The seduction of misinformation

​“Elon Musk's X has disabled a feature that lets users report misinformation about elections”.
While not surprising, this disturbing piece of news illustrates more than anything the absolute madness of the contemporary world, described in the presidential speech by António Guterres at the UN Assembly on September 21 in the following terms:

“I am here to sound the alarm:  The world must wake up. We are on the edge of an abyss — and moving in the wrong direction…. We face the greatest cascade of crises in our lifetimes… 
 
A surge of mistrust and misinformation is polarizing people and paralyzing societies…
 
This is a moral indictment of the state of our world. It is an obscenity. 
We passed the science test. But we are getting an F in Ethics….
 
The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a code red for humanity. COVID and the climate crisis have exposed profound fragilities as societies and as a planet…
 
Yet instead of humility in the face of these epic challenges, we see hubris. 
Instead of the path of solidarity, we are on a dead end to destruction.
At the same time, another disease is spreading in our world today:  a malady of mistrust.”
 
At all times in our lives, we rely on trustworthy information to inform decision making. Trust is life’s most indispensable ingredient. We do not live isolated lives, whether we are prepared to acknowledge it or not, we are community beings.  Even the most informed of us have limited expertise across a wide range of topics and skills necessary for basic daily living.   We rely, consciously or unconsciously, on an army of others.  When information becomes unreliable and trust disappears, choosing, even in service of self-interest, let alone ethically, becomes impossible. The harmonious functioning of society becomes impaired and more likely - fractured. (Britain’s Brexit debacle is a good example of choices being made based on fabricated information).
 
Increasingly, social media is becoming the platform of choice for information, whether it be local gossip, or information that has the potential to change national and international affairs.
 
We know that what passes for news often has a twitter feed as its source. Trump was banned from the use of twitter because of his false and very damaging claims. Now it is apparently the case that this significant component of social media does not consider falsehood or truth to be worthy of monitoring.  Apparently, freedom of speech ‘trumps’ all other considerations.
 
Elon Musk is reported to be concerned about the fractured nature of American society, yet he is determined to set himself up as the greatest contributor to this fracture.
 
I have just returned from my first roster in support of the Yes vote at the local early polling station. While 90% of voters understandably wanted to avoid contact with either Yes or No supporters, some did stop to encourage or heckle. I must confess I find it incomprehensible that anyone could vote no.  However, having listened to the heckling, it is obvious that misinformation designed to instil fear or embolden prejudice has done its work in many.
 
I am one of the growing number of citizens who fear for the future of democracy. Democracy is utterly dependent on citizens being provided with trustworthy information upon which they can make their choices. When false is given the same value as true, we no longer live in a society that can claim democratic identity. Part of the difficulty is the principle that both sides, or all sides, of a case need to be given equal time. This is an admirable ideal if falsehood can be readily separated from truth. However, in circumstances which we appear now to have entered in which no such demarcation is considered appropriate, then such principle is no longer desirable. The best example relates to climate change.  Science has been settled for decades and if anything, prognostications based on science have been too timid. In reality there is no alternative scientific case to be put, and yet ‘climate deniers’ are still given airtime.
 
At the polling booth a friend came with signs in support of the No vote.  He justified his actions on the basis that he believes in democracy. The No vote propaganda states the referendum Voice divides Australia and Austalians.  The opposite is true. The inequality that currently besets indigenous Australians and causes economic and social division is the very thing the referendum seeks to overcome. Democracy is not served when misinformation leads good people to vote for the very thing they would otherwise have wished to overcome.
 
There is no easy solution to a problem that appears to be accelerating in its potential to undermine civil society as we know it. Autocrats depend on their version of truth becoming the prevailing narrative. They are jealous to protect access to, and manipulation of, platforms like twitter and TikTok. We are painfully aware of the capacity of autocratic regimes to infiltrate communication platforms. It is hardly surprising that Trump prefers the company of autocrats to the company of democratically inclined allies.  
 
Clearly, governments like our own are reluctant to impose restrictions on media platforms for fear of censorship accusations.  However, misinformation is a far greater threat to our civil, democratic society than military invasion is ever likely to be.  A foreign power does not have to invade us to control us. 
 
Long before nuclear powered submarines arrive in 30 years’ time, we have the capacity to be controlled by malign ideas and powers simply because we are too lazy to be careful about the sources of information that feed us.

Professor Lynore Gaia responds to Fair Australia
 
What follows is a heartfelt message from Professor Lynore Gaia, a First Nations Ambassador at the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture in Canberra and Professor of Nursing at James Cook University. ‘No’ may have the current momentum, but that is because we have been seduced by the basest of emotions – fear, and have been deceived by wilful disinformation. The truth lies where Lynore’s heart leads us. Listen to what she has to say.
 
 
“I’m stepping out in my vulnerability and saying what is on my heart - hoping my words reaches your heart. I have not said a lot about the upcoming Referendum on the Voice to Parliament. But I saw this just now and want to respond, and this is a long post. But please take the time to read and reflect.
 
If you are not sure of what the Voice is, then the way to get informed is to do your research so that you are informed. We don’t need to see all the structure of the legislation, that is the job of Parliament when Yes is given when we sit at the table together and begin the dialogue of how it will be. 
 
I am voting YES because of the following dot points;
 
1. Yes - From my Christian faith - for me, the Voice is about God making a way in our nation to come together for the much-needed work of justice and healing of the people and the land, for a better way for this nation. What does God require of us - Micah 6:8 “What does the Lord require to act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God”. 
Christian family and friends lift your eyes up to God and ask what is God’s thinking and purpose in all of this? Use your heart through prayer as you inform yourself to decide and not rely on the head knowledge of others that say what you have to do.  Don’t let doubt and fear lead you, but let faith lead you. 
 
2. Yes - from a health professional perspective. I am coming up to 50 years of being in the Australian nursing and midwifery profession. The gap in Indigenous health is not getting better, in fact it is getting worse. Having a Voice enshrined in the constitution makes a way for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have a seat at the table where law makers make laws and programs for us. A Yes from Australia means we can and will be part of the development of solutions bringing our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge and skills to the highest level of government where law makers and program development can be informed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We see our problems and we want to be genuinely included in finding the solution through partnership and respect.
 
3. Yes - from my personal Bwgcolman perspective, as an Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander woman from Palm Island. I was born in a community that was established by the Qld Government as a prison settlement for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Our ‘Old People’ always talked about justice and building a life for us, they fought for their voices to be heard by government over the generations to be given a ‘fair go’ by government, to have self-determination and to live with dignity making a better life for our community and the generations to come. I want the same for my community and grandchildren who will grow up on Palm Island. 
 
4. Yes - If you are a new Australian that has made this nation your home, then please know you are welcome to share this land with the oldest nations of First Australians - I ask that you reflect on your lived experience of why you have come to a better place for you and your family? Vote Yes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be acknowledged in the Australian Constitution and the Voice to enshrined, so that we can have a say in making Australia a better place for First Peoples, for me and my family - which also means a better place for all Australians. 
 
