No. 60 - 22 August 2007
By Rod Benson
On 9 August Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd courted the Christian vote in a two-hour televised event organised by the Australian Christian Lobby. Both leaders made election-style speeches and answered questions from church leaders during a webcast streamed to an estimated 100,000 Christians in churches and church halls around the country. The event, described by one journalist as the unofficial launch of the 2007 election campaign, cements the reputation of the ACL as the nation’s premier religious lobbyist.
After preliminaries, Mr Howard began his speech by appealing to the legacy of William Wilberforce and “the Judeo-Christian ethic,” and derided atheism as “profoundly unhistorical.” He mentioned the parables of the Good Samaritan and the talents as articulating fundamental ethical principles, describing the church as a force for the profound good of the community. He acknowledged the opposition by some Christians to recent federal laws allowing human embryo experimentation and the use of the abortion drug RU486, but addressed social justice issues almost exclusively in a lively 35-minute address.
Mr Howard announced a new initiative to restrict internet pornography, promised support for religious schools and school chaplaincy, and advocated tackling global poverty by reducing corruption and trade barriers. He briefly mentioned a duty of care to Australia’s indigenous peoples, and climate change, and suggested that Australia might embrace nuclear power “if there is economic justification.”
In contrast, Mr Rudd began by drawing attention to his own “garden variety” Christian faith, which he described as his compass point, “shaping the view I bring to the public sphere.” In a speech of equal length, he proposed the need for “hard heads and soft hearts” in public policy, where the “big” issues of economic management and national security did not displace concern for an adequate social safety net, hearing “the voice of the voiceless,” and preserving compassion as “one of the great human strengths.” He promised that, if elected, a family impact statement would accompany every Labor cabinet submission.
Mr Rudd spoke on the erosion of family and leisure time resulting from recent industrial relations reforms, and outlined plans for affordable housing, investment in education, setting ambitious carbon emissions targets, addressing global poverty by working to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, advancing Australia’s place as a middle power diplomacy, dealing compassionately with refugees displaced by war, and implementing longterm measures to address indigenous problems.
Questions from selected church leaders followed the speeches. Mr Howard took 20 minutes to answer five questions while Mr Rudd was limited to four questions and 12 minutes. The ten questions, drawn from a much larger range of questions from interested groups, and vetted by the ACL to encourage fair representation and balance, focused on the following subjects:
1. Personal qualities necessary for authentic leadership, and the place of religious faith in forming these qualities
2. Howard government’s “lack of compassion for vulnerable people in society”
3. Policies to address the growing inequality and lack of work-life balance
4. Retention of only Christian prayers to open Parliament each day
5. Possible increase of aid toward the goal of 0.7 per cent of GNI
6. Defining de facto marriage to include homosexual couples, and parenthood as gender-neutral
7. Processing and welfare of refugees arriving by “irregular means”
8. Protecting religious freedom in the light of a possible Bill of Rights
9. Better health, education, employment, land protection, human rights and safety for Aboriginal people
10. Measures to address global warming and other key environmental matters
In the event, Mr Howard was asked questions 1-5; Mr Rudd was asked questions 1, 6, 7 and 8. Neither leader was asked any question on indigenous issues or on the environment. The omission of the question on indigenous issues was particularly disappointing in the light of the federal government’s “takeover” of Northern Territory Aboriginal communities in response to concern over child sexual abuse and neglect. Likewise the fact that no questions were asked of the government’s failure to sign the Kyoto Protocol or commit to binding carbon emission targets, or the alternative government’s policies to address climate change, was regrettable.
It was clear that the key policy issues occupying the minds and hearts of many Australian Christians in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election are reducing global poverty through increased and targeted foreign aid; reducing human-induced climate change by adopting ambitious carbon emission targets and viable alternatives to fossil fuels; developing suitable policy instruments to address the perception of a growing inequality between the rich and poor in Australia; protecting the freedom to practice religion according to conscience amid threats of legislative and punitive measures to curtail religious freedom; and engaging the vigorous debate on Muslim immigration to Australia with reference to what has occurred in western Europe.
It was also clear that the event attracted a wide cross-section of the Australian Christian churches. Although the Uniting Church delegates withdrew from participation, the presence of several Anglican and Catholic bishops was evident. Catholic involvement was crucial in the ACL’s strategy to build a broad coalition of Christian support. The fact that both Howard and Rudd were seated beside the President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Philip Wilson, and that he alone asked questions of both leaders, did not go unnoticed. At least demographically, the participation of large suburban Pentecostal churches was also strategically important for the ACL. Indeed news reports of the event carried images of worshipping crowds at churches such as Hillsong in Sydney, which presumably paused to watch the webcast.
On the following day, the ACL hosted a breakfast for church leaders where Jim Wallace spoke frankly about his strategies for winning the “culture war.” He cast the ACL as a “centrist” lobby in contrast to what he saw as the polarisation of contemporary American Christian political engagement into opposing “Christian Right” and “Christian Left” factions. The phenomenal success of the ACL webcast (not least its technical aspects), and the impressive list of attenders, demonstrates the lobby group’s strong credentials and bodes well for the future.
But the question remains whether the media, and the mainstream churches, will now accept the proposition that the ACL represents a truly broad church whose policy interests span the spectrum of “social justice” and “moral issues.” Another question is whether the ACL can hold the political “centre” together in the face of strong pressures from churches and other groups for whom polarisation is in their best interests.
What is, I think, beyond question is that Christian views, and Christian voters, are being taken seriously by politicians, political parties and the media in Australia. Or, if they are not, as is the case with the Australian Democrats, it is at a high cost to the party’s credibility. Reality belies the caricature of Australia as a secular, post-Christian democracy. Practical spirituality, religious belief, and moral issues shaped by religious commitments all influence Australian political culture and help to determine the orientation of public policy.
The federal election will be fought around policies and ideals shaped by religious communities. The two candidates for Australia’s top political job, both professed Christians with alarmingly different views on the essence of Christianity and how one’s faith plays out in the policy arena, are actively courting Christian voters. The ACL has provided a welcome boost to the credibility of Christians in the public life of the nation, and a potentially united voice for concerned Christian citizens of all persuasions.
That has to be good for our liberal democratic tradition as well as for public Christian morality.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney, Australia.
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that contribute to analysis and debate on issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
John and Mal's excellent emergency
No. 59 – 16 August 2007
By Rod Benson
On 21 June Prime Minister John Howard, along with the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, announced that Australia was in the grip of a “national emergency” on the scale of Hurricane Katrina. The crisis was brought to light by the release on 15 June of a report, Little Children Are Sacred, arising from a Northern Territory government Inquiry headed by two eminent Australians, Rex Wild and Pat Anderson. This is the latest in a series of reports documenting horrific and sickening violence and abuse in Australian indigenous communities. [1]
Responding to the present crisis, Mr Howard announced that his government would introduce a raft of strong measures aimed at addressing violence and abuse in NT indigenous communities.
“The duty of care to the young of this country is paramount,” he said, “and nobody who has any acquaintance with that report could be other than appalled by … the cumulative neglect of many over a long period of time and frustrated in the extreme of the inability of governments to come to terms with an effective response to deal with this problem … Without urgent action to restore social order, the nightmare will go on – more grog, more violence, more pornography and more sexual abuse – as the generation we are supposed to save sinks further into the abyss.”
Strong words indeed. And strong legislative measures were to follow. Opponents have accused Howard of racism, paternalism and political opportunism. On the charge of racism, the government’s heavy-handed approach to welfare reforms, scrapping of the permit system, and compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal lands do suggest a racially (or ethnically) directed reform program. Introducing similar measures to suburban Australia is unimaginable. But one could argue that to do nothing also smacks of racism.
On the matter of paternalism, the ideological tide appears to have turned in favour of drastic and draconian policy solutions, and an embrace of blatantly utilitarian ethics. As Noel Pearson movingly said on ABC radio in June, "Ask the terrified kid huddling in the corner, when there's a binge-drinking party going on down the hall, ask them if they want a bit of paternalism." And as the Australian editorialised at the time, “Those who oppose the supposedly paternalistic intervention of outsiders are condemning many Aboriginal children to a living hell.”
More recently, Mal Brough has worn the paternalism label, and the charge of utilitarianism, as a badge of honour. Asked in a Lateline interview if his government was instituting “a new paternalism,” Brough claimed it was outcomes that mattered, and he had no qualms about being labelled paternalistic. This suggests that paternalistic indigenous policies seeking to deliver “positive” outcomes in remote communities are likely to receive widespread support among white Australian voters. There are parallels with last year’s stem cell debate, where “therapeutic” outcomes were all that mattered. The expert knows best. The end justifies the means. End of debate.
As for political opportunism, that is the nature of professional politics. Mr Howard has made an art of it during his eleven years as Prime Minister, although as Hugh Mackay pointed out this week, a case can be made that he is resorting to increasingly desperate measures in a bid to keep ahead of his political rivals.
We are now at the pointy end of the government’s emergency response. Earlier this week the House of Representatives passed five bills which the Senate will rubber-stamp. These included measures for alcohol restriction; computer auditing to detect prohibited pornographic material; better management of community stores to deliver healthier and more affordable food; five-year leases on some communities to enable better management of investments and improved living conditions; land tenure changes for town camps; and removal of customary law as a relevant mitigating factor for bail and sentencing conditions.
Passage through Parliament of such wide-ranging legislation is a significant achievement. No wonder Mal Brough said last week that it was the most important moment of his political life. All he needs to do now is put it all in place, and come away with positive outcomes.
What have the churches been saying about the “national emergency”? There has been cautious support but also strong criticism from leaders of the mainstream churches (e.g. here and here and here).
A large group of Australians, among them various Christian leaders, including myself, signed an open letter to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs on 26 June, welcoming the government’s commitment to tackling violence and abuse in indigenous communities, but indicating areas of grave concern with the substance and process of the planned reforms. The letter emphasised the need for sustainable solutions and long-term planning, the importance of developing programs that will strengthen families and communities and empower them to confront problems (rather than an over-reliance on top-down and punitive measures), and the need for adequate consultation with indigenous communities and the NT government.
The NSW Council of Churches (here I need to disclose that I serve as the Council’s Public Affairs Director) issued a statement on 28 June welcoming the federal initiatives in the Northern Territory, but noting that the problem was a national one, that non-indigenous people were responsible for some of the violence and abuse documented in the Wild-Anderson Report, and that legislative and punitive measures alone could not be expected to deliver morality in accordance with acceptable community standards. The Council also urged careful consultation with local communities and community leaders.
The Baptist Union of Australia, along with its mission agency Global Interaction, issued a statement lamenting the fact that “well-intentioned and well-funded programs by governments of different persuasions have done little to reverse the difficulties in the past,” cautioning that “by their nature, government programs tend to be strongly bureaucratic and to provide formulated, one-size-fits-all services,” and claiming “there is little evidence that child sexual abuse is worse in Indigenous communities than in other Australian communities.”
Most recently, the Social Issues Executive of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney released a fine discussion paper outlining the main criticisms and arguments in support of the federal intervention, noting four process issues of concern (geographic specificity, means versus ends, use of state force, and lack of consultation), and offering a series of questions to be asked of the government and, importantly, its opponents. The paper concludes: “Perhaps we should imagine the recent Federal Government intervention as a form of ‘emergency field surgery’—a rapid response, with limited instruments, to save a patient. But it is a blunt instrument, and the ultimate solution will be complex and multi-faceted.”
Clearly the Howard government has a long way to go in progressing this initiative. I suspect a federal Labor government would have done much the same in similar circumstances. There is a great deal more of value still to be said on the new legislation, its implementation in the diverse communities affected, and the responses by those communities.
Careful attention also needs to be paid to the degree to which these policies actually resolve problems of child abuse and neglect; the ways in which alcohol and drug abuse, petrol sniffing and access to pornography increase the risk of abuse and neglect; and the extent to which the problems extend beyond remote indigenous communities into thousands of supposedly “safer” Australian suburbs, homes and families.
The churches and relevant parachurch agencies need to contribute more to the debate, and – where possible – to the solutions. And the people directly affected, all of them Australian citizens with their own hopes and fears and aspirations and perspectives, need our ongoing prayers and our genuine care. They too are our neighbours.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney, Australia.
Reference:
1. For example, Boni Robertson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Task Force on Violence Report, May 2000 [1.4Mb]; Sue Gordon, Putting the Picture Together, Western Australian Government, 2002 [4Mb]; and Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2005, released 12 July 2005 by the Productivity Commission [full report 2.1Mb].
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that contribute to analysis and debate on issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
By Rod Benson
On 21 June Prime Minister John Howard, along with the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, announced that Australia was in the grip of a “national emergency” on the scale of Hurricane Katrina. The crisis was brought to light by the release on 15 June of a report, Little Children Are Sacred, arising from a Northern Territory government Inquiry headed by two eminent Australians, Rex Wild and Pat Anderson. This is the latest in a series of reports documenting horrific and sickening violence and abuse in Australian indigenous communities. [1]
Responding to the present crisis, Mr Howard announced that his government would introduce a raft of strong measures aimed at addressing violence and abuse in NT indigenous communities.
“The duty of care to the young of this country is paramount,” he said, “and nobody who has any acquaintance with that report could be other than appalled by … the cumulative neglect of many over a long period of time and frustrated in the extreme of the inability of governments to come to terms with an effective response to deal with this problem … Without urgent action to restore social order, the nightmare will go on – more grog, more violence, more pornography and more sexual abuse – as the generation we are supposed to save sinks further into the abyss.”
Strong words indeed. And strong legislative measures were to follow. Opponents have accused Howard of racism, paternalism and political opportunism. On the charge of racism, the government’s heavy-handed approach to welfare reforms, scrapping of the permit system, and compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal lands do suggest a racially (or ethnically) directed reform program. Introducing similar measures to suburban Australia is unimaginable. But one could argue that to do nothing also smacks of racism.
On the matter of paternalism, the ideological tide appears to have turned in favour of drastic and draconian policy solutions, and an embrace of blatantly utilitarian ethics. As Noel Pearson movingly said on ABC radio in June, "Ask the terrified kid huddling in the corner, when there's a binge-drinking party going on down the hall, ask them if they want a bit of paternalism." And as the Australian editorialised at the time, “Those who oppose the supposedly paternalistic intervention of outsiders are condemning many Aboriginal children to a living hell.”
More recently, Mal Brough has worn the paternalism label, and the charge of utilitarianism, as a badge of honour. Asked in a Lateline interview if his government was instituting “a new paternalism,” Brough claimed it was outcomes that mattered, and he had no qualms about being labelled paternalistic. This suggests that paternalistic indigenous policies seeking to deliver “positive” outcomes in remote communities are likely to receive widespread support among white Australian voters. There are parallels with last year’s stem cell debate, where “therapeutic” outcomes were all that mattered. The expert knows best. The end justifies the means. End of debate.
As for political opportunism, that is the nature of professional politics. Mr Howard has made an art of it during his eleven years as Prime Minister, although as Hugh Mackay pointed out this week, a case can be made that he is resorting to increasingly desperate measures in a bid to keep ahead of his political rivals.
