Wednesday 30 October 2013

Not my Brand of Revolution

Gentle reader,
 I had hoped to stop ranting.

Honest.

Really and truly… I was prepared to write something warm and smiley… something to read to the kids over hot chocolate and Dutch cookies (they wouldn't have to be Dutch, any Frankish Confection would suffice) but alas…

Russell Brand had to start a revolution.

Or, at least, prophesy a revolution.

In a very entertaining and informative interview on the BBC, Russell Brand tapped into the disenfranchised zeitgeist and shared his disgust at the current state of politics in the western world; the lack of attention being paid to the environment and the dis-empowering of the populace.  He declared “Government” a failure; revealed that he does not vote and that explained that voting only supports a system that offers no “real” alternatives and perpetuates injustice.  (http://youtu.be/BHDcOBgWZqc)

And now, cue my grandfather….

Seriously, I know that my reaction is going to sound like an old privileged guy invested in the old way of doing things, but I've got to tell you, I’m tired of this entitled whining.  Russell Brand is willing to throw away his right to vote so casually… a right that woman only won in the past century, a right that people considered to be “less than a whole person” took to the streets to demand; endured torture and death to claim… a right that Ghandi started a revolution to obtain, a right that woman with blue ink on their fingers are risking their lives for today…
Russell has declared it meaningless.  
Because England, America (and by inference Canada) aren't offering any real alternatives.

You know, if you don’t like what Mommy or Daddy is making for dinner, you can sit at the table and refuse to eat.  Lots of little children do. 
OR, you could also go into the kitchen and learn to cook.  Lots of adults do.

I’m not defending a specific political party and I can be as cynical and frustrated with our various governments and leaders and anybody (I live in Toronto for goodness sake!!) but to just opt out and wait for the revolution?  Like all those people who are waiting for the Apocalypse when God swoops down and saves those who have been so hard done by (their own estimation) and exacts revenge on the slobbering fat cats – Russell needs to get a life, realize that he has a responsibility here and now and get off the side lines waiting for someone else to fix it.

That’s how responsive democratic governments came to be.
That’s how unions that protect workers came to be.
That’s how new political parties come into being.

Had others had the same sentiment earlier in the last century, decried the Government for not having a comprehensive health care plan for all citizens and decided not to vote, we would have no Health Care system in Canada and no NDP party offering another voice to the national debate.  Tommy Douglas could have stuck to preaching and his colleagues to farming… Not voting would have showed them all…

And we would have:
No emissions standards.
No environmental protections whatsoever.
No immigration policies.
No employment assistance.
No protection for farmers.
No food security or health standards.
No Equal Marriage
No Green Party.

I know that many of the things included on the above list are underwhelming, they may not be comprehensive enough; responsive enough… but imagine, none.   That’s what Russell is offering when he says that we should just get rid of government.  Really? By what organ will we determine the will of the people and then find the means to enact or support that will?  Shall we just let Apple and Walmart run the show?

Some will argue that the Government is not doing the will of the people… and I would agree.  But when voter turnout for the last Federal Election was 61%, who’s really to blame?

But they didn't really give us any alternatives, I hear you cry.

Yes… so, don’t leave it all to Election Day.  Get out and join a political party and help to change the policy so that there is an alternative on Election Day.  Start a new party!  I appreciate that it is unlikely that that Green Party will form the Federal Government in my life time, but they have already influenced the debate and will continue to do so, as long as people are willing to work for what that in which they believe.  It wasn't that long ago that the CCF became the NDP and everybody knew that they would NEVER form a Federal Government or even be the “Official Opposition” and yet, here they are as the latter and cannot be discounted as the former.  And in capturing the imagination and passion of the public, they have had a profound influence on the policies of the Canadian Government and the other parties.  

Remember Stephan Dion?  He seemed to be committed to a number of ideas that would appeal to Russell Brand and others who wring their hands and hang their heads…. What happened to him?  Not enough votes.

The problem (as I see it) is that, in this fast paced world of pop-up menus and instant selection on my smartphone and television set, change isn't fast enough. We want some immediate gratification and relief. We want to push a button and change the screen.  We might be prepared to vote, after all it only takes an hour, but to go out and work for a party? Become a member and go to policy meetings? Walk the streets and share ideas, promote alternatives.? Become a candidate?  That might take more than an hour… it might take days or weeks… real fundamental change might take years or even generations…  we don’t have that kind of time!!!

Well, Russell… yes, you do.  
If it matters to you, you can find the time.

I’m not asking you or anybody to wait for the world to change – I’m asking you to change the world, even if it takes years… even if you have to work and work and don’t live long enough to be at the victory party…

Not voting?
You realize that the lower the voter turnout, the more likely it is for the incumbent government to maintain power? So, by not voting, what you really do is play into the hands of those who don’t want you to have a voice and you encourage those in power to avoid alternatives, after all, alternatives just might encourage voting.  As long as you decide to not vote in protest, THEY get to write the narrative, set the agenda and mollify dissent with the promise of better cable television prices.  

Real change demands real participation.  It requires patience.  It requires self-sacrifice.  It often means doing work that is over-looked, under-valued and often goes unappreciated.  But it brings about education for all people, universal health care, moves us closer to justice; provides support for those trying to make a life; offers sanctuary for those in peril… it offers protection for the minority… the right to speak, marry or live without fear of a mob…it provides support and context for culture.   It takes many forms, happens in many places – but very rarely (in my opinion) is it achieved by NOT voting.   

