ‘which callously allows ill-health to run rampant’ without lending a helping hand. In the synoptic Gospels – not counting the parallel passages – there is a clear and unmistakable record of Jesus specifically and repeatedly confronting both Roman and Jewish authorities with the injustices they perpetrated in Israel – 40 times!

Jesus followed on from John the Baptist in denouncing the exploitation of the poor by the rich. John told the armed forces: “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely – be content with your pay.” And he told the tax collectors: “Don’t collect any more than you are required to”. He said: “The man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.”  (Luke 3.11-14) Jesus confronted Zacchaeus. an infamous tax collector, personally about his extortion. As a result of this encounter, Zacchaeus promised Jesus to give “half of my possessions to the poor”, and “if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” (Luke 19.8)

Jesus not only consistently denounced the oppression of the powerless by the powerful, he also actively advocated liberation of disempowered groups of people through the empowerment of the Spirit. Jesus attacked the key religious leaders of the day, as “lovers of money”(Luke16.14-15),who would maintain a façade of sanctity, by saying long prayers in public, but would “devour widows’ houses”. When he saw a widow “put everything – all she had to live on” – into the collection box, Jesus condemned the temple for extorting the last coin from the kind of person it was set up to protect. (Mark.12.38-44) Jesus broke the monopoly on forgiveness that the temple had developed through the sacrificial system  it controlled, by baptizing people in the Spirit and giving them the authority to forgive sins. “Receive the Holy Spirit,” Jesus said; and “if you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven.” (John 20.22-23).

Jesus advocated communities with leadership that would serve the people rather than oppress them. He said to his disciples: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”(Matt.20.25-28)

Jesus demonstrated the practice of active, radical, sacrificial nonviolence, that would free people from the cycles of violence and counter violence which are a constant threat to vulnerable groups of people. He said, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd…and I lay down my life for the sheep.   All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers. I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and destroy;  I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.” (John 10.8-18) Jesus turned to his friends and said: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends”. (John 15.13)

Jesus created communities that were committed to doing justice to the marginalized and disadvantaged. The dominant value of Jewish society was “purity” – but the dominant value of Jesus was “inclusivity”. While the Jews despised Gentiles, Jesus declared “my house shall be called a house…for all nations.” (Mark 11.17) While the Pharisees ostracized “sinners”, Jesus invited “outcasts” to his parties. (Mark 2.16) Jesus said, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers, (sisters) or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed.” (Luke 14.12-14)

“Let your light so shine before men, that (Meyerson and friends) may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

Peter, and his wife Adrienne, wanted to go to work in Vietnam. But, as often happens, things didn’t work out the way they had hoped they would. So, instead of moving to Hanoi, this Kiwi couple decided that they would move to Sydney and work with the Vietnamese community in Cabramatta.

When they arrived in Cabramatta, Peter and Adrienne joined Urban Concern, a faith community that was supportive of Servants work – not just overseas, but  back home- encouraging people to practice the Be-Attitudes in our own backyard.

Through Urban Concern Peter and Adrienne were introduced to Cabramatta and soon got to know not only the Vietnamese but also the Cambodians – and refugees from Former Yugoslavia as well. The whole world was on their doorstep!

In late 1999 Peter and his friends began to discuss the idea of ‘doing some-thing together’ in the community. By January 2000 the idea of ‘doing some-thing together’ in the community had resolved itself into the idea of ‘a community garden’. In February 2000 the Hughes Street Playground had been identified as the preferred site. And in April 2000 a formal proposal was submitted to lease a portion of Hughes Street Playground as the site.

Now the Hughes Street Playground was a notorious place. It had been taken over by the ‘smack squad’ a long time ago. But Peter and his friend Jeremy thought it was the perfect place for local people to begin to take back some of their space and put it to good sustainable community use.

They not only got permission to use Hughes Street, but also a grant from the Fairfield City Council of $10,000 to fund the initial set-up of the garden. And they got together with a group of local representatives over a twelve-month period to work out the details as to how to proceed with the project.

The group came up the idea of having an ‘Open Day’, to share the dream of the garden with the community, and to invite people of various ethnic backgrounds – especially those people on the ‘margins’ – to join in and work on the project together. Invitations were given out in seven different languages through community radio and a letter-box drop, and about two hundred people turned up for the ‘Open Day’ in March 2001. Ninety filled in forms with their suggestions.

In June there was an excursion to other community gardens round town. In August there was a training day on ‘organic gardening’. And in October there was the first on-site work-day. So by December 2001 the first eight plots were planted – and by January 2002 the first crops were harvested. And by July 2002 all twenty-three plots had been completed and allocated.

The construction of the garden has been dependent on the people in the project who are prepared to work for benefit of the whole garden, not just their own patch. And a committee of three people has been elected from each of the three language groups represented to manage the project.

The garden has been a great success on a number of significant levels. It has restored the park. The play area that had fallen into disuse is now being used again by families. The plots are fully subscribed and well maintained and people can gather fresh herbs and vegetables on a daily basis. Moreover, the garden provides a productive therapeutic occupation for a group of retired, unemployed or underemployed Cabramatta migrants and refugees. And it also provides a safe place for people to forge reciprocal  relationships of acceptance and respect across the cross-cultural divide – a symbol of what many of us believe is the ‘community of heaven on earth’.

Peter and Adrienne show us that we don’t need to be stars in order to be light, all we need to do is to reflect the light of God’s love in our lives. We need to simply think of the ‘good things’ we can do that can bring some ‘light into the darkness’, and keep on doing them come what may. It doesn’t matter whether the ‘good things’ we do are big or small, what matters is they embody the Be-Attitudes.

As they say – lighting a candle is a much better option than cursing the dark!

