in service of the
Father of Lies 2
Timor L ’Este, Witness ‘K’ and Bernard Collaery
That Australia had cheated on East Timor, one of the poorest and newest countries in the world was revealed by Bob Carr and Mark Dreyfus in 2013, but it was not until Andrew Wilkie used parliamentary privilege, that we learned that those who have made this grubby secret known are to be prosecuted, rather than those who sanctioned the grubbiness. Apparently, ethics and morality apply everywhere except to economics and the making of money.
Lying between East Timor and Australia are considerable fossil fuel reserves. Australia was keen to secure most of these reserves within its territorial boundaries. To do this it was deemed necessary to draw a boundary, not midway between the two countries, but much closer to the East Timorese coast.
We now know that when negotiations were underway, in the time of the Howard government, and when Alexander Downer was foreign minister, officers of the Australian Secret Intelligence Services were passed off as aid workers to spy on members and officers of the Timorese government.
This information raises several issues:
· Under what criteria can East Timor be deemed a threat to Australian security? Why were ASIS officers deployed in these circumstances? Are ASIS officers regularly deployed in matters to do with trade and economics? Has ‘security’ been redefined, and if so is it the right of the Australian public to know this?
· Why was it thought ‘ok’ to unreasonably and unfairly take economic advantage of a very poor country? What Australian value is being employed to take from the world’s poorest to further advance the prosperity of world’s most wealthy? Was this the underlying reason why we used our Defence Forces to secure Timor’s independence in the first place?
· Why are Bernard Collaery and ‘Witness K’ now being prosecuted? We are told this has nothing to do with ‘politics’ but is the normal processing of justice through the courts. In other words, Collaery and ‘Witness K’ have committed a serious crime and therefore should be prosecuted. If this is the case, then there must be something wrong with the legal system. Why are whistle blowers guilty and not those who have manifestly done something unethical, in this case in the name of all Australians? Apply the pub test: it is those who ordered this unconscionable action against the Timorese, not Collaery and witness K, who should be before the courts. If ‘a fair go’ is the quintessential Australian value, this clandestine activity is its absolute antithesis.
· That Alexander Downer subsequently became a well remunerated advisor/consultant to Woodside petroleum has apparently not been denied. Directors of companies must declare any possible conflict of interest, why are so many politicians allowed to assume positions that are advantaged by their previous political lives?
· Why is it that both the Government and the Opposition are in lockstep in their reluctance for this matter to have a public hearing? One could reasonably have thought the Opposition would use this episode to score points off the government – apparently not.
So how do we make sense of it all? It is hard not to conclude that in the name of national economic or financial advantage, there are to be no moral restraints, no limits, no boundaries that cannot be crossed. Is there any difference in substance between this action and the actions of AMP and the banks, recently so shamefully exposed? I don’t think so. In the case of the banks, they had to be brought kicking and screaming to accept accountability; but in a global culture where money is king, will they behave differently in the future. While business is built upon financial incentives, - probably not.
In the case of these energy reserves, like the banks, our national government could not help itself. Dealing with a gullible, new and impoverished nation, nothing could be easier. Like the banks, it is clear that our government feels no shame. When dealing with economic advantage, morality does not come into it. Those involved, especially Mr Downer, appear proud of what they did. Nothing is going to change in what is obviously now considered a matter of ‘national security’. Human dignity has come to be defined in economic terms rather than economics being but one of the factors that serves human dignity and worth. We clearly have a cultural problem.
Will we have any guarantee that those who act in our name in government will not behave in this manner in the future? If the prosecution against the whistle blowers is any guide - no. It is likely we will act like this again – given the chance.
So, committed are we to the absolute supremacy of economic advantage we are happy to sign trade agreements which potentially allow corporations to sue the government if national policies are enacted which restrict their global operations, even if these operations are judged to be socially or environmentally, detrimental.
The underlying lie is that economic growth is for ever desirable or even possible in a finite world. This is of course a contradiction, it isn’t, and it can’t.
What happened between Australia and Timor is now being played out on a much larger stage with the combatants being the most powerful nations on earth, The US, China, Russia, Iran the European Union etc. When an unjust advantage is sought, the ripple effect stretches all the way to the edge of the pond. Proper trade is based upon an exchange which is mutually advantageous. The future of humankind on planet earth resides in mutuality, not competitive advantage. If we are survive, let alone prosper, our actions must serve good that is common.
It is said that Margaret Thatcher’s bedside table was adorned with the Bible and the thoughts of Friedrick Hayek. Hayek espoused the supremacy of the individual and spoke of social justice as a ‘mirage’. Since Thatcher, neo-liberalism has become the ubiquitous and politically unchallenged standard. It has endowed us with a legacy that is intellectually bare, but remains politically dominant. Whether individualism be national or personal, it must be immersed in the mutually of interdependence if the 21st century is not going to be a disaster for human beings and diverse nonhuman life upon which we all depend.
1. Israeli State Law
In John 8: 44 Jesus is in dispute with religious authorities whom, he claims, purport to be descendants of a revered personage, or revered period of history, yet whose behaviour and testimony is entirely at odds with that stated authority. In a series of four blogs I want to highlight contemporary situations which are entirely out of step with the authority claimed to justify them. This passage highlights the reality that no edifice can be built and survive on untruth – an edifice so built is doomed for destruction.
On the 19th July the Israeli Knesset passed the ‘Nation State Law’. Israel has no constitution but special laws like this have constitutional status. In some respects, there is nothing surprising in this law, it continues a trend which has been clear for some time. The law states that Israel is a Jewish State and that Jerusalem its undivided capital. (Trump has already acceded this point by moving his embassy to Jerusalem). Instead of there being two recognised languages, Hebrew and Arabic, Hebrew is given heightened status. Settlements are declared to be an Israeli value. Where settlements might be built is left unclear. A section which would have required the judiciary to act in favour of Jewishness over democracy was excised.
The Israeli president and the Israeli opposition have expressed dismay about the passing of the law claiming it will hurt Israel and its reputation. Why so?
There are many reasons. First, one fifth of Israeli citizenry are indigenous Palestinian Arabs. They already suffer endless levels of discrimination from lost professional opportunity, to access for home ownership, to citizenship protection. Arabs whose living status is East Jerusalem, for example, have conditional residency which can be lost at any time. This law makes it clear that Israeli citizenship has entrenched inequality at law. Western values are that a nation state must provide equal status to all its citizens. How can we say, as our prime minister often does, that Israel and Australia share the same values? (In Australia we are painfully aware we have equal status at law, but in practice the indigenous population do not experience equal rights, falling behind on many well-rehearsed benchmarks).
