Bishop John

Guest Blogger: Revd David Boyd writes,

One aspect of the assisted dying debate is that such measures will always leave some people who fall outside the guidelines pleading for the guidelines to be widened to allow them to be included.

In a parallel situation, the guideline for abortion in Victoria for many years until recently, the 1969 Menhennit ruling that abortion was allowed in situations where the physical or mental heath of the mother were in danger, got widened out to, in effect, abortion on demand. That is, the gateposts which were there to restrict access to abortion were knocked over and anyone who wanted to got through. Laws and guidelines do get widened out in practice and by pleading for exceptions.

Thus, immediately after the new consultation paper in voluntary assisted dying was introduced in Tasmania, the situation of Elizabeth Godfrey a decade ago was discussed at length on ABC television and other media. She was a Christian who believed that the resources expended on her pain should go to others more needy. She did not have a terminal illness, but was in unbearable and unrelievable physical pain, and committed suicide in 2002. Her two sons (one of whom was convicted and received a suspended sentence for assisting her suicide) called for the proposed guidelines to be widened to allow the assisted suicide of anyone – not just those with a terminal illness – experiencing unbearable and unrelievable pain.

Then, of course, the next step would be to ask for it for those experiencing unbearable and unrelievable mental / emotional / psychological pain (ie, suicidal depression). And that can be anyone of any age. And the widening would continue, with pleading for other exceptions, because if autonomy is to be one of our supreme guiding values, then of course everyone can do whatever they like to themselves.

Unlike some people of faith, I am careful about calling lots of things slippery slopes, but I believe this one really is a slippery slope, and this has been demonstrated in other places where assisted dying has become legal.

I believe this one really is a slippery slope, and this has been demonstrated in other places where assisted dying has become legal.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

BISHOP’S PASTORAL LETTER: ABORTION LAW FOR TASMANIA?  UPDATE 16 March

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I have updated my letter of yesterday on this issue due to a) the Minister’s decision to extend the submission’s date and b) some editing to improve the text.

I regret that I have to write to you again to encourage you to write to our political leaders over a matter of great concern.

Last week Tasmania’s Minister for Health, The Hon. Michelle O’Byrne released a draft bill and consultation paper dealing with the legal framework for the termination of pregnancy.

As stated in my Pastoral Letter yesterday, 15 March, the paltry allowance for public consultation on the draft bill was reprehensible. I am pleased to say we received advice after my letter was distributed, that the Minister had agreed to extend the deadline for submissions on the Abortion law reform bill for two weeks. The new deadline is FRIDAY APRIL 5.

In presenting this draft legislation the Minister claims that she is not dealing with matters of principle, but simply making adjustments.  This is a facade.  The proposal is being brought as a Private Member’s Bill and is attracting a conscience vote for a reason: it deals with significant matters: matters of life and death.

The Bill provides for pregnancy termination on request until 24 weeks gestation and pregnancy termination with medical approval from that point until birth.

The Bill restricts freedom of conscience for medical professionals so that they are bound to facilitate access to termination providers.  Moreover, the Bill threatens anyone who provides any form of counselling (including church workers) with criminal sanction if they also do not facilitate access to termination providers.  There are a number of other restrictions on freedoms of conscience and freedoms of speech.

These measures may seek to move away from criminalising abortion, but they move towards the criminalising of dissent and disagreement on this matter.

There are some issues that are worthy of consideration in this Bill, including the issue of whether criminality is an appropriate form of regulation in some or all circumstances.

However, the proposal, in the main, can only be described as extremist.  It is far removed from even that position to which some hold as a pragmatic compromise, that termination should be “safe, legal, and rare.”

Up until 24 weeks a simple request for termination is required but there are no checks and balances to ensure that coercion of the mother is not apparent.

While rightly affirming the rights of women, this proposal simply ignores the humanity of the unborn children involved.  Up until 24 weeks gestation termination of the unborn is allowed on any grounds, including the gender of the child.

