in service of the
​common good
Human Purpose and Destiny
The Festival of Christ the King Significant international conferences are currently being held against the backdrop of seemingly insurmountable global challenges. What questions are being asked and what are appropriate starting points for conversation? Is any attention being given to questions like: what role should government play in human affairs - what is humanity’s goal – wherein does contentment lie – why are we here - what role do we have in the future of the planet – what is the real nature of power and how is it to be exercised? In previous ages, especially the Hellenistic period, from which Western civilisation is deemed to have emerged, such questions were asked. It is no coincidence this is also the period that witnessed the birth of Christianity. Christianity is, in part, a response to these questions. Why then in today’s western world should Christian thought be either totally ignored, mocked, or attacked with a secularist polemic? I know we Christians have given a very poor account of ourselves this century in behaviour and public thought, but I would venture that what now passes for Christian knowledge in the pub, marketplace, and some university halls, is a misrepresented Sunday School level caricature. It is no wonder that with this caricature, Christianity is easily dismissed. This weekend, the Christian Church celebrates the conclusion of its current liturgical year in the celebration of the festival of Christ the King. A primary text for this festival is the hymn to Christ or the hymn to the universe in Colossians 1: 15 -20. This is no Sunday School text, it goes to the questions posed in the opening paragraph and responds in a manner that can and should engage contemporary thought and debate, the very thoughts which initially shaped our civilisation. In a Judaeo Christian world view three mutually accountable roles need to be fulfilled if human life is to peacefully and meaningfully flourish – the roles of prophet, priest, and King. Prophets speaks for righteousness and justice, and conversely speaks against injustice in all its forms. Priests point to life’s vital vertical dimension in a context where life’s horizontal demands seemingly fill all available space. Kings exercise oversight as servants. Whether Australian society gives functional expression to any, or all three, is worth pondering. We have a recent history of thoroughly discouraging prophets (we take them to court), ignoring priests, and removing any vestiture of servant from those who govern. While it is Christian belief Jesus personifies all three, the third role is the focus of this hymn. How all three roles are fulfilled will necessarily reflect prevailing human understandings of the universe and the human place within it. We know 21st century understandings are hotly contested, too often narrowly framed economically, rather than explored expansively and relationally. The Colossian hymn begins with a very bold statement: "Christ is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation…. in him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell". The second of the ten commandments forbade the making of images. In counter intuitive fashion, here we are called to celebrate creation and humanity with new eyes as images of divine nature, for through Christ: "in them God has been pleased to dwell". Seeing with these eyes, attitudes towards the natural order and fellow human beings are transformed. Arrogant racism, featured in the fate of Uyghurs in Xi’s China, or the Rohingya in the military junta’s Myanmar, is also a feature of right-wing governments everywhere and residually part of Australia’s colonial heritage. Theocracy as observed in modern Israel is inherently racist. Racism extinguishes the divine image. Observing the divine image in others made Mother Theresa and Desmond Tutu two of the worlds (few) most respected human beings. They had thoroughly absorbed the rhythm of this hymn. The hymn describes the universe as a single body. That is to say: macrocosm and microcosm correspond to each other in their relationship. That which is true of the whole must be true of every individual part and that which is true of every individual part must find its expression in the whole. Plato conceived the cosmos as a living being with a soul. In Greek thought each part, or individual, is connected to the divine through fullness (pleroma) of the whole. Personification of the natural order has been revisited in recent times by James Lovelock and his Gaia theory in response to the environmental crisis. This hymn declares Christ to be that ʹpleromaʹ or fullness. The depth of thought and understanding that resides here might as well be ignored, for it is a stumbling block to the strident individualism and nationalism which pervades human life and its 21st century economic theories. The hymn concludes with a linkage between creation and redemption. It does not need much concentrated observation to recognise brokenness in the human condition and a void in rhythms necessary to sustain the natural order. Surely it was not meant to be this way? Creation or new life occurs when that which hurts, breaks, or destroys, is overcome by that which redeems and gives life. The hymn celebrates redemption in the death and resurrection of Jesus, who, embodying all humanity and the whole natural order, is redemption’s first fruits. This is the thing. Life as God intends is to be celebrated now, not simply anticipated when the world passes away. Sadly, human investment, individually and nationally, is seldom orientated to redemption. There are myriads of examples. We lock children up (mainly first nation children) rather than invest in their education and rehabilitation. We are reluctant to reform harmful gambling practice because the income is relied upon by government. We refuse to prioritise the planet’s future because of short-term economic self-interest. The adage ʹthere is no gain without painʹ could be reworded: there can be no creation without redemption. Thinking of engaging with Christianity as a way of life? Enter some of the greatest art, music and architecture ever imagined. Share the company of extraordinarily grace filled lives. But above all find in its sacred writings engagement with questions which should be asked and travel its paths in response. Today contemplate: Christ is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation… All things have been created through him and for him… In him the fullness of God was pleased to dwell… Through him God was pleased to reconcile all things to himself.
