Australian Honours: Review

Twice a year Government House issues a list of those awarded an honour within the Australian Honour system.  The vast majority of those awarded are clearly worthy of recognition, but each time the list appears there is a level of contention.

Almost 30 years ago Prime Minister Paul Keating appointed me, along with others including the late Ian Keirnan AO, to a panel tasked with the responsibility of reviewing the honours system. The report never saw the light of day.   Soon after we completed the report, Paul Keating lost the 1996 election.  Vested interests, including those of a political nature, clearly did not want the report publicly addressed.

The review resulted from consultations across the continent and from every walk of life.
Some findings reflected sectional interest while others were common to every region and to most people. As I remember, the broadly based findings included:

• Being honoured rests entirely with the nomination process.  Many worthy people are never nominated: this particularly applies to more isolated areas. It is assumed those with knowledge and contacts are more likely to be nominated some may even seek nomination.
• Certain postcodes predominate.  Some in the ACT have the highest per capita representation.
• Too many appear to be recognised because of the position they have held. It was felt an award should only be made for significant service beyond that which could reasonably be expected from the position held.  Reaching a certain rank, or years of service, should not on its own be sufficient criteria for an award.
• Many did not support this recognition for achievement in sport unless, in addition, other criteria of service were considered.
• Power and authority is more likely to be recognised than attributes of extraordinary generosity, mercy, justice etc. Those who challenge inappropriate and sometimes criminal power or authority in their profession, or more widely in the community, are unlikely to be recognised despite courageously serving the common good. Some experience the opposite – retribution - despite serving the greater common good. It is also unlikely a human rights advocate will receive an award. 
• A person of extraordinary compassion, e.g. a lifetime of fostering children, is worthy of the highest award.
• There are too many categories.

There are currently four levels of recognition.   AC recognises a contribution considered to be of national or international significance.  AO recognises a lesser contribution but still of merit beyond their profession or region. AM recognises a contribution of significance emanating from the person’s sphere of interest or community.  OAM is recognition of contribution to a sector of the local community.

There are also two divisions, civil and military.

Some of the recommendations that I remember:

• The military division should be terminated, with recognition being awarded on merit equally for all sections of society, including the military, within a common division.  It was believed the armed services, along with the public service, the police force, ambulance service, fire service etc should be strongly encouraged to review and if necessary, extend and enhance appropriate ways in which they honour their personnel, not least, long service.  Using the Australian Honours system in a separate division creates a different purpose and distorts the intention of equity and equality.
• Criteria for the awards should be more reflective of moral qualities judged to be the values of Australian citizenship.
• Four categories should be reduced to three, probably by removal of the OAM which will lift the honour bestowed on countless volunteers, the backbone of every community, to a seemingly higher level.
• Government House must invest more in making the nomination process and criteria better known.

On countless occasions I have been asked to add my name to a nomination.  In most cases I have been honoured to do so, but not always.  On rare occasions I have made a nomination.

I do understand the contention created each time a list is published.  It is perhaps unavoidable given the diversity of views held in the community.  But in considering some of the findings and recommendations of the small group I was privileged to serve, some of these concerns may have been obviated.

There have been a few occasions when, having seen the list, I have thought to myself I would not want to have been listed in that company.
​
The honours system is important. It is generally treated, as it should, with great respect. It is however not respectful to seek public opinion on this or any other matter and then ignore it.  Nor is it respectful not to seek public opinion in the first place.
 
 
 

Christianity: the Antithesis of Zionism

This week I attended a symposium –‘ Who owns the Holy Land’ - sponsored by PIEN (Palestine Israel Ecumenical Network).  It was extremely well attended and was an excellent night.  If the symposium is still on its way to your city – please attend. However, in answer to questions one of the speakers shocked me by saying, “Zionism is rooted in Christianity”.   I completely understand why this was said, given the influence of the American Christian Right, together with its offshoots in most Western countries including Australia. However, to consequently assume Israel must be defended from a Christian perspective has become one reason why criticism of Israel is weaponised as antisemitism. and censorship of Palestinian voices has become so prevalent in Australian public discourse.    I wish to explain.

Zionism has both secular nationalist roots, as well as religious messianic roots. But neither have any basis in Christianity.

Let’s deal with the secular (even atheistic), nationalistic roots first.  After the catastrophe of the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the second temple in AD 70 Judaism survived for millennia as a diaspora.   We are familiar with the terrible persecutions suffered by Jews over centuries, especially in Europe, culminating in the holocaust.

Towards the end of the18th century and into the 19th century tension arose between those members of the Jewish community who believed their future lay with appropriate integration into Bavarian, French, or whatever culture prevailed in the lands in which they were domiciled and those who strongly opposed such a move.  Integration does not mean loss of identity or religion, but it does mean accepting the governing rules and requirements of the State in which you live.  Jews, along with most cultures across the globe. are thoroughly integrated into most Western countries, including Australia, without loss of identity, culture or religion. Not accepting the norms and rules of the country where you live inevitably means living in ghettos.

Strong voices resisted integration. The Zionist movement was born. A homeland was sought to be ruled, owned and governed for Jews to the exclusion of others.  Nationalistic Zionism, by definition, cannot be anything other than racist, clearly attested through statements of its early and present leadership including Ben Gurion, Golda Meier and Benjamin Netanyahu.  Failure to understand that harmonious living together in the Holy Land by Christians, Jews and Muslims, in the time of the Ottomans could not prevail with the introduction of Zionism was and remains a massive failure of the West. (The 1917 Balfour Declaration was written assuming such harmonious cooperation and the honouring of the rights of all residents). Since 1967 Israel has controlled the lives of every man woman and child, whether they live in the lands designated Israel, or East Jerusalem, West Bank or Gaza. Half the people with unencumbered Israeli citizenship live with the rights and privileges of nationhood.  The other half, depending where they live, either have greatly restricted rights, or they live with constant expectation of their lands being confiscated or, as in Gaza, they have lived with a seemingly endless blockade and of course now with starvation. One state solution, two state solution: peace and prosperity for all is not possible with an Israel that maintains a nationalistic Zionist mindset.