Second, the formal declaration that Jerusalem is Israel’s undivided capital makes the two-state solution, the bipartisan position of Australian foreign policy, null and void. The loss of East Jerusalem to Palestine is not just symbolic, it is to lose upwards of one quarter of what is already a very impoverished economy. To state without definition that growing Jewish settlements is a national value, is in fact to entrench the building of Jewish settlements in the occupied territories which Israel refuses to recognise as occupied but rather ‘disputed’. This law makes clear Israel will never allow a genuine two-state solution, its version looks more and more like a series of ghettos or Bantustans around Nablus, Ramallah, Hebron etc. The PA under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas has long recognised the right of Israel to exist. The recognition of Israel as a Jewish state which means accepting Arabs will be forever second-class citizens is of course unacceptable, and yet this is held against him as being ‘opposed to peace’.
Third, this law sets Jewishness and democracy against each other. The Arab members of the Knesset are not Israeli citizens in the same way that applies to Jewish members of the Knesset. While the most insidious clauses in the law were removed, it is nevertheless clear that the intention is for Jewishness to prevail over genuine democracy. Because Israel is making it clear that it will never allow a genuine two-state solution it means that much if not all the occupied territories will remain indefinitely under Israeli control. In the name of ‘security’ Palestinians are denied access. Practical apartheid applies. Apartheid and democracy cannot occupy the same space. For Netanyahu to claim that Israel is the only genuine democracy in the Middle East is a lie, it is not a democracy in the way western countries understand democracy.
In his rush to crow over the passing of the law Benjamin Netanyahu claims it fulfils what was begun by Theodore Herzl. In his younger years Herzl perceived anti-Semitism in Austria as a social problem that could be addressed if Jews integrated and were less isolated. This changed when he moved to France and found anti-Semitism deeply entrenched, of which the Dreyfus affair was a shocking but notable example. He became convinced that Jews needed their own homeland and wrote his ‘Jewish State’ in 1896. He went on to lead the first Zionist congress in Munich.
There was and remains strong opposition to Zionism amongst Jews. The Haskalah movement in the late 18th and early 19th centuries favoured integration of Jews and movement out of their isolation. It was known as the ‘Jewish Enlightenment’. Orthodox Jews and rabbis in the 19th century argued that God does not call them into a materialist, militarist state like other nations: that the creation of such a state would require violence being perpetrated against others, and that its maintenance would require the perpetuation of such violence. They argued that the most aggressive Zionists purposely provoked anti-Semitism in order that they might present themselves as its saviour.
Be all that as it may, there is no indication that Herzl would approve Netanyahu’s version of a Zionist state. Herzl undoubtedly believed in the virtue and values of Judaism. He clearly believed that Jews needed their own state, free of anti-Semitism, free to live their culture traditions and religion. However it is reasonable to assume he would believe those virtues and values to be strong enough to embrace diversity and equality, indeed to demand it. Netanyahu’s version of Jewishness appears to be a bonsaied version of a grand tradition. A version that is not confident enough to stand on its values and virtues. A version that has to maintain itself through military violence rather than the power of a civilised democracy. A version that needs to expand, not on the development of its own resources, but through the stealing the resources of others.
Netanyahu’s version is a lie. The Jewish tradition, culture, religion is rich enough and strong enough to live in company with others indeed in the Abrahamic tradition this was deemed to be its blessing. Common humanity overrides ethnic purity, indeed insistence on ethnic purity contradicts history. Common citizenship on planet earth overrides any national citizenship. A new political force needs to emerge which combines Palestinian and Israelis and which clearly believes that neither is a threat to the other, rather the reverse, that each will be forever enriched by journeying together.
Last week we were confronted with domestic violence in the most tragic of circumstances as a NSW father became the brutal killer of his two teenage children. Most Australians will have found this news inexplicable. How could a father submerge natural feelings of paternal care and responsibility in an ocean of anger and bitterness to enable such a terrible act? If the chief role of Government is to ‘keep its citizens safe’, as politicians from the Prime Minister down constantly remind us to justify the enormous spending on national defence; is enough being done to combat what is a far greater threat to citizen safety?
Marriage breakdown is as common as it is understandable. People grow apart. Circumstances change, and folk find they have less in common. Pressures such as financial stress, disability suffered by one member of the family, a crisis of some kind, poverty; there are as many contributing reasons as there are breakdowns. But breakdowns should not lead to enmity, let alone violence. Common decency and respect should prevail. So why is violence so prevalent, why do so many (primarily women and children) suffer abuse?
Violence is a misdirected expression of power, the need for which grows exponentially as the inner integrity and self-worth of a person decline. It should be impossible for a healthy, integrated human being to succumb to acts of domestic violence. A healthy human being does not need to ‘own’ or ‘control’ another human being. A healthy human being’s sense of self worth is fed through mutuality, not control. So how do so many become so unwell that violence becomes a tool in the expression of longed for self-worth.
I would like to venture some reasons.
First, we have become a society in which ‘gold and silver’ are deemed to be the prize, whereas in many ancient civilisations, including indigenous dreaming, wisdom is the prize. Wisdom is the virtue derived from understanding how things work. In the Jewish and Christian traditions wisdom is the energy which holds all things together. Wisdom is to be found through observance of the natural order and how it works. Wisdom is found not in things themselves, but in the space between them. Thus, wisdom manifests itself in honour trust and respect. Because ‘gold and silver’ are the prize, our society does not honour and respect the natural order, inclusive of individual human beings, for we are part of that order.
An ancient definition of wisdom is ‘the capacity to cope’. Various situations, including poverty, contribute to dysfunction. Government and government policy need to be far more empathetic to consequences that contribute to and flow from social dysfunction.
Institutional religion has long since lost any authority to be wisdom in and to the western world. Institutions have thought their institution to be the prize, as the royal commission into institutional child abuse and the matter of the Catholic Archbishop of Adelaide have demonstrated. Also, religions have become far too interested in their doctrines and insufficiently focused on wisdom. And yet there is no greater source of wisdom than understanding that Jesus is the wisdom of God. Love, service, equality, sacrifice, this is how things work, this is where blessing lies, this is our destiny. Much debate has rattled around proposals emanating from the Ramsay Centre about understanding Western Civilisation. Perhaps a benefactor can be found who will dedicate resources into wisdom and where this might be found in an increasingly polarised, competitive and binary world. We must find a way for children not simply to be educated, but to be immersed in wisdom. We know that actions, or potential actions in adulthood, very often have their genesis in childhood.
