Not very pointy

Although other, non-Anglican, Churches often say of us that we are very 'hierarchical'. It's not really true. We have an hierarchy, but it's only got two or three levels. There is the Bishop, the clergy (and maybe one division within that group- the in and the out perhaps!) and the laity.

In a way this is far more frought with danger than a multi-levelled hierarchy like the army. Because it means, in reality, unless you are careful the top level can subsume almost everything it wants. It can take power unto itself, and even create authority lines that don't really exist.

This can work really well, and particularly in the country where resources are often slight, it can operate as a sort of benevolent dictatorship.

When it doesn't work well, like when the Bishop goes mad or begins to drink or starts to weaken under stress (all of which have happened in my living memory in different parts of this country) benevolent dictatorship rather breaks down.

So, it is sad to see the playing out of a fracas in our neighbouring Diocese of The Murray (here), where various people (clergy and lay) have gone to war with the Bishop and are seeking a Tribunal (here).

This process is clumsy, and is in the proces of being changed. It remains to be seen whether it can even be applied in this case. The Bishop in question doesn't think so, and the lay people who want it (I think) will find that it does not deliver what they want... the sacking of the Bishop.

There are and will be lots of lessons to learn from this. One of them will be that in a 'not so pointy' hierarchy, it does actually make a difference that you get the top right. 

In a multi-levelled structure there are always people at the next level who can be drawn up but that is not necessarily the case when the next level is fairly flat, and indeed many are the appointees of the leader concerned so may not achieve what 'removalists' want any way.

Poor old Diocese, poor old Bishop, but mainly I keep thinking poor old people of the Murray both churched and unchurched let down by hubris and infighting!

Call me incredulous

I love the Sunday political interviews; obviously with nothing better to do (why don't you go to church you alleged Christians?) they do the rounds of interviews snippets of which are then replayed on various news bulletins short of genuine stories. {I know from my days as a Synod Media Officer that I used to love Sundays and desperately hoped no one would get eaten by a shark and so gazump us on the 6 oçlock news).
Any way this morning we see the Rudd-slurring machine was out in full force.
First doubt was cast on Kevin's version fo what happened to his family when he was a child. Did they get evicted from their farm or not. Now, anyone knows that we get curious ideas of what may or may not have happened. When a parent dies and you share stories with your siblings you often realise that you often have a different perspective. You may even, because of youth, totally misunderstand things. Now that is different for example than lying about whether or not you actually got a PhD, or stretching the truth about whether or not you avoided military service (as Mr Bush appears to have done). So let's get real fellahs and start talking about this guy is on about, not about how naive he was when he was 10.
Ah say the aptly named Abbot and Costello's of this world with their mate Alex (yes the one who likes to wear tights and high heels) but it goes to the fact of whether you can trust him.
So push me over and make me eat a banana covered in mustard if yesterday I didn't hear also Costello and Downer say two of the most bizarre things I have heard in this current round of mud-slinging.
Costello: Nobody's hurled more mud in the Parliament than Mr Rudd.
WRONG- You Mr Costello are mud thrower extraordinaire!
Downer: This is a man who will say absolutely anything to get elected
WRONG-You Mr Downer will say, and are saying, anything.

What has caused this total distortion of the truth? The truth is they have been in office too long and have begun believing their own version of reality. It is a strange (forgive me if I have told you this before) I met Downer briefly a couple of times at school functions. In one conversation when he was pontificating about the Keating government I was surprised how vitriolic he was.
The things is, he said, they are so arrogant!
It's true PaulKeating was, but so was Hawke and Fraser and Menzies and who ever. I realised then that political arrogance is not so much a personal characteristic as a part of the baggage of office. I predicted that within a few years of election we would say the same thing about a Liberal government. It is called, I suspect, hubris.

We are witnessing political game playing at its absolute worst when the mud thrower extraordinaire will accuse his opponent of his own most obvious fault. And when the mouth in fish net stockings will likewise accuse the same of saying anything to get elected.
Surely, as titillating as this is, the electorate must demand more of its politicians than this demeaning name calling which says more about the absuers than the absued.

Let the games commence

Some will groan at the sparring that has begun between Messrs Howard and Rudd, like some macho show of strength.
It does seem to me that the quality of debate has lifted, and we are witnessing what happens when an Opposition works in some way appraching the way it should.
We have for too long had such weak opposition that the PM has said and done what he liked and (by and large) not had to answer for any of the more outrageous things he has said.
Part of the purpose of adversarial politics is to demand that leaders should have to justify everything. And that in so doing there is a considerable process of refinement and strengthening. While that could be perceived as tiresome for a sitting power broker ny and large (an I think we are witnessing it now) it is not just nit-picking it is for the good of all concerned.
That Messrs Howard and Co have not had satisfactory opposition for the last two or three years (at least) shows, and so he has become rather used to acting autocratically and has gone unchallenged. There was in the Parliament yesterday something of a sugegstion that he didn't like being questioned over and over again and became rather patronising and peremptory with his answers. It is not a good look, and could I suggest ultimately be his downfall as he is perecived by the electorate to be arrogant and unaccountable.
Ultimately politicians pay the price for that sort of hubris.