I agree with Mr. Brand that a revolution is coming… I am not convinced that  it is a revolution that needs to burn down everything that we have worked for over the centuries.  However, whatever form it takes, it is a revolution that will be led by active, sacrificing participants...  not those waiting at the table for a better supper.


End of Rant.  (where's my remote?)

Monday 21 October 2013

Gretta, Church and just a little bit of ranting.

A good friend and colleague beat me to the bunch with his vblog…  http://youtu.be/6bP28ICDGMg
    however I feel compelled to publish regardless.
I should also point out that this is not a typical blog, it is more specific and United Church of Canada centric… feel free to leave the room at any time.
It’s about my colleague the Rev. Gretta Vosper.

Allow me begin by saying, I like Gretta Vosper on a personal level. We used to share a grocery store and coffee shop and I always looked forward to seeing and talking with her.  We have been part of the same Presbytery (Regional Church body) for eight years. I find her compassionate, intelligent and I would trust her with my children (granted they are all in their thirties).   I have read her books and respect her opinions.  However, I believe that it is time for her to withdraw from the United Church of Canada. 

I have always loved the United Church of Canada for being a large tent;  I love and respect the “Congregationalist” part of our United Church that allows (even demands) congregations to have their own personalities and not be called to strict adherence to a restrictive doctrine.   (Feel free to disagree with my description of the United Church of Canada). I recognize that Rev. Vosper has always (apparently) had the support of her congregational board.   However (that word again),  the United Church of Canada also has a responsibility – not to stifle creativity, wonder or speech, but to provide a place where one can come and find “Church”, talk about the experience of God; engage with (at the very least) the stories and teaching of Jesus, whom we call, Christ.   I listened carefully to Gretta’s interview on CBC radio’s Tapestry earlier this month
(http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/episode/2013/10/04/letting-it-go-gretta-vosper-miriam-katin-eulogies/)  and I suspect those who wander into West Hill United Church would experience something like “Church”, but not Church. 
According to Gretta, the term God is not used;  there is no place of privilege for Christian/Hebrew Scripture or Jesus (noted by Gretta as “not a particularly brilliant leader).  As a friend and colleague pointed out it would be akin to my going to see my Family Doctor expecting medical advice and therapy only to discover that she prefers to now treat with an alternative homeopathy that is neither practiced or endorsed by the local College of Physicians.  I went to my Doctor expecting the medicine practiced in the major hospitals, had I desired an alternative, I could also seek that out.  It is at least polite to let people know that you are an “alternative” practitioner and no longer an exponent of majority medicine.

Gretta still uses the honourific “Reverend”, granted her by virtue of being in Ordered Ministry within the United Church of Canada; her congregation is still identified as West Hill “United Church”.  I feel a lack of integrity in this and it strikes me as misleading, even “false” advertising.   (I would be ticked off to arrive at a Ford Auto Dealership, only to discover that they were only interested in selling bathtubs.)

Please appreciate that I’m not against Rev. Vosper -  I’m not convinced that any reference to  “God” will always connote a dramatically “interventionist” being (benevolent or otherwise)- but that’s a quibble.  I respect the good people who gather at Westhill United Church; I do not deny their spiritual practice or good works.   I also have no quarrel with the Unitarian Church or some of the Non-Theist groups that I have visited.  But they don’t refer to themselves as United Church of Canada.

Also, understand that I’m NOT suggesting that we should kick her out.  I worry that once we start kicking people out we set a precedent and we begin to get pretty nit-picky with who is “orthodox” and who is not so “orthodox”.  I don’t want to be part of a community that insists that there is only ONE way to talk things that are indescribable.
I also have respect for the traditions and practices of my church, and we ordained Gretta in response to what we believe to be God’s call.  What do we do now? Explain to God that this time, God blew it… made a mistake… didn’t read the fine print… didn’t know what God was doing? 

So, what do I want?

I want Gretta to consider leaving on her own.

She went through Discernment and Ordination.  In time, she had a revelation.  Such a revelation that she felt the need to break dramatically from the practices and traditions of our church.  She’s not the first…  but she seems to be one of the few who has insisted on staying.

In the Tapestry interview, Gretta shares that she dreams of a world in which religion is eradicated.  Very dramatic language, but I trust her sincerity.  She also indicated that the continuation of church empowers those who would misuse God and oppress people with the very texts, traditions and understandings that I believe can set them free.  So, if the church is a negative influence in the world – how can she, with integrity, continue to gather in a “Church”? How can she pay “taxes” to the larger church, a body that is trying to reach out to more people all the time?   I do those things, but I believe that the church can be a good influence on society… It makes no sense to willingly, knowingly do “evil” or at least “delay truth and justice”, and it calls into question Gretta’s integrity.  I know that she would not privilege such a story, but I recall Jesus looking at a coin stamped with the head of Caesar, and saying “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s… and unto God that which is God’s”  The building says “United Church”… but Gretta’s not rendering.... and she’s thwarting her own dream.
 
Finally, I would argue against Gretta’s supposition that our very language and existence empowers those who preach a Gospel of oppression and cruelty… should we abandon the language, traditions and buildings entirely, we leave the abusers alone in the house of God to do as they will, with no one to stand against them and speak the truth.  The truth that many of us have found in the words, teachings and life of Jesus Christ.   I’m not giving the church over to the crazies… 


So endeth my rant.