The inevitable entanglement of sport and politics

I enjoyed watching the movie Race, which recounts the story of Jesse Owens and his presence at the 1936 Berlin Olympics.



The movie does a nice job of recounting significant historical events while exploring issues of racism, anti-Semitism, hypocrisy, propaganda, and the tortured relationship between politics and sport.

Like good historical movies it had the desired effect of causing my family to race to Wikipedia to see how much of the movie was historically accurate. It seems almost all of it is. Perhaps the main debatable point was it gave a sympathetic portrayal of the film-maker Leni Riefenstahl, who was a propagandist and apologist for Hitler. But, the most disturbing fact I learnt was that although Hitler did not congratulate Owens, President Roosevelt did not invite him to the White House.

[Aside. It took me a while to get the double meaning of the title].

The idolatry of the nation state

In the theology reading group on monday we will be discussing Migrations of the Holy: God, State, and the Political Meaning of the Church by William Cavanaugh.

I found it refreshing, stimulating and provocative.

Christendom and Constantinianism [the close identification of church and state] has declined in the Western world. Overall this is a good thing as the church should be on the margins and stand again power, coercion, and violence. On the other hand, the hope and worship of many has shifted from God and the church to the nation state. It is their hoped source of security, identity, protection, and prosperity. This is idolatry.
Some Christians "tend to assume that the only solution to any given cultural problem is state enforcement".

The first chapter relates to the classic quote of Alisdair MacIntyre

The modern nation-state, in whatever guise, is a dangerous and unmanageable institution, presenting itself on the one hand as a bureaucratic supplier of goods and services, which is always about to, but never actually does, give its clients value for money, and on the other as a repository of sacred values, which from time to time invites one to lay down one’s life on its behalf . . . [I]t is like being asked to die for the telephone company.

One chapter makes a highly creative analogy between the Richard Strauss' opera, Ariadne auf Naxos,
which combines tragedy and comedy simultaneously, with Augustine's City of God. (p.63, 64)
"The earthly city and the city of God are two intermingled performances, one a tragedy, the other a comedy. Thee are not two sets of props, no division of goods between spriticual and temper oral, infinite and finite. Both cities are concerned with the same questions..."

Some essays/chapters focus on the case of the USA. One "Messianic Nation" is a trenchant criticism of American exceptionalism, particularly the views of Stephen Webb, who attempts to justify this on (shaky) theological grounds. I found Webb's arguments pompous, bizarre, and scary.

The chapter "Migrant, Tourist, Pilgrim, Monk: Identity and Mobility in a Global Age" provides some nice contrasts between the past (Pilgrims and Monks) and the present (Tourists) which is concerned with the exotic, escape, restlessness, pleasure for the wealthy, and lacks hospitality for the needy (Migrant). Monks have a vow of stability.

The best line in the book is in the following (p. 135)

Metz is concerned that the legitimate separation of the church from the political sphere not result in the mere privatisation of the church, the handing over of the gospel to the anemic embrace of bourgeois sentimentality. Metz's solution is that the church take its place in civil society as an "institution of social criticism"..

Overall, I found the book a bit depressing because I agree with it, and yet I feel the views therein, are so outside the "mainstream".  I think the book would have been more hopeful if some concrete examples were given of churches and Christian organisations who are living in the "intermediate" political spaces he advocates: combining local social action, community development, and political advocacy.

What makes a great nation?

My daughter just introduced me to the TV series The Newsroom. Besides the same creator, it has similarities to The West Wing: social and political commentary are mixed with drama and (of course) personal relationships.

In the opening scene a college student asks a panel, "What makes America the greatest country on earth?" and gets an answer she did not anticipate.

Not singing the national anthem

By many accounts Australia has a rather innocuous National Anthem, Advance Australian Fair. [We ditched "God save the Queen" in 1984 and I have to confess I actually don't know the words].

But, I came to understand that it is not actually so innocuous by watching an episode of Redfern now, a recent TV series that deals with some of the struggles of urban indigenous Australians. In the episode a new scholarship student at an exclusive private school finds he is incapable of singing it because of what it represents. The episode highlights the inability of white liberal Australians [including myself] to understand the real issues and to make token gestures.
But I thought the episode ending was a bit too "fairy tale."

I think the episode also highlights a profound difference between Australia and the USA. Patriotism has a different dimension. Many Australians are quite comfortable with accepting someone being Australian and NOT singing the national anthem.

Does this sound like a modern political speech?

so long as it [the country] enjoys material prosperity, and the glory of victorious war, or, better, the security of peace, why should we worry?   What concerns us is that we should get richer all the time, to have enough for extravagant spending every day, enough to keep our inferiors in their place.  It is all right if the poor serve the rich, so as to get enough to eat and to enjoy a lazy life under their patronage; while the rich make use of the poor to ensure a crowd of hangers-on to minister to their pride; if the people applaud those who supply them with pleasures rather than those who offer them salutary advice; if no one imposes disagreeable duties, or forbids perverted delights; if kings are interested not in the morality but in the docility of their subjects; if provinces are under rulers who are regarded not as directors of conduct but as controllers of material things and providers of material satisfactions, and are treated with servile fear instead of sincere respect. 

