Geopolitics: South Africa and Third World Pressure

As the map shows, South Africa is a substantial sized state on the southern tip of the African continent.



The unique aspect of South Africa stems from it being the only place on the African continent that the Europeans attempted to colonise with their own people. A significant percentage of the South African population are whites, mostly of British or Dutch descent, but also some Germans (who controlled German East Africa, now Namibia, to the northwest of South Africa).

This meant that the economy of South Africa enjoyed the priviledged status of being part of the Western world...and correspondingly became disproportionately wealthy compared to the rest of Africa.

But there is another powerful result in this.

South Africa is enduring the same demographic transition that has wrought it's work on the West: very soon, South Africa's fertility rate will drop below replacement level. Furthermore, due to out migration (mainly whites fleeing what they perceive as persecution and anti-white crime) the population of South Africa is already in absolute decline.

All this makes it the only African state with a westernised economy, and with the potential for a long term declining population. This is noteworthy, because most of Africa is facing a rapid population rise that will place enormous pressure on the lands ability to produce. In fact, Africa (and the Indian sub-continent) are geared towards being enormous humanitarian burdens on the globe for decades to come.

South Africa gives the African continent an indigenous nation to provide a stable, secure future, with a developed economy, and declining population to absorb migrants from other parts of Africa. History has shown that significant out migration is necessary for nations to develop....the only alternative pathway is major birth control in the way that China has demonstrated. Africa is not at all following China's example and is a serious humanitarian time bomb. Waves of immigrants, in the millions, will work their way to Europe and the United States from Africa in the next few decades. This will place enormous social strain on places where the traditionally dominating ethnic groups shall rapidly find themselves minorities in their own lands, with no land in the world to call home. To avoid such a clash, two strategies are being developed by those in the know:

1. The push for tolerance of all peoples, to prepare the western nations for their guests that are soon to be on their way. This has been a strong social push that is gaining momentum.

2. The development of the foreign lands, of which South Africa is a shining example.

Both strategies are necessary for the minimisation of loss of life due to famine and water shortages that shall be hitting our world in the coming decades. Water shortages in the Indian sub-continent, for example, are already stretched, but due to climate change this process is most likely to accelerate. I think an estimate of a decade or two to disasterous water shortages in India is realistic, perhaps optimistic. The world had better be prepared for very large numbers of outmigrants. Or have these places so developed they undergo their own demographic decline. One or the other.

Christianity Part 1

Beyond Fundamental Evangelicalism

A bold heading. How can I possibly write a blog entry that does such a title justice?

But the frailties of my human capabilities is a pertinent consideration on such a topic.

It should be no surprise to those who know me that I consider myself a Christian. Further, I consider the faith to be efficacious, having the power to bring to both society and the individual the needed change and spirituality to 'get right before God'.

What is Christianity? Further, what is my interpretation of it? And more pressing yet, what are the implicatons of this belief system, and how should we rework our lives in the light it provides?

I believe if you asked ten different Christians for a definition of Christianity, you would get ten different answers. Or at least eight. Maybe seven. Look, you certainly won't be getting twenty-one. The point is, absolute consensus doesn't exist.

So how do I define Christianity? I confess I prefer to use a definition closer to the sociographic (?) interpretation rather than the common evangelical one you will encounter in many churches these days. That is, to me, Christianity is any belief system that is developed directly as a result of the life and work of Jesus as the Messiah, born in Palestine and the Saviour of our souls, who died on the cross and was raised to life. This definition therefore includes Catholics, Orthodox, and as far as I am aware, Copts of all kinds and even Nestorians. Incidently it also includes evangelical Christians, the protestant stream of Christianity to which I am most closely alligned.

I concede the faiths of Mormonism and JW's as Christian derived, but as holistic belief systems, I am highly sceptical. Mormonism particularly is open to the ancient charge of 'innovation' (on par with heresy: to 'innovate' was to make up new 'truths'). Considering such groups as special cases, I will now no longer refer to them.