Nationalistic Zionism is of course buttressed by historical religious belief that the land was promised to Israel by God.  Bizarre that historical religion should buttress modern day national secularism! Bizarre too that politicians, often with no known spiritual background, appear to give weight to this argument. Wide sections of the Christian community gloss over sufferings inflicted, legality ignored, human rights abused, holding a priori that Palestinians must be the bad guys and Israelis the good guys because of priority given to this claim.

. There are so many problems with this claim.

• According to biblical story, the promise of the land was made to Abraham along with the expectation that through his descendants all nations on earth would be blessed.  Since 1948 the creation of Israel has not been a blessing, especially not to its neighbours; in contrast members of the Jewish diaspora have been and continue to be a blessing beyond measure.
• The last time an entity called Israel held even fleeting sovereignty over a portion of this land was 721 BC 
• Most Jewish settlers in the 20th and 21st centuries have no historic connection to the land whatsoever, they are Europeans, Russians and Americans who have brought with them agendas from afar and a total lack of tolerance for anyone who is not Jewish. Jews with historic connection with the land lived in harmony with their neighbours.
• It is utterly inconceivable that God would countenance large scale suffering if not annihilation of another people to achieve the ‘promise’.

Now, let me come to the hopes and aspirations of religious Zionism. 

Christian Zionism’s origins in the US post-date the Nationalistic fervour of the late 18th and 19th century Zionism in Europe, and conveniently piggy-back on them. Christian Zionism has no connection with Orthodox Judaism’s hopes for the coming of a messiah.
 
We know little about the first Jewish diaspora which occurred following the annihilation of the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC.  This diaspora is often referred to as ‘the lost 10 tribes’.  The remaining tribe, Judah, with its capital Jerusalem survived until 586 BC.  The exile to Babylon was both utterly devastating and totally transformative. What had been in effect the religion of a relatively inconsequential tribal kingdom who believed their God dwelt in Jerusalem’s temple, had to admit they were wrong, or that if God was God, then God could also be worshipped in Babylon – monotheism was born.  They dared to believe that they had a role in hosting the presence of God for all humankind and dreamed of a return to Jerusalem and the establishment of a ‘Holy Hill’ – Zion - to which all the nations of the world could be drawn. (Please forgive me for reflecting the UN hopes for Jerusalem are not new)!

Unfortunately, when the return occurred under the Persian, Cyrus, the particularity of being Jewish prevailed and any vision for hosting divine presence in harmony and peace for the world vanished.

Now, fast forward to Christ and the birth of Christianity.  Antagonism existed between those who claimed to be survivors of the long-lost Northern Kingdom of Israel, known as Samaritans, and the Jewish community focussed on the 2nd temple in Jerusalem.  Christ was asked in which place should God be worshipped. He answered – neither.

It is Christian belief that “in Christ God had been pleased to dwell”. If ‘Zion’ is the dwelling place of God, then Christ is that Zion.  Place has become person.  The presence of the living one, the risen one, the light of the world, the prince of peace is present for all humankind; at our best we Christians facilitate that presence, at our worst we get in the way.

There has never been a century in the last 2000 years when end times have not been immediately predicted. One of the ways in which some Christians seriously get in the way is by relinking, with zero justification, the living person who personifies ‘Zion’, with place.  These people, drawing on their interpretation of apocalyptic writings, foresee an end to this world as we understand it through the ‘coming of Christ’ in a final history of the Middle East. They have come to believe his coming will occur when Israel is all in all from the river to the sea. It is bizarre that these Christians, strong supporters of Zionist Israel, really have no interest in the long-term future of Israel, but in what they perceive to be the long awaited ‘end times’. 
​
No, Zionism is totally and completely antithetical to Christian belief and it should be the obligation of all Christians everywhere to speak loudly and clearly in its condemnation, of course for Palestinians, but also for Israelis for what future is there for people who have become a pariah to everyone else.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Politics courting Religion: Religion courting Politics
Open letter to Coalition leadership

There has been a growing trend for Conservative politics in the US and in Australia to double down on support from conservative expressions of Christian religious faith. These religious views are not consistent with the values of most Australians, they are divisive. They do not represent the views of those with faith, like me, who find them at odds with the life and teaching of Jesus.

Before moving into the substance of this article I want to make a brief comment about the word ‘conservative’.  I do not believe those in politics or religion who so self-describe are genuine conservatives.    A conservative conserves.  To those on the Australian political conservative right I simply ask – what about the planet? I consider myself a Christian conservative because I try to live my life out of that which is central to the life and teaching of Jesus, especially as described in the Beatitudes. Self-describing religious conservatives consider adherence to their particular interpretation of biblical text to be the mark of conservatism; this is a very different matter. 

I have been moved to write this article following unpleasant experiences I and countless others recently endured at polling booths on the NSW South Coast. I have since discovered these unpleasant experiences extended well beyond our region. 

Large numbers of what I have been told were members of the Plymouth Brethren sect were bussed in to work Liberal party stands at early polling booths and on the day itself.  They were intimidating, aggressive, arrogant and otherwise sought to dominate the space.  I was present on three occasions in support of an independent candidate.   I came home quite traumatised.

Why were they there?  At whose initiative?  Who paid the considerable cost of transport, housing and feeding them?  

This cult teaches its members that those who are not of them are ‘Egyptians’ or foreigners from whom they can exact as much as possible for their own benefit.  The cult adjures its members not to vote, for doing so contaminates them with the rest of the world.  So, what did supporting the Liberal party potentially offer them? Why were they at polling booths? (BTW, the stand this sect takes on women seems to some extent to have been mirrored in the representative style of the coalition in recent years).

If this were the only ‘religious’ group (they are more accurately a business conglomerate) seeking support from and giving support to the conservative side of politics it would not matter much in the great sweep of things, but sadly it is not.