We are now at the pointy end of the government’s emergency response. Earlier this week the House of Representatives passed five bills which the Senate will rubber-stamp. These included measures for alcohol restriction; computer auditing to detect prohibited pornographic material; better management of community stores to deliver healthier and more affordable food; five-year leases on some communities to enable better management of investments and improved living conditions; land tenure changes for town camps; and removal of customary law as a relevant mitigating factor for bail and sentencing conditions.
Passage through Parliament of such wide-ranging legislation is a significant achievement. No wonder Mal Brough said last week that it was the most important moment of his political life. All he needs to do now is put it all in place, and come away with positive outcomes.
What have the churches been saying about the “national emergency”? There has been cautious support but also strong criticism from leaders of the mainstream churches (e.g. here and here and here).
A large group of Australians, among them various Christian leaders, including myself, signed an open letter to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs on 26 June, welcoming the government’s commitment to tackling violence and abuse in indigenous communities, but indicating areas of grave concern with the substance and process of the planned reforms. The letter emphasised the need for sustainable solutions and long-term planning, the importance of developing programs that will strengthen families and communities and empower them to confront problems (rather than an over-reliance on top-down and punitive measures), and the need for adequate consultation with indigenous communities and the NT government.
The NSW Council of Churches (here I need to disclose that I serve as the Council’s Public Affairs Director) issued a statement on 28 June welcoming the federal initiatives in the Northern Territory, but noting that the problem was a national one, that non-indigenous people were responsible for some of the violence and abuse documented in the Wild-Anderson Report, and that legislative and punitive measures alone could not be expected to deliver morality in accordance with acceptable community standards. The Council also urged careful consultation with local communities and community leaders.
The Baptist Union of Australia, along with its mission agency Global Interaction, issued a statement lamenting the fact that “well-intentioned and well-funded programs by governments of different persuasions have done little to reverse the difficulties in the past,” cautioning that “by their nature, government programs tend to be strongly bureaucratic and to provide formulated, one-size-fits-all services,” and claiming “there is little evidence that child sexual abuse is worse in Indigenous communities than in other Australian communities.”
Most recently, the Social Issues Executive of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney released a fine discussion paper outlining the main criticisms and arguments in support of the federal intervention, noting four process issues of concern (geographic specificity, means versus ends, use of state force, and lack of consultation), and offering a series of questions to be asked of the government and, importantly, its opponents. The paper concludes: “Perhaps we should imagine the recent Federal Government intervention as a form of ‘emergency field surgery’—a rapid response, with limited instruments, to save a patient. But it is a blunt instrument, and the ultimate solution will be complex and multi-faceted.”
Clearly the Howard government has a long way to go in progressing this initiative. I suspect a federal Labor government would have done much the same in similar circumstances. There is a great deal more of value still to be said on the new legislation, its implementation in the diverse communities affected, and the responses by those communities.
Careful attention also needs to be paid to the degree to which these policies actually resolve problems of child abuse and neglect; the ways in which alcohol and drug abuse, petrol sniffing and access to pornography increase the risk of abuse and neglect; and the extent to which the problems extend beyond remote indigenous communities into thousands of supposedly “safer” Australian suburbs, homes and families.
The churches and relevant parachurch agencies need to contribute more to the debate, and – where possible – to the solutions. And the people directly affected, all of them Australian citizens with their own hopes and fears and aspirations and perspectives, need our ongoing prayers and our genuine care. They too are our neighbours.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney, Australia.
Reference:
1. For example, Boni Robertson, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s Task Force on Violence Report, May 2000 [1.4Mb]; Sue Gordon, Putting the Picture Together, Western Australian Government, 2002 [4Mb]; and Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2005, released 12 July 2005 by the Productivity Commission [full report 2.1Mb].
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that contribute to analysis and debate on issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Cluster bombs and Australia's national interest
No. 58 – 5 June 2007
By Rod Benson
At the same time as the Australian government is engaged in international talks aimed at securing a global treaty banning cluster bombs, the Defence Department has claimed that limitations on the Australian Defence Force’s capacity to acquire the weapons would be “detrimental to our national interest.”
Cluster bombs, or cluster munitions, are a kind of artillery shell or rocket dropped from the air or launched from the ground. Before reaching its target the shell opens and ejects multiple smaller munitions (bomblets). Cluster bombs are used primarily to kill enemy infantry, but versions are also used to start fires, pierce the armour of tanks and other armoured vehicles, disable runways, disperse mines, deliver chemical weapons and even disrupt electrical power transmission.
Like land mines, cluster bombs pose an immediate and long-term threat to civilians. They typically affect a wide area, sometimes as much as several football fields, increasing the potential for civilian casualties. Further, multiple unexploded bomblets may lie dormant for some time. The Australian Red Cross estimates that typically between seven and 30 per cent, but up to 40 per cent in some cases, of cluster bomblets fail to detonate on impact but may explode if disturbed. According to Handicap International, 98 per cent of its registered cluster munitions casualties are civilians. Many of these are children. In addition to the tragedy of civilian casualties, unexploded ordnance of cluster bomblets can create long-term social and economic problems for countries attempting to recover from war. Countries significantly affected include Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Vietnam and Laos.
Australia possessed limited stocks of cluster munitions between 1970 and 1990 but these were destroyed, and Australia has until now undertaken not to use cluster bombs in armed conflict. On 8 May 2007 Robert Tickner, former federal Aboriginal Affairs minister and now chief executive of the Australian Red Cross, urged the Australian government to consider the role it might play in supporting a ban on cluster munitions, based in part on his personal experience of the devastation caused by them:
I saw the effects of unexploded cluster munitions while visiting Lebanon in February, and they are truly devastating, and alarmingly random. Sub-munitions were found in houses, backyards, in trees, in orchards and many other places. In one street near a hospital, 800 sub-munitions were found.
I met a farm worker who had been working in a field on September 9, about a month after the conflict had ended. He was leaving the field after work and did not notice the unexploded sub-munition that was hidden under some fallen leaves. The munition exploded, severely damaging his foot and leg, resulting in partial amputation. He did not believe he could return to work as a labourer again, and I can only imagine the fear he must feel knowing that almost anywhere in the fields he once worked could be another remnant of the conflict waiting to release its potentially lethal payload …
To support a ban on the use of these inaccurate, unreliable weapons of conflict would send a clear message to the rest of the world and be a significant step towards ridding it of a weapon that goes on destroying lives long after the fighting forces have packed up and gone home.
But Australian politicians and the Australian Defence Force (ADF) are instead moving in the opposite direction. Australian Democrats leader, Senator Lyn Allison, introduced a private members bill into federal parliament on 5 December 2006, titled the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill 2006, to prohibit the use, manufacture and possession of cluster munitions. The bill triggered an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which tabled recommendations in Parliament on 31 May. According to Senator Allison, the Senate Standing Committee selectively ignored 80 per cent of submissions which supported a total ban or far more stringent regulation of the use of cluster munitions, and effectively “gave the cluster bombs the green light.”
Further, the ADF is reported to be acquiring high-precision and self-destructing cluster bombs for use against armoured vehicles. The preferred supplier of the bombs, Israel Military Industries, claimed that they were “safer than others” and had been used to the “utmost satisfaction of its users.” The ADF opposes legislation to ban cluster munitions on the basis that such a ban could leave Australian troops open to prosecution while serving with allies who have used the bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This action by the ADF may appear to contradict the government’s support in Lima last week for a new international treaty to ban cluster munitions. But as Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Greg Hunt, explained, “We make no apologies for wanting to maintain a capability to adequately and safely protect our defence forces.” In addition, the Defence Department claimed the Allison Bill would have “put Australia at a serious military disadvantage in future conflicts, which would be detrimental to our national interest.”
The international response to this growing threat to civilian life has been somewhat disappointing. Although many individuals and agencies including the Red Cross and the United Nations oppose the use of cluster bombs, no international legal instrument specifically covers them. Belgium alone has issued a comprehensive ban on the use of cluster munitions. Several other countries, including Australia, have engaged in parliamentary discussions with a view to a moratorium or ban. An international conference in Oslo in February 2007 led to 46 of the 68 participating nations backing a Norwegian push for a new international treaty by 2008 that would ban “cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.” What constitutes “unacceptable harm” is ambiguous and disputed.
Australia was not represented at the Oslo talks, but did send officials to a second round of talks involving 70 countries in Lima, Peru, from 23 to 25 May 2007, aimed at a global treaty banning cluster munitions. Australia’s contribution to the latest round of talks was to call for an exclusion of weapons with a self-destruct mechanism in an apparent attempt to protect the interests of the ADF. Dr Mark Zirnsak, National Coordinator of the Australian Network to Ban Landmines, described this as “a deadly and disastrous decision by the Australian Government as the self-destruct mechanism has repeatedly been proven not to protect civilians from the indiscriminate explosions.”
Handicap International asked whether the Government had actually studied the humanitarian risks of the cluster bombs it wanted to acquire:
As with landmines, cluster munitions pose a serious threat to civilians during and after the conflicts. Australia should also be setting an example based on its commitment to humanitarian law that weapons that are indiscriminate should not be used.
Perhaps the mantra of “the national interest” has itself become a handicap to the advocacy of reasonable notions of justice and compassion in Australia. Indeed, it is debatable whether there is any contested area of Australian public life in which the national interest could not be invoked by political pragmatists, or economic fundamentalists, to justify what a majority of the population regards as injustice.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney, Australia.
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics or affiliated agencies.
By Rod Benson
At the same time as the Australian government is engaged in international talks aimed at securing a global treaty banning cluster bombs, the Defence Department has claimed that limitations on the Australian Defence Force’s capacity to acquire the weapons would be “detrimental to our national interest.”
Cluster bombs, or cluster munitions, are a kind of artillery shell or rocket dropped from the air or launched from the ground. Before reaching its target the shell opens and ejects multiple smaller munitions (bomblets). Cluster bombs are used primarily to kill enemy infantry, but versions are also used to start fires, pierce the armour of tanks and other armoured vehicles, disable runways, disperse mines, deliver chemical weapons and even disrupt electrical power transmission.
Like land mines, cluster bombs pose an immediate and long-term threat to civilians. They typically affect a wide area, sometimes as much as several football fields, increasing the potential for civilian casualties. Further, multiple unexploded bomblets may lie dormant for some time. The Australian Red Cross estimates that typically between seven and 30 per cent, but up to 40 per cent in some cases, of cluster bomblets fail to detonate on impact but may explode if disturbed. According to Handicap International, 98 per cent of its registered cluster munitions casualties are civilians. Many of these are children. In addition to the tragedy of civilian casualties, unexploded ordnance of cluster bomblets can create long-term social and economic problems for countries attempting to recover from war. Countries significantly affected include Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Vietnam and Laos.
Australia possessed limited stocks of cluster munitions between 1970 and 1990 but these were destroyed, and Australia has until now undertaken not to use cluster bombs in armed conflict. On 8 May 2007 Robert Tickner, former federal Aboriginal Affairs minister and now chief executive of the Australian Red Cross, urged the Australian government to consider the role it might play in supporting a ban on cluster munitions, based in part on his personal experience of the devastation caused by them:
I saw the effects of unexploded cluster munitions while visiting Lebanon in February, and they are truly devastating, and alarmingly random. Sub-munitions were found in houses, backyards, in trees, in orchards and many other places. In one street near a hospital, 800 sub-munitions were found.
I met a farm worker who had been working in a field on September 9, about a month after the conflict had ended. He was leaving the field after work and did not notice the unexploded sub-munition that was hidden under some fallen leaves. The munition exploded, severely damaging his foot and leg, resulting in partial amputation. He did not believe he could return to work as a labourer again, and I can only imagine the fear he must feel knowing that almost anywhere in the fields he once worked could be another remnant of the conflict waiting to release its potentially lethal payload …
To support a ban on the use of these inaccurate, unreliable weapons of conflict would send a clear message to the rest of the world and be a significant step towards ridding it of a weapon that goes on destroying lives long after the fighting forces have packed up and gone home.
But Australian politicians and the Australian Defence Force (ADF) are instead moving in the opposite direction. Australian Democrats leader, Senator Lyn Allison, introduced a private members bill into federal parliament on 5 December 2006, titled the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill 2006, to prohibit the use, manufacture and possession of cluster munitions. The bill triggered an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which tabled recommendations in Parliament on 31 May. According to Senator Allison, the Senate Standing Committee selectively ignored 80 per cent of submissions which supported a total ban or far more stringent regulation of the use of cluster munitions, and effectively “gave the cluster bombs the green light.”
Further, the ADF is reported to be acquiring high-precision and self-destructing cluster bombs for use against armoured vehicles. The preferred supplier of the bombs, Israel Military Industries, claimed that they were “safer than others” and had been used to the “utmost satisfaction of its users.” The ADF opposes legislation to ban cluster munitions on the basis that such a ban could leave Australian troops open to prosecution while serving with allies who have used the bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This action by the ADF may appear to contradict the government’s support in Lima last week for a new international treaty to ban cluster munitions. But as Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Greg Hunt, explained, “We make no apologies for wanting to maintain a capability to adequately and safely protect our defence forces.” In addition, the Defence Department claimed the Allison Bill would have “put Australia at a serious military disadvantage in future conflicts, which would be detrimental to our national interest.”
The international response to this growing threat to civilian life has been somewhat disappointing. Although many individuals and agencies including the Red Cross and the United Nations oppose the use of cluster bombs, no international legal instrument specifically covers them. Belgium alone has issued a comprehensive ban on the use of cluster munitions. Several other countries, including Australia, have engaged in parliamentary discussions with a view to a moratorium or ban. An international conference in Oslo in February 2007 led to 46 of the 68 participating nations backing a Norwegian push for a new international treaty by 2008 that would ban “cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians.” What constitutes “unacceptable harm” is ambiguous and disputed.
Australia was not represented at the Oslo talks, but did send officials to a second round of talks involving 70 countries in Lima, Peru, from 23 to 25 May 2007, aimed at a global treaty banning cluster munitions. Australia’s contribution to the latest round of talks was to call for an exclusion of weapons with a self-destruct mechanism in an apparent attempt to protect the interests of the ADF. Dr Mark Zirnsak, National Coordinator of the Australian Network to Ban Landmines, described this as “a deadly and disastrous decision by the Australian Government as the self-destruct mechanism has repeatedly been proven not to protect civilians from the indiscriminate explosions.”
Handicap International asked whether the Government had actually studied the humanitarian risks of the cluster bombs it wanted to acquire:
As with landmines, cluster munitions pose a serious threat to civilians during and after the conflicts. Australia should also be setting an example based on its commitment to humanitarian law that weapons that are indiscriminate should not be used.
Perhaps the mantra of “the national interest” has itself become a handicap to the advocacy of reasonable notions of justice and compassion in Australia. Indeed, it is debatable whether there is any contested area of Australian public life in which the national interest could not be invoked by political pragmatists, or economic fundamentalists, to justify what a majority of the population regards as injustice.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney, Australia.
