Dissident Dispatches

by Andrew Fraser

  Conclusion

  Clearly, Basil read Scripture as “a moral rather than a merely intellectual endeavour”. Indeed, Philip Rousseau observes, an “attitude of trust, of belief, had to come first before one considered the exact meaning of this or that passage”. The “inescapable prerequisite” of such commitment was “a complete ascetic programme” entailing “purification from passion, escape from the distractions of ordinary life, a readiness for hard work, a heightened desire for things spiritual”. Basil’s Hellenistic reading of the creation story in Genesis provided the essential cosmological framework within which a “reverent cult within a believing community” could and did become a reality in late antiquity throughout the known inhabited world.631 The prestige attached to the Greco-Roman culture of the oikumene lent credibility to Basil’s attempt to marry the universalist claims of philosophic reason to the particularistic mythology of a Jewish creation story.

  In the secular world of the early twenty-first century, few Christians believe that the cosmos functions either as a temple or as a school. Basil helped to lay the spiritual foundations for the rise of a Christian Empire committed in theory if not always in practice to the divinization of its subjects. Following the collapse of Christendom, both State and Church divorced the putatively universalistic (actually Western) canons of philosophic reason from the poetic mythology which created European civilization as the earthly domicile of the Holy Spirit. As a consequence, Christians now stand in desperate need of a cosmology capable of resurrecting the kingdom of God in both the hearts and the minds of the European peoples.

  No longer able to find God in our own hearts, the Church now teaches us to worship the Other, to love strangers and enemies even more than our neighbours and kinfolk. Today leading theologians insist that “Christian morality is different not only in motive but in content from kin-preserving altruism”.632 They have forgotten the basic axiom underpinning Basil’s pastoral work; namely, “that the human being is a tame and communal animal…For nothing is so proper to our nature as to share our lives with each other, and to need each other, and to love our own kind”.633 Basil knew that “God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind” (Genesis 1:24). Accordingly, he recognized and approved that the “great love” that Moses showed for his brothers was an essential element of the created order. For the same reason, “Paul dared to pray to be accursed from Christ on behalf of his brothers of the same race according to the flesh”. Reason tells us, Basil believed, that “affection exists by nature in those born toward those who have borne them”.634 For the white European peoples of the twenty-first century, this is perhaps the most important lesson to be drawn from the creation story in Genesis One.

  Postscript

  This essay was the first piece that I wrote in THL245 God, Humanity, and Difference (a course that turned out to be all about God and “humanity” and not at all about “difference”); it received an interesting comment from the lecturer Dr Ben Myers:

  An action-packed little essay, bringing together insights from OT exegesis, patristics, and contemporary culture. I especially like the way you explore the two models of cosmos as temple and as school. For a rhetorically more persuasive essay you might have come up with a third model to describe the plight of modernity — and then shown how Basil’s approach could help to correct (or demolish) this model. Probably the most promising approach would be to dig deeper into his pedagogical model, and to look at how he used pedagogy as an overarching framework for interpreting both scripture and culture. (He was also much more critical of his culture than you’ve intimated here, not least in his constant castigation of the rich and leisured classes). Also, don’t forget that he helped to create an entire alternative social order centred on the monastery and the local cult of saints — another sign that he wasn’t just “influenced” by Greek culture but also very systematically set out to influence it in reverse!

  If you’d like to explore the pedagogical model a bit more, there’s a terrific book on this by Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia. And you might also find interesting Peter Brown’s chapter on “Paideia and Power” in his important book on Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire.

  PS My suggestion for the prevailing contemporary model: world as mirror.

  After receiving these comments from Dr Meyer, I told him that I was very intrigued by his suggestion that moderns perceive the cosmos as a mirror. In the course of our conversation, I suggested that he should read Christopher Lasch’s book on The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. Lasch was reputed to be one of the influences shaping Jimmy Carter’s “American malaise” speech, a political gaffe that cost the President a second term in the White House. Dr Meyers got it, saying “Oh, you mean he wasn’t optimistic enough”.

  2: Christian Anthropology and the Work of Reconciliation in Australia

  Introduction

  The rhetoric of “reconciliation” dominates discussion of Aboriginal affairs in contemporary Australia. Both major political parties are committed to formal constitutional recognition “that the continent and its islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”. The Expert Panel appointed to consider recognition also proposed that the Constitution should acknowledge “the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters”.635 These recent proposals are part of a much more wide-ranging, long-standing movement for reconciliation which has received strong support from mainstream churches throughout the country.