0 Comments
Ethiopian Civil War and its manufactured humanitarian crisis
The brutal internal conflict between Ethiopian national forces under the leadership of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) has inflicted untold suffering on millions of innocent people. It is estimated between 300,000 and 600,000 have lost their lives, while millions have been displaced. Hardly anyone in the western world will lack knowledge of the Ukrainian war, many absorbing daily information. In raw figures this conflict’s brutality, has been infinitely more horrific, and yet few are cognisant of it, or the humanitarian crisis that has unfolded. This conflict has now been raging for approximately two years. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power in 2018 amidst fresh expressions of hope for a new era of justice freedom and democracy in the horn of Africa. The early signs were good, including the promotion of women to significant positions of authority in politics and civil society. In 2019 Abiy was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for ending a protracted border dispute with Eritrea. Eritrea gained autonomy from Ethiopia in 1993 after a long and bitter struggle. Differences remained. In 2002, the international arbitration commission ruled in favour of Eritrea in an outstanding dispute, but Ethiopia would not accept the ruling. In 2018 Abiy conceded and accepted the ruling. Ethiopia consists of several tribal regions, Oromia being amongst the largest. Tigray, a smaller region in the north, became powerful through its military arm, the TPLF. Formed in 1975, the TPLF was instrumental in the overthrow of Ethiopia’s Derg regime in 1991. Consequently, this province enjoyed considerable power in subsequent Ethiopian governments. Under Abiy Ahmed’s government that power evaporated. Tensions simmered. Hostilities began on 3 November 2020 when the TPLF attacked an Ethiopian Defence Force base in the Tigray region. Conflict quickly escalated and fortunes seesawed. Neighbouring Eritrea, so recently at peace with its Ethiopian cousin, became involved. Unspeakable atrocities have been perpetrated by both sides. Rape and pillage have been weapons of war. Despite not being a party to the conflict, the region to suffer grievously has been Afar. Bordering Tigray to the north and being a crucial trade route to the Red Sea for landlocked Ethiopia, the Afar region became a potential trophy for the TPLF. While there are significant townships in the Afar region, the people and their culture are semi-nomadic. The people received no protection or assistance from the Ethiopian government and have suffered grievously. Stock have been stolen or killed, women raped, young children conscripted, infrastructure destroyed, civilians murdered, livelihoods decimated. No stone has been left unturned in an attempt by the TPLF to destroy the capacity of Afar to survive. It has been left to the Afar themselves, with extremely limited resources, to defend their territory, their people, and their future. Malnutrition and famine have become the lived reality for many, perhaps most. Lacking food, shelter and capacity to quickly rebuild livestock and livelihoods, many Afar are left in a parlous position. Basic infrastructure such as health clinics and schools have been destroyed. On 2 November 2022, an African Union brokered truce between the Ethiopian government and TPLF representatives was signed in Pretoria. Significantly, the TPLF not a representative of the "Tigray government" was signatory to the truce. It is also significant the truce was brokered by the African Union, not by the United Nations. The TPLF is to be disarmed. Considerable concessions have been made on condition that aid will immediately flow to the Tigrayan people. Whether the truce will hold is yet to be determined. The guns were still being fired two days later. Eritrea was not a party to the truce, and it is yet to be seen how they will respond. It is also unclear how the terms of the truce will be transparently monitored and enforced. Most importantly, how is much needed aid to be distributed to Tigray’s starving, and from where is that aid to be sourced? And what of the Afar? Incidental victims of others struggle for power and resources, are they again to be out of sight out of mind? Will international aid be made available to assist these proud and resourceful people to rebuild, and will the Ethiopian government invest fairly in their future? History shows false horizons of hope litter every tortuous road to lasting peace. If apparent victors deal harshly with the vanquished, resentment festers until hostility breaks out once more. The international community carries considerable responsibility for futures yet to unfold. European advancement and prosperity were built through colonisation and the harvesting of assets that belonged to the colonised. Africa continues to suffer the consequences of colonisation. National boundaries were established to suit the needs of competing European interests, not to reflect long developed allegiances and boundaries of the continent’s population. There are multiple reasons why nations whose prosperity was built on the resources of others have not simply a moral obligation but a self-interested obligation to assist those in the world who are struggling.
************************** Bishop Browning’s sister, Val Browning AM, has lived in the Horn of Africa since the 1970s. Through her charity, the Afar Pastoralist Development Association, which she leads with her husband Ismael, she has development an extended network of health clinics and schools. The charity also supports development projects of environmental protection and animal husbandry. East and West Jerusalem
The Albanese government has reversed the recognition of West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Israeli and Palestinian citizens reside in territories that are disputed. Since 1948 it has been an accepted international position that the two peoples should ultimately coexist in peace and security within internationally recognised borders. In the meantime, the only borders to receive tentative recognition are the borders of 1967 which recognise 22% of the historic land of ʹPalestineʹ, as Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Albanese government has enabled Australia to re-join the majority international position which insists the status of Jerusalem can only be resolved in a final peace agreement between the two parties. Taking this step has been urgent, for in recent years the Israeli government has insisted the whole of Jerusalem to be its ʹeternal and undivided capitalʹ. Indeed, on Zionist websites any country that recognises West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is assumed to be recognising the whole of Jerusalem as its capital. These lists have included Australia, even in Morrison’s time a manifestly false position. Criticism of the Albanese government by the Israeli government is both predictable and duplicitous. The reason why no final solution has been achieved is because Israel has no intention of allowing the formation of an autonomous Palestinian State. This has been confirmed in statements by all recent Prime Ministers, Netanyahu, Bennett, Gantz and Lapid. Daily more and more Palestinian land is forcibly resumed by the Israeli government. The denial of human rights to the Palestinian people is brazen and cruel. In turn, the Palestinian