Is Social Media Accelerating the 'West' into Shame Culture status? - Part 3

In a previous blog about an article in the NY Times regarding social media, I made a few comments regarding shame.

Since then I was sent a link to an interesting on-line discussion by 'mere orthodoxy', working through the issues of public shaming in response to that same article.

I wanted to share just a few matters that were raised in that discussion that demonstrate so many honour/shame concepts that are embodied by Social Media, and its impact on our modern society....and to add a few personal comments....

*Social Media often acts as the Social Police

-when the absolutes of God's definition of right and wrong for ruling the internal conscience, and thus constraining behaviour, are dismissed,  there is not some neutral ground.  Instead, public opinion of right and wrong step in and public shame or honour is what rules and thus constrains behaviour.

*Social Media gives Social leverage to have some kind of power of voice on-line to participate and feel like they are 'contributing' to the community.

- we all yearn for significance, acceptance and some kind of honourable 'place' in our world.  When we don't recognise that the only way to truly satisfy that yearning is in Christ as acceptance before our Creator, we will seek it from people.  While God created us to live in community and relationship with other human beings, we were not created to have our 'honour' come primarily from people. We were created to be in relationship with God first, and then have a right relationship with people flow out of that.  When we seek primary relationship with other people we give people 'power' over us and seek power over others, that God never intended for us.  This is a destructive power that actually destroys community rather than building it.

*One panel member mentioned that normal 'discourse is not just about truth but about power' - my privilege (my background, education, status) gives my voice power and means your voice could be dismissed - but twitter allows people who feel normally dismissed to be able to have a voice of equal power and privilege(ie honour)

- this is entirely an honour/shame issue as in the previous point above.  When discourse becomes more about power than truth, its a sure sign that honour/shame is increasing.  When people are seeking personal honour in 'wrong' places, it is also a sure sign they are either not aware, not understanding or else choosing to refuse true honour from God.

*They also mentioned in this social media shaming culture there is a danger especially for Christians to get caught into a culture that has very little room for mercy and grace and taking the time to understand the context which can often be obscured in social media, especially in re-tweeting. 

- this is a very real and relevant caution. It could be all too easy for us as Christians to get caught up in the current that social media creates of seeking honour through 'followers' or by being part of the shaming culture.  We need to be ever careful of the danger zones of social media and the huge temptation they can be in the areas of honour seeking and lack of mercy and grace - mercy and grace that we would hope others would show us.

*When discourse is more on the side of power than truth, then any disagreement in discourse will be seen as a challenge to that power and be viewed with suspicion as a possible reduction of privilege. 

 - very true indeed! We must vigilantly guard against a culture that discourages or punishes disagreement - through ostracism and shaming.  We need to be very careful to differentiate between the freedom to disagree with an idea and the disdain of a person.  In a 'shame' oriented society or situation, there is very little space for an action to be separated from the person.  It's only when God's definitions of right and wrong and guilt is clear, that proper differentiation occurs between guilt and shame, what I do and who I am.  The provision of guilt based on God's objective absolute moral standards brings the benefit of freedom to disagree and discuss a matter, without the feeling of rejection as a person.

*They also spoke about the fact that people can get to the point where they live in fear of making any comment and words being exposed at any moment on social media, to the point where no-one is prepared to say anything.

- as per the above, this is the inevitable result of shaming. People no longer feel that they are free to put forward other perspectives which differ from the ones that hold 'power' (either individuals or group).  This stifles truth and creativity and also hampers success and prosperity.

*Social media can help us 'immanentize' the final judgement where everything will be made known - it can serve as a very real warning to be both careful of our words, as well as courageous enough to say something that before God would be acceptable.

- a timely reminder that we can fool ourselves that we can be careless with our speech with little consequence....social media has brought a very real reminder that we will all give account for what we say, one day it will be all exposed.  If we don't want what we say exposed, we need to ask why?  If its simply fear of man, we should still speak.  But if it is because it reveals that what our words are not godly, then its a timely warning!

*Social media is filled with the concepts of conformity....we need to be prepared to not define ourselves by what other people think of us and we should have the nerve to graciously say what is right even if other people may not agree with us.

  - AMEN!

'Shame' is definitely now in the Conversation...and that's good

Last week was a week of 'Shame' and 'Honour' articles turning up all over the place.

I received emails from various newsletters in recent days etc directing me to no less than  8 articles in one week!

