Jesus Camp: A Fascinating Parallel

I was quite amused to see the launch of the "must see" Jesus Camp documentary being launched in national cinema.

Naturally I tense up when seeing something that challenges my Christian faith, but these kinds of documentaries are really beyond my control, and if Christianity is as strong as I believe, then it should have the strength to survive these kinds of characters attacks.

What strikes me in particular about the documentary is how mainstream society (if you can call it that in majority-Christian countries) and Christianity run parallel alongside each other and yet are increasingly different. The reason is simple: Christianity is based on an absolute standard that doesn't change over time, and mainstream society is based on humanism, which believes that we are fundamentally good and that we only need follow the natural inclincations of what we feel.

Those two worldviews inevitably lead down two different paths. Arguments can be made on both sides: the mainstream can argue that Christians have based their absolute values on a questionable authority. The Christians can argue that history has shown that the natural inclination of people's heart is towards evil and selfishness.

Based on my earlier post, "The Battle of Ideas", this is a good chance to take stock of what kinds of values the Bible teaches. That humankind regularly fails in its moral sense is undisputable. But how reliable is the Bible? What kind of authority is it? Does it make sense? And if not in the short run or immediate sense, does it make sense in the long-term? This is a good chance for you to reflect on the different issues, such as the benefit to society of homosexual marriage. I'll begin tackling topical issues like this in more detail over the coming months. Watch this space and don't be scared to post a comment or two yourself.

The Battle of Ideas

In our relativistic age, the Christian claim to absolute truth is scorned. I understand the frowns. Here is a group of people claiming that somehow everybody else is wrong and they are right.

It's valuable though to realise that the position of relativism is not necessarily natural and the worldview that has brought this about has been steadily streamed to us. Take for instance, the view that homosexuality is wrong. I'd hazard a guess that most of those who now accept it did not start out that way. We have been told through Hollywood, through school teachers, through government laws or through newspapers that homosexuality is acceptable and those who disagree are carefully painted in a certain way. Take a look at the characters in movies and television shows that are "homophobic" - they'll never be the leading character with whom everyone sympathises.

To deny that the media have influenced our positions on issues like homosexuality is a heavy claim. Remember the claim that children have their personality or opinions formed by the age of six. There's a lot of truth in that, but we really have to ask is: what hand is at work to form them? What opinions are being taught and where do those opinions come from?

What becomes very clear is that it is simply not possible to live in a world of complete relativism. When a government makes a decision on whether to raise or lower taxes, it ends up making a fixed decision. It cannot lower and raise them at the same time. There is a concrete decision (even no decision is a decision) and there is a concrete reason for that decision, ranging from anything to an economic framework or a personal influence.

There are so many different viewpoints that are just not compatible. Ultimately, one viewpoint becomes dominant and becomes the basis for making a decision. Quite simply, we're in a battle of ideas.

When the Christians stand up and make a claim that their viewpoint is better, they're no different from others who make exactly the same claim. To say that no one can claim absolute truth, is a claim to absolute truth. How can you know absolutely that there is no absolute truth? That different principles can sometimes apply in different situations is valid, but in those different situations absolute truth exists. When you stop and think about it, the claim to complete relativism or the void of absolutes is completely ridiculous.

The real question is not whether a claim can be made, but what claim is made. Before you question a Christian stance on a certain issue, remember that the opposing stance is also a claim to absolute truth, and then evaluate not whether a stance can be taken, but which stance is better.

The Value of Federalism

Let me first state at the outset that the ACDP is one of the only parties in South Africa that is built on a federalist approach, meaning at a simple level, if I understand correctly, that the party is driven from the ground up. The opposite form to federalism is probably socialism or communism where the unit at the top is responsible for a far greater share of decision making, and their decisions are simply to be implemented at ground level. This of course is very much the case with the ANC, who have strong communist roots.

This may seem to be a curious conundrum. Those outside of Christianity may perceive it to be a highly systematic, heirarchical institution. Historically, that is not far off the mark. However, with the advent of Protestantism and the emphasis of Martin Luther and others on general access to the Bible, Christianity has moved far closer to federalism. Of course, the authority of the Bible is a central point to which individuals adhere, but the modern church has a much greater access to the views of the multitude, who have been given far greater freedom to match the decisions of human authority against the absolute authority of the Bible. In fact, much of the thriving church today consists of churches that don't fall under the traditional heirarchy of centuries ago.

The basic result is that the emphasis of the ACDP rests more with the absolute authority of the Bible than the absolute authority of the party leaders. Of course there are Scripture principles that aren't explicit and require debate and a final decision at top level, but the majority of Scriptural principles are really undebatable.

The key principle that drives federalism is simply this: take ownership, take responsibility. A party thrives far better when its individual components function successfully on their own than when central leaders have to commit investigative teams to track down how well instructions are being followed through. The principle of accepting responsibility is central to Scripture, where each of us is held accountable for what we say, do and even think. When we accept that we are sinners and ultimately are in no position to blame our misfortune on sexism, racism, apartheid, ethnic and class divides, mean bosses, relentless families and anything else that comes to mind, we are the starting block of actually doing something useful with what we have. In that frame of mind, the first thought of the party can be "what can I give" rather than "what can I get?"