The 24 week threshold is not determined, as some might think, on the basis of the potential viability of the child.  It is on the grounds that tests for disability, including cleft palate and other less severe congenital abnormalities, cannot be conclusively undertaken until after 20 weeks gestation.

From 24 weeks the criteria for terminating the unborn baby are “the (two) medical practitioners must have regard to the woman’s current and future physical, psychological, economic and social circumstances”. Termination in late-term requires medical consent, not because of the child, but because termination in that period can have significant medical impact on the mother.

There is no balanced consideration of the child.  There is no consideration of the child at all.  Late-term termination necessarily requires that significant harm be done to the child in order to effect the termination.  The rights of that child, even limited rights such as a requirement that the child be anaesthetised before it is eliminated, are simply irrelevant to the proposal that Ms O’Byrne has tabled.

It is notable in all the information from the Minister that the sobering phrase ‘abortion on demand’ has been scrupulously avoided!

This proposal eschews any sense of responsibility that women (and men for that matter) should take in their sexual activity and so treats sexually active people as less than adult. The act of sex always retains a chance of pregnancy, no matter the precautions taken. It is never responsibility-free. There is no such thing as the right to pregnancy-free sex.

There is no mention in relation to the care of those women who have had abortions and have suffered trauma and guilt. We need to care for them.

One aspect of this horrible legislative rampage from a member of the Tasmanian Government is that it is not clear what role the public hospitals are expected to play in this process

Ms O’Byrne does not acknowledge that it is not only the potential legality of the procedure that is stopping doctors; it is that many doctors do not wish to provide the procedure or refer patients for a termination. This will not change with the legislation as much as the Minister believes it will.

It is interesting that in Victoria we are seeing anti-smoking advertisements for people to stop smoking as it could hurt their unborn baby. In NSW they are thinking about laws that could apply to drivers who kill unborn babies in drunk/reckless driving accidents. There is a certain irony in creating laws to allow the termination of pregnancy while at the same time spending money to protect unborn babies!

For every complex problem there is a simple solution… and it is wrong. Henry Mencken (1880-1956)

This is an abhorrent piece of legislation introduced by a minister in a government whose priorities appear to be the imposition of personal values during a rapidly disappearing time/ window of political opportunity.

I encourage you to write to the Minister, voicing your disapproval of this measure and outlining your concerns in your own words.

The Draft Bill and Consultation Paper can be found here: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/pophealth/womens_health

Feedback must be in writing via email to public.health@dhhs.tas.gov.au or a hardcopy posted to Population Health Equity, GPO Box 125 Hobart, TAS, 7001.

All responses must be received by 5:00pm Friday 5 April 2013.

YOU HAVE UNTIL 5PM FRIDAY, APRIL 5 TO RESPOND. PLEASE RESPOND!

Yours sincerely in Christ’s service

Shalom

+John

Bishop of a deeply troubled Tasmania

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/1352311/give-us-time-church/

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/03/09/374164_tasmania-news.html

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/manslaughter-counts-for-unborn-babies-20130209-2e56k.html

My Pastoral Letter of 15 March (yesterday) is here.

God speaks. God speaks life. God speaks life to us.

Tasmania is experiencing a tumultuous summer. This new year has seen already many parts of our beautiful state affected by the destruction of bushfires.

As I mentioned in my pastoral letter at the time, in the wake of the bushfires have come ‘tear-streaked faces of broken dreams and the charred ruins of hard-won homes, businesses, farms, shacks and community facilities.’

In times of adversity our so-called ‘first world problems’ fade away.  The rawness of human frailty and the true sense of our community are revealed.  What we have seen on display are deep human bonds, generosity, empathy, goodwill, and cooperation from Tasmanians in all kinds of circumstances.  Such qualities are a deep blessing, for which we are grateful.