They are filled with lots of food for thought about these issues in our world today - the Western world in particular.  These are issues that have very much been a part of everyday life in our part of the world. Now the 'West' is starting to feel their impact a bit more heavily as the reality of 'Mis-placed Shame' begins to seep into a society that is more than ever seeking its identity in the eyes of people and society and social media rather than in the eyes of God.  

These issues are not about to go away anytime soon...

Here are the links to the articles which I encourage you to take a look at:

Excellent Christianity Today feature article by Andy Crouch

Ed Stetzer - 3 articles

3 links on a Challies.com a-la-carte email

to:

- an article in Christianity Today on the Shame associated with abortion that is more prevalent in the church than we might like to think

- an article on the right kind of honour to give the President - and any Government 

- a blog post commenting on the issues of social media shaming  and outrage by a Professor of English at Liberty University

Werner Mischke was interviewed on the 'Deeper Waters' podcast

and of course don't forget the whole Jan/Feb issue of Missions Frontiers magazine that has an article I contributed along with many other excellent articles 

'Is Social Media Accelerating the 'West' into Shame Culture status? - Part 2

I recently read a very interesting New York Times article which is an excerpt from what may prove to be a very interesting book!

Both the article and book are all about Shame and Social Media.

It tells the story of 'How one stupid tweet blew up Justine Sacco's Life'.  

She was on a flight to South Africa and on the way tweeted -

"  "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!" 

"

She turned off her phone and went to sleep....BUT before she even landed her tweet had gone viral and at the airport another twitter user was already there to take her photo and tweet it to the world!

She deleted her tweet, but by now thousands of others already had copied it.  There was no turning back the clock!  Her impulsive, poorly thought through but mis-understood joke inferring that Americans live in a such a 'bubble' that they think they are immune from the issues others in the world face, had risen up to bite her with public accusations across twitter accusing her of bigotry, and being a 'brutal nadir'.

The author of the article mentioned that he thought "Modernity had diminished shame's power to shame — or so I assumed."

He also said "Social media is so perfectly designed to manipulate our desire for approval," [and is] " a bid for the attention of strangers "

Of further interest are a couple of the 'comments' at the end of the article:

John N

Many of the social aspects of "social media" are shaping social norms in ways I find disturbing...... If social media means that the mob has more power to force conformity, then we all become less free and our society less diverse.

Pamela

every society has evolved a way of establishing and enforcing social norms. once, some used stoning with real stones. now on twitter folks throw verbal stones. real stones break your bones. twitter can hurt you too. 

I could make many comments about thinking before you speak, or the foolishness of making irony jokes across a global multi-cultural audience, or the need by people to treat others the way they want to be treated and not attack and shame, or the dangers of social media, or...or ....or.

However, what I want to hone in on is the 'shame' factor in it all. 

Anthropologically the 'West' is never categorised as a 'Shame Culture' - neither totally nor primarily dominated by shame.  Yet, as the objectiveness of absolute truth according to God's Word and thus a clear and united and consistent definition of right and wrong slips into the background of Western society, guilt according to that standard of right and wrong also slips away.  But it doesn't leave a vacuum.  Sin (doing 'wrong') doesn't disappear just because someone now says there is no absolute standard by which to decide right, wrong and guilt.  Instead, without sin being defined according to God's law (what is acceptable in His eyes and what He says is honourable), it becomes defined according to 'mob law'.  And 'mob law' will always be defined by what is acceptable and honourable in the eyes of those watching around us.  The 'creature', rather than the Creator, sets itself up as the determiner of what is good and evil, right and wrong.

As 'we' set our sights on approval from people rather than God, we also set ourselves up for the full force of the disapproval from people.  The issue of shame will not go away, while sinful human beings inhabit this earth - both because in our sinfulness we shame others, but primarily because shame and sin are inextricably linked and when sin entered the world, so did shame, and its here until we have new heavens and earth.

Social Media is just giving greater opportunity and platform to some aspects of our sinful nature which has been there all along.

In our pride and seeking of significance and honour in a mis-placed way, we think we are getting somewhere in the world, when that approval quota grows, especially when it grows larger than the next person's.  Why do you think Facebook includes a feature to keep a visually obvious tally of 'followers'?

Striped Babies at the Game Reserve

We always enjoy our visits to the local Game Reserve.

It's only small, with none of the 'big 5' (Elephant, Rhino, Buffalo, Leopard, Lion), but there is always something interesting to see slightly different from any other time.

This time included a 'first' - a baby Kudu!

He was just so cute!  He was very young with spindly legs, but quite inquisitive and alert.  And he would run and almost skip around like a frisky young calf.

