Churches and Vaccination Exemptions
 
 
 
It is disappointing that the leaders of the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches in Sydney have foreshadowed they will seek exemptions to enable non vaccinated people to attend worship in their churches when, with ongoing safety measures, current restrictions are lifted. It would have been much more responsible to have advised the health minister they will do all in their power to ensure all who attend worship are vaccinated and that those not vaccinated will be pastorally cared for in an appropriately sensitive manner.
 
Of course, it is laudable that Church leaders wish access to their worship centres be open to all, but the request for exemptions for those who have had the opportunity to be vaccinated but choose otherwise, is not laudable. An exception should be those who have a medical reason why in their case vaccination is not possible. We are led to believe that while there are genuine cases, the number is quite small.
 
It should be the responsibility of Church leaders to do all they can to encourage members of their flock to be vaccinated.  From a Christian perspective the reasons why are clear. First, we should take all reasonable measures to live healthy lives and avoid behaviours that mitigate against healthy wellbeing.  There can be no reasonable argument that refusing to be vaccinated safeguards health.  More importantly, from a Christian perspective we should do all that is reasonably possible to protect and safeguard others.   It is quite clear that being vaccinated is to act responsibly in the interest and wellbeing of others.
 
The argument that religious communities are somehow exempt from regulations lawfully imposed by secular authorities on the whole community, is simply not plausible, unless it can be argued that what is proposed is morally wrong. Acting for the safety of the community is not morally wrong.  From the first century onwards, Church leadership has been clear that the Christian community should comply with the requirements of secular authority in all things lawful and honest.
 
I am aware that both archbishops had earlier flagged they could not whole heartedly support the AstraZenica vaccine on grounds that historically it owes its origin to a foetus.  While I do not support the argument, I respect the point being made. I do not support the argument for two reasons, first the link is historical and not dependent on the harvesting of contemporary foetus and second because I see no difference between harvesting life-giving material from a foetus or harvesting an organ from a deceased person. If the foetus was the result of an abortion, then the argument might have some force.
 
Notwithstanding all of the above, Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines manufactured in the lab and the majority of the population will have access to these vaccines as the supply becomes abundant before the end of the year.
 
It is singularly unfortunate that the most common reason given for refusing vaccination is that it is ‘against my religion’.  We are aware that, emanating for the US, considerable material has become available on social media that has influenced the less well informed to resist vaccination on some spurious religious grounds.  Apparently, this has become the most common reason given for vaccination hesitancy amongst the indigenous community.    The decision of the Archbishops to seek an exemption unfortunately carries weight amongst the less well informed who need little encouragement to act on notions that carry no credibility.
 
That one Roman Catholic Bishop has flagged he will seek an exemption for unvaccinated priests to exercise ministry in aged care facilities is beyond irresponsible.  Clergy exercise leadership, if only for members of their flock. They should be assisting the community to safely move into greater experiences of freedom. We know that vaccination is the pathway for greater liberty.
 
In these pandemic times it is the responsibility of all who exercise leadership to encourage behaviours that are consistent, behaviours that carry the same share of burden and the same opportunity for freedom.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The GAFCON obsession
 
GAFCON (Global Anglican futures conference) has stated its intention to establish a non-geographical diocese in Australia to serve Anglicans who can neither accept people of homosexual orientation in positions of leadership in the Church, nor countenance the blessing of same sex couples who have been married in a civil union.
 
They assert their position is premised on submission to biblical authority.
 
Let me also assert that I am committed to the authority of scripture and that my commitment to God in Christ, who has embraced humanity that humanity might embrace God, is absolute.
 
Truth is enhanced through exploration and engagement; truth is diminished through claims of certitude, refined as infallible dogma. Defining dogma based on self-appointed criteria places disciples of this dogma in a parasitical position in relation to the broader more generous Church which graces us all with the capacity to engage one another in Christ’s name. It is extraordinary that leaders of GAFCON who seek division in the Church are at the same time holding leadership positions as bishops within the Church.
 
It was a privilege to meet Morris West in the latter years of his life.  In his final book ‘A view from the Ridge’ he writes: “when I was a young Jesuit postulant I was certain of many things, now I am old I am certain of only this one thing: ‘Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so’ ”. Now that I too am ancient, I echo these words and pray that GAFCON members might also grow in faith beyond self-appointed criteria of certainty and its self-righteous cocooning.
 
On face value I could be a member of GAFCON because I consider myself an orthodox Anglican.  But I will never seek to be a member of GAFCON
 

1.  GAFCON leadership chooses gender and sexual orientation as its test of submission to biblical authority.  Why? 

 
There are many other issues of far greater significance and seriousness which are an existential threat to the fullness of life that Jesus promised.
 

1. Those who read the creation narrative in a literal manner, who teach a short history of the world and fail to grasp the truths this narrative holds are open to supporting false and dangerous inequality between males and females, a denial of human culpability in relation to the environment, and setting a false dichotomy between faith and science.  Why not make a stand on this misreading of scripture?

 

1. Scripture is clear that humans are stewards, not owners, of resources and wealth. To embrace a ‘prosperity gospel’ is to live a life that is counter to scripture and discipleship of Christ.  Why not make a stand on this misreading of scripture?

 
 

1. Scripture reveals relationship to be at the heart of divinity, a truth settled in the fourth century in the Trinitarian creeds.  Similarly, relationship, mutuality, trust, respect are central to a scriptural understanding of the creation and the human place within it. The supposed autonomy of the individual is a novel idea to be drawn from scripture. In many Christian circles the right of the individual is exhorted and subjection to one another minimized.  Examples of this trend from ‘conservative’ expressions of faith have severely impacted human life on the planet in recent decades.  Why not make a stand on this misreading of scripture?

 

1. Outside the framework of ecumenical credal affirmations, arbitrarily deciding who is in and who is out is not within the remit of Christian leadership.

