What the Australian Parliament 'Speaker's travel claims' incident tells us about Honour and Law.

Australia's new Speaker in Parliament has now been appointed after the pressure was so much that previous Speaker Bronwyn Bishop had to resign.

In a previous blog I talked about what the incident which led to her resignation, revealed about the shift from law and guilt to honour and shame in Australian society.

Since that blog, I received an ABC news bulletin related to some other Politicians being 'investigated' over supposed wrongful spending of their travel allowances, and it said: 

"while the entitlements claims were within the rules, they were "beyond community expectations""

....thus unacceptable and 'wrong'.  Guilt is then defined solely by 'going beyond community expectations'.

Here is what I see:

1. Rules are being ignored in favour of 'community expectations' rather than the community being subject to the rules.

Only the Prime Minister has suggested that maybe the rules themselves should be looked at to see if they are wrong and should be changed. An assessment and possible adjustment in the written rules, brings opportunity for those subject to them to still be held accountable to laws and rules, and maintains some objective, knowable and clear standard.  However, this is not what is happening.

2. Society (in this case the Parliament) is subjecting itself to the tyranny of honour without law

This is what I also see functioning in traditional African practice.

Honour without law is an 'after the fact' type of behaviour control.  It is a set of boundaries that are constantly moving because community expectations are constantly in a state of flux.  Community culture is never entirely static. You only know where the current boundary is when you get a 'reaction' from the community.

Although traditional African religion has certain 'rituals' which seem like laws, they are not a complete set of written standards.  They are a collection of orally passed down community expectations which are constantly 'adjusting' - sometimes obviously and sometimes subtly. 

• for example in talking with our local co-worker he commented that it is true that if something 'goes wrong' (such as crops failing or illness) the afflicted will seek from the witchdoctor information as to who cursed them and brought such affliction. They may well know of several events/matters in which they have maybe not properly maintained traditional practice, but they will not admit to them.  Instead they will wait to see which ones if any the witchdoctor says is the reason for this particular problem.  If the witchdoctor says it is because the ancestors are not happy because you did not make sure your entire family were at such and such a ritual and so you must bring a cow, then a cow is brought - end of story. The other events/matters that the witchdoctor didn't raise are then seen as 'ok' after all, since it seems the ancestors didn't mention those as disrespectful.  So as another local Pastor told us in reference to his own people - 'culturally we just do whatever we like and hope we won't get caught'.  

• another example is from another local friend who when she got married was complaining how much the tea, sugar and biscuits for her parents and relatives were costing her in the week lead-up to the wedding.  She explained that it was 'culturally' her responsibility to cover the cost of all such items consumed as extended relatives from near and far began arriving and village members came to 'help' prepare for the wedding. And she further explained it had to be a certain brand of tea - other brands were unacceptable and would be disrespecting the elders of the family and village. I asked how it could be 'culturally traditional' when tea is not a traditional crop, it is something brought in by foreigners and only purchased at a supermarket?  'Well its now cultural' she said.  Evolving community expectations were deciding what was right or wrong.

This produces  a situation where people have one of two reactions - so much fear of community reaction that they become obsessive people pleasers, or a willingness to risk not being found out and so do whatever they want, constantly trying to 'gauge' where the community feeling is at, so as to navigate around any potential 'reaction'.  

Law on the other hand gives definition to what is acceptable and what is not and is not adjustable as the wind blows.  It is thought through, carefully decided and defined,written down and able to be referenced, and not easily changed so relatively stable, and with judgements made accordingly.  Such judgements are bound to be made in accordance with the law.

Honour without law brings lack of clarity, lack of definition, less ability to reference, less stability, and a reliance on oral expression not written record and standard.

God giving law and thus an example and pattern of law, is on the one hand a curse (as it reveals as an objective standard any trespass of it and is a standard we can never attain), but it is also a gift.  It is a way in which those subject to it all know where they stand and that a fair and equal standard will be applied to all and every situation.  It is no respector of persons.  As we say, no one is above the law, and everyone knows where they stand.