Dave Andrews

From Hey, Be And See (Authentic)

Let me tell you a couple of stories that show us how to shine a little light in our dark times. The first story is of ‘Mike and Karen and the Kahawaha Slum’.[1]

A few years ago Mike and Karen are an Aussie couple who decided it was time for them to take the Be-Attitudes more seriously and respond to the needs of the world’s poor more personally, more practically. So they decided to go with Servants to India. Upon their arrival in New Delhi they began to look around town for a slum to live in.

In 1999 Mike and Karen and their young son moved into the Kahawaha slum, built on government land along the bank of a drainage canal. They found a little hut and settled in alongside 900 hundred other families. Over the next couple of years Mike and Karen immersed themselves in the life of the slum, living alongside the slum-dwellers, learning their language and culture, and developing heaps of reciprocal trey relationships with people in the slums.

During this time they got to know Amir and Shruti. Amir was born and raised as a Muslim. He became a follower of Jesusas a result of reading Christian literature he confiscated at a check point when the O.M. driver refused to pay a bribe. Amir’s wife, Shruti was born and raised as a Hindu. After becoming a follower of Jesus, she met and married Amir and they went together to study at the Bible College.

When Amir and Shruti returned home, they met with angry reactions, particularly from the local Muslim community of which Amir used to be a part. A fatwah or order to kill was issued against Amir as an infidel. Amir and Shruti had to flee.

So they made their way to New Delhi. They arrived with nothing, and spent the first month living on the platform of the New Delhi Railway Station.

After that Amir and Shruti moved into a basti in a nearby slum. In the slum they found many other Urdu speaking migrants and refugees. And they felt a call to work in slums where there was a significant number of ‘their people’.

So Amir and Shruti began working in one of the largest slum colonies in Delhi.

Mike and Karen offered to help Amir and Shruti develop their work. And they were given the task of documenting the basic needs of the people in the slum.

In the slum there was a total population of 135,000 destitute people in 13,200 basti shacks. There was no government water supply to the area, so all the water for the slum comes from hand pumps. Diarrhoea and dysentery were common. Residents also regularly suffered from malaria as they lived so close to the river. A government survey in 1997 suggested that the male literacy rate in the area was five per cent and the female literacy area was two per cent

Amir and Shruti then asked Mike and Karen to help them develop a project proposal which Himmat - their emerging local community organisation – could submit to for funding. The proposal was approved, and the project began.

Over time Himmat has helped the people in the colony rebuild their houses after fires, then floods, then fires again, swept through the slums. They have trained 12 community health workers; started 16 kids classes; 32 adult classes; organized 80 micro-finance co-ops; and commenced 16 house churches.

On October 19^th 2001, someone pointed out to Mike a notice that had been pasted onto the communal toilet block. It said that the council was going to clear the slum and relocate the people 25 kilometres away in 6 days time!

Understandably, the people were in an distraught! Mike called several community meetings to discuss the eviction. After hearing anyone who wanted to contribute, the people decided they needed to get 1) a stay order until winter was over, which would give them time to raise the deposit to buy new land in the relocation area; 2) legal title to the new land before the relocation took place, and 3) legal entitlement to new land for all people in the slum who owned huts.

Mike, who is a lawyer by training, had identified a group of local lawyers who could take the case to the Delhi High Court. He liaised between the representatives of the slum and the lawyers and, eventually, together they got the backing of the court for the slum-dwellers basic demands.

During the hearings, a judge asked for a list of the families in the slum, and the council refused to make their list available. So Mike and his friends in the slum had to embark on the huge logistical task of making another list of all the families in the slum.

Chotu was one of Mike’s friends in the slum who’d offered to help. And the two of them, with the help of their friends, set about the task of collecting all the information. Chotu’s hut became the centre of operations, documenting every-one’s name, ration card, hut number, and entitlement .

After weeks of hard work, Chotu and Mike eventually got an up-to-date list together that helped ensure the entitlement of a dozen or more families who were eligible but would have otherwise missed out in the allotment.

One day Mike was dropping his son off at school, when he saw literally hundreds of armed police in riot gear getting ready to forcefully clear the slum. Mike borrowed a friend’s mobile phone and contacted everyone he knew in order to stop the provocation, and the inevitable violence that would result from the fighting that would follow the police action.

Fortunately, at the last minute, the police force was recalled to barracks and the relocation was deferred. Subsequently Mike and his friends were able to negotiate the peaceful relocation of the people, in the end getting land entitlements for more than eighty per cent of the slum-dwellers – some seven hundred and fifty families.

However, the people discovered there was no water, no electricity, next-to-no transport, and their new land was three to five feet lower than the road, so when it rained, it flooded, and became a dirty great big swamp! Mike and his friends had to go back to court with the lawyers again and again to make sure that the level of the land was built up, drinking water was provided, and electricity was put on. There are still not enough buses. The struggle of the Be-Attitudes goes on.

In the meantime, Mike and Karen and Chotu are working together with Amir and Shruti and Himmat and a range of other local agencies to provide small loans to help the people start some small businesses. Mike is also writing a pamphlet in Urdu on a protocol for relocating slum-dwellers, in the hope of it being used to inform people of their rights in future forced relocations in the city.

Dave Andrews

From Hey, Be And See (Authentic)

The first step we all need to take is a step of integrity. This is a personal step. When we decide that we can live ‘divided no more’ but want to live by what we believe and practice the Be-Attitudes . [i]

The second step we all need to take is a step of unity. This is a relational step. When we decide we need to ’unite with others’ and work out a way forward to practice the Be-Attitudes together.[ii]

The third step we all need to take is a step of solidarity. This is a political step. When we decide we need to make our private allegiances and private alliances we have developed to help us practice the Be-Attitudes public. [iii]

The fourth step we all need to take is a step of policy. This is a structural step. When we decide we need to develop alternative groups and organizations in our communities based on the Be-Attitudes. [iv]

However, nearly every time I talk with people about developing alternative groups and organisations, the conversation quickly turns from talk about internal sources we can access through the spirit to external sources like ‘funds’ and ‘numbers’.

