I was a little perplexed to read in last Sunday’s papers that the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, had announced that this Christmas, all we need is love. That’s right, forget that overpriced bauble. Put down that expensive trinket. Cancel the lay-by on the latest gadget, all you need is love. Love. Love is all you need. All together now … Brand me as crazy if you like. Ask me to take a psych examination to prove it but I think I’m missing something here. Here is a man who has given his wholehearted support to his party’s polices calling on us to give love!
We are supposed to forget that he gave his wholehearted support for the illegal locking up of children and the resulting trauma inflicted on them. He gave his wholehearted support for the illegal invasion and ongoing occupation of a sovereign nation. He continues to give his wholehearted support to the illegal detention of an Australian citizen in what some have described as a "torture" camp. And Peter Costello tells us to give love!
As I understand it Costello comes from a conservative, but not ultra right, Christian background. Indeed his brother, the Reverend Tim Costello, has gone on to do good works as a Baptist minister in Melbourne working with the drug addicted, homeless and street girls. Metaphorically speaking, from the same seed two more different plants could not sprout. Yet they have. However, in order to decode Peter Costello’s remarks it is useful to contextualise them within the neo-liberal, conservative mindset from which they spring.
According to this mindset, each of us is personally responsible for the outcomes of each day of our lives. Individually we create the conditions in which we live, work, have relationships and die. In short, within the marketplace of everyday life, each of us is free to choose what we do, where we do it, with whom we do it, for how long we do it and for what benefit we may gain from it. If there are benefits that accrue to others through our efforts, then that is just a spin off for which they should me more grateful than we should feel ripped off.
This conservative individualism sits rather well with the fundamentalist Christian dogma that underpins the Baptist teachings from which the Costello brothers grew. However, as in all religions and ideologies there are those that will take a hardline view and those who will take a more liberal, social view. In short, those who take the second tend to end up being labelled the "bleeding heart leftists" while those who take the first are, in this modern world, hailed as "realists", "pragmatists" and "leaders".
As believers, both sets of Christians do agree on one point and that is that after death there comes judgement. However, the form of judgement differs considerably. For the conservatives this judgement will be about retribution, punishment and if things turn out badly, a sentence to hell. In order to avoid the ultimate godly sanction, the conservatives believe that you must do good works. These good works are personal acts such as making sure you are ‘pure of heart’ and that religious observances are maintained. One must be careful to avoid sin and stay away from temptation. If you are to win a place in the heavenly choir, you must take care of your religious commitments first, your family second and yourself last. As least that is what is preached.
The lives of the conservatives tend to be highly regulated, controlled and always a little uneasy. Uneasy because you never know when you might slip up and lose the free ticket to the sweet by and by. So, in reality, the conservative dogma is lived out by trying to take care of number one at all times. For example, if your teenage kids want to go to a party where there will be grog, you don’t let them because you believe that if your children sin then that will be a reflection on your ability as a parent and so that free ticket might be under threat. So it’s not really the safety and well being of the teenagers but the ‘salvation’ of the parents that takes prime consideration.
The more liberal Christian on the other hand, while proclaiming a devotion to the same god, will attempt to explain to their teenager the potential pitfalls of drinking to excess; will try and make a reasonable judgment of their kid’s ability to handle the situation; may even ring the parents of the host and try and understand what boundaries there are for the party goers; will weigh up the historical precedents (the child’s trustworthiness for example) and make their decision based on a range of criteria. If they say no, at least the kid will have had the opportunity to be heard, to argue their case and to have been given a truthful and honest reason. If they say yes it will probably be with some trepidation and more than like with some ‘escape route’ clause so the child can come home early if they feel in danger. Which of these two approaches seem more in line with notions of love?
Costello’s announcement that love is all we need at Christmas is as shallow as his fundamentalist beliefs are dangerous. Its been said that you can’t tell what someone really believes in their heart and mind just by looking at them and listening to them but you can find out by watching what they do over a period of time. The Bible that Costello no doubts refers to in those times when he needs a ‘charge’ and reassurance that he is going to pass through the Pearly gates, offers an interesting story on the way that we perhaps, should, view the path to heaven.
The story goes (and you can check it out in Mark, Chapter 10) that a man ran up to Jesus and fell at his feet. Now, this bloke was not your ordinary man in the street. He was a respected town leader. He had personality, respect, position, power. But despite his questions, he was really on a political mission. His request, a simple one, was "what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" Now, no matter what your position on Jesus is, he was no one’s fool.
He said to the bloke, follow the rules. Don’t cheat on your tax return, don’t cheat on your wife, and don’t cut off the oldie’s pension fund. Be good, do all you can that’s right and … oops got mixed up with the Mickey Mouse show there. Anyway, after Jesus had said all the things this bloke must do to obey the law, the fellow said, "I observed all these things from my youth." I love the next bit. "And looking at him, Jesus loved him and said unto him, One thing is lacking in you. Go, sell what things you have and give to the poor. And you will have treasure in heaven. And come, follow me, taking up the cross. But being sad at the word, he [the bloke] went away grieving; for he had many possessions" (Mark 10: 20-22). The type of love I believe this Jesus was describing is a socially responsible love. A love of abandonment of self and an unconditional engagement with others. I can’t claim to be an expert on the practice of this type of love. I reckon I spend a great deal of time trying to get my own way and I too would baulk if some guy in a robe told me to sell up and move out.
Love is not something we can hold on to or take. It is something we express through the way we live. Costello’s invocation that we should give love is as hollow as trying to say that children’s faces should be washed twice a day in order to prove you’re a good parent. Love is not something we can take for granted. It involves a sense of security that can only be found in collective environments where each individual is honoured, firstly as a human being, secondly as a member of the community and thirdly for who they might become.
At my wedding, and at numerous other weddings I’ve been to, the victims, sorry couples, have had read out one of the greatest love poems ever written. It’s also found in the Bible Costello reads. It comes from 1 Corinthians Chapter 13. It talks about an ideal love that has been traditionally interpreted as meaning some form of romantic love between a man and a women. This interpretation is something that conservative ministers in particular are keen to maintain. However if we read the poem as it was meant to be read we find that it is about the type of love we should aim for as a community of individuals. The root word for the ‘love’ referred to in this poem is, in the original language, a word that means to have moral and/or social regard for. Philosophically it means to be open to the world around and its potentials and possibilities. It is the same word Jesus used when talking with the rich young ruler.
In response to Costello’s utterance I would ask him to respond to the following questions about the type of love he wants us to imbibe in this Festive season. Firstly, does your type of love condone the incarceration of children regardless of the circumstances leading to that incarceration? Secondly, does your type of love condone the killing of innocent civilians simply because you THINK they MIGHT be dangerous? Finally, does your type of love condone the locking up of people and subjecting them to torture?
As mentioned earlier we can never know what truly goes on inside the heart and mind of another but we can find out by watching what they do over a period of time. I wonder if Costello is aware that he is being watched and judged by a power even greater than that of the Party he belongs to.