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics or affiliated agencies.
An election, a million marchers and a mass murder
No. 57 – 1 May 2007
By Rod Benson
Events in the Republic of Turkey have attracted recent media attention. Three events raise important questions for Turkey’s political future, for the small minority of Christians who live and work there, and for every community threatened by radical Islam.
First, Turkey is in the midst of Presidential elections. The nation has been a secular democratic republic since its establishment in 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk following the fall of the Ottoman empire. In recent years Turkey has sought increasing political integration with Western Europe while remaining socially and culturally Islamic. According to government statistics, over 99 per cent of the 70 million people living in Turkey today identify as Muslim, and less than one per cent as Christian. Officially Turkey is a secular state, but Islam retains strong popular support, and that support may be taking a radical turn.
In the first round of Presidential elections on Friday, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, a “former Islamist” from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), narrowly missed being elected to the top job. The AKP dominates the 550-seat parliament but lacks the required two-thirds majority it needs to elect Gul. The opposition boycotted the parliamentary vote on the basis of Gul’s Islamist past.
The Islamist AKP won elections in 2002, but a previous Islamist government was removed by the military in 1997. Following Friday’s vote, the army – always a force to be reckoned with in Turkish politics – issued a statement saying it was determined to protect Turkey’s secular political culture and would “take action” if the need arose.
The prospect of Mr Gul becoming head of state has alarmed Turkish secularists who fear the erosion of the strict separation of state and religion, and the creeping of radical Islam into all fields of Turkish life.
Second, The Australian reports that, in response to the political uncertainty, more than a million Turks took part in a mass rally in Istanbul on Sunday in support of secularism and democracy. The demonstration followed a similar march in the capital, Ankara, on 14 April that attracted up to 1.5 million people. This is a sign of a healthy political culture in Turkey. The aim was not to banish religious views from political discourse but to uphold the formal separation of state and religion introduced by Atatürk in the 1920s.
It is almost unthinkable that any politically-motivated crisis would draw such numbers in Australia. What this suggests about the current health of Australia’s political culture is discomforting. It is testament to the current strength of democracy and freedom in Turkey that, despite being an overwhelmingly Muslim country, anti-Islamist demonstrations of such huge size can be held at short notice – and remain peaceful.
One wonders, though, whether the apparent popular support for Western ideals will be sufficient to maintain Turkey’s traditional secularism without military intervention. There have been four military coups in Turkey since 1960. One also wonders how long Turkey’s intellectual leadership will retain its independence in the face of growing pressure from international Islamic interests. Mr Gul remains a devout Muslim, and at the same time a strong advocate of Turkish membership in the decidedly non-religious European Union. Perhaps he and his backers have continental ambitions.
The third Turkey-related event would probably have passed unnoticed unless a friend had sent me an email the other day, drawing attention to the alleged horrific, religiously-based torture and murder of three Christians in Malatya, Turkey, on 18 April (reported here and elsewhere). The report possessed some of the characteristics of an internet hoax, but its essence appears genuine. The news of the killings was carried (albeit far more briefly) by the BBC, The Australian, and other media agencies. Ironically, Malatya is the hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, who attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II in May 1981.
The taking of innocent life can never be justified or condoned. But we know the tragic reality of our world. These three murders – premeditated, sadistic and barbaric though they were – pale into statistical and moral insignificance in the face of the mounting death toll from war in Iraq (more than 3,300 combatants and at least tens of thousands of civilians, according to Reuters news agency), the estimated 200,000 dead in Darfur, or the 30,000 children who die every day as a result of extreme poverty.
Yet the tragedy in Malatya highlights the dangerous and unpredictable environment in which many Christian missionaries work today. And the gracious response of the bereaved families serves as a reminder of the radical difference, in practice, between a faith based on love and a religion based on law.
True, there are fundamentalists on both sides of the divide, and there is the historical embarrassment of the Crusades and other low points of Christian history. But I cannot imagine that a genuine, sane follower of Jesus would ever be driven to killing strangers in cold blood on the basis of religious convictions.
At its heart Islam is ambivalent about the advocacy of violence toward “infidels.” And there is the disputed matter of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, whereby early pacifist passages in the Koran, written while Mohammed lived in Mecca, are nullified or reinterpreted by later passages advocating violence, written during his residency in Medina. Scholars and others selectively apply abrogation to suit their audience and politics.
When Islamists gain political power in the West, and incrementalism and abrogation are no longer necessary, it will be too late: everyone loses – especially Christians and women, but also capitalism, democracy, justice and peace.
What then can we do? Review our own spiritual convictions and confessions. Develop a more informed interest in the wider world, especially geography and politics (for example, try this or this). Take a more activist role in our own political institutions. Talk to Muslims in our workplace and community. Be alert to the danger of creeping Islamism. And pray for the people of Turkey.
Reviewing the fate of the church in Turkey in 2004 for Christianity Today, Collin Hansen concluded:
The state of the contemporary church in Turkey, home to so many seminal moments in Christian history, looks bleak for now. Perhaps integration into the European Union will galvanize the small Greek Orthodox community in Istanbul and allow the Turkish government to honestly examine the grizzly fate of the Armenians. Hopefully the spread of religious freedom there will ease hostility toward missionaries and converts from Islam to Christianity. Regardless, we should heed the warnings of history—beware the dangers of political infighting between Christians with earthly interests at heart, and never underestimate the seriousness of Islamic jihad.
Time will tell what political and religious changes sweep through Turkey. Recent events are alarming and the immediate future does look potentially bleak. Still, on the whole, Turkey has for many years managed to forge a workable partnership between Western-style democracy and Islamic culture, and the rest of the world can learn much from that achievement.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney, Australia.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
By Rod Benson
Events in the Republic of Turkey have attracted recent media attention. Three events raise important questions for Turkey’s political future, for the small minority of Christians who live and work there, and for every community threatened by radical Islam.
First, Turkey is in the midst of Presidential elections. The nation has been a secular democratic republic since its establishment in 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk following the fall of the Ottoman empire. In recent years Turkey has sought increasing political integration with Western Europe while remaining socially and culturally Islamic. According to government statistics, over 99 per cent of the 70 million people living in Turkey today identify as Muslim, and less than one per cent as Christian. Officially Turkey is a secular state, but Islam retains strong popular support, and that support may be taking a radical turn.
In the first round of Presidential elections on Friday, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, a “former Islamist” from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), narrowly missed being elected to the top job. The AKP dominates the 550-seat parliament but lacks the required two-thirds majority it needs to elect Gul. The opposition boycotted the parliamentary vote on the basis of Gul’s Islamist past.
The Islamist AKP won elections in 2002, but a previous Islamist government was removed by the military in 1997. Following Friday’s vote, the army – always a force to be reckoned with in Turkish politics – issued a statement saying it was determined to protect Turkey’s secular political culture and would “take action” if the need arose.
The prospect of Mr Gul becoming head of state has alarmed Turkish secularists who fear the erosion of the strict separation of state and religion, and the creeping of radical Islam into all fields of Turkish life.
Second, The Australian reports that, in response to the political uncertainty, more than a million Turks took part in a mass rally in Istanbul on Sunday in support of secularism and democracy. The demonstration followed a similar march in the capital, Ankara, on 14 April that attracted up to 1.5 million people. This is a sign of a healthy political culture in Turkey. The aim was not to banish religious views from political discourse but to uphold the formal separation of state and religion introduced by Atatürk in the 1920s.
It is almost unthinkable that any politically-motivated crisis would draw such numbers in Australia. What this suggests about the current health of Australia’s political culture is discomforting. It is testament to the current strength of democracy and freedom in Turkey that, despite being an overwhelmingly Muslim country, anti-Islamist demonstrations of such huge size can be held at short notice – and remain peaceful.
One wonders, though, whether the apparent popular support for Western ideals will be sufficient to maintain Turkey’s traditional secularism without military intervention. There have been four military coups in Turkey since 1960. One also wonders how long Turkey’s intellectual leadership will retain its independence in the face of growing pressure from international Islamic interests. Mr Gul remains a devout Muslim, and at the same time a strong advocate of Turkish membership in the decidedly non-religious European Union. Perhaps he and his backers have continental ambitions.
The third Turkey-related event would probably have passed unnoticed unless a friend had sent me an email the other day, drawing attention to the alleged horrific, religiously-based torture and murder of three Christians in Malatya, Turkey, on 18 April (reported here and elsewhere). The report possessed some of the characteristics of an internet hoax, but its essence appears genuine. The news of the killings was carried (albeit far more briefly) by the BBC, The Australian, and other media agencies. Ironically, Malatya is the hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, who attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II in May 1981.
The taking of innocent life can never be justified or condoned. But we know the tragic reality of our world. These three murders – premeditated, sadistic and barbaric though they were – pale into statistical and moral insignificance in the face of the mounting death toll from war in Iraq (more than 3,300 combatants and at least tens of thousands of civilians, according to Reuters news agency), the estimated 200,000 dead in Darfur, or the 30,000 children who die every day as a result of extreme poverty.
Yet the tragedy in Malatya highlights the dangerous and unpredictable environment in which many Christian missionaries work today. And the gracious response of the bereaved families serves as a reminder of the radical difference, in practice, between a faith based on love and a religion based on law.
True, there are fundamentalists on both sides of the divide, and there is the historical embarrassment of the Crusades and other low points of Christian history. But I cannot imagine that a genuine, sane follower of Jesus would ever be driven to killing strangers in cold blood on the basis of religious convictions.
At its heart Islam is ambivalent about the advocacy of violence toward “infidels.” And there is the disputed matter of the Muslim doctrine of abrogation, whereby early pacifist passages in the Koran, written while Mohammed lived in Mecca, are nullified or reinterpreted by later passages advocating violence, written during his residency in Medina. Scholars and others selectively apply abrogation to suit their audience and politics.
When Islamists gain political power in the West, and incrementalism and abrogation are no longer necessary, it will be too late: everyone loses – especially Christians and women, but also capitalism, democracy, justice and peace.
What then can we do? Review our own spiritual convictions and confessions. Develop a more informed interest in the wider world, especially geography and politics (for example, try this or this). Take a more activist role in our own political institutions. Talk to Muslims in our workplace and community. Be alert to the danger of creeping Islamism. And pray for the people of Turkey.
Reviewing the fate of the church in Turkey in 2004 for Christianity Today, Collin Hansen concluded:
The state of the contemporary church in Turkey, home to so many seminal moments in Christian history, looks bleak for now. Perhaps integration into the European Union will galvanize the small Greek Orthodox community in Istanbul and allow the Turkish government to honestly examine the grizzly fate of the Armenians. Hopefully the spread of religious freedom there will ease hostility toward missionaries and converts from Islam to Christianity. Regardless, we should heed the warnings of history—beware the dangers of political infighting between Christians with earthly interests at heart, and never underestimate the seriousness of Islamic jihad.
Time will tell what political and religious changes sweep through Turkey. Recent events are alarming and the immediate future does look potentially bleak. Still, on the whole, Turkey has for many years managed to forge a workable partnership between Western-style democracy and Islamic culture, and the rest of the world can learn much from that achievement.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney, Australia.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Prayer for rain and the Prime Minister
No. 56 – 30 April 2007
By Kristine Morrison
On 20 April The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) reported the Australian Prime Minister’s call to pray for rain in response to the dire state of the Murray-Darling Basin. This call was endorsed in a media release by Rev Dr Ross Clifford, President of the Baptist Union of Australia. Among other things, Dr Clifford encouraged church leaders around Australia to ensure that time was set aside for prayer each Sunday until the drought was broken, and asked the churches to pray for families severely affected by the drought.
The Herald’s Letters to the Editor section of the 23 April devoted significant space to responses to the Prime Minister’s call to prayer. In contrast to Dr Clifford, respondents were unenthusiastic, derisive and scathing.
Does this diversity of opinions represent a simple divide between secular people, who do not believe that there is a place for prayer in everyday life, and people of faith? Or are there genuine problems with a broadly stated call to prayer from a political leader in a liberal democracy such as Australia?
It is difficult for Christians to voice reservations about a public call to prayer for drought-breaking rain. However, there are some aspects of this call to payer that will trouble praying believers.
Christians are wary of having their prayer life co-opted for the advancement of a particular political agenda. Whilst they may pray and indeed be happy to pray for rain, they may not wish to have their prayer life conscripted for the furtherance of the Prime Minister’s ambition. There are also conditions of prayer and limits to the kinds of things that may be requested in prayer that need to be considered when approaching the Almighty.
Even though Dr Clifford’s statement appears to support the Prime Minister’s call, there are elements in his statement that qualify the endorsement. Dr Clifford reminds us that Christians, particularly those in rural areas, have been praying for rain for many months if not years. Rural communities appreciate – far more acutely than city dwellers – our intimate dependence on the cycles of nature. There is an implicit, if gentle, rebuke for our Prime Minister in the words of our President that is worth noting.
Dr Clifford also suggests that we need to pray for wisdom in the management and restoration of our water resources. It is perhaps this apparent lack of wisdom, revealed by our Prime Minister, that so infuriated the writers to the Herald’s letters page.
They point out that in the past decade of prosperity the government has not seriously addressed water management issues. John Howard is accused of failing to listen to scientific advice about water management and being without an alternative water management plan. His plea for prayer is reckoned by one correspondent to be reasonable only in comparison to being asked to slaughter a chicken.
Though secularists, these writers have proved alert to some of the dilemmas facing those who pray. Is it reasonable to pray to avoid the consequences of something that those who pray may have contributed to? Our squandering of water and our failure to be active in prompting our government to take water management practices seriously does compromise our approach to God.
One writer to the Herald, clearly not a secularist, made a compelling link between the need for repentance and effective prayer. He advocated a day of repentance where the nation could acknowledge both God as the giver of rain and our dependence on the generosity of God to provide for all our needs to accompany our requests for rain. Many of us have prayed to escape the consequences of our actions. However, we can only do this when we express contrition and repentance for such actions. This important and significant aspect of prayer was omitted in our Prime Minister’s call to prayer.
The knowledge of the cyclic nature of rain patterns presents another difficulty for those who pray for rain. We know that higher rainfall in one part of Australia (or the world) usually means less rain in some other part of the continent (or the world). Is it right for us to pray for more natural abundance in our part of the world when other places, already suffering resource depletion, may receive less rain as a result?
Writers to the Herald were also annoyed by our Prime Minister’s apparent lack of cultural sensitivity. Which God was he suggesting that we pray to? Yahweh? The Christian God? Allah? Christians may assume that Mr Howard was referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but that may not be clear to all members of our community.
If Mr Howard was only calling Christians to prayer, he was ignoring the religious convictions of many in our community. But if he was making a universalist call to prayer, he ran the risk of insulting Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims alike by flattening the diverse meanings of prayer to a one-note refrain. As a missionary people, aware of cultural sensitivities and the challenges of religious pluralism, Australian Baptists might have hoped that our national leader could provide spiritual direction without alienating significant sections of our community.