people are expected to turn the other cheek and live as if the loss of their land, their rights and freedoms is entirely ok with them. Of course, it is not ok, and never can be ok. No country that honours and observes international human rights should be giving Israel any comfort on its manifestly unjust, and frankly apartheid terms. The public may be unaware that more Australian politicians visit Israel than any other country in the world. Why? Clearly not because of its strategic importance to Australia compared with Indonesia, multiple countries in Asia and Europe etc. It is because of a strident Zionist driven programme of exposing Australian political leadership to an Israeli political narrative. Perhaps Israel may be currently feeling their investment has not yielded what it should! Criticism from the Dutton opposition is as predictable as it is pathetic. The Albanese government has not made a sudden pre-emptive political strike. This was made by Morrison. The move to recognise West Jerusalem was entirely political, both by the US and by Australia. Trump’s decision was motivated by his own domestic politics and his need to please his evangelical right-wing base. It had nothing to do with forwarding the cause of peace. When he opened his new embassy he invited Robert Jeffreys, an evangelical fundamentalist pastor to speak and bless it, a pastor who declared God had decided the Israeli capital 3000 years ago. Here, Morrison’s decision may well have been influenced by his own conservative evangelical beliefs, but it certainly was motivated by Dave Sharma’s need to win the seat of Wentworth. I would like to think most Australians support this correction. I doubt however that in the grand scheme of things it reaps a huge political advantage for the Albanese government. This is what makes it even more commendable. The Albanese government has done the right thing because it is the right thing and because it has long been its publicly stated position. It is also significant the Albanese government is again making clear it is prepared to plough its own furrow in international affairs, independently of the stance taken by the US. If Penny Wong and the government have made an error, it is in their timing. The change was made public on the Jewish festival of Simchat Torah, the last day of Sukkot the festival of Booths or Tabernacles. It is a joyous day of celebration, especially for children and marks the end of one annual cycle of readings from the Torah and the commencement of another. Serendipitously this invites another insight. The late UK Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, pointed out the torah, the first five books of Hebrew scriptures contain two covenants: one specific, the Abrahamic covenant; and one universal, the covenant with all living following the creation narrative of the flood. He pointed out that any specific covenant we may feel God has made with us, be we Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or any other religion, must always be understood in consideration of the universal covenant. The Balfour declaration of 1917, which promised a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as odious and presumptive as it certainly was, at least contained the following: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". The strategy of the Israeli government, which is not the same as a strategy of Jewish people, assumes a religious history, but ignores the insight of Rabbi Lord Sacks. This strategy assumes specialness for itself regardless of the affect it has on others and ignores the reality that whatever specialness any of us might assume personally, or nationally, is always conditional and restricted by the rights and specialness of others. Anointed not Appointed: Reign not Rule
It is somewhat disappointing that in the wall-to-wall coverage of the death of Queen Elizabeth ll, there has been so little analysis of her faith which became the cornerstone for qualities that have been universally admired. Of course, there is much to caricature, even belittle in the very nature of British royalty: how they became descendants of Queen Anne, elitism, wealth and privilege, personal scandal, the utterly bizarre way Henry Vlll was invested with the title of ʹDefender of the faithʹ by Pope Leo X, suppression and colonisation during their reigns, etc. We all know that. But the reality is that most British people and perhaps the majority of Australian people saw in her qualities that united and uplifted in stark contrast to the tawdriness of political life with which we have all been recently ruled and afflicted. If you doubt her desire to serve and be one with her people, look again at the picture of her, black, masked, and alone in St George’s chapel Windsor at the funeral of her husband at the height of the pandemic while her Prime Minister was cavorting at his Downing Street parties. How Australia became a modern nation, much loved by its inhabitants and a desired destination for many others, is quite scandalous. Later comers became prosperous at the expense of Australia’s first nation inhabitants. We cannot turn the clock back, but by commitment to higher ideals we can redress the past and forge a fairer and more just future. We need to immerse ourselves in first principles. The coronation service is a profoundly religious or spiritual ceremony, not simply a civic service with overblown pageantry. More important than the placing of the crown is the moment that precedes it – the anointing. With holy oil the Archbishop of Canterbury will anoint the head, heart and hands of the monarch with the sign of the cross. When George ll was crowned in 1727, George Frederick Handel composed an anthem for the occasion called "Zadok the Priest". It has been sung at every coronation since. Sometimes the most inciteful theologians are not clergy, but artists, poets, architects, and musicians. The lyrics for this beautiful piece are quite simple: "Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon king" followed by much rejoicing and God save the king! This is a masterful composition with a lyric chock full of unchanging aspiration for shared life on this planet. Let me explain: In the ancient Hebrew tradition three figures existed in co-dependence in service of the people – prophet, priest, and king. It was the role of the priest to draw people beyond the often trivial, too often conflictual, usually selfish realities of human life, to a reality beyond themselves – let us call this reality the divine, in whose company all are accountable. Sadly, the role of priest often then, and now, shrinks into cultic service of a particular brand, the brand seeming to have more importance than the divine itself. I have just experienced the exhibition Connections at the national museum in Canberra. Quite stunning. Clearly Australia’s first nations people enjoyed their equivalent of priest at the highest possible level, connecting them to everything – and beyond. Western civilisation is in danger of losing the priestly class it desperately needs, those claiming to be in this class too often exhibiting a narrow and self-serving institutional dogma and ideology. Queen Elizabeth ll was shaped in the Anglican Church and unwavering in her Christian commitment, but had the capacity, as we saw in her Christmas addresses, to rise beyond cultural narrowness to the honouring of spiritual awareness that could and should be the aspiration