5. Vote Yes, because it is the right thing and fair thing to do to bring healing to Australia that is so needed for us all. Vote Yes, because it is the right thing to restore dignity to a people group who have had dignity stripped from our lives since 1788. Vote Yes, to give me and my people a Voice to speak to government about our heart and knowledge. Our collective voice was made silent and taken away from us making us a people of ‘Vox nullius’ (no voice) in 1788 - Vote Yes, to overturn that …  just like ‘terra nullius’ was overturned, and the law now says we Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were here and living our lives before the First Fleet landed. Vote Yes so that the law can say, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were here first living our lives and we had a strong voice as well, a whole people - let our voices be heard again! 
 
Finally, we stand on the precipice of great change for Australia - a time where we can all experience fairness and celebrate our rich diversity of cultures living on this land. Will you take up the invitation to walk with us, … with me, an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander woman with all my hopes and dreams for my people in this country. Will you partner with us for “A better Australia’
… Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream. Amos 5:24
 
Even if you don’t know all the facts say YES ! … step out in faith for justice and hope, trust your heart to make a way to build together and not be separated by the fear and doubt. 
 
Give Mob … Give me and my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mob a fair go on October 14th. #voteyes #VoiceToParliament #Yes #HeartIssue.” 
 
 
 

A Beach Walk
 
Walking the beach each morning I often stop to chat with a Croation-Australian, line in hand, looking for a salmon. Lately he has been bemoaning the state of the world - heat, fires, floods, wars, trumpisms.  What the f… is going on, he ponders.  All we need is a feed, a place to lay our head, and a nice beach to walk. Do any of the world leaders, including our own, know what the f…. they are doing or why they are doing it?

Not an unreasonable couple of questions.  Layered on my friend’s pondering I have been thinking about the reason Stan Grant decided to withdraw from active journalism at the ABC, and accept a professorial appointment with Denmark’ Constructive Journalism Institute at its Pacific base in Monash University, Melbourne.  Stan says there is no bad blood with the ABC, his decision arose from growing awareness that journalism imbibes the character of the subject matter it investigates – conflict. Journalism’s primary investigative focus is the way in which we human beings try, and fail, to organize ourselves – politics. Taken to its extreme, conflict is manifest in open warfare and violence, but more immediately, we have come to accept that conflict is the seemingly unavoidable path of the democratic process. Are we to assume human negotiation is inevitably conflict driven? We don’t need examples to prove the validity of the question, but if we need one, just look at the state of debate leading to October’s referendum. Who is responsible for the unpleasantness of the debate?  The proponents of the Voice – First Nations people, or those who convey what they think the proposal means and the consequences they believe it carries?

So, at what point does the good ship governance leave the rails.  Must we conclude the democratic process is itself fundamentally flawed because we human beings are only open to communication that sets ideas or people in combative, binary, opposition to one another? Don’t we like the idea of appeasement? Stan has decided to cease his journalistic activism and end the conflict that has caused him so much personal pain; plain for all to see in the aftermath of the ABC commentary that preceded the coronation. Many articles have been written in recent times about the business model adopted by the Murdoch press – namely that more of their papers are sold if they feed and legitimize the gripes of individuals (mostly white) who maintain someone, or something, or some conspiracy, is to blame for the disadvantaged position they believe they have inherited.

 In the interesting dinnertime conversation Annabel Crabb recently conducted with Peter Dutton, Mr Dutton admitted he saw things in black and white terms. Is that how life is to be understood. People are either good or evil?  Ideas are either right or wrong?  Is there no such entity as society, only individuals?   Binary ways of thinking, let alone binary judgements, in and of themselves are inherently wrong and run contrary to the wisdom of the ages.

So, coming back to my Croation/Australian friend’s pondering, is the reason why politicians appear constantly involved in verbal conflict and not to have a clue what they are doing or why they are doing it, because they lack wisdom?  Well, yes, that is not hard to assert, but what is wisdom and from whence can it be sought?

Leaving aside that which should not be ignored, the philosophical school of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, I want to proffer what is hardly a new idea, namely, that western thought, having emerged out of a Judeo-Christian mindset, has long since left aside the spiritual wisdom upon which its formulations are founded. This has left western thought and western governance to spiral along without being harnessed to the very wisdom that should be its safeguard.

My understanding of Judeo-Christian wisdom is that it is founded on three propositions, namely:

1. That all existence is dependent upon its source, its initiating and sustaining energy - God.
2. That the vocation of all human beings is to conform to and embrace the nature of life’s source and sustenance – God.
3. That ethics prescribing human behaviour should be consistent with the nature of life’s source – God.

This wisdom presupposes there to be a universal ordering of things that cannot be abrogated, an ordering that wisdom reveals, and through which fruitful living is enabled. Freedom is not being able to do whatever one likes, nor is it to be found in one’s alternative facts. Freedom presupposes that life is lived within prescribed social and spiritual parameters of relatedness. 
In the Christian tradition wisdom has taken human form.  The wisdom outlined above is thoroughly knowable. Jesus is both the wisdom of God and the word of God. According to the Hebrew scripture, echoed in John’s Gospel, wisdom or word is the first born of all creation. There is an order to things, which if embraced is life giving, if ignored is inevitably conflict driven.

This wisdom implies every part of creation is connected to every other part of creation. Nothing happens in isolation. To seek advantage for one part of life’s family at the expense of another is ultimately to diminish all. The value of material wealth lies in its capacity to serve social wellbeing.  Few if any are happy because they have acquired assets, happiness resides in community, in relationships that are mutually fulfilling. The ultimate community is the whole created order.  Understanding and serving, its relatedness (ecology) requires humility - one of wisdom’s characteristics. Knowing that energy (economy) inherent in the whole created order is the source of all human economies clearly escapes the sagacious capacity of most exploiters, developers, bankers, and economists. We don’t create anything, we tap into, exhaust what is.

This wisdom assumes inclusivity.  Inclusivity implies hospitality.  Hospitality is the principle of creating space for everyone and everything at the table.  In Australia it is a shameful reality that First Nations people have been denied a place at the table of national life.  It is also increasingly clear we have been driving non-human life from a place at the table with terrible consequences. The ultimate result of our foolishness will be no table at all.

Wisdom broods like a mother bird over brokenness.  There is much brokenness in the lives of First Nations people. How can we not want a path which might lead to healing. What kind of people are we who take punitive action over misdemeanors arising from brokenness, rather than seeking to heal the brokenness which is its cause.  Conflict adds layers of brokenness. 

Do world leaders possess wisdom as they confront the challenges facing us all?  Wisdom is not obscure, it is around us, it is visible in the created order, and in that it has a divine origin it chases us down the winding and often narrow streets of life.
​
May wisdom rather than self-interest be our desired treasure, then shall be added all that is needful as well.
 
 
 
 

Voice of Reason

It is difficult to hear a voice of reason in the conflicting babble of noise that passes for our democratic process; a binary political system of government where political triumph is always more important than principle or substance. It is not even about winning; it is more about making it abundantly clear others have lost.  This is where political rivalry has taken dialogue on the forth coming referendum.

I have just finished reading Megan Davis’s “Quarterly Essay” (issue 90 2023) commending the Yes vote at the forthcoming referendum. It is such an important read.

My level of despair has been rising in recent days as the referendum approaches, not only because of the false and conspiratorial claims made by the No campaign, but because those promoting the Yes case are doing such an ordinary job.

A few days ago, I linked into a conversation Noel Peason conducted with members of the Christian community. One of the important points he made is also affirmed in Davis’s article – namely that, in the process leading to and following the Uluru statement from the Heart, multiple conversations were held with both sides of politics to ascertain and confirm strategy and wording which might garner bi-partisan support. History reminds us how important this support is in the championing of a referendum which inevitably asks for change to a perceived norm.
 