Public prayer is not a concept that can be conscripted for political gain. Nor, as Mr Howard has perhaps discovered, is it a motherhood issue that will unite everyone in a surge of good feeling. As Florence Allshorn observed, “the primary object of prayer is to know God better; we and our needs should come second.”
It is too much to expect our political leaders to encapsulate such a profound appreciation of prayer in public statements, but we can wish that they might avoid reducing public calls to prayer to a glib sound bite.
Kristine Morrison is a midwife at Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and a member of the Social Issues Committee of the Baptist Churches of NSW and ACT.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
By Kristine Morrison
On 20 April The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) reported the Australian Prime Minister’s call to pray for rain in response to the dire state of the Murray-Darling Basin. This call was endorsed in a media release by Rev Dr Ross Clifford, President of the Baptist Union of Australia. Among other things, Dr Clifford encouraged church leaders around Australia to ensure that time was set aside for prayer each Sunday until the drought was broken, and asked the churches to pray for families severely affected by the drought.
The Herald’s Letters to the Editor section of the 23 April devoted significant space to responses to the Prime Minister’s call to prayer. In contrast to Dr Clifford, respondents were unenthusiastic, derisive and scathing.
Does this diversity of opinions represent a simple divide between secular people, who do not believe that there is a place for prayer in everyday life, and people of faith? Or are there genuine problems with a broadly stated call to prayer from a political leader in a liberal democracy such as Australia?
It is difficult for Christians to voice reservations about a public call to prayer for drought-breaking rain. However, there are some aspects of this call to payer that will trouble praying believers.
Christians are wary of having their prayer life co-opted for the advancement of a particular political agenda. Whilst they may pray and indeed be happy to pray for rain, they may not wish to have their prayer life conscripted for the furtherance of the Prime Minister’s ambition. There are also conditions of prayer and limits to the kinds of things that may be requested in prayer that need to be considered when approaching the Almighty.
Even though Dr Clifford’s statement appears to support the Prime Minister’s call, there are elements in his statement that qualify the endorsement. Dr Clifford reminds us that Christians, particularly those in rural areas, have been praying for rain for many months if not years. Rural communities appreciate – far more acutely than city dwellers – our intimate dependence on the cycles of nature. There is an implicit, if gentle, rebuke for our Prime Minister in the words of our President that is worth noting.
Dr Clifford also suggests that we need to pray for wisdom in the management and restoration of our water resources. It is perhaps this apparent lack of wisdom, revealed by our Prime Minister, that so infuriated the writers to the Herald’s letters page.
They point out that in the past decade of prosperity the government has not seriously addressed water management issues. John Howard is accused of failing to listen to scientific advice about water management and being without an alternative water management plan. His plea for prayer is reckoned by one correspondent to be reasonable only in comparison to being asked to slaughter a chicken.
Though secularists, these writers have proved alert to some of the dilemmas facing those who pray. Is it reasonable to pray to avoid the consequences of something that those who pray may have contributed to? Our squandering of water and our failure to be active in prompting our government to take water management practices seriously does compromise our approach to God.
One writer to the Herald, clearly not a secularist, made a compelling link between the need for repentance and effective prayer. He advocated a day of repentance where the nation could acknowledge both God as the giver of rain and our dependence on the generosity of God to provide for all our needs to accompany our requests for rain. Many of us have prayed to escape the consequences of our actions. However, we can only do this when we express contrition and repentance for such actions. This important and significant aspect of prayer was omitted in our Prime Minister’s call to prayer.
The knowledge of the cyclic nature of rain patterns presents another difficulty for those who pray for rain. We know that higher rainfall in one part of Australia (or the world) usually means less rain in some other part of the continent (or the world). Is it right for us to pray for more natural abundance in our part of the world when other places, already suffering resource depletion, may receive less rain as a result?
Writers to the Herald were also annoyed by our Prime Minister’s apparent lack of cultural sensitivity. Which God was he suggesting that we pray to? Yahweh? The Christian God? Allah? Christians may assume that Mr Howard was referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but that may not be clear to all members of our community.
If Mr Howard was only calling Christians to prayer, he was ignoring the religious convictions of many in our community. But if he was making a universalist call to prayer, he ran the risk of insulting Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims alike by flattening the diverse meanings of prayer to a one-note refrain. As a missionary people, aware of cultural sensitivities and the challenges of religious pluralism, Australian Baptists might have hoped that our national leader could provide spiritual direction without alienating significant sections of our community.
Public prayer is not a concept that can be conscripted for political gain. Nor, as Mr Howard has perhaps discovered, is it a motherhood issue that will unite everyone in a surge of good feeling. As Florence Allshorn observed, “the primary object of prayer is to know God better; we and our needs should come second.”
It is too much to expect our political leaders to encapsulate such a profound appreciation of prayer in public statements, but we can wish that they might avoid reducing public calls to prayer to a glib sound bite.
Kristine Morrison is a midwife at Sydney’s Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and a member of the Social Issues Committee of the Baptist Churches of NSW and ACT.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Beyond the politics of Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott
No. 55 – 23 April 2007
By Stephen Chatelier
The recent discussions surrounding faith and politics have been observed with much interest by the media, politicians and church leaders.
For the media, it is a contentious –and therefore desirable – topic. For politicians, it is about capturing votes. For church leaders, it is about having a voice in society. Out of these three key stakeholders, it is the church that needs to be most discerning in its response the latest developments.
Many Christians who may have felt increasingly disempowered in recent years by the strength of the Religious Right, have been suitably encouraged by Labor Leader, Kevin Rudd’s recent musings.
Rudd in his writings for The Monthly and media interviews, has essentially argued two related points. First, God is not “owned” by any political party; and second, social justice issues, not only personal morality, should be a concern for Christians.
After allowing the new Labor Leader some time, Tony Abbott eventually engaged in the discussion at the Young Liberals’ Conference on January 27 this year. Abbott delivered a speech titled, “Rudd’s Religious Sales Pitch”, where he accused Rudd of hypocrisy. That is, Abbott believes that Rudd has been politicizing the issue and is striving to declare the ALP as the “party of choice” for Christians.
Understandably, both Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott argue their case with a good dose of political rhetoric. Inevitably, when discussion of the right Christian response to social issues takes place in the context of the political arena, politics will take prime place over theology.
Regarding his interview with Geraldine Doogue on ABC’s Compass in 2005, Rudd suggested that it “has got more hazards for me internally [within the ALP] than anything that you may calculate may be advantageous for me beyond the party. I just think I’ve got a responsibility to start talking about these things.”
While there may be some truth here, this comment must be placed alongside the motivating factor for Rudd to set up the Labor parliamentary discussion group called Faith, Values and Politics. In the same interview, Rudd made clear that politics was the driving force in his setting up the group: “I’m doing what I think at this time in Australia’s political history is right. And that is to engage this debate about faith, values and politics and not to vacate the ground for the other mob.”
Whether it is avoidable or not, the reality is that discussion surrounding the faith-politics nexus is being divided down party lines.
This is where the danger for the church lies. Once a polarization occurs where the ALP represents the socially liberal Christian and the Coalition the socially conservative Christian, the church will find itself playing a political game rather than a theological one. On such a playing field, the church can only lose.
For many, the distinctiveness of the church has always been its strength. Jesus told his disciples to be “in the world but not of the world.” The letters from the Apostle Paul consistently exhorted his readers to “no longer conform to the patterns of the world.”
Rudd’s hero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, writes in his letters from prison during World war II: “The world that has come of age is more godless, and perhaps for that very reason nearer to God, than the world before its coming of age.” Bonhoeffer recognized the need for the church to be distinct from the world – indeed, distinct from the state – if it was going to have real influence.
Many contemporary Christian commentators are now reflecting on the problem of Christendom rather than any triumph in Christendom. American theologians William Willimon and Stanley Hauerwas have been singing that tune for years. They believe that the church must consist of “Resident Aliens” – the title of their most well-known book.
In a recently published Australian book, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church, author Alan Hirsch suggests that if the church is to once again experience growth, it must set itself free from the mindset of Christendom. He argues that, historically, the church has been more effective when it has been on the margins of society rather than at the centre as instituted by Constantine.
The key here is that the church is on the margins. The extraction of the church from society is not the answer. Rather, when the church is on the margins, it is at the very place where it can speak prophetically to a nation’s political situation. The church in Australia needs to position itself where it can be a voice both encouraging and critiquing political parties of all persuasions.
The message in all this is that while the church is undoubtedly political, it is defined by its allegiance to the triune God. It must, then, exist outside of any politically designated boundaries of Left vs Right, Conservative vs Liberal, ALP vs Coalition.
Both Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are politicians. Their motivation is thus politically based. The benefit in their debate is that it is evidence of the diversity of views amongst Christians. Yet neither represents the Christian view. As Kevin Rudd has declared, “No political party owns God.”
Christians must respond to the current debate bearing in mind that it is primarily a political one. If the church is to succeed in its mandate to work towards establishing a new Kingdom, it is vital that it remembers its distinctiveness. Its political contribution to society is that it offers a radically different system distinct from the politics of the world. Playing on the political field will result in the church aiming for the wrong goals.
Stephen Chatelier is a high school humanities teacher who writes about faith and politics on his blog, gerrymander.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
By Stephen Chatelier
The recent discussions surrounding faith and politics have been observed with much interest by the media, politicians and church leaders.
For the media, it is a contentious –and therefore desirable – topic. For politicians, it is about capturing votes. For church leaders, it is about having a voice in society. Out of these three key stakeholders, it is the church that needs to be most discerning in its response the latest developments.
Many Christians who may have felt increasingly disempowered in recent years by the strength of the Religious Right, have been suitably encouraged by Labor Leader, Kevin Rudd’s recent musings.
Rudd in his writings for The Monthly and media interviews, has essentially argued two related points. First, God is not “owned” by any political party; and second, social justice issues, not only personal morality, should be a concern for Christians.
After allowing the new Labor Leader some time, Tony Abbott eventually engaged in the discussion at the Young Liberals’ Conference on January 27 this year. Abbott delivered a speech titled, “Rudd’s Religious Sales Pitch”, where he accused Rudd of hypocrisy. That is, Abbott believes that Rudd has been politicizing the issue and is striving to declare the ALP as the “party of choice” for Christians.
Understandably, both Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott argue their case with a good dose of political rhetoric. Inevitably, when discussion of the right Christian response to social issues takes place in the context of the political arena, politics will take prime place over theology.
Regarding his interview with Geraldine Doogue on ABC’s Compass in 2005, Rudd suggested that it “has got more hazards for me internally [within the ALP] than anything that you may calculate may be advantageous for me beyond the party. I just think I’ve got a responsibility to start talking about these things.”
While there may be some truth here, this comment must be placed alongside the motivating factor for Rudd to set up the Labor parliamentary discussion group called Faith, Values and Politics. In the same interview, Rudd made clear that politics was the driving force in his setting up the group: “I’m doing what I think at this time in Australia’s political history is right. And that is to engage this debate about faith, values and politics and not to vacate the ground for the other mob.”
Whether it is avoidable or not, the reality is that discussion surrounding the faith-politics nexus is being divided down party lines.
This is where the danger for the church lies. Once a polarization occurs where the ALP represents the socially liberal Christian and the Coalition the socially conservative Christian, the church will find itself playing a political game rather than a theological one. On such a playing field, the church can only lose.
For many, the distinctiveness of the church has always been its strength. Jesus told his disciples to be “in the world but not of the world.” The letters from the Apostle Paul consistently exhorted his readers to “no longer conform to the patterns of the world.”
Rudd’s hero, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, writes in his letters from prison during World war II: “The world that has come of age is more godless, and perhaps for that very reason nearer to God, than the world before its coming of age.” Bonhoeffer recognized the need for the church to be distinct from the world – indeed, distinct from the state – if it was going to have real influence.
Many contemporary Christian commentators are now reflecting on the problem of Christendom rather than any triumph in Christendom. American theologians William Willimon and Stanley Hauerwas have been singing that tune for years. They believe that the church must consist of “Resident Aliens” – the title of their most well-known book.
In a recently published Australian book, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church, author Alan Hirsch suggests that if the church is to once again experience growth, it must set itself free from the mindset of Christendom. He argues that, historically, the church has been more effective when it has been on the margins of society rather than at the centre as instituted by Constantine.
The key here is that the church is on the margins. The extraction of the church from society is not the answer. Rather, when the church is on the margins, it is at the very place where it can speak prophetically to a nation’s political situation. The church in Australia needs to position itself where it can be a voice both encouraging and critiquing political parties of all persuasions.
The message in all this is that while the church is undoubtedly political, it is defined by its allegiance to the triune God. It must, then, exist outside of any politically designated boundaries of Left vs Right, Conservative vs Liberal, ALP vs Coalition.
Both Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are politicians. Their motivation is thus politically based. The benefit in their debate is that it is evidence of the diversity of views amongst Christians. Yet neither represents the Christian view. As Kevin Rudd has declared, “No political party owns God.”
Christians must respond to the current debate bearing in mind that it is primarily a political one. If the church is to succeed in its mandate to work towards establishing a new Kingdom, it is vital that it remembers its distinctiveness. Its political contribution to society is that it offers a radically different system distinct from the politics of the world. Playing on the political field will result in the church aiming for the wrong goals.
Stephen Chatelier is a high school humanities teacher who writes about faith and politics on his blog, gerrymander.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
What has Easter to do with ethics?
No. 54 – 5 April 2007
by Rod Benson
The premier annual Christian feast is upon us again. I picked up a bright, shiny Christian leaflet the other day, and the banner immediately caught my attention. “We are at a moral crossroad; it’s time to demonstrate the true meaning of Easter,” the flyer declared, advertising a nation-wide event scheduled for Easter.
It looked so cheerful and hopeful. But its religious content was at a rather low ebb, and it failed to explain which moral crossroad the sponsor had in mind. I guess I was simply supposed to know what it was all about. Perhaps I go to the wrong churches, or subscribe to the wrong media, or read the wrong bits of the Bible.
But the linking of moral crossroads with the public celebration of Easter in the flyer got me thinking: What has Easter to do with ethics?
Well, in a word, everything – if we’re thinking Christian ethics! The Easter story is the foundational story of Christianity. As we accept what God did for us in Christ, and identify with Jesus in his death and resurrection, God grants us a new life of freedom, assurance and hope. This new life is profoundly shaped by our obedience to Jesus. But what does such a life look like?
I think New Testament scholar and Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright puts it as well as anyone:
Jesus … calls us to share in his work of drawing out and dealing with the evil of the world; by loving our neighbours, both immediate and far-off, with the strong love that sent him to the cross; and by working out the implications of that love in our own vocations, whatever they may be, in our social and political action, in our relationships (and particularly our marriages and families), and in our caring for those in our midst who need the healing and restoring love of God most deeply.