 

His white stripes were already clearly marked, and his big ears (with one mostly tilted in his mum's direction even if one was facing us), seemed a bit out of proportion to the rest of him.

Then there was the other 'striped' creature - the zebra - Botswana's national animal....and yes a baby one. 

It was also very young and very cute.  Although the baby zebra was much more careful to stay very close to mum.  He grazed, walked, and ran with mum.

There is always something special and fresh about young ones being born and the playfulness and 'cuteness' of children...even those in the animal world.  

Something that reminds us a little of 'unspoiltness' - whether its the softness of a baby's skin or the fluffiness of a young zebra's mane.  

Something that reminds us that decay, aging and deterioration are destructive intruders in our world.  

Something that reminds us that God originally created all things 'good'.  

Something that reminds us of His greatness, and makes us yearn for life beyond this sin-sick earth, and to be with Him for all eternity.

Botswana and 'The Culture Test'

The above graph is of results recently released from 'TheCultureTest.com'

I am a great believer in the value of research and statistical data.  Yes stats can be twisted and in some ways limited, but they can also be very revealing and very helpful and very corrective and instructive.  That is because they can expose truth that has remained hidden.  Satan wants us to believe lies and for truth to remain hidden - he wants lives to remain in bondage, confused and without hope.  God wants people to know the truth about themselves, truth that can set them free.

John MacArthur once made this statement when commenting on 2 Corinthians 10:4,5 in a sermon...

" So what is spiritual war, it is the smashing of ideas that have become the fortifications in which people live, which become their prisons and end up their tomb."  

Mis-placed Shame is such a fortification in our part of the world and for many folks around the globe in one way or another.

A few years ago, God began opening our eyes to the falseness of an idea that has permeated Missiology and Anthropology for decades - the idea that Africa is a 'fear' culture.  We have become more and more convinced from our own observation and research that this was simply not true.  The full truth of Jesus Christ and all that He longs to do to transform hearts and lives was being kept outside the African's reach because they were mis-labeled.  TheCultureTest.com results so far have confirmed this.

When the results came out, TheCultureTest.com made a few comments, 2 of which were:

1. Africa is the least 'guilt'

2. Asia and Africa only differ by 1 % on the 'fear' scale.

TheCultureTest.com also states that the the test was developed primarily for ministry rather than research purposes...However, the results are still relevant for observing trends for Missiological purposes.

I would like to make a few other observations and comments related to how Africa has been in the past (mis)labelled a 'fear' culture, while Asia and the Islamic world were labelled 'shame' and the West was labelled 'guilt'.

Observations from TheCultureTest.com results

1. It is plainly obvious from these results, that Africa is predominantly 'shame' and not predominantly fear at all.  What we have been observing in our research is right on the mark!

2. But credit where credit is due - Africa is the area of the world where 'fear' factors rate the highest - just....and Africa is the only category where fear is higher (slightly) than guilt.  So it is easy to see why early observers and analysts from 'guilt' backgrounds gave Africa the 'fear' label.

3. According to these results, Africa rates higher on the 'shame' factor than does Asia which is has been categorised 'shame'

4. Apart from the '**' category of non-Anglos living in 'Western' community such as Native-American and Asian-Australian, the shame proportion only differs up to a maximum of 8% across all Non-Anglos (from 53% Latin and Asia to 61% Islamic - with Africa at 58%).....and is by far the major factor in all non-Anglo contexts.

5. Interestingly there is almost a complete flip between guilt and shame percentages between the Anglo-West and non-Anglos....ie guilt percentages are in the 20s for the Anglos and (except for Latins), the shame percentages are in the 20s for non-Anglos.

Comments

1. In relation to point 5 above, with an almost complete flip - to help Westerners better understand the gospel impact problems among non-Anglos, an Anglo has to think about what impact the gospel would have if the gospel was only every spoken of in 'shame' terms and never in guilt terms.  Westerners would find the gospel having little connection, conviction. relevance or heart meaning.  

Such is the situation among 'shame' thinkers when the gospel is only spoken of in 'guilt' terms.

2. In relation to point 4 above, if all non-Anglos are predominantly 'shame' oriented, and the majority of Christian/Theological Education, Literature, Evangelism and Discipleship methods and programs are coming from a guilt-emphasis 'West', then we have a very out-of-balance situation. 