 

1. The New Testament is remarkable because membership of the early Church was quickly made open and inclusive.  It was not just that Gentiles could be included as well as Jews, but restrictions about what to eat, how to wash, were relaxed. In addition, marks of identity such as circumcision and the keeping of sabbath also disappeared.   In Peter’s dream he was warned, not make unclean what God calls clean.  GAFCON is in grave danger of ascribing unclean to what God calls clean.

 

1. Division or separation is death, be that within the family, politics, or the Church.  It is all very well for GAFCON leadership to say they are not causing division; others, by their actions, have left.  But in reality, it is GAFCON that is proposing division.  Are we to see a multitude of other causes about which division is to occur?

 
 

1. The Diocese of Sydney has been central to the establishment of GAFCON.   I understand it is not possible to be licensed in that Diocese without signing a document which declares submission to the penal substitutional theory of the atonement.  This is but one way of understanding the unfathomable grace of the cross, and probably the least helpful.  Why diminish the atonement by confining it to this theory? And worse, why make this a test of membership?

 

1. What in fact does scripture say about homosexuality?

 

1. Promiscuous sexual activity is unequivocally sanctioned.  The misuse of power is utterly condemned.  Sexual activity in which power is exercised over another remains as destructive today as it was in the first century.  We know that those who perpetrate such abuses are overwhelmingly heterosexual.
2. From all the chapters and verses of scripture there are but a small handful that address homosexual practice.  But do these verses assume some people are born without the capacity for intimacy with a member of the opposite gender?  Or do the verses assume that all people are heterosexual and that examples of homosexual activity are condemned as extra indulgences of heterosexual people?  We have no means of knowing.
3. What we do know is that acknowledgment and recognition of the reality that a small percentage of the population are born homosexual is recent, indeed it has occurred in the lifetime of some of us.  Prior to that, homosexual people could not make their identity known. Families found a way of embracing their family members in a safe and respectful manner.
4. Given that overwhelmingly gender and sexual orientation are identities that are given and not chosen, it must be assumed within the sovereignty of God that homosexual people have a particular role to play within human society and should be honoured for the gifts they bring. Amongst many other gifts, creativity and a wonderful capacity for compassion are obvious.

 
Members of GAFCON, the standard you have set for judging submission to scripture and devotion to Christ is seriously flawed.  Progress as you intend, and you deny us who remain the richness and diversity of your company, while condemning yourselves to a severely diminished expression of the glorious Gospel of the Kingdom of God.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A restored vision of Church
 
For centuries institutions provided security, identity, and continuity. Their very existence gave confidence that the contemporary world would continue to build on the foundations of the past.  Each generation could expect to live much as their parents had done.
 
This is not contemporary reality. Institutions have been found wanting. Some have suffered public ignominy. Institutional Church is in serious decline throughout the Western world. Many would say the worst is yet to come.  Here in my local community people are almost universally respectful of my faith and the way of life Margaret and I strive to live our lives, but have less than benign thoughts about ‘church’. Children of committed Christian families find it difficult to relate to their parents’ ecclesial experience.
 
In the past it was more than appropriate for institutional life to give flesh to the incarnate and eternal activity of God. Music, architecture, liturgy, ministries, works of charity, centres of thought, annual rhythms, pilgrimages, were expansive frameworks in and through which people could explore and grow into eternal truths. This is the world I have known and cherished.
 
With the demise of institutions over the last three decades and the rise of multi-faceted networks this is no longer the case for most people.  Parishes that in the 1960’s 70’s and 80’s enjoyed congregations in their hundreds now experience much smaller gatherings, and much older, despite the overall population on a geographical basis being significantly larger.
 
Should institutional Church as it has been known in Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, the Orthodox and mainstream Protestant churches simply run up the white flag?  No, because the universality of Christ can never be fully expressed solely through local expressions of Church that lack accountability to global and historical Christianity.  The faith is not simply about personal piety, it is also about public engagement
 
So, what is to be done, what are we to do?
 
The longing for spiritual nurture and insight has not shrunk. Sceptics such as Dawkins and Hitchins argue that religion is a form of escape.  I dare to argue the opposite, Christianity as I have known it is engagement in the totality of life.  This is hardly surprising given the heart of Christian faith is belief in, and commitment to Jesus, the incarnate word of God who embraces and enables life itself. 
 
 
 
So, where might the Spirit be leading us?
 
As is often the case, what otherwise might be thought a calamity - covid 19 – gives us a clue. During this calamity people everywhere have become aware of opposite realities which carry almost equal importance.  On the one hand we have all come to know the importance of home, family, intimacy, and connectedness with those who are most important to us.  Many of us have found blessing in the capacity to ‘work from home’. On the other hand, we are also aware of our irrepressible need for connectedness without limit, of belonging to and being fulfilled in the universality of life. I have become increasingly convinced that the Church of the future must come more thoroughly to grips with these two realities and hold them in healthy balance.
 
Since March last year Margaret and I have been running Church at our home to assist the local Parish in the context of the covid pandemic.  Some of those coming have not previously been regular members of any Church.  What people find attractive is a mixture of a less formalised liturgy, thoughtful teaching in which they participate, fellowship at a personal level and the joy of a shared meal.  We have emphasized we are part of and accountable to the wider Church.
 
I have become convinced that clergy should act with oversight; legitimizing and authorizing a multitude of small gatherings in and through which a wide circle of people might be nurtured and fed. In the early Church bishops grew out of presbyters, it is time for presbyters to retake roles of intentional oversight. These groups could be as diverse as imagination and need suggest.  Some will be based in meditation and contemplation, other through bible study, some through a focus on social justice and charity, some through a shared digital experience, others through arts-based activities, some through concern for and enjoyment of the natural order others through ministries of education and health, some through ethnic or cultural identity.
 
Stephen Cottrell, the Archbishop of York, urges the Church of England to establish at least 10,000 locally based and lay led ‘churches’ before 2030.  There has been push back from Parish based leadership.  This is short sighted.  A move such as this could refresh ‘parishes’.
 
