Snyder believes that irrational fears and base instincts cause many members of established communities in America and the UK to resent and resist the appearance of asylum seekers.936 Together with Jewish thinkers such as Levinas and Martin Buber, Snyder views the stranger worshipfully, as “one who brings new life…Buber suggested that we can only come to know God and ourselves through relationship with the ‘other’”.937 While denying that any special privilege or theological insight attaches to her identity “as a white, 33 year old, British, middle-class, Anglican ordained woman”, Snyder acknowledges that the Jewish perspective is aligned — existentially and historically — with the Others: i.e., the non-white minority racial, ethnic, and religious groups found in growing numbers in both the UK and the USA. Jews, “[h]aving such a strong understanding of themselves as strangers and sojourners,” intuitively feel “a bond with [other] sojourning strangers, whom Israel must love as themselves”.938
We (implicitly white folks), on the other hand, are driven by deeply-rooted fears of the other lying beaten and bloody by the roadside. Snyder, therefore, implores her English co-ethnics to step over — even to erase — the boundaries securing their established families and communities, allowing the “power of self-giving love” to pour itself upon the rising tide of aliens and strangers, drawn from every conceivable race, colour, and creed.939 Unfortunately, such well-meaning “transformative activity” in the cause of out-group altruism rests upon — inter alia — a dangerously misconceived reading of the Good Samaritan parable.
As a matter of practical theology, it is important to notice that the “neighbour” as identified in the dialogue between Jesus and the expert on the law in Luke 10:36–37 was not the man lying by the roadside but the Samaritan. Nor was the Samaritan displaying the power of self-giving love. Rather, it was “mercy” not love that he bestowed upon the beaten traveller. The Good Samaritan is therefore better understood as a model not of selfless altruism but rather of trustworthy and honourable behaviour. The expert in law knew from the beginning that he was required to love his neighbour (Luke 10:27). But, when he asks “who is my neighbour,” Jesus helps him to see that the “neighbour” is not any or all of those countless needy Others that we encounter more or less randomly on life’s journey. The story restricts rather than expands the definition of neighbour. The neighbour is the one who acts in a neighbourly manner. It is, therefore, the Samaritan who the law commands us not just to love but also to respect and emulate.
The point of the Good Samaritan parable is obscured by concentrating our attention simply on the relationship between the Samaritan and the needy traveller. The Samaritan acts in a neighbourly manner not just by extending personal assistance to the man lying by the roadside but by working to create a neighbourhood. Having administered first aid to the injured traveller, the Samaritan took the man to an inn somewhere along the road. There, he arranged continuing care and treatment of the robbery victim, promising to reimburse the innkeeper on his return journey. According to Bruce Longenecker, the denouement of the narrative reveals “an uncommon association of figures” as the Samaritan and the innkeeper “enter into a relationship involving personal vulnerability and loss on the one hand and mutual trust and cooperation on the other. It is from this risky fragile and exceptional association that goodness flows to the benefit of the disadvantaged”.940
In other words, by acting in concert in a trustworthy and honourable manner, the Samaritan and the innkeeper generate a stock of social capital that could be beneficial to future travellers along the Jerusalem to Jericho road. The man lying by the roadside was not just an archetypical exemplar of the Other; he belonged to the latent community of interest constituted by all of the travellers along that dangerous route. The Samaritan and the innkeeper were helping to make that community of interest overt and effective by building up a fund of mutual trust and cooperation. This ancient story about an embryonic micro-community “sketches something of the empire or reign of God”.941
Accordingly, there is an important eschatological dimension to the parable. It was no coincidence that Jesus told of a man “going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers” (Luke 10:30). This line of travel led to Samaria. Jesus knew that at least some of his apostles would be passing that way during the end times of Old Covenant Israel. When asked by the disciples when Jesus was going to restore the kingdom of Israel, he answered that they would “receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:6–8). In urging the expert in law to follow in the Samaritan’s footsteps (Luke 10:37), Jesus may have hoped that such an influential person would campaign to secure the safety and well-being of travellers along the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, especially those soon to be sent on apostolic missions to the ends of the earth by way of Samaria (Acts 8:5). Road safety was bound to become a practical concern of considerable urgency for the early church. After all, Jesus had promised that “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Luke 21: 32).
Counting the Cost of “Transformational” Theology
In stark contrast to the joint enterprise initiated by the Samaritan and the innkeeper, the increasingly pathological altruism942 championed by the contemporary cult of the Other cannot shape or sustain much less create cohesive communities. Pious xenophiles943 such as Susanna Snyder are squandering irreplaceable stocks of inherited social capital, undermining what remains of the traditions of family, faith, and folk uniquely associated with high-trust, European-descended societies such as England. In fact, over the past year in Europe the “transformative and liberatory” goals of “progressive” theological praxis have been translated into a criminally reckless reductio ad absurdum: the “cat lady theology” of the Christian refugee industry.944
Strenuously signalling their moral superiority to “far-right, racist xenophobes,” refugee advocates greet with open arms an (as yet unarmed) invasion of Europe by masses of unassimilable aliens — mainly able-bodied, visibly aggressive, adult men of military age from Afghanistan, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.945 The fact that the fit young men pushing their way into Europe are not fighting at home to defend or support their own families and communities suggests that they are not altogether trustworthy and honourable people. Certainly, they are not lying unconscious by life’s roadside in desperate need of unreciprocated Christian altruism.