If people want to organise a welfare programme, they want to talk about ‘funds’. ‘Where can we get the funds we need to run the programme?’ they inquire. If people want to organise a protest movement, they want to talk ‘numbers’. ‘How can we get the numbers we need to get a major social movement on a roll?’ they ask. These reactions reveal that people, both on the right and on the left of the political spectrum, believe that external resources matter more than internal sources of power. They believe that we can only do significant work in our community if we have access to either lots of cash, or large crowds, or both. It’s all about ‘fund raising’ and ‘number crunching’.

Because so many people frame their problems, and the solutions to their problems, in terms of access to resources, which, by definition, are beyond their control, they disempower themselves. If they can’t get access to the resources they require in order to act, they simply do not act. If they do get the resources they require, they may act, but they only act according to the terms, and conditions, that have been set for the support they receive. Either way, they abrogate their power to solve their own problems; they project the power to solve their problems onto others; and, in so doing, they render themselves powerless.

Jesus challenged people’s dependence on external resources. On two occasions he sent his disciples out into various villages to do some work for his Be-Attitude Revolution.

On the first occasion Jesus sent his disciples out into the world, he forbade them to take any money at all. According to Jesus money was not essential. Money was a merely a note promising to share a certain amount of commodities or services. What mattered to Jesus was, not that his disciples carried a note that held the promise of help, but that his disciples actually practised the Be-Attitudes and helped the people they met out of their own internal resources.

On the second occasion Jesus sent his disciples out, he allowed them to take a little money – but not much. According to Jesus money was never a primary source, only a secondary resource. External resources like money could be helpful as a secondary resource for community work. But, if external resources ever became a substitute for internal resources, and money became a primary, rather than secondary, consideration, then Jesus warned us, that money would destroy his Be-Attitude Revolution. After all, he said, ‘the love of money is the source of evil.’ (1 Timothy 6:10)

On both the occasions Jesus sent his disciples out to do work for his Be-Attitude Revolution, he didn’t send them out in big numbers, and he didn’t expect them to get big numbers involved. It was less a mass movement – more a micro movement. He didn’t send his disciples out in their hundreds, or thousands. But in twos. And he didn’t expect them get hundreds, or thousands involved. But one here, and one there. As far as Jesus was concerned, two meeting one, and forming a group of three, was a big enough crowd for us to begin our Be-Attitude Revolution.

For Jesus a ‘trinity’ was not so much a theological abstraction as it was a theological strategy for incarnating the kingdom of heaven on earth.  A group of three could create within themselves the stability and security necessary for incarnating a kingdom.(‘A cord of three strands is not easily broken’. Ecclesiastes 4:12) A group of three could create within themselves the subjectivity and the objectivity necessary for incarnating a kingdom on earth. (‘Let every matter be decided on the basis of two or three witnesses’. Matthew 18:16) And a group of three could create within themselves the space necessary for incarnating Christ’s kingdom of heaven on earth here and now. (‘Wherever two or three of you gather in my name’, Jesus said, ‘there am I in the midst of you’. Matthew 18:20)

Dave Andrews

From Hey, Be And See (Authentic)

When Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to incarnate the kingdom of heaven on earth, he imparted to them, what he called, ‘the power of the Spirit’. (John 20:21–22) This Spirit was ‘not a spirit of timidity, but of power, character-ised by discipline of self, and compassion for others’. (2 Timothy 1:7) So, as they opened themselves to this Spirit, it produced in them the strong but gentle power to control themselves, and to love others as they loved themselves.

Now most people who have been involved in trying to bring about change in the world would find it easy to accept Jesus’ idea – that power was the most important single issue in the process. But many would find it more difficult to accept the kind of power – ‘the power of the Spirit’ – that Jesus advocated. Not merely because of the spiritual language Christ used to describe the power he advocated, but because of the substantial difference between the dominant notion of power, to which many of us subscribe, and the alternative notion of power which he advocated.

There are two ways of understanding power.

Traditionally our dominant notion of power has been defined as the ability to control other people. The dominant notion of power emphasises the possibility of bringing about change through coercion – an approach that tries to make others change according to our agendas.

While the traditional dominant notion of power means taking control of our lives by taking control of others, Jesus advocated a radical alternative to the dominant notion of power – taking control of our lives, not by taking control of others, but by taking control of ourselves. This alternative emphasises bringing change by conversion – an approach that does not try to make others change, but tries to change ourselves, individually and collectively, in the light of a glorious agenda for justice. It breaks the control that others have over us and liberates us from our desire to control others.

The dominant notion of power is popular because it often brings quick, dramatic results. But the dominant approach to power is characterised by short-term gains for some, and long-term losses for everyone else. Every violent revolution there has ever been, has sooner or later – betrayed the people in whose name it fought its bloody war of liberation.

The alternative notion of power is unpopular because it is usually a slow, unspectacular process. But the alternative approach to power is the only way for groups to transcend their selfishness, resolve their conflicts, and manage their affairs in a way that does justice to everyone.

The essential problem in any situation of injustice is – that one human being is exercising control over another and exploiting the relationship of dominance. The solution to the problem is not simply to reverse roles, in the hope that once the roles have been reversed, the manipulation will discontinue. The solution is for people to stop trying to control each other.

All of us, to one degree or another, exploit the opportunity if we have control over another person’s life. Common sense therefore dictates that the solution to the problem of exploitation cannot be through the dominant approach to power – with its emphasis on controlling others.

The solution is in the alternative – the strong but gentle approach – with a set of attitudes, like the Be-Attitudes – which emphasise controlling ourselves, individually and collectively, through self managed processes and structures.