My admiration for Julian Leeser has grown substantially. He was a key figure in those discussions on behalf of the Coalition.  He has upheld integrity in the process.  His support is not simply because he believes in the outcome, but also because what is now being presented is in significant part, framed following conversations with coalition members on what they considered to be politically deliverable.  That Dutton and his troops have turned their backs is worse than deplorable, it is duplicitous.

What has become abundantly and shamefully clear is that the No case is not about opposing a mechanism in the constitution for the furthering of Indigenous empowerment, but primarily about an opportunity for the Coalition to regain political ground over its opponents.  This is made transparently clear through the aggressive campaign of its media champions, Fox News and Murdoch publications.

Through the influence of my sister Valerie, I have become accustomed to understand that poverty is not best defined through its presenting features of homelessness, incarceration, morbidity, lack of education etc, but through an acknowledgement of powerlessness – not being heard, not understood. Davis explains that it was through this understanding that ‘Voice’ was settled on as the ground on which to stand in seeking to address disempowerment. The depressing statistics of poverty with which we are familiar in our First Nations communities, and which are recited in the regularly disappointing ‘closing the gap’ reports, can only be addressed through empowerment of those disadvantaged. This is why the Voice is so important – and it is why its defeat would be so catastrophic.

I was intrigued by the names Davis claimed to have influenced the development of her thinking.

1. Walter Brueggemann

“I found solace in theology and the work of the Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann, particularly his writing on the subversiveness of hope:”
Hope on the one hand is an absurdity, too embarrassing to speak about, for it flies in the face of all those claims we have been told are facts. Hope is the refusal to accept the reading of reality which is the majority opinion; and one only does that at great political and existential risk.
On the other hand, hope is subversive, for it limits the grandiose pretensions of the present, daring to announce that the present to which we have all made commitments is now called into question. (the “prophetic imagination” Fortress Press 2001 p 110).

2. Theoretical Physicist David Bohm

“Bohm talks of the Greek word dialogue: ‘dia’ meaning through, and ‘logos’ meaning word. It evokes the image of a stream of meaning flowing among us, through us, and between us. Bohm says, It’s something new which may not have been in the starting point at all. It’s something creative.  And this shared meaning is what holds people and societies together…. Contrast this with ‘discussion’ which has the same root as percussion and concussion which is to break things up.

Davis finishes her essay with a wonderful quote from the late Dr Galarrwuy Yunupingu.

“What Aboriginal people ask is that the modern world now makes the sacrifices necessary to give us a future. To relax its grip on us. To let us breathe, to let us be free of the determined control exerted on us to make us like you.
And you should take that a step further and recognise us for who we are, not who you want us to be. Let us be who we are – Aboriginal people in the modern world – and be proud of us. Acknowledge that we have survived the worst that the past has thrown at us, and we are here with our songs, our ceremonies, our land, our language and our people – our full identity.
What a gift that is that we can give you, if you choose to accept us in a meaningful way”.

The proposal before us is that we walk together in a new, creative, and respectful way. We have always thought our way to be superior, that our way would lift ‘these poor savages’ out of a much lesser world.  The truth of the matter is that what First Nations people mean by sovereignty and treaty is no threat to other Australians, but an invitation for us to enter a more connected way of being. Of course, our world, particularly its science, medicine and education, have much to offer.  We can and will all benefit from shared lives.  A No to walk together is unthinkable and will entrench enduring racist attitudes.
​
A Yes is a yes to a shared life of respect.  There are still songlines to be carved across this ancient land, may these lines be ones of listening, companionship and shared story.
 
 
 
 

Oppenheimer and the hand of God

This week has seen the release of two box office hits: Oppenheimer and Barbie.  Both films touch on existential threats to humanity. The first intentionally so: the impending and omnipresent cloud of nuclear disaster keeps the hands of the doomsday clock frighteningly close to midnight. The second reminds us of human narcissistic obsessions with the banal and unimportant, whilst living with blind indifference to what is important. Residents of North Africa, North America and Europe suffering oppressive heat and fire must be pleased and comforted that economies are built on encouraging ever increasing consumer desire for the expendable, thus making this climate experience the new normal.

Has humanity’s tombstone already been quarried, lacking only an epitaph to be inscribed? This was the dark musing of one of this week’s media commentators. To forestall such ignominy, is dependence on technology as humankind’s saviour the sensible way forward?  Coming home from watching Oppenheimer and remembering what it was like as a child growing up in the 1950’s, worrying about nuclear war, suggests this is not a smart option.  Those responsible for the latest technological advancement – Artificial Intelligence – while appropriately proclaiming it’s obvious and seductive benefits to education and medical science, warn us negative outcomes of the technology could have the capacity to completely overwhelm us.

Where to from here? I want to promote a counter intuitive and easily ridiculed alternative as we contemplate humanity’s future.  Rather than looking to future technological discoveries for salvation, let us look again at past, but enduring wisdom. (Thinking of ridicule, the political right loves to make fun of any attempt to measure wellbeing as an appropriate gauge of a nation’s state of health).

Over centuries mighty empires rose and fell – Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman, Ottoman.  Numerous ethnic groups were made subject to these mighty powers. People known as the Israelites were one of these groups. At one stage or another they were subject to them all. Approximately 2,500 years ago they were taken into Babylonian exile. Whilst in exile they demonstrated an amazing and abiding truth about humans, namely, we learn more from adversity than we do from triumph. This should be a salutary reminder as we contemplate our present predicament.

Here in exile, an unknown scribe (he is known to us as Deutero Isaiah) penned a soaring piece of theological insight. “Is there any god beside me? There is no other rock; I know not one”. Isaiah 44:8. – a declaration of monotheism. Their God was not in fact ‘their’ god. There can only be one God. If God is God, God must be sovereign of the whole created order, including Israel’s oppressors. The passage is set within a broader piece which refers to Israel’s role as servant(s) of the good that God intends. This is where their blessing lies, not in being patron of the divine with entitlement to special consideration.

Prior to this monotheistic statement, and sadly subsequent to it, divinity was/is an expression of tribalism. The most dangerous form of tribalism is national tribalism. Putin’s current use of the Russian Orthodox Church is a flagrant attempt to manipulate divinity in support of Russian nationalistic ambition.

Genuine monotheistic belief has consequences.

At this time of monotheistic awareness, what we know as the first creation story, Genesis 1:1 – 2:4 probably reached the form we recognise today. It stands in contrast to the second creation story (Adam and Eve and their descendants) which became and remains linked to the tribal emergence and history of Israel.

In the first creation narrative humanity is conceived universally. Adam, earth creature, is the whole of humanity, integrally part of the whole created order. What is proclaimed as ‘very good’ is the harmony and beauty of the whole created order. Identity is inextricably bound within a web of relationships. Each is celebrated in its own place. Each contributes to the flourishing of the whole.
Modern humanity likes truth to be defined, quantified. However, foundational truths are too big to be defined, let alone reduced to data or information. The only way to properly encompass such insight is within story or narrative.  This is why Jesus taught in parables.

The creation narratives are destroyed as vehicles of truth when made instruments of history. They are not stories of the past but narratives through which to interpret and understand the present. They neither prove nor disprove the big bang. They neither support the theory of evolution nor are they enhanced or reduced by it.