of all. Nathan the prophet is most famous for calling David to account for stealing the wife of one of his soldiers and then having that soldier killed. The role of prophet is absolutely essential, but quite burdensome. It is to point to injustice, where it exists, and advocate for a better, fairer, more harmonious, more just way of life, based on ideals and principles which, in a Christian context, are clear in the Gospels. Where are today’s prophets? Officers of institutionalised religion? Sometimes perhaps, but sadly not often enough. They have often been scientists proclaiming inconvenient truths. They have been voices of minority groups who have challenged majority comfort. Frequently they have been the voices of the maligned, the wrongfully imprisoned and the dispossessed. It is not easy for a monarch to speak with prophetic voice, for such engagement is likely to be interpreted as political interference. However, it is important. The new monarch will need to acknowledge and address the way in which Britain has benefited from past dispossession of others. He will need to continue his advocacy for an environmentally sustainable world. He will need to celebrate, as he has, a rich diversity of people without fear or favour. He will need to balance the cost of pageantry and history much beloved and expected by the British people, with a transparent accounting for, and distribution of wealth. The monarch is anointed with these two identities – priest - lifting us beyond ourselves, and - prophet - calling us to a fairer more just and harmonious world. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that the office of monarch exists because of these identities. The monarch does not rule. The monarch exists to embody the identity to which the people aspire, not in position or wealth, but in the virtues that undergird true human being. In the minds of most Britains, Queen Elizbeth ll fulfilled this role on their behalf. It is Christian belief, and certainly my belief, that in Jesus, prophet, priest, and king are fully present. I personally believe Australia should produce its own head of state, but in doing so, finding a model through which these identities can be expected to be present will be far from easy. In presidential form, there are few heads of states anywhere in the world who commend themselves. Charles has said he wishes to be known as ʹdefender of faithsʹ, not ʹdefender of the faithʹ. Rather than a diminishment of his role as head of the Church of England, I perceive this to be exactly the step that an Anglican Christian, worthy of the name, should take in a modern multi-faith world. To be Anglican is to embrace all Christians as brothers and sisters and to be Christian is to heighten and respect the spiritual awareness and distinctiveness of others. Pearls and Swine: Wood and Trees
Christian faith, both its belief and its practice, is in serious decline in the western world, this hardly needs stating. However, what is relatively new is that agnostic passivity has more recently given way to active and at times aggressive opposition, cynical characterisation, and ridicule. Why is this so? There can be no easy answer, indeed, there are no doubt a multiplicity of answers, including scandal and major societal changes; but a significant reason is a religious literalism which makes nonsense of 21st century life’s experience and knowledge and feeds a belittling characterisation. The Anglican Church claims to be strongest in Africa, amongst our Pacific neighbours, and in pockets of Asia. Why? Not because of a set of dogmas or doctrine, but because in these diverse cultures the Church lies at the heart of community life and its celebration. The attraction of Christianity amongst the poor and oppressed in the developing world is not hard to explain. This was the identity Jesus chose, the company he sought, and in whose voice he spoke. But beyond ghettos and the company of the struggling, cultures whose identity is confirmed through communal celebration, are the natural home for people of faith across all religions. This does not make such people and cultures less intelligent, more open to superstition, less liberated by science. It highlights an essential dimension of being human we in the West have significantly lost, much to our detriment and grief. We have become so infatuated with individual identity and dogmatic assertion that our very humanity, always more corporate than individual, is severely diminished. The emergence of the Diocese of the Southern Cross (GAFCON) and its arrogant claim to ʹorthodoxyʹ (by implication saying that those who do not adhere to its interpretation of truth are unorthodox – even heretical) does nothing to address the urgent claims of Christ, either in the West or in the developing world. In the West the claims of groups like GAFCON have made the proclamation of the faith infinitely harder, and the ears of the general population hardened against listening. Let me explain: The West (GAFCONʹS north) Knowledge of Christianity in the West is now quite abysmal, but it is worse than that, large sections of the population have a caricature of Christianity in their heads which they then conveniently and vehemently reject. This caricature is fed, in large part, by those who take a literal or fundamentalist approach to every verse of scripture without reference to the whole of scripture. (Last Sunday the lectionary led us to a verse in Luke’s Gospel which reads: "Unless you hate your father and mother …you cannot be my follower." Versions of this text exist in other NT writings and in pseudo-canonical writings). Is that verse to be taken literally? Of course not. Scripture demands we hold in tension apparently irreconcilable opposites knowing that truth is found in the paradox or tension between them. Christianity has given credal affirmation to truth in paradox in requiring submission to the reality that God is both one and three and that Jesus is both man and God. Scripture focusses human identity in a name – Adam. This identity connects us to the earth – the Adamah. We are earth creatures made truly alive through wind or breath. Adam is both singular and plural. Adam is the name of the human race, but equally Adam is known as every individual. In the West we over emphasise the individual ʹadamʹ and undervalue the whole ʹadamʹ of whom we are all part. The scriptural paradox is that while every individual is unique, we become whom we should be through relationship with others and not least the earth itself, from which our name is drawn. Paul said that in the realm of God there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female, bond or free. He may equally have said there is neither heterosexual nor homosexual. In other words, there can be no differentiation in value or respect between people who live who they are. The counter side to this story is of course there should be unequivocal condemnation of heterosexuals or homosexuals who use their orientation for exploitation. The Developing world (GAFCONʹS Global South) This serendipitously draws us into the developing world. Some years ago, I spent a week in the HIV AIDS hospital in Soweto, South Africa. Most of the patients were heterosexual. In the male group meetings, skiting about sexual prowess and conquests dominated conversations. In the circumstance, this was almost impossible to comprehend. There was one homosexual in the group and the last to