Now is the time to Speak

Nepali Prime Minister Balendra Shah said last week's deadly Himalayan flood was "not an ordinary" event but driven by climate change, as he demanded international action. In the meantime, Anthony Albanese and Angus Taylor both decline to speak of climate change in the context of the Nepalese catastrophe.

Following the Bondi massacre, it was immediately appropriate to address the causes of this outrage, condemn hate speech and call a Royal Commission.

Following recent atrocities committed by young men against women, it was immediately the right time to identify social media and manosphere influencers as causes that needed to be immediately addressed.

The northern hemisphere summer has brought climate disaster after disaster to North America, Europe and parts of Asia. No event on its own can be attributed to human-induced climate change, but accumulatively the evidence is not simply beyond dispute, its extent is graver than science had predicted.

The most recent UN Climate report has just been released and states in part:

In 2026, the world is already about 1.4°C warmer than pre-industrial levels, and the damage and death toll from climate-boosted disasters is ramping up. The United Kingdom is warning of possible food shortages amid a historic drought. Wildfires hit new areas in France and Spain, while glaciers are melting rapidly and the oceans are at their hottest level on record. The enormous El Niño event emerging in the Pacific is likely to bring major disruption. Every fraction of a degree makes things worse.

With carbon release already in the pipeline, we have reached what was intended to be a ceiling in the Paris agreement of 1.5 degrees global temperature increase over preindustrial averages. We are rushing headlong to 2.0 degrees and unless there is a u-turn in global policy, we could reach 3.0 degrees in the second half of this century.

The events that have already occurred cannot individually be ascribed to global warming, but their exaggeration can be.  Multiply our current situation and without serious policy change, we face a parlous situation.

Given the cost of ‘natural’ disasters to human health, biodiversity, homes, infrastructure, and food production, not forgetting the creation of more uninhabitable places, why would we not be talking urgently about it?

Perhaps one of the reasons is that the Nepalese government has every right to take a case to the international court of justice demanding that the greatest contributors to global warming must be expected to meet the cost now faced by the Nepalese government.  The burden faced through loss of lives, way of life, homes and infrastructure, not to mention future revenue from tourism, is immense.

The science of global warming has long been settled. There is no rational argument to counter it. Unfortunately, the effects have been underestimated. Any news outlet or podcast that claims a different position should be challenged and face sanction on the basis that their position is causing harm and slowing necessary transitional action.

On February 7, 2009, Black Saturday’s devastating and unprecedented bushfires swept through the State of Victoria. One hundred and seventy-three people lost their lives, four hundred and forty were hospitalized with severe burns and two thousand and twenty-nine homes were destroyed.

Prime Minister Rudd thought it appropriate to hold a memorial service at Westminster Abbey for Australian expats living in Britain.   He asked me to preach, given I was then residing in Britain.

The following day the Australian newspaper savaged me for linking this disaster to climate change and secondly for hypocrisy in flying to London to preach. Predictably, a letter to the editor, pointing out their error did not elicit an apology. As always with the Murdoch press, and more generally SkyNews/News24 and those who promote fossil fuels, the line they wish to promote is more important than any fact that might substantiate it.

The Prime Minister has just attended the Pacific Nations leaders conference in Palau. Again, he faced challenges from Pacific leaders that Australia is not doing enough. While predictably ‘journalists’ from right wing news outlets accused him of wasting too much tax- payer money on climate conferences leading to the November 2006 COP meeting in Türkiye.

It is past urgent that voices from all sectors of civil society combine to address the seriousness of the situation we face.

Economists: The cost of transitioning to renewable energy is far less than the mounting costs of no action.

Scientists: Continue to reinforce observed and tested data.

Insurers:   Make clear the rise of premiums related to global warming together with data illustrating the extent of uninsurable property.

Tourism: Especially the Snowy and Barrier Reef, make clear projections over the medium term.

Educators:   Provide students with facts

Faith Leaders: Be unequivocal about the sacredness of all life and the responsibility of human stewardship.

Farmers: Speak to the need for environmentally sustainable practice.

Business leaders: Condemn short term gain and profiteering, encourage investment in long-term sustainable practice.

Politicians: Stop wedging one another on matters of critical importance to the nation and to world sustainability, harmony and peace. Don’t follow popular grievance, seek to implement transformative policy.

Now is always the right time to speak truth.  Now is the right time to act on truth. Now is the right time to unmask false narrative and self-interest.  Now is always the right time to invest in a sustainable future.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Zeus’ Law

Civilisation is founded upon principles, not written or coded, but nevertheless immutable. Uphold these principles and civilisation evolves and flourishes.  Treat these principles with contempt and chaotic consequences are inevitable.  Order becomes disorder. This is the presupposition behind Zeus’ law.

Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey is his interpretation of Homer’ epic tale, scholars and movie buffs have every right to question his insights and accuracy; however, Nolan has brought this epic tale into commentary with the age through which we and civilisation as we have known it, are journeying.

Mythological story telling is not about the past, but a means of interpreting the present.  In Nolan’s movie, as Odysseus journeys home from the Trojan war, he faces the consequences that follow his serious breach of Zeus’ law in the manner of his victory. The trojan horse was not the problem, the massacre that followed was the problem. Principles of mercy, respect for the other and the sanctity of life were abandoned.   The crisis created by this breach of immutable laws is that the levies that hold back disorder have been breached.  How is order now to be restored?

In this Greek mythological epic, Homer (and Nolan) struggle with the same dilemma addressed in the creation narrative of Adam and Eve, Noah and the flood.  Humanity’s paradox is that while we long for order, our desire for possession and power distances us from what we need and desire the most, intimacy and the comfort of meaningful relationship with others, and with the created order.