We are called, as the people who claim the crucified Jesus as our Lord, to seek out the pain of the world, and, in prayer, in patient hard work, in listening, in healing, in announcing the Kingdom of this Jesus by every means possible, to take that pain into ourselves and give it over to Jesus himself, so that the world may be healed …
With the cross as the underlying story of our lives, validated by the resurrection and then implemented by the fire of the Holy Spirit, we can have the confidence to take on the world with the sovereign love of God.[1]
The great Gospel events – the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus – are the foundation of the Christian faith. But Christianity is much more than assent to certain doctrines, or even participation in a particular faith community. To be genuinely called a Christian – which is about as high an honour and as demanding a responsibility as one could imagine – is to surrender to the Lordship of Jesus and to shape our lives in radical obedience to his will and words.
That necessitates getting our hands dirty in the cesspools of this world, identifying with people not at all like ourselves, going without a coat or a meal or a second mortgage when situations demand it, taking on issues that seem beyond us and problems that appear insurmountable, and becoming more and more like the Lord whose name (and whose grace) we have accepted.
Do you have the confidence to “take on the world with the sovereign love of God”? If you’re doubtful, you might just find (or rediscover!) that confidence and love this Easter, as you gather with the faithful to celebrate the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, who calls each one of us to follow him into the unformed and unfathomed future.
And, speaking of taking on the world with the sovereign love of God, I conclude this Easter reflection with an excerpt from the Easter message of Dr Ross Clifford, the National President of the Baptist Union of Australia (who is, coincidentally, my boss), which I had a hand in drafting:
“This year is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in Britain, the culmination of a long campaign of Christian social justice by William Wilberforce. Twenty-one years earlier, Governor Arthur Phillip, launching his vision for the new colony of New South Wales, declared that ‘there can be no slavery in a free land, and consequently no slaves.’
“We give thanks to God for a slavery-free Australia, and for the end of institutional injustice elsewhere that degraded the bodies and crushed the spirits of so many innocent persons.
“But the moral blight of slavery continues in other forms. Modern slavery is a booming international trade with up to 27 million victims worldwide. Human trafficking is the third largest source of income for organised crime, exceeded only by arms and drug trafficking, in a market valued at $32 billion. Men, women and children are trafficked into prostitution, forced labour, military service, domestic service, forced adoption and forced marriage.
“Consumers should avoid purchasing goods and services produced by slave labour such as chocolate made with coca from parts of West Africa, and some carpets, rugs and restaurant foods. In addition, in subtle ways, many who appear free are slaves to legalism, consumerism, unjust employment regimes, and practices that accelerate climate change.
“I call on the federal government to step up efforts to end human trafficking in our region, and to support anti-slavery campaigns by Christian human rights and aid agencies such as World Vision.
“When Jesus frees us from our spiritual bonds, he empowers us to share the good news of freedom with others, and to help break all the chains that bind them. The Easter story profoundly and symbolically proclaims freedom from everything that holds us back from fulfilling our purpose and destiny.
“At Easter, Baptists throughout Australia reflect on the great Gospel story of freedom from slavery to sin, and find spiritual renewal for the journey ahead. This Easter, two hundred years after the abolition of slavery, let us celebrate the victory achieved through the cross and empty tomb of Jesus. Let us commit ourselves to action that abolishes slavery to sin and frees people everywhere to enjoy the liberty of a vibrant relationship with the risen Jesus. And let us commit ourselves to action that opposes social injustice and encourages people everywhere to adopt values and principles that honour the risen Jesus.”
Happy Easter to all.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney, Australia.
Reference
N.T. Wright, The Crown and the Fire: Meditations on the Cross and the Life of the Spirit (London: SPCK, 1992), pp. 104-106.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Rod Benson
The premier annual Christian feast is upon us again. I picked up a bright, shiny Christian leaflet the other day, and the banner immediately caught my attention. “We are at a moral crossroad; it’s time to demonstrate the true meaning of Easter,” the flyer declared, advertising a nation-wide event scheduled for Easter.
It looked so cheerful and hopeful. But its religious content was at a rather low ebb, and it failed to explain which moral crossroad the sponsor had in mind. I guess I was simply supposed to know what it was all about. Perhaps I go to the wrong churches, or subscribe to the wrong media, or read the wrong bits of the Bible.
But the linking of moral crossroads with the public celebration of Easter in the flyer got me thinking: What has Easter to do with ethics?
Well, in a word, everything – if we’re thinking Christian ethics! The Easter story is the foundational story of Christianity. As we accept what God did for us in Christ, and identify with Jesus in his death and resurrection, God grants us a new life of freedom, assurance and hope. This new life is profoundly shaped by our obedience to Jesus. But what does such a life look like?
I think New Testament scholar and Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright puts it as well as anyone:
Jesus … calls us to share in his work of drawing out and dealing with the evil of the world; by loving our neighbours, both immediate and far-off, with the strong love that sent him to the cross; and by working out the implications of that love in our own vocations, whatever they may be, in our social and political action, in our relationships (and particularly our marriages and families), and in our caring for those in our midst who need the healing and restoring love of God most deeply.
We are called, as the people who claim the crucified Jesus as our Lord, to seek out the pain of the world, and, in prayer, in patient hard work, in listening, in healing, in announcing the Kingdom of this Jesus by every means possible, to take that pain into ourselves and give it over to Jesus himself, so that the world may be healed …
With the cross as the underlying story of our lives, validated by the resurrection and then implemented by the fire of the Holy Spirit, we can have the confidence to take on the world with the sovereign love of God.[1]
The great Gospel events – the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus – are the foundation of the Christian faith. But Christianity is much more than assent to certain doctrines, or even participation in a particular faith community. To be genuinely called a Christian – which is about as high an honour and as demanding a responsibility as one could imagine – is to surrender to the Lordship of Jesus and to shape our lives in radical obedience to his will and words.
That necessitates getting our hands dirty in the cesspools of this world, identifying with people not at all like ourselves, going without a coat or a meal or a second mortgage when situations demand it, taking on issues that seem beyond us and problems that appear insurmountable, and becoming more and more like the Lord whose name (and whose grace) we have accepted.
Do you have the confidence to “take on the world with the sovereign love of God”? If you’re doubtful, you might just find (or rediscover!) that confidence and love this Easter, as you gather with the faithful to celebrate the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, who calls each one of us to follow him into the unformed and unfathomed future.
And, speaking of taking on the world with the sovereign love of God, I conclude this Easter reflection with an excerpt from the Easter message of Dr Ross Clifford, the National President of the Baptist Union of Australia (who is, coincidentally, my boss), which I had a hand in drafting:
“This year is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in Britain, the culmination of a long campaign of Christian social justice by William Wilberforce. Twenty-one years earlier, Governor Arthur Phillip, launching his vision for the new colony of New South Wales, declared that ‘there can be no slavery in a free land, and consequently no slaves.’
“We give thanks to God for a slavery-free Australia, and for the end of institutional injustice elsewhere that degraded the bodies and crushed the spirits of so many innocent persons.
“But the moral blight of slavery continues in other forms. Modern slavery is a booming international trade with up to 27 million victims worldwide. Human trafficking is the third largest source of income for organised crime, exceeded only by arms and drug trafficking, in a market valued at $32 billion. Men, women and children are trafficked into prostitution, forced labour, military service, domestic service, forced adoption and forced marriage.
“Consumers should avoid purchasing goods and services produced by slave labour such as chocolate made with coca from parts of West Africa, and some carpets, rugs and restaurant foods. In addition, in subtle ways, many who appear free are slaves to legalism, consumerism, unjust employment regimes, and practices that accelerate climate change.
“I call on the federal government to step up efforts to end human trafficking in our region, and to support anti-slavery campaigns by Christian human rights and aid agencies such as World Vision.
“When Jesus frees us from our spiritual bonds, he empowers us to share the good news of freedom with others, and to help break all the chains that bind them. The Easter story profoundly and symbolically proclaims freedom from everything that holds us back from fulfilling our purpose and destiny.
“At Easter, Baptists throughout Australia reflect on the great Gospel story of freedom from slavery to sin, and find spiritual renewal for the journey ahead. This Easter, two hundred years after the abolition of slavery, let us celebrate the victory achieved through the cross and empty tomb of Jesus. Let us commit ourselves to action that abolishes slavery to sin and frees people everywhere to enjoy the liberty of a vibrant relationship with the risen Jesus. And let us commit ourselves to action that opposes social injustice and encourages people everywhere to adopt values and principles that honour the risen Jesus.”
Happy Easter to all.
Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney, Australia.
Reference
N.T. Wright, The Crown and the Fire: Meditations on the Cross and the Life of the Spirit (London: SPCK, 1992), pp. 104-106.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Poverty and power: Some half time analysis
No. 53 – 28 March 2007
John McKinnon
We have reached the half-way point of the program to halve global poverty by 2015. Members of the United Nations, including Australia, agreed to this target at the Millennium Summit in 2000.
The half time score is not looking good. While some regions are on track to achieve some of the targets, Sub-Saharan Africa is behind on all indicators. One reason for the poor scoreline is lack of action by the developed world. For example, Australia’s foreign aid is still well short of the 0.5% of GNI needed to achieve the goals set out in the Millennium Declaration. As halftime draws near, it is useful to look at the nature of poverty and see why the first half failed to deliver a better score.
A simplistic view is that poverty is simply a deficit of food, water, income, housing, land and/or services. Implicit in this view is that providing the things that are missing will solve the problem. At the level of material deficits and lack of infrastructure, this means supplying food, wells, houses, roads, railways, bridges and other “things”. To the extent the deficit is in skills, providing education is the answer. A deficit in law or governance means provision of police, legal officers or bureaucracy.
Clearly, poverty does involve these deficits. Furthermore, alleviating poverty will involve addressing these material and social deficits. However, this purely materialistic view of poverty is inadequate. The notion of a rich benevolent West providing goods, services and infrastructure to an impoverished developing world is not necessarily healthy. It can create the image of a messianic “developed world” delivering the poor from their poverty.
If it doesn’t work then the poor are blamed due to their inadequacy, corruption, or laziness. Donors can self-righteously point to their generous provision of funds and how it has been “wasted” by the recipients. Such failure of development due to this inadequate view of poverty can result in a reluctance to continue funding.
This is certainly not to decry aid. Aid and development funding are necessary. Most donations come with sincere motives and much is sacrificially given. But is aid used effectively? Is it addressing the real problem? Are other factors preventing greater effective?
Recent development theory has begun to view poverty as more complex than simple lack. A key aspect of poverty that has come to the fore is that of disempowerment. According to Indian development practitioner Jayakumar Christian, the poor find themselves trapped inside a system of disempowerment made up of a complex framework of interacting systems. These systems are cultural, physical, personal (e.g. self image), religious and social. Thus combating poverty involves a complex framework of interventions.
The social aspect of this complex framework is particularly relevant. Christian sees the non-poor adopting a “god-complex” towards the poor involving an attitude of superiority and paternalism. Furthermore, the non-poor create narratives, structures and systems that justify and rationalize their privileged position.
The push for free trade is a good example. When the US was industrializing in the 19th century it protected its infant industries against European competition. Now that the US is in a position of power, the prevailing wisdom is free trade and anti-protectionism, justified by neo-classical economic theory and reinforcing their dominant position. The structure of the World Trade Organisation and the conduct of its meetings also work to reinforce the current power structure even though it is justified by the façade of democracy.
A recent news article by Connie Levett (Age, 3 Feb 2007) highlights a further example. It describes a situation in the Philippines where 16,000 babies die each year because of a decline in breastfeeding. The Department of Health along with civil society groups sought new regulations on the marketing and promotion of breast milk substitutes. However large western corporations marketing baby formula appealed through their industry association to the High Court claiming a restraint of trade. When that failed, some serious lobbying took place and the regulations are currently under a restraining order. Those with power continue to play god in the lives of those without, even to extent of risking lives. The narrative of the free market continues to justify this abuse of power.
Poverty as disempowerment exposes the myth of economic growth as its solution. Economic growth may increase a nation’s income without addressing the question of power. In the absence of specific action to redress inequality and power distribution, economic growth will tend to benefit those who already have the power. The US, for example, has nearly doubled its real GDP per capita in the 30 years to 2005 while the proportion of people below 50% of the poverty level (as defined by the US Census Bureau) has increased. Yet even if growth does increase income and reduce some aspects of material poverty of the poor, it may still fail to address the underlying powerlessness that constitutes real poverty.
John Kenneth Galbraith said, “Power is the great black hole in economic theory”. To seriously tackle global poverty that black hole needs to be addressed. The elephant in the room, however, is that to empower some means disempowering others. That is, it involves a redistribution of power. The problem of poverty will not be solved by the rich continuing to donate their excess while failing to give up their privilege.
We in the wealthy world must accept that our position of power is unsustainable and seek to re-democratise the world. That would mean redressing the power imbalances in the WTO, IMF and World Bank. It would mean limiting the power of corporations and returning power to national governments. It would mean an end to corporations buying influence over politicians.
It would not just be about the big end of town though. It may also mean higher prices for our goods and services. It may mean lower returns on our superannuation as corporate profits are checked. It may mean a lower standard of living for those of us accustomed to being at the top of the world’s pyramid. It would mean taking Jesus seriously when he says, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
Such changes will not come easily. Power is usually not given away without a fight. It is much easier to continue to provide charity and wring our hands when the problem doesn’t go away. However, in the words of the UN Millennium Declaration, signed by the Australian government,
The second half is about to begin. It may prove much more costly.
John McKinnon is the NSW State Co-ordinator for Tear Australia.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
John McKinnon
We have reached the half-way point of the program to halve global poverty by 2015. Members of the United Nations, including Australia, agreed to this target at the Millennium Summit in 2000.
The half time score is not looking good. While some regions are on track to achieve some of the targets, Sub-Saharan Africa is behind on all indicators. One reason for the poor scoreline is lack of action by the developed world. For example, Australia’s foreign aid is still well short of the 0.5% of GNI needed to achieve the goals set out in the Millennium Declaration. As halftime draws near, it is useful to look at the nature of poverty and see why the first half failed to deliver a better score.
A simplistic view is that poverty is simply a deficit of food, water, income, housing, land and/or services. Implicit in this view is that providing the things that are missing will solve the problem. At the level of material deficits and lack of infrastructure, this means supplying food, wells, houses, roads, railways, bridges and other “things”. To the extent the deficit is in skills, providing education is the answer. A deficit in law or governance means provision of police, legal officers or bureaucracy.
Clearly, poverty does involve these deficits. Furthermore, alleviating poverty will involve addressing these material and social deficits. However, this purely materialistic view of poverty is inadequate. The notion of a rich benevolent West providing goods, services and infrastructure to an impoverished developing world is not necessarily healthy. It can create the image of a messianic “developed world” delivering the poor from their poverty.
If it doesn’t work then the poor are blamed due to their inadequacy, corruption, or laziness. Donors can self-righteously point to their generous provision of funds and how it has been “wasted” by the recipients. Such failure of development due to this inadequate view of poverty can result in a reluctance to continue funding.
This is certainly not to decry aid. Aid and development funding are necessary. Most donations come with sincere motives and much is sacrificially given. But is aid used effectively? Is it addressing the real problem? Are other factors preventing greater effective?