Some of us sincerely believe that if we are to help people, particularly the oppressed, we need to manage their affairs for them. But it doesn’t matter how we try to rationalise it, controlling others always empowers us and disempowers those we seek to help

The only way people can be helped, particularly the oppressed, is for them to be empowered to take control over their own lives. This is why Christ explicitly forbade his followers taking control over others, no matter how dire the circumstances. Their job was not to seek control over others, but to enable others to take control over their own lives. (Matthew 20:25–28)

It is a great irony to me that the greatest example we have in modern times of someone who did act on Christ’s advice, and practiced the Be-Attitudes like few Christians have ever done, did not claim to be a Christian. We need a lot more people who will experiment with the nonviolent revolution of ‘swaraj’ like Gandhi.

It is a pity that many of us who claim to follow Christ have not followed his advice. We could have been saved the crusades, the inquisitions and colonial religion.

It’s interesting to note that Christ and his disciples used organic images to describe how the ‘power of the Spirit’ – actually produce ‘swaraj’ or self control.

Self-management is de­scribed as the ‘fruit of the Spirit’. (Galatians 5:22) The capacity to manage ourselves develops quite unobtrusively – indeed, as quietly as fruit growing on a tree. The capacity to manage ourselves may develop unobtrusively, but is far more significant than we might ordinarily imagine.

Like a tiny seed, so small we can scarcely see it, that seems like it could never amount to anything great, the ‘power of the Spirit’ seems embarrassingly insignificant to begin with, yet grows into a capacity that is of tremendous significance in the end. (Matthew 13:31–32)

The capacity to control our own lives does not develop without opposition, but like a plant growing in the midst of weeds, ‘the power of the Spirit’ grows strong in an environment that could easily destroy it. (Matthew 13:24–30)

How the seeds of transformation, that bear the ‘fruit of the Spirit’, grow always was, and always will be, a mystery. (Mark 4:26–29) However, it is no secret that the seeds of transformation that bear the ‘fruit of the Spirit’ will not grow in our community if those of us, whose lives constitute those seeds, do not bury ourselves in the life of our community. ‘Unless a seed falls into the ground and dies it produces nothing, but if it dies it will produce much fruit, that brings much life to others.’ (John 12:24)

Dave Andrews

From Hey, Be And See (Authentic)

Edmund Burke once said ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men (and women) to do nothing’. And that is the temptation we all face; the temptation to do nothing;  the temptation of withdrawing, taking it easy, turning on the tv, making cynical comments about the state of the world and doing nothing.

Jesus knew from hard personal experience how easy it is to succumb to the temptation to give up doing good, and to decide to go along with evil just to get along. Jesus’ challenge is: ‘not to be overcome with evil but to overcome evil with good’ (Romans 12.21) – ‘on earth as it is in heaven’ (Matthew 6.10).

There are four perspectives that explain the relationship between ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ and explore the possibility of doing God’s will ‘on earth as it is in heaven’.

The first perspective is the ‘traditional perspective.’ [i] This perspective sees reality in terms of two parallel dimensions – a ‘heavenly’ one and an ‘earthly’ one – which intersect and interact, and simultaneously reflect and reinforce the actions of one in the other.

From a ‘traditional perspective’, the New Dark Age could be seen, as it is by Frank Peretti, in his best selling contemporary novels, This Present Darkness and Piercing The Darkness, as ‘earthly skirmishes’ in a ‘heavenly war’ between ‘God and the Devil’.[ii]

Certainly people like Martin Luther and John Calvin saw their battles precisely in these terms. Martin Luther said that ‘we are all subject to the Devil.’[iii] And John Calvin said that the task of every saint is to engage in ‘unceasing struggle against the Devil.’ [iv]

The second perspective is the ‘spiritualistic perspective.’[v] This perspective sees reality in terms of two parallel dimensions – a ‘heavenly’ one that is manifest in the ‘soul’ – and an ‘earthly’ one that is manifest in the ‘body’. From this point of view the heavenly dimension is ‘real’ and ‘right’; while the earthly dimension is either ‘unreal’ and/or ‘wrong’.

From a ‘spiritualistic perspective’, the New Dark Age could be seen as it is by Baba Ram Das, in his cult classic, Be Here Now, as nothing but a ‘bad dream’, from which we will eventually ‘awake’ to the realisation that ‘pleasure and pain, loss and gain, fame and shame, are all the same -they’re just happening.’ [vi]

Certainly people like the Gnostic Monoimus and Meister Eckhart saw matters precisely in these terms. They believed that ‘enlightenment’ would dispel the ‘ignorance’ that produces a ‘nightmarish existence’ and ‘experiences of terror’. [vii]

The third perspective, the ‘materialistic perspective’, is the exact opposite of  the ‘spiritualistic perspective’ [viii] This perspective sees reality in terms of two parallel dimensions – an ‘earthly’ one that is manifest in the ‘body’ – and a ‘heavenly’ one that is manifest in the ‘soul’. From this point of view the earthly dimension is ‘real’ and ‘right’, while the heavenly dimension is either ‘unreal’ and/or ‘wrong’.

From a ‘materialistic perspective’, the New Dark Age could be seen, as it is by Sigmund Freud in his famous text on The Future Of Illusion, as nothing but ‘fulfilments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind.’[ix]

Certainly people like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels saw issues precisely in these terms. They said that the so-called ‘religious’ character of much of the violence in the world was ‘simply a sacred cloak to hide desires that are very secular.’[x]

The fourth perspective is the ‘integral perspective.’ [xi] This perspective sees reality in terms of two co-terminous aspects of the universe – an ‘outer’ or ‘earthly’ one – and an ‘inner’ or ‘heavenly’ one – so that every event has both an ‘outer’ visible ‘material’ aspect and an ‘inner’ invisible ‘spiritual’ aspect.