People in these groups may not be regular attenders of Sunday worship, but they should be gathered on significant occasions. It will be the duty of the ‘parish/diocese’ to provide universal experiences and linkages. Some of this can and should be provided digitally, but there must also be common shared experiences.   
 
The purpose of Church is not to provide a chaplaincy service to a congregation of pious believers disconnected from the mainstream life of the wider community.  It is to feed nourish and empower those who in Christ’s name are committed to the transformation of society. Richard Rohr puts it this way: “We worshipped Jesus instead of following him on the same path. We made Jesus into a religion instead of a journey toward God and everything else. This shift made us into a religion of ‘belonging’ and ‘believing’ instead of a religion of transformation”.
 
Because institutional churches have largely failed to provide spiritual nurture and intimacy to many who seek it, this need has been met through many experiences of Church which Dawkins and Hitchins could legitimately describe as escapes from reality.  Some offer false certainties in a world better understood through nuance, paradox, and complexity.  Dangerously extreme examples of this were seen by those carrying signs bearing Jesus’ name in the assault on Capitol Hill following Biden’s election and on banners carried by those engaged in protests against covid restrictions here in Australia.
 
We should not be witnessing the death of conventional parish and diocesan life, but it’s opening up in new ways of serving the world which God in Jesus loves. Church membership or Christian discipleship should not be calculated on the basis of Sunday church attendance alone, but on the basis of engagement and connectedness with the multifaceted life that is modern society.
 
The choice that lies ahead is either to pull up the doona and keep the façade intact for as long as possible or throw off the bed cover and embrace a more exciting and engaging expression of Church.  It is not a matter of being shaped by the dominant culture of our time but recognizing its influence and engaging differently with it.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The IPCC Report and the Book of Revelation
 
An interpretive connection between the latest IPCC report and the book of Revelation, otherwise known as the Apocalypse, is painfully and dramatically obvious. However, focus on ‘apocalypse’ encourages a doomsday mentality and is counterproductive; other insights from this book help us to better understand the human dilemma and therefore the way forward.
 
I would like to look below the surface to a connection which is not as obvious, yet is quite revelatory.  But first a little background. 
 
This last book of the New Testament, and last to be accepted in the biblical canon, is well known to conspiracy theorists and end of the world fanatics. It is probably written at the end of the 1st century AD to seven churches in Asia minor struggling with a debilitating dilemma.  Jesus has died and risen with the promise of a new creation, and yet the world as they experience it remains violently and painfully the same.  Wherein does hope lie? What are they to make of the violent life they are experiencing? Why not conform to the dominant Roman culture and avoid attention. They have been sorely tempted to “lose their first love” and drift away from a life in the imitation of Christ to be seduced into conformity with the prevailing culture.
 
The writer, John, implores them to stand firm in their faith. He contrasts commitment to the ‘Lamb’ – Jesus, who because of his suffering death and resurrection has true authority – and the consequences of the alternative - sovereignty based on power, wealth, greed, self-interest which is fake or illusionary. The Lamb’s authority is counter intuitive.   Jesus does not have sovereign right because of power, prestige or wealth, but because he has embraced temporal reality even death, and carried it with him into the world of eternal grace.
 
In a world which does not recognise grace as sovereign, where self-interested ambition reigns, the consequences are horrendous, most dramatically portrayed by the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Every generation since the writing of this book has experienced realities as awful as those described in the book.  In the last 100+ years we have experienced two global pandemics and many less universal, but equally dreadful.  We have experienced two world wars, several minor wars, and ethnic cleansing on all continents. Our present covid pandemic has been described by the ABC’s Dr Norman Swan as a political pandemic, because the hubris of Presidents Xi, Putin and Trump and other world leaders such as Johnston and Bolsonaro has made the spread inevitable when is should have been avoidable. Every generation over two millennia have suffered events symbolically portrayed in this book.
 
The book swings between two opposing and contrasting communities – that of the Lamb and his followers, and that of the beast or the anti -Christ and his followers who bear its mark.   The mark or seal of the lamb is the cross; a seal that is impressed upon followers of Jesus at their baptism.  But what is the meaning of the mark of the beast, the distinguishing feature of followers of anti-Christ?
 
Margaret Barker, the eminent biblical scholar and linguist (who sadly passed away in April this year) postulates the mark of the beast is usuary, covetousness, greed, of putting economic goals above goals of common good.  Indeed, chapter 13 of the book of Revelation which contains reference to the ‘mark of the beast’ continues with reference to faltering trade and collapsing markets as does chapter 18.  Is the whore spoken of in the book the seductiveness of material gain?  If Barker is right, then the anti-Christ is not communism, or Trump, or the Pope, but something far closer to home, the seduction of personal wealth and gain over harmony and connectedness with neighbour, creation, and God. In a nutshell, this is an apt description of what ‘anti-Christ’ might mean in any generation.
 
For the book to be included in the canon of scripture, its interpretation must be relevant to succeeding generations, not simply to those who received it in the first or second century AD. Now, let us cut to the chase.  It is not hard to apply this insight to the great and threatening challenge of our time – climate change. Those who oppose action on climate change, most notably the conservative side of Australian politics, have consistently done so based on their economic theory.  We can’t afford it they shout!   As if we can afford not to!! In our context it could be said neo-liberal economic theory and practice has become the anti-Christ of our age because it sets short term material gain above long-term harmony, equity and sustainability. Many of its devotees hang out in Christian congregations!! Some hang out both in Christian congregations and in the halls of Australian parliaments.
 
The response of the Australian government to the IPCC report has been predictably appalling.  Shane Warne must be proud of the spin that emanates especially from the Prime Minister.  Unless you are comatose, it is simply implausible to ignore science and the imminent threat we face.   Mr Morrison is spinning ill-conceived nonsense to claim Australia and Australians are already pulling our weight. It is manifestly untrue.   It is also untrue to assert that technology, on its own will get us out of the diabolical predicament we are in.  First and foremost, what is required is resolve, from the Prime Minister down.  Because the ‘fish rots from the head’ resolve from the Prime Minister is not irrelevant.  Setting targets focuses resolve.
 
