As soon as they get these two names [Cain and Abel], we see that one is going to be the victim and the other's going to be something else. And as soon as they choose their professions, or are assigned to them, we think of that line of Rodgers and Hammerstein's ... "The cowboys and the farmers can be friends" - which means, we know, they're not going to be [50.].
The rivalry between two people or two groups who are similar but not exactly the same is so familiar it's a fact of life. It can be good fun, for example, on the sports-field. But it can be dangerous when the rivalry factor becomes the central focus. When differences between rivals predominate they mask the similarities and connections.
Rivalry puts the fundamental interconnection and interdependence of living things under stress.
Things that are quite similar can feel pressure to distinguish themselves from others like them, in order to stand out in some way and avoid being confused with them. With things that are markedly different, the need to stand out is not so great. It is closely related ones who are most likely to view each other as rivals for attention and distinction.
The drama of Genesis 4 brings to attention rivalry not just between siblings but between different occupations. It was apparently part of ancient Middle Eastern culture to look more favourably upon those who worked with stock as opposed to those who worked the soil. The possession of animals was a visible sign of economic status, and if you had no animals you were probably too poor to acquire any.
The Jesus we meet in the Gospels incorporated both agricultural and pastoral types in his stories but, although the title "the Good Shepherd" has a significant place in church doctrine and liturgy, somehow "the Good Sower" has not gained the same status.
Rivalry drove relationships among the colonisers in North America (as the song from musical show "Oklahoma" indicates), as it did in Aotearoa New Zealand. Rivalry continues in New Zealand farming, not as a major cause for concern, but as a subtle undercurrent along with an unofficial pecking order among the different sections (as experienced in Federated Farmers). It simply needs to be taken into consideration.
This situation is not confined to farming. Every occupation and profession could tell its own story of pecking orders and degrees of misunderstanding or very cautious respect. Healthy competition is one way of describing this rivalry: a spirit of competition is a significant motivating factor in many areas of human endeavour, and it can be a very enjoyable aspect of striving to do well and achieve higher goals.
'Friendly rivalry' - whether it is between neighbouring farmers watching each other's paddocks, lawyers in a court of law, mothers comparing notes on their babies' development, golfers out on the course, or a myriad of other possible examples - is not an oxymoron, but an honest and graphic description of a significant motivating factor.
It is not the competitive element itself that is the problem when rivalry becomes so chronic that destructiveness takes over. It is the priority given to 'difference'. When differences matter more than anything else, points of commonality become secondary and even non-existent in considering how to behave towards the rival. Combine this intensifying of difference with the belief that there is only so much to go around - goods, land, money, women, (men,) etc. - and the result is a recipe for all kinds of rivalries including those currently bringing fear to New Zealand society and terror to international relations.
Under a perspective of plenty, strong and diverse ethnic identities would be celebrated as cultural flourishing. All it needs is for us to recognise that scarcity and plenty are dual facts of life and cultural differences need carry no threat to the territory or freedom of one's own kind. But under the perspective of scarcity an acute awareness of difference gives rise to tribalism and conflict.
In an environment in which scarcity is the dominant fact, jobs, wealth and the right to be heard are all contested and fear becomes more prevalent, e.g. fear of a social underclass, fear of immigrants and, more generally, fear of the other. With immigration comes difference in religion. Rivalry in religion, whether combined with ethnic differences or standing on its own, is perhaps the most perplexing and fearful of all, and the one with regard to which Christians cannot escape some sense of shame:
Abraham came to be remembered as father not only of the ancient Hebrews, but also of Christians and Muslims. It could have been one community. Sadly enough, these [memories] …succumbed to competition for the status of the true children of Abraham, to the scarcity principle. The myth of common humankind - the sons of Adam - splintered all too quickly into the terrors of Cain and Abel and their legacy of ethnic, national and religious hatred.