From the ‘integral perspective’, the New Dark Age could be seen, as it is by Morton Kelsey, in his beautiful book, The Other Side Of Silence, as destructive ‘material’ expressions of demonic ‘spiritual’ realities, ‘that are actually parts of a single realm, (though) at present, they may appear to separate’.[xii]

Certainly people like Walter Wink and Charles Elliott see the current events precisely in these terms. Walter Wink says, ‘institutions have an actual spiritual ethos and we neglect this aspect of institutional life to our peril’.[xiii] Charles Elliott says, ‘we have to return to the basic position that demonic powers control structures’, religious and secular alike, ‘and it is those powers that have to be confronted if the structures are to be set free’ from their destructive proclivities. [xiv]

There is probably some truth in all these views. If the traditional view is true, we need to recognise there is more going in the world on than meets the eye. If the spiritualistic perspective is true, we need to seek spiritual enlightenment. If the materialistic perspective is true, we need to critique illusion in the name of the spiritual enlightenment that we seek. But, if the ‘integral perspective’ is true, the only way we can guarantee God’s will is ‘done on earth as it in heaven’ is if we exorcise our demonic propensities, embrace our divine potential,  and seek to do God’s will ‘on earth as it in heaven’ in the ‘power of the Spirit’ just like Jesus did.

A classic example of the impact of the transformative movement Francis and Clare started (see previous post), is the life of Elisabeth von Thuringia, known as the ‘Elisabeth of Many Castles’.

Elisabeth was born in 1207, probably at Pressburg, in Thuringia. She was the daughter of King Andrew II and Queen Gertrude of Hungary. King Andrew II – by all reports – was a bad king, whose misrule led his nobles to a revolt against him. They eventually managed to get the King to sign an edict called the Golden Bull – that was Hungary ‘s Magna Carta – a charter of rights and responsibilities. Queen Gertrude was apparently a good woman who, unfortunately, got implicated in the politics of the day, and was assassinated by the nobles in 1213. Elisabeth was just seven years old when her mother was murdered.

But before she died, Gertrude managed to do two things that were to shape the rest of her daughter’s life. The first thing was to share her faith with her daughter. Gertrude was a very devout Christian, and she encouraged Elisabeth to pray regularly from a very young age. The second thing was to arrange her daughter’s marriage. By the age of two, according to the custom of the time, Elisabeth was betrothed to the eldest son of a local Landgrave.  When the eldest son – Hermann – died, she was betrothed to the second eldest – Ludwig.

Ludwig married Elisabeth in 1221. When he was twenty-one and she was fourteen. Ludwig proposed that they take ‘Piety, Chastity, and Justice’ as their family motto.  They committed themselves as a couple to pray regularly, practice hospitality, and rule justly. In the same year Ludwig and Elisabeth were married, the Franciscans set up their first base in Germany. And Brother Rodeger, one of the first Germans to become a Franciscan, became Elisabeth’s spiritual mentor. He encouraged her to practice the Be-Attitudes as much as she could.

Elisabeth was very rich, and had brought great wealth a dowry to her marri-age with Ludwig. In the early days she had so many castles she was called ‘Elisabeth of Many Castles’. But as time went by this very wealthy woman became increasingly concerned for the poor. And she began to ride around the countryside, assessing the plight of the impoverished among her people.

Elisabeth couldn’t see the need and not respond to it.

Elisabeth began distributing alms all over kingdom. Even giving away the robes of state and the ornaments of office. Once she started giving, Elisabeth couldn’t stop at charity. And she looked for ways to give herself. She built a twenty-eight-bed hospital for the poor in Wartburg, and visited the patients daily herself. And she helped feed nine hundred hungry people daily herself. Ludwig and Elisabeth lived such exemplary lives that people started to refer to them as ‘St Ludwig’ and ‘St Elisabeth’.

In 1227 Elisabeth’s beloved husband, Ludwig IV, died. And the twenty-year-old Elisabeth was inconsolable. ‘The world and all its joys is now dead to me,’ she cried. The next year Elisabeth sent her children to stay with her aunt, formally ‘renounced the world’, gave away her inheritance, and joined the Franciscans, as the first tertiary in Hungary. The queen now dedicated herself to serving beggars. She provided them with clothes and shoes – and agricultural tools. She opened the first orphanage in eastern Europe for destitute children. And, at the hospice she established in Marburg, she tended to the needs of dying lepers with her own hands – washing the sick and burying the dead.

On November 17^th 1231, Elisabeth died. Worn out as much by the lack of support that she got from her spiritual director, as from her implacable service to the poor. But, at the age of twenty-four, Elisabeth died one of the most influential activists in thirteenth century Europe.

The political philosopher, John Ralston Saul, says of Elisabeth, ‘She and Francis of Assisi were the most famous activists (of their day). To a great extent they laid out the modern democratic model of inclusion – an important step towards egalitarianism. Elisabeth used her position, as a member of the ruling class, to put the ideas into action.’

Saul says that because of her commitment to the Be-Attitudes ‘like many others, Elisabeth created a hospice. But unlike others, she went beyond pity and charity. She washed the sick and buried the dead. It is hard to imagine now the public impact of a royal figure washing the bodies of the homeless dead. Imagine the (President, Prime Minister) not visiting or holding hands with street people, but (actually) washing their bodies for burial’.

Elisabeth’ Saul says ‘took the elements of personal responsibility, set out tantalisingly in the New Testament, and imagined a social model which would change our societies.’ [i]

In my view the only hope for a world entering A New Dark Age is the emergence of new movements of Brother Suns and Sister Moons. The story of ‘Brother Sun and Sister Moon’, began originally in the twelfth century Dark Age in Italy.

Francis was born to a French mother and Italian father in 1182, and his father called him Francesco – or Francis – after a trip to France. The ‘little Frenchman’ was brought up on romantic French ballads sung by travelling troubadours. The son of a wealthy merchant, Francis led a cavalier life in his youth, and was considered ‘the life of the party’ by his contemporaries.