The Apocalypse or the Revelation of John is prophetic, not in that it foretells the future but in that it has the capacity to reveal truth. The need for truth about the times in which we live has never been more urgent.  Spin, the tool of choice of the Prime Minister, is severely damaging because the days are short.   We do not have much time to avoid a catastrophe for our children. 
 
The great irony is that the crisis presents opportunity as well as challenge.  Why not emphasise opportunities rather than challenges? Indeed, opportunities for the many are so abundant, it makes the crime of protecting the self-interest of a few far more reprehensible.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Rights, law breakers, and Covid lockdown
 
The anti-lockdown protests held in Australian capital cities, most notoriously in Sydney, have been enacted in the same anarchic spirit that imbued those who stormed the US capital following the election of President Joe Biden.  The conduct has been reprehensible, put lives at risk, and achieved the opposite of the stated outcome, namely the inevitability of a longer lockdown. At the heart of this arrogance and stupidity lies a total incapacity to understand what ‘rights’ and ‘freedom’ mean in a civil, democratic society.
 
In what follows I am indebted to the work of Wesley Hohfeld who identified four incidents to the study of rights theory.
 

1. Privilege.  According to Hohfeld all rights should be considered a privilege allowing the individual, organisation, or community to do whatever they have no duty not to do.  The idea of privilege thus puts rights within a context.  Within a family, an individual member might indeed have the right to live as they wish, but within that family certain responsibilities have to be fulfilled for the sake of the family unit which automatically curtail ‘rights’ the individual might otherwise wish to claim.

 

1. Claim. Again, according to Hohfeld, a claim is related to duty.  The Prince of Wales may indeed have the right to claim the throne of England, but should he be unwilling to accept the duties associated with that claim, the claim will be forfeited, the privilege needs to be recognised as legitimate by the people. I may claim rights as an Australian citizen, but if I refuse to accept rightful civil authority, my claim is diminished although hopefully never expunged.

 

1. Power.   Power alters privilege.  Within Australia, three levels of government have power gifted to them, by the people at the ballot box, to legislate for common good.  They have no power or authority to legislate for sectional or self-interest.  Australian tax law curtails the right I might think I have to use all the money I accrue through my work and investment for my own good.  Tax law makes it mandatory, according to means, for all citizens to contribute to common societal needs.

 

1. Immunity.    Individuals can rightly claim immunity if an authority, be it a government, employer, family member, or other entity has lacked power to enact regulations that have curbed individual freedoms.  Immunity might also be claimed if the legislation or regulation is agreed by the majority not to have been for the common good and thus morally wrong.

 
Applying these four incidents to the action of the protesters it is clear they had no rights to act as they did, enjoyed no immunity, and were jeopardising the very freedom they claimed to be protecting.  They had the right to protest. But in exercising this privilege they had the duty to protect the health of the wider community.  By wearing no masks, flaunting authority, refusing to keep social distancing, the right was lost.
 
The freedom claim was false.  People long for freedom, but the great paradox of freedom is that it is most often delivered by those who accept passing privation in the service of greater good. This presumably is what the ANZAC tradition is about.
 
The State government not only has the power to enforce a lockdown, but a solemn duty to do so in the pursuit of safeguarding the health and greater wellbeing of its citizens.  For the sake of all, essential workers are immune from the constraints of lockdown, not for personal self-interest, but in the interest of the good they bring to the whole community.
 
Very few rights are absolute.  The right to life, in the context of enjoying, and contributing to greater good, is the only absolute.
 
Behind the lockdown lurk blights to what can be deemed acceptable standards by political leadership and media presentation.
 
George Christensen and Craig Kelly, amongst others, have been spruiking false information about the pandemic, about vaccinations and about the lockdown, giving comfort to those who have proved more than a little capacity for anarchic behaviour.   Given these exponents of controversy in service of self-promotion sit on government benches, one might have expected censure from the Prime Minister.  There has been none.  It is utterly disgraceful that he, for the sake of keeping his slim majority, will overlook, and at best slap on the wrist, colleagues who give comfort to actions which endanger the health and freedom of all Australians.
 
If the excuse for this gross lack of leadership is defence of freedom of speech, this is a grave error. Like any other right, freedom of speech is not an absolute. If it is used to ridicule, let alone incite anger and prejudice, it ceases to be a right. Freedom of speech, like all rights is a privilege.   When great responsibility is bestowed through the election box, freedom is tempered by duty to ensure every fact is checked, every opinion weighed on its possible affect. Every judgement must be weighed at the ultimate bar – does it serve the greater good.
 
Certain sections of the media have also been utterly culpable. George Christensen, Craig Kelly, Matt Canavan would have little or no oxygen if it were not provided by Sky News and its disgruntled, attention seeking presenters.  Why is this obnoxious news outlet not brought into line? I am fully aware it exists to serve a small minority of the population that revels in delusion, slur, mistruth, and conspiracy theory.  But when an interview is conducted in which statements are made inferring it is more dangerous to be vaccinated than to remain unvaccinated, this is not freedom of speech, it is dangerous anti-social behaviour of the most reprehensible kind.  It should have caused the media umpire to call time.
 
The pandemic has a life of its own.  That is true. But it is also true that we live in a privileged era in which we are equipped with knowledge and tools to mitigate its affect. That at vital levels of society we are failing to do so, is critical commentary on humankind’s supposed progress.  We err in measuring progress in terms of individual rights, and life’s least important dimension – material wealth.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Joyce enjoys hats and metaphors instead of good policy
 
David Speers is a fine journalist and interviewer but on Sunday’s Insiders he astonishingly let Barnaby Joyce completely off the hook as the interview veered across the path of climate change.
 
Joyce in his extraordinarily large hat was contemplating lunch at a Walcha Rd café in his New England electorate.  He informed us that whether he finally choose to adorn the café with his presence depended on the content of the menu and the indicative price for each offering.  He informed “Speerzy” that he understood the climate change debate through this metaphor.  Apparently, he will consider the possibility of zero emissions by or before 2050 if someone tells him how it is to be done and what it will cost.
 