Second, as much as we do not wish to admit it, there remains residual and institutional inequality between men and women. It demonstrates itself in unequal pay for the same work, in positions of power being held disproportionately by men, by women remaining poorly represented in government etc. Senator Leynhelm’s offensive use of language in the Senate is a shrill reminder that some men consider it appropriate to belittle women on the basis that being offensive should have no gender barrier. His words give justification to likeminded men to treat their partners with the same disrespect. As has been correctly pointed out, it is women who are raped and murdered, not men.
To my great embarrassment I must acknowledge that significant elements in the Anglican Church, especially the Diocese of Sydney, teach that women should ‘submit’ to their husbands. Those who defend this teaching try to do so on the spurious ground that women are submitting to ‘love and care’. The sad and painful reality is that many clergy wives, let alone lay wives, are abused by men who see it as their right to control their partners.
There is no place in our society for any teaching or action that imputes less value or dignity to the contribution of women.
Third, the use of ‘recreational drugs’ has to become culturally unacceptable. We cannot rely on law enforcement to do this for us. There must be a growing culture, especially amongst the young, of non-use. It is obvious that too many acts of violence occur when a person is under the influence of one or a cocktail of these drugs. No parent should set an example of their use to children. Government could invest far more money in a programme like the anti-smoking campaign. Government must also be better guided by experts in the field, less influenced by populist demands and less reliant on law enforcement to develop strategies of amelioration.
No one should experience an act of violence perpetrated against them in their life time. Many do. Increasingly those who suffer bullying do so because of social media, another area which deserves far more attention from government. For children, the most likely place they will experience violence is at home or from what should be a trusted and known adult. For women it is their partner, or estranged partner. We appropriately have a culture in which the privacy of another’s home is sacrosanct. However, such is the gravity of the problem we face that it is no longer acceptable for a neighbour, friend or family member to remain silent when suspicion of violence has become obvious. Silence is not neutrality, it is to side with the perpetrator. We have a culture of hating ‘dobbers’. But we should be wise enough to understand the difference between not interfering in a matter of minor consequence and taking responsibility for the very life and security of another.
re to edit.
Aspiration appears to be the new buzz word in Australian politics. It is being used to convey the idea that the foremost aspiration of most Australians is greater financial security. If it is not it should be. It is almost certainly the case that many do aspire to the presumed security of substantial wealth, but the strength and security of Australian civil society is dependent upon very different aspirations from most of its citizens.
We heard it said by the Prime Minister in parliament that a sixty something aged care worker in Devonport should be aspiring for a better paid position. Wrong, he or she should be able to expect that the position currently held is fairly and appropriately remunerated. Unless a significant number of citizens aspire to be exceptional aged care workers, the future will ultimately be very bleak for all members of the population when they reach frail old age.
Society expresses relative value through the remuneration it offers its diverse workforce. It is hard to imagine a more important profession than teaching. We need our most able young men and women to aspire to be teachers, not hedge fund managers or defamation lawyers. Australia is slipping behind on one of the most important benchmarks of a healthy civil society – education. Based on remuneration alone, it is unlikely that the most talented will aspire to be teachers in the future. Relative remuneration indicates the teaching profession is not highly valued, at least not in comparison with those who work, often with the most meagre of qualifications, in the finance industry.
It used to be the case that some professions were called ‘vocations’ to indicate that motivation for the chosen path was service, not financial reward. Nurses, ambulance officers, many medical professionals, carers of various descriptions, youth and children’s workers, were all thought to be vocations.
It is a sad commentary on Australian political life that aspiration is associated by our political leaders with the size of the house, the depth of the bank balance or the breadth of the investment portfolio.
Society first needs men and women to aspire to be the very best fathers or mothers, grandfathers or grandmothers, husbands or wives, spouses, neighbours, friends, that they can possibly be. It is a truism to say: “in adversity your job will not save you, your family will”.
Secondly society needs men and women to aspire to professions that benefit the common good. It is not hard to make some jobs quite lucrative while at the same time contributing little if anything to the common good of others. Clearly many financial advisors have made a lot of money at the expense of others.
There is little if any evidence that wealth adds anything to personal wellbeing or happiness. So why would anyone simply aspire to be wealthier? Obviously, those who are poor, those for whom the necessities of life are a struggle, aspire to be lifted out of their poverty and society has an obligation to assist them on this path. But there is likely to be no measurable difference to the happiness or contentment of someone on a middle income to someone on a high income, in fact there is evidence the trend is in the opposite direction.
Happiness or contentment is not fed by wealth, but by other more personal factors:
· Strong bonds of affection within the immediate family
· Being engaged in activity that is meaningful
· An attitude of gratefulness
· Knowing a worthwhile contribution is being made
· Knowing that enough is enough
If our politicians strive to deliver policies on the false assumption that greater wealth is the primary aspiration of most, or indeed that it is the most important aspiration, they will deliver a society that is even more self-focussed, discontent, and far more likely to suffer the fate of humpty -dumpty who, facing an inevitable fall, could not be put back together again because the vision that put him on the wall in the first place turned out to be an illusion.
There can be little doubt that religious practice is on the back foot in Australia and therefore some people of faith and their religious leaders feel under siege. This perception was exacerbated by the overwhelming vote in favour of marriage equality in November 2017 and its subsequent passing into law. But is religious freedom in Australia really under threat and if so what is the cause and remedy?
Following the marriage equality vote, the Government commissioned a ‘Religious Freedom Review’, appointing a panel with Philp Ruddick as chair. While the panel delivered it report to the government on 18th May 2018, we are led to believe its contents may not be made public for some time.
There are several reasons why religion generally and Christianity in particular are finding themselves with less and less relevance, sometimes interpreted as a loss of freedom, within Australian society.
· The most obvious reason is that the behaviour of some religious adherents, including leadership, has scandalised the community generally and brought opprobrium to the faith. For Christianity this has not only been the appalling breach of trust in relation to children in the Church’s care, but equally appallingly the obvious priority given by the Church to its reputation, over the needs and rights of the victims of this abuse. It is true that this abuse has extended well beyond the Church to almost every form of institutional care of children; it is also true that a child is far more likely to be abused by a trusted member of their own family than a person representing an institution, but neither of these realities lessen the guilt of the Church and some of its members.