Francis grew up with the dream that one day he would become a knight. So, in his early twenties, Francis took to the opportunity to fight for Assisi against a neighbouring town. However, his haughty military career came to an abrupt halt, when the young Francis was captured and incarcerated.

This time was to prove a turning point for Francis. For, during the year in prison and the year in convalescence following his release, Francis thought long and hard about his life. His dream of becoming a knight seemed ridiculous in the light of the harsh reality of war that had confronted him.

One day, when Francis was riding along a road, he simply stopped dead in his tracks. It was as if he could not carry on any more as he was. He dismounted, undressed, then – bit by bit – took all his knightly regalia – including his horse, and his sword and his armour – and gave it all away.

His father became exasperated with Francis, over his prodigality with the family’s property, and organised a meeting with the local bishop to pull him into line. But it backfired big time. Francis responded to his father’s complaints by renouncing his family, and his family’s property, altogether. Right there and then he gave back everything his family had given him. Including the clothes that he was wearing at the time. So that Francis stood there naked as the day that he was born. Then he turned to his father and said: ‘Until now I have called you father, but from now on I can say without reserve, “Our Father who is in Heaven” – He is all my wealth -  I place my confidence in Him.’

In order to consider his future, Francis decided to spend some time living as a hermit beside an old church in San Damiano. While there Francis heard a voice calling him, saying, ‘Rebuild my church.’ Francis responded to the call by repairing the ruins of the church in San Damiano, then set about the task of reforming the life of the church throughout Italy.

Francis approached the task of renewal – not as a legislator – but as a juggler! He had been brought up with troubadours coming to his house, singing romantic ballads that stirred the heart; and he aspired to be like one of the jugglers who accompanied the troubadours, drawing the crowds for the musicians, so they could listen to the music of the heart that they played. As Le Jongleur de Dieu, a ‘Juggler for God’, Francis wanted to travel from town to town, like an entertainer, without a penny   to his name, introducing people to joie de vivre, the ‘true joy of living’.

Considering his views, it is quite remarkable that Francis did not rage against the pompous opulence of medieval society. Instead, ever the romantic, Francis tried to woo the people away from their preoccupation with the trappings of power, and get them to fall in love with the lovely ‘Lady Poverty’. Poverty was not an end in itself. But, as far as Francis was concerned, people needed to be willing to be able to joyfully embrace poverty in order to practice the Be-Attitudes and joyfully embrace the poor.

In 1210 Francis obtained approval for a simple rule dedicated to ‘apostolic poverty’. He called the order the ‘Friars Minor’. And this band of ‘Little Brothers’ followed the example of their founder in caring for the poor. Then in 1212 Clare – a wealthy friend from Assisi; who, like Francis, had been con-verted, and had given all her wealth to the poor – started a sister order to the brothers, that was to become known as ‘the Poor Clares’.

Francis and Clare set about their task with such enthusiasm that people all over the place wanted to join them. And, as hundreds and thousands of people joined in from all over Europe, the humble movement of  ‘Brother Sun and Sister Moon’ began to gradually engage – and eventually change – the Dark Age in which they lived – in the light of the gospel.

Pope Urban II had called for a ‘Crusade’, or ‘Holy War’, to be led by ‘Christian Knights’, who would take up arms and sally forth to fight against the ‘enemies of Christ’.‘Cursed be the man who holds back his sword from shedding blood!’ was the blood-curdling cry of Pope Gregory VII ringing in the ears of the ‘Soldier of Christ’. And so, away they went.

Over the course of the next two centuries, Christians threw themselves,  into the task of killing thousands, if not mill-ions, of  ‘heretics’ and ‘heathens’. The People’s Crusade sacked Belgrade, which next to Constantinople, was the greatest nonCatholic Orthodox City in the world. In 1204, the Crusaders attacked Constantinople – raping, pillaging and plundering this great Christian City, without mercy, in the name of Christ.

In the meantime, the Crusaders also managed to assault the Holy City of Jerusalem, and slaughter it’s Jewish and Muslim inhabitants. Raymond of Aguilers enthusiastically eulogised the massacre as ‘a just and marvellous judgement of God’: ‘Numbers of Saracens were beheaded. Others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from towers; others were tortured for several days, they burned with flames. In the streets were seen piles of heads and hands and feet. One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses. The horses waded in blood up to their knees, nay, up to their bridle. It was a just and marvellous judgement of God, that this place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers!’

Francis refused point blank to take up arms himself. And he managed to per-suade his followers not to carry weapons under any circumstances – even for the purpose of self-defense. Then he made his way to Egypt, where the Crusaders were fighting, and went about the camps begging them to remember the words of Christ – ‘that those who live by the sword will die by the sword’ – and beseeching them all to lay down their arms. When they refused to listen to him, Francis crossed the lines at Damietta and went to talk with the ‘enemy’ sultan, Mele-el-Khamil, to tell him about his beloved ‘Prince of Peace’, and try to broker a peace deal ‘in His name’.

Many historians consider the rule of life that Francis and Clare advocated for lay people as one of the major factors in the demise of the feudalism that defined the Dark Age of their day. Francis and Clare undermined the very sophisticated and very effective system of control, (upon which our post-modern system of oppression and exploitation may well be based) built as it was on the foundation of a network of castles, guarded by towering walls, and protected by heavily-armed patrols of free-lance mercenaries, simply by encouraging their brothers and sisters to practice the Be-Attitudes, lay aside their weapons, unlock the gates of the castles, welcome outsiders in, and gladly share their wealth with the poor.

Dave Andrews

From Hey, Be And See (Authentic)

Jesus doesn’t teach his disciples to pray: ‘give me this day my daily bread.’ Jesus teaches his disciples to pray: ‘give us this day our daily bread.’ Through his prayer, Jesus invites his disciples to make his passion – for every man, woman and child in the world to have their basic needs met – their own.