Because monotheism is belief that God is sovereign, we can assume it is a grave mistake to assume we are – sovereign.  The dominion humanity is endowed with in this narrative must be understood as service, or at the very least as stewardship of the good that God intends.

It is more likely we face the erection of our species’ tombstone sooner rather than later if we think we are sovereign, or we are entitled to act in any way that serves our short term wants and desires.   While most technologies have greatly enhanced human wellbeing, especially those that have advanced human health, the reality is that they have also been used to advance negative human sovereignty, both over the nonhuman world, but also in competition with, and to the diminishment of, other humans.

The first creation story concludes with an account of Sabbath.  This is not to be understood as one climactic ‘day’ in a cycle of seven, but a description of how the ‘six days’, or life in all its fullness, is to be celebrated.

It is almost certain that ‘sabbath’ began as ritual associated with the new moon, specifically the three-day period between the waning of the old and the birth of the new. This period of ‘rest’ was deemed of such significance that the principle inherent in it became applied to all aspects of life and expressed in the creation narrative itself.  No part of the created order should overreach itself.  Every part should be respected and honoured for its uniqueness. To quote the late Bishop of Winchester, John Vincent Taylor, the principle of ‘enough is enough’ is a divine intention that cannot be abrogated without serious consequence.

Unfortunately, the whole economic system upon which the health and prosperity of nations is supposedly based exists in aggressive opposition to this principle.  We are told that enough should never be enough, that our wellbeing depends on more being spent, more being owned, more being used. 

Being in awe of the sheer abundance and beauty of the world we experience and being deeply grateful for it, is not part of the common lexicon.

We are used to the fact that physical laws govern the universe. We have become oblivious to the truth that relational laws also stand beyond abrogation.  Enough is enough.  We cannot occupy the space of another without reducing them and ourselves.  In the created order of which we are part, sovereignty can only be understood in the service of good.
​
What is good is necessarily also common.
 
 
 

What is wrong with humanity? - The spirit of Entitlement
What is wrong with Western Christianity? – Moralising has taken the place of ethical behaviour
​
These last weeks have been filled with sickening items of news. The following serve as a cross section:   the invasion of the Jenin refugee camp by Israeli forces; the continued killing of Ukrainian civilians by Russian drones; the outrage that is Donald Trump; the duplicitous theft of taxpayer money by PWC; continuing reluctance to deal responsibly with damaging  carbon emissions; the scandal that is robodebt, the torture of refugees for up to 600 days in a small airless hotel room; growing opposition to the proposed indigenous voice to parliament based on the Uluru statement.

Looking at the diverse issues named above, one theme links them – a passive or active spirit of entitlement. To feel entitled is to misunderstand life. Life is not about things or objects, but about interactions or relationships. People of faith face only one challenge - choose life.  To choose life is to choose to be a blessing in life’s interactions. To choose life is to act ethically.

The moralizing of Christians always misses the point.  We are not here to condemn or judge, we are here to enable all and every person to choose life.

Clearly humanity has a major problem. But as a Christian, the problem for me is more painfully acute. It is manifestly and shamefully clear that some high-profile Australian political leaders who publicly attest their ‘Christian allegiance’ either do not see the above issues as a problem, or, worse, have been active promulgators of them. Conservative Christian leadership is quick to moralise about personal human behaviour but seems utterly incapable of seeing the bigger picture of systemic abuse. It is little wonder the world at large has long since rejected Christianity as a base for society’s renewal.

The catalyst for the Jenin incursion is not Palestinian militarism, but the entitled behaviour of Zionism and Settler activity.  Since 1948 hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have lived as refugees, some in their own country.  Jenin houses one such camp. The inhabitants of the camp are expected to accept their lot. Denied basic human rights, caged without freedom to travel, denied an economy or employment and facing further summary loss of land, homes and livelihoods by the spreading illegal settler community, they are expected to quietly submit. The Lions Den, targeted by the Israelis comprises 18+ year olds who simply refuse to accept this must be their lot. Why should they? Why should Zionist feel entitled to what historically and legally is Palestinian?  Why is the international community so quick to condemn Palestinians as terrorists, but does absolutely nothing to challenge its cause, the entitlement of illegal settlers.  Those aligned to the Christian right support Israel’s oppression on grounds that God intends Israel to occupy all the territory. IS THIS WHAT JESUS OF NAZERETH WOULD DO?

That Donald Trump is considered a serious candidate for reelection as president of the US is beyond astonishing. He lives a life of absolute entitlement demonstrated in keeping national documents, not paying taxes, lecherous behaviour towards women, encouraging or initiating anarchy, threatening national security etc. Trump’s electoral base is the Christian religious right. IS THIS WHERE JESUS OF NAZARETH WOULD STAND?
​
The behaviour of PWC is quite shocking. But what is perhaps even more shocking is that over a period of two decades self-interested and self-serving consultancy took the place of the public service in the monitoring and implementation of public policy.  The lobbying power of consultancy firms is enormous, as is their rapacious self-interest.  The spirit of entitlement is staggering. Telling the public service their fearless advice was not wanted, but that they would do what their political masters demanded was instruction from Prime Minister Morrison. This attitude of party-political entitlement led to the robot debt outrage and many Australians taking their own lives. Stuart Robert and Scott Morrison, high profile Pentecostal Christians, were central to the conception and implementation of this scheme.  WHERE WOUD THE PRIORITIES OF JESUS OF NAZARETH LIE IN RELATION TO THE NATION’S MOST VULNERABLE?

Opposition to the Voice referendum has become a cause célèbre to the right of politics and by extension to the Christian right. Why? The arguments are self-contradictory.  Some who oppose say the Voice does not offer enough, others that it offers too much. There is inability to accept or understand that indigenous sovereignty is not about control, as it is for us second comers, it is about spiritual and cultural relatedness. HOW WOULD JESUS OF NAZARTH VOTE?

As recently attested by Mostafa Azimitabar, treatment by the Australian Government of individuals found to be refugees has been cruel and shameful. Locked in small hotel rooms after arriving from offshore detention for months on end, this was torture.  Why was this done? “To protect Australia’s borders”.  Did boat arrivals increase when the men were eventually released into the community – no, of course not.  The treatment was dehumanising and cruel. The main craftsman of this policy was Scott Morrison. WAS THIS A POLICY CONSISTENT WITH THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH.
 
Human behaviour has changed little over the centuries. We are all capable of greatness, but more often our lives are marked by the lowest levels of human behaviour.  As St Paul said: “I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do”. 

However, what has changed is that personal damage is more than ever likely to be experienced systemically. Institutions, including the Church, can be quite damaging as members of the LBGTQI community readily testify.  Damaging treatment of the indigenous community for 200+ years has been systemic; this damage has been possible because of willful ignorance, shamefully continuing in the no campaign.  The same is true of most of the other calamities mentioned in the opening paragraph. Where are Christian voices of justice? I am sorry to say they are drowned out by the moralisers. It would be preferable that no practicing Christian hold public office if they have no capacity to understand ethical issues lying at the heart of policy made, or policy ignored.

Popular sections of contemporary Christian teaching proclaim prosperity as a reward for faith. The many scandals in which Stuart Robert has been embroiled appear to confirm that this is what lies behind his Christian faith. 

