So I watched Constantine...

A bit of an oldie I know, but I never got round to watching it. On the whole, I'll say it's a pretty bad movie - crappy plot, and filled with horrible theological concepts (kind of like those movies that potray Chinese as yellow skinned slanty eye people with pig tails?).

Anyway, there were actually 2 bits in the movie that I liked (spoilers ahead):

1. When Gabriel pins Constantine to the ground, he/she/it (angels are neuter) comments on how humans just need to repent to enter into the bosom of God, and how privileged and loved we are above all of God's other creations. It then caps it off by saying "It's not fair".

At this point I was groaning from the badness of the movie, but this little bit perked me up a little, simply because it reflected the awesome theological truth - that the Son of God should give His life for fallen humanity, that He should take on the form of the human and no other creature. Yes God loves His creation, but there is little doubt that humanity has a treasured place in that. And furthermore, at the end of the day, the Gospel of Jesus Christ ISN'T fair - in no way is there any "fairness" in us being reconciled to God by the suffering of God Himself!

2. As Lucifer tries to drag Constantine to hell as punishment for his sin, God stops him in his tracks and lifts Constantine to heaven, much to Lucifer's chagrin. At this point, Constantine gives Lucifer the birdie, and was really a LOL moment for me.

You see, I couldn't help but reminded of how we often get caught up into appearance and etiquette, thinking that God is looking out for the well mannered nice person, but has no interest in the ruffian who swears and is ill mannered. But at the end of the day, we come back to the parable of the Good Samaritan, where the evil, uncouth Samaritan is praised as living closer to God's command to "love thy neighbor", than any of the Jews coming before him.

It's so tempting to measure holiness (particularly in our conservative Chinese church) by, in a sense, "niceness". Yet, perhaps God is sometimes less concerned about whether you are nice and polite, than whether you are living out His command to love God with all you've got, and love your neighbor like yourself.

On Swine Flus, SARS and perspective

This article from The Age pretty much sums some of the things going through my mind as people squeal in fear from the possibility of a pandemic from the H1N1 flu outbreak that will kill us all:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/fears-distorting-reality-20090429-ancz.html

Some extracts:

...why do the deaths of only some people from obscure diseases cause us to panic? And how can we be so unfeeling when we have the power to save the lives of millions by relatively simple, inexpensive precautions and treatments?....

...it seems that only when we perceive that infectious diseases threaten "people like us" do we respond with real urgency. The millions killed by TB, AIDS, malaria and other mass killers are doomed to fit the stereotype of people who live and die like that. We can accept it as the way of the world. Aboriginal Australians are just as much victims of the indifference that flows from such stereotyping.

In all reality, we only have 7 confirmed deaths from the Swine Flu (based on WHO analyses - Mexican databases aren't exactly stellar), in a country that is known for its gross inequities and dodgy standards of health and living. In contrast, the normal flu kills 250-500,000 people a year, of which 2000 are in Australia. Yet, all of the sudden, we have the leaders of the known world speaking up and declaring that they will spare no expense to contain this outbreak.

I admit the need for an effective public health response, and even acknowledge that there is more to gain from stoking people's fears and insecurities, hence keeping them on the alert, as compared to calming them. It's good to take appropriate measures at disease containment, for epidimiological reasons, but probably more so for political ones (this is already turning into opportunities to score political points if you read the news).

However, despite all the fearmongering about it being the "next big pandemic" and how we are "overdue for a massive outbreak"that "threatens the existence of humanity", in all likelihood this H1N1 virus thing is going to become something of the past, just as SARS did. Does anyone remember the HK flu from the 1960s that killed over a million people worldwide-no? In addition, the world of international communications and public health is incredibly different from what it was in the century of the last pandemic. Just google something like "Developments/achievements in the last 50-100 years" and you'll see what I mean (this includes the internet btw).

And so I come back to my original point - lots of fearmongering and scares at "possibilities" that are in reality mere shadows, revealing a distinct lack of perspective on disease and illness. This is in stark contrast to our ignorance at the daily epidemics and massive numbers of deaths in poorer nations around us. I believe these events do something more than threaten the health of us all - they reveal the hypocrisy and lack of perspective in our lives, how we spend with reckless abandon at anything that immediately threatens our welfare, but live in gleeful ignorance what happens beyond our own world (I'm just as much guilty of this). I cannot help but think about God's anger - not expressed through disease as a punishment, but against us, for our indignancy, and our love for evil, not good.

PS: For those who are freaked out by the WHO near declaration of a pandemic - look up the definition first, see see how vague it is. The only thing that separates a "pandemic" from something like the normal flu, is the fact that it's new to populations.

Camps, Love and Couples

Our mid-year church camp's theme is "true love awaits", and as the name suggests, it's about "how to love". As one can guess, the promotion so far seems to suggest that while it is not exclusive to couples, it is significantly focused on these relationships.

Apart from the obvious theological issues of asking an anthropocentric question of "how do WE love", I have been wondering whether this is an insensitive and inappropriate theme for a combined church camp.

Within any church, including ours, there is a mixture of singles and couples, and I do wonder whether having a COMBINED camp that focuses on couple relationships does little more than to rub in the fact that the singles are single. Yes they have said that the camp is not just for couples, but the promotional material seems to suggest that singles are more of a "not uninvited" group.

Perhaps it's just been the way it's been promoted, and the actual camp isn't about about couple relationships. But looking at the way it's been going, it seems like it's going to be more segregating than unifying.

The Great Divorce

OK, so maybe it isn't as great a divorce as I make it out to be, but it's still there. Anyway, on to my point:

People in our church have recently been talking alot about change. I'm not sure if it's just some pseudo-Obama fever, or just plain frustration with what's been essential stagnation over the last few years, but the sentiment is there nonetheless.