Tasmanian Anglicans have shared in the aftermath of this tragedy both directly and indirectly.  I am very grateful to the ministry of the local church teams, chaplaincy response through the Tasmanian Council of Churches, and Christian individuals who have demonstrated the love of Christ in practical ways.

Please continue to support their ministries in prayer, hands-on assistance where appropriate and through the Tasmanian Anglican Bushfire Appeal.  Some of you have already given to the Appeal and I am very grateful as this allows direct support through grass roots parish pastoral support to those affected by the bushfires.

In the midst of this tragedy I have been heartened by the witness of Christians who have faced the bushfires and bear loss.

As followers of Christ we are not immune to tragedy. Yet, we have a faith, a trust and a hope which strengthens us. The sure hope which Christ gives enables his followers to walk as he did, actively embracing and assisting the hurt and the vulnerable. This is so even when we have suffered ourselves.

Trusting in Christ’s strengthening presence we work and pray for the healing and recovery of our communities.

It is not without poignancy that our current bushfire season so soon followed our celebration and remembrance of the incarnation of Christ at Christmas.  As Christians we confidently call upon God in the midst of trauma and pain because we know that God knows of trauma and pain.

‘Immanuel: God with us’ is the heart of Christmas. Christ is ‘God with us’ and Christ lived this earthly life and experienced its joys and sorrows.

Our encounter with God in Christ is the key to our capacity to respond to suffering.

The Tasmanian bushfires, coming so hard on Christmas, remind us of Christ’s call to ‘come follow me’ in every circumstance of life and his promise, ‘I am with you always, to the end of the age’.

Truly, Christ is with us always, even in this bushfire season, assuring us of the strengthening and comfort of his presence, ‘Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.’ (Matthew 11:28)

As we emerge from this tumultuous season of tragedy and trauma, let us not forget the burden of those who will need to rebuild and those assisting them.

We walk together in the sure hope and assurance of Christ’s presence that sustains us all: ‘Immanuel, God with us’.

May the Holy Spirit burn into our heads and hearts the promises of Christ in all the circumstances of this year.

** To read all the articles from the Tasmanian Anglican magazine, February 2013, please read here.

A Thanksgiving to God for the life of Russell Morton was held at St David’s Cathedral Hobart last Saturday, 23 February 2013.

Family and friends came from near and far, filling the sunlight Cathedral. The Order of Service had been prepared by Russell and Sue with favourite hymns, Bible readings, prayers and musical items. Their rector, the Revd David Rietveld of Wellspring Anglican Parish, preached and you can find the audio of the sermon, here.

Moving eulogies were given by Alastair and Hilary (Russell and Sue’s children), treasured family friend, Prof Alastair Richardson and Vicar General of the Diocese of Tasmania, Bishop Chris Jones. The eulogies in audio are, here.

Russell retired in 2011 from his role as Director of Business Services for the Diocese of Tasmania and Bishop Chris Jones’ eulogy reflected on this aspect of Russell’s life and service. Fulfilling Russell’s request, the eulogy included numerous quotes! Bishop Chris’ eulogy follows:

God has given us Russell

“God has given us Russell” is how a conversation started with Bishop John back in 2004.  The Registrar at the time, Bill Haas, was going to retire and we needed to plan a recruitment process to replace him.  You know the drill: position description, advertisements, applications, interviews and so on.  Instead, Bishop John had asked Russell and he said “Yes” hence the phrase “God has given us Russell”.  Then there was the small challenge to have the various Councils of the Church approve it.  However, that happened quickly as he was known to many of us and we concurred “God has given us Russell.”

From 2004 through until his retirement Russell served God through the role of Registrar or should I say, Director of Business Services – a title that he thought more accurately reflected what the role was.  Although I am not sure the full range of functions that he performed are adequately captured in that title.  As I reflect on his Diocesan ministry I see three dimensions or aspects of his work.

The first was clearly as an administrator.