There needs to be much more effort put into the above categories to ensure they are enabling folks to understand the relevance of the truth of Scripture to their honor/shame oriented lives. If 'our' Missiological methods and content is primarily guilt-based then Africa is actually the place where they will be having the least impact.  

I would suggest that possibly a reason that the gospel has had more impact in Africa than the Islamic world is that the 'fear' factor was identified and effort was made to address it.

3. TheCultureTest.com also made the comment that Latinos are the most 'balanced' between all three factors of guilt-shame-fear (although the shame factor is still by far the predominant factor) - ie they are hardest to figure out. 

From the graph you will also see that the ** category of non-Anglos living in a Western Country have the most balanced figures if one is just looking at guilt and shame.  Interestingly, so far as we have done the test here with urban-educated-Christians the fear factor drops to 'Western levels' and the guilt and shame factors get closer together (although so far shame is still higher). 

In fact, the guilt factor increases significantly and the fear factor decreases significantly but the shame factor doesn't reduce much at all....so it seems that Gospel teaching is doing an ok job in bringing in the truth of sin's guilt factor and an ok job in showing the victory that Jesus brings over fear, but as would be expected from our research so far, there has been very little change on the dominant shame factor.

 4. It is easy to make the mistake of assuming that if a culture is 'predominantly' one factor or another, that is how people there will function.  

It is true it will be how they function most of the time, but it won't be necessarily all the time.  

We could say (approximately) that if a Westerner comes out on the test as 75% 'guilt' he/she is likely to function on that basis 75% of the time - and that is by far the majority of the time.  

However, if as in the '**' category and with our urban-educated-Christians the guilt and shame % are nearing equal, we have to remember that this can become not only confusing but also frustrating. Especially as the 'guilt' proportion grows closer to the Westerner proportion, the Westerner can be deceived into thinking that shame doesn't play a part, when in reality it can emerge just as easily as the guilt. 

This just goes to show that all three factors - fear, shame and guilt - need to be biblically addressed and framed continually throughout the process of evangelism and discipleship, while keeping in mind how they function on a daily life level within the cultural context being reached.

FINAL NOTE: 

With the folk in Botswana we have done the test with so far, the cultural way of thinking and acting is about 10% higher on the shame factor than the average for Africa (which puts it even higher than the average for Islamic regions) and 8% lower on the guilt factor than the CultureTest general Africa figure. So far we have found that the fear% is about double the guilt %. 

AND Interestingly with the Aussies who have forwarded us their results the average guilt % for Aussies is 77% as opposed to the USA 73% and Europe's 67% - Aussies so far are coming up as an average of around 18% for Shame which is also the lowest of any region overall.......  so it seems Aussies are at one extreme and Botswana is at the other.

Is Social Media Accelerating the 'West' into Shame Culture status? - Part 1

I was very interested to read in the Aussie media a few days ago (Friday 27 Feb 2015) a very interesting story of a French couple who did a 'Dine and Dash' - without paying, from a restaurant in Bunbury, Western Australia.  As Channel 9 TV titled their story "Dine-and-dash couple shamed by WA restaurant on social media". The PerthNow paper also used the term 'shamed' in their heading.

Basically the story of the French couple is that after they 'dashed' (by appearing to pop out for a cigarette), the restaurant posted the incident along with a photo from their security camera, on the restaurant Facebook page.  It was shared by thousands and one of those seeing the photo was the farmer who was employing the couple. He fired them and sent them back to the restaurant to pay up. As the WAToday on-line paper said, the couple 'settled the account "with some embarrassment" '.  The restaurant decided not to make it a police matter since they felt the couple had 'paid the price' and Aussies via social media had 'dished out justice', (or as PerthNow also said: 'revenge') resulting in the restaurant actually winning from the event through all the community support!

.............on the other hand, the French Couple, found themselves at the end of another version of 'mob law' - in that where their internal conscience didn't seem to be functioning in a way that prompted or pressured them to pay the bill they should have paid, the external community was the pressure to do what the community felt was 'right'.

In the 'old days' in Africa, the village was a person's world.  They depended on their village for security, protection, identity, success etc etc.  Outside their village they were a nobody and in danger.  So there was a lot of pressure from village members for a person to live according to the village expectations. And if for a moment you thought you might be able to hide anything, the village gossip chain would be busy and before you knew it, there was nowhere to hide.  The fear of being shamed curtailed a lot of bad behaviour.

Well we now live in a 'global village' and Social Media, and in this case Facebook, is the new global 'gossip chain'.  Before you know it, there is no-where to hide!