What ‘Speerzy’ neglected to do what to remind the ruddy faced and bucolic deputy Prime Minister that he is the second most powerful politician in the country.  He is paid handsomely by the taxpayer to decide what is on the menu and to deploy the skills of the public service at his disposal to work out the price. 
 
The reality is that a price can only be considered when a proposal is presented.   In my hometown, there was much debate about a new bridge over the Clyde River.  In the end, urgent necessity drove the decision. Only then were alternative possibilities presented and a price determined.
 
The government needs to make a clear and unambiguous decision that we have no choice, we must join the rest of the world. Together we must reach carbon zero as soon as possible and no later than 2050, the price of not doing so is far too high.   Having made that decision, the government should employ the expertise of science and the public service to determine the most efficient and cost-effective manner of achieving the goal.  It is not that hard.  May I be bold enough to suggest some of the essential items that must appear on the ‘menu’.
 

1. A clear strategy and costing of a transitioned  work force currently deployed in the fossil fuel industry to a more sustainable and fulfilling employment into the future. It should not be beyond the wit of politicians to engage in this task.  Clearly there are politicians like Matt Canavan and Joyce himself who have a vested interest in fossil fuel longevity who will oppose such a task, but let there be no mistake, they are undermining the future of good men and women who deserve much better from them.

 

1. Scams need to be revealed for what they are, technological frauds in the name of ‘keeping an open mind’. Carbon sequestration as part of energy generation from fossil fuels is in this category.  Recent findings from the Chevron project off the West Australian coast prove this point, if proof were required.  Too much public money has already been invested in this fraud, which, even if it worked, would make the energy generated economically uncompetitive.  This scam should not be confused with large scale agricultural sequestration of carbon which could and should enjoy the dual benefit of higher agricultural productivity.  It should also provide the agricultural sector with a much needed means of offsetting other costs.  The challenge, which should not be too difficult, will be verifying the carbon sequestered as the strategy is rolled out.

 

1. Hydrogen, the most common and abundant element in the universe, is the obvious source of energy to drive the re-industrialisation of Australia.  Its extraction as an energy source requires the investment of other energy on a scale which would undo its environmental benefit. That is why the energy used in its refinement as a usable resource must be renewable – hence ‘green hydrogen’. Barnaby should be using his famous megaphone to stir investment in this important technology which will go a long way to re-industrialise Australia and make us far less dependent on what we dig up or cut down.  Instead of exporting iron ore we could be exporting steel.  Hydrogen could also become a vast source of export income.

 

1. Electricity production and use must be completely democratised, thus enabling households and neighbourhoods to be self-sufficient.   To do this pressure must exerted to ensure the grid becomes fit for purpose in the 21st century.  It was designed for 20th century dependency on production from large scale fossil fuel generates that are now past their use by date.

 

1. We do not produce motor vehicles in Australia.  Soon electric cars are going to dominate the international vehicle market.  We must encourage the uptake of this technology and invest in a network of charging stations.  At  the same time incentives should b given to the less wealthy to install vehicle charging capacity at home

 

1. The cost of international trading partners acting while we refuse to do so needs to be calculated and publicised.

 

1. The cost to Australian production, infrastructure, health, loss of habitat, annual days over 40 degrees Celsius, property and infrastructure becoming uninsurable, increased frequency of severe weather events must be made.  This calculation should be made on the assumption of 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 degree rise in temperature above pre-industrial levels.  These calculations should also be made regionally, so for example a comparison should be made between the expected income from mining the Galilee basin (supposing Adani or Palmer would be prevented from minimising their obligations) compared with the loss of income caused by the loss of the Great Barrier Reef.

 
The cost of nmot acting takes us into negative territory with accelerating speed.  The benefit of acting  is so obvious at a multitude of levels that it must be assumed those who oppose action are doing so out of political or personal self-interest
 
Mr Joyce, you are not paid to ask others to work out the safest and best future for Australia, you are paid to do it yourself.  If you do not know the answer to the question of what it would cost for Australia to reach carbon zero compared with the cost of not doing so, you are abdicating your responsibility.  Move out of the way and let those who are prepared to take this responsibility to do so.
 
 
 
 
 

Click here to Israel, Apartheid, and why Albo is seriously wrong and seriously right
 
The zoom conducted by Mr Albanese, the leader of the Federal Opposition, with the Executive Council of Australian Jewry has received wide publicity and greatly angered the Palestinian diaspora in Australia. This is sad and ironic, given Mr Albanese has a long history of supporting Palestinian rights and helped found the federal parliamentary friends of Palestine.
 
So, where does the problem lie?
 
The focus of the anger lies in his refusal to accept the word Apartheid as the most apt way of describing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. In its most extreme form, Israel’s treatment of Palestinians refuses to recognise they have any rights, let alone equal rights.
 
All cultures and languages use words and phrases from other peoples to convey meaning, particularly when one’s own language does not have an exactly equivalent word.  Many Italian and French words are commonplace in English (Australian) usage as of course are words from more ancient languages such as Greek and Latin.  Apartheid is an Afrikaans word that means apartness or separation.  It described a government enforced system of racial segregation. The word has power both to describe and to shock.  Indeed, Israel has its own word for the same reality – Hafrada - which carries the meaning of both separation and segregation. It is used by the Israeli government to describe their policy.
 
Apartheid is the predictable outcome when the political theory of Zionism is enforced on a subject people.  (I distinguish between Zionism as a theological or cultural construct and Zionism as an enforced political dogma).  Mr Albanese is quite wrong to dismiss the words of the Nobel Peace Laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who describes the situation facing Palestinians as directly akin to the situation facing black and coloured South Africans under the apartheid regime.  However, the term is no longer applicable simply in comparison with South Africa.  The Rome statute of the international criminal court states “The crime of apartheid means inhumane acts of a character committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination of one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”. While not wishing to apply the word ‘apartheid’ within Israel itself, nevertheless the Nation-State-law of 2018 provides for 65 laws that discriminate against Palestinians, 20% of the population.
 