  Politicians and religious leaders alike contend that constitutional recognition of the status of indigenous peoples as Australia’s original inhabitants will, in the words of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, “right an old and grievous wrong”. The current Prime Minister Tony Abbott believes that such an amendment would permanently atone for the “hardness of heart” displayed by British settlers towards the Aborigines. He hopes that by reassuring the “indigenous” peoples that they are not a “historic footnote,” constitutional recognition will create a “unifying and liberating moment” that no other reform could achieve.636

  This redemptive theme endows the idea of reconciliation with a religious aura further sanctified by the universalistic brand of Christian humanism taught by mainstream Australian theologians and preached by ministers of the gospel. A recent book entitled Speaking Differently: Essays in Theological Anthropology provides a useful window into the religious roots of the reconciliation movement. Editor Heather Thomson sets the tone for other contributors when she affirms that Christian faith requires not just a passive recognition of the universality of human rights but also the active calling or “vocation…to become more humane and more committed to peace, justice and reconciliation in the world”.637

  Similarly, Thorwald Lorenzen insists that a Christian perspective on human rights looks “at reality from the perspective of those whose dignity is threatened, diminished or distorted”. It is not enough, therefore, for “British/European Australians…to be charitable and generous to Aborigines” or to “feel obligated to give aid to Aborigines”. In addition, we must be “prepared to look at life through their eyes”. In his view, white Christians must grant Aborigines “a hermeneutical privilege for understanding reality” and “recognise the equal dignity and worth of these people as human beings and grant that they have a claim upon us”.638 More generally, Thomson urges Christians to open their hearts to the wretched of the earth by engaging in “advocacy and intercession on behalf of others” in every domain of private, social, and public life.639 For both, Christian anthropology rests upon the proposition that every human being is made in the image of God; consequently, moral claims anchored in our shared humanity transcend the merely contingent circumstances of family, tribal, national, and racial identity.

  Speaking Differently portrays reconciliation as a practical expres
sion of faithfulness to Christ. The fundamental issue, therefore, is simply this: Is this humanistic theological anthropology based upon true beliefs which provide a coherent picture of reality?

  What is Christian Anthropology?

  Oblivious to the possibility that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights harbours a hidden political agenda, Lorenzen treats that convention as a summary statement of “Judeo-Christian” anthropology.640 Spiritually fortified by such seemingly high-minded public proclamations of ecumenical good will, both Thomson and Lorenzen approach the Aboriginal question believing that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.641 Of course, they can hardly deny that massive inequality is a “natural fact” seen most obviously in the multiple and chronic “disadvantages” revealed in the comparatively poor health, education, and general welfare of Australian Aborigines. But, despite appearances, Lorenzen believes that “God has created and redeemed all human beings to be one humanity”. It follows that faithful Christians are under a God-given duty to eliminate such flagrant social injustices wherever they may be found. Since Christians assert the inherent “equality of all people,” empirical manifestations of inequality must be treated as the contingent product of historical injustices which can and should be remedied.642

  In search of a solution to the “oppression and slavery” allegedly visited upon Aborigines, the editors of Speaking Differently grant a “hermeneutical privilege” to the voice of one allegedly victimized other in the person of Ray Minniecon.643 Pastor Minniecon bills himself proudly as “a descendant of the Kabi Kabi nation and the Gurang Gurang nation of South East Queensland, the South Sea Islander people, with connections to the people of Ambrym Island”.644 As such, he writes as an ethnic activist not as an academic theologian. By contrast, Heather Thomson appears to be a typically ethno-masochistic WASP intellectual humbly begging forgiveness for the sins of her ancestors.645 She expresses a deep desire to transcend all the particularistic bonds of family, tribe, and nation in order “[t]o know oneself as a part of a much larger human family”.646 Clearly, there is a radical difference between the abstractly universalistic ethos promoted by the white Australian contributors to Speaking Differently and the unabashedly tribal particularism espoused by Minniecon. Such a stark contrast exposes the intellectual incoherence and spiritual confusion of what passes for Christian anthropology in the postmodern academy.

  Once upon a time, it was axiomatic that Christian anthropology must be grounded in the absolute priority of truth and logical coherence. Ethnic advocacy, on the other hand, is bound by no such constraints, particularly when the race or ethnicity being represented remains rooted in the cultural presuppositions of a tribal society. Among primitive peoples organized in kinship networks of families, clans, and tribes, the value of social solidarity far outweighs the importance of truth. One observer remarked “that there is more tolerance in Aboriginal interaction of what white Australians regard as inconsistencies or contradictory statements”.647 According to anthropologist Roger Sandall, tribal societies are “closed societies” in which “knowledge tends to be surrounded by high walls and prohibitions, which confine it to elders, or priests, or chiefs, or kings, and these taboos are strictly enforced”. In such a world, knowledge does not mean what philosophers describe as rationally justified true belief. Rather, Sandall points out, “in the definition of knowledge used by anthropologists rational justification is irrelevant”. Belief for tribal peoples is anchored in the cultural need, above all else, to foster loyalty to a group without which their survival becomes impossible. “What is called tribal ‘knowledge’ usually reflects the needs of group solidarity more than anything else: as such it often represents culturally justified false belief”.648

  When reading Minniecon’s contribution, one wonders: Does the foundational premise of the reconciliation movement which he champions rest upon: (a) false beliefs justified by loyalty to a group; or, (b) true beliefs justified by the rational, disinterested evaluation of all available and relevant evidentiary material? In other words, is it, in fact, true that Aboriginal disadvantage is almost entirely the product of historical injustices perpetrated by British settlers and their descendants over a period of two centuries? Or, can the plight of Australian Aborigines as compared to European Australians be explained, not as the result of “hard-heartedness” on the part of the latter group, but rather by reference to the empirically observable, apparently intractable differences in intelligence, behaviour, and temperament that distinguish the two races? Unfortunately, Ray Minniecon turns a blind eye to the hypothesis that there exist innate differences between the various races of humanity, differences which might affect the ability of Australian Aborigines, in particular, to prosper in an advanced industrial society.

