Resurrection makes the Government more Godly

This brilliant graphic has been plucked from the web.  The religious symbolism is potent.

Well the unmarried atheist is gone from the Prime Minister’s office, much to my sadness.  And with her demise, those of us concerned with questions of faith and belief are wondering where we stand.  I reckon we of little or no faith are worse off.  There will be a bidding war for the religious vote.

But before we look at the consequences, let’s note the religious imagery that powerfully percolated through this revenge drama.  Religious imagery is embedded in the culture.  The question I always ask is what came first, the Bible stories or the human addiction to them.  We love a good revenge drama. We adore our martyrs.  We are beguiled by betrayal.  My understanding of the anthropological sources is that the human needs of a good story predate the bible. The Greek epics like the Bible, take the issues that tease and trouble us and explore them through drama.

Humans have since the dawn of time, made sense of this dangerous and confusing world with stories.  The bible cleverly caters to the adapted human fondness for stories.  Because of the Bible’s pre-eminence in our culture, we easily translate current stories into the biblical paradigm.  But the Bible is not the only source.  Shakespeare, fairy tales, musicals and other tall tales and true help us get a grip. Indeed the revenge cycles of the Greek tragedies with the inevitability of suffering help us to deal with the endless cycle of political bloodletting we have been witnessing.  Having said that, the Passion gives us characters by which we can measure our view of this drama. Here is my biblical analysis with some notes about when and where the tale diverges from the Passion.

The Resurrected Divinity is obviously K Rudd.  Resurrection is a very popular notion for it is all about second chances, especially in the face of death.  But in the Bible the resurrected Christ was clearly a much nicer person than Moon Face.  Would Jesus have so fatally undermined his own party to wreak revenge?  The consensus is that Rudd would stoop to any tactic to get back at Gillard.  I don’t think that the long suffering Jesus would have been so vengeful for a self interested cause.  Jesus threw temper tantrums and was a prima donna but Jesus was never as sinister as Mr Rudd.  The resurrected Rudd is a soiled Jesus.  But he is Jesus nonetheless.

Gillard was three years ago, a sort of Mary Magdalene but she has lost that glow long ago. During the appalling denigration leading up to her demise she was demonised as the Devil incarnate.  Her dignified exit gives her the dual quality of the Martyr/Devil.  That is the thing about complicated stories.  The players waft into and out of good roles.  Julia has a duality about her now, reviled Devil and gutsy Martyr. 

The easy one to characterise is the Judas for sale. Bill Shorten is a revolving door Judas.  After proudly knifing Rudd three years ago he at least had the sense to look tormented by this latest Judas act. Now remember that I love Judas.  When I read the Gospels, I see a man who was justly pragmatic but who was pilloried by the Gospel writers.  So when I call people Judas, it is not as denigrating as when most of the community use the term.  But is he really a Judas this time around or is he an agonised Pontius Pilate?  Remember Pontius Pilate mixed indecision with casual cruelty.  That may be Bill Shorten’s salient feature this coup.  In the last coup he was clearly Judas Iscariot (knife holder). This time he might be more Pontius Pilate.  What is your view?

The martyrs are legion.  These are those for whom resignation is preferred to opportunity: Wayne Swan, Greg Combet, Joe Ludwig, Craig Emerson and Peter Garrett (for whom Parliament seemed less enjoyable than being a rock god) are the martyrs of this yarn. 

The Sadducees or those who judged include Simon Crean and the others who led the charge in the various machinations of the government.

Well if that is the tale, what are the consequences?  We now have two main players who are proudly religious.  Expect Abbott and Rudd to strut into the pulpits of Hillsong and other religious organisations. Be prepared to choke back the vomit as they become more holier than thou. 

But it is a complicated picture.  Because Gillard was so straight about her lack of belief she had to make certain compromises.  She never hid behind any wishy washy agnosticism or that tired formula “I’m still searching”.  She was an unbeliever and never welched or wavered.  But that meant in a pluralistic society she had to placate the old religious vote. She supported religious education which I do understand. In fact I often defended her allocation of money to this cause as a necessary evil in a pluralistic world. And on gay marriage, she had to console the right wing, “Grouper Unions” which have a leadership aligned with the Catholic Church. This is the explanation for her anti gay and lesbian marriage stand. She needed to suck up to some appalling right wing unions in a way that Rudd does not.  So ironically, the godless might get some surprising policy wins with the change of leadership. But the symbols Mr Rudd will sell will be his affection for faith and those of faith.  Thus both Abbott and Rudd will promote faith even though there may be some freedom for policy wins for the godless.

What is your view on these issues?
What is the power of stories in our lives?

Using the Biblical or any other narrative, who is martyred, who is resurrected, who is a betrayer, who is a waverer and who is redeemed?

Will the change be better for the godless or the godly?

Is it bad that we have two party leaders now who are Catholic and Anglo Catholic? 

Are you as disconsolate as I am or mightily relieved that the She Devil has been expunged?

Over to you ...