I thereby accept all the remaining major streams of Christian faith as...well...Christian. I personally don't see this as a statement of generosity so much as a statement of fact. The evangelical loves to reserve the term 'Christian' purely for those who are 'saved'. I imagine that this is offensive to the people involved. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard evangelicals say 'Is she Catholic or Christian?' How presumptuous! In a single sentence they have condemned the entire Catholic Church to non-Christian status, as if there were none within it who fit the evangelical rubric of 'saved'. Yet, reserving the term Christian for those who are 'saved' I consider to be problematic at a greater level. How do you know who is 'saved'? It is entirely possible for a Catholic to have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour, and to rely on his redeeming sacrifice for their remission of their sins. In fact, the conclusion of an ecumenical discussion of many American protestant (evangelical) theologians with the Catholic theologians came to the conclusion that the Catholic teaching contained everything they deemed necessary for salvation. Thereby, according to evangelical standards, a good many Catholics were indeed 'saved'. Stick that up your 'they all worship Mary and saints and rely on good works for justification' pipe and smoke it!

Rejection of the Catholic church at the lay level within evangelical circles is fuelled by a few factors. One of which is the ongoing Chinese whispers of Catholic beliefs and practises. They do not worship Mary. They do not pray to saints. These are mere intepretations of Catholic practices made by some evangelical observers, but I hardly consider the observation and related argument presented to be uncontestable. In fact, ask any serious committed Catholic and they can explain these things to you.

Before you stone me as a Catholic, I will say there are plenty of things I do not approve of within both Catholic teaching and practice. But seriously, what does my opinion matter? If I disapprove, I am merely looking at things through my own failed worldview. If they have the essential core components of Christianity, then I consider them brothers, and will leave casting judgements to the Lord Almighty, who will deal with error in his own way.

Evangelicals went to great lengths to reduce Christianity to the teachings of the Bible. After the Protestants had achieved this, there was a further push to reduce the essential teahcing of the Bible into a few points, often included in four point tracts. This latter movement was achieved in the context of great missionary fervour, making Christianity as reducible as possible for easy export. Personally, I think this was a marvellous development for Christianity. It reduced the teachings of the faith into something that retained most of it's efficacy and yet was transferrable.

I guess my concern is when the Christians who had done this, turned around and started judging those who had not, and yet they both came from the same roots. In fact, the Bible itself draws it's authority from the catholic church. It was the catholic bishops that met and prayed, at one of the many ecumenical councils, to establish the authority of the scriptures. For fundamentalist evangelicals, I really wonder why the third ecumenical council was so authoritive, but the fourth was not, considering they were the same people with the same motives. What about the other ecumenical councils? Isn't it odd that the highest authority in the fundamentalist evangelical mind, the bible, draws it's auhtority from the approval of the church? Doesn't that imply that the authority of the church is greater than that of the Bible?

There are many Christians who fit into the rough stream of evangelical thought and life, such as myself, who do not so rigidly hold the belief that the Bible is the end all and be all of Christianity. I really don't think it is. If it were, our time would be better spent printing and distributing Bibles, and people could read them themselves and come to their own conclusions. The moment I phrase it like this, the need for church intervention becomes clear. We desire that 'experts' within the church intervene and teach people to read the Bible correctly. In so doing we admit that a component of 'truth' lies outside the Bible.

And that is precisely what I believe. Jesus lives and works through His body (the church) and because the Body has accepted the Scriptures, I accept them. (I don't accept the Body because the Scriptures do...to me, that is horse before cart). So in my worldview, the spiritual experience of the Body, guided by the Scriptures, is a more pertinent and vital Christianity. Having this worldview makes me accepting of Catholics, Orthodox etc, and providing that there is a sincere investment in their faith, I accept them as brothers and sisters.

To me, genuine Christianity has always been a spiritual experience; primarily that of emptying oneself and submitting to God. Jesus spoke of these things more than he spoke of faith washing away sins. I do not deny that doctrine...I heartily affirm it, I just wish evangelicals to see that their particularly emphasises are not necessarily correct. In fact, without a historical understanding of why evangelicals teach what they teach, I think it is easy for them to become judgemental. Judgementalism is damaging to genuine spirituality. It is different to reject another's stance because you consider it poisonous to your faith. I applaud that.

More to come.

Testing...testing...