It is difficult to believe that in scripting the movie Nolan did not have Trump and the MAGA movement in mind.  Trump, those who support him, and those who play his soundtrack, are cutting down principles upon which Western civilisation is founded and reshaping the world after his image.

A rules-based order is essential to enable cooperation, shared responsibility and openness.  A rules-based order treats all people equally. To enable full-hearted engagement with community, nation, and international community, we need assurance that the rules are the same for everyone.

Under Trump, commitment to a rules-based order is not simply abandoned, its existence is despised.   The incursion into Iran was not legal.  There was no immediate threat to the US that needed to be countered. Support for Israel, necessitates support for behaviours that justified condemnation by the international criminal court.  The total global community is suffering the consequences of this illegality through the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump’s Tariffs have been declared illegal by his own supreme court.  The new tariffs, justified on the basis that traders have used forced labour is a sham, a devise to inappropriately apply a long-forgotten provision in US trade regulations.

Manipulating the law to serve vengeance has become established practice.  

Manipulation of the justice system to serve sectional interest undermines confidence in the rule of law. Those who support the political aspirations of Trump are pardoned despite serious breaches of the law, while his critics face persecution and contrived charges.

Most seriously, wealth has become the end game.  Those who use their power to accumulate wealth are lauded, even though their wealth has been accumulated at the expense of others. Those who seek to serve are derided. Trump’s deriding of the late Senator John McCain who was shot down and imprisoned while on service in Vietnam illustrates, in the most distasteful manner, how Trump measures winners and losers.

When virtue is replaced by monetary value as the standard of success, civilisation is corrupted.   “The art of the deal” is undermining the meaning of alliance, trust, friendship, loyalty.

That something is wrong, is intuitively felt in the general population, and is reflected in current political upheaval. 

The irony is that in finding a way out we look in the wrong direction.   It is the wrong direction to applaud those who invest in grievance. Grievance is personal, it is also a tool for manipulation, not renewal. The way forward cannot be personal but must be communal.  We are who we are because of where and to whom we belong. Contentment and fulfilment depend less on our personal wealth and more on the wealth of the community.

In the Christian tradition, the circuit breaker is the cross: generosity of spirit, grace, and a preparedness to pay the necessary cost of reform and renewal. The way forward is honesty and respect of the other.  Human life is always transitional.  What was possible, desirable, yesterday cannot remain the same today.  Honesty is required as a desired tomorrow is envisaged and resources invested to enable its arrival.

We are living through a period on par with a Greek tragedy.  It need not be so. We know what the problems are. Power and wealth are held by the few, who, never sated, seek more at the expense of long-term harmony and sustainability.  The ‘art of the deal’ needs to be named for what it is – the tool of the greedy and vacuous.
​
Visit any third world community, even Gaza, even now, experience the strength of community and the laughter of children and realise that what matters most lies in plain sight.

Where have all the leaders gone

Of course there are Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, Xi, Kim, and the Ayatollahs, who run their worlds according to their own story line, but none in any meaningful way serve democracies.  But are they leaders? Leaders act and think transformationally.  These guys, especially Trump, are interested only in transactions that further their story line.

Sadly, while our world needs leaders, it demands managers, folk who engage in transactions which mitigate risk and follow ideological, often partisan, predetermined, paths. Such has become the climate of grievance and perceived fault that the industry of risk management has taken over politics, institutions, and the Church. Leadership is no longer treasured, either at a national or local level. Indeed, real leadership is perceived as risk. Paradoxically, in the vacuum, voices of grievance and frustration about the lack of leadership, masquerade as leaders in the model of one or other of the afore mentioned.

Why do we need leaders?

The life of every nation, community and family is shaped by the story it tells itself. The US, Israel, Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, have become the stories their leaders insist to be true. That they are not good stories is apparent, because of the consequences these stories inflict on others, both within their own nations and beyond.

The role of a leader is to exemplify, in word and action, the best version of the story by which the nation or group and the world can be nourished.

It is now commonly accepted the world community faces three existential threats viz. Global Warming, Nuclear Catastrophe and AI. In a scramble for economic dominance, none receive the attention they should.

The lives of individuals, families, communities and nations go through cycles.  From my background, I understand the universal cycle to be an oscillation between order, disorder and reorder.

The role of a leader is to discern the community/nation’s place in that cycle and with courage to forge a sustainable just, harmonious and productive path.

Order is clearly the desirable state.  However, nothing in life remains static.  A long-established pattern can be suddenly disrupted, or a pattern which had served well will eventually cease to be life giving and become life diminishing.  Leaders will guide and direct a community through change, at times embracing or encouraging disruption or disorder that a new and life-giving reordering might arise.    We must be encouraged to embrace the price of disorder, that reorder might emerge.

From my world, this is emblematically cross and resurrection.

We are currently travelling through a major period of disruption. The agrarian revolution was a great disrupter, but out of it a civilisation independent of hunter gathering was born.  The industrial revolution was a great disrupter, but out of it a dominant middle class was born.  We are currently travelling through a digital revolution with AI at its apex, an outcome of creative and life-giving order is far from guaranteed. Courageous, wise and insightful leadership is needed.

Politics and politicians lack respect because of a leadership void. Those engaged in the political process are managers of internal factional ideologies and expectations and externally develop skill to wedge before being wedged. It appears politics is a game played in a bubble.

Energy and how it is sourced lie at the heart of economic and environmental life.  The industrial revolution was made possible using fossilised solar energy. The economic and environmental appropriateness of this source has passed. Transitioning to current abundantly available solar energy in all its forms, is what we must do.  That transitioning is expensive should not be apologised for. Economically and environmentally, it is the destiny we must embrace and look forward to.  There can be no plan B.