None of us are blessed for our own sake, we are blessed in as much as we are a blessing to others.  On Saturday I had the pleasure of attending our local NAIDOC celebration.  It was a privilege to be there. The ceremony was resonant of the Christian faith that I know. Release of energy, choosing life, honouring elders, singing the songs of the plants and animals, being aware of the Spirit’s movement.
 
 
 
 
 
 

                                                 The Voice Referendum
                     Influence family friends and communities to vote Yes
 
What follows is an historical overview of bad faith, ignorance, failed policy, and lost opportunity that has preceded the upcoming Voice referendum.  To fail First Nation people again is unthinkable, worse, it would be the cause of anguish and loss of respect from which, not simply First Nations people, but all Australians would struggle to recover trust. Having read this material, surely it would be morally impossible to do other than Vote Yes.  If not now – when, if not us – who?

June 10 1838 28 women, old men, and children of the Gamilaraay nation were butchered, their bodies piled up and burnt, at Myall Creek, Bingara, NSW.  It was not the first nor the last massacre of First Nations people. But it was the first and perhaps only massacre following which colonists were arrested, charged, and prosecuted. Seven were hung. However, popular public opinion favoured the stockmen murderers. In its editorial, the Sydney Morning Herald wrote: "The whole gang of black animals are not worth the money the colonists will have to pay for printing the silly documents on which we have already wasted too much time.” Also: ʹthe colony did not want “savages to exist". "We have far too many of the murderous wretches about us already.”  The paper encouraged the shooting of Aboriginal people. It is shameful to have to admit that while not as extreme and violent, a racist attitude towards First Nations people remains within some spheres of the Australian psyche.

The journey forward, from this appalling inhumanity, to decency and shared humanity, was going to be long. Need it to have been so long and so strongly resisted? Is it still to be resisted?

In 1924 The Australian Aborigines Progress Association was founded in Sydney by Fred Maynard and Tom Lacey. It called for the right of Aboriginal people to determine their own lives, the restitution of land, an end to the practice of removing children from their families and the abolition of the New South Wales Aborigines Protection Board
In the 1930s, articulate First Nation activists began emerging from the missions and reserves of N.S.W. and Vic., among them: William Cooper, Bill Ferguson, Margaret Tucker, Doug Nicholls, Jack and Selina Patten, Tom Foster, Pearl Gibbs, Jack Kinchela and Helen Grosvenor.
 
1932 William Cooper, a Yorta Yorta, man circulated a petition across Australia calling upon the Government to improve living conditions for Aboriginal People, and to enact legislation that would guarantee Aboriginal people representation in parliament. The petition was sent to Joseph Lyons, P.M., in August 1937, with the hope that it would be forwarded to King George V1. The petition was signed by 1814 Aborigines. Joseph Lyons acknowledged the petition, however it appears not to have been forwarded onto King George. It was marked “no action to be taken”.

26 January 1938, Aboriginal men and women met at Australia Hall in Sydney and moved the following: “We, representing the Aborigines of Australia, assembled in conference at Australia Hall, Sydney, on the 26 of January, 1938, this being the 150 anniversary of whitemans seizure of our country, hereby make protest against the callous treatment of our people by the whiteman during the past 150 years, and we appeal to the Australian nation of today to make new laws for the education and care of Aborigines, we ask for a new policy which will raise our people To Full Citizens Status and Equality within the Community”

This resolution of indignation, protest was moved and passed at 5 o’clock. A large blackboard displayed outside the hall proclaims “Day of Mourning”. The group that met on 26 January were members of Australian Aborigines League and the Aborigines Progressive Association. Both organisations became the driving force calling for a constitutional referendum that would take place in 1967.

31 January 1938, an Aboriginal deputation that included Jack Patten, William Furguson, and Pearl Gibbs, met with Prime Minister Joe Lyons, his wife Enid and the Minister for the Interior John “Black Jack” McEwen. They asked for Commonwealth control of all Aboriginal matters, a Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, an administration advised by Aboriginal representatives, full citizen status and civil equality with white Australians, including equality in education, labour laws, workers' compensation, pensions, land ownership and wages.
 
1 May 1946, 800 pastoral workers from 27 stations in W.A. walked off the job for better pay and conditions.
This strike became known as the “1946 Pilbara Strike”.
The strike lasted until 1949, paralysing the sheep industry
 
1953 nuclear tests began at Emu, S.A., moving to Maralinga S.A. in 1956. Maralinga, means “thunder”. This name was taken from the now extinct Top End Aboriginal language called Garik. The social, physical, mental and environmental impacts resulting from the testing and its fallout continue to have ongoing effects on the local Pitjantjatjara and Luritja Peoples today.

In 1957 a National Aborigines Day Observance Committee (NADOC) was formed, which continues to this day as NAIDOC.

1965 A group of students from the University of Sydney went on a 15-day bus journey “Freedom Ride” to draw attention to the appalling living conditions of NSW Aboriginal People, and their experience of overt racism. Rev. Ted Noffs of the Wayside Chapel assisted in co-ordinating the ride. Charles Perkins, a student at Sydney University at that time, was elected president of the group.

During the fifteen-day journey through regional NSW, the group directly challenged a ban against Aboriginal ex-servicemen at the Walgett RSL and local laws barring Aboriginal children from the Moree and Kempsey swimming pools. They also took up living condition issues in several other NSW towns. At the end of the journey a full report was written and presented to relevant authorities.
 
23 August 1966 saw the walk off from Lord Vestey’s property, Wave Hill
 
Protest events held prior to 1967, include The Warbuton Ranges Controversy 1957, the Yirrkala Bark Petitions 1963, the Freedom Ride 1965 and the Wave Hill walk off which began in 1966.

The 1967 referendum put the following Question to the Australian people: Do you approve the proposed law for the alteration of the Constitution entitled, “An Act to alter the Constitution so as to omit certain words relating to people of the Aboriginal Race in any State and so that Aboriginals are to be counted in the reckoning the population.”
This amendment deleted part section 51 of the Constitution and repealed section 127.   90.77% of the Australian population voted “Yes” in the referendum.

1968-69 saw the introduction of equal wages for pastoral workers. September 1967, the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission removed the racially discriminatory clause from the Federal Pastoral Industry Award and equal wages for Aboriginal pastoral workers were phased in from December 1968, in the Kimberly region.
In earlier decades, Aboriginal station workers were usually given no wages, but instead received food, clothing and tobacco rations in return for labour. When the equal wages decision was handed down, hundreds of Aboriginal people were forced to leave the stations, moving into towns or onto reserves.

September 1973 Whitlam Government announced the idea of a National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC). The NACC quickly asserted its political muscles during the Whitlam Government, clashing with DAA head, Barry Dexter and the minister of Aboriginal Affairs, Jim Cavanagh. DAA was established in 1973.
 
16 August 1975 Gough Whitlam transferred leasehold title of Wattie Creek (Daguragu), 90 square kilometres, to the Gurindji people which led to the passing of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (N.T.) 1976

May 1977, Ian Viner, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs in the Fraser Government, replaced the NACC with a new body, National Aboriginal Conference (NAC). The NAC members were selected by Indigenous People. April 1979 the NAC recommended a form of treaty between Aboriginal peoples and the Australian Government, using the word “Makarrata” to describe this. Makarrata is a Yolngu word for the restoration of good relations after conflict.
The NAC was eventually abolished by the Hawke Government in 1985.

