Bishop John

I saw this advertisement recently and it deeply unsettled me. Morag Zwartz, The Age today, explains why.

 “Lead a double life” is the bold imperative – and conclusion (of the TV advertisement).

Perhaps someone needs to talk to Tourism Victoria about the difference between sexy and sordid, because it is difficult to think of any situation in which the concept of a double life is a positive one, or where it would not involve a victim. Someone might also put it to them that this promotion is seriously distasteful, trampling community values and moral codes.

But there is a greater offence here: a treachery the depth of which might only be appreciated by substituting a religion other than Christianity as the theme and backdrop for this ad. Imagine, if you dare, this same film sequence with a Buddhist nun, or a sweet young Muslim girl, or a Jewish boy – it would be unthinkable.

Christianity is an old religion, and it is wise. It has learnt to cop ridicule and mockery. But in this instance, a tacit notion of decency and trust has been destroyed. A line has been crossed.  . . .

A double life and Christianity is a grotesque coupling. Not only does Christianity promulgate truth and honesty and transparency, it abhors duplicity, dishonesty and deception. These values are not to be sabotaged to promote the joys of leading a double life of greed and lasciviousness. Furthermore, water baptism is the public expression of identifying with Christ and his sacrificial death; it is a sacred rite in the Christian church and should not be subverted to endorse indulgence at Daylesford Lake.

The advertisement is not merely a movie made by an individual as an artistic endeavour. The ad wears a stamp of authority. It comes from our state government, with a message that fouls the concept of a civilised and decent society, and offends in the most egregious way one of its oldest religious communities.

It should be withdrawn instantly and replaced with an apology.

Excellent article, Government’s moral compass gone awry in tawdry offensive ad campaign.

I believe the freedom of a person to change their religion is fundamental to Christian understanding.

At General Synod I successfully argued for the inclusion of this freedom in a motion relating to freedom of religion.  

My arguments for including the freedom of a person to change their religion were:

1. Turning to Christ is foundational to our Christian faith

The freedom to change a person’s religion is vital to the invitation of Christ to come; “follow me.”

In our Baptism Service, the priest asks the candidate, “Do you turn to Christ?” The candidate answers, “I turn to Christ.”  The priest also asks, “Do you repent of your sins?”  The candidate responds, “I repent of my sins.”

 2. This key freedom of a person to change their religion is included in the UDHR

The General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed The UNIVERSAL DECLARATION of HUMAN RIGHTS (UDHR) 1948. It includes the freedom of a person to change their religion. Let us include it in our (General Synod) statement.

 Article 18   Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 3. The freedom of a person to change their religion should not be taken for granted

The Islamic States refused to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because of the inclusion of this right.  In 1990 the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference made The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.  The freedom of a person to change their religion is not included in the Islamic response to the UDHR. In fact together certain Articles of the Islamic Declaration on Human Rights exercise force against a Muslim changing their religion. Articles 10 and 22: (Further info for comment, here): 

Article 10  Prohibited to exercise compulsion or exploit…to convert him (a Muslim) to another religion or atheism.

Article 22  Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shariah.

For these 3 reasons:

1. Turning to Christ is foundational to our Christian faith
2. This key freedom of a person to change their religion is included in the UDHR
3. The freedom of a person to change their religion should not be taken for granted

I believe that the freedom of a person to change their religion should be included in the motion relating to Freedom of Religion.

*I am pleased to say that General Synod agreed to the amendment without debate and this freedom is included in the final statement which reads:

Motion relating to Freedom of Religion

That this General Synod calls on the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments to reaffirm their commitment to religious freedom and to take all practical steps necessary to ensure that the following six freedoms are safeguarded in Australia within the constraints of the civil and criminal law generally applicable:
– freedom to manifest a religion through religious observance and practice;
– freedom to appoint people of faith to organisations run by faith communities;
– freedom to teach and uphold moral standards within faith communities;
– freedom of conscience to discriminate between right and wrong;
– freedom to teach and propagate religion; and
– freedom of a person to change their religion.

 Excellent article on euthanasia issue coming to national parliament of Australia and test for PM,

The entire key to the euthanasia debate lies in its great paradox: consistent polls showing a majority in favour. But what, exactly, are people supporting? The 1996-97 debate provides the answer: most people think that turning off life-support machines and discontinuing life-preserving treatment is euthanasia. In fact, this is nothing to do with euthanasia. Indeed, it is the precise opposite of euthanasia. If a family turns off a life-support machine, the patient dies because of their illness, not because of the doctor. But if the doctor gives a lethal injection, then the patient is killed. This is a fine yet critical distinction.