speak. Disgusted with what he was hearing, he said to his heterosexual peers: "Your manhood is not tied to your sexuality it is expressed through the discipline you set, the example you offer, the respect you demonstrate to others". Which of this group was most deserving of blessing, or indeed who sounded most Christ like? President Thabo Mbeki was slow and reluctant to respond to the HIVAIDS crisis because he was reluctant to tread on what was perceived to be part and parcel of African male identity – sexual profligacy. In scriptural terms, this was and is a far bigger issue than dealing with same gender attraction. Indeed, the latter is a very convenient distraction. A visit to the refugee camp at Deepsloot outside Pretoria magnified many times over for me the issue of perceived male rights and privileges and female subservience. In my last blog I pointed to how the extraordinary and wilfully distracting focus on same gender attraction in Rwanda potentially diverted attention from the Church’s involvement in the genocide, which should have absorbed every ounce of retrospection available. That truth is revealed in paradox and seldom if ever in singular assertions is one of the Christian pearls so often "trodden by swine" in the binary addicted West. No time to develop it here, but communism and capitalism, the chief foci of global struggle in all our lifetimes are equally capable of half-truth, distortion, and chaos. Each needs to be moulded through the prism of the other. The Diocese of the Southern Cross is far from an orthodox oasis planted in a barren landscape of heretical syncretism. It is the opposite. Christian orthodoxy does not hold to one truth while at the same time denying another. Sexuality of any form that is exploitative should be condemned. However, it is the antithesis of Christian faith to condemn or exclude any human being simply for being who they are. It is ironic that many outside the boundaries of formal Christian faith understand this. That is why GAFCON verities have made the telling of the Christin faith so much harder and deafened the ears of those who might otherwise have listened. A swan that quacks like a duck must be a duck
In contemporary English, a cult is generally understood to mean a group committed to a particular or singular personality, ideology, or goal; one that distinguishes them from mainstream practice or belief. The recently announced ʹDiocese of the Southern Crossʹ sadly fits this description, notwithstanding their cries to the contrary and their claim to be ʹAnglicanʹ. Given the respect in which I have previously held its main instigator, Bishop Glen Davies, it grieves me to say so, knowing as I do that ʹcultʹ carries with it pejorative connotations. The Anglican Church has always understood itself to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Its distinguishing features of identity have not been doctrinal or ideological, but cultural and historical as its original name implies - the Church of England. The historic creeds are foundational to this universal Church and are deemed a sufficient summary of biblical truth. In other words, what makes a person Christian is belief in God who is known to us as the source of life, who is revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in whose Spirit we seek truth, wisdom and transformation. There is no space within this One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for a person or group to decide a particular aspect of biblical truth, as they interpret it, carries sufficient weight to define membership and exclude others. The Church has historically refused to be so specifically or narrowly defined. It is bizarre that views on sexual orientation and gender orientation have been chosen as sufficient reason for separation, given that primacy of marriage between males and females has been upheld by the recent Lambeth conference and no Australian Anglican clergy person is currently licensed to conduct marriage for a same sex couple. Give us a break. Context is everything. The national leader of another denomination once confided in me "the Anglican Diocese of Sydney is not a Protestant Church, it is a Puritan Church". I asked what he meant, to which he replied: "a Protestant Church is committed to reform within a context, a Puritan Church is committed to an ideology without a context". Every period of history has been troubled, but none more so than our present time. If I were to choose an area of biblical ethics or morality to wear as a necessary badge of identity it certainly would not be judgement about sexual orientation or indeed of male headship. I frankly do not understand how a person of Christian commitment is not in the absolute vanguard of environmental responsibility. Similarly, I do not understand how a person who claims to be Christian, can seek to flourish from neo-liberal capitalist systems in which the poor flounder and the rich flourish. Nor do I understand how a bishop can remain quiet about the obvious lack of transparency on the conservative right of politics. In other words, the bible has far more to say about the misuse of power, about inequality, about the despoiling of the natural order, than it does about sexual orientation. Please, if you are going to choose a moral or ethical line in the sand, at least choose one that has both biblical prominence and contextual urgency. We have been told this diocese will not seek to be in communion with Canterbury but with GAFCON (Global Anglican Futures Conference). ʹBeing in communion withʹ means being accountable or answerable to. Members of the Anglican Church are not permitted to engage in any practice which is not acceptable to the International Anglican Communion through Canterbury as it focus. GAFCON is both the financial and ideological child of the Diocese of Sydney. In stating its intention to be in communion with GAFCON, this ʹdioceseʹ is asserting accountability to and by itself, sadly another aspect common to all cult like behaviour. There are significant dangers inherent in commitment to single focus orientation, indeed such focus is frequently used as a distraction from more confronting, but less palatable realities. When GAFCON began, one of the first Provinces to seek membership was Rwanda. At the time Rwanda was still recovering from its 1994 genocide in which some of its bishops had been so implicated that they could not continue in office. I called on the then Rwandan Primate in his home Diocese six years after the genocide. I found it incomprehensible then and find it incomprehensible now that this Province, which in churchmanship would otherwise have little in common with Sydney, should embrace a distraction from an issue which should have been all consuming. We are led to understand the Anglican Diocese of Sydney will remain intact and, while supportive of this new venture, and of GAFCON, will seek to remain an Anglican Diocese, yet not in communion with Canterbury. (For the second time Sydney bishops did not attend the once every decade conference of bishops at Canterbury). What an absolute contradiction of loyalties and blatant self-interest! All NSW bishops have sworn loyalty to the Archbishop of Sydney as metropolitan. For integrity’s sake should he now communicate with them and offer to absolve them of this commitment? To be Anglican, the primary and absolute commitment is to Lambeth – not to Sydney The highly respected journalist, Julia Baird, has