Bishop John

I recently received a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services outlining some proposed changes to the Adoption Act 1988  and requesting my comments on the issue:

“The proposed amendments will provide the Court with authority to make an adoption order in favour of couples with a significant relationship registered under the Relationships Act 2003  to adopt an unknown child. The effect of the amendments will be that couples in a significant relationship…will be eligible to apply to adopt an unknown child or intercountry child…Following careful consideration of these issues the  Institute (Tasmanian Law Reform Institute) recommended that the Act be amended to permit a couple to apply for adoption regardless of the gender or martial status of the partners making up the couples. A copy of the Institute can be found here… I would like to hear your views on the proposed amendments, and whether you believe that these amendments will sufficiently allow for couples in a registered significant relationship to be eligible to apply to adopt an unknown child or intercountry child. ..”

My comments are as follows:

Thank you for your invitation to comment on the proposed changes to the law that would allow couples who are registered on the significant relationships register to adopt so-called “unknown” children.

I do NOT support the proposal and I urge the government to not move forward with it.

I am on record as being in favour of the significant relationships register which allows, in particular, for same-sex couples to register a civil union.  This remains my position.

I am also in favour of recognising certain rights that reflect the simple reality of a registered relationship: for instance, in terms of defining next-of-kin, and when dealing with matters of inheritance.

In matters involving children the rights and need of the child are paramount and should be the guiding principle.  Specific circumstances and, indeed, assessments of parental capacity should not shape this principle, but should rather be assessed by it.

For instance, with regard to “known” adoptions the relational circumstances of the child are pre-existing.   When these circumstances are applied through the guiding principle, adoption can often be seen as beneficial for the child as a formalisation of what is actually the case and a maximisation of stability in the life of the child.

However, when considering the general category of “unknown” adoptions a pre-existing relationship does not exist and cannot be taken into account.  Changing procedures with regard to “unknown” adoptions should only be made if it can be argued, on a general basis of principle, that doing so would increase the benefit to the child.  The law should not be changed on the basis of specific circumstances or even the parental capacity of a particular couple, but on the basis of category and general principle.

It is therefore reasonable to assert that the best interests of a child are categorically served if they are afforded the highest potential of parental care, example, and intimacy.   It is clear that that potential is most clearly realised when both masculinity and femininity are present in that parental role.

The best interests of a child are best served by the provision of a mother and a father who are committed to one another and to the child.  The proposed changes to the adoption laws are therefore not in the best interests of children.

I would also urge the government to inform itself regarding some more practical matters.  There are many couples who seek to adopt children, often from other countries.  The process is stressful, difficult, and expensive.  The agencies involved must prove their credentials and certify prospective parents to the authorities in the nations involved.  My understanding is that many of these nations would not be supportive of allowing children to be adopted by anyone other than a married, or evidentially committed, heterosexual couple.  The government must be convinced that its proposed changes would not have the effect of increasing the wariness of other nations in their adoption procedures, and therefore making the process even more stressful for those currently involved.

Consideration should also be given to the birth parents of children being adopted.  We have heard recently of situations in living memory of our own community where the desires of the birth parent were not taken into account in the adoption of their children and the trauma that resulted.  Birth parents must have the right to ensure that the best interests of their child is served, categorically.

From Guest Blogger, The Revd Peter Adlem:

Foundations for a Christian Perspective on Euthanasia:

• Humanity is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27): …Human beings are unique as they are
  the only creatures made in “the image of God.” Because of this uniqueness, one cannot equate the
  “putting down of terminally ill animals” with “euthanasing terminally ill humans…”

• Human life is marked by both joy and sorrow (Ecclesiastes 12:1-7): …God wants us to enjoy what we can of life and is pained by our suffering, but ultimately he is in control of life and it is not for us to stop life when we stop enjoying it…

• Jesus puts an immense value on life (Mark 3:1-5): … He demonstrates the value he places on human life and dignity and his desire that people would be made whole…

• God calls his people to protect and care for the vulnerable (Psalm 82:3-4): Christians believe that God has a particular concern for the vulnerable in society, and he calls us to share this concern…

Read the whole article here.   See also, Website recources educate about euthanasia.

I encourage you to take this short survey regarding the Inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 on the Parliament of Australia website. Below are my thoughts on the survey. You may also find the resources from Social Issues Executive (Anglican Diocese of Sydney) helpful as well.

If you are interested in hearing more about a Christian view of marriage, I encourage you to attend the Friday Forum at St David’s Cathedral on Friday 16th of March from 1-2pm. See more about this event here and feel free to distribute the Flyer in your parishes or work places.

SOME THOUGHTS FOR A MARRIAGE SURVEY

1) What is your position?

The law should NOT be changed so as to redefine the concept of marriage. The current law correctly defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”   This definition reflects biblical teaching, social custom, and common sense.

Ministers of religion SHOULD NOT be obliged to marry anyone for any reason.  If the law is changed, this freedom should continue to be recognised.  Moreover, other aspects of law, such as anti-discrimination law, should also respect this freedom.

Same sex marriages performed in other countries SHOULD NOT be recognised in Australia under the term “marriage.”  The modification of definitions in other countries need not be imposed on the Australian community.  There are other ways in which the legal realities of same-sex couples in this situation can be recognised in law.

2) Do you Support the Bills?

No. Any bill that makes the unnecessary change of redefining the concept of legal marriage SHOULD NOT be supported.