It has been clear for some time the housing market and regulations surrounding it had spun away from a healthy equilibrium. However instead of being on the front foot in addressing the issue the government has been forced to the back foot.  It was allowed self-interested voices to speak of ‘liars and broken promises’. Regardless of what might have been said in the past, action in Australia’s and the world’s best interest is paramount. A promise that is not in the country’s best interest was a mistake and should be admitted as such.

In the Middle East we continue to support the idea of a Two-State solution.  It is nonsense. It is too late.  It will not happen.  It simply provides space for Israel to continue its genocidal policies.  Leadership requires truth to be spoken. Pressure must be applied on Israel to enable all who live ‘between the river and the sea’, to enjoy the same rights, the same freedoms, the same dignity. This will not happen while the West refuses to sanction Israel, boycott trade and cease military cooperation.

In like manner, institutional Christianity has become all about management, not leadership.  Strategies such as exist, are overseen by insurance companies and risk managers.  Bishops outsource their leadership to risk managers.   There is little evidence that the injustices of the world are thought about, let alone addressed. Where are the voices that cry out in the wilderness? In the Anglican Church where are the William Temples or Desmond Tutus let alone a Martin Luther King?

Where are the prophets?

Prophets are those who challenge false stories. Christian Zionism that has undergirded atrocities against Palestinians is a false story. Christianity that gives space to unrestricted capitalism is a false story. Christianity that permits the demonisation of others based upon their gender, sexuality, ethnicity or religious belief is a false story.

Where are the critics of capitalist excesses and the growth of inequity?  Where is generosity in the face of difference, preparedness to recognise that others have seen what you have not? Why is popular Christianity so dualistic, so devoted to binaries?

Sadly, the same managerial mindset prevails in our health and educational practice. Visiting health and aged care facilities, this truth is painfully obvious. Significant skilled staff time is expended behind computers filling online digital requests in submission to risk management requirements. Time spent with patients, clients or students is significantly reduced.  No wonder staff are full of frustration.

I know the same to be true for the medical profession, so much so that some practitioners opt out, driven by frustration.  Initiative is frowned upon. Prescribed steps must be followed.
​
We cannot attain what has not been first imagined. Leadership is about imagining a different outcome and generating sufficient trust and respect that community or nation will accept the cost of making such a vision a reality.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Enough is never enough

‘I wish you wouldn’t squeeze so’ said the Dormouse who was sitting next to her. ‘I can hardly breathe’.  ‘I can’t help it’, said Alice very meekly: ‘I’m growing’. ‘You have no right to grow here’, said the dormouse. ‘Don’t talk nonsense’, said Alice more boldly: ‘You know you’re growing too’. ‘Yes, but I grow at a reasonable pace’, said the dormouse: ‘not in that ridiculous fashion’. Alice’s adventures in wonderland.

Is Australia riven with cultural and religious factions as the right, especially Pauline Hanson, would have us believe?  There is no data to justify this claim.  There are divisive people in every racial, cultural or religious group, English, European, African, American and Asian.  However, 99% of every racial cultural or religious group are good people while a small percentage can be thoroughly racist, opinionated, partisan and disruptive. 

But yes, we are divided, not ethnically or ‘culturally’, but economically. What values are we to draw on to address this division?

The conservative political voice claims we are united through distinctive Australian values; but the values they claim to be Australian, are essentially common human values.  All want to live in harmony; all want to cherish family. All want freedom from domination and tyranny. All want honesty and mutual trust. All want to be governed justly and fairly. I see nothing in these so-called values, recited but never defined by opposition leadership, that address our most pressing issues.

The same voice argues that our way of life is founded on Judaeo/Christian values, as if these values exclude people of other religious or ethnic backgrounds.  It seems most interpret Christian values as devoted to personal piety and sexual behaviour. These matters are addressed, but the overriding biblical concern is wealth and its connection to power and abuse.  Well, let me recite what I believe to be two of the most fundamental of these values. 

Abraham, the patriarch, owned nothing.  He was a nomad, relying on the goodwill of people such as Abimelech and the largess of Egypt in times of need.  The first Judaeo/Christian value is that we are to live from a mindset not of owning, but of gifting, of custodianship, of sharing.  For a relatively short time we are custodians or stewards of that which was before us and will be after us. “We came with nothing and we leave with nothing”. How we steward what is for a time in our custody, and how we leave custody in sustainable shape for others, is the issue.

I was once accosted by a senior member of the Howard government who came right up under my nose and glared: “and can’t the rich be saved”.  My response was: “Minister, I have no problem with wealth, the issue is how wealth was procured and how it is being distributed’.

The second primary value is that of ‘enough’.  This is the value of the journeyman. It is the meaning of the Jewish story of manna in the wilderness, and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

The translation of the Lord’s Prayer: “Give us this day our daily bread” is a best guess translation from words very hard to translate.  Another tenable translation might be “provide us with the rations necessary for this day’s journey”. 

We now live in a culture where enough is never enough. This is the antithesis of a Judaeo/Christian values system. The more we have, the more we think we need.

We are divided not racially, but economically, as is the case throughout most of the western world.
But is wealth being procured through productivity or through speculative or passive investment? If it is the former the pie increases, if it is the latter we are deluded, the pie remains the same or shrinks whilst the narrative of expansion continues to prevail.

What has made Britain almost ungovernable and has made the democratic process in Australia almost impossible to strengthen and reform, is the power of strident voices who generate fear by falsely arguing change to privileged status destroys freedoms and rights and dampens incentive.