constantly pointed to the danger of another defining issue of the Diocese of Sydney – the doctrine of male headship. It has implications far beyond the reality that women cannot become priests or bishops in that Diocese. Australia’s law makers from the Attorney General down are currently devising laws that will criminalise coercive behaviour as abuse, even if it does not manifest in violent behaviour. Baird is the first to point out we can assume most people who hold this doctrine do not behave in a coercive manner. However, the problem is that this doctrine gives comfort to those who are so inclined, and polls have shown coercive behaviour to be above national average figures in Anglican homes – including vicarages. Bishop Glen Davies is reported to have said the creation of this diocese will "send shivers up the spine of many Anglican bishops". It will, but not for the reason he rather patronisingly assumes. It sends shivers up my spine that intelligent Christians, following Christ in the business of redemption of fellow humans and the whole created order would choose this badge of identity, this ʹline in the sandʹ. It sadly means that even fewer members of the wider population will feel we have anything to contribute, or that our company is a fellowship they wish to keep. Trust – Facing Extinction
Is there commonality between the various items of bad, even frightening news, that daily inflict our senses domestically and internationally? Conversely, is there a theme that runs through the occasional glimpses of sunlight with which we are blessed if we know where to look? I suggest the theme is trust, or more specifically its absence, in the rise and rise of personal or national self-interest, falsely masquerading as security and wellbeing– religious, ethnic, political, or economic. Trust is a precious commodity; with it all manner of things are possible. In its absence little is possible. Trust expands horizons; its absence shrinks life’s experiences, reducing existence to tiny platforms over which individuals, communities, or nations seek to exercise total control. We are born with a considerable capacity for trust. Growth in formative years depends on it. However, trust betrayed reduces this capacity and shuts down what should have been an expanding life. From time to time we have all acted in ways that diminish trust, but equally, in generosity of spirit, we all possess the capacity to build or rebuild trust. No one in a position of authority can effectively empower those for whom they have been entrusted with responsibility unless they are themselves trusted. Scott Morrisonʹs sermon at Margaret Court’s Church in WA a few weeks ago was quite shocking. He said we should not trust governments (by implication we should not trust institutions), especially we should not trust the United Nations. We can only trust God. Trust in God is common to all people of faith, regardless of the religion they follow. For Christians it is founded in belief that God is never other than what we have come to know and experience in Jesus. God serves us and the whole created order with a towel and bowl of water. Christians do not trust that nothing ill will befall us, but that love will nourish us. Further, because Christian belief is incarnational, we believe any trait or character that undergirds relationship with God should also characterise all other relationships. (If you do not love your sister/brother whom you have seen, how can you love God whom you have not seen.) However imperfect, no human relationship is possible without trust. For governments to govern they require trustful cooperation from citizenry. That the Morrison government was not trusted is now a sad fact of history, leaving the incoming government with the responsibility of restoring trust, a more challenging goal than seeking to pass any single piece of legislation. Greg Sheridan’s defence of Morrisonʹs sermon was flawed. In his article: ̋Lost in the Secular Desert ", (Australian 22-24 July) he argued criticism of Morrison was an ill directed secular attack on a legitimate expression of Christian belief. Not so. Morrisonʹs speech was not a legitimate expression of Christian belief. To encourage lack of trust in governmental institutions was wrong. Consciously or unconsciously, the sermon may have been an attempt to justify his own, largely discredited, government. In human affairs it must always be the case that legitimate instruments of governance are trusted. The alternative is anarchy. Sheridan was also in error in not giving sufficient weight to the numerous ways in which sectional Christian voices have undermined validity that might otherwise be given to a Christian voice in contemporary public life. (Sydney Anglican denial of legitimacy to same sex unions, the Catholic Church’s plenary council initial deafness to the voice of women, Hillsong controversy, being recent examples). Morrison’s reference to the United Nations was also deeply troubling. It is true that the United Nations is no more effective than its constituent members allow. It has been undermined by the self-interest of many nations including Australia. But global challenges are increasing the necessity of mechanisms to deal with issues that are well beyond the capacity of single (or even groups of nations) to address on their own. Many on the religious and political right deride the UN, depicting it as a non-elected power, seeking world domination. This conspiracy theory carries weight in fundamentalist Churches whose sympathetic ear Morrison was presumably addressing. In agencies of the UN that deal with human rights, health, global poverty, and the environment, we need more trust, not less. The two greatest existential threats to the planet are, as they have been for decades, nuclear and environmental catastrophe. Apparently nine nations collectively hold about 14,000 nuclear weapons. Given most global tensions involve one or more nations in possession of these weapons, monumental consequences must make their utility unthinkable. Even amongst foes, channels of communication must remain open and sufficient trust exist that will ensure accident or pre-emptive strike do not occur. In this context, it is difficult to understand what contribution was made towards trust and openness by Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taipei. Australia is not without guilt in the lack of trust that currently exists between us and China. In matters of less weight, laughing about sea rise did little to engender trust with pacific nations and bugging East Timor for financial gain did little to build trust with our poorest neighbour. On the environmental front the situation could not be more dire, or the way out more clear. At ground zero trust is essential. Trust in the science. Trust in effective policies. Trust that we can turn around and eventually reverse post-industrial revolution harm. Notwithstanding the defiant rumbling of a small conservative rump, the vast majority now understand a stable and liveable planet is not just a pious ideal, it is in fact mutual self-interest. No one nation, let alone a single individual, can make much difference. We must act, trusting our actions will galvanise others. The future of the planet will not survive the continuing pursuit of aggressive and at times cynical self-interest. True leadership forges alliances across difference. Alliances offering mutuality are held together by trust.