The Zionist lobby of Australia which receives unquestioning support from the Coalition, would be far less effective if it were not for the complete support it receives from the conservative Christian lobby. Zionism and Judaism are not the same. Swastikas, foul name calling of Jews, denying the holocaust, defiling synagogues etc, is appallingly antisemitic.  Being condemnatory of the Israeli government, its apartheid, genocide, denial of international law, starving whole populations, destruction of homes, targeting Palestinian women’s fertility is not.  Quite the reverse. Not to call out the atrocities being committed by Israel is not simply to walk by on the other side, it is to support injustice, and spit on the foundations upon which humanitarian law is built. 

Now, don’t tell me I am one sided.  Of course, what happened on October 7 was an atrocity. It cannot be defended. Its context does not defend the action.  But not to address the context, as the Zionist lobby demands, is to be party to the problem. The context is decades of displacement, isolation and imprisonment. The community has endured a blockade without relent now, or into the future. Most Gazans are refugees or descendants of refugees who have been forcibly displaced from their homes in what is now called Israel.  The unequivocal statement of the Israeli Prime Minister that not one inch of land will ever be ceded to Palestinian control is also the context. As is Zionist belief that the lands from the river to the sea are theirs to the exclusion of others; as is belief Palestinians are less human and therefore can be destroyed.

The Coalition’s support of the Zionist ambition, without critique, is by default one of the worst forms of injustice ever perpetrated upon a distinct nation of people. Coalition obsession with antisemitism that includes criticism of Israel is telling, as is lack of equal support for those suffering Islamophobia.
Another form of Christian conservatism which the Coalition courts, and which is courted in return is the Australian Christian Lobby, and one of its offshoots, Family First.  It is this form of conservatism that perpetuates the culture wars, so beloved of John Howard and subsequent expressions of Coalition leadership.   

For reasons I absolutely fail to comprehend, the Coalition seems to think that Sky after dark, sky anything, or Andrew Bolt, express the views of ‘quiet Australians’.   This appears to be the bubble Coalition leadership has lived in for the last three years.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  This ranting is likely to be heard by 10 percent of the population - on a good day.   I respectfully suggest to incoming leadership that using the word ‘woke’ to pejoratively describe compassion, respect, inclusiveness, truth telling and care for others will do your side of politics no good. One obvious example: it is not ‘woke’ to tell of the frontier wars and the massacre of First Nations people, this is our recent past. Not telling this story blinds us to the ongoing implications of the past and prevents us from acknowledging the same thing happening in the present to the Palestinian people.
​
Finally, you must know you will never govern from anywhere other than the political centre.  Gina Reinhart and Peta Credlin are leading you right up one of Joh Bjelke-Peterson’s dry gullies.  Conservative Christians who regale you with a ‘prosperity gospel’ doctrine are leading you astray. Economic wealth is not in and of itself a sign of God’s blessing, and by implication nor is poverty a sign of unworthiness. At the heart of Jesus’ teaching is belief that I cannot thrive unless you do.

There is no longer a socialist state anywhere in the world, least of all in an Albanese led government. Capitalism reigns in Russia and China as much as it does in the US.  The only questions worthy of asking is how and to whose benefit is the wealth generated and with whom is that wealth shared.
​
I wish you well.  It is good for a democracy to have collaborative strength both in government and opposition.  This will not happen for the Coalition if, recognised or not, its identity is shaped by transactional religious belief.
 

Easter Hope

At least once in a lifetime, every human being is likely to experience pain of such calamitous proportion that it feels as if the world is coming to an end, but in truth it isn’t.  The world community could be excused for thinking that together we are now in one of those moments. Between us, we are kicking so many own goals of destruction and alienation that the accumulative effect is devastating.  I won’t even attempt to list them, (nor name those most responsible for kicking them!) they are all painfully familiar. But no, the world is not coming to an end. For every actuality, its opposite is hovering in plain sight.  How so? Well, it is laid out in the Easter narrative, Maundy Thursday through to Easter Day.

The main character in the story is one Jesus the Nazarene.  Some of you believe in him, that is you believe in him as the human face of God, as I do, while most who do not would still know something about him and have an opinion about that!

However, believing or not, it is not enough just to contemplate these three days of his passion, or even just the 30 years of his life. If you wish to come to grips with the reality that is Jesus, and what relevance, let alone presence, he has in this or any age, you must start further back.

Let me ask this.  Do you think there is a pattern to life, an order to things, or is everything simply haphazard, a crazy jumble? As you look at the natural order do you detect a pattern? If you do, do you think humanity is part of this pattern or in some way stands above it.  Does history reveal any truths about life as humans experience it?

Well, the Christian faith declares there is a pattern, if you like, a weaving which has been there from the beginning. While life in all its forms has, does, and will continue to evolve, the fundamental pattern remains the same. The name given to this pattern, or ordering, in the Christian tradition is ’wisdom’ or ‘word’. To use poetic language, it is this wisdom or word that sings everything into being and sustains their rhythm. The pattern is embedded in all relationships that are life giving, and its absence is the cause of relationships that are destructive.

Now, St John commences his remarkable gospel by claiming that this wisdom, this word, this pattern, took human form in history, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.  When we look to Jesus we are looking far beyond a moment in history, we are looking at the pattern necessary for sustainable life within the very order of existence. To be mundane we are given a mirror into the patterns of life that can be ignored but never abrogated.

Let’s get straight into it with Maundy Thursday.  Jesus washes the disciples’ feet: not a single act of service, but a glimpse of how relationships work, how leadership or hierarchy should be expressed.  Everyone and everything exist in relationship and service of everyone and everything else. In an eco-system all elements are interdependent. The more significant the role, the greater becomes the obligation of service, not control. So it is in families, communities and nations.  Independence is a mirage and an ambition not to be coveted. Every time service is offered what has been broken is being restored.  One act of service has a ripple effect.  We all have the capacity to mend the broken.  Herein is hope. Mending happens not through control or coercion, but in and through loving service.