The British economy is said to be a ‘basket case’.  For years the economic wealth of Britain has been focussed on London. Why?  London does not build ships, or grow wheat, how is its wealth generated?  Largely through speculation within the banking system. While money moves around quickly it carries the perception of wealth.  When the system slows down, the mirage becomes more obvious. Money invested speculatively is not money invested in productivity.

The money market is currently dominated by the speculative propositions of Elon Musk and fellow billionaires.

In Australia there has been considerable focus on investment in the housing market for financial gain. That this has had the effect of inflating house prices, making the purchase of homes for first home buyers nearly impossible, is well understood. But there is another perspective that gains little airtime.  Houses are built to be lived in. They should not be investments for the purpose of capital gain.  When an investor purchases an existing home, it is a passive investment, the investment does not produce anything. The money is being parked away from productive use.  Investment in education, agriculture or industry, or perhaps a new dwelling, is productive. The more capital that is invested passively, the less productive we become. 

The conservative side of politics rightly argues that Australia must become more productive if standards of living are to be protected.  This makes the fierce defence of passive investment by that side of politics incomprehensible and hypocritical.  If wealth is being generated through passive investment, without meaningful production, it should be taxed at a much higher or more realistic level. That it is currently taxed at a lower level than wage earners who contribute to the nation’s productive wealth through their labour, is not only unjust, but it also makes no economic sense.

If speculation and passive investment continue to dominate economic systems, it is inevitable that the divide now keenly felt across most western countries will only deepen.

Debates about migration, monocultures, and various forms of religious and social intolerance are a distraction from the main issue: how wealth is generated and dispersed, how wealth is used to manipulate advantage and maintain power, and how equity can be reestablished as the norm – the gold standard.
​
This will not happen without significant reform.  Reform will not occur while politics is driven and shaped by fear and anger.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Who are the victims and who are the terrorists
 
A major national news item of June 10 2026:

“Tensions have flared again between Australia and Israel after the federal government joined a coalition of countries to impose extra sanctions on extremist settlers in the West Bank and the organisations that support them.
Israel lashed out at Australia and the other countries for adopting what it labelled “disgraceful” sanctions, accusing them of fuelling antisemitism in their own nations”.

What bubble of deluded self-righteousness do Israeli leadership and its supporters worldwide live in?

It is the cruelty manifested towards Palestinians and an inexcusable grab for Palestinian property by illegal Israeli settlers on the West Bank, together with the continuing onslaught in Gaza, together with overreach into Lebanon, that is causing a perceived rise in antisemitism. But is it antisemitism? There can be no excuse for swastikas, racist tropes, defacing holy places, threatening Jewish citizens, let alone recourse to violence. All such actions are to be condemned. Those who engage in them, presumably out of misplaced identity with Palestine, are doing harm to Palestinians and those who support them.  They are replicating the very actions they are actively opposing.

What is most frequently called antisemitism is not. It is necessary criticism of Israel’s actions, conducted outside the framework of international law, with the clear aim of ensuring not only the death of any idea of a Palestinian State, but far worse, the herding of Palestinians out of their territories into what might only be described as gulags, all for the sake of creating  “Greater Israel”.

The cry of antisemitism is being used as a weapon to silence criticism of Israel.  I understand the Royal Commission has accepted or adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism. In doing so, it is opening itself to interpreting cries for justice as antisemitic. They are far from that.

The Queensland government has made the recitation of the cry: “From the River to the Sea Palestinians will be free” a criminal act.   It is far from that. It is not a cry for the abolition of Israel; it is a cry for all residents of the land to be treated equally.

This is a plea that wherever Palestinians live, they should be free, the very thing the Israeli government does everything to prevent.  I will soon be in Queensland for a month.  Should there be a protest march while I am there, I would be proud to join that cry.  As Jesus once said, ‘let the very stones cry out’’.

Apart from the devastation caused to Palestinians, the tragedy of Israeli action and Zionist propaganda is that Judaism is itself diminished, a point made by many Jews throughout the world, including Australia. This debate is bravely pursued in some arms of Israeli media. Wherein does the future of Judaism lie?

Judaism’s foundations lie in the patriarchal narratives.  The promise to Abraham and his successors that they would become ‘a great people’ (nation) was made on the basis that through them all the peoples (nations) of the world would be blessed. It was not made for them alone. For this statement to be used to defend the forced removal and denial of others’ rights is blasphemous. (We might well ask what Trump had/has in mind in saying he will make America great again. His focus appears to have achieved the polar opposite).

The abuse afforded the flotilla crews in the short time they were held by Israeli authorities shocked the world.  But it is a small glimpse into the suffering and abuse suffered by Palestinian people every day – including their children. It is also a window into what appears now to be acceptable to Israeli moral or ethical life. In response, the Israeli ambassador to Australia had the gall to stand in front of Australian TV screens and say it did not happen.

Now, I fully realize some terrible abuses, not least October 7, have been perpetrated by Palestinians.  These must be condemned. But let me ask who are the primary terrorists?  They are those who use coercive power both institutionally and by private citizens, to forcefully remove, imprison, torture, and dispossess a people for whom this has been their ancestral land.

Mr Trump loves to promote what he calls the Abrahamic Accords.  What he understands by this is an agreement between nations of like mind to himself who agree to promote economic and security cooperation.  In 2020 several nations signed such an accord, many of whom are guilty of abusing their own human rights obligations.

A true accord worthy of association with Abraham, would be based on commitments to justice, the rights of minorities, respect and dignity for all. This should be possible for any nation that claims to be Christian, Islamic or Jewish, for all three Abrahamic religions share this common foundation.  That all three have used their faith as a form of coercion or oppression is a denial of the faith’s foundation. 
There should be no accord under this name with Israel, unless or until Palestinians are free – from the river to the sea.