The laws should punish offences against another's property, not offences against a man's own personal character.  No one should be brought to trial except for an offence, or threat of offence,  against another's property, house or person; but anyone should be free to do as he likes about his own, or with his own, or with others, if they consent.  There should be a plentiful supply of public prostitutes, for the benefit of all those who prefer them, and especially those who cannot keep private mistresses.  It is a good thing to have imposing houses luxuriously furnished, where lavish banquets can be held, where people can, if they like, spend night and day in debauchery, and eat and drink until they are sick; to have the din of dancing everywhere, and theatres full of fevered shouts of degenerate pleasure and of every kind of cruel and degraded indulgence. 

Anyone who disapproves of this kind of happiness should rank as a public enemy: anyone who attempts to change it or get rid of it should be hustled out of hearing by the freedom-loving majority:  he should be kicked out, and removed from the land of the living.

This "tongue in cheek" parody could be of many politicians in the Western world, both conservative or liberal, as they pander to our pagan whims and aspirations. 

However, this was was actually written 1600 hundred years ago by Saint Augustine as a parody of the pagan vision of Rome.

It is in City of God, Book II, Chapter 20.

 Roman orgy in the time of the caesars, by Henryk Siemeradzki

The idolatry of war

In our fortnightly reading and discussion group ["The Volfians"] today we are looking at two articles by William Cavanaugh.

At odds with the Pope: Legitimate Authority and Just Wars  published in Commonweal in 2003. It argues that Catholics should not support the Iraq war and that contrary to the claims of some neo-conservative Catholics the U.S. government did not meet the criteria of the Catholic Cathecism (2309): "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy [of war] belongs to the prudential judgement of those who have responsibility for the common good."

Killing for the Telephone Company: Why the nation state is not the keeper of the common Good published in Modern Theology in 2004.
It makes a strong case that the main driving force in the historical origin of nation-states was the need for ruling elites to organise resources for their wars: collect taxes and recruit soldiers.
Part of the conclusion is particularly apt:

the nation-state is simply not in the common good business. At its most benign, the nation-state is most realistically likened, as in Alasdair MacIntyre’s apt metaphor, to the telephone company, a large bureaucratic provider of goods and services that never quite provides value for money. 

The problem, as MacIntyre notes, is that the nation-state presents itself as so much more; namely, as the keeper of the common good and repository of sacred values that demands sacrifice on its behalf. The longing for genuine communion that Christians recognize at the heart of any truly common life is transferred onto the nation-state. Civic virtue and the goods of common life do not simply disappear; as Augustine saw, the earthly city flourishes by producing a distorted image of the heavenly city. The nation-state is a simulacrum of common life, where false order is parasitical on true order. In a bureaucratic order whose main function is to adjudicate struggles for power between various factions, a sense of unity is produced by the only means possible: sacrifice to false gods in war. The nation-state may be understood theologically as a kind of parody of the Church, meant to save us from division.

Would Jesus celebrate Anzac day?

Bodies of Australian soldiers at Gallipoli, 1915

ANZAC day is one of the most significant public holidays in Australia. On thursday night I attended a free ANZAC concert in Brisbane because my daughter was singing in one of the choirs. The concert a joint initiative of the Queensland Symphony and the RSL (Returned and Services League of Australia) [equivalent to a Veterans association in the USA).
The music was great but there were several disturbing aspects of nationalism, militarism, and bad theology which reared their ugly head.

The Lord's Prayer was sung while the big screen above the orchestra showed movies of Australian troops going into battle and playing with Middle Eastern children.

The Governor of Queensland introduced the hymn Abide with me emphasizing its appeal to soldiers with a verse:

4. I fear no foe, with thee at hand to bless; ills have no weight, and tears not bitterness. Where is death's sting? Where, grave, thy victory? I triumph still, if thou abide with me.

I did not realise that the hymn is traditionally sung at Anzac day services and F.A. Cup finals! However, I feel it is being totally ripped from its history, meaning, and context. It is not about a generic offer of peace and comfort in the face of the battle of war, but rather about how a Christian need not fear death because they are trusting in the resurrection of Jesus.

A slide show honoured soldiers who had died in battle. It seemed to me it was suggested the soldiers were now in heaven because they had died for their country. Surely, this is salvation by works.

The 1812 overture provided a resounding end to the concert. It begins and ends with a Russian hymn "God preserve thy people".