Recent development theory has begun to view poverty as more complex than simple lack. A key aspect of poverty that has come to the fore is that of disempowerment. According to Indian development practitioner Jayakumar Christian, the poor find themselves trapped inside a system of disempowerment made up of a complex framework of interacting systems. These systems are cultural, physical, personal (e.g. self image), religious and social. Thus combating poverty involves a complex framework of interventions.
The social aspect of this complex framework is particularly relevant. Christian sees the non-poor adopting a “god-complex” towards the poor involving an attitude of superiority and paternalism. Furthermore, the non-poor create narratives, structures and systems that justify and rationalize their privileged position.
The push for free trade is a good example. When the US was industrializing in the 19th century it protected its infant industries against European competition. Now that the US is in a position of power, the prevailing wisdom is free trade and anti-protectionism, justified by neo-classical economic theory and reinforcing their dominant position. The structure of the World Trade Organisation and the conduct of its meetings also work to reinforce the current power structure even though it is justified by the façade of democracy.
A recent news article by Connie Levett (Age, 3 Feb 2007) highlights a further example. It describes a situation in the Philippines where 16,000 babies die each year because of a decline in breastfeeding. The Department of Health along with civil society groups sought new regulations on the marketing and promotion of breast milk substitutes. However large western corporations marketing baby formula appealed through their industry association to the High Court claiming a restraint of trade. When that failed, some serious lobbying took place and the regulations are currently under a restraining order. Those with power continue to play god in the lives of those without, even to extent of risking lives. The narrative of the free market continues to justify this abuse of power.
Poverty as disempowerment exposes the myth of economic growth as its solution. Economic growth may increase a nation’s income without addressing the question of power. In the absence of specific action to redress inequality and power distribution, economic growth will tend to benefit those who already have the power. The US, for example, has nearly doubled its real GDP per capita in the 30 years to 2005 while the proportion of people below 50% of the poverty level (as defined by the US Census Bureau) has increased. Yet even if growth does increase income and reduce some aspects of material poverty of the poor, it may still fail to address the underlying powerlessness that constitutes real poverty.
John Kenneth Galbraith said, “Power is the great black hole in economic theory”. To seriously tackle global poverty that black hole needs to be addressed. The elephant in the room, however, is that to empower some means disempowering others. That is, it involves a redistribution of power. The problem of poverty will not be solved by the rich continuing to donate their excess while failing to give up their privilege.
We in the wealthy world must accept that our position of power is unsustainable and seek to re-democratise the world. That would mean redressing the power imbalances in the WTO, IMF and World Bank. It would mean limiting the power of corporations and returning power to national governments. It would mean an end to corporations buying influence over politicians.
It would not just be about the big end of town though. It may also mean higher prices for our goods and services. It may mean lower returns on our superannuation as corporate profits are checked. It may mean a lower standard of living for those of us accustomed to being at the top of the world’s pyramid. It would mean taking Jesus seriously when he says, “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
Such changes will not come easily. Power is usually not given away without a fight. It is much easier to continue to provide charity and wring our hands when the problem doesn’t go away. However, in the words of the UN Millennium Declaration, signed by the Australian government,
“we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level… We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty, to which more than a billion of them are currently subjected. We are committed to making the right to development a reality for everyone and to freeing the entire human race from want.”
The second half is about to begin. It may prove much more costly.
John McKinnon is the NSW State Co-ordinator for Tear Australia.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Climate change: two evangelical views
No. 52 – 16 March 2007
by Andrew Cameron and Lisa Watts
‘You can’t change the weather,’ we all used to say with a shrug, to make the point that some actions are well beyond the powers of puny humans. But a disagreement has opened up among U.S. evangelicals about the extent to which we can, or cannot, change the weather.
The purpose of this briefing is very limited. We simply want to outline the groups involved in this American Christian debate, and note some of their views. We will not evaluate the merits of their respective cases; that task is for future Social Issues briefings. We suspect that similar disagreements might be present among Australian evangelicals; however we don’t want attention to the U.S. scene to polarise our local scene. Rather, we hope that some recognition of the competing views might assist us to clarify the points at issue as we all consider our response to claims about climate change.
We will, however, take serious exception to two of the claims put by one of the parties concerned. These two claims go way beyond the issue of climate change and concern the nature of Christian ethics and the meaning of the term ‘evangelical’. It is important for us to name these two claims as wrong.
But first, can people change the weather? Christian debate on the American scene is, in part, about the extent to which global warming is ‘anthropogenic’, meaning caused by human activity. For signatories of a document by the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), the planet is warming largely due to human causes. The anthropogenic element implies an important moral claim: if humanity started it, then changes to human activity might also stop it. We have changed the weather, therefore we should attempt to change it again; and we should particularly do so, on this argument, out of respect for the world’s poor who will be most directly affected by climate change.
But for the authors and endorsers of a response document by the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA), the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is slight, and therefore human attempts to reverse it are overstated and will have little or no result, yet will be needlessly expensive and will involve unnecessary economic dislocations—to be felt most acutely by the world’s poor.
At this point it will be useful to pause, because the names and three letter acronyms begin to multiply. We thought it might help to list some of the protagonists in a table:
**********
Global warming is mainly anthropogenic, and policy initiatives should seek to halt it:
Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI)
http://www.christiansandclimate.org
Key document: ‘Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.’
National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)
http://www.nae.net
Main spokesman: Rev. Richard Cizik
Global warming is mainly natural, and policy initiatives should protect the economy:
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA)
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org
Key document: ‘A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming.’
Authors of an open letter to the NAE
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004114.cfm
Main (?) spokesman: Dr James Dobson (Focus on the Family, FoF)
**********
It is worth noting what the ECI and the ISA agree about. Both groups think that global warming is occurring; both are concerned for the plight of the poor; both want to be guided by scientific evidence, both think that humanity is called both to rule and to nurture God’s creation. However they disagree about:
• the causes of global warming (see above);
• the best way to assist the poor (ECI wants to halt rising sea-levels and changes to rainfall patterns, whereas ISA prefers the kind of abundant economic activity that will raise standards of living); and
• the way to read the scientific evidence (too big to summarise here!).
To a lesser extent, they appear to have a more subtle disagreement about Genesis:
• Genesis 1 emphasises humanity’s mandate for a monarch-like dominion over the creation. The commands to ‘subdue’ and ‘rule’ in Genesis 1:28 are very strong words (so much so that they offend some environmentalists). But does this command envisage us bending every aspect of the earth to our will, or does it acknowledge the way humans are able to meet their basic needs from the earth (as vv29-30 imply)? Both groups seem to lay a different weight upon the concept of ‘dominion’, and to draw different conclusions from it.
• Genesis 2 emphasises humanity’s mandate to work the earth and watch over it. The man, and later the woman, remain embedded in and dependent upon the earth from which they are taken. The ECI and the NAE therefore speak of ‘creation care’ to describe this relationship, whereas the ISA speaks of ‘stewardship’ to describe it. Again, the emphasis is subtly different: we ‘care’ for things as an end in themselves, but we are ‘stewards’ of things that serve some other end.
We hope this brief outline is a useful snapshot of some of the issues at stake. Time and ability permitting, we hope in future briefings to survey some of the scientific debates about climate change, the technical debates surrounding some of the solutions proposed for it, and the economic debates about helping the world’s poor.
But we need to end on a negative note, and oppose two claims made by the authors of the letter opposing Richard Cizik and the ECI’s and NAE’s stance on climate change. There are useful moments of caution in this letter, as when it warns the NAE not to speak too quickly about matters beyond its scientific expertise. There is also some hurt reflected in the letter, and perhaps some apologies are needed if the NAE spokesman has spoken as intemperately as the letter’s authors claim he has done.
However when its authors assert that the NAE is ‘using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time,’ they add that ‘the great moral issues of our time’ are ‘notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.’ But of course if Jesus really is Lord of all, it makes little theological sense to restrict the ‘great moral issues’ to issues of sexual morality. While we at the SIE would agree that these are important moral issues, evangelical ethics is about bringing the good news of Jesus’ lordship to all areas of life. Just as Jesus’ lordship is good news for our understanding and practise of sex, so can it be good news for our use of the earth and our relationship with the poor.
That observation brings us to the most terrible failure of this letter, when it approvingly quotes USA Today’s definition that ‘evangelical’ was and is ‘the label of choice of Christians with conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality.’ But Jesus and his apostles know of no such thing in their announcement of the euanggelion, the ‘gospel’ or ‘good news’. The good news does not rest upon any political persuasion, economic theory, or sexual ethics. It is that the kingdom of God has come, subjecting all and every political, economic, sexual and environmental view to Jesus Christ, that he might lead us to forgiveness, peace and freedom in all of these areas and more. We think, then, that the understanding of ‘evangelical’ supposed by the authors of this letter, is not evangelical at all.
Andrew Cameron is Chairman of the Social Issues Executive (SIE), Anglican Diocese of Sydney. Lisa Watts is a research officer for the SIE. This article appeared as Social Issues Briefing no. 060, 16 Mar 2007. Used by permission.
Further Reading:
Brief summary of the dispute:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evangelicals10mar10,0,7299079,full.story?coll=l
Proposed debate on the ‘great moral issues’ claim:
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/03/jim-wallis-big-debate.html.
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Andrew Cameron and Lisa Watts
‘You can’t change the weather,’ we all used to say with a shrug, to make the point that some actions are well beyond the powers of puny humans. But a disagreement has opened up among U.S. evangelicals about the extent to which we can, or cannot, change the weather.
The purpose of this briefing is very limited. We simply want to outline the groups involved in this American Christian debate, and note some of their views. We will not evaluate the merits of their respective cases; that task is for future Social Issues briefings. We suspect that similar disagreements might be present among Australian evangelicals; however we don’t want attention to the U.S. scene to polarise our local scene. Rather, we hope that some recognition of the competing views might assist us to clarify the points at issue as we all consider our response to claims about climate change.
We will, however, take serious exception to two of the claims put by one of the parties concerned. These two claims go way beyond the issue of climate change and concern the nature of Christian ethics and the meaning of the term ‘evangelical’. It is important for us to name these two claims as wrong.
But first, can people change the weather? Christian debate on the American scene is, in part, about the extent to which global warming is ‘anthropogenic’, meaning caused by human activity. For signatories of a document by the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), the planet is warming largely due to human causes. The anthropogenic element implies an important moral claim: if humanity started it, then changes to human activity might also stop it. We have changed the weather, therefore we should attempt to change it again; and we should particularly do so, on this argument, out of respect for the world’s poor who will be most directly affected by climate change.
But for the authors and endorsers of a response document by the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA), the anthropogenic contribution to global warming is slight, and therefore human attempts to reverse it are overstated and will have little or no result, yet will be needlessly expensive and will involve unnecessary economic dislocations—to be felt most acutely by the world’s poor.
At this point it will be useful to pause, because the names and three letter acronyms begin to multiply. We thought it might help to list some of the protagonists in a table:
**********
Global warming is mainly anthropogenic, and policy initiatives should seek to halt it:
Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI)
http://www.christiansandclimate.org
Key document: ‘Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.’
National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)
http://www.nae.net
Main spokesman: Rev. Richard Cizik
Global warming is mainly natural, and policy initiatives should protect the economy:
Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA)
http://www.interfaithstewardship.org
Key document: ‘A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming.’
Authors of an open letter to the NAE
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLNews/A000004114.cfm
Main (?) spokesman: Dr James Dobson (Focus on the Family, FoF)
**********
It is worth noting what the ECI and the ISA agree about. Both groups think that global warming is occurring; both are concerned for the plight of the poor; both want to be guided by scientific evidence, both think that humanity is called both to rule and to nurture God’s creation. However they disagree about:
• the causes of global warming (see above);
• the best way to assist the poor (ECI wants to halt rising sea-levels and changes to rainfall patterns, whereas ISA prefers the kind of abundant economic activity that will raise standards of living); and
• the way to read the scientific evidence (too big to summarise here!).
To a lesser extent, they appear to have a more subtle disagreement about Genesis:
• Genesis 1 emphasises humanity’s mandate for a monarch-like dominion over the creation. The commands to ‘subdue’ and ‘rule’ in Genesis 1:28 are very strong words (so much so that they offend some environmentalists). But does this command envisage us bending every aspect of the earth to our will, or does it acknowledge the way humans are able to meet their basic needs from the earth (as vv29-30 imply)? Both groups seem to lay a different weight upon the concept of ‘dominion’, and to draw different conclusions from it.
• Genesis 2 emphasises humanity’s mandate to work the earth and watch over it. The man, and later the woman, remain embedded in and dependent upon the earth from which they are taken. The ECI and the NAE therefore speak of ‘creation care’ to describe this relationship, whereas the ISA speaks of ‘stewardship’ to describe it. Again, the emphasis is subtly different: we ‘care’ for things as an end in themselves, but we are ‘stewards’ of things that serve some other end.
We hope this brief outline is a useful snapshot of some of the issues at stake. Time and ability permitting, we hope in future briefings to survey some of the scientific debates about climate change, the technical debates surrounding some of the solutions proposed for it, and the economic debates about helping the world’s poor.
But we need to end on a negative note, and oppose two claims made by the authors of the letter opposing Richard Cizik and the ECI’s and NAE’s stance on climate change. There are useful moments of caution in this letter, as when it warns the NAE not to speak too quickly about matters beyond its scientific expertise. There is also some hurt reflected in the letter, and perhaps some apologies are needed if the NAE spokesman has spoken as intemperately as the letter’s authors claim he has done.
However when its authors assert that the NAE is ‘using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time,’ they add that ‘the great moral issues of our time’ are ‘notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.’ But of course if Jesus really is Lord of all, it makes little theological sense to restrict the ‘great moral issues’ to issues of sexual morality. While we at the SIE would agree that these are important moral issues, evangelical ethics is about bringing the good news of Jesus’ lordship to all areas of life. Just as Jesus’ lordship is good news for our understanding and practise of sex, so can it be good news for our use of the earth and our relationship with the poor.
That observation brings us to the most terrible failure of this letter, when it approvingly quotes USA Today’s definition that ‘evangelical’ was and is ‘the label of choice of Christians with conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality.’ But Jesus and his apostles know of no such thing in their announcement of the euanggelion, the ‘gospel’ or ‘good news’. The good news does not rest upon any political persuasion, economic theory, or sexual ethics. It is that the kingdom of God has come, subjecting all and every political, economic, sexual and environmental view to Jesus Christ, that he might lead us to forgiveness, peace and freedom in all of these areas and more. We think, then, that the understanding of ‘evangelical’ supposed by the authors of this letter, is not evangelical at all.
Andrew Cameron is Chairman of the Social Issues Executive (SIE), Anglican Diocese of Sydney. Lisa Watts is a research officer for the SIE. This article appeared as Social Issues Briefing no. 060, 16 Mar 2007. Used by permission.