For Islam the opprobrium has related to the way violence has been perpetrated in the name of the religion, and within Australia, the way young have been radicalised. It is therefore very significant that the newly elected Grand Mufti, Dr Abdel Aziem Al Afifi, has made it his priority to address this issue.
· It is considered by many in civil society inappropriate for views held by people of faith on issues of personal morality to be seemingly imposed in any way on the wider community. Euthanasia, abortion, and sexual practice, other than that which is clearly abusive, is simply a matter of personal choice, and all fall into this category. It will be interesting to see how the panel has addressed this issue, which one might assume has been at the heart of its work. There are good reasons why the virtues of ‘traditional marriage’ can and should be promoted without demeaning other partnerships. There are good reasons why abortion should always remain a contentious issue, for alongside the justifiable reasons why abortion can and should be supported, there are other reasons, partly related to the length of the pregnancy and partly related to value seemingly given to parental lifestyle over the value of an unborn life that should be contested. There are good reasons why euthanasia should become a topic of open debate, but there also needs to be a broadening of the education of the general public so that the benefits and limits (such as they may be) of palliative care are better understood.
The work the panel has done to address these issues will be a matter of considerable interest. The Anglican Church, is currently retaining the ‘freedom’ to demand its licensed officiants only preside over ‘traditional marriages’ as a matter of Church teaching. Many Anglican clergy would strongly disagree with this position, but if they wish to retain their authority under Anglican licence, they must comply. On the other hand welcoming LGBTQI members, according respect and dignity, providing all normal civil courtesies should be assumed and non-controversial.
· Some of the strongest requests for protection of ‘religious freedom’ are likely to have come from the conservative wings of faith. It is these wings who make it easy for the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens to parody, even ridicule, belief. Rather than people of religion being protected in their rights to believe and teach whatever they wish to believe and teach, I would argue the wider community, especially children, should be protected from exposure to nonsense from those whom they are led to believe are trustworthy. A creationist view of history should not be accorded a place in any school curriculum, religious or secular, as an alternative to science. Truth cannot be divided. Observable data confines a short view of history to the world of fantasy. No one should be allowed into a child’s classroom contesting science based on a literal scriptural interpretation. In like manner an interpretation of the Koran which encourages violence or even disrespect to another human being has no place in a liberal democratic society and deserves no protection. No one should be allowed into a class room who might encourage children to believe that persons are more or less acceptable on the basis of sexual orientation.
· It should always be the case that people of faith, especially Christian faith, will speak and stand for justice; be it in relation to refugees, indigenous people, the environment, children, the poor etc. Vested interests will always attempt to minimise this voice, using money or slogans: ‘do-gooders’, ‘greenies’, ‘socialists’, ‘happy clappers’, etc. but the right, indeed responsibility, as followers of Jesus to speak and act in this way needs no protection: the responsibility should simply be taken and exercised. There have been numerous attempts over the years to ‘shut me up’. Most famously when the then Premier of Queensland ordered me out of his State on the front page of the Courier Mail, and far less publicly when a Prime Minister called me in for a dressing down following a speech I had made. People of religion need no protection of freedom to speak for justice and righteousness, indeed the more this might appear to be supressed the more the right and duty should be exercised. The great sadness is that the capacity of politicians to publicly declare their faith appears to bear no correlation to their likelihood to stand up for matters of justice and equity. Which leads me to the final point.
· “You cannot love God and mammon” (Mtt: 6.24). Without dispute mammon is miles ahead. The only political value is economic. This is unfortunately underlined by almost every utterance that proceeds from the mouths, especially the important mouths, ‘on the hill’. Virtually no value is currently being accorded to environmental or ecological issues. Recent announcements that great tracts of land are to be bulldozed inland of the Great Barrier Reef and $400 million is to be given to a foundation run by business people with no expertise in the field and no expressions of interest called for from other entities is enough proof of this statement – if any were needed.
As John Hewson has said, the NDIS is being used as an endless supply of jobs for private contractors that are rushing to the latest gravy train in the same way that others had run to the pink bat gravy train. The shameless refusal of government to increase ‘job-start’ allowance is another example. So many more could be recited. The government’s refusal to appropriately fund a regulator with teeth for the banking industry etc. And then there is the spectacle of our previous Deputy Prime Minster selling his story for $150,000 and putting the money into a family trust to avoid tax.
Alexander Downer once asked me at a Government House reception “and can’t the rich be saved”. (To this day I am unsure what I had said or done to provoke the question). The answer is: of course, yes! We are no more or less worthy, rich or poor. The difference is that the wealthy face a question which the poor will never face “what are you going to do with it”?
In Australia people of religion must be very wary of asking for any further ‘freedoms’. The greatest and most secure freedom will arise from a recognition that people of faith make such a contribution to the wellbeing of society that the thought of their absence is inconceivable. We are currently a long way from that point.
Nakba, Gaza and Jerusalem
Today, 15th May, marks 70 years of the Nakba- catastrophe for the Palestinian people. Unlike most commemorations of historic events, this is different, the Nakba is an ongoing catastrophe with its suffering as real today as it was 70 years ago. Palestinians continue to live as refugees, they continue to have their land and livelihood confiscated, and they continue to be treated as if they are ‘non-people’ by those who fall over themselves to carry favour with Israel’s extreme right-wing government. In light of this, what does the world expect Palestinians to do?
In particular, what does the world expect Gazans to do? 1.84 million live on this tiny strip of land that is punitively blockaded. Much of Gaza’s infrastructure remains damaged or in ruins by Israeli airstrikes. Roughly half the population suffers from what the UN calls “food insecurity” and 90% of Gaza’s water is unfit for human consumption. Beaches are polluted with untreated sewerage and fishermen are shot for sailing too far from shore. Much of the arable land is in the buffer zone wherein Palestinians can be shot on sight.
On March 30, 30,000 Gazans established five protest camps on the edge of the buffer zone demanding a return to their homes in Israel. Wary of Israeli retaliation, they have confined their protest to a non-violent and mostly symbolic ‘March of Return’. Israel’s response has been to try and crush the demonstrations while keeping the death toll below a level that would provoke international condemnation. Although the UN reported last week that 2,017 protesters have been shot with live ammunition, only 47 had been killed to that point. Medics in Gaza reported an unusually high number of amputations caused by an “exploding bullet” that pulverises bone, tissue and arteries.