In Geneva, Jim Hagan chair of the National Aboriginal Conference, addresses United Nations Human Rights Commission Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. (At this time there were protests against oil drilling on Aboriginal Land of Noonkanbah.)

Hagan’s speech, on 3 September 1980, was reported internationally: “The Noonkanbah community have sought justice, and have been given obstruction. We have sought peace and have been given violence. The Australian Government’s acquiescence in this continuing breach of human rights must be condemned in the eyes of the world”.
Hagan is the first elected Indigenous Australian to address a UN committee.
 
The Hawke Government’s ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) legislation was introduced into the parliament in August 1988. April 1989 John Howard strongly expressed opposition to the ATSIC proposal, stating that it would divide the Nation. In the six months following the introduction of the ATSIC Bill, over 90 amendments were made to the legislation, making the Bill the second most amended piece of legislation since Federation. ATSIC Act 1989 was passed in November 1989.
Section 3 of the ATSIC Act 1989 sets out the following objectives:

• to ensure maximum participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in government policy formulation and implementation
• to promote Indigenous self-management and self-sufficiency
• to further Indigenous economic, social and cultural development, and
• to ensure co-ordination of Commonwealth, state, territory and local government policy affecting Indigenous people. 

In order to achieve these objectives, ATSIC was to :

• advise governments at all levels on Indigenous issues
• advocate the recognition of Indigenous rights on behalf of Indigenous peoples regionally, nationally and internationally and
• deliver and monitor some of the Commonwealth government’s Indigenous programs and services.

ATSIC survived 14 years. A review of ATSIC was carried out in November 2002. The review panel recommended against abolishing the body in November 2003. However Prime Minister John Howard, with Senator Amanda Vanstone as the Minister for Indigenous Affairs announced on 15 April 2004 that ATSIC would be abolished and that the Regional Councils abolished by 30 June 2005.

May 1982 a group of Meriam, led by Eddie Mabo from the Eastern Torres Strait, lodged a case with the High Court of Australia for legal ownership of the island of Mer. Over a period of 10 years Meriam people generated 4000 pages of transcript of evidence. The evidence presented included proof that eight clans of Mer (Murray Island) have occupied clearly defined territories on the island for hundreds of years, and proved continuity of customs on Mer.

3 June 1992, six of the seven judges agreed that the Meriam held traditional ownership of the land of Mer. The decision led to the passing of the Native Title   Act 1993, providing the framework for all Australian Indigenous people to make claim of Native Title.
This decision altered the foundation of land law in Australia and rendered terra nullius a legal fiction.

Paul Keating gave his Redfern speech on 10 December 1992.

August 2007 Northern Territory Intervention (N.T. Emergency Response) was introduced following the “Little Children are Sacred Report”
The intervention was a $587 million package of legislation that made a number of changes affecting specified Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. It included restriction on alcohol, changes to welfare payments, acquisition of parcels of land, education (linking income support to school attendance), employment (the ceasing of CDEP) and health (compulsory checks for all children).
In doing so, several laws were affected or partially suspended: Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Aboriginal Land Rights (N.T.) Act 1976, Native Title Act 1993, N.T. Self-Government Act and related legislation, Social Security Act 1991, and Income Tax Assessment Act 1993.
Since the introduction of the intervention in 2007, many social problems facing communities have become worse, (as reported on NITV), namely: 

• many more Aboriginal children are being forcibly removed from their family and culture
• punitive measures have not increased school attendance
• the intervention saw an increase in youth suicide and a huge spike in self-harm
• the intervention housing program has had a minimal impact on shocking rates of overcrowding
• income management has made life harder for many and remains racially discriminatory
• the abolition of the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) has created mass unemployment and exploitation
• restrictions on courts considering Aboriginal customs and law, in bail and sentencing increased
• increased rationing continued
• the number of Indigenous people in prison has exploded

13 February 2008 P.M. Kevin Rudd offered his apology to the Stolen Generation on behalf of the Nation.

2009 K. Rudd supported the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Article 3 of the declaration states that: “Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
K. Rudd PM, implemented the Basic Card, it later changed to the Cashless Debit Card

2016 the Cashless Debit Card, (CDC) was trialled in Ceduna, East Kimberly and Gold Fields in WA and the Bundaberg-Hervey Bay region in QLD. The CDC has been operating in the Cape York region in QLD and across the NT since 2021

17 December 2020, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (continuation of cashless welfare) Act 2020, came into being. The Act supports the continuation of the Cashless Debit Card for a further two years.

2017 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nations gathered at Uluru for a National Constitutional Convention to make “The Statement from the Heart”.
Referendum on The Voice will be held in 2023
                                           ********************************************
​
               The Uluru Statement from the heart identifies three objectives:
                             Voice to Parliament
                             Treaty
                             Truth Telling
The Voice to parliament would be advisory, it will have no powers to overrule parliament. First Nations communities will be able to bring matters relating to their social, spiritual, and economic wellbeing, via Local and Regional Voices, to the twenty-four-member National Voice which in turn would give advice to parliament. This would empower government to enact best case policies and laws for the flourishing of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.  Rather than igniting racism, it will hopefully remove remaining vestiges of disempowerment and inequality.
 
Vote Yes
 

Racism, Social Media, the Voice

A minority of people who live with unresolved issues bombard others with a reflection of their cyclopic state, rather than resolving discord and blindness in their personal lives. Social media has now become the ever-available channel of choice for this self-indulgence and self-delusion. The agenda or personhood of others they bombard are not the issue, confected and unpleasant outrage is the issue.  These people seem to so dominate the air waves of social media that the good the medium offers is easily swamped under a dark cloud of abuse and, at times, vengefulness.  It is, perhaps, impossible to turn the clock back, or put the genie back in the bottle, but if it is reasonable to assert all forms of communication in the public domain should serve common good, how is the dark side of social media to be addressed? If not, will the next generation be smart enough to shut it down?

Sure, domains can and should be expected to be far more diligent about what they allow to be published on their platforms.  But, behind the front which is social media, is there a powerful ill-wind that feeds on discontent and division, a wind that encourages conflict and serves to stimulate mindless abuse on social media?

Recent court cases have confirmed there is such an ill wind blowing in the United States.  It is called News Media with its subsidiaries like Fox News.  The recent US court case showed Fox News to depend upon discontent and division to sustain and perhaps grow its business.  When Trump looked like he was losing the 2021 election, News Limited momentarily called it accurately in Arizona.  They quickly discovered that telling the truth cost them significant readership. They backed down and gave comfort to those who were determined to claim that Trump had won.

The News Limited stable in Australia is hewn from the same stock.   Whether the ABC should have asked Stan Grant to give his important commentary on the crown, colonisation, and the fate of indigenous people while people were entering Westminster Abbey for the coronation could be debated. But News Ltd used all its media outlets in a scathing attack not just on the commentary, but on Stan himself.  Having fed the hounds of racism (in social media) they tried to redeem themselves in a belated show of sympathy for Stan.

It is hardly a surprise that the State most likely to reject the referendum on the Voice slated for October or November is Queensland. News Limited has a strangle hold on print media in that State.   Now, I know few people make use of print media, however the ideas presented through News Ltd and its stable mate Sky News percolate in the public space and are picked up and repeated in social media posts.
News Media is not a serious journalistic player nor a serious presenter of news, it is a propaganda platform in support of conservative ideology. This statement is hardly contentious.