He is also wrong to dismiss the recent poll to emerge from the US that indicates a quarter of all American Jews describe Israel’s control and treatment of Palestinians as Apartheid while the figure amongst younger Jews is even higher. While it is true that poll results are determined by the questions asked, it is undeniably true that a significant proportion of the Jewish diaspora is highly critical of Israel and its abuse of human rights and the Jewish members of APAN will attest that ECAJ, and least of all the Zionist Federation of Australia, do not speak for them.
 
Finally, he is wrong not to take seriously the highly respected Israeli human right organization B’Tselem which uses the word apartheid to describe Israeli policy of systemic human rights abuse in the Palestinian territories.
 
Apartheid is insidious in its advance.  It starts with annoying rules which apply to one race but not to others.  It proceeds with tools of identification which permit one group freedoms which are denied to others. It climaxes in one race being systematically ‘cleansed’ from homes farms and villages they have occupied for generations to be corralled into smaller and smaller areas of deprivation and poverty, with violence used to keep them in place. Palestinians experience all these phases. Sunday’s news stories from the Israeli paper Haaretz chronicle the story of a Jewish settler on the West Bank shooting at Palestinians while the Israeli military watched on.  Stories of apartheid emerge every day and visitors to the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza will experience them for themselves.  From my own experience I echo the words of an Australian parliamentarian who, following his week in the Palestinian Territories, said “I cannot now unsee what I have seen”.
 
Apartheid is the most apt word to describe the situation faced by Palestinians and I encourage all who claim to stand for universal human rights, especially politicians, to name the reality, in keeping with the legal meaning of the term in international law.
 
On the other hand, Mr Albanese is seriously right in his reassurance that a government he leads will recognise Palestine in its first term.
 
Israeli leadership is of the view that the whole of the West Bank (known in Israel as Judea and Samaria) and East Jerusalem will be part of Israel, but the Palestinians who live in these areas will never be part of Israel.  Numerous senior ministers in the Knesset are on record as saying that not one inch of these lands will ever be ceded to Palestinian control, nor will Palestinians be granted Israeli citizenship. Netanyahu and the current prime minister, Bennett are part of this chorus. It is the charter of the Likud party.
 
In 2010, Henry Siegman, former director of the American Jewish Congress and the Synagogue Council of America, wrote:
Israel’s relentless drive to establish “facts on the ground” in the occupied West Bank … seems finally to have succeeded in locking in the irreversibility of its colonial project. As a result of that “achievement”, one that successive Israeli governments have long sought in order to preclude the possibility of a two-state solution, Israel has crossed the threshold from “the only democracy in the Middle East” to the only apartheid regime in the Western world.
 
That is why recognising Palestine, recognising the right of Palestinians to exist, is so important and the foundation of any just and peaceful future that may lie ahead.  Recognising Palestine does not pre-empt a future.  It is however essential to affirm that both halves of the population that almost equally occupy these lands deserve an equal share in that future.
 
I applaud the courage of Mr Albanese and his colleagues in the Labor Party for making this stand and for staking a claim on the right side of history.
 
Both Israelis and Palestinians deserve better than their current crop of politicians. They serve neither peoples well.  If they stay on their present trajectory, unhappiness fear and violence will be the common lot of all who live in this unique slice of planet earth for the foreseeable future.   But it need not be this way.  There is every reason why respect and a desire for mutuality will lead to shared flourishing. Walls, armaments and a disgraceful political class will keep both peoples from living the life they both deserve.
 
Mr Albanese, thanks so much for your long history of speaking up for human rights, but in this case, do not be afraid to name the situation for what it is, for only in naming it, can pressure be brought to change it.
edit.

The Regurgitation of Barnaby Joyce
 
Usually, news items have no intellectual or emotional impact, either because we have become so conditioned to a situation, however appalling, that its further announcement has become unremarkable, or because the matter simply does not seem relevant.
 
I was therefore surprised at my reaction to the news that Barnaby Joyce had returned as Deputy Prime Minister.  I found the news quite shocking and symptomatic of everything that is wrong with contemporary Australian politics. 
 
Joyce is a flawed human being.  Now, I know all human beings are flawed, none more so than myself.  However, there is something about Barnaby’s flawed nature that presents him as one entirely unsuitable for a position of responsibility, least of all as Deputy Prime Minister.  He seems to be totally consumed with himself. For someone who claims a strong Christian faith within the catholic tradition he appears utterly hypocritical. How can he possibly claim to hold to ‘family values’ and do what he has done to his first family. Given all the unresolved issues about parliamentary culture, he would appear to be the least suited person to take a lead as a standard maker.  He appears a pugnacious grenade thrower, not a reasoned, trustworthy, leader.
 
When I think of the National Party, I think of a political movement that emerged to represent farming and agriculture throughout regional Australia.  One of the politicians I admire most in the Federal Parliament is a farmer who holds a National Party seat in NSW.  Yet, Barnaby Joyce and his key supporters live lives that are far removed from agriculture, (despite owning some land), representing most loudly the interests of miners, particularly in central Queensland. His statements in the last few days all reflect this reality.
 
It is apparently the case that Barnaby Joyce has returned as leader of the National Party because significant power brokers want to prevent further action on emissions reduction, lest the businesses model undergirding fossil fuel extraction be threatened.  This is not the position of the farming community which numerically far exceeds the fossil fuel industry, and which is often adversely affected by it.  With two caveats, the NFF (National Farmers Federation) has signed up to the goal of zero emissions by 2050.  A primary reason for this is that such a goal could, and should, provide economic advantage through carbon sequestration, hosting renewable energy generation projects etc. Such projects potentially increase productivity and provide a cash buffer in times of drought. How relevant are the ambitions of Barnaby Joyce, George Christiansen, or Senator Canavan to Australia’s farming community? Apparently not at all. So, Mr Joyce, it appears your party is not the advocate of regional, agricultural, Australia as you claim.  You are the champion of the mining industry and particularly its wealthy and powerful ownership.  Ironically, you are not doing miners any favours.
 