Yesterday, Israeli troops shot dead dozens of Palestinians on the Gaza border as the United States opened its embassy to Israel in Jerusalem, a move that has fuelled Palestinian anger and drawn foreign criticism for undermining peace efforts. It was the bloodiest single day for Palestinians since the Gaza conflict in 2014.
Palestinian Health Ministry officials said at least 55 people were killed and more than 2,200 injured either by live gunfire, tear gas, or other means during protests on the border.
It is of course true that Palestinians have been badly let down by the infighting of their political leadership and worse, Hamas’ policy of firing rockets has been disastrously counter-productive. But it is also true that the policy of Israel has been to ensure that Palestine and Palestinian leadership remains dysfunctional by thwarting any real capacity to deliver meaningful services to their people. Hamas, the PA, the PL0, Fatah all scramble for legitimacy in a context of contrived disempowerment.
Added to this, and most crucially, Israel and its allies must accept the reality that the relentless colonisation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has virtually closed the door on any possibility of a two-state solution. For Australia to stay with a ‘two-state’ solution as its official policy and yet do absolutely nothing to achieve it through its conversations with Israel, or its voting at the UN, is political double speak of the worst kind. When in March Netanyahu announced that in no circumstance would Israel relinquish control of the land West of the Jordan, there was complete silence from the Australian government.
‘Facts on the ground’ demand that the whole international community insist on basic human rights for all in an area of land that for all intents and purposes is now, not only controlled by a single authority – Israel, but which it is determined will remain in its control in perpetuity. By moving its embassy to Jerusalem the US has endorsed that control. It is no good Trump saying he is open to a ‘peace’ process for Palestinians and Israelis, moving his embassy has made clear that Israel is, and from his perspective always will be, a sovereign state from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.
The scandal of the US move is not the move itself, but that it has been made without seemingly to recognise the implications or own the consequences. Through the move the US is agreeing with Israel that it has control of all the territory which it has long since ceased to recognise as ‘occupied’ and has preferred to call ‘disputed’. If Israel is now, as Netanyahu claims, and apparently Trump agrees, ‘Greater Israel’, then the consequences are enormous. In these circumstances, unless Israel wants to abandon any legitimate claim to democracy and unless it wishes to avoid the opprobrium of being the only western aligned country that has intentionally established an apartheid regime; the consequences of moving the embassy must be to insist that Israel immediately grant equal and unrestricted rights not only to Israeli Arabs, but equal and unrestricted rights to all Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza.
By moving its embassy, the US has significantly changed the goal posts in terms of what it must mean for Israel to behave as a responsible sovereign state within the international community. Palestinians and Israelis can of course live in harmony with one another. The adversarial binary forms of identity that have become more and more entrenched since 1947 do not need to prevail, indeed they are the major stumbling block in a desire for peace and security for all.
It is true that some Palestinians teach and maintain hatred towards Jews, the fact that they have suffered so much does not justify this self-defeating stance. But it is more than equally true that many Jews teach and foster hatred towards Palestinians. This is not just a feature of the ideologically driven illegal settlements, but a casual walk through the Jewish quarter of the Old City will hardly be possible without verbal insults being hurled from Jewish children and adults alike. The move of the US embassy just adds to this false triumphalism “Trump makes Israel great again”. Israel will never be great in any enduring sense if its triumphalism is built upon, even dependent upon, the subjugation, humiliation and destruction of another people. Hatred of the other must be called out for what it is, xenophobia, and Israel will rightly remain despised if this xenophobia remains entrenched. It is entrenched as long as the Israeli army protects its perpetrators with Israeli citizenship, while locking up Palestinian children who throw stones out of their frustration.
For their part the Palestinians are not going away. The fact that despite everything they are still there is a triumph in itself.
Gazans cannot be kept caged for ever.
Palestinians on the West Bank will not go away
The US, in its eagerness to meet the expectations of its Republican power base and pay a dividend to its Zionist benefactors, will need to face the legitimate political consequences of its embassy move, or fall to the standard of Israel’s abandonment of democracy and its cavalier application of universal human rights under international law.
The Banking Royal Commission
The scandals being uncovered by the banking royal commission are appalling, but should we be surprised? The financial sector not only comprises a significant component of the national economy but sets the standards by which the daily transactions of life are conducted in Australian society. The sad reality is that profit and ‘success’, so lauded in the finance industry over other values, has become the normal standard in almost all boardrooms and in so much that passes for commercial transaction in day to day life.
The commission into Child Sexual Abuse aside, the politically motivated royal commissions of recent times have been ‘Much ado about Nothing’, but not this one. The findings have been quite horrifying. But are we, or should we, be surprised? Much that is being revealed has been around in anecdotal narrative for some time. In stark contrast, those of us who are old enough will remember a time when the Commonwealth Bank was publicly owned, and no matter which bank enjoyed our loyalty, the bank manager was revered. We trusted the bank to be there to serve us in good times and bad. Why has the culture done a U-turn?
We now instinctively know we, the customers, are no more, but no less, than a pawn of the bank’s wealth accumulation strategy and that the banks exist to serve their shareholders.
But is this simply a problem of the banks or of the finance industry more generally? I put it to you that it is the latter, and that the banking royal commission is acting as a lightning rod into the parlous state of civil society, a state all of us have fallen into.
Allow me to set the scene:
- Profit is everything, the rewards for having produced an outstanding balance sheet are considerable. The bonus system carries within it an irresistible inducement to act unethically. Results which exceed the rate of inflation by a considerable margin are not necessarily the result of productivity or hard work, they have often been the result of someone else’s loss. Hedge Funds operate on the basis that there is money to be made from other’s ill judgement. Hedge Funds do not produce, they harvest capital from one source, capturing it to another vault.
- Winning is everything. We are all recovering from the national shame of a ball tampering episode. How could it have come to this? Not at all hard to explain. Winning is everything and the financial rewards for doing so are monumental. It was hypocritical of politicians, including the Prime Minister, to engage in the shame game when all that is exemplified from parliament is their own version of ball tampering for political self-interest.
- Taxation robs resources from the private sector into the public arena and therefore can be legitimately avoided at all costs. It is an indisputable reality that millions, probably billions, are invested every year in tax avoidance. We know that many large companies have so arranged their affairs that they pay no tax at all and yet are looking forward to a reduction in the rate of ‘company tax’. Taxation should be embraced as the incontestable obligation of all to contribute to the common good of a harmonious and just society. We are currently far from this position.