That evening a loaf of bread was broken and shared. In our world there is, metaphorically, only one table.  I sit around it with you, together we sit around it with the peoples of the world. As bread is broken, we are bound to one another.  I have had the privilege of sharing bread with the Karen people of Myanmar, the Afar people of Ethiopia and with Palestinians.  In a very special way I am bound to, and with them until my dying day.  We all have the gift of hospitality. Life expands through the space we provide for that which is not ourselves. In the sharing of bread there is hope.

Good Friday and dying.  Dying reorients everything.  Our lives are the gift of many past dyings, not simply dust from a long dead star. The crucifixion is not a penal transaction as many Christians maintain, (a useful glimpse into why so many US Christians support Trump) but God’s participation in the world’s brokenness, a healing from within.  Herein hope lies.  Grace heals brokenness.  Grace out paces ungrace. We experience far more growth in the moments of failure and loss than we do in the moments of triumph. Tragically, our human default position is to cocoon ourselves in an armour of self-protection, putting us in conflict with, rather than open to, the grace always on offer. We would rather embrace brokenness than die to something better.

It is in and through grace, that peace prevails.  Peace is much more than an absence or suspension of conflict. Peace is internal not external.  When peace is known inside, peace is practiced outside.

  Herein lies hope

And now the glorious Easter Day.

Refusing to be entombed is about much more than the resurrection of Jesus, it is about the resurrection of the world embraced by him. The wisdom or pattern which has been there from the beginning bursts afresh. Eternity is embodied in the material world. “Earth is crammed with heaven and every bush afire with God, but only he who sees takes off his shoes”. Elizabeth Barrett Browning Nothing that matters is ever lost. Equally, the causes of death and destruction have no abiding power, they can be left behind.  Here in our hope lies. The awful home goals humanity has been kicking do not, should not, have enduring power: they can be left behind, shed. Each new day has within it the capacity to be a genuinely new day.

Each new week begins on Sunday the day of resurrection. It is never too late to reset the time clock of life to this pattern.
 
 
 

Liberation Day

In an insightful SMH opinion piece (4/4/25) Waleed Ali, asserts that commentary on the Trump Tariffs, has yielded insufficient attention to the name Trump chose for the day – “Liberation”.  Drawing on the “globalisation trilemma” identified by Harvard economist Dani Rodrik, he argues the day is about much more than economics, it is about Trump’s vision for US sovereignty. He goes on to say the world has failed to properly combine sovereignty, democracy and globalisation. In various ways two have been combined but never three.

Clearly Trump is abandoning globalisation, notwithstanding Americans under Reagan were largely responsible for its ubiquitousness.  It looks as if he may also wish to abandon democracy or at least shape it in his own image.

Whilst grateful to Waleed for his insights, I wish to argue that for the sake of the civilised world every effort must be made to combine all three, indeed, to say that if this goal is abandoned the future for life on the planet is bleak.

Globalisation

There is far more to globalisation than economics, although free trade is a very important part of it. Following two disastrous world wars it was considered necessary to enact a new world order. First the League of Nations and then the United Nations was born. Associated with this body are its organisations focussing on law, health, environment, humanitarian relief etc.  To secure its founding, veto in the body that has teeth, the Security Council, was granted to China, Russia, France, the US and the UK. As a result, appropriate and necessary international intervention does not occur. Israel with the backing of the US, refuses to accept any external jurisdiction, worse, does everything in its power to belittle and demean such authority.  Countries such as Australia simply turn a blind eye.

The problems global humanity face need global cooperation and submission to global order.  The covid pandemic from which the world is still struggling to economically emerge is a good example.  In the face of a global pandemic there must be cooperation, the sharing of expertise, including the sharing of vaccines. The climate crisis the world now faces is beyond the wit of any nation to face on its own. There must be global commitment to prevent irreversible tipping points, supposing there is still time. We know what the problem is.  We know what needs to be done. We lack willingness. A false sense of national sovereignty always gets in the way.

Humanity has always been on the move. However, there has never been a time when human movement has happened on such a monumental scale, driven by poverty, violence, natural disaster, or desire for a better way of life.  There must be global agreement and cooperation in the provision of aid and shelter, but also in addressing the issues causing the movement.  Putting the scythe through USaid is a very clear statement of hand washing on behalf of the US.
Trump is clearly of the view that acquiescing to any international agreement is an afront to US sovereignty. Paul Keating has claimed that Trump’s tariff declarations have ended NATO. The claim makes no sense based on the tariffs alone but makes perfect sense in that Trump’s version of sovereignty leaves no room for obligation to others. He is bizarrely of the view that the US is the global centre around which everyone and everything revolves.

Sovereignty

Of course, sovereignty, dignity and identity of every nation state must be defended. It should be the obligation of nations to come to the aid of those denied this right, in the present circumstance Ukraine and Palestine.

 Australia has every right, indeed obligation, to protect biodiversity, act against the introduction of harmful diseases and exotic species, make its own media regulations, and protect its commitment to accessible pharmaceuticals. More broadly we have the right to set migration targets.

However, it is equally true we are one of nearly 200 sovereign states who share this planet. We do not have the right to engage in activity that adversely affects other nations, equally we share responsibility to mitigate the threats and challenges we all share. Sovereignty can never be absolute, to behave as if it is, as Trump appears to be doing, is to fall into pariah statehood.  Is this what ‘being great again’ looks like?
​
Democracy

It is essential that government is chosen by the people.

But here is the rub. Democracy elected Trump.  Democracy voted in favour of Brexit.  The latter is almost universally acknowledged as a disaster for the British, and Trump looks certain to be a disaster for the very people who elected him.

People will always vote for what looks like security - i.e. sovereignty in its various forms.  That is why politicians love conflict, real or manufactured, to channel their perceived superior leadership. Nationalistic movements are always driven by false views of sovereignty.

People will also always vote in protection of their hip pocket.