The Director of Business Services is in charge of all the Diocesan property, organizing the various payroll and HR responsibilities, resolving conflicts and generally keeping the ship afloat.  But Russell wasn’t happy with the status quo and knew that the Church needed to act in new ways.  “Let the flowers bloom” was the instruction from Bishop John and the Diocese sought to be more creative and innovative.

Not surprisingly this presented challenges as Richard Hooker the 16^th century Anglican priest was right when he wrote “Change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better.” But Russell was up for it!  Whether it was new policies for the Trustees, building extensions, disposals of cemeteries or the development at St James Village Russell threw himself into the task.

It is possible to get so caught up in the demands of regulations, policies and plans that you forget the people and the need to listen.  Russell sought to follow the injunction of Saint Benedict to “Listen and attend with the ear of your heart”. This was especially true in relation to the Diocesan response to those sexually abused by church workers.  Russell felt the pain and hurt and worked hard to ensure the Church did all it could.

Administration often equates to meetings.  How many of you sat in meetings with Russell?

How many of you were pleased that his sense of humour could brighten an otherwise dull agenda?

Russell used humour to lighten the mood and reduce tension.  Michael Ramsay, the 100^th Archbishop of Canterbury said “Use your sense of humour: laugh about things.  Laugh at the absurdities of life; laugh about yourself and about your own absurdity … You have to be serious, but never be solemn, because if you are solemn about anything, there is a danger of you becoming solemn about yourself.”

The second dimension was Russell as a teacher.

Alastair (Richardson) has already referred to the time a Caulfield, Hutchins and Murree.  But it was not just in the school context that Russell taught. There was also his preaching, small group leadership and mentoring.  There was the article he would send you or the book he would recommend to you.

How many of you learnt something from Russell?

Hang on! How many of you sometimes heard the Headmaster speaking when he talked to you?

He took seriously the challenge of life long learning and so when I met with him to talk about a retirement gift from the Trustees he asked that we pay for him to do an AICD, Australian Institute of Company Directors, leadership course that would help him in his CMS Australia role.

During the last year when I received an email from Russell I would recall the words of John Donne the 17^th century English poet priest, “God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice.”  During his illness Russell continued to teach about God and to learn from God.

The third dimension was Russell as a missionary.

CMS, the Church Missionary Society, has “a vision of a world that knows Jesus.”  Russell and Sue signed up to this vision and served overseas as we have heard.  But they also saw the mission field being here in Tasmania.  In all the administration and teaching Russell always worked as a missionary seeking to bring about “a world that knows Jesus.”  I hope that you have responded generously to the family’s invitation to make a donation to CMS.

How many of you did Russell pray for and open the scriptures with?

How many of you had robust theological discussions with him bordering on arguments, perhaps agreeing to disagree?

Russell was an administrator, teacher and missionary. He undertook these roles with humility and integrity.

Russell was at all times honest and open is his approach, always striving to act justly.  He tried hard to live by what William Temple, the war-time Archbishop of Canterbury, preached: “Humility does not mean thinking less of yourself than other people, nor does it mean having a low opinion of your own gifts.  It means freedom from thinking about yourself one way or the other at all.”

Yes, God had given us Russell and we thank God for that.

The Lord be with you.  And also with you.

“My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.”

I am at Burnie this weekend. Saturday’s Seminar is on Understanding the Old Testament and I am looking forward to learning more of God’s world and our participation in his work in the world.

On Sunday I am preaching for Back to Church Sunday at St George’s Burnie and then at Connections in Somerset. An outline of the seminar:

Understanding the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament

Discipleship of the whole Bible

A.     Why the Old Testament matters

 B.     Biblical History (Handout B1 & B2)

C.      Jesus’ use of the Old Testament from the Gospel of Luke (Handout C)

D.     Biblical Theology

–          God’s Rule, God’s People, God’s Place    (Handout D1 & D2)

–          Interpretation:  The text of the Bible in its context.  e.g. David & Goliath

 E.     Is God a moral monster? (Handout E)

F.      Discipleship of the whole Bible