     Mighty Lord, preserve us from jeopardy. 
     Take Thee now our faith and love, thine inheritance. 
     Grant thee victory o'er our treacherous and cruel enemies
     And to our land bring peace.
     O mighty Lord hear our lowly prayer,
     And by Thy shining holy light.
     Grant us, O Lord, peace again.
     O mighty Lord hear our prayer
     and save our people
     Forever, forever!

It is strange that a hymn that was used to promote the nationalism of the Russian Orthodox church 150 years ago is now being used on the other side of the world by secular organisations to promote the nationalism of a different country.

So what might be a Christian view on such events? 

• They should not be celebrations of war and nationalism. 
• They should honour those who have died and be a reminder of the tragedy of war. 
• They should reflect on whether our soldiers today are serving with integrity
• Are our soldiers dying for justice and in the hope of creating peace? 
• They should cause us to ask whether our troops are just aiming to preserve our economic interests and/or impose our political values on others?

War is hell. Lest we forget.

Blood that binds and separates

The relationship of the church to cultures should be both transcendent and immanent. Christians should be in the world but not of the world. We are aliens and exiles but present ambassadors who become "all things for all men" and "work for the good of the city."

In concluding Chapter 1, Distance and Belonging, of Exclusion and Embrace, Miroslav Volf, suggests a "a confession-like text that expresses the need for ecumenical community in the struggle against the 'new tribalism'", following the format of the Barmen Declaration:

“You were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer males and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

All the churches of Jesus Christ, scattered in diverse cultures, have been redeemed for God by the blood of the Lamb to form one multicultural community of faith. The “blood” that binds them as brothers and sisters is more precious than the “blood,” the language, the customs, political allegiances, or economic interests that may separate them.

We reject the false doctrine, as though a church should place allegiance to the culture it inhabits and the nation to which it belongs above the commitment to brothers and sisters from other cultures and nations, servants of the one Jesus Christ, their common Lord, and members of God’s new community. 

Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, p. 54

When I read this I assumed it was a direct quote from the Barmen Declaration. It certainly sounded like it to me! I went back and read the whole Barmen Declaration so I could blog about it. But could not find the above text in it. Only then did I realise that Volf was writing from scratch.

I also found this interesting of the material in my post My Kingdom is not of this World, pointing out the enduring relevance of the Barmen Declaration to nationalistic movements (e.g., in the former Yugoslavia).

But, the main point should not be my own confusion and ramblings [which are probably only of interest to me!] but that the Cross of Christ defines true identity and community, uniting former enemies, while identifying with us in all our cultural and ethnic contexts.

The interplay between football and politics

Football is art; but also politics, economics, and sociology.

I bought a great book for my family for Christmas, How Soccer explains the world: an unlikely theory of globalization. I really enjoyed reading the fascinating mix of history (both football and political). Each chapter focuses on a different country (Serbia, Scotland, Italy, Ukraine, Brazil, England, Spain, ...) and how football clubs become expressions of politics, racism, corruption, capitalism, and nationalism. As a purist who enjoys football for its own sake, I found aspects of the book are quite depressing. It almost makes you want to never watch a professional football game again.

The book is very well written and easy to read. The main weakness is it does not achieve what its title (and every chapter heading) claims. It does not really show that football explains anything. What it really does (and does it very well) is show how football reflects and interacts with significant social change such as globalisation. The book reflects the common fallacy of not distinguishing between causality and correlation. For example, the Rangers-Celtic rivalry/animosity in Glasgow does not cause or explain the origins of the ethnic (Irish vs. Scottish) / "religious" (Catholic vs. Protestant) animosity. I think the Rangers-Celtic rivalry provides a vehicle for some people to express some of these hatreds.

The book also illustrates humanities deep need for community, group identity, to be right, and to express passionate emotions. I sometimes think that being a fanatical fan can provide outlets that God intended us to express in worship and church life. 

The author is Franklin Foer, who was editor of The New Republic from 2006-2010. There is an interesting review in the New York Times. 

In conclusion, it is a great piece of literature and even if you are not a football fan, you will learn a lot about the world from reading it.

My kingdom is not of this world

This is a German postage stamp that was issued to mark the 50th anniversary of the Barmen declaration, largely written by Karl Barth, and adopted by German churches who stood against Hitler's attempt to establish a "German church" which identify God's Kingdom with the Third Reich.

God is on our side. That is what every nationalistic movement wants to believe and can be used to justify not only war but also atrocities.

I am currently reading a fascinating book, Heavenly serbia: from myth to genocide by Branimir Anauzulovic which chronicles the blending of nationalism, church, folklore, and violence in the history of Serbia. A good summary and critical review of the book is here.

I recommend reading the full text of the Barmen declaration. Although, obviously written is specific historical context, there is much to be challenged about the sin of idolatry of nation and State, and the Lordship of Christ over the church. That is relevant to people of every nation and at any time.