- Private ownership is good, public ownership is bad. We have made essential services captive to ‘for profit’ enterprises. Essential services should not have legitimate expenses minimised and profit maximised for profit hungry private enterprises. Gaols should not be places in which rehabilitation is compromised, or refugee compounds places where health, education, and general care fall below the standard acceptable within the general Australian population. We appear to have reached a point in Australian political life where nothing remains in public hands as a matter of principle. When I lived in Canberra many public servants were made redundant under the Howard purges. The ones in my street left with a redundancy package on Friday and renewed their old job on Monday on a private contract at a higher rate. Quite apart from the loss of corporate memory there are very good reasons why many key areas of Australian life ar more appropriately and effectively administered by the public service. Privatising ‘poles and wires’ has not contributed to cheaper electricity – quite the contrary.
- Independent regulation is bad, self-regulation is good. This extraordinary situation is promoted most strongly on the right of politics, and most fully by Libertarians like Senator Leyonhjelm. Libertarians believe that any interference or restriction placed upon the affairs of individuals is an unwarranted intrusion into their lives. Society is made up of individuals, so they argue, who must be allowed to get on with their lives and in so doing contribute to society as a whole. The false premise of this position is that the complexity and interrelatedness of life means of necessity we are all accountable to one another for the common good. The failure of the regulator to do its job in the banking industry is obvious, almost criminally obvious, for all to see. However the monumental failure of regulation has been in the environmental area. Future generations should bring a class action against the present crop of politicians for this failure. The French President, Mr Macron, now visiting Australia, has appealed to both sides of politics to get over their party political gamesmanship on this matter, reminding them there is no planet B. It should come as no surprise that those who have opposed proper oversight of climate responsibility are the same as those who have opposed investigation of the banking industry.
- The wealthy are self-motivated and hard-working, the poor only have themselves to blame. This explanation, perhaps justification, for inequity is one of the greatest threats to the future of an harmonious civil society. Racial prejudice and the capacity to scapegoat, is closely connected. That more than a quarter of the prison population is indigenous, that mental health is a great contributor to homelessness and gaol, that the poor go through gestapo like interrogation to justify claims whilst politicians and senior bureaucrats stretch the rules to embrace theirs; all these and many other facts are indicators that winner takes all, and the loser can simply stand aside.
Considering these realities, a civil movement is called for, to which people in their millions might associate their name, which says “enough, turn around, we are going the wrong way”. This movement could begin within communities of faith, but does not need to. It needs to be led by respected figures such as the economist Allan Fels, and the Chief Scientist Alan Finkel. It needs to stand outside conventional politics, certainly not to be captured by any party. It is a cause for which the name Monash could be attributed. It is a movement which should attract well motivated philanthropists such as Dick Smith.
Above all, we need a movement which ordinary Australians can embrace. Stay on the track we are on and the faults of our current society will be exaggerated in the next generation, stand up and a different path will take us to a platform where mutual trust and service for the good of each other within civil society will once more become a possibility, if not the norm.
Preaching on the second Sunday of Easter I was pulled up short by the Acts reading. “Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common” (Acts 4:32). It s not that I had not read this passage many times before, it is that it struck me how it contrasts with the widely held perception in Australian public life that Christianity is about individualism, individual rights, property ownership and family values – meaning private rather than social principles and responsibilities.
In direct repudiation of this enlightenment view, Acts, an account of the life of the post Easter community, provides a window into what might be called the primary or first resurrection value – shared life. It is easy to be dismissive. Apart from community movements such as the Franciscans, how often have we seen this value being literally carried out in the rejection of private ownership over the last 2000 years. Well, not very often if we look with the eyes of western Enlightenment, but if we look through the eyes of traditional indigenous life anywhere in the world we might have a different view. In any case, if the practical application of the principle might be somewhat elusive in Western life, the principle itself stands.
What lies behind the principle of ‘community’ or ‘shared life’ is the idea that friends or ‘communities’ have one soul. Those who have shared the journey with Christ through the cross to the resurrection and beyond share this new life. “You are my friends if you do what I command you - love one another” (Jn.5:12-17). Interestingly the idea of friends being of one soul is also found in Greek philosophy. Aristotle, in the Nichomachean Ethics: ”Our good is the good of a being that lives with others and so must in some way be bound up with the good of others”. This value is lived out weekly in the Eucharist or Mass where all present eat from the one loaf and drink from the common cup.
Much is being made these days of ‘conservative values’ for which we are to read ‘Christian values’. Indeed, at least one of the new Australian political parties is founded on what it claims are these principles. Exponents of these ‘values’, including Senator Cori Bernardi, Lyall Shelton of the Australian Christian Lobby and Eric Abetz, to name a few, applaud property ownership, small government, ‘family values’, defence or security and solemnly rail against ‘creeping socialism’.
Because these values run counter to the value espoused in the post Easter account, I argue these espoused values are not especially ‘Christian values’ at all, nor do they deserve to be called conservative values. They are in fact Enlightenment values.
Christian values, conservative values are values that support the concept of ‘one soul’ or to put it another way, that support ‘common good’.
Margaret and I live in our own (modest) house. I am not suggesting that private ownership should come to an end. One of the ways of caring for others is not to be a burden on them, therefore to provide for one’s own basic needs is consistent with this principle. However, the Easter principle kicks in with considerable force when dealing with ownership that goes beyond basic needs when we are made to face the reality of equity and fairness.
Those who espouse so called ‘Christian’ or ‘conservative’ values:
Have been opponents of environmental responsibility, presumably because such responsibility crosses the rights of individuals to ‘do what they like with their own’. The Easter value is that we need a mindset that understands that ultimately, we do not own anything. Certainly, we have no right to activity, notably economic activity, which takes personal advantage at the expense of others losses. Science is unequivocal that continued exploitation and refusal to accept significant climate change mitigation goals will (not might) impact severely upon the future, indeed upon the present. This arrogant refusal is a direct rebuttal of Easter values.
Opponents of strategies that might make housing more equitable, presumably because private wealth accumulation is to be admired. It is beyond dispute that, while not the only factor, negative gearing and generous capital gains tax provisions have severely impacted the property market, leaving some with many properties from which considerable wealth accumulates and leaving others outside property ownership altogether. Those whose wealth or income is asset and not salary based enjoy generous tax provisions, while those whose income is reliant on wages struggle to make ends meet, despite the fact labour keeps the cogs of civil life turning.