The difficulty is that information provided upon which an appropriate vote can be cast is weighted to suit the binary leaning of one side or the other.  Truth is never binary.  Truth is always a combination, or balance, of factors some of which may seem incompatible. In modern democracies the need of each party to be in power takes precedence over the creation of good policy. Either side of our political duopoly present ‘this’ but never ‘that’. To have us vote for them, parties tell us what they want us to hear, not what we need to hear.

We do not need more parties. The proliferation occurring in Australia is a mistake.   But we do need more independents. In the last parliament some of the very best ideas have come from independents. Hopefully any future government will neither govern in its own right, nor establish a cosy partnership with another needy party, but will be forced to govern in negotiation with a growing number of independents.

Globalisation, Sovereignty and Democracy

It is unthinkable the world becomes a planet of sovereign states who have no obligation to work together for common good.

It is also unthinkable that peoples be denied sovereignty, as is currently the case for Ukrainians and Palestinians.
​
And it is unthinkable that democracy should continue to weaken or even fail, a is the contemporary trend, leaving the world to be governed by self-appointed dictators and or plutocrats.

 Will those capable of leading the world into a future which combines global cooperation, national sovereignty, and democracy, please stand up.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Empathy, Culpability, and Madness

Is Trump mad? If declining to share the joys and troubles of the whole human race, to decline a seat at humanity’s common table is a form of madness – then yes - Donald J Trump is mad.

What is madness? To order the confinement of a person for their safety and wellbeing, as well as the safety of others, the medical profession is expected to competently diagnose a mental condition.  But is this all there is to it?  I have just re-watched a presentation of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in which Hamlet is declared to be mad by others in the drama.  But was he?  Was his apparent ‘madness’ an expression of an all-consuming emotion of vengeance in reaction to the murder of his father by his uncle (his father’s brother), who then added insult to injury by taking his brother’s wife (Hamlet’s mother) as his wife.

Is Trump mad?  Is Netanyahu mad?  Is Putin mad? All men seem hellbent on vengeance and on determining the usefulness to them of others on the criteria of their cooperation with this emotion. Trump has said “I am your vengeance” and most clearly acts this out in both demolishing every domestic Biden legacy, regardless of its rightness, as well as wishing to destroy Zelenski (and Ukraine) for the lack of help he received from them in his desire to destroy Biden through the activities of his son Hunter.  What Trump cannot forgive, let alone accept, is any sense he lost the 2020 election, convincing himself that some were part of a conspiracy against him.

Netanyahu is clearly guilty of the security lapses that led to the October 7 atrocities.  He will not accept responsibility, and he will not allow an independent enquiry.   Instead, he unleashes unprecedented wrath on all Palestinian people and sacks any Israeli official who will not support his most extreme atrocities.

For Putin, the fall of the Soviet Union is clearly personal. He cannot accept or forgive peoples aligning with the West, whom he sees as part of greater Russia especially the Ukraine. Vladimir Putin destroys any dissenting voice.

This is by way of background to an extraordinary statement by the ‘deputy president’ of the US, Elon Musk who has said: “the fundamental weakness of Western Civilisation is empathy”.  This is clearly a view shared by the president himself who is drawn to people like Kim Jong Un who even lacks empathy for the poverty of his own people.

The statement that empathy is a fundamental weakness has been supported by leadership in the American Christian right.   How can this possibly be so?  Apparently, its origin lies within the form of Christianity that Trump has adopted, namely that power and wealth are a sign of God’s beneficence and conversely, misfortune is a sign of God’s displeasure and therefore undeserving of empathy.

Given common acceptance that a Judaeo-Christian ethic and western civilisation are intertwined, the Trump/Musk position is a shocking betrayal both of Christianity and Western Civilisation.

Empathy (mercy) is at the heart of Biblical faith.  Bishop Mariann Budde may well have been speaking to the famous Micah passage when she pleaded that Trump be merciful at his inauguration.  “What does the Lord your God require of you but to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God”. (Micah 6:8).

The most well-known and quoted parable of Jesus is the parable of the Good Samaritan. It is the story of three men who find a man lying in the road. A teacher and a priest pass by on the other side.  The injured man was a Jew, the third passer-by was a Samaritan who had no responsibility to stop and help, but he did.  Jesus asked which of the three acted as Neighbour. They replied, the one who showed mercy, Jesus said: “go and do likewise”.

The Christian message is that every person is potentially neighbour to every other person. At its best, Western Civilisation is based in this ethic. 

This is not first and foremost about morality.  It is first and foremost about what it means to be human.  To be human means to live in a caring relationship with all others.  Madness could be defined as actions, or an intention of the mind, that withdraws the person from the human race.

It is on this basis that I would declare Trump, Musk and Putin to be mad.  They are acting in a way that defies humanity. To Trump everything is reduced to its transactional purpose or value.  Because everything is transactional, nothing has abiding value, its value only exists in this transaction – in the making of this deal.

Even democracy has no ultimate value.   If it serves a particular transactional purpose – good, if not it can, without compunction, be set aside.  What is goodness? The biblical view is that ‘good’ is an absolute value for what is common.  Goodness exists in and through the relationships we share with all other people and all parts of the created order.
​
It is serious enough that Trump wishes to withdraw from all alliances and protocols that govern international behaviour and responsibility. But it is profoundly disturbing that he is collaborating to change what it means to be responsibly human, what it means to be accountable.   Christian leadership must stand up by word and action and declare “you are not part of our fold, and we do not wish to be part of yours”. World leadership and especially Western leadership must be less acquiescent and more courageous in saying we are not part of your deal.
 
Loss of empathy is not simply morally vacuous; it is a choice not to share the journey of life with the rest of humanity. The world cannot afford, or accommodate, leadership of this kind.
 