Interestingly the news clip states that they settled the account 'with some embarrassment'.  They learnt a vital lesson (hopefully) that if you do something wrong, along with guilt there is a price to pay - the price of shame.  And the only way out of that huge shame is to actually subject yourself to (a smaller dose) of further shame.  We could say that 'humility' was the way out of 'humiliation'.  And although in this instance they will probably never feel totally free of any shame over the incident, essentially their willingness to go with humility in the face of subjecting themselves to further shame, and confess/admit their wrongdoing and be willing to pay for what they 'stole', was the road to forgiveness (the restaurant owner decided not to go to the police) and to a 'form' of restored honour - (well at least the onslaught of public shaming ceased!)

Recognising our shame before God for sin is painful and one day Scripture says that all that is done in secret will be revealed - and it will be even worse than Facebook!  The only 'way out' of that ultimate and eternal shame is to be willing to 'confess' our sin - own it, admit it, be willing to be engulfed by it instead of running from it or ignoring it.  Confession is a form of self-shaming, but it is the only route to release from the greater shame on our heads!  The good news of the gospel is that if we are willing to face the shame of confession and with humility repent, God doesn't demand that we pay the bill!

..... Jesus did this and much more for us - he paid the bill with his life and in doing so cancelled our guilt and ended our shame eternally!

Aussie Elections & Lessons on Achieved vs Ascribed Honour

My home state in Australia - Queensland - has just had an Election.

3 years ago the Labour Government was ousted quite dramatically - and were left with only 7 out of 89 seats in the Parliament.  From such a massive swing against them it was fairly sure it would be several terms of government before they were likely to have even a chance of being back in power. The Liberal/National Party looked like having a comfortable hold on power for a long time.

However, just this past weekend, there was a cliff-hanger election and a Labour government was returned. The LNP leader was even ousted from his seat, ending his political career.

Last year a similar situation occurred in the state of Victoria.  There, the LNP in the 2010 Election had ousted the Labour government of 11 years.  But in 2014 the Labour Party ousted the LNP after only one term in government, though the swing (3.5%) wasn't anywhere near as strong as in QLD (14%).  It was the first time in 60 years that a Victorian government was voted out after only one term in power.

Also a few weeks back saw a leadership coup attempt in the Northern Territory.

And of course there were the Federal leadership spill possibilities just past. 

Without making comments on what I think of the choices of the Australian populace in each state, I would like to make an observation that is glaring at me in flashing lights!!

Australians are/have become, extreme in their emphasis on 'Achieved Honour'....

But when honour comes through 'achievement', lack of expected achievement can all too easily result in dis-honour.

Yes, in any event there are always multiple factors at play and I'm not saying that only honour factors were at work....but I think the honour factors are maybe more significant than we might realise.

In a chart I have, which highlights differences between individualistic-guilt based cultures and collectivistic-shame bases cultures, there is the following contrast:

30. We like the efficiency of being able to change our leaders frequently.

30. We like the stability of being able to keep the same leader for a long time.

Maybe God has used the Aussie extreme to help us observe the differences we encountered here in Africa.  It's much easier to notice the differences between things when the difference are greater.  

The Achieved Honour emphasis of Australia is at the opposite end of the Spectrum from the Ascribed Honour emphasis of traditional Africa.  

Traditional African leadership is on the basis of Chiefs who gain the position through inheritance and are expected to be honoured with loyal unquestioning support whether they 'perform' well or not.  Honour is given simply because of the office/position they hold, not really on the basis of personal achievement. The perspective that long leadership is a 'good' thing has been seen even in government in various African situations.

Australian leadership is on the basis of an elected Parliament and Prime Minister, and could I say, there is almost no honour or respect simply because of the position - except maybe a little for the first couple of weeks of being in power. After that, from an Aussie perspective, you had better perform as leader according to the desires of those who elected you (in the party room or electorate) or else you will be 'out on your ear' in a flash. It is not that an elected leader starts with no honour and must build it entirely, but It is almost as if when an Aussie is voted into office, that the initial honour given can only be maintained to the degree it can morph into achieved honour as people are satisfied with what they 'get'.  If what they think they 'get' doesn't match up with their expectations, the achieved honour doesn't build up to replace the initial ascribed honour, and before you know it people are talking about replacing the leader.

In fact, Australia in recent years has gained a reputation internationally of not even waiting until an election comes around to change leaders.