The apocalyptic chain of events that politically correct practical theologians have helped to set in train will not end well — either for parasitic aliens or for their involuntary hosts.946 In this context, the term “parasitic” is not simply a derogatory figure of speech. The life sciences teach us not just that predators and parasites abound in nature but that we are part of the natural world. Unintended and highly unpleasant consequences may befall those who fail to heed that lesson. European-descended societies are experiencing rising levels of racial, ethnic, and religious tension because of mass immigration. It is not safe simply to assume that European Christians are bound, in all circumstances, to shower unrequited, self-giving love upon racial and religious Others at home and abroad. Practical theologians involved in refugee advocacy need to consider whether academic disciplines such as evolutionary parasitology — apparently so remote from their own concerns — have any application to the relationship between their clients and the host society. One presumes, of course, that they have some lingering sense of loyalty to their own people.
One hopes that theological reflection across several fields of study (ranging from sociobiology and population ecology to ethics and ecclesiology) will help patriotic, European-descended Christians to respond in a trustworthy and honourable, prudent yet resolute manner to the expanding third world colonies in our midst. Practical theologians need to ask some hard questions. For example, can the relationship between some ethnic minorities and their host nation
s, societies, and cultures be likened to parasitic behaviours found in nature (e.g., the cuckoo which lays its eggs in the nests of other bird species)? Are some human host populations manipulated (by “parasitic” others) or compelled (by “predators”) to sacrifice their own collective interests to the advantage of minority out-groups? If so, what are the practical theological implications of such maladaptive behaviour? Should ethnic Others who act like cuckoos in the national nests of European peoples be condemned as “untrustworthy” or “dishonourable” characters? Have Western nations been cuckolded by church leaders rolling out the red carpet for alien populations?947 However shocking and distasteful such questions may seem to an increasingly feminized Christian consciousness,948 they demand truthful answers.
Conclusion
Even diversity enthusiasts such as Jewish social scientist Robert Putnam recognize that “immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital”. He draws on evidence from the US to suggest “that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer”.949 In this brief survey of the literature on practical theology we find few if any signs that such words of warning are taken seriously. Instead, the ethno-masochistic cult of the Other reigns supreme, most powerfully among white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
7: Postscript: Feminine Feelings versus Masculine Virtues?
This assignment was defined as follows:
Task
Write a 1500 word essay on the following:
“Practical theology is a transformational activity. That is to say, both in terms of process and outcome it aims to make a difference to people, understandings and situations in the contemporary world.” (Woodward, James and Stephen Pattison, Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, 2000, p13)
The authors suggest this description above is a common characteristic of the varied types of Practical Theology (for example, the four areas referred to in the Introduction to this Subject Outline). From the different areas you have studied during this subject, what evidence could they have used to support this claim? Do you agree with their conclusion? Please give reasons for your answer.
Your essay should include the following:
1. an introduction, a body comprised of numerous paragraphs and a conclusion.
2. each paragraph should have a topic sentence.
3. include quotes from the texts reviewed in Assessment 1 and 2, plus a minimum of three other academic sources with appropriate referencing
4. You may incorporate up to 300 words from your previous assignment items (i.e. 1200 words maximum of new material is required) as a way of developing your answer to the major essay question.
Grade
Here are the comments I received from Dr Rhonda White, a former Uniting Church minister who was the lecturer in THL 120 Practical Theology:
Thank you Drew,
I have a number of concerns with this paper which is disappointing as you are clearly a very skilled writer.
1. This paper is almost 1500 words over the word limit
2. You have only obliquely addressed the question of how Practical Theology is transformative — it is not clear how you understand the theological underpinnings of transformation. The task required an explaination [sic] how PT is or isn’t transformative in the four major areas of PT namely:
a. As the practice of Christian faith
b. The practical training of ministers and laypeople for Christian ministry and service
c. As method/s for doing theology — incl theological reflection
d. Academic research and critical interdisciplinary analysis
Apart from a brief mention in the introduction, you have not addressed b or c and only obliquely addressed a and d
You have included a good range of other material but have not engaged in critical analysis of methodology or with the theology underpinning the material. Instead your critique has been limited to the conclusions drawn by each writer.
I also have some structural issues with this essay, your conclusion does not relate to your introduction and your referencing is at times confusing — it was not always clear who was saying what. You also need to give a definition and explanation of “the cult of the other”
Thank you 30/45
Dr White made few comments on the body of the paper. Her most substantive criticism was prompted by my observation that most of the “refugees” now pouring into Germany were young men who have chosen not to fight in defence of their families and communities (assuming that they in fact did leave war zones). She counters with the suggestion that “There are many reasons why people choose a non-violent response which have nothing to do with trustworthiness or honourability. This stereotyping is unhelpful to your argument”. When I predict that the migrant invasion will not end well either for the invaders or the host countries, she asks, “How do you support this assertion?” Her question was addressed to me but was made a few days after a well-publicized speech by recently-ousted Prime Minister Tony Abbott on the subject of the migration crisis facing European leaders. Abbott warned of civilizational catastrophe should European leaders fail to stem the rising tide of third world immigration.