 
 
 

Trump and Christianity – Why it matters

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled
Blessed are you who weep now for you will laugh …….
But woe to you who are rich for you have received your consolation
Woe to you who are full now for you will be hungry
Wow to you who are laughing now for you will mourn and weep

From the Sermon on the Plain - Luke 6: 20 – 25
Gospel for Epiphany 6   16 February

Trump has created what he calls a ‘Faith Office’ within the White House and appointed a Pentecostal pastor from Florida, Paula White, to lead it. Ms White, widely described in mainstream Christianity as a heretic, teaches a transactional faith.  In other words, faith is demonstrated in prosperity.  This matters because action is an external manifestation of what is internally held to be true. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks -Luke 6: 45). In Paula White, Trump has found a spiritual foundation to support, justify and expand his transactional view of leadership, deal making and wealth.  That this view is anathema to Christian faith (see text) does not bother Trump, he believes he has the right to name everything in his own image, including faith - not simply the Gulf of America.  American Christianity, at least that which emanates from the White House has now been officially named a prosperity gospel.

The sermon on the plain in Luke’s gospel is not as well-known as the sermon on the mount in Matthew. It is much more succinct and packs a powerful punch. Unlike Mathew who puts the words in the third person, Luke positions them in the second person, pointing them directly at the rich who have no compassion for the poor and probably bear responsibility for their poverty. In contrast, the recitation of blessings and woes makes clear a divine partiality towards the poor and needy. To Trump and Paula White human poverty has the opposite connotation, it is a sign of divine disfavour.

A former foreign minister once confronted me at a public gathering with the question: “and can’t the rich be saved”.  Dumb stuck, I opened my mouth, but no words came out! Had I had my wits about me I might well have asked: “do they want to be”?  The US of Trump and the Russia of Putin are very similar, no wonder their leaders are bosom buddies, they are both run by oligarchs for whom material wealth is all consuming. Trump has made it abundantly clear that making the US ‘great again’ has only one measuring stick – material wealth.  The measuring stick is clearly not character, or values, or diversity, or equality, or loyalty, or truthfulness, or generosity, or even taking responsibility; casting blame is the preferred discourse.

The poor in the US are beginning to count the cost the Trump presidency is imposing upon them. To compensate for the Trump promised lower taxes, relief that will not measurably affect the poor, he is wishing to recoup lost revenue through tariffs which will raise the cost of products upon which all are dependent, none more dependent than the poor.

There are no people on earth poorer than Gazans.  Their wealth resides in loyalty to family, their culture and the land which has always been Palestinian.  Because the land is now desolate it is no less Palestinian.  It is not Israel’s to give away nor is it America’s to seize.  Asked by a journalist by what authority or law would Trump take the land, he replied by the authority of American law!!  Asked how much he will pay for it, he replied it is desolate, it is worth nothing.

The terrifying behaviour of Al Queda, ISIS, and Islamic State was justified on false, or grossly exaggerated Islamic teaching.  For several years the Islamic threat was so terrifying that many peoples and nations were held hostage. Even here in Australia, security laws have permanently reduced some freedoms we had previously taken for granted.

Because of Trump, previously assumed commitments to global responsibility and treaties, international law, respect for boundaries, loyalty to partners, separation of powers, are being thrown into chaos out of priority afforded to expanding US and personal wealth. The justification is false Christian teaching, with no basis in bible, tradition, or historical Christian practice, let alone common human decency.

Islamic leaders and especially their religious teachers had an obligation to name the apostacy of terrorist leaders and their teaching.  This was not done with the clarity and immediacy that those moments demanded.

In like manner, it is the responsibility of Christian leaders to name the falsity of Trump’s claims to be upholding the Christian faith.  He claims he is protecting Christianity and Christians from persecution. He is doing the reverse.  So far in the US the Bishop of Washington, Bishop Mariann Budde, has been the only one to speak with absolute clarity.
​
This matters, both to enable insightful critique of many of Trump’s initiatives, but equally importantly to cherish the Christian faith, free of heresy, a source of grace in a broken world.
 
 

Trump and Musk’s monopoly board

Christopher Pyne, one-time Australian minister of the crown, gratuitously recommends Greenlanders embrace Trump’s desired purchase of Greenland on the basis they would be financially far better off.  Hello, is everything to be valued exclusively in financial terms?  Is this what human beings are all about?

But why purchase when you can just take. Trump’s suggestion that Gaza be owned by America, perhaps by himself, all structures raised to the ground and the people forcibly removed anywhere other than the US, to be replaced by the world’s newest and best real estate development, is another level of human hubris.  How good would a Trump tower be here on the edge of the mediterranean, guests could use the newly minted Trump currency. Trump’s bumbling thought bubble, straight from his heartfelt vault of wealth and possession, has nothing to do with Israel or a future for Palestinians, it is all about real estate.

Having just closed USAID, the body that would presumably respond to Palestinian humanitarian need, it is clear these needs are to be met by anyone other than the US pocket.

The proposal puts a scythe through 75 years of agreed international policy that assumes a Palestinian State exists alongside the State of Israel.

As a Palestinian spokesperson said in response; “If Trump wants Palestinians to live in their ‘happy place’ he should ensure their safe return to homes in the State of Israel from which they were removed following partition in 1948.

It is very hard to find words to express the horror and disgust I feel.   It is gut wrenching.  
How Americans voted for such a contemptable leader, (or more likely allowed him to be appointed by refusing to vote) is beyond understanding.

I am trying to comprehend the thought processes that lie behind his pronouncements.  Perhaps a futile exercise, the words tumble out of a brain dominated by real estate signs.

It seems two thoughts lurk in the recess of both Trump and Musk’s minds.  The first is that winners have the right if not the responsibility to take all. In this line of thinking Palestinians (not just Hamas) are losers and therefore have no rights. Both men consider themselves ultimate winners and therefore have the obligation to prosecute anything that serves their best interest and punish those whom they perceive to be spoilers of their ambition. In US politics they clearly perceive themselves as winners, even to the extent of considering the congress and senate largely irrelevant.

