Brokenness and Restoration

We have lost our faith in institutions and their practitioners - politics, religion, the law, banking and business (to name but a few). The woke generation says the system is broke, but is there anything new here? Failure is part of the human condition. In recognising this, what becomes important is how we respond when things go wrong.

An opinion piece by the Reverend Andrew Sempell, Rector of St James’.

A Broken World

In March last year, journalist Chris Uhlmann wrote an article for the Sydney Morning Herald on the problem of the loss of faith in our societal institutions and their leaders. In doing so, he cited the failure of political leaders to pursue their policies because of avoidance of internal conflict and the pursuit of public popularity. Moreover, he wrote, what were once moral principles for political leaders have too often been ditched for the sake of expediency and the maintenance of power.

Uhlmann also pointed to the failure of church institutions and their leaders. He argued that the failure of Christianity in the modern era has its roots deep in the philosophical challenges coming out of the Enlightenment. Those things that once retained some emotional and intellectual assent no longer make sense in the face of science and secular criticism. In this way institutional Christianity died in the twentieth century and the recent Royal Commission into child abuse became its funeral. The reputations of church leaders are now in tatters and the faithful await resurrection and renewal.

Finally, Uhlmann looked at matters of philosophy and social theory. In this respect he mentioned the ideas of the nineteenth century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who wrote of the ‘death of God’ and its consequences, as was subsequently worked out in the twentieth century with the rise of communism and fascism, two world wars (and many smaller ones), and several large economic failures.

In response, I argue that these experiences of extremism, violence, and economic failure arise from human constants; and are the effects of greed, a desire for power at all costs, a lack of integrity and moral principle in leadership, the ignoring of rising environmental and social problems, and a justice system that is beyond the financial capacity of ordinary folk. Indeed, from Genesis to Revelation the consequences of human brokenness remains a constant - as it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be!

Chris Uhlmann’s arguments are nothing new. Philosophers, theologians and social commentators have been saying similar things for the past fifty years. Nevertheless, we seem to have come to a point where the consequences are no longer only in the minds of the prophets but rather are in the experiences of the average person. Uhlmann therefore wrote:

“As we keep discovering, there is no perfection here on earth. And we find ourselves in an age when everyone knows something is broken but no one knows how to fix it.” (SMH, 27 Mar 19)

The Problem of Binary Thinking

Coupled with this failure of institutions and their leaders is the problem of the veracity of communication and its correlation with polarisation. As people on the fringes speak past others and disregard the validity of others’ arguments, it has become more difficult to engage in healthy debate. Again, there is nothing new in this, but our tribalism, gracelessness, and deceptiveness does not serve the community well.

In 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks in New York, United States President George W. Bush, in a fit of messianic hubris, proclaimed that “If you are not with me then you are against me”. He then outlined his aggressive intentions for the wider world, which included the invasion of Iraq in the search for non-existent weapons of mass destruction. This, in turn, led to the further destabilisation of the Middle-east, which is a problem that remains with us today.

Bush’s way of trying to convince people of his position was to create a binary argument, which is an either/or dichotomy where no other option exists. This is an old debating trick still used by many in public discussion. Binary thinking presents arguments in terms of two positions that are mutually exclusive – yes or no. It is a way of forcing people into accepting a position that may not be to their liking or even based on truth.

Binary thinking is entirely appropriate in mathematics and similar disciplines. It is also apposite when asking, ‘At the end of the road do I turn left or right?’, or ‘Do you have milk in your coffee?’. Although, even these questions do not entertain other possibilities such as stopping at the end of the road or wanting soy in your coffee.

Binary thinking, however, can come to dominate the way a person understands the world, such that all matters become a choice between two opposites, without entertaining that there may be more than two choices (or perhaps none). In this way the human world becomes split between simple dichotomies such as truth and falsity, right and wrong, goodness and evil, without entertaining the complexity that lies behind such terms.

This phenomenon is also seen in the differences between simple, complicated and complex systems. Simple systems can operate with a high degree of binary thinking, less so with complicated ones, and not at all with complexity where there are too many variables and often insufficient knowledge and understanding.

I remember the first in a series of lectures on economic theory at university, in which the lecturer emphasised the importance of understanding that the theoretical model is never the reality, but only an approximation of it. Moreover, as with good science, such theory is only held provisionally until a better one arises.

Later, I found that it was similar with military doctrine, which understood that changes in technology and human behaviour will always have an impact on the battlefield. “Doctrine is for the guidance of the wise and the slavish obedience of fools” the instructor would say. Indeed, that is why we don’t use horses in warfare anymore. Norman Dixon’s book On the Psychology of Military Incompetenceprovided a wealth of examples of where leaders were incapable of adapting to their times and circumstances.