Over the past few years even Australian Federal politics has swung all over the place.  After 11 years of LNP under John Howard, Labour, under leader Kevin Rudd, won the 2007 election. But before he even served out his term, the Labour Party felt he was doing them more harm than good and so after only 2.5 years they removed him as their leader and put Julia Gillard in his place.  She went on to win the election she called almost immediately.  But before she completed her first term, the Labour Party again didn't like her performance and so ousted her and put Kevin Rudd back in as leader.  He was subsequently voted out 2 months later at the 2013 election.

As I look at other Western nations, none seem to be so extreme as Australia.  Purely on the basis of observation as an outsider, the USA appears to have much more of a 'balanced' approach, in this regard, to its leadership.  A high level of Ascribed Honour is expected alongside some degree of Achieved Honour.  Maybe I misread the situation, but as an outsider, I remember at the time of Bill Clinton's infidelity, Aussies saying that he must be innocent since he remained in office and his support ratings were still high. I remember making the comment in return on a few occasions, that you couldn't judge an American scenario based on an Aussie context. Americans are much more likely to remain loyal to a leader because he is in the office of President. In an Aussie context, the leader wouldn't have an ounce of hope of staying in office under such allegations.  He would lose support from his country and thus his party almost in an instant, - as no office or position in an Aussie's mind gives you any greater 'right' to loyalty than any other if you don't perform in accordance with the standards expected of that office.

Well, which is a correct position to have - Achieved Honour or Ascribed Honour?  Let me humbly suggest that I believe it is both.  The reason I say that is because of what I see in Scripture.

God is given honour both on an Ascribed level and Achieved level.  We praise Him because of who He IS and because of what He DOES. He deserves highest honour.  He is who He is in perfection and He does what He does with perfection, with no 'shadow of turning' on either basis.  He is holy, true, faithful and good - all the time, from and to eternity.

Scripture also tells us to grant honour to others according to both - we are to 'Honour everyone' (1 Peter 2:17) but we are also to confront sin in others and not just accept it or 'turn a blind eye' because of a position they might hold.

Scripture also tells us to grant honour to those who rule over us in government and in the church (Romans 13:1-7, Hebrews 13:7,17) but we are also to choose leaders based on how they have 'performed' in life - in their families and in the eyes of their communities (1 Timothy 3:1-7)

As an Aussie, I would like to suggest that we tend to be far too quick to criticise, judge and disrespect our leaders. We like to think it is good that we 'stand for no nonsense' and are 'brutally honest and outspoken' in our opinions.  But we also leave too little room for gentleness and time and effort to ascertain carefully and wisely the background and other perspectives on situations.  In fact I think we have become worse in this regard.  A few decades back children began to be taught that they had 'rights' and no-one could tell them what to do, not even their parents or teachers.  Some could see this was a slippery-slide to instability and destruction of society.  

I'm not here to make a political commentary, but it does seem to me that what I believe to be our 'out-of-balance approach' tells the world a few things about us. We may think we show the world that we hold our leaders to account and are quick to deal with leaders who we think make bad choices.  But we also tell the world we are fickle and unstable as a nation of people.  We tell the world we have little respect for leadership and giving them space and time to govern. Even if we think we deal with bad performance quickly, maybe we by default are saying we are poor judges of character in the first place to elect such people who so quickly show themselves to be poor choices.  Anyone can be excused for being 'hood winked' by a leader once, but Australia is developing a pattern and reputation for such ill thought out quick decisions.  Either our choices are ill thought-out or else we are being very selfish and impatient in our demands on leaders.

We have become so obsessed with Achieved Honour, and benchmarking whether someone is worthy of honour based on how well they perform to 'my' expectations according to 'my' timetable that I fear we are telling the world that we are a nation of impatient, selfish, disrespectful, superficial thinkers wanting immediate gratification of one's desires.  You see, such an extreme 'Achieved Honour' state is reflective of a nation of people who want what they want, how they want it and when they want it, and 'you' had better give it to me, or else I have no time of day for you.

So my question to the Australian church is this: - what is being done about changing such a mindset and making sure it doesn't infiltrate the church?  

Where is the church taking care to teach their members how to think deeply and carefully, kindly, prayerfully and scripturally about how they make decisions in life, not least political choices at the ballot box?

I'm not advocating for churches to promote one political party over another, but I am advocating that as Aussie Christians we need to do a far better job at learning to think through on what basis we elect/choose our parliamentary representatives, community and church leaders, and the type of honour we give them, under God.  

How and why we honour them in Achieved or Ascribed ways, should not be based on our whims or selfish desires but on God's priorities for life and godliness.