  Telling the Truth about Aborigines

  Minniecon has no interest in the evolutionary development of racial differences between Aborigines and European or Asian peoples. The only difference between human groups that matters to him is the power differential between slaves and masters. Indeed, he describes himself as “a slave to the political, social, and religious institutions and systems created by the discourse of the Powerful”. Because Aborigines are “defined and undermined by the Powerful” who captured [our] minds, “[m]y perceptions and those of my people have not changed very much over the past 200 years”. Having been rendered powerless by a latter-day white Pharaoh, Aborigines were condemned to “[e]conomic deprivation and political impotence” in their own land.649

  Minniecon offers “three historical quotes” in support of his claim that powerful white Australians deliberately define and undermine the “identity and dignity” of Aborigines. The first, and most important, of these quotations is drawn from a letter written by the Reverend Samuel Marsden in 1819. Significantly, Minniecon does not appear to have read the letter as a whole. Instead, he cites another book dealing with the relationship between Aborigines and Christianity as the source for the passage which he reproduces as follows: “The aborigines are the most degraded of the human race…the time has not yet arrived for them to receive the great blessings of civilization and the knowledge of Christianity”.650 For Minniecon, these two sentences suffice to demonstrate that Marsden was one of the Powerful few determined to undermine Aboriginal identity and deny them the dignity due to fellow human beings. But when one examines the primary source of the quotation a very different picture of Marsden’s intentions emerges.

  The apparently innocuous ellipsis contained in the middle of the Marsden quotation actually conceals a wealth of material relevant to his defence against charges of racism and oppression. In the gap of almost half a page between the words “human race” and “the time,” Marsden provides the essential comparative context for his remarks about Australian Aborigines. Marsden explains at length the reasons why it has been impossible to receive “the natives of this colony” into a seminary in Parramatta. He established this institution to educate the sons of New Zealand Maoris.651 It seems unlikely that he undertook that philanthropic project in order to undermine Aboriginal self-esteem. His letter does not speak the language of an oppressive master class or race. Rather, Marsden employs the discourse appropriate to a sophisticated and experienced Christian anthropologist whose practical “field-work,” in both Australia and New Zealand, has attuned him to the reality of racial differences. Significantly, the racial differences most relevant to his concerns in this letter are not those between white Europeans and indigenous peoples but rather the yawning gulf he observed between the comparative intelligence, behaviour, and temperament of Maoris and Aborigines.

  Marsden’s letter refers to the difficulties experienced by the school established by the Governor for native children in the New South Wales colony. He reports that it proved impossible to keep the children in school since the “natives of the Colony, when they attain the age of thirteen or fourteen years, always take to the woods”. Marsden describes Aborigines as “the most degraded of the human race” because in
his experience they were addicted to “every vice, and particularly drunkenness, both men and women, and still go naked about the streets”. This had a direct effect on the mission of the Parramatta seminary because the Maoris “would never be induced to live with them [Aborigines] if it was possible to confine them”. Marsden tells his correspondent that the New Zealanders “cannot bear” the “degraded appearance” of the Australian Aborigines; “their conduct is so disgusting altogether, as well as their persons”. Time might “alter the present circumstances,” Marsden wrote, but for the foreseeable future “[i]t will be best to keep the New Zealanders by themselves as much as possible in the seminary”.652

  Marsden’s complete letter appears in a volume entitled Letters and Journals of Samuel Marsden arising out of the three voyages that he made to New Zealand in support of the Christian mission to the Maoris. In these letters and journals, spanning the period between 1814 when the mission was established and his death in 1838, Marsden displays a detailed knowledge and sympathetic understanding of the Maori way of life. Naturally, he disapproved both the ceaseless, murderous warfare that Maori tribes waged against one another and the concomitant practice of cannibalism. At the same time, Marsden was very impressed by the intellectual capacity of Maori chiefs to debate and defend cultural practices utterly shocking and thoroughly repugnant to his Christian conscience. He observed that “[t]heir reasoning faculties are strong and clear and their comprehension quick”. Marsden was convinced that Maoris already had advanced far beyond the degraded state characteristic of Australian Aborigines. Nor did he doubt that they were capable of developing still further in the habits of civilization. “When once they obtain a true knowledge of the Scriptures they will improve very fast, and may then be ranked with civilized nations”.653