John says ‘This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If any of us has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in us? Dear children, let us not love with words or in speech, but with deeds and in truth.’ (1 John 3:16-17)

Jesus teaches his disciples to pray ‘forgive us our debts as we have forgiven our debtors.’ Note that the word Jesus uses here is not ‘sin’, but literally ‘debt’.

What Jesus says is so important about forgiveness is not that we preach it, but that we practice it. There is no liberation from the cycles of poverty in our lives without forgiveness. And we have no right to expect forgiveness, if we do not extend forgiveness. We need to develop a global culture of forgiveness.

Jesus says ‘For if you forgive people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive people their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins’. (Matthew 6:14-15). Note that that word Jesus uses here is not ‘debt’, but ‘sin’. He seems to be saying that in order to show God’s love in the world, we should start with forgiving cash ‘debts’, and move on to forgiving all kinds of ‘debts’ – ’sins’ if you like. So we can not only be liberated from our cycles of poverty, but also from our cycles of violence!

Jesus says ‘You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect!’ (Matthew 5:43-48)

He says to us, ‘Let your light shine before people’ in this ‘New Dark Age’, ‘that they may see your good deeds’ – not your good ideas, or your good intentions, but your good deeds – and so ‘have a reason to praise your Father who is in heaven’ – because at long last, they can glimpse something of the goodness of God at work in their world in the way that you live your life. (Matthew 5:16)

The truth is that God has a bad reputation because bad things are going down in God’s world. I’m not alone in thinking we are moving into a ‘New Dark Age.’

Jacques Attali, who was a professor of economics at the Polytechnique in Paris, and who was appointed as the president of the European Bank for Re-construction and Development based in London, says:

‘By 2050, 8 billion people will populate the earth. More than two-thirds will live in the poorest countries. Seeking to escape their desperate fate, millions will attempt to leave behind their misery to seek a decent life elsewhere. But neither the Pacific nor the European spheres will accept the majority of poor nomads.  They will close their borders to immigrants. Quotas will be erected and re-strictions imposed. (Renewed) social norms will ostracize foreigners. Like the fortified cities of the Middle Ages, the centres of privilege will construct barriers of all kinds, trying to protect their wealth.’[i]

As I look around, I can see signs the ‘New Dark Age’ has begun. Some of the features of emerging neo-feudalism that I observe include:

1. The emergence of powerful, unelected and/or unaccountable leaders.

2. These ‘lords’ offer protection in return for subservience and services.

3. People are given a choice – they are either ‘for’ or ‘against’ these ‘lords’.

4. Those people who are ‘for’ these ‘lords’ live their lives as their ‘vassals’.

5. ‘Vassals’ wait on the ‘lords’, live off the crumbs that fall from their lords’

‘tables’, and find refuge – in times of danger – inside their lords’ ‘castles’.

6. Those people who are ‘against’ these ‘lords’ are branded as ‘infidels’.

7. The ‘lords’ wipe out ‘infidels’ either by leaving them to starve ‘outside

their gates’-  in times of hunger – or by slaughtering them in ‘crusades’.

8. There are no universal basic human rights. The only ‘right’ is ‘might.

9. ‘Civilisation’ is the private preserve of these ‘lords’ and their ‘vassals’.

10. And they justify this iniquitous ‘civilisation’ in the name of religion!

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as the National Security Advisor in the Carter administration, supervised the beginning of the Afghan war and credits himself for having bought down the Soviet system, in the true spirit of the son of a Polish aristocrat that he is, says: ‘The three imperatives of geopolitical strategy are to maintain security dependence among the vassals, keep tributaries pliant, and keep the barbarians from coming together.’ [ii]

Australian sociologist, Ghassan Hage, says ‘not so long ago the state was co-mmitted to the welfare of everyone within its borders.’ We even called it ‘the welfare state’. ‘That is no longer so.’ [iii] ‘We seem to be reverting to neo-feudal times, when the boundaries of civilisation no longer coincide with the boundaries of the nation, but the boundaries of upper class society’ [iv] Hage says ‘there are no universal rights – only the privilege of the elite.’ [v] He says ‘we are increasing-ly witnessing the rise of a culture that combines a siege (castle) and warring (crusade) mentality; by necessity it emphasizes the exclusion (and/or) erad-ication of the potentially threatening other.’[vi] He says that ‘in each country now – there are first world elites and third-world threats to the elites. In this neo-feudal age the challenge is not how to integrate the marginalised but how to rid ourselves of these third-world (threats – not just the terrorists, but the refugees and refugee claimants we have on our doorstep.)’  [vii]

We are beginning to build more and more of what we euphemistically call ‘gated communities’. Citadels guarded by walls, infra-red cameras, heat-sensitive alarms and private security companies. Purpose-built – as the developer of Sanctuary Cove – put it: ‘to keep the (human) cockroaches out!’ And there is some evidence to indicate that the previous government tried to turn the whole of the continent in Australia into a ‘gated community’ like Sanctuary Cove. Millions of dollars of government funds – dedicated to foreign aid – have been spent on what the previous government called its ‘Pacific Solution’ – a flotilla of heavily-armed patrols dedicated to preventing asylum seekers from ever setting foot upon our shore. It is a policy that is neither ‘pacific’, nor a ‘solution’. It was simply meant ‘to keep the “illegal” “queue-jumping” cockroaches out!’

Inside the walls of our well-protected pleasure dome we enjoy a life of un-paralleled luxury. As part of the top twenty per cent of the world’s population, we have more than eighty per cent of the world’s total income. In the last decade of the last century more of us became millionaires than during any decade in history. And when it comes to our comparative level of income, we are so well off by world standards – even those on the bottom of our society, living on social security – are in the top twenty per cent of the global population- with incomparable access to world-class social, educational, and medical services.