A National Well-Being Budget
Every functioning household knows the importance of budgeting. No more so than when hopes, expectations and demands exceed resources available. What is possible at one moment may not be possible at another. A priority at one moment will change in different circumstances. A good budget is one that reflects the values of the household and contributes to its wellbeing. A good budget always has a long view in mind. A nation is a large-scale household. Without values that are well articulated and substantially owned, governmental policy becomes stuck on means – money, rather than the value-based aspirations wealth should resource. It is therefore with a considerable sense of hope and anticipation we might look forward to Jim Chalmers first budget which, he states, will be set within a values framework and will begin to set economic policy in the context of national wellbeing. When Chalmers first promulgated such a framework, he was mocked by then treasurer Josh Frydenberg in his famous Ashram speech. ̋The member for Rankin is about to deliver his first wellbeing budget. He walks barefoot into the chamber… robes are flowing, incense is burning … beads in one hand, speech in the other … gone are the seats, gone are the benches and in their place, meditation mats for all ̏. One can safely assume the now opposition will be equally deriding. Historically, colonisation has never been about ʹcivilising the nativesʹ but about stripping assets from the colonised. While Australia has long since grown passed its early years of British colonising, our economic mind set continues to be one of lifestyle funded by the stripping of natural resources with little thought given to future consequences. We have not ʹcivilisedʹ Australia’s first nation people but plundered their culture and assets. Focusing on wellbeing is one step towards civilising ourselves. Apart from Bhutan, countries that have embarked on this journey include Iceland, Finland, and New Zealand. Interestingly Iceland embarked on this journey following its dramatic 2008 global economic crisis collapse. Its successful recovery is attributed to owned values and priorities. Finland is measured as the globe’s most liveable country, Australia is currently home to approximately 26 million people. Our national politicians have almost exclusively engaged with us in fiscal terms as if economic wealth is the only measure of individual or national wellbeing. It appears to be the only pillar supporting the house that is Australia. When he was national treasurer, Joe Hockey famously divided Australians between lifters and leaners. Lifters being those who generate money, leaners those who are a cost to the national budget. Let us understand what we mean by the economy. Its Greek linguistic origins can be translated ʹhouse rulesʹ, or the business of divvying up resources to cover household activity. ʹEcologyʹ on the other hand with the same linguistic origins means ʹhouse wisdom or knowledgeʹ, how things hold together. Unless we own values of wellbeing upon which our house holds together, economic expenditure will simply be a response to short term populous request, a response which has a single political aim, the return of the treasury bench to another term in government. Within the confines of a 1000-word blog, may I proffer two values (amongst many others) that should contribute to the values framework in which the October wellbeing budget will be set. 1.We are all custodians of intergenerational equity It is normally expected each generation should exceed the general prosperity of those that preceded it. However, there are a variety of reasons for fearing that, from the millennial generation onward, the future may in fact be far less attractive than the past. Decline is difficult to reverse. In many first nations cultures ensuring the strength and stability of future generations is amongst the highest of values. The biblical genealogical tradition emphasises the importance of continuity, honouring the past and bequeathing a future. With this value in mind, the budget must undergird:
2.Those who have much, do not have too much; and those who have little, do not have too little. This (biblical) proposition should be considered essential for the long-term stability and harmony of any society. However, at both ends of this spectrum Australia is failing abysmally. At the top of the pyramid, it is obscene that executives can be paid an annual 8 figure sum. No one should be paid 20+ times the salary of their lowest paid employee. (A few are receiving 100 times that salary). The incoming government has been wedged into agreeing tax reductions for the wealthiest quartile. The Howard/Costello government legislated largesse to the wealthiest segment of society which can no longer be afforded. Jim Chalmers will need much courage and informed goodwill to enact overdue reform. At the bottom of the pyramid many who work in service delivery (Hockey’s leaners), are inadequately remunerated. Why is a skilled nurse, or aid, valued much less than a person working in finance or a trade? (answer – because in a neo-liberal capitalist framework they do not generate money). Why can thousands hold the keys to multiple empty (holiday) homes without redress, while thousands of others are homeless? Why can renters have their tenancies terminated when higher rental is available from holiday lets. At a time when pressure will rightly be exerted to reduce expenditure, Jim Chalmers will need courage to assist various categories of citizens, who have too little. Josh Frydenberg’s mocking of a values-based, wellbeing orientated, budget was entirely misplaced. It will however require considerable courage and skill to take the country down this overdue path. There is no alternative. Stay as we are, and much needed reform is denied. As trust and respect returns to politics, much needed reform can be enacted. From what we have observed so far, little goodwill will be forthcoming from an Opposition which appears to be modelling itself on Tony Abbott – ʹdisagree with everything, cooperate with nothingʹ. Much will be expected by the Australian community from those in neither major political party to ensure that in the next three years we invest in values which secure a robust just and harmonies future. Except for those living in poverty, it is the case that there is little correlation between wealth and happiness or wellbeing. Far more significant relational issues are at play. May the national household wellbeing budget wisely reflect these aspirations. Australian Children in Syrian Camps
The Albanese government has had bequeathed to it several unresolved human rights scandals which together have severely shrunk the moral character of Australia and Australians. Notable among them has been the plight of Australian overseas citizens who have fallen from grace. These and similar matters have remained hidden from view or considered not Australia’s problem out of a disgracefully weaponised view of Australian security needs. The Biloela family are on their way to having permanent security. Whistle blowers such as Bernard Collaery are hopefully on their way to being lauded for the service they have rendered rather than punished for a supposed crime they have committed. But, yet to reappear from the shadows are the 60 Australian citizens, 40 of them children, still reported to being held in appalling conditions in Syrian camps under Kurdish control. These people are ideological pawns in a politically partisan game. Barnaby Joyce once described politics as a game, a statement that succinctly defines the previous governments approach on this and other multiple fronts. As Prime Minister Albanese has said in a slightly different context: ʺAustralia is better than thisʺ. The seeds of ISIS were sown in 2004 following the end of the Iraq war and the overthrow of the Sunni led government. The consequences of overthrowing a Sunni government to advantage a Shia led authority could have been calculated in advance but were not. Through clever propaganda, largely on social media platforms, Sunni youth from many countries were attracted to the cause of righting a perceived wrong inflicted by the West, rejecting so called western cultural excesses, and to living under the umbrella of an idyllic Islamic caliphate with Islamic values. The awful reality was of course it’s very antithesis, a life of cruel savagery. Fear and destruction continued for more than 12 years. But by the close of 2017 ISIS had lost 95% of its territory and by 2018 had been decimated, if not eliminated. Left behind were multiple victims, most obviously large swathes of cultural destruction and brutalised lives across Iraq and Syria. Under this dreadful