Europe in the 1930’s and 40’s was the scene of the most horrendous victimization of Jewish people, culminating in the unspeakable atrocity of the holocaust.

The weaponising of ‘antisemitism’ without differentiating that scourge from strong criticism of Israel, encourages the notion that Jewish people continue to be the primary victims of others’ hatred. It has been shown the worst cases of antisemitism in Australia were initiated by overseas interests. 

The Zionist lobby and other voices who defend Israel could be taken far more seriously if they would themselves critique the abuses of the Israeli government from the perspective of what politicians here rather loosely describe as “Australian values”. 

Prioritising Values over Virtues creates a human desert
 
Four women and nine children are currently trying to negotiate a return to Australia after several years spent in the al-Roy camp in Syria.  Help or hindrance afforded them will speak volumes about the character of Australians, as interpreted and asserted by strident political voices. What kind of people are we? What kind of people do we want to be?

Character will also be on display at the Farrer by-election, as people choose to vote out of perceived grievance or out of a desire for a more just, sustainable and more harmonious future. It will be on display in the May budget, when the treasurer chooses between reform that delivers greater equity and justice, or yields to voices which demand their advantage be protected.  It will be on even greater display in the commentary made upon it. It was on display, for good, at the recent ANZAC celebrations with overwhelming condemnation of booing as First Nations speakers delivered Welcome to Country.

Let me come to the hub of the issue.  Political discourse is increasingly focussed on what are called values. Values are the principles or standards that individuals or groups consider important in life, such as family, freedom, keeping people safe, democracy, rules, or success.  Values reflect what is prioritised at any given time, they shape decisions or actions.

Virtues speak to who we are. They are enduring qualities such as kindness, mercy, generosity, hospitality, courage. A civilisation will not endure because of its values but because of virtues. Values tend to become increasingly self-serving, especially in times of uncertainty or tension. An attempt to formulate a moral code, or legal manifesto, on values is misplaced, it must emanate from the treasuring of virtues.

It is the case that Christian virtues are increasingly mocked by the rich and powerful as seen by the treatment of Pope Leo by the White House. Disdain was also clear for all to see at the inauguration of Donald Trump’s second term when the Bishop of Washington, Mariann Budde, held before the incoming president the virtue of mercy. He was both incredulous and affronted. Let us stay with this virtue, which according to the biblical Micah, along with humility and justice, are the three requirements of a moral life and of a sustainable civilisation.

Without mercy, scapegoating, resentment, a cycle of violence, become inevitable.

The vile ideology of ISIS emerged following the absence of mercy accorded Sunni people and their remaining leadership, following the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the assumption of power by the Shia. Just War theory covers three components: conditions prevailing before war is declared that might justify intervention; the manner war is prosecuted (protection of civilian population, humane treatment of prisoners etc); and provisions which accord dignity and prevent humiliation when conflict is over. As is often the case, there was abject failure when the war ended. Unless a cycle of violence is ended with mercy, it is perpetuated.

There are a variety of reasons why these Australian women joined the ISIS movement by moving to Syria. We will probably never know the reason that prevailed in each case. That some did so under duress is almost certainly the case.

Their return home, and especially that of the children must be facilitated. For it not to be, is an indictment upon the character of Australia and Australians. We are not people who abandon any of our citizens, no matter how unlovely their actions may have been. They may need to be protected from themselves, or in some circumstance we may need to be protected from them. But they are our citizens, it is not the responsibility of others.  Of course, a huge responsibility of care and nurture will sit on the shoulders of family, neighbours and community at large.  It will not be easy for them to reintegrate. If criminality needs to be addressed, then it should be addressed.  It is most unlikely that an offence equal to that of David Hicks has been committed.  It was right that in his case he was brought back into Australian life, it is even more right for these women and children.

Repatriation of these women and children should receive bipartisan support. We have the capacity to rehabilitate them.  We have the obligation. We have the capacity to keep the community safe. As people, we should not be demeaned by the latest or loudest dog whistle.

Because the Liberal Party has lost so many votes to One Nation it is falling over itself to compete for the populous vote.  The populous vote in democracies worldwide is fed by growing resentment. This is most unsuitable ground upon which to construct policy. The victims of resentment are most frequently not the cause of it.

 We might expect resentment in autocracies, but why in democracies?   In democracies we expect a fair go, a measure of equity, equality.  There is a growing sense that this is not happening, clearly a small section of the community is not simply privileged but extraordinarily wealthy.   Someone is to blame.  Governments, institutions, ethnic, and religious difference, migrants, the choice of people to blame is somewhat arbitrary, as seen a few years ago by the singling out of the South Sudanese community.

In this environment it takes enormous courage to enact reform that protects our better selves. By its very nature reform means altering the balance of advantage that some have held in relation to others.   
Some years ago, I was a participant in a debate at the National Library of Australia led by Philip Adams on the topic: “Does humanity have a future”. 

Half the speakers were from the sciences, half from the arts, one from religion! The outcome was in the negative. It is difficult to summarise the arguments, but a simple summary is that values, which science exists to serve, provide little assurance for sustainable life in a world which prioritises them over virtue, the character of what it means to be truly human.  In contrast with the sciences, the arts, at their best, lay bare the character of humanity, our inner virtue - or not.  It is telling that political prioritising, through the allocation of resources, favours the sciences over the arts.  Even more telling, political discourse condemns artistic expression through music, poetry, writing, or design when it challenges contemporary political value systems.