Outside the ramparts of these fortresses of safety and security, others are condemned en masse to an existence characterised by cycles of increasing degrees of deprivation and violence. The bottom twenty per cent of the world’s population try to survive on less than one and a half per cent of the world’s in-come. So more than twenty-five thousand people die every day of every week of every year – simply because they cannot access their fair share of the world’s income! In desperation, many sell their labour for a pittance. More than two hundred and fifty million children work for as little as twenty-five cents a day. As  a last resort, many even have to sell their bodies. More than a million children are forced into prostitution every year. Millions of kids, under the age of fifteen, are developing HIV and dying of AIDS. Life is literally ‘hell on earth’.

More than one hundred and twenty million people were killed in wars during the twentieth century. Currently more than twenty million people are fleeing from carnage and ruin. Some beg for entry to our country – but in Australia we take less than five thousand a year! Some beg for charity – but apart from giving generously for aid in the occasional spectacular disaster on our doorstep – like the recent tsunami appeal – Aussies give on average less than five dollar a year!

And where is God in all this? Well, if you believe the two most famous ‘God-fearing leaders’ of our times, God is only making things go from bad to worse.

On 9-11-2001, Osama Bin Laden ordered an attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Center at the heart of the American Empire. As the world looked on in astonishment  Bin Laden cried ‘Here is America struck by God Almighty in one of its vital organs, so that its greatest buildings are destroyed.’ [viii] In retaliation George W. Bush ordered an attack on Osama Bin Laden in Afghan-istan – and also an attack on Saddam Hussein in Iraq (who did not have any weapons of mass destruction, or anything to do with the 9-11attack, but had tried to kill Bush senior.) Bush claimed ‘God told me to strike al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike art Saddam, which I did.’[ix] Gods got a bad reputation because God gets blamed for the violence on both sides.

In spite of what Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush have said, Jesus’ prayer protests loudly that God’s will is not being done on earth as it is in heaven!

In fact Jesus’ prayer insists that God’s damaged reputation will only ever be able to be truly restored when God’s will is really ‘done on earth – as it is in heaven!’

‘Our Father in heaven,

hallowed be your name,

your kingdom come,

your will be done

on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us today our daily bread.

Forgive us our debts,

as we also have forgiven our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

but deliver us from evil.’

Matthew 6:9-13

Jesus does not talk to God as ‘Yahweh’ or ‘Adonai’ – but as ‘Abba’ – or ‘Papa’. Some of us may have been badly abused by an earthly ‘Papa’ and may find it  easier to relate to God as our heavenly ‘Mama’ rather than our heavenly ‘Papa’. Whatever our term of endearment might be, Jesus invites us to relate to God as a committed, caring, kindly, protective, nurturing, loving parent.

As we have seen, Judeo-Christian faith involves ‘deep trust in the watchful love of God for all God’s children. According to the prophet Isaiah, even in the midst of the most terrible circumstances, those whose hearts are centred in God’s faithful care “shall renew their strength, they shall mount up on wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint”.’ [i]

David Benner reminds us that ‘while human love can never bear the weight of our need for divine love, it can teach us about divine love. Human love can communicate divine love. Experiences of human love make the idea of God’s love believable. The relative constancy of the love of family and friends makes the absolute faithfulness of divine love at least conceivable.’ However, Benner  repeats, again and again, there is ‘no substitute for learning what love really is by coming back to the source. God’s love is the original that shows up the limitations of all copies. Only God’s love is capable of making us into great lovers [ii]

Wayne Muller says ‘it is not the fact of being loved that is life changing. It is the experience of allowing (ourselves) to be loved’. [iii] This experiential knowing of ourselves, as deeply loved by God, deepens our thoughts with new data about our world, and deepens our feelings with new attitudes towards our world. In the light of our knowledge of God’s love we know we can trust God, take risks and embrace the world that we live in courageously.

God’s love connects us to all of God’s creation and all of God’s creatures. It moves us ‘from the isolation of self-interest to a connection with life that cannot allow any ultimate divisions. It does not allow (us) to limit (our) interest to those within (our) tribe – whether those tribal boundaries are understood in religious, ethnic or national terms’. Instead it involves us in a ‘movement beyond the hardened boundaries of the isolated self to the selves-in-relationship that make up community’ leading to ‘a sense of (our) oneness with all’ life. [iv]

If we all relate to God as our parent, that makes us all siblings. With the intrinsic connections that brothers and sisters have with one another. And few of us have understood the implications of these connections like Desmond Tutu.

According to Desmond Tutu, ‘God’s dream is that all of us will realize that we are family, that we are made for togetherness. In God’s family, there are no outsiders, no enemies. Black and white, rich and poor, gay and straight, Jew and Arab, Muslim and Christian, Hindu and Buddhist—all belong’.

Tutu says ‘God is not upset that Gandhi was not a Christian, because God is not a Christian! All of God’s children and their different faiths help us to realize the immensity of God. No faith contains the whole truth about God. And certainly Christians don’t have a corner on God. All of us belong to God.’

Tutu says that ‘God’s love is too great to be confined to any one side of a conflict or to any one religion. People are shocked when I say that George Bush and Saddam Hussein are brothers, that Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon are brothers, but God says, “All are my children.” It is shocking. But it is true.’

Tutu says ‘this dream can be found throughout the Bible and has been repeated by all of God’s prophets right down to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. (But) love is universal. You don’t have to believe in God to know that loving is better than hating. When we start to live (in love), as brothers and sisters, and to recognize our interdependence, we become fully human’. [v]

[i] Wayne Muller Legacy Of The Heart p27 (Isaiah 40:13)

[ii] David Benner Surrender to Love p84-5

[iii] Wayne Muller Legacy Of The Heart p27

[iv] David Benner Surrender to Love p93-4

[v] Desmond Tutu Desmond Tutu’s Recipe For Peace  www.beliefnet .com 2004

Dave Andrews

From Hey, Be And See (Authentic)