3) Can you explain your reasons to the above questions?

This issue is not one of equality or inequality. Many of the rights and responsibilities afforded in law to a marriage are also rightly applied to de-facto couples, same-sex couples, and other significant relationships.  Where this is not the case, the law can be modified with respect to the specifics of the situation.

This issue is about re-definition.  Redefinition is injurious when it removes an aspect of a relationship that is fundamental to its nature.  The heterosexual nature of marriage is fundamental as evidenced by

a) the ideals and understandings of virtually every civilisation in history

b) the categorical basics of human biology

c) the fundamentals of human society which seeks to form a coherent arrangement of biological, familial and sociological relationships for the benefit and longevity of the whole community, not just the happiness of the couple.

d) religious beliefs and philosophical positions which affirm a sacred and holistic sense of marriage as a unity-in-gender-diversity, a joining-of-gender-differences.

For many who have entered into the institution of marriage tampering with the fundamental heterosexual nature of marriage would make the institution of marriage unrecognisable.

4) Do you have any further comments on the legal implications of these Bills?

The recognition of religious freedom should be embraced in these Bills.  More importantly religious freedom should be ensured in other relevant legislation such as Anti-Discrimination legislation.

If the Bill purports to resolve an aspect of discrimination how might it protect against further claims for “marriage equality” from polygamous, polyamorous, incestuous and other relationships that are extrapolations of sexual fixation?

Also see Gay advocate: don’t call it marriage, Why not a threesome?  and Gay marriage an irrelevant sideshow

An informative brief on Muslim rationales for the desecration of graves, including certain Muslim graves.

Note the importance of the Traditional Islamic texts and the model of Muhammad for Muslim people.

Desecrating Christian and Jewish Graves in Libya

In the light of other parallels, the destruction of this cemetery cannot be regarded as simply a senseless act done by a ‘rampaging mob’.  It was a thoughtful, deliberate act, which conforms to a widely attested pattern, namely the destruction of crosses, support for which can be found in canonical Islamic sources and the teaching of Muhammad.  It also conforms to a pattern of destruction of grave sites, of both non-Muslims and Muslims, by Muslims.

This event had little if anything to do with Koran-burning by the US military.

Full article by Mark Durie plus YouTube video,  Desecrating Christian and Jewish Graves in Libya

Newspaper report of the incident, Australian graves among the desecrated in Libya

My participation with the Anglican Church nationally, our Diocesan Mission Support Officers and Ministry Council highlight a number of significant ministry matters; eg, training of lay and ordained Anglicans, evangelism, disciple making, curacy placements, how to grow healthy parishes and partnerships.

Here are 3 ministry issues: 1. What causes conflict?  2. Am I a guest or a host at my church? 3. How to be one body? or Holding it all, local and centre, together.

1. WHAT CAUSES CONFLICT? Conflict in dioceses, parishes and agencies is often said to be due to their critical decline and their need to change. Change and its management are certainly demanding and involve the resolution of differences and conflict. The need for civility and respect when people hold different opinions. Having observed the lack of Christian charity and character involved in too many such situations I believe that the root issue has more to do with the degree of commitment to Christ and our will to act in his ways. The Apostle Paul appealed to the example of the humility and sacrifice of Christ. We must be challenged by this word and example. See Philippians 2:4-11. If so challenged, will we commit ourselves to growing in Christ-likeness?

2. AM I A GUEST OR A HOST? A key question from a Back to Church Sunday presentation, “Are you a guest or a host at your Church?” i.e. A “guest” is a worshiper who is there as a member of an audience to observe and participate in worship but not as someone who invites others and looks out for their welfare during their time with us. We need to be “hosts.”

3. HOW TO BE ONE BODY? A key issue that I have observed over the past decade in the national Church and here in Tasmania is the increasing demands made upon an organisation’s centre while at the same time the organisation faces the increased imperative to do effective ministry locally.

The increased demands on the Anglican Church’s centre have to do with legal and financial compliance, requests for information, increased desire for participation in decision making, conflict resolution, developing safe church communities, processes for handling complaints concerning professional standards, communication, recruitment, fewer volunteers, staffing and assistance in addressing strategic mission in increasingly diverse contexts that are no longer responding to inherited ways of being and doing ‘church’.

Part of the conundrum is that stronger dioceses, parishes and agencies may not see themselves as needing such assistance from their respective centre. Thus stronger groups resist making contributions, minimize participation and opt out where possible. This reduces resources to the centre and indirectly to needy dioceses, parishes and agencies. Whatever happened to an understanding of the ‘body of Christ’ extending beyond my own diocese, parish or agency? Is it not possible to support and partnership with a diocese, parish or agency in need? To what extent does the parable of the Good Samaritan continue to have currency within Anglicanism?

As a Diocesan Bishop I occupy roles at both ‘the centre’ and ‘locally’. This does not deafen me to voices  of criticism: self-justification; failure to address the national church, parishes and agencies that need some tough medicine; better to prioritise care for the strong so that long term the strong will care for the weak; the parable of the talents is the parable for our times; etc.

We need constructive engagement of persons and organisations coupled with a robust ecclesiology and understanding of the Church. Is it possible to put aside personal, local and central ambition, defensiveness and comfort? Will we address these ministry issues or avoid them? These issues should be strong fodder for mature, prayerful conversation.