 All the gold which is on or under the earth is not enough to exchange for virtue.   Plato
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Regime change in the US

What is driving the current Middle East conflict, causing untold pain and destruction to those in the firing line and unprecedented global disruption to the rest of us?  Is it possible that the contestants, Iran on one side and the USA/Israel on the other, sing from the same song sheet? Although polar opposite, their values appear driven by theocratic mindsets which not only permit, but which honour violence as a tool of enforcement. Are they in fact competitors for theocratic dominance?

That Iran is a theocracy is not debatable. From its belief system, its citizens experience suppression of female rights, imposition of Sharia Law, and punishment of those who do not comply.  It considers freedoms enjoyed in western culture to be a debasement of their understanding of what it means to be a child of God.  In Iran there is no separation of religion and politics, indeed politics exists to enforce religious belief.

 The constitution of most so-called Christian countries was formulated with separation of politics and religion. In a Christian framework the role of faith is not to govern, or to seek preference, but to be the teacher’s teaching. In other words, the mission of Christians in any community is to be agents of Christ’s transformative love, grace and mercy – no more, no less.

Israel does not claim to be a theocracy. Twenty percent of its population are Palestinians. Many, perhaps most, of its citizens are secular, but Zionism, belief that this land has been given to them (from God?), drives their identity and their military and political practice. What has been done, and continues to be done, to Gaza is now being done to the West Bank and Southern Lebanon.  Its brazenness and contempt for international opinion, let alone international law, is breathtaking. Netanyahu has said in as many words “morality is weakness”.

There is no question that Zionism is front and centre as cause in this conflict. Would Iran be so keen to possess a nuclear bomb if Israel did not already possess that capability?

Now the USA.  The US is not a theocracy, but many of the most vociferous of Donald Trump’s supporters are theocratic Christian nationalist believers, people to whom the President is indebted.  Appointments made to the Supreme Court have moved the US in that direction. However, the most significant proponent of theocratic idealism is Pete Hegseth, Minister for War. The change of title from ‘defence’ back to ‘war’, reversing the move made by Harry Truman, underlines the legitimacy of proactive violence in the pursuit of ideals.

In making the change, Donld Trump argued that under the more passive title “we didn’t do much winning. With a department of war, we win”.

Pete Hegseth is affiliated with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), he attends Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship in Tennessee. The Church is committed to ‘Christian reconstructionist thought’, namely the reordering of society under a biblical mandate and a conservative understanding of biblical law. In this understanding, government should exist to serve biblical law.

Hegseth’s tattoos are revealing. Deus Vult, ‘God wills it’ tattooed to his arm and the Jerusalem Cross tattooed to his chest make clear his veneration of the 12th century Crusades and the crusaders.  Indeed, he claims those of us who live as descendants of European Christianity owe a great debt to the crusaders for the freedoms we enjoy. The use of the cross by Hegseth and the Crusaders subverts the symbol’s intent. It is an ancient symbol, representing the suffering of Christ for the world as told by the four Gospels.

There can be little clean skin left for further tattoos, but last year Hegseth added the word Kafir which refers to one who is not a Muslim.

When confronted by the fact US armaments had destroyed a Girls School in Tehran, he invoked Deus Vult, meaning that if this happened it would have been as God intended.

Hegseth’s world view brings him into direct and intended confrontation with the Islamic world: the Islamic world of the Crusades and the Islamic world of today.  He clearly values violence as an appropriate tool in this confrontation, praying recently that each shot, each bomb, each missile would hit its mark with maximum effectiveness.

Recent protest marches brutally put down in Tehran and throughout Iran, indicate that Iranian leadership and direction is not supported by its people.

Polls in the US make it clear that the direction taken by Donald Trump as President and implemented by Pete Hegseth as Secretary for War, is not supported by an overwhelming majority of US citizens.
The exception is Israel. It appears most Israelis support the actions of Benjamin Netanyahu and the IDF.

The price Israel’s Zionist ambitions have imposed upon the Palestinian people is unbearable.  The cost these ambitions are now imposing on the whole global community, should be enough for all to realise Israel has become a pariah state. “From the River to the Sea, everyone should be free” (that includes Jewish people), should be chanted from the roof tops, not least in Queensland where it is now a criminal offence.

Trump has never been clear about why he entered the war and is now far from clear what he hopes to achieve by the blockade. His claim to have ‘won’ may convince himself, but it convinces no one else.
​
One can only hope that diplomacy will prevail and that an unintended outcome of this war will be regime change in the US, if not in Iran.
 

Easter 2026
 
Iran and the war, (not forgetting Lebanon Ukraine, Palestine and Sudan) are the unwelcome global backdrops to this year’s celebration of Easter. The suffering unleashed and gloated over by the Israeli Prime minister, the US President and his ‘Christian’ Minister for War is immense. What do they know about Iran? The name is derived from ‘Aryan’ meaning noble. Its ancient religion, Zoroastrianism, reframed our understating of linear time. Every age was considered a continuation of battle between good and evil in which humans must choose which side they are on. Ancient Iranians/Aryans/Nobles considered themselves noble warriors on the side of light.  We might strongly disagree, but today, Iran’s expression of Shia Islam, shaped by this philosophy, considers America and Israel the domains of darkness and themselves the warriors of light. These views are clearly reciprocated and reinforced, the longer violence continues.

Locking each other into these views provides no space for transformation and makes more violence inevitable. Violence does not dispel darkness, it deepens it.

As Easter 2026 approaches, most of the globe’s citizens have very good reason for fear that darkness, not light, is the dominant force in current human history. But this is not the message of Easter.  Easter is a celebration of the victory of light and life over darkness and death. How have we arrived at this dark place in human history and wherein does hope lie?

Without Easter there is no Christian faith, so where do we begin?