Community expectations on the other hand are very subjective and actually highly discrimatory as its only those people and situations to which the community 'reacts', that are subject to any type of judgement.

3. Sin becomes 'mistakes' and confessions become blurred

As much as the previous Speaker made an effort to apologise, it was an apology not based on a wrongful breaking of the law (rules) but only on trying to restore public approval.

Bruce Burgess of the excellent Christian organisation 'Peacewise' recently noted some problems as he observed the previous Speakers apology - the very same problems that we are seeing in relation to the issues of confession and forgiveness here in Africa.

He referred to the fact that wrong or selfish choices get renamed as 'error of judgement' - in other words a 'mistake'.  This is something we see as common practice here. At first when we came to Africa it bothered me that no-one said they did wrong but that they made a mistake.  But I have learnt that they were actually not being evasive.  

When you remove the 'law' factor, there is no objective knowable standard.  Community expectations are something that a person must just constantly have a 'sixth sense' about and learn to intuitively navigate - thus it is not always a specific choice to 'cross a boundary' when one fails to meet community expectations - it simply is a mistake, 'an error of judgement' and accidental displeasing of others, because the other's exact requirement for their approval was unknown until the person failed to reach it!  

They 'miss the mark' - just like in Archery....to miss the bulls-eye is not necessarily because you intentionally chose not to hit the bull's eye but because you 'accidentally' missed it while actually aiming to hit it.

Burgess also explained that an apology simply for 'not meeting community expectations' is never a solid basis for true confession and forgiveness. 

Her apology was shown to be 'not enough', as resolution of the matter was not accepted until she resigned.  As I have said in a previous blog, when the concept of guilt being hinged on law is removed, the only level of 'resolution' is to either ignore the 'lack of meeting community expectations' and maintain the relationship, or reject the relationship.  Parliament didn't want to ignore it so the only option for her was rejection.

Bruce Burgess says:

Ms Bishop finally apologised for "letting the Australian people down", offered to repay the money with penalty interest and tendered her resignation.
When asked by a journalist, "If you believe you did nothing wrong … why do you want to repay the money?" She responded, "… Because it was too much money, it just looked wrong. Although it's within the rules, it just doesn't look right and therefore I'm apologising and I'm repaying the money."
It is impossible to truly apologise and make a confession if you don't actually believe that you did anything wrong.
Whilst Ms Bishop's offer to repay is commendable, and she has now also resigned from the public office of Speaker, people are struggling to accept Ms Bishop's apology is genuine, because her words, however heartfelt, really only reflect her sorrow for "letting the public down whilst acting within the rules".

Not only did her attempt at 'confession' fail but her actions may end up costing her her political career.  Confession that does not factor in transgression of a standard is intuitively felt by the one offended as 'incomplete' and 'insufficient' even if they don't understand why.  This becomes even more complicated when the objective 'standard' is replaced by a 'subjective' standard when society devolves into functioning under honour without law.  And Australia seems to be in a state of wobbly transition, where the populous is in a state of confusion, in tension between the two.  Ms Bishop tried to give a 'guilt type' confession for something she didn't actually feel guilty for, to an 'honour type' offended party.  

Honour without law is not a positive advancement of society but a negative regression.  One without the other is not a good place to be.  We need both.  God made us for a balance of both.

It seems that the West that has overemphasised the law is now reacting with an overemphasis on honour - but in the process has also shifted from law primarily based on God's law to honour essentially based on man's honour.

Sadly the Western world is in a bad place!

Oh, the blinding bondage and destruction of sin!

But if we recognise what is going on, we can also better bring the gospel in such a way that brings truth to both the aversion to God's law and the prevalence of mis-placed honour.

I challenge you to get to understand the realities of both law and honour and how to best reach our 21st Century Western world as well as the great continent of Africa.