This issue was best put by former NSW politician Tony Burke, now Minister for Sustainability and Environment in the Gillard government, when he led the 1996 campaign (against euthanasia) from Labor’s side: “There is a maxim often used in the capital punishment debate which applies perfectly to legalised euthanasia: whether you support it or oppose it in principle, if one innocent person is going to be killed, that is too high a price.” Exactly.

Former Labor MP Lindsay Tanner, on October 28, 1996, tore to shreds the logic of the Northern Territory law. Asking where the line should be drawn, Tanner asked rhetorically: “Why is it that it is only the terminally ill? Why shouldn’t it also be the severely disabled? Why not somebody with an incurable mental illness? Why not children who are terminally ill?”

Tanner’s point is that lines cannot be firm or fixed. Reinforcing his argument is that many euthanasia advocates, such as Peter Singer, actively promote its extension more widely.

Full article, Brown’s euthanasia bill a perilous test for Gillard. 

From the following QLD article a quote from Euthanasia advocate Dr Nitschke who is indifferent to an innocent person being killed (as per Tony Burke’s concern above)

Dr Nitschke said if voluntary euthanasia was legalised people would be subject to a “pretty arduous process” including checks with doctors to verify the patient’s terminal illness and mental condition.

“Could someone slip through the net? I suppose it’s possible,” he said yesterday.

“But just because that could happen, should you disenfranchise the vast majority of Australians who want to see this legislation brought in?”

QLD unlikely to debate euthanasia; also an online poll. Bligh dodges euthanasia debate.

WA Parliament debated this last month, see WA Euthanasia Bill rejected.

Tasmania has a private member’s bill being prepared by the Attorney General!? See here  and Mercury Editorial here.

Four years ago it was more Jezebel than Jesus, but now Tasmania’s Anglican Church has reclaimed a former strip club next to its cathedral in Hobart.

The old building next to St David’s has been scrubbed clean and redeveloped as part of the cathedral’s six-year restoration.

The “Players” nightclub exposed Hobart’s grubby side to Sunday worshippers.

But the Anglican Dean of Hobart, the Very Reverend Richard Humphrey, says that has now changed thanks to a $4.1 million restoration of the cathedral precinct.

“It’s great to have light going into what was once a dark place. It’s really exciting for the congregation to have that facility available.”

He says the new Bishop Hay centre will be used as a Sunday school and child care centre.

The Rev. Richard Humphrey says the repairs to what is Australia’s second oldest Anglican cathedral will preserve it for future generations.

“The cathedral has both a historic place in the heart of Hobart. It also has a spiritual place in the heart of Hobart as a building that always has its doors open.”

Article, Former strip club sees the light  and it also links to Video of ABC TV News interview with the Dean. The beautiful Cathedral window which I see as I lead worship is also featured – worth saving to your pictures file for inspiration.

General Synod is over for another three years, but if you would like to read about some of the happenings in Melbourne over the last 6 days, I recommend the following articles:

 From Melbourne Anglican:

 In his presidential address, the Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia and Archbishop of Brisbane, Dr Philip Aspinall said, The Anglican Church’s mission in Australia and the world will be undermined unless there is an “overriding sense of belonging together and sharing in this one great mission.” Primate warns of the dangers of disunity .

 Australian Anglicans have committed themselves to three years of debate before a decision is taken on whether to embrace an international covenant designed to preserve the unity of their church. The Covenant proposal, which is endorsed by Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, arose out of divisions in the Church over human sexuality. Covenant to be debated for three years – Australia Anglicans.

 From Sydney Anglicans:

 The National Synod of the Anglican Church has voted to commend the study of the Jerusalem Declaration, formulated at GAFCON in 2008. Jerusalem Declaration to be sent to Churches.

 The General Synod has voted to back a motion which calls for Anglicans to be at the forefront of the battle to change the binge-drinking culture. Sydney delegate and Youthworks CEO Zac Veron moved the motion, warning of the growing impact of binge drinking in Australia. The Synod also urged action on gambling, saying governments should reduce their reliance on gambling taxes. Anglicans battle binge drinking, gambling.   General Synod reflection, Bishop Forsyth, The power of proximity.

 From Brisbane Anglican:

 The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia today celebrated the Church’s significant contribution to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ministry. During the gathering of the Church’s supreme decision making body in Melbourne, members backed a Bill welcoming the work done to date and allowing changes to the composition and operation of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Anglican Council (NATSIAC). Anglicans back Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ministry.

And finally from THE AGE, The debate about refugees is really a battle for the Australian soul – and the meanest part is winning…the very values Australians say their troops are defending in Afghanistan are at risk at home… (Our own) Tasmanian Registrar Russell Morton put a motion to synod that ‘while not minimising the complexity of the boat people issue, refugees should be treated with dignity and respect’. ‘Fibre of our soul’ at stake in treatment of refugees

See also Gen Synod: Schools/Indigenous education  and  General Synod 2010 is underway.