In bizarre fashion, this is not even about Israel and its promotion. It is about the US and Trump’s personal aggrandisement.  Trump’s nominee as US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, still awaits confirmation.    He is a messianic, Zionist Christian who promulgates an ‘end times’ hypothesis that Jesus will return when Israel controls all the land from the river to the sea. This, he believes, will promote a thousand-year period when all who believe as he does will prosper, and all who do not will perish.  He supports the forced removal of all Palestinians. But, like Trump, he is not really concerned about Israel, Israel is no more than a pawn in the grander purposes of God as understood by Huckabee.  Huckabee could be likened to a Christian version of an ISIS leader. Because he believes Palestinians do not exist, their disappearance, even violent fate does not matter in the greater scheme of things.

When you believe the winner has the right to take all, then principle, morality or consequence do not matter.

The second thought that appears to be in the minds of these two narcissistic men is that if you are not a winner, if you cannot stand on your own feet, you do not deserve any help.  What is being cut from the US budget both in the US and overseas is expenditure for those without a foothold on the necessities of life.  Musk uses words that imply it is not just a waste, but almost a criminal offence to render assistance that does not result in economic return. Apparently, US public servants who have devoted their lives in the service of others are now deemed to be enemies of the state.

I am somewhat surprised that Trump has so far not declared the Great South Land of the Holy Spirit to be US property. Given our acquiescence on so many matters regardless of whether Labour or the Coalition are in power, maybe he mistakenly thinks we are already part of the Stars and Stripes.  In the last week or two I have found myself cheering for China in any tussle between the two ‘great powers’.

In these dreadful days it is vitally important that principle is clear, that political expediency or economic supremacy are not policy drivers.

• No person has the right to take that which belongs to another.  No nation, or people, have the right to railroad another nation or people.
• No one has the right to decide the future of another. Freedom is not the absence of conflict; it is the capacity to decide for oneself. No one is free unless all are free.
• Every human being is neighbour. A civilised nation is not marked by its wealth or power but by its compassion for the powerless and needy.

Every passing day of the Trump presidency, the US feels less civilised. Through its power and influence, it is attempting to take much of the rest of the world down the same path.
 
 

Donald Trump at the National Cathedral
Washington
 
Addressing Donald Trump at the National Cathedral’s inauguration service, the Episcopal bishop of Washington, looking the incoming president in the eye, pleaded with him: “to have mercy on people who are scared and help those facing persecution”.

Bishop Mariann Budde did not mince her words. In particular, she referenced the LGBTQI community following the president’s statement that the US officially recognises two genders, male and female. Asked at the door of the Cathedral what he thought about the service, he responded to the journalist: “what did you think, not very exciting was it. I did not think it was a good service, they could do much better”.  Similar answer to the one he gave about Gaza: “the 140-mile Gaza Strip, which is on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, is "the best location in the Middle East."

"It could be better than Monaco. The best water, the best everything. It's got, it is the best, I've said it for years. You know, I've been there, and it's rough. It's a rough place, before the, you know, before all of the attacks and before the back-and-forth, what's happened over the last couple of years”.

The cameras remained focused on Donald Trump and his entourage throughout the approximately 15-minute address.

Bishop Budde’s words centered around three qualities she considered to be at the heart of leadership.  Only Trump would know what went through his mind as the bishop spoke, one can only assume either he thought he exemplified these qualities or that she was wrong, that leadership is not about exhibiting these qualities.  

Integrity

In his inauguration speeches, and in his issue of pardons for the year 2020 attackers of the Congress, Donald Trump continues to insist that election was rigged; in so doing he calls into question the integrity of an essential pillar of American democracy – the ballot box.  Where that might lead in the next four years is unknown; and whether a Republican majority House and Senate will allow him unfettered power, including change of the constitution, is unclear. However, it is clear he is psychologically incapable of accepting any outcome or situation in which he is not triumphant.  On his first day in office, he announced the sacking of at least one thousand public servants whom he fears would give him truthful and fearless advice.  He has made it clear that in his administration there is no room for anyone who will not support his own position, whatever that position might be. Narcissistic behaviours deny the exhibitor any chance of recognisable integrity. A narcissist believes a critic is not simply ill-informed, but at best a fool, easy fodder for lampooning, or more probably an evil opponent who needs to be dealt with. To be a narcissist and leader of the supposed most powerful country in the world is a fearful thing. For this leader to now be in a position of unfettered power with what appears to be a compliant government and judiciary is terrifying.

Honesty

In 2020 Donald Trump appealed to rust bucket electors with the promise he would “drain the swamp” of government elites he claimed were keeping them poor. In reality, he has established the most obvious bevy of elites ever enlisted behind a president.  The difference this time is that these are the ‘ultra-wealthy’ who deem it right to redesign the country after their likeness and ambition. Amongst them are those who have successfully lobbied for the removal of any fact checking provision, a need which has grown exponentially with the growth of AI.  By exiting WHO and the Paris Accord, Trump has already begun withdrawal from any global accountability.  It appears that in the MAGA textbook, any form of fact checking, or accountability, outside the inner circle of the new coterie of elite is unacceptable.

In his inauguration address Trump said he was saved by God (a reference to the Pennsylvania attempted assassination), “to Make America Great Again”.   Apparently, even God is subject to Trump’s will. His statement infers that God is the tribal God of the US.   In her address Bishop Budde reminded the president and other members of the congregation that prayers for justice, peace, unity, were of no value unless the actions of the petitioner mirrored the petition.

Humility

From the earliest known Christian hymn, (Philippians 2: 6 – 11), we know that humility is an inescapable foundation to transformational leadership:

Christ, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God
As something to be exploited but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave
And being found in human form he humbled himself
And became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross.

This really is the hub of the matter, illustrating the futility and dishonesty of MAGA.  Nothing is made great, or greater again, through transactional deals.  An individual life, a community, a nation can only be made ‘great again’ through transformational, action, intention, and leadership, of which Donald J Trump is clearly incapable.  Transactional deals, because they are based on ‘winning’ at the cost of others’ loss, lack integrity and speed up the inevitable entropic process.

Transformational leadership is founded on the virtues so clearly articulated by the Bishop.   Given the expectations of her congregation that day, it would have taken considerable courage to speak as she did.
​
But then again, courage is the queen of virtues, for without it, it is not possible to exhibit any of the others. Brazen self-interest and courage are not bedfellows.
 