Such rivalry is not only inter-religious, but also intra-religious. Sects and denominations have a long history within Christianity but more recently, and perhaps more insidiously, groupings have formed within churches like my own that align themselves in terms of specific theological differences and their moral and political corollaries. The identity of the grouping is cast on the basis of statements of faith, expressed in specific beliefs or practices. Boundary lines are drawn, sometimes explicitly, often implicitly through a shared assumption that only people like us belong with us. It can be possible to visit a particular congregation and quite quickly identify, by verbal and body language, along with how the liturgy is organised and who does what, the type of theology the congregation adheres to. One may also pick up a clear message that, to belong here, you need to be people like us.
Yet imagine visiting a similar group of people in their worship and not experiencing such a strong message of assertion and demarcation. It can happen if and when the manner and the language indicates that these people are simply telling their story of faith and expressing their hopes and fears before God. Rather than making universal claims to establish the right to the scare territory called true faith, such worship would be offering their perspective with an implicit invitation to listen in. Such an approach presumes that there is room in the church, as in life generally, for a diversity of viewpoints. And with room there is a greater willingness to listen in to what is different, and perhaps be changed by it. It is sad that in the current scene of Western Christianity rivalry is thriving, but it is hardly surprising when a sense of scarcity predominates in the face of a sense of inevitable decline, with resources of people and finances shrinking year by year.
If scarcity and plenty are both facts of life, what 'plenty' is going unnoticed when it is presumed scarcity rules church life?
When rivalry rules, exhortations to cooperation achieve very little. Exhortations do not address the fear that drives the rivalry. Perhaps one can provoke guilt or shame at the realisation that we are being rivals when we should not be, but guilt and shame are unlikely to be leading operatives in achieving change in the situation. We may be ashamed of what we are doing but, but under the conditions of rivalry (and the rules of scarcity), we believe we have no option if we are to survive. What is more, cooperation and competition are treated as mutually exclusive options: either we compete or we cooperate. If competition has arisen because we are similar but different, and we are rather passionate about what we are doing and keen to excel ourselves, then letting go the competitive element means letting go an essential part of our motivation and drive. It could also feel like disregarding the difference between us and our rival, with the risk that we will cease to be who we are and be swallowed up and become like those we are competing with. If my integrity and purpose are this much at stake, cooperation will be a hazardous course to take. Cooperation seems to mean capitulation.
But a rethink is needed. We need to re-vision what happens when individuals and groups who are similar but different interact. Things look different when we keep scarcity and plenty both in the picture: both are well-founded facts of our existence. Not 'either/or' but 'both/and'.
The vision of plenty encourages us not to hold on so tightly to what we have and what we know for sure, but to dare to try things out.
The reminder of scarcity keeps our feet on the ground.
It is as if scarcity and plenty are themselves in continuous interaction, like two outer reaches of a pendulum swing. Held together and seen in mutual interaction, the fact of scarcity and the fact of plenty generate a constructive and creative understanding of life and therefore options for constructive and creative action.
The identity of one person or group need not be threatened by the existence of another person or group. Rivalry need not arise between different ones, when there is enough room for both. Cooperation need not lead to capitulation, nor is competition the only way to stand one's ground. 'Alongside' is an option for seeing oneself in relation to the other, combining the energies of the two rather than pitting them one against the other.
But in practice the questions continue to hold:
Can friendship thrive between people who have enough in common that they can feel 'too close for comfort' for keeping identity intact? Is it possible for real friendships to form between people different enough to give rise to comparisons that may suggest an order of merit? How will the lines between identity and difference be drawn? Will some claim power to control the lines at the expense of others? Or is it possible for human beings to change?
Perhaps human beings could change the grammar they use to think about other people and turn the power battle into an energy interaction that can choose life, not death?
Human experience continues to supply strong evidence that scarcity and plenty are both facts of life on planet Earth. The relationship between these two facts is pivotal to determining how human beings relate to one another and to the planet itself. It is foundational to the attitudes of human beings to the very task of living their lives.
Surely life is like that - a gift that keeps on being given again and again, and passed on into the future.