Opponents of regulation that might curb spiking CEO salaries, presumably because this, like the afore mentioned, would be ‘creeping socialism’ writ large. One of my predecessors, Bishop Earnest Burgmann, once proposed that the salaries and emolument of senior management should be capped at a percentage of the basic salary prevailing in their company or organisation. Burgmann suggested the figure should be between 7 – 10 times. Taking the higher figure the maths are easy. Let us assume the basic salary is $60,000 then of course the CEO would earn $600,000. Why does anyone need to earn more than $600,000 per annum? If this principle were enacted, then at the very least there would be incentive on senior management to increase the basic salary of employees.
Even opponents of regulation to restrict poker machine operators from gauging the poor, presumably on the basis that we are all responsible for our own actions.
Cori Bernardi, Lyall Shelton and Eric Abetz have confused Christian or conservative values with Enlightenment values. At best Enlightenment value are neutral in relation to religion. They promote the entitlements of individuals, of capital and ownership, they are wary of any ethic that might be universally applicable, wary too of government acting through regulation to curb excesses, and see any role that religion may have restricted to private piety.
Whilst the Western world is and will remain indebted to Enlightenment thinkers such as Locke, Voltaire, Kant and Smith, it is also the fact that Enlightenment thinking is an insufficient foundation to assist humanity through the troubling global issues of our time. The right of individuals to do what is in their interest regardless of others, can no longer reign supreme if humanity is to survive another century. The wishes of all must be subject to the good of all. This is of course the great political struggle of our time. Nations always want to serve their own best interest when in reality their best interest is the best interest of all.
May the Easter value of shared life and it implications be better understood and become the primary focus of public discourse, and may the Church be bold enough in word and example to take the lead.
In the early days Christians took hold of secular often pagan (associated with matters rural) festivals and transformed them into expression of Christian verity. Most notably Christmas and Easter owe their origins to this incarnating the faith within the rhythms of contemporary life. When Gregory sent Augustine to England he gave him strict instructions to follow this strategy. In our time the reverse has become true. Commercialisation has taken over Christian festivals for its own purpose. Palm Sunday is a bit of an oddity, the secular world has connected the submissive journey of Jesus into Jerusalem with causes to do with refugees and injustice in general. Has this trend done a service or disservice to the Palm Sunday festival?
If you found yourself in Church on Palm Sunday you were very much part of a quirky minority. The clear majority find what we do and believe odd at best and at worst we are looked upon less than benignly. This I think we must accept as fact. Does it matter, and if so why does it matter? Well it does matter, not simply in terms of eternal destiny, but more pragmatically it matters in terms of how we live and make sense of the world in which we live. Holy Week and Easter have much to say about both, that is to say they speak of eternal destiny and they speak to the way the cogs of life should move every day. Indeed, so strongly do we believe this we take for granted the reality that the events of this week are the swivel point of human history, the modern era begins at this point.
Making sense of the world is the role of religion and science alike. I will come to Holy Week’s view of the world in a moment, but what about science? The world has just lost one of its most intriguing brains since Einstein, Stephen Hawking. Hawking’s life was spent in a relentless search for understanding, understanding how the world ticks, how it began, how it might end. Many of you will have read his treatise “The beginning of time”. In the treatise he argues that real time, that is time as we understand it commenced with the Big Bang 13 – 15 billion years ago. But he also argues that does not mean ‘nothing’ is a good description of what we might consider preceded the Big Bang. To theologise his theory, time is associated with transience, with partiality, indeed with pain. Dying is not simply to depart material existence, its transience and pain, it is to depart time, to enter what always was in God – eternity. Hawking also taught that most of the universe, as vast as it is, is unseen, consisting of black holes or dark matter. If science teaches there is more that is unseen than seen, then we have every reason to speak boldly of faith! Interestingly Hawking was also fascinated by the idea of love.
I have started the sermon this morning with Stephen Hawking not only because every sermon should engage with contemporary context, but also because of the reality that faith and science at one level exist together in the exciting journey of discovery.
Here on Palm Sunday and throughout Holy Week until Easter we are being led down the ‘path less trodden’, into deeper engagement with our own lives, with the lives of others and ultimately with what always was, is now and ever shall be - love, the energy which is God: existing before Hawking’s commencement of time, and unrestrained by time bursts beyond it in resurrection. What Holy Week proclaims is utterly explosive, not contradicting science but challenging a world view that is restricted by its own boundaries of discovery. This is what makes the decline of Christianity so serious, the population at large is restricted to a world view and set of values in which material wellbeing and the values associated with it, together with the laws of physics are the only guide on a life-time path with many hurdles that do not fit this restrictive exploration.
Palm Sunday starts with extraordinary insight into authority, leadership, yes even power. Because we humans are communal beings, none of us can survive alone, it is necessary that authority, leadership and power are exercised. But how?
The world of today presents a picture that is the diametrically opposite of Palm Sunday. The strong men of the world, Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, Jin Ping, congratulate each other on their strength. The largest ministerial portfolio in Australia is shamelessly led in similar manner.
Palm Sunday presents a picture of authentic leadership, authority and power that is embedded in vulnerability. It is a picture of reluctance, of power being wielded through the empowerment of others. It is the picture of a conscious choice to eschew expectation, to ride on a colt, the foal of a donkey, the lowliest of all beasts. Jesus knew that the crowd would herald him, he wanted to ensure that they knew what they were heralding. No, he has not the Messiah who would throw off the Romans. No, he was not the Messiah who would set up his own earthly kingdom. No, he would not even be challenging the authority of Herod, Pilate, or Caiaphas. If they were going to herald him, they must know the path he would take, for in association with him they (we) must take the same path. This is not simply a religious picture worthy of pious observation, it is much more than that. It is a perspective on how under God, human life and governance must operate if it is to be life giving, because relational principles are as immutable as physical laws. Those who seek authority must seek to serve. No one should exercise power for themselves, it always ends in tears; it must always be exercised for the common good.
As we move further into Holy Week insight into truth becomes more dramatic and from a human point of view more counter intuitive. We are looking at Holy Week with the benefit of hindsight, an advantage not available to the disciples. We know the central figure, Jesus, is the human face of the eternal God. In him the fullness of God completely dwells. Therefore, what we see in him is reflective of the activity of God always and everywhere. Love reigns. On the cross love intervenes to break the destructive cycle of human wilfulness and it does so, not out of power, but out of weakness, vulnerability. We human beings find such a path quite alien. Paying back is seen as a strength. We spend infinitely more on armaments and destruction than we do on aid and restitution. The cross really is quite offensive, even to Christians. Because it is so offensive the temptation is great to clothe it in language of strength, of God magisterially wiping out a penalty demanded of humans in the divine court. We do well to be reminded that over 2000 years, Christianity has refused to define the atonement, it defies any human definition.