 
 
 

Awake O Sleeper
 
“Earth's crammed with heaven, and every common bush afire with God: But only he who sees takes off his shoes. The rest sit around and eat blackberries”. (Elizabeth Barrett Browning: Aurora Leigh)
 
In the 1930’s, African American Vernacular English adopted ‘woke’ as a clarion call, drawing attention to injustice, specifically the injustices daily faced by black Americans. The word is of course vernacular for ‘awake’. Fast forward 100 years: the word is not now used by those seeking justice, but used as a weapon by the political right and powerful against those who do. The intent is to demean any who question a so-called conservative agenda. It has become a politically based word of derision.  Perhaps more seriously, it is used by those who feel entitled to that which they would like to remain excluded from others – fairness and justice.

So, what is, and what is not, a conservative agenda?

I grew up in a conservative household, formed by Christian values. I consider myself to be a Christian conservative. What do I mean by that? The core of the matter is that I understand myself to be formed in relationship with God, with the places in which I have resided, with people whose lives I have shared, with all for whom I bear a level or responsibility, including the created order.  I am ‘Adam’, an earth person. My ‘right’ to do as I please is tempered and defined by and through all those other relationships.  All commitments, especially parenthood, marriage, respect for family and community, care for the natural order, are sacrosanct to me. In as much as I have held positions with authority and influence, I have believed the purpose of these positions has been to enhance the lives of others.  I believe humanity is deepened through service and diminished through the exercise of power. In the biblical tradition, as in many indigenous cultures, being bare foot is a sign of humility, Elizabeth Barrett Browning is profoundly perceptive to point out that it is only in this mindset that life can be fully embraced.

In the past I have seen conservative, Christian, values played out in the lives of those who have called themselves “Liberals”.  Today, there appear to be very few if any “liberals” left.  The extreme right has taken over and adopted the term “conservative”, but it is not a use I recognize; indeed, the policies of such people appear to be its very antithesis.

Australian conservatives appear to be adopting uncritically the American conservative right, who through Senator Johnson in 2018 gave conservatism a seven-point definition:

1. Individual freedom
2. Limited Government
3. Rule of Law
4. Peace through strength
5. Fiscal Responsibility
6. Free Markets
7. Human Dignity

All seven points are flawed, because they lack a discernible, undergirding, ethical or moral foundation – not withstanding they have been adopted by the Christian right.

Individual freedom.  This is the conservative right’s touch stone, but it is wrong, dangerously wrong. Society, civilisation, community, family, are all built on an unspoken understanding or covenant that individuals will seek to better that which is beyond or greater than self and in so doing also better self. The US version of individualism, the version of the gun lobby, the version of the gambling industry, the version of Gina Reinhart and Rupert Murdoch not to mention leading conservative politicians, the version of self-interest, will bring society to its knees, especially through arrogant lack of responsibility for a sustainable natural order. It will bring civilsation to its knees because seeking advancement at the expense of another, be it another individual or the earth itself, weakens the whole fabric.

Limited Government.  In its narrowest sense government is the legislature, in practice it means functions pursued out of the public purse.  From John Howard to the present, the conservative right is obsessed with privatizing public services. (I was present in Canberra when this policy was delivered, losing corporate knowledge and costing the taxpayer much more through consultancies). A wide range of services should not be managed by sectional interest or profit making. Water and its delivery should not be privatised, nor should the prison system – to name but two. Privatising NDIS delivery has unsustainably blown the budget. The privatising of poles and wires has made energy transformation infinitely harder to achieve.

Rule of Law.  There should be no argument about the application of the rule of law.  However, practice shows it is not so simple. The powerful and privileged have access to a justice system out of reach of ordinary citizens.  Australia has incarcerated more children and more indigenous people than any other comparable Western Society. Politics have prioritized punitive resources and minimised restorative resources.

Peace through strength. From the Vietnam war onwards, Australia has combined with the US to fight wars on other continents that have wrought unspeakable division and suffering. Currently, Israel would not be able to reek its devastation on Palestinians without US resources, and without tacit acquiescence from much of the Western world. In practice, strength does not mean peace, it means fighting to keep pole position.

Fiscal Responsibility.  Sounds good, but how is it defined?   In my house it has always meant three things. Priority to health, education and well-being.  Expenditure on life giving experiences rather than things. A significant proportion of time and resource devoted to others.  In the conservative ideology, it appears fiscal responsibility means ‘dig baby dig’, investment in wealth. Wealth builders are remuneratively rewarded, care givers are undervalued. It means three classes of people, those whose wealth is derived from investments; those whose wealth is derived from wages; and those whose survival is dependent upon welfare. The second category pay the most tax; proportionately, the first category contributes least.

Free Markets. The price paid for ‘free’ is minimal or non-existent regulation, requiring environmental or social cost to be calculated and applied.  Regulation requiring environmental or social outcomes is derided.    

Human Dignity Of course!  But in practice there is no ethical foundation to deliver this ideological principle. In Australia refugees and asylum seekers have been appallingly treated.  Indigenous peoples have had their ‘Voice’ denied. Women do not enjoy equal place in conservative politics. In US conservative politics much emphasis is placed upon the conservative Christian agenda of gender and sexuality, diminishing the dignity of those whose identity does not conform.

Since the re-election of Donald Trump there have been many triumphant conservative voices claiming that woke is dead.  If this were true, then the future for civilization let alone the future of the planet would be bleak. 

The principles upon which the universe is founded can be ignored but they cannot be abrogated. The universe and all life within it, is relational to its core. To act otherwise is destructive. This is the message of science and Christianity.
   
To Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin, and other triumphalist leaders – take off your shoes. If you will not, then do not be surprised when members of common humanity throw theirs at you.
 
Wake up, O sleeper, rise up from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." This is why it is said: “Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” for the light makes everything visible. (Ephesians 5:14)