pile of victimhood, barely visible, lie the wives of its defeated military – and their children. Several female Australian Islamic youth had been attracted/recruited. Many, perhaps most, were not active participants in ISISʹ cruel and savage campaign. They chose or were cajoled into being wives of ISIS militia. They have subsequently borne their children. There should be no bar to their return to Australia. Those, now mothers, who were directly involved in ISIS atrocities must face the consequences of their actions. But the consequences should be faced in Australian courts and under Australian law. After appropriate reparation, a civilised country will aways attempt restoration for those of its own citizens who have fallen foul of their own ill-conceived choices. It hardly needs to be said that children can never be held accountable for the actions of their parents. Nor does it need to be said that civility has many measures, but none more significant than the way a nation cares for and protects its vulnerable children. Until they are brought home, the psychological damage already inflicted upon these children cannot be measured, let alone treated. They have seen and heard levels of brutality to which no child should ever be exposed and from which a healthy adult life will struggle to emerge. They desperately need to live as children should live, in safety and freedom. In the meantime, it is understood serious disease and hunger haunts the camps, made worse through the covid pandemic. Most of the children and their mothers are reported to being held in the Roj camp, roughly 30 kilometres from the Iraq border. There is only one modest healthcare facility in the camp to treat around 2,500 camp residents. It enjoys grossly inadequate supplies and is only able to provide basic care. It is clear the Australian people have been deceived. No serious attempt was made by the Morrison government to repatriate the children, with or without their mothers. In October 2021 Mat Tinkler the deputy CEO of ʹSave the Childrenʹ said “Clearly the Australian Government is not trying hard enough to protect these children, who are Australian citizens. The question is, are they trying at all?” According to the October 2021 7.30 Report, the Morrison Government had had no communication with the Kurdish authorities about the repatriation of its citizens since 2019, despite suggesting in a letter to the United Nations that there was “regular engagement”. The excuse given by the Morrison government for inaction was that repatriation was not being facilitated by Kurdish authorities, and it was too dangerous. This statement flies in the face of the fact that Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, Iraq, Finland, and Britain have successfully repatriated citizens. The eventual overthrow of ISIS was in no small part due to the courage, tenacity, and military skill of the Kurds. The Kurds are themselves victims of geo-political alliances. Treated at best as nuisances and worst as enemies of state in both Türkiye and Syria, they need and deserve the support of the international community in the alleviation of the burden they carry - not of their own making. It is unjust that with their limited resources they are left to care for families and children who ought to be the responsibility of other foreign governments, including Australia. Dr Abdul Karim Omar, co-Chair of the Foreign Relations Commission for the Kurdish Administration indicated in his interview with the 730 Report that there had been no communication with the Australian Government about the repatriation of Australian citizens. ʺThere is currently no dialogue between us in relation to any other handovers or in relation to funding support to be provided by the Australian Government for the costs of looking after ISIS fighters and their familiesʺ. The Albanese government cannot be expected to resolve all the issues requiring moral rectitude bequeathed to it in its first month in office. However, the salvation of Australian children languishing in Syrian camps, casualties of a conflict long over, and now mostly forgotten, is urgent – very urgent. Christianity and its shrinking footprint.
ʺOnly forty four percent identify as Christianʺ – so screams headline analysis of the Australian 2021 national census. For most Australians and for a variety of reasons, institutional Church has become increasingly barren soil for the practice of Christian faith, let alone its discovery. In our 21st century multifaith multicultural society, past tribal allegiances that shored up religious identity and belonging, no longer have the same relevance, except for migrant groupings for whom religious and ethnic identity remain intertwined. When I commenced my ministry in 1966 88% of the population identified as Christian with one third identifying as Anglican. Now, from a Church insider’s perspective, it would be easy to excuse this downward spiral as a general trend of institutional mistrust, without seriously examining the capacity of Churches to be the vibrant conduit of Christian practice in a vastly different age. Is it the case that the general population is less hungry for spiritual meaning than its predecessors or is the truth less palatable, churches have shown themselves incapable of feeding or even reaching the spiritual aspirations of most 21st century Australians? The problem facing the Church has of course been made immeasurably more difficult by the scandals that have rocked it through the findings of the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse. However, the Church has made the situation worse by doubling down on its own internal concerns and desire to survive. Listen to the conversations of most Church synods or in the case of the Catholic Church, its Plenary Council, and you will hear much about preserving internal institutional life, not so much about how to engage our greatly troubled world and its individual members with a gospel of grace and life. It would also be easy to regurgitate the cry of the 70ʹs and 80ʹs ʹthe age of religion is overʹ, science has made religion redundant; we have entered a new golden age of secularism. In some respects, the reverse is true. India, Turkey, Russia, Sri Lanka, the US have all moved significantly away from secularism to become, or nearly become, theocratic states with nationalistic ambitions reinforced through the religion of that state. Few would disagree that there is far more to being human than popular success or material wealth. The much beloved Ash Barty has amply demonstrated this truth. Surveys show Generation Y (Millennials) are more empathetic, more likely to share with others, more concerned about equity and common good – yes, more spiritual than either Generation X or the Boomer generation. Materialism is not the answer to the world’s deepest longings. What then is the Church’s future, or does the Church have a future? The Church does have a future, but what it looks like and how people relate to it will not remain constant. The structure and form of the Anglican Church, of which I am a committed member, remains largely the same as it did in previous centuries. This worked well until the 1960s, but the decades since have seen such vast changes in every dimension of life that old structures simply cannot accommodate spiritual aspirations which inevitably emerge from every other aspect of life. Jesus said: ʺUpon this rock I have built my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against itʺ. The rock referred to in this dramatic assertion is not the institution that has evolved but faith: faith that God in Christ is present and does not need to be brought to this place or time, or any place or time (read the prologue of Johnʹs Gospel); faith that life, forgiveness, restoration is constantly on offer; faith that time and eternity merge in a new creation; faith that each individual is made complete through belonging, faith that love conquers all, faith that peace is made possible in love; faith that every individual matters because of what they bring to the whole, faith that in Christ humanity is embraced by divinity. Now, who would not want to hear, experience, and embrace such a transformative faith? I cannot outline a blueprint for the unfolding future but can perhaps make some observations.
John wrote: ʺI have written what I have written that you might know that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and that in him you will have lifeʺ. Christianity is not fundamentally about dogma or religion. It is about life and discovering wisdom to live it in its fullness. Every encounter, every conversation, should be about this matter and this alone. Here in lies the Good News. |
|
Proudly powered by Weebly