The Bible begins in Genesis with a picture of nothingness/ darkness into which God speaks. “Let there be light and there was light”. These few words frame our understanding of the energy we call God – the source of light and life. A few verses on we learn that humans are made in this image, all of us (male and female) are Adam, from the earth, with capacity as light bearers.

The New Testament, through the voice of John, begins in similar fashion: “in him was life and the life was the light of the world and the darkness did not/has not/continues not to overcome it”.  This energy, this life, this light becomes incarnate in human form.  In the birth of Jesus, we see what is always true, God, who is light, embraces humanity.  In turn, we are to embrace light (God) and embrace both one another and the natural order which nurtures us all.

John goes on to recognize that people “prefer darkness rather than light”. In other words, we find it more attractive to hold power than to serve, more profitable to exploit than sustain, more self-serving to condemn than to build up. As Ecclesiastes, the most cynical of all biblical books says: it is all vanity and a striving after wind!

The Easter message is that we strive after the wrong things.  We should desire to be rich, not in gold coffers, but in that which enables the human spirit to fly – love of family, enjoyment of beauty, fulfilment in service, restoring what is broken, giving hospitable space for that which is not self. In striving for all the wrong things, why are we so surprised that various forms of mental illness and feelings of isolation (darkness) are the hallmarks of life in a consumer driven world that is full of things, but void of meaningful life.

On the night of his betrayal Jesus said to his disciples: put away your swords. Good Friday and the cross open the heart and mind to the core of Jesus teaching: what you hold on to you lose, what you give away you keep.

On the cross, through his suffering and death he who is Light banishes the darkness. This is such a counter intuitive truth in a world which has come to believe it is only the strong and powerful who win.  No, the strong and powerful do not win, they accumulate sand that slips between the fingers necessitating the constant need for more of it. In the process, what endures has been passed by, leaving the holder of the sand stranded.

The Christian faith was born on Easter morning. First Mary, then disciples and other followers were overwhelmed by the sense of presence of that Light which should have been extinguished but was not.  Paul was later to say “I am convinced that no power, no experience, no event, can separate us from that light which has shone in the person of Jesus”.

This acclamation is made, not denying, but accepting the fact that we prefer darkness rather than light. In other words, the light announced at the dawn of creation will not be denied. Like the hound of heaven, light and goodness will continue to chase us down the meandering paths of life, not even death itself will get in the way, it is not an ending but a transformation.

This is the great hope and joy of Easter. It’s belief has been the bedrock of my 60 years of ministry; that no matter the circumstances of life, the embodied light manifest in Jesus can and will transform the reluctance and waywardness of this mortal human being.
​
The Easter message to Trump, Netanyahu, Hegseth, and Iranian leadership is: put your sword back in its sheath. Embrace kindness and mercy and Easter will embrace you.
 
 

Narrative and those who control it
 
If the worst calculations are correct, that it will take many years for Australia and the world to recover from the economic fallout of the US and Israeli war on Iran,  then the US will have done more harm to the so called free world than  China or any other ‘unfriendly’ nation is ever likely to have done in the foreseeable future.

How did this happen? Why did this happen?

The stories that people and nations tell themselves have enormous consequences. 

Vladimir Putin tells himself that the natural jurisdiction of the Russian communist party is the area that approximates to the old Soviet Union.  Anything less than that is, in his story, a diminution of the rights and identity of the Russian people.

The Israeli Knesset, which is not the same as the worldwide Jewish diaspora, tells itself that Greater Israel is the whole land from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean with ‘buffer zones’ that occupy parts of southern Lebanon and Syria, possibly including the biblical ‘Transjordan’ which is part of Jordanian territory.

The story the Knesset tells itself is reinforced by far-right US Christians who hold enormous influence in the US administration, including the Secretary for War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee. It is ironic that those telling this narrative see Israel as a pawn in a greater narrative of ‘Christian’ Armageddon.  Joe Kent the US counter terrorism official has just resigned because he claims this story, this set of beliefs, has led the US into war with Iran.

The stories that Donald Trump tells himself, about himself, and the stories that he tells himself about the US place in the world when combined with the stories of who are the good people and who are the bad people, who are legitimate and who are not in the Middle East, makes for an incendiary situation.

The story that Trump tells himself about himself, is that he is the most intelligent, the most successful, the most righteous, the most everything. It is this belief that enables him to belittle or punish any who do not bend to his will; they are at fault for not recognising his greatness and superiority.

The story Trump tells himself about the necessary supremacy of the US enables him to assert the dominance of the US, especially amongst those who historically have thought of themselves as allies. Imposing tariffs on countries under the false claim they have been trading unfairly is but a small example.

If the story you tell about yourself is untrue, and you act as if it is true, then the consequences which flow will range from mildly inconvenient to monumental. The war in Iran has all the hallmarks of monumental harm, brought about by ill-conceived actions with no thought given to the possible outcomes.  This is not the first time. US wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, were similarly disastrous with insufficient thought given to consequences flowing from the action. Insufficient thought is tied to insufficient knowledge and understanding before intervention is undertaken.  International law is created to protect countries from ill-conceived ventures into conflict. Acting as if the US and Israel live outside the requirements of international law is consequential.

The refusal of Britain, Germany, France and Australia to be drawn into this war is the right ground upon which to stand. But it begs the question: why do we still claim the US is our most important security partner?  In my lifetime thousands of Australian lives have been lost or maimed through participation in US wars. Does hosting American bases on Australian soil make us more, or less secure? Why are we continuing to pursue the AUKUS agreement which seems to pour billions into US coffers and offers the meagre hope that in 20 or 30 years we might have a couple of submarines?