The conservative side of politics is currently arguing that the Voice referendum should be defeated because it is inherently divisive, giving privilege to one section of the population that is denied to the rest. Nonsense! the reverse is true, opposition to the Voice is divisive, and purposely so, for division and discontent is the political weapon of choice for conservative politics seeking electoral approval here, and in the US.

There is goodwill among Australians for such significant advancement as will enable Australia’s First Nations people to flourish and prosper on their terms. That indigenous people have chosen the path they believe will best facilitate this journey, that should be enough for all Australians to vote for it. Sadly, we know there is always a gap between what is ideal and what in a democracy is politically deliverable.   Mr Dutton has said he and his party cannot (will not) accept the wording asked for at Uluru and accepted by the Prime Minister.

Mr Dutton has been invited to offer an alternative set of words that in his view are politically deliverable.  He has declined to do so. Like News Ltd deciding to support Trump’s false claims, he has calculated this stance is the one most likely to win him accolades from those on the right of politics. Does he follow Murdoch and Sky, or do Murdoch and Sky parrot Dutton?

History shows it is almost impossible for a referendum to succeed if it does not enjoy bipartisan political support. 

The respected Jesuit priest and lawyer, Father Frank Brennan, has been working hard to find a path that both sides of politics will accept. In his recently launched book, An Indigenous Voice to parliament he offers an alternative set of words:
There shall be an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice with such structure and functions as the parliament deems necessary to facilitate consultation prior to the making of special laws with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and with such other functions as the parliament determines.

He argues that these words do not alter the constitution but complete it.

The Prime Minister has made it clear he will not offer a set of words that do not fully embrace the intent of the Uluru statement. This is the right path to take, but it may not be politically astute. What is presented must be politically deliverable and workable in practice.  On the other hand, Dutton’s refusal to offer a different set of words demonstrates a lack of good will. Clearly his ʹnoʹ is ʹnoʹ regardless of the words.

At both ends of the spectrum people will vote yes or no regardless of words and arguments presented between now and the referendum.  However, there are significant numbers in the middle who need to be persuaded, some of whom will sadly be seduced by disinformation.

The best possible result will be the passing of the referendum with words that most adequately express the desire of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and which serve the intended outcome of improved lives.   The worst possible result would be for a referendum to be held and lost.
​
The vitriol experienced by Stan Grant is a sad reminder that we Australians are not readily open to hearing that the advantage experienced by most of us has come at the expense of disadvantage suffered by First Nations people. Listening is the first and necessary step to reconciliation.  The Voice is the best, perhaps the only, offering in the room which might put our listening into effect.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Making sense of Monarchy

Called not to be served, but to serve
Do I have any credibility to contribute to the debate?  Perhaps not, for I am a republican in Australia but a monarchist in Britain. It is not that I am confused, it is that contemporary Australian demographics makes a Republic a necessity, whilst British conventions remain well served by the obligations of office placed upon the monarch.

As Australia moves inexorably towards a republic, I both rejoice and am saddened. Australia comprises a population drawn from the four corners of the planet, for whom a foreign head of state makes absolutely no sense. But in becoming a republic how will we ensure our new head of state will make the same commitments to service that Charles was obligated to make at his coronation.  Meaningful and lasting service deepens a sense of sacred, value beyond self.  

Australia’s political and civic psyche appears to have moved beyond any real sense of the sacred as a primary value. Measurements are made in economic terms. Critics of the monarchy at home (Britain) and abroad have used the same measurement – what economic contribution do the Royals make? Politics is all about economics, nothing deeper. Unless we are lucky enough to find a Mary McAleese, how would an Australian president draw us into a deeper sense of who we could and should be.  Politicians have demonstrated they are incapable of doing that.

There can be little doubt Charles is underestimated, and equally underestimated is the burden he undertook to carry at his coronation.  There is no reason to doubt he will take these oaths as seriously as did his mother, Elizabeth ll.

Two key symbols at the coronation are orb and sceptre. The orb represents the spiritual dimension of existence and the sceptre its material dimension. To what I consider to be our considerable loss, we Australians appear to have abandoned any meaningful sense of life’s sacred or spiritual dimension.  Perhaps worse, many who do acknowledge such dimension are territorial, using dogma to exclude, ambitious for superiority, even domination.  Spirituality necessitates humility, awe in the presence of that which is greater than self. It also requires that we acknowledge we are but a small part of a greater whole that deserves our service. Charles is right to have included all dimensions of religious expression in his coronation. While being an Anglican Christian by conviction, he recognises that spirituality is inevitably part of ethnicity, place of birth and culture. His Anglicanism is authentically that.

This inclusiveness and conviction is drawn from his deep Christian faith and from his traditionalist philosophy.  I commend the following link to this philosophy:
 
https://globelynews.com/europe/king-charles-iii-anti-modern-traditionalism-rene-guenon/
 
Those who rightly wish Britain, or specifically the crown, to face up to the scandalous horror that was British acquisition of Australian land and resources, and the slaughter of Aboriginal people, may well be making a serious mistake in opposing Charles because of his association with the crown’s ignominious history.  At his coronation he accepted symbols of justice and mercy as hallmarks of his service. He must stay out of politics, but he is to be a champion of what is right. Contemporary politics may be challenging enough, but as many commentators have pointed out, he must face the contemporary consequences of historical injustice, perpetrated in the name of the crown in many countries of the previous British Empire.  Already some West Indian Nations have made clear the stench of historical slavery cannot be ignored. I expect him to observe his oath and exercise his influence towards meaningful recognition of, and responsibility taking for, the past.

It should surprise no one that his commitment to the environment is an expression of his Christian conviction.  We can only hope that, as attention is given to the ʹVoiceʹ, a gift to all Australians from its first nations people, aspects of spirituality which undergird their culture may reignite this dimension now lost in most Australians.  By the manner of his life, Charlesʹ role as monarch is to nourish and strengthen a deep sense of connectedness to the sacred - inclusive of the natural order. Life is too easily reduced to the mundane.

It is said Charles wishes to modernise the monarchy. This should be applauded. If the coronation is essentially about the person, Charles, then its pageantry and expense is obscene.  If on the other hand, it is about the citizens of Great Britain and other realms, then at a cost of 1 or two pounds per citizen it is not. It was my experience of Great Britain that paraphernalia relating to the monarch of the day was far more likely to be found in labourers’ cottages than in the mansions of the elite. On the day of his coronation Charles swore allegiance in service to the people. I personally found the invitation to the people to swear allegiance to him awkward. If it had been worded differently, namely that we were invited to swear allegiance to the same values, service, justice, mercy, God:  I would have had far less difficulty. The invitation as it stood sat uneasily within Australian culture.

The oil used in the coronation was harvested from the Mount of Olives and consecrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III, and the Anglican Palestinian Archbishop in Jerusalem, The Most Reverend Hosam Naoum. The symbolism should not be hard to grasp in terms of what is expected from the sovereign.  The Mount of Olives was the place of Jesus prayer before the crucifixion.  It is expected the sovereign will embrace a deep sense of service.  Clearly it was this spirit that defined the life of Queen Elizabeth.