Even later in life, I found these principles useful in the study of theology, especially when it is understood to be a human description of a more complex reality that we call God. In this way, theology can become a description of God and humanity that will change over time as the nature of the world and human society changes. But not all in the church think this way – some are stuck in binary thought and have no capacity to change!

Dualism, which understands that the world is divided between opposing forces, has its roots in both ancient Greek philosophy and many ancient religions. Platonism divides the world into physical and spiritual realms; early Christianity understood the world as a battleground between good and evil; Rene Descartes made a distinction between the operation of physical matter and mental activity. In contrast is monism, the understanding that mind and matter are not separate but one.

Christian dualism has a moralistic base that tends to divide people between the righteous and unrighteous, the saved and the damned, the right and the wrong, those who are ‘in’ and those who are ‘out’. In doing so, it tends to cause those of such a disposition to adopt binary thinking with its subsequent social pathology, which is why it is so difficult to have a rational conversation with a fundamentalist!

The problem of dualism and binary thinking in the church is manifest through its propensity toward tribalism and faction, exclusivism and clericalism, special pleading and obscurantism. In Australian history this has been especially evident through sectarianism and its contribution to identity politics.

Binary thinking therefore contributes little to the complex world of humanity or God. Nevertheless, it is an understandable rationale for those who seek certainty, simplicity and control. Unfortunately, it can fool people into crooked ways of thinking that ultimately lead to disaster through the creation of faux conflicts, straw-man debate, social polarisation, hard-line division, and the negation of creative approaches to complex problems. In this way, it is an example of human brokenness.

Redeeming the Time

An important part of the Christian faith is its ministry of reconciliation and resolution of conflict - both between humanity and God and within humanity itself. This is partly because of God’s call for people to seek justice, love and peace; partly because our faith gives us the strength to take risks for the common good; and partly because of an ethos that respects service, self-sacrifice, and humility as virtues.

Reconciliation can be understood as both an integral part of the nature of God and a means of achieving transformation. At the centre of this is the overriding importance of good relationships – that is with God, each other, oneself and nature - all of which is centred around the paradox of love. Love requires that there must be freedom to choose otherwise it is not love but coercion and abuse. Love is therefore a risky business; we cannot make people love us, we can only offer love and hope that it will be reciprocated.

The importance of good and loving relationships in all their diversity counteracts the consequences of binary thinking and identity politics. In this respect, the Bible describes the complexity of relationships within humanity and with God over time. It includes many stories of brokenness and sin, followed by reconciliation and restoration.

Dr Muthuraj Swamy, Director of the Cambridge Centre for Christianity, describes how we live in a world of division and conflict that fears diversity and ‘otherness’. In response to our fears, we tend to adhere to power structures that exclude those of whom we disapprove or don’t like.

He contrasts this with the ministry of reconciliation, which is meant to overcome this destructive behaviour and draw humanity back into a state of ‘atonement’, which is the capacity to live without tension. In other words, the ability to live in peace. This is our mission as the church – that is, to bring peace even in the face of exclusion, bullying and violence – for which we look at the cross. Sadly, we are not very good at reconciliation and are too often the cause of division and brokenness.

The Two Great Commandments (about loving God and one’s neighbour) summarise Jesus’ approach to addressing the problem of brokenness. The implication is that we need to choose to love God and our neighbours, as we love ourselves; but what is this love? St Paul describes it as love ‘without strings attached’, a gracious love that expects nothing in return; a love that goes on loving even if the object of our love does not reciprocate. Moreover, it is a love that is actively concerned for the other’s well-being and growth, effectively illustrated in the parable of ‘the prodigal son and the loving father’ (Luke 15: 11-32).

Muthuraj Swamy encourages us to develop the skills of humility and self-criticism if we are ever to contribute to the building of relationships and the overcoming of brokenness. Likewise, Jesus taught and demonstrated that changing the world does not require pride or the exercise of dominance over others. When Mrs Zebedee came wanting special honours for her two sons in the kingdom of heaven, Jesus responded by lecturing them on the concept of servant leadership (Matthew 20: 20-28).

If we wish to redeem the time and overcome the effects of brokenness, along with social and political polarisation; we, our leaders, and social institutions would do well to regain the necessity of service, self-sacrifice, and humility in the public domain. It is a matter of restoring relationships rather than breaking or dividing them; a desire for justice rather than pettifogging process; it is governing for all people rather than for party, sect or tribe; it is being aware of the interconnectedness of all things rather than an obsession with abstractions and peculiarities.