My contacts in the Hunter Valley tell me that many in the mining industry are all too aware and accepting of the reality that coal has a much-diminished future.  They do not seek open warfare in a fight to the death for an industry that is already being phased down, but they seek fearless advocacy for a place in the technologically attractive post carbon world for which most are uniquely qualified for pioneering employment. It is ironic that miners would be better represented by a party that strongly believes in a new technological future, rather than a party that demonstrates an extraordinary capacity to outdo king Canute.
 
The regurgitation of Barnaby Joyce was heralded by the National Party’s outgoing leader, Michael McCormack, as evidence of the party’s democratic DNA.  That may or may not be a reasonable interpretation. However, the sought for outcome by those who initiated the spill is most undemocratic. Consistent polls show that approximately 70% of Australians want further action on climate change and emissions reduction.   The National Party represents less than 5% of the electorate and given support for change by farmers and the NFF, those who hold the position for which National Party leadership now appears committed, are quite minimal.  And yet. And yet …   representing this small section of the electorate, Joyce along with his supporters, seek to hold the country to ransom by threatening the unity of the coalition unless it toes the line with them.   Nothing could be less democratic.
 
Added to this has been yesterday’s announcement from UNESC0 that they intend to declare the Great Barrier Reef to be endangered.  Scientific observation makes this tragic declaration virtually inevitable.  It is a fact that the Great Barrier Reef employs vastly more people in the tourist industry than will ever be employed in an increasingly mechanised central Queensland mining industry. Why is Mr Joyce more interested in the much smaller coterie of jobs in coal mining than he is in the vast numbers dependent upon the tourist industry?
 
Michael McCormack is an affable but bumbling politician.  It is not unreasonable to think that in Australia’s second most senior politician we might have seen a greater level of competence. Those who know him tell me he is essentially a decent human being. But can the same be said of Mr Joyce?  His first wife and daughters clearly do not think so, nor do many women struggling for a changed culture in a still largely male dominated world.
 
What is beyond dispute is that Australia must step up and take its place in the international family of nations with unequivocal support for action to safeguard ecological and environmental sustainability.  Not to do so is unthinkable.  That a minor political party believes it has the right to scuttle such an aim is quite grotesque.  It is even more grotesque to think that an Australian Prime Minister, having made an undisclosed pact with them for the sake of power retention, should consider this pact more important than the future of the planet.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Domestic Abuse in the Anglican Church and Male Headship
In the last few days, considerable attention has been given to the results of a survey which indicate that domestic violence is not just as prevalent in the Anglican Church as the wider community but is more prevalent.  This is too shocking to grasp.  What possible explanation can we give? Do women gravitate to the Church seeking comfort because of their abuse? I suppose that is possible. But if this is the reason for the shocking statistics, it does not square with the other finding that women seldom seek counsel from Church leadership. The most plausible explanation is that this shocking data relates to teaching within the Church.  In 2017 I wrote the following blog which also appeared in the Melbourne Anglican and has now reappeared on its web page.  It seems as pertinent now as it was then.
 
***********************
JULY 25 2017 “Male headship, which is a non-negotiable article of faith amongst Sydney Anglicans and many Protestant Churches, notably non-aligned Baptist Churches, has received considerable recent attention as a result of journalistic investigation conducted by Julia Baird. Julia is not an anti-Church polemicist, quite the contrary; she and her instantly recognisable family are themselves active in their Christian faith and Church attendance,
 
Julia’s investigation has shown an existential link between this article of faith and the practice of domestic violence. It is hardly surprising therefore that Church leaders, including the Archbishop of Sydney in their defence of this ‘biblical verity’ have argued that any connection between it and domestic violence is the result of a total misunderstanding. But is this defence believable? A spirited defence of headship is required by those who hold it because of their understanding that the proposition is not simply a vague doctrine amongst many others, but rather an essential undergirding of creation’s order.
 
I have no doubt that the vast majority of Christian men who espouse this doctrine  find any form of domestic violence repulsive and in their marriages are genuinely loving; practicing a principle of equality to the very best of their ability.
 
However, there is no getting away from the reality that the flip side of headship is subjugation.  If biblical headship means the one who holds this responsibility is the chief servant and puts himself last, as the Archbishop would have us believe, then I suggest another word or metaphor should be found to express this truth. But this is not what those who espouse this doctrine mean. They mean that the male is the head in a manner that women can never be. This is expressed in the Church through insistence that women should not be licensed to preach, or teach, or hold a position of authority over men. Women are clearly subservient to men.  Its implication in marriage is that men take the lead in decision making. I grew up in a conservative evangelical family where this doctrine was subscribed. It was a loving family and I consider myself to have enjoyed a blessed childhood, but it was a family situation in which my mother accepted with enormous grace and humility that subservience was her lot. It was her grace and humility that formed her children.
 
On the 7.30 Report (July 2017) Archbishop Davies argued his case by saying that men and women are different and there are things women can do that men cannot and vice versa.  The example he gave was that men cannot have babies.  Clearly there are physiological differences between the genders, but it is a long bow to claim that because of physiology, relational or leadership roles are possible to one and not the other.  It seems obvious that roles within marriage are reversible, and that tasks or oversights undertaken by the woman in one marriage are more suited to the man in the other and vice versa.
 
Is the doctrine of male headship arguable from scripture?  Yes of course it is (although not from the teaching of Jesus in the gospels). Does it therefore mean that is right? No, it does not. There are many positions that can be argued from certain biblical texts. Am I inferring that scripture lacks authority? No, I am not.  What I am saying is that scripture speaks to scripture and the overriding character or virtue required of followers of Jesus is a lack of ambition to do anything other than to serve. It cannot, indeed it must not be the implicit or explicit teaching of the Church that anyone has the right, let alone the mandate, to lord it as ‘head’ over another. 
 