Much is made of the extraordinary privilege and wealth of the Royal family.  There is no denying this reality. However, does this privilege and wealth gift them with greater personal contentment or happiness than most of their citizens?  The evidence suggests not. Indeed, it could well be the case that much of what is described as privilege is experienced as burden.  We don’t want them to be like us, we expect them to be different.  It is when they behave like us, when the muckiness of life envelopes them, they no longer fulfil the role we expect of them.

Greater wealth is seldom the source of personal wellbeing.  How that wealth or privilege is exercised is the channel of such contentment.

The crowning of the monarch was accompanied by George Frederick Handel’s Zadok the Priest which reminds the monarch, as do the orb and sceptre, of life’s two dimensions.  Zadok was accompanied in the crowning of Solomon by Nathan the Prophet.  The role of the prophet is to call all, especially earthy rulers, to account in justice and righteousness. This is also Charlesʹ burden.

Let me conclude with two quotes from one of the more interesting coronation invitees – Nic Cave
​
I am not interested in anything that doesn’t have a genuine heart to it. You’ve got to have soul in the hole. If that isn’t there, I don’t see the point.
 
All of our days are numbered. We cannot afford to be idle. To act on a bad idea is better than to not act at all, because the worth of an idea never becomes apparent until you do it.
 
 
 

GAFCON, the Global South, the Diocese of Sydney, the Bible, and Sex
 
Appropriately, little if any publicity has been given by the secular press to a claim made on 23rd April by a conference held in Kigali, Rwanda, supposedly "representing 85%" of the Anglican Communion that they no longer recognise the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Anglican Communion’s instruments of unity.

The Conference was called by GAFCON and the Global South, a network of Anglican Churches that are seeking to establish an ʹalternativeʹ structure of communion.  Unsurprisingly representatives of the Diocese of Sydney Australia led the charge. Michael Stead, one of its Bishops, chaired the committee formulating the conference statement.

What needs to be clearly appreciated is that this group makes two claims:

• Those not accepting their world view are not taking the Bible seriously, do not submit to its authority, and are false shepherds.

 

• Matters of personal sexuality and gender are not simply first order biblical issues in Christian discipleship, they are the only first order issue. Failure to adhere to their conservative assertions on sexuality and gender abrogate any claim others have for Christian allegiance.

Both claims are nonsense, they insult the intelligence of those who do not agree, and are frankly as dismissive of the resurrection faith of others, as was Thomas when he first heard from others of Jesusʹ resurrection.

Let me endeavour to explain.

The Diocese of Sydney’s starting point is not openness to walk the path of Jesus, but obligatory commitment to a dogma, namely the penal substitutional theory of the atonement.  For members of the Diocese of Sydney scripture must be read through this lens.  Now if you want a full-throated demolition of this theory may I refer you to the writings of the acclaimed New Testament scholar and self-proclaimed English Evangelical, Bishop N.T. (Tom) Wright.  This theory relies upon an assumed historicity of a ʹfirstʹ human, Adam, and is fundamentally dualistic. To claim historicity to ʹAdamʹ is not to take the Bible seriously. Essential truths of the creation narratives are diminished when read in this way, frankly, leaving the interpreter open to deserved ridicule.  Ridicule from those with no faith and ridicule from those with faith who take these passages very seriously. Dualism can find no home in Christianity.

God cannot be reduced to the image of a truculent parent who demands some form of payment for past and present ills. The theory casts God in the image of needy humanity, not the other way around.  There are many biblical images/metaphors/characterisations of the atonement.  Among the most compelling and confronting is Philippians 2: 5 – 11.  Here we are presented with the extraordinary truth that service and sacrifice, are of the very nature of God, and whatever we may think of Kingship or Lordship we have to think of these concepts through this lens. We are challenged to believe that this is also the true nature of humanity.  It is not right to say that God sent his Son to die on the cross. It is more correct to say that, extraordinarily, God is on the cross – and so must we be.

There is one overriding truth in the New Testament, a truth that shaped and formed the first Christians – the resurrection.  What did the first Christians make of the resurrection? – a new Creation.  As in the first creation narrative, life is imparted through the breath of God, so in the new creation the breath of the resurrected Christ transforms and renews. This is what is meant when it is said we are baptised into Jesus through water and the spirit.  We are free, but that freedom will not be fully realised until what is mortal dies.  2 Cor. 4: 16, while our outer nature is wasting away our inner nature is being renewed day by day.

So, GAFCON, Global South, Diocese of Sydney, do I take the bible seriously? absolutely I do. So seriously in fact that I know the Bible teaches Jesus is the Living Word of God, to whom the Written Word, the Bible, bears testimony.  The Written word has no authority to do anything other than bear witness to the Living Word.

Now, for first order issues of human behaviour in response to the Living Word - Jesus. The Bible, in bearing testimony to Jesus makes it clear there is no such entity as the individual, all individuals are inextricably part of community, we are responsible for and to the wellbeing of ʹneighboursʹ. First order issues of recalcitrant human behaviour are those that diminish others, undermine community. This conference was held in Kigali Rwanda.  I visited the Church in Rwanda a few years after the genocide. Some of its Bishops had been so implicated in the slaughter they could not return to office. I found it incomprehensible then and I find it incomprehensible now, that a decision to demonise people of homosexual orientation was made while embers from the genocide had not even cooled. Consciously or unconsciously, it appears to have been a strategy of distraction for a Church too disempowered to deal adequately with a darker and more primary issue.

Unredeemed capitalism is a form of usuary. It has disempowered and impoverished millions. In the spirit of capitalism colonisers have raped and are raping the colonised and their resources, in much of the world.  Should you expect a peep out of Sydney in relation to this abuse – sadly no. Usuary and greed is also the major contributor to global warming, the dire threat facing Pacific Islands and ultimately the planet. Will there be a peep out Sydney Diocese in relation to this, of course not, sadly in the reverse, we can expect an insinuation that those who care for the environment have abandoned Christianity and are following a new age religion. This is the position of the political arm of conservative Christians, the Australian Christian Lobby.

The Bible is unequivocally clear that any activity that seeks power over others is abuse and must be condemned.  Sexual activity can be, and sadly often is, a channel of such abuse. Abusive sexual activity is present in the lives of males and females, homosexuals and heterosexuals, married people, and single people. It is only in relatively recent times that we have come to understand that a percentage of the population are born homosexual. People so born are no more likely to be abusive than heterosexual people. No one can, or should, be expected to deny who they are.  In reality of course, homosexual people have been terribly abused and isolated by the judgement of others – especially by people claiming a Christian prerogative to do so.

In the Roman Empire much of what presented as homosexual activity, rightly suffering biblical condemnation was in fact abuse of vulnerable members of the population, and children, by heterosexuals.  Of course, it had to be called out. Any sexual activity which is abusive must be condemned for it diminishes others. Sexual activity which diminishes self should also be condemned. Sexual promiscuity is self-diminishing.  Intimacy that fulfils the life of another and nourishes commitment is neither abusive of others nor is it self-diminishing.
​
The Kigali statement implores those who do not agree to repent. The word ʹrepentʹ is the English translation of the Greek ʹmetanoiaʹ.  This literally means to see afresh, or to see with new eyes. Is it not those who claim to be conservative Christians who need to repent, to see that homosexual people are being who they are? With knowledge that being gay is an accident of birth, how can Christians not want equal opportunity for intimacy and fulfilment?