As it happens, I beat Tony Abbott to the punch when I wrote about “the rising levels of racial, ethnic, and religious tension” that all European-descended societies are already experiencing “as a consequence of mass immigration”. As fortune would have it, Dr White is disinclined to listen to any gloomy prognosis relating to the rapidly rising tide of mass third world immigration. It matters not whether the bad news is delivered by a former Prime Minister or in a 100-level essay by an elderly student, however skilled a writer the latter might be.
I leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether Dr White’s response to my essay was “trustworthy and honourable,” or even fair and reasonable. Formally speaking, of course, I cannot complain. Because I received marks totalling 45 on the first two assignments, I wound up with a final grade of 75/100, a borderline Distinction.
Still, I was triggered by Dr White’s pedantic response to what even she concedes is a very well-written essay. Like most professed Christians today, she seems unable to dissociate the ancestral blood faith of her people from the pathological altruism mandated by the (((crypto-Jewish))) cult of the Other. Before submitting the paper, I circulated copies to several members of my local Anglican parish. No one was willing to question the stated theological justification (inevitably, the Good Samaritan parable) underlying efforts by the Anglican Diocese of Sydney to increase the annual refugee quota to 20,000 from the current 13,500. Archbishop Dr Glenn Davies also supports the Commonwealth government’s one-off decision to bring an additional 12,000 Syrian refugees to Australia this year while pushing for even more. Allegedly, these persons are to be chosen on the basis of “need”. Some of my fellow parishioners were convinced that most of these people would be Christians. Archbishop Davies, however, “highlighted the importance of a non-discriminatory approach in deciding who should or should not come to Australia” saying that “Our response needs to be immediate, generous and unquestioning with regard to race, ethnicity or religion” (Southern Cross, October 2015, 3).
Now Archbishop Davies is undoubtedly male, but his approach to the refugee issue reflects — to my mind at least — the feminized consciousness shaping the practical theology of the mainline Protestant churches. I suspect he would agree with Dr White’s criticism of my interpretation of the Good Samaritan parable. In response to my suggestion that the Good Samaritan bestowed mercy rather than love upon the traveller lying beaten and unconscious by the side of the road, Dr White remarked that “It is not necessary to set the two against each other — this is a false dichotomy”. But “mercy” and “love” are not synonyms.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines “love” as “[t]hat state of feeling with regard to a per
son which arises from recognition of attractive qualities, from sympathy, or from natural ties, and manifests itself in warm affection and attachment”. “Mercy,” by contrast, denotes: “Forbearance and compassion shown by one person to another who is in his power and who has no claim to receive kindness”. Clearly, the Samaritan was not moved by feelings of warm affection or attachment to an injured stranger who obviously had no personal claim upon his kindness.
It might be said that “compassion” is a common feature of both “love” and “mercy”. Such a view depends upon the feminized, modern understanding of “compassion” as a feeling. Love is a feeling but mercy is an action. The Samaritan was not moved by transient feelings or shallow emotions but by inbuilt, enduring character traits, by a masculine sense of civic virtue. In other words, he was a trustworthy, responsible, and honourable man predisposed to act in ways that serve the common good — even at considerable personal cost.
Contemporary Christian churches are ever-eager to signal feelings of compassion for non-white “refugees”. The Diocese Synod recently called upon Sydney Anglicans to show “concrete acts of mercy and generosity” towards the current wave of Syrian refugees. Thus far “Anglicare, which is the lead agency for the diocesan response, has already raised more than $A250,000” (Southern Cross, November 2015, 3). In personal donations averaging around the price of a latte, Sydney’s roughly 70,000 Anglicans will provide each Syrian refugee with twenty-something dollars in cash or kind. This paltry token of Christian love for the Other is in reality little more than moral preening in the service of corporate self-interest.
Church-run charities have been absorbed into the vast, sprawling administrative apparatus of Babel Inc., the transnational corporate welfare state actively working to dissolve the ethno-religious identity of every European-descended people.950 Church leaders seem wilfully blind to geopolitical reality: mass immigration into white countries (and only white countries) has been weaponised in the service of the (((globalist))) agenda.951 Anglican charitable corporations are nominally private sub-contractors paid to deliver public services to “clients”. In that role and elsewhere, the Anglican church has enlisted on the wrong side in the cultural war waged by cosmopolitan elites on patriotic and particularistic — quintessentially European — traditions of Christian nationhood. Neither Anglican charities nor Anglican churches will shoulder the ever-mounting financial and social costs of refugee resettlement. On the contrary, the church as a corporate entity has a vested interest in the continued growth of the refugee industry. The real costs are simply shifted to taxpayers and working class neighbourhoods in the outer suburbs.
Dissident Dispatches Page 50