Further Reading:
Brief summary of the dispute:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-evangelicals10mar10,0,7299079,full.story?coll=l
Proposed debate on the ‘great moral issues’ claim:
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/03/jim-wallis-big-debate.html.
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Christians, ethics and the ballot box
No. 51 – 14 March 2007
by Simeon Payne
In ten days’ time, on March 24, NSW residents will go to the polls for a State election. Indeed this is the year for elections with all three levels of government being voted upon. Not that readers need to be reminded of this fact. If you are like me, your mailbox, email box and even Christian magazines have been filled with political advertising.
I must confess that at this time I feel nervous. Invariable I have what I call the “awkward political conversation.” It takes two forms. One is with fellow Christians who feel guilty that they are or are not voting for a “Christian” candidate; the other is with those outside the Kingdom of God where the conversation entails correcting the misleading notion that all Christians think or vote in a particular way.
Let’s face reality. There is a huge divergence of opinion on how Christians should approach the topic of politics. It has been over fifty years since Niebuhr wrote his classic work Christ & Culture, and we are still no closer to consensus as to whether Christ is above, with, against or in tension with political culture. Our experience, our Christian heritage, our hermeneutics, our theology and even our eschatology all interact to give all of us a unique take on how we approach this issue.
And then there are the practical issues. If one has the option of voting for an incompetent Christian or a highly competent atheist, what is more desirable? Does the moral Muslim get the nod over the immoral fifth-generation Australian? Is it more desirable to have a distinctly Christian political party or is the model of incarnation more leaning of encouraging Christians in existing parties?
And I haven’t even mentioned the broadest issue of all: whether Christians should be to the Right, Left or indeed Green of the political/ideological spectrum.
So how should Christians deal with the ethics of elections? Ironically, I suspect that most church leaders have not considered the ethical questions posed by each election cycle.
First, I think an ethic of honesty is demanded. I think we should be honest to accept that there is no “one” Christian political approach. There are many. All have implications, some are better than others. But it is the time to move away from simplistic slogans and to encourage all Christians to work through the positives and negatives of all of the broader issues, and come to their own considered conclusions.
Second, I do think there is a role for Churches to discuss and preach on these issues and to critically and objectively evaluate, and indeed elevate, political thought. Churches do have a role to play in each election cycle. But I stress the word objective, and I stress that this needs to take place within my first framework of honestly acknowledging that there might not be one candidate or party that is ideal.
The critical aspect here is that the Pastor objectively and even-handedly raise thinking and reflection on the issue. It is not the Pastors role to “get” the congregation to vote a particular way, but to encourage the congregation to prayerfully and intelligently engage with the issue. If this cannot be done in a mature, reflective and even handed way, then it should not be done.
Third, I maintain that no Church should ever advertise or distribute political advertising for any party or individual candidate. Two ethical considerations come into play here.
There is the principle of the weaker believer to which I previously alluded. For the immature Christian it raises issues of confusion. Distributing or allowing the distribution of political material confuses those in our care with the incorrect notion that we are endorsing or suggesting a particular party or candidate.
The other consideration is that it compromises our mission. It is terribly serious that someone outside the Kingdom might have their journey to Christ waylaid due to the stumbling block of thinking that Christianity means such and such a political allegiance, rather than a fully devoted allegiance to Christ.
It is my hope that each of us will reflect on the broader ethical considerations that political elections invite; and that each of us will work hard to prevent elections from becoming a stumbling block to faith and ethics in the minds and hearts of our fellow electors.
Simeon Payne is the Baptist Chaplain at the University of Western Sydney and a Deacon of Macquarie Fields Baptist Church.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Simeon Payne
In ten days’ time, on March 24, NSW residents will go to the polls for a State election. Indeed this is the year for elections with all three levels of government being voted upon. Not that readers need to be reminded of this fact. If you are like me, your mailbox, email box and even Christian magazines have been filled with political advertising.
I must confess that at this time I feel nervous. Invariable I have what I call the “awkward political conversation.” It takes two forms. One is with fellow Christians who feel guilty that they are or are not voting for a “Christian” candidate; the other is with those outside the Kingdom of God where the conversation entails correcting the misleading notion that all Christians think or vote in a particular way.
Let’s face reality. There is a huge divergence of opinion on how Christians should approach the topic of politics. It has been over fifty years since Niebuhr wrote his classic work Christ & Culture, and we are still no closer to consensus as to whether Christ is above, with, against or in tension with political culture. Our experience, our Christian heritage, our hermeneutics, our theology and even our eschatology all interact to give all of us a unique take on how we approach this issue.
And then there are the practical issues. If one has the option of voting for an incompetent Christian or a highly competent atheist, what is more desirable? Does the moral Muslim get the nod over the immoral fifth-generation Australian? Is it more desirable to have a distinctly Christian political party or is the model of incarnation more leaning of encouraging Christians in existing parties?
And I haven’t even mentioned the broadest issue of all: whether Christians should be to the Right, Left or indeed Green of the political/ideological spectrum.
So how should Christians deal with the ethics of elections? Ironically, I suspect that most church leaders have not considered the ethical questions posed by each election cycle.
First, I think an ethic of honesty is demanded. I think we should be honest to accept that there is no “one” Christian political approach. There are many. All have implications, some are better than others. But it is the time to move away from simplistic slogans and to encourage all Christians to work through the positives and negatives of all of the broader issues, and come to their own considered conclusions.
Second, I do think there is a role for Churches to discuss and preach on these issues and to critically and objectively evaluate, and indeed elevate, political thought. Churches do have a role to play in each election cycle. But I stress the word objective, and I stress that this needs to take place within my first framework of honestly acknowledging that there might not be one candidate or party that is ideal.
The critical aspect here is that the Pastor objectively and even-handedly raise thinking and reflection on the issue. It is not the Pastors role to “get” the congregation to vote a particular way, but to encourage the congregation to prayerfully and intelligently engage with the issue. If this cannot be done in a mature, reflective and even handed way, then it should not be done.
Third, I maintain that no Church should ever advertise or distribute political advertising for any party or individual candidate. Two ethical considerations come into play here.
There is the principle of the weaker believer to which I previously alluded. For the immature Christian it raises issues of confusion. Distributing or allowing the distribution of political material confuses those in our care with the incorrect notion that we are endorsing or suggesting a particular party or candidate.
The other consideration is that it compromises our mission. It is terribly serious that someone outside the Kingdom might have their journey to Christ waylaid due to the stumbling block of thinking that Christianity means such and such a political allegiance, rather than a fully devoted allegiance to Christ.
It is my hope that each of us will reflect on the broader ethical considerations that political elections invite; and that each of us will work hard to prevent elections from becoming a stumbling block to faith and ethics in the minds and hearts of our fellow electors.
Simeon Payne is the Baptist Chaplain at the University of Western Sydney and a Deacon of Macquarie Fields Baptist Church.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1200 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Stop global child abuse
No. 50, 19 February 2007
by Denton Lotz
Jesus said, “Whoever receives one in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:5-6
Jesus said, “Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belong the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 19:14
Baptists have always affirmed children. It was the Baptist deacon, William Fox, who began the Sunday School Society in 1785 to remedy the horrors of the industrial revolution which had children as young as ten years of age working underground in mines 12 hours a day for six days a week.
Today, it seems the situation of children worldwide has become worse. In October of 2006, the Untied Nations released the first ‘UN Secretary General’s Study on Violence against Children.’ After reading this document, Christians and men and women of good will should become angry and energized to work to stop child abuse.
Here are some of the tragic statistics from the United Nations Report of the Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence Against Children:
1. Almost 53,000 children died worldwide in 2002 as a result of homicide.
2. Up to 80% to 98% of children suffer physical punishment in their homes, with a third or more experiencing severe physical punishment resulting from the use of implements.
3. 150 million girls and 73 million boys under 18 experienced forced sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual violence during 2002.
4. Between 100 and 140 million girls and women in the world have undergone some form of female genital mutilation. In sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt, and the Sudan, three million girls and women are subjected to genital mutilation every year.
5. In 2004, 218 million children were involved in child labor, 126 million of whom were in hazardous work.
6. Estimates from 2000 suggest that 1.8 million children were forced into prostitution and pornography, and 1.2 million were victims of trafficking.
Christians cannot remain silent in the face of these horrendous and evil acts against children whom Jesus loves! What should Christians do? Here are some suggestions:
1. Be informed. Check the United Nations website: “The United Nations Secretary General’s Study on Violence against Children.” (www.violencestudy.org)
2. At church meetings and Sunday School teachers’ workshops, make parents aware of signs of child abuse.
3. Check with local authorities and police about laws protecting children from child abuse. Report instances of child abuse to responsible authorities.
4. Make the church a safe haven for abused children. We should be aware that because of their abusive treatment, such children often become abusers themselves.
5. Work with other churches, schools and local government authorities to educate the public and your church congregation about these evils.
Warning: Child abuse is a secret sin. Few people know what happens in homes. The fact that one in four women is abused at home before she is 18 years of age is an indication of the extent of the problem!
Child abusers in churches need to be confronted and helped by counseling and discipleship groups to prevent future abusive behavior. Do not allow untrained and inexperienced counselors to hold leadership positions.
False accusations can poison relationships and fellowship. Public accusations without proper follow-through with authorities can cause even further abuse of children at home.
The call of Christ is a call to conversion, repentance and healing. The abused and the abuser need to know and experience God’s love in Christ. They need to know of regeneration that is offered to those who truly repent. At the same time, we need to be aware that there are sick and dysfunctional people that need to be institutionalized and kept out of reach of innocent children!
Finally, a renewed movement of Bible Study and Sunday School among children and youth will give greater opportunity to bring security, redemption and healing to a world of sexual aberration flamed by the evil institution of pornography and sexual slave traders.
The church must not remain silent. The future of our children depends upon the church’s prophetic ministry of confronting and preventing child abuse in Jesus’ name!
Denton Lotz is General Secretary of the Baptist World Alliance. This article first appeared in BWA News, February 2007.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Denton Lotz
Jesus said, “Whoever receives one in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:5-6
Jesus said, “Let the children come to me and do not hinder them; for to such belong the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 19:14
Baptists have always affirmed children. It was the Baptist deacon, William Fox, who began the Sunday School Society in 1785 to remedy the horrors of the industrial revolution which had children as young as ten years of age working underground in mines 12 hours a day for six days a week.
Today, it seems the situation of children worldwide has become worse. In October of 2006, the Untied Nations released the first ‘UN Secretary General’s Study on Violence against Children.’ After reading this document, Christians and men and women of good will should become angry and energized to work to stop child abuse.
Here are some of the tragic statistics from the United Nations Report of the Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence Against Children:
1. Almost 53,000 children died worldwide in 2002 as a result of homicide.
2. Up to 80% to 98% of children suffer physical punishment in their homes, with a third or more experiencing severe physical punishment resulting from the use of implements.
3. 150 million girls and 73 million boys under 18 experienced forced sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual violence during 2002.
4. Between 100 and 140 million girls and women in the world have undergone some form of female genital mutilation. In sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt, and the Sudan, three million girls and women are subjected to genital mutilation every year.
5. In 2004, 218 million children were involved in child labor, 126 million of whom were in hazardous work.
6. Estimates from 2000 suggest that 1.8 million children were forced into prostitution and pornography, and 1.2 million were victims of trafficking.
Christians cannot remain silent in the face of these horrendous and evil acts against children whom Jesus loves! What should Christians do? Here are some suggestions:
1. Be informed. Check the United Nations website: “The United Nations Secretary General’s Study on Violence against Children.” (www.violencestudy.org)
2. At church meetings and Sunday School teachers’ workshops, make parents aware of signs of child abuse.
3. Check with local authorities and police about laws protecting children from child abuse. Report instances of child abuse to responsible authorities.
4. Make the church a safe haven for abused children. We should be aware that because of their abusive treatment, such children often become abusers themselves.
5. Work with other churches, schools and local government authorities to educate the public and your church congregation about these evils.
Warning: Child abuse is a secret sin. Few people know what happens in homes. The fact that one in four women is abused at home before she is 18 years of age is an indication of the extent of the problem!
Child abusers in churches need to be confronted and helped by counseling and discipleship groups to prevent future abusive behavior. Do not allow untrained and inexperienced counselors to hold leadership positions.
False accusations can poison relationships and fellowship. Public accusations without proper follow-through with authorities can cause even further abuse of children at home.
The call of Christ is a call to conversion, repentance and healing. The abused and the abuser need to know and experience God’s love in Christ. They need to know of regeneration that is offered to those who truly repent. At the same time, we need to be aware that there are sick and dysfunctional people that need to be institutionalized and kept out of reach of innocent children!
Finally, a renewed movement of Bible Study and Sunday School among children and youth will give greater opportunity to bring security, redemption and healing to a world of sexual aberration flamed by the evil institution of pornography and sexual slave traders.
The church must not remain silent. The future of our children depends upon the church’s prophetic ministry of confronting and preventing child abuse in Jesus’ name!
Denton Lotz is General Secretary of the Baptist World Alliance. This article first appeared in BWA News, February 2007.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
What’s so disturbing about grace?
No. 49, 14 February 2007
by Peter Hobson
As a Uniting Church minister, conversations about homosexuality and biblical hermeneutics are beginning to seem a bit tired. Our denomination has wrestled with issues of wholeness (and holiness), biblical faithfulness, Christian witness, authentic discipleship, costly grace and prophetic leadership over the last ten years or so – but in particular, how these issues relate to sexuality (and in a more focused way – homosexuality). It is interesting to see how people from other denominations and faith traditions approach the topic.
I am currently completing a doctorate in theology, examining hermeneutics, discipleship and narrative theology. I am an evangelical, charismatic Christian who is passionate about following the way of Jesus Christ. I am also white, heterosexual, middle-class, married and male (which means that lying beneath the surface I battle with a formative narrative that is racist, homophobic, privileged and sexist). Understanding context is so important when dealing with hermeneutics.
In the end, the Biblical witness is nowhere near as clear-cut as we would like it to be. Anyone who has read their scriptures is aware that they can get the biblical text to support just about any argument on any topic they so wish (see, for example, “The story of Mel White”).
In this way, the Bible has been used and abused over the centuries to support slavery, oppression, violence, prejudice, greed and war. Texts from Romans, 1 Corinthians, Leviticus or Deuteronomy may seem to be pretty clear cut on the issue of homosexuality – but they are not. In fact, they have nothing to say about homosexuality at all.
Homosexuality, as we understand it – a sexual orientation, is a relatively new concept. The word itself was first coined in the late 19th century. At the time of Paul’s writings, Greek society viewed genital intercourse between two males to be of the highest order, but had no understanding of what we would call ‘sexual orientation’. Intercourse with women was tolerated because of child-birth – but sex between males was considered to be far superior in every aspect.
It is within this context that Paul condemns certain sexual acts – probably because of their dehumanising consequences. A sexual partner was seen as an object of gratification rather than a person who is loved and valued. Two people of the same sex who have committed their lives to one another, and as part of that commitment engage in acts of mutual affection and sexual love, are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible (notwithstanding critical, if somewhat creative, examinations of the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan etc).