We have a new pastor, who goes on about how she's going to bring big change. We have a chairperson talking about how change is going to happen in the church this year, and the small group coordinator talks about how change is good. Our sister service, the chinese congregation, is also now shifting their service time to the arvo. (the list goes on)

Whilst I'm not against change, what I do get concerned with is blind change. Yes there may be a need for a move out of a particular situation, and sometimes the move brings some fresh air. However, more often than not, this move is done on the basis of a "good idea" (or something gathered from an experience/book somewhere). There is a prevailing experimental attitude that goes: "this isn't working, so let's try something else and see if it works".

I find it fascinating that the underlying assumptions driving this attitude is rooted in a pseudo-scientific/modernist concept: That there is something that works/is true, and our duty is to explore and experiment until we find out what it is (in contrast to perhaps pre-modern approaches where pure tradition, rather than pragmatism, was the aim of the game).

At the same time, however, Church ministries ignore the other elements of this underlying methodology: namely the concept that it is the combined progress of a body of people that counts. In other words - Churches/ministers tend to want to do 'research' on their own, without the necessary engagement with what others have done elsewhere/before them.

A classic example is the relationships between adolescent behavior and knowledge. Research into adolescent behavior over the last few decades has demonstrated a very weak link between knowledge and practice - ie: for the adolescent, knowledge is not power. In a health setting, it means that providing education on safe sexual practices, safe eating, safe driving, etc, will NOT produce significant behavioral change.

It's not difficult to see how this can easily apply to the church setting as well - we enjoy going on from the pulpit and sunday school classes that youths should read the scriptures and the bibles for their spiritual growth, etc etc - and we all know how that turns out (anecdotally, it would seem that the average youth has immense problem sticking to a disciplined, regimented schedule of daily scripture readings). Recognising that the provision of information does not necessarily lead to behavioral change within this population would lead one to conclude that many of our current methodologies do not work too well.

Whilst we recognise that God is the one who "makes the seeds grow", we also have to recognise that in our ministries, we essentially stand on the shoulders of giants. Where would we be if we did not recognise the contributions of Calvin and Luther to our understandings of salvation, or Tertullian and Augustine to the language of the faith? It is perhaps time to recognise that God has not left us to grasp at straws in the dark, but has made available to us a wealth of resources and tools that enable us to be more effective at discipling the people of the nations. It is perhaps time to heal the great divorce between ministry and research.

(Maybe it's time for Pastors to get UpToDate subscriptions :P jkjk)

Oh please

Some are familiar with the fact that I'm becoming a bit uneasy with movies like SlumDog Millionaire - as to whether they are exploiting the extreme poverty of people for our first world entertainment. I was watching another of these movies last night (Blood Diamond) and the reporter in it sums up my thoughts exactly: We write and take all these pictures of suffering people, we draw a tear or two, maybe even get a cheque written. But in the end - no one really cares. No ones really going to stand up and do something about it.

As a disclaimer, I believe movies like slumdog millionnaire and blood diamond can be useful if they are used in the context of a holistic education on events or realities in the world, reminding watchers that for 99.999% of the people involved, there isn't a happy ending. Together with these movies, audiences need to be made aware of the need to do something about these issues - be it through pressuring the government, to raising awareness, to actually getting out there and doing something. Unfortunately, the "unhappy" message doesn't get transmitted to most of the people watching these movies (after all, people are going to the movies to be entertained, not challenged).

So what we end up with is the "pornography of poverty", where the events of another world are turned into our entertainment. Where what is a serious matter is turned into an object to be devoured by audiences for their pleasure.

The title of this age article couldn't have said it better..."Do the SlumDog!" So now the concept of slum dwellers living and dying poverty is a colloqual term for a hip and fashionable dance. Please.

(PS i have written to the Age about it)

Public ethics - a messy business

I've just completed a 3 day course on HIV prevention amongst sex workers, IV drug users, and men who have sex with men - and it's given me a lot to think about - in particular on the issue of legislation.

Let's take, for example, IV drug use. No government would be "proud" of having IV drug users around, and it is universally regarded as an undesirable practice. However, evidence has demonstrated complete prohibition of IV drug use doesn't really work that well, and has the downstream effects of causing the social marginalization and isolation that leads to high -risk behavioral patterns in that population. Services that would actually help these drug users cannot function effectively, as their target population is essentially underground, scattered, and fragmented.

On the other hand, by legalizing drug use, as in Victoria, we give organisations the opportunities to gather and target this particular population, providing ready access to support programmes and services that not only minimise the harm of IV drug use, but also facilatate their entry into rehabilitation programmes.

This approach presupposes a particular interaction between LAW and MORALITY. It suggests that the legal acceptance of a particular behavior does not necessary correlate with a moral acceptance of that same behavior. The corollary of that is that our moral convictions does not necessarily need translate into a corresponding legal stance on the issue.

This, obviously, flies in the face of what so many of us assume about the nature of legislation, and the role of our Christian values in the interaction with greater society. It did for me, and has now led me to rethink and reflect on my own ethical system, and how a public health physician (an area I'm working towards) engages in policy formation that affects an entire non-Christian community. SHOULD the law reflect and ENFORCE morality by force? And on what basis can we actually enforce a SPECIFIC brand of morality - religious or not (eg: why don't we take pedophilia off the criminal code)?

These are difficult issues, issues that have been around since the Church started getting involved in Roman politics. But they are also crucial issues worth reflecting on. I'll post more as I sort out my thoughts ;)