Moving into Easter we are confronted by the most extraordinary truth of all, while love is manifest in the material world, it is not confined by it. Love has the capacity to reach beyond such boundaries, it is thus utterly transformative. Resurrection should not surprise us, it is love’s refusal to allow time and death to have the final word.
So journey well through Holy Week, hold on tight for the ride of your life, this is not simply some nostalgic celebration of a moment long past in history, but a celebration of life itself, of how things work: through the week we do not simply find comfort for heavenly destiny, but hope for a world desperate to break away from the human caused disasters that constantly surround us.
Light is dawning, the earth is being renewed, and we are being made whole once more.
Why is it that while we are observing well documented decline in the life of the Church and more seriously of Christian adherence, we are hearing little or no conversation about an appropriately renewed shape for the Church this century? Are we simply going to keep doing what we have always done, accepting we are more and more irrelevant while the world gets on very nicely without us – or more truthfully languishes without proper Christian engagement? Or might we consider that our present structures, whilst serving us well in the past, no longer do so and that an entirely different way of being Church needs to emerge? Not only do these structures no longer serve us, but they are a burden that now prevent us from being a true witness in the contemporary world.
Those of us who undertook theological exploration in the 1960’s did so in the so-called death of God era. It was not simply John Robinson and Honest to God; it was also Dietrich Bonhoeffer and religion less Christianity; Paul Tillich and his proposition that God should be understood as being rather than a being - etc. Of course, none of this was about a genuine proposition of the ‘death of God’ in any real sense, less still of the demise of Christianity, much more about how one might more reasonably understand and practice religious or Christian belief in a contemporary world. I will always be grateful to my lecturers at that time, especially John Falkingham who taught theology and Gordon Griffiths who was my first Old Testament lecturer. At the age of 20 they helped me negotiate these ideas while at the same time retaining confidence in the fundamentals of faith, and love of scripture. Much later this early formation helped me chair a packed St John’s Cathedral in Brisbane who were there to hear Jack Spong in full flight, doing his best to discredit the biblical narrative, and then proceed to give us his own. His populous treatment of scripture had the same depth as the populous politics that now sweeps western democracies.
The Bonhoeffers and Tillichs of today are no less challenging and should be better known and read. They of course include James Alison, Miroslav Volf, Richard Rohr and many others. But I do not want here to engage in a theological discussion as such, but rather an ecclesiastical one.
Are we not currently facing the death of the (institutional) church and in our context, the beloved Anglican Church? I do not by this infer the death of ‘church’, the gathering of God’s people, nor am I inferring the death of Anglicanism per se, far from it, but the death of that institutional expression which no longer serves the contemporary age. Amongst other things I mean both the death, or radical redefinition, of entities like Dioceses, Parishes, and episcopates.
In the 1960’s I began my ministry in Inverell and Armidale in the Diocese of Armidale. Despite what I am sure were very imperfect ministries, it was almost impossible to get a seat on Sunday unless you were early. The Church was a lively and vital component of community life.
In the 1970’s and early 80’s I was the rector of Singleton in the Newcastle Diocese. Our Sunday school had 15 classes; one year there were 100 confirmation candidates; Christmas there were 1000 communicants; the men’s group had 150 members. All within a total population of well under 10,000 people. Many of you will be able to tell very similar stories.
Today the number of viable parishes in the bush have drastically reduced, while those in the city are able to remain viable because the population on which they draw is many times larger. We are maintaining bureaucracies and institutions at great expense as if they continue to have the relevance they once had. Everyone can recount stories (probably from one’s own children) of those who retain faith but find the parish ritual entirely unsatisfying and have dropped out. So many Parishes appear to have become chaplaincies to those who are members rather than agents of nourishment renewal, and transformation in the communities in which they are set. With a few notable and very refreshing exceptions bishops appear not to want to engage at all outside the narrow confines of their ecclesiastical lives.
So, what am I suggesting?
We need a wholesale reversal of the synod of Whitby (664)! You will recall that at that synod the Celtic Church lost and the Roman territorial, hierarchical, version of church through Dioceses and Parishes took its place (quite apart from the little matter of the date of Easter!) Now of course I am not meaning some nostalgic return to a past long gone, but I am meaning a rediscovery of a Church in tune with the rhythms of life in the contemporary world. Such a Church is likely to be far more contemplative. It is likely to connect digitally with most of its membership. Gathering together for worship on a seven-day cycle will continue but will not be the pattern for most of the membership. When gatherings occur, perhaps six to eight times a year, of which Christmas, Easter and Pentecost will clearly be three, they need to be celebratory, connecting to the life of the wider community and the rhythms and stories with which it identifies. Many or most will find regular fellowship discussion and energy from a variety of small groups associated with meals, conversation and prayer. These groups will be multifarious and not listed in the Sunday pew sheet!
We need to breed a very different style of episcopal leader, not one who sees himself or herself leading an old style Diocesan bureaucracy but a contemplative who is able to lead the Christian family into engagement with God, each other, and equally importantly with the world in which they live.
Such a bishop will not chair committees or boards, but will be the gatherer of spiritual leadership, ordained and lay, the one who identifies and gives permission to giftedness and grace. Bishop and clergy will not want to constrain spiritual exploration, least of all seek to define the atonement or other Christian verities but foster such exploration of God known to us as Trinity that ethical and other major 21st century challenges can be understood in its light – as well as the personal challenges that beset us all. Whether Parish or Diocesan boundaries and identities should remain I am unsure, but I am certain they require radical transformation and rethinking.
Western culture is decaying at the same rate that Christianity is diminishing in influence. It cannot be too arrogant to connect these realities. We need to be honest enough to recognise that continuing to do what has always been done will not lead to a different result. The world is crying out for wisdom, for insight. It is not in need of religiosity, dogma or canon law. It needs authentic Christian living, openness - not certainty, inclusiveness – not elitism, a healthy integration of heart, mind and gut.
These words are written, not to offer any solution – how could they, but to open a conversation that is desperately overdue. They are written to suggest that those who enter the episcopate behind us should be expecting to lead a very, very, different style of episcopate to the one which we led, and they should be given every encouragement to do so.