If, as a church, we feel we have something to say to the world regarding sexuality, violence, greed or prejudice – we had better do our homework. To say ‘the Bible says it, I believe it’ – just isn’t good enough. The Bible also gives me permission to sell my daughter into slavery (Ex 21:7) but I am sure that no-one participating in this debate would endorse this sort of behaviour.
If the church wants to recover its prophetic witness to the world with respect to its understanding of biblical fidelity and a desire for holiness – then let us recover the voice of Christ that calls us to the way of dangerous love. Love for the lost, love for the broken, love for the oppressed – love even for the oppressor!
To say we ‘love the sinner and hate the sin’ has become such a cliché I am not sure we have taken note of what it is we are saying. If we began to actually understand the magnitude of this statement, then I truly think debates about sexuality would not seem anywhere near as pertinent as they appear.
Perhaps we should concentrate more on the meaning and consequence of the biblical understanding of love. My suspicion is that if we engage with this practice with a little more enthusiasm we won’t have as much time to devote to the categorising of sins.
The Way of Jesus Christ necessarily offends us because it is the Way of Grace. Jesus said nothing about same-sex intercourse, or same-sex love recorded in the Biblical witness. He said a lot about how we spend our money, and how we treat one another. He spent the majority of his time with the marginalised and the outcast and advocated justice for those that the rest of society had either forgotten or despised.
In today’s world, same-sex couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples (whether they are married or not) and perhaps if we are to begin a conversation about homosexuality within our contemporary context, it should begin by advocating for justice.
I have a deep passion for the study of biblical hermeneutics. I believe the church needs to engage with its sacred texts with integrity, fidelity and compassion, and it also needs to bring to the table its best scholarship in relation to the study of context, language and epistemology (both ancient and contemporary).
We must also realise that the Bible is not God. Rather, we dare to claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to us and through us as we read our scriptures. Perhaps we all need to take a deep breath and listen rather than speak – lest we miss what the Spirit is saying to the church.
As an evangelical Christian, I would like to say to gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-gendered and sexually confused people, that God loves you. I would like to repent on behalf of my fellow sisters and brothers in the faith for our ignorance, prejudice and insensitivity. And I would like to invite you to join us on an adventure of discipleship.
By following the Way of Jesus Christ, and surrendering to the grace of God, there is a life of love, forgiveness and wholeness just waiting for all who would dare to respond.
Rev Peter Hobson is the minister at Maroubra Junction Uniting Church and the Uniting Church Chaplain at the University of New South Wales. No more responses to Brian McLaren’s article will be published.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Peter Hobson
As a Uniting Church minister, conversations about homosexuality and biblical hermeneutics are beginning to seem a bit tired. Our denomination has wrestled with issues of wholeness (and holiness), biblical faithfulness, Christian witness, authentic discipleship, costly grace and prophetic leadership over the last ten years or so – but in particular, how these issues relate to sexuality (and in a more focused way – homosexuality). It is interesting to see how people from other denominations and faith traditions approach the topic.
I am currently completing a doctorate in theology, examining hermeneutics, discipleship and narrative theology. I am an evangelical, charismatic Christian who is passionate about following the way of Jesus Christ. I am also white, heterosexual, middle-class, married and male (which means that lying beneath the surface I battle with a formative narrative that is racist, homophobic, privileged and sexist). Understanding context is so important when dealing with hermeneutics.
In the end, the Biblical witness is nowhere near as clear-cut as we would like it to be. Anyone who has read their scriptures is aware that they can get the biblical text to support just about any argument on any topic they so wish (see, for example, “The story of Mel White”).
In this way, the Bible has been used and abused over the centuries to support slavery, oppression, violence, prejudice, greed and war. Texts from Romans, 1 Corinthians, Leviticus or Deuteronomy may seem to be pretty clear cut on the issue of homosexuality – but they are not. In fact, they have nothing to say about homosexuality at all.
Homosexuality, as we understand it – a sexual orientation, is a relatively new concept. The word itself was first coined in the late 19th century. At the time of Paul’s writings, Greek society viewed genital intercourse between two males to be of the highest order, but had no understanding of what we would call ‘sexual orientation’. Intercourse with women was tolerated because of child-birth – but sex between males was considered to be far superior in every aspect.
It is within this context that Paul condemns certain sexual acts – probably because of their dehumanising consequences. A sexual partner was seen as an object of gratification rather than a person who is loved and valued. Two people of the same sex who have committed their lives to one another, and as part of that commitment engage in acts of mutual affection and sexual love, are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible (notwithstanding critical, if somewhat creative, examinations of the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan etc).
If, as a church, we feel we have something to say to the world regarding sexuality, violence, greed or prejudice – we had better do our homework. To say ‘the Bible says it, I believe it’ – just isn’t good enough. The Bible also gives me permission to sell my daughter into slavery (Ex 21:7) but I am sure that no-one participating in this debate would endorse this sort of behaviour.
If the church wants to recover its prophetic witness to the world with respect to its understanding of biblical fidelity and a desire for holiness – then let us recover the voice of Christ that calls us to the way of dangerous love. Love for the lost, love for the broken, love for the oppressed – love even for the oppressor!
To say we ‘love the sinner and hate the sin’ has become such a cliché I am not sure we have taken note of what it is we are saying. If we began to actually understand the magnitude of this statement, then I truly think debates about sexuality would not seem anywhere near as pertinent as they appear.
Perhaps we should concentrate more on the meaning and consequence of the biblical understanding of love. My suspicion is that if we engage with this practice with a little more enthusiasm we won’t have as much time to devote to the categorising of sins.
The Way of Jesus Christ necessarily offends us because it is the Way of Grace. Jesus said nothing about same-sex intercourse, or same-sex love recorded in the Biblical witness. He said a lot about how we spend our money, and how we treat one another. He spent the majority of his time with the marginalised and the outcast and advocated justice for those that the rest of society had either forgotten or despised.
In today’s world, same-sex couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples (whether they are married or not) and perhaps if we are to begin a conversation about homosexuality within our contemporary context, it should begin by advocating for justice.
I have a deep passion for the study of biblical hermeneutics. I believe the church needs to engage with its sacred texts with integrity, fidelity and compassion, and it also needs to bring to the table its best scholarship in relation to the study of context, language and epistemology (both ancient and contemporary).
We must also realise that the Bible is not God. Rather, we dare to claim that the Holy Spirit speaks to us and through us as we read our scriptures. Perhaps we all need to take a deep breath and listen rather than speak – lest we miss what the Spirit is saying to the church.
As an evangelical Christian, I would like to say to gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-gendered and sexually confused people, that God loves you. I would like to repent on behalf of my fellow sisters and brothers in the faith for our ignorance, prejudice and insensitivity. And I would like to invite you to join us on an adventure of discipleship.
By following the Way of Jesus Christ, and surrendering to the grace of God, there is a life of love, forgiveness and wholeness just waiting for all who would dare to respond.
Rev Peter Hobson is the minister at Maroubra Junction Uniting Church and the Uniting Church Chaplain at the University of New South Wales. No more responses to Brian McLaren’s article will be published.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Has anyone seen my anchor?
No. 48, 12 February 2007
by Steve Turnbull
I once saw a documentary on espionage during World War 2 where a former agent and expert in the field said that the best deceptions are those that contain an extremely high percentage of truth. If the content contains too much deception and too little truth, then the intended receivers will be able to spot the flaws and immediately dismiss it as a ruse. If it contains too much truth, then you give away too much information to your adversary and do your own cause too much harm.
The art of espionage is to give away enough truth for your enemy to become convinced of the authenticity of the message and so take the whole as truth, therefore swallowing the small but critical piece of disinformation (a euphemism for a lie!) that will do extraordinary amounts of damage.
As I read Brian McLaren’s article “A pastoral response to ‘the homosexual question’” (Soundings 46, 5 Feb 2007), I could not help but remember that documentary. There is a great deal of truth in parts of article, but there are also serious items of disinformation that, if swallowed with the whole, allow our adversary the devil to do untold amounts of damage to the Kingdom of God.
Brian writes that when someone asks an honest question, we should not only consider the immediate and correct answer to that question, but we should also pause to consider the context in which the question originates. He says:
We pastors want to frame our answer around that need; we want to fit in with the Holy Spirit’s work in that person’s life at that particular moment. To put it biblically, we want to be sure our answers are “seasoned with salt” and appropriate to “the need of the moment” (Col. 4; Eph. 4) … Those who bring us honest questions are people we are trying to care for in Christ’s name, not cultural enemies we’re trying to vanquish.
I could not agree more. At that point, I was ready to rally around the banner and pass the word along. However, the next paragraph floored me:
Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides, but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.” That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think.
I would expect that first sentence from someone who had little exposure to the entirety of God’s Word. As an admission from one in a position of spiritual leadership, however, it is a frightening and truly disturbing statement. The final sentence does little more than attempt to discredit any arguments against the statement without offering any substance by way of defence.
It got worse:
Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful … If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered …
If? I do not claim to be a theologian. I am a young pastor who knows well the limitations of his study and education. Yet I find it incredulous that a pastor, particularly a pastor of Brian’s experience and stature within church life internationally, could make such a statement.
Perhaps I am in need of some further teaching. Perhaps I have misunderstood Romans 1:24-27, although I do not think that it is a particularly difficult passage to get to the heart of. Perhaps I have misunderstood 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, although I find it hard to believe that Paul’s words are in any way ambiguous. I often wonder if ‘nuance’ is a term that people employ to avoid the struggle that comes with applying the truth.
My heart warms at Brian’s desire to care for those who ask the questions, just as it rejoices at the call for dialogue with and reliance on the Holy Spirit for wisdom and understanding within each pastoral context that we minister. But my heart breaks with Brian’s assertion that, at least on this issue, the truth of Scripture on this subject is somehow ambiguous and that we are awaiting clarification by the Holy Spirit as to what God really meant when he said that homosexual behaviour was sinful.
Perhaps I approach these things too simplistically, but I believe that sin is sin. That means that I also believe that no sin is more sinful than any other sin. All sin is sin. All disobedience is disobedience. Homosexuality is no more or less a sin than adultery and both are clearly against God’s Word.
I love the sinner, I hate the sin – but I refuse to re-label disobedience as obedience. I will give my all to help each one (including me) deal with the ramifications and legacies of our disobedience, but I cannot see how that is possible if we refuse to acknowledge the disobedience in the first place.
Lifesavers used to make rescues while tethered to the beach. It made great sense to be anchored as you launched into dangerous waters to rescue a drowning person. That way, if you both got into trouble, the safe anchorage would increase the likelihood that you both made it safely back to shore.
It seems to me that Brian, along with those who subscribe to his ‘frankly’ statement, have launched themselves on a rescue mission without tethering themselves to anything. Not only is that dangerous for their own spiritual health, but it offers false hope for those who are drowning and looking to them for rescue.
I seem to remember Jesus saying something relevant to that in Luke 6:39.
Steve Turnbull is the pastor of Emu Plains Community Baptist Church at the foot of the Blue Mountains in Sydney’s West.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
by Steve Turnbull
I once saw a documentary on espionage during World War 2 where a former agent and expert in the field said that the best deceptions are those that contain an extremely high percentage of truth. If the content contains too much deception and too little truth, then the intended receivers will be able to spot the flaws and immediately dismiss it as a ruse. If it contains too much truth, then you give away too much information to your adversary and do your own cause too much harm.
The art of espionage is to give away enough truth for your enemy to become convinced of the authenticity of the message and so take the whole as truth, therefore swallowing the small but critical piece of disinformation (a euphemism for a lie!) that will do extraordinary amounts of damage.
As I read Brian McLaren’s article “A pastoral response to ‘the homosexual question’” (Soundings 46, 5 Feb 2007), I could not help but remember that documentary. There is a great deal of truth in parts of article, but there are also serious items of disinformation that, if swallowed with the whole, allow our adversary the devil to do untold amounts of damage to the Kingdom of God.
Brian writes that when someone asks an honest question, we should not only consider the immediate and correct answer to that question, but we should also pause to consider the context in which the question originates. He says:
We pastors want to frame our answer around that need; we want to fit in with the Holy Spirit’s work in that person’s life at that particular moment. To put it biblically, we want to be sure our answers are “seasoned with salt” and appropriate to “the need of the moment” (Col. 4; Eph. 4) … Those who bring us honest questions are people we are trying to care for in Christ’s name, not cultural enemies we’re trying to vanquish.
I could not agree more. At that point, I was ready to rally around the banner and pass the word along. However, the next paragraph floored me:
Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides, but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.” That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think.
I would expect that first sentence from someone who had little exposure to the entirety of God’s Word. As an admission from one in a position of spiritual leadership, however, it is a frightening and truly disturbing statement. The final sentence does little more than attempt to discredit any arguments against the statement without offering any substance by way of defence.
It got worse:
Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful … If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered …
If? I do not claim to be a theologian. I am a young pastor who knows well the limitations of his study and education. Yet I find it incredulous that a pastor, particularly a pastor of Brian’s experience and stature within church life internationally, could make such a statement.
Perhaps I am in need of some further teaching. Perhaps I have misunderstood Romans 1:24-27, although I do not think that it is a particularly difficult passage to get to the heart of. Perhaps I have misunderstood 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, although I find it hard to believe that Paul’s words are in any way ambiguous. I often wonder if ‘nuance’ is a term that people employ to avoid the struggle that comes with applying the truth.
My heart warms at Brian’s desire to care for those who ask the questions, just as it rejoices at the call for dialogue with and reliance on the Holy Spirit for wisdom and understanding within each pastoral context that we minister. But my heart breaks with Brian’s assertion that, at least on this issue, the truth of Scripture on this subject is somehow ambiguous and that we are awaiting clarification by the Holy Spirit as to what God really meant when he said that homosexual behaviour was sinful.
Perhaps I approach these things too simplistically, but I believe that sin is sin. That means that I also believe that no sin is more sinful than any other sin. All sin is sin. All disobedience is disobedience. Homosexuality is no more or less a sin than adultery and both are clearly against God’s Word.
I love the sinner, I hate the sin – but I refuse to re-label disobedience as obedience. I will give my all to help each one (including me) deal with the ramifications and legacies of our disobedience, but I cannot see how that is possible if we refuse to acknowledge the disobedience in the first place.
Lifesavers used to make rescues while tethered to the beach. It made great sense to be anchored as you launched into dangerous waters to rescue a drowning person. That way, if you both got into trouble, the safe anchorage would increase the likelihood that you both made it safely back to shore.
It seems to me that Brian, along with those who subscribe to his ‘frankly’ statement, have launched themselves on a rescue mission without tethering themselves to anything. Not only is that dangerous for their own spiritual health, but it offers false hope for those who are drowning and looking to them for rescue.
I seem to remember Jesus saying something relevant to that in Luke 6:39.
Steve Turnbull is the pastor of Emu Plains Community Baptist Church at the foot of the Blue Mountains in Sydney’s West.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