While federalism would seem to be weak in that it grants too much power to those who are incompetent, the culture of taking responsibility is exactly what counters that threat.

Survivor: How to Play Politics?

Survivor Cook Islands came to a dramatic end on SABC 3 last night, and with it came a fascinating look into leadership struggles. Part of me admits that the Survivor game of winning votes is different to real life, but then I pause to contemplate and wonder if politics is that different?

Let me clarify what I'm referring to. In the Survivor game show, the object of the game is not really to survive in the wilderness - it helps but it won't win you the game, as Ozzy and Terry of a different season can testify. The key is to get people on your side only for as long as you need them. There is a semblance of loyalty but it can be quickly put aside as the stakes rise.

Watching the game show, I'm sure that viewers have mixed views on this specific question: in the context of the game, is it okay to lie, deceive or betray? Many of you will say yes, and I understand your position. Personally, dishonesty violates me. I'm repulsed by it, and at the end of the show, I'd rather be known as the guy that everyone can trust and depend on.

Of course, in the game of real life, trust and loyalty are usually rewarded better than they are in a game show, except in politics. I would define politics as "the process of getting into power and retaining it". That in itself is not a bad thing if you have something genuinely good to offer. Rather, it's how that process is negotiated that has placed most politicians in the same bad books as lawyers.

And here is where I get to the point. I believe in a set of golden rules for the process of politics:

1) Be honest. Tell the voters what you stand for, what you intend to achieve and what you are capable of.

2) Be realistic. This is probably the toughest. Have tangible, observable results in mind when you shape your promises. And also accept that some missions are going to fail before you even start (especially when you don't hold a large majority).

3) Expect no reward. As Jesus said, true leaders wash feet. Nuff said.

My question to you is: do you believe a party can get into power just by being good? Is the Survivor game necessary, and if so, is it then justified?

The Real Failure of Zimbabwe

Let me stress right at the outset that these few comments are my own personal opinion and not necessarily shared in an official capacity by the ACDP.

The failure of the Zimbabwean economy has been attributed to a number of causes, including voting irregularity, monetary mismanagement, unnecessary macro management and of course seizure of white-owned farms.

I am strongly against such seizure, but I feel it pointed out the fundamental challenge of Africa: the lack of entrepreneurship. The primary challenge in Africa, and South Africa included, is to develop a leadership and initiative mindset. Where white-farms were seized, their new inheritors should ideally have adopted a mindset of learning and advancement.

This is the story of life: we all have opportunity of some kind and what we make of it determines what we'll achieve. For us as South Africans or Africans to really establish our economy will require a forward thinking that creates rather than expects. In true Biblical fashion, this comes down to an acceptance that the buck stops with me and I am due much of the blame when I fail to seize an honest opportunity. Attribution of failure to racism, colonialism, trade rules and badly drawn border lines may all have some merit, but ultimately none of us are slaves. To different degrees we all have choices to make, and I as a South African am happy to stand up and say that despite my many limitations I choose to do something special with what I have.

Elbow Grease

I was seriously challenged today by someone who refuses to vote for the ACDP. He took offense to the fact that the party were preaching morality at him, and despite being a strong Christian, preferred to vote for a party that would serve his neighbourhood despite the moral standing of his party.

I understand his position. I scorn his ignorance of the moral issues, but I do accept that the ACDP hasn't had a lot of chance to show their readiness to buckle down and serve. A track record is important, especially in the realm of politics, where promises are made with little comprehension for what they require.

Firstly, I want to say in the ACDP's defense that there is not a lot you can do without finances and position. You are not allowed to build roads, make laws, run the police, run council finances or change the laws. There are of course things that you can do, such as get involved in community projects that require effort rather than finance (and this in your own spare time too, because without finances you need your own job). Also, you can do well with what you are given, and it is well known now that the ACDP punches well above its weight in parliament and in councils.

However, I do accept one criticism: if you believe in a project, go out to business and raise funds. The ACDP has been attempting to secure financial backing for a long time, but raising funds for a community project could be a more feasible alternative for some businesses. When they see that their donations are well spent in community service, perhaps they'll be more ready to inject cash directly into the party.

The bottom line is that the ACDP needs to continue sowing themselves into work on the ground that is visible to the voters. It's a pity that this contradicts the Bible which says you should not do good works to be seen - I don't have an answer on that one, do you?

Oh To Be Solution-Minded

I've just read an interesting document on the ANC's communist agenda. It's a long list of specific pieces of legislation and quotes from ANC leaders that paint a very clear picture of what the intentions of the present government are. If you know how serious the threat of communism is, with its poor economic track record and its insistence on central power of all citizens, you may be alarmed to know how serious the ANC is on bringing it through.

Nevertheless, I was challenged by this thought: can I envision in my mind the alternative? As South Africans we develop a doom-and-gloom mentality very easily. Even the DA is proud to call itself the official opposition, and you wander if they believe their job is only to oppose things and not to provide a solution.

At this point we remind ourselves to stand up proudly and say: we have a solution, we believe it is viable and we believe it is achievable. In the ACDP we do have a value-based party that is federally based, that reflects of the views of the majority better than the ANC or DA do and in its membership reflects the demographics of this country more accurately than any other party.
The DA have taught us that making a noise is not enough - it's time to bring some good news and a bright outlook on our country!