Whether or not there is some ‘misunderstanding’ of the doctrine is not the point.  The inference of headship is not acceptable because of the connotations it carries.  Male headship has carried cultural accretions over the years which have taken a long time to be abandoned, sometimes requiring enormous energy. Many would argue, with justification, there remains a long way to go. It is not long ago that female suffrage had to be fought for.  Traditional marriages carry symbolic images of women being passed from one male (parent) to another (husband). While this meaning is not front and centre in the minds of modern brides, nevertheless the ‘giving away’ and the veil carry the inference that female identity is derived through the male.
 
We in Australia must be honest in admitting that domestic violence is endemic and that it is present across all economic, social, racial, and religious communities. Sadly, it is most often present when the family unit is under stress through disadvantage, crisis, change of status and inequality. Statistically domestic violence is most prevalent in indigenous communities.
 
Any teaching that has the capacity for gross manipulation, however wholesome it might seem to its adherents, should be abandoned. Surely the quality one might expect in a Christian home of joint responsibility and loving care expressed through and between parents, does not need to be loaded with a teaching that can have, and does have some very cruel implications”. 
Dr George Browning is the former Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn. This is a slightly edited version of an article he wrote for his blog on 24 July 2017. See http://www.georgebrowning.com.au 
 

​From Memorial to Theme Park
Approval has been granted by the National Capital Authority for the governing body of the National War Memorial in Canberra to turn the Memorial into a theme park and further the myth that values undergirding Australian identity were and are primarily forged in war on foreign lands. There has been a signing off on what are called ‘early works’ of this half billion dollar plus redevelopment.
All this is occurring despite overwhelming public submissions in opposition. These include an almost who’s who of eminent Australians. Opposition focusses on the scandalous attempt to further glorify war and display the apparatus of war. Global armament production has become, a reported 2 trillion USD industry annually, of which more than 70% is reported to be generated and exported by the US.
Why is the Australian War Memorial redevelopment such a bad idea?

1. The AWM is first and last a memorial to those who have sacrificed their lives in war.  This will no longer remain its main feature, this solemn role being replaced through a display of military hardware on a grand scale. The facts of the matter are that, except for the 2nd world war (itself the consequence of failing to deal adequately with the aftermath of the “Great’ War) all the other wars Australia has been engaged in including World War 1, the Vietnam War, the Gulf Wars, and the Afghanistan war have all been fought without proper cause and without resolving whatever it was the war was intended to resolve.

 

1. The ANZAC myth with origin on the Gallipoli shore is indeed a myth.  Australian identity is complex with key elements still awaiting resolution.  The place of the continent’s indigenous people, their culture, language and history, is central to whatever identity Australia and Australians ultimately own.  Australia’s rapidly expanding multi-culturalism and our place in Asia rather than Europe is a key factor.  Add to that, coming to terms with dry and dusty plains and flooding rains, early white settlement, ties to Britain’s imperial past etc makes Australian identity and any values that might be considered unique to us, quite complex and far more nuanced than a simplistic reference to the ‘Anzac myth’.

 

1. The intended massive expansion of this iconic building pays no attention to Australia’s frontier wars.  For decades Australia’s first nations people fought and died to safeguard their lands, culture, and livelihood, many were massacred.  If this is to be a place of memorial worthy of the name for lives lost in war, it must give due recognition to and remembrance of first Australians who fought to be recognised with rights on the land of their birth. Why is it that we glory in the prestige of fighting on foreign lands to safeguard human rights, freedom, and dignity, while denying we have stamped out the very same rights at home?

 
 

1. The proposed development gives unwarranted and undesirable space to the arms industry. The display of its wares and acknowledgement of its donations, bestows honour and esteem where no such honour is due. I am not naïve enough to think there are no alien forces that wish us harm. But the reality is this harm will be inflicted through trade, infiltration of digital platforms and electronic destruction of infrastructure. Ill fortune throughout the globe will also mean thousands, with or without invitation, will seek to call Australia home. Future enemies are not going to be kind enough to hold off until we have working submarines in the late 2030’s that will supposedly enable us to fight a ‘conventional’ war on equal terms.  

 

1. This expansion will not feature the less than desirable, even criminal activity, of Australian forces in times of conflict, as tragically unveiled through the Brereton Report. Of course, the vast majority of past and serving military are gallant, exemplifying a high standard of ethical behaviour.  Nevertheless, no institution least of all one that is honoured as Australia’s most iconic, should be immune from total transparency.

 

1. In November 2019 the outgoing head of the War Memorial, Dr Brendan Nelson said the intended expansion would assist war veterans with their PTSD!  What sort of nonsense is that?  The cause of PTSD is trauma.  The tragic reality is that we do not look after our veterans when they return, too many suffer from PTSD, significant numbers end up ‘on the street’ and far too many commit suicide. If a small proportion of the money to be spent on this outrage was spent caring for veterans, the burden of PTSD might be lessened. Australia’s gallant military pay an exceedingly high price for what too often have been commitments of misguided, ill-informed, political grandstanding.  Legislation should be passed which would make any decision about going to war a decision of the joint houses of parliament, not a decision of the Prime Minister of the time, together with his or her cabinet.

 

1. It is architectural vandalism.  The intended redevelopment includes the demolition of the ANZAC hall, opened in 2001 to significant acclaim.

 

1. Finally, it is a bad idea because of the ideologically driven agenda of the board which appears impervious to public opinion and wishes to exult the idea of a museum or theme park, rather than its true purpose, as a place of solemn memorial.

 
It was the highly respected retired Admiral, Chris Barrie, who described the proposal as a tourist theme Park.  If that is its role, it needs to be relocated to the Gold Coast.   At the heart of Australia’s national capital, it sits facing parliament house, together, their joint placing and purpose signify they are Australia’s two most significant buildings. If parliament house is best known through the spectacle of question time and the memorial through its theme park, we hardly deserve to be taken at all seriously as a nation.  We have apparently become a nation that does not wish to take anything seriously, but rather seeks any amusement, however bizarre, as a source of diversion therapy.