It is sadly the case that Australian culture wars are now being vigorously waged by splinter groups on the right.  These are struggles for ownership of the dominant and formative national story.  On the right of politics, loving Australia means barbecues, ANZAC traditions, the arrival of captain Cook, putting Australia above international obligations, exploiting rather than conserving, exalting European identity above multi-national identity or first nation identity.  

Consciously or unconsciously, individually or nationally, we act because of the narrative we believe to be true.  Media business models are founded not on good journalism, but in promoting a self-interested narrative, with no obvious relationship to evidence.
​
Gaining or holding power is dependent upon controlling the narrative. Those who wish for harmony and concord within the nation and beyond, must pay attention to the narrative being told.
 
 
 

Values, Ethics, Fear
Australian women and children in the Al Roj Camp

We live in a world of deep skepticism.  Skepticism and fear are driven by perceived security threats, economic duress and general uncertainty. It is fueled by mainstream media, social media and ‘influencers’ ready to offer simplistic solutions. It is fed by politicians who politicise fear for partisan political advantage. In this context, what value system can we rely on to draw us to safer ground?

Those on the right, insist our way of life is founded on Judaeo/Christian values and ethics, with acceptable moral behaviour being weighed in relation to these values.

I have no difficulty with this position, in fact endorse it. The ethic is relational; properly understood and acted upon, it sets individuals in a broad communal context, local, national, and global. It is bewildering that the consequence of this value system is deemed ‘left wing’, or ‘woke’ by the very people who claim it to be their foundation.  So, Angus Taylor, David Littleproud or even Anthony Albanese, when you talk about Australian values, or Labour values, or Coalition values, what are you talking about and what are the implications of those values when legislated as policy?  What ethical setting is guiding your rejection of 11 Australian women and their 24 children from retuning to Australia?

If you will allow me, may I articulate Judaeo/Christian values as I understand them, while humbly recognizing they are often badly exhibited by Jewish and Christian institutions and individuals whose responsibility it is to live and proclaim them.

• Human Dignity: Every person is seen as valuable, made in the image of God, and deserving of respect. 

It is a matter of fact that these 34 human beings are Australian citizens and as such are Australia’s responsibility, for their redeeming and restitution, as was the case with David Hicks and Julian Assange.  It is also a matter of fact that the international norm and expectation is that nations will take back their citizens from overseas no matter their behaviour, at the request of nations in which they reside. It has been the expectation of the Kurds and the US and now the Syrian government that these people return to Australia.  Australia acts on the same premise, even with a friendly country such as New Zealand, when one of their citizens has been guilty of a criminal act on Australian soil. To be a nobody is to have no dignity.  National identity is sought and claimed by every human being. Our justice system, properly applied, must both protect dignity and apply justice. Each of the 11 women must be treated fairly and considering the known circumstances surrounding their misadventure. Australian security should make this determination, not politicians and certainly not the shrill voice of biased media operators.

• Love of Neighbour: Ethical behaviour is guided by the principle of loving others as oneself, including acts of kindness, charity, and forgiveness.

It is the case that all of us make poor decisions, and that we are more likely to make these poor decisions when we are young.  It is also the case that when we are young, good or poor decisions depend on the company we keep, and the experiences we have lived through.  We are all dependent on forgiveness and a new start. I understand most of th women were young teenagers when they departed Australia.

Redemption and restitution of the other is a responsibility of all who have power or influence over, or for, others: - governments, employers, parents, security forces.   The urgency of acting for the children is pressing.  It is not possible to care for the children without their mothers.

• Justice and Fairness: Upholding justice, protecting the vulnerable, and striving for fairness are fundamental duties.

It is partly true that we reap what we sow. However, it is also true that we are all victims of movements, changes, forces which impinge upon us and over which we have little or no say or control. The more vulnerable our situation, the more likely we will be manipulated. Striving for justice and fairness is at the heart of the Judaeo/Christian ethic. On this account there can be no question the children should be given the opportunity to build lives of dignity, fulfilment and service. The longer they are left where they are the more inevitable it becomes that they will be radicalised, pursuing a path of disorder and the need for personal vengeance.  It may well be the case that the administration of justice requires some of the women to face criminal charges. So be it.  Let the law take its course.

• Honesty and Integrity:

There is little current honesty or integrity from politicians and some sections of the media in relation to these 34 Australians. Statements from politicians are made based on achieving immediate political gain or investment in future political advantage. Statements from some sections of the media are made based on an exclusive ideology, pandering to racist opinions, and have nothing to do with ethics or morality.

Matters of security should be weighed by Australian security agencies. Matters of law should be determined by human rights lawyers. It is not the role of politicians. 
Politicians on both sides are now making shrill hyperbolic statements that diverge from their earlier more measured statements.

ISIS is a cruel, evil ideology. We should be honest enough to recognise it emerged from the catastrophic bedlam that followed our ill-advised participation in the Iraq war.

                                                                                *********************
The Judaeo/Christian ethic is not primarily individualistic, but relational.  Freedom is not the absence of limits, but the embrace of limits which leads to harmony and fairness. How we fit in the place where we live, with the people who are our neighbour – matters.  As Desmond Tutu said, “We are the sum total of all the lives which intersect with our own”.

Central to this ethic is a deep sense of universal sacredness, an understanding that we all need to walk lightly. Believing everything exists to serve humanity is dangerous hubris.

Populous politics (reactive propositions based in emotion rather than rationality) leads inevitably to divisiveness.  Policy formulated in this manner is dangerous and reaps a harvest of short-termism with errors that are very hard and expensive to correct.
​
Policy should be articulated and defended from a value system. The fate of 34 Australians currently rests on the very shaky ground of emotion stirred to fever pitch by the Bondi massacre.