Acts 2.1-21; Psalm 104.26-36; 1 Cor 12.1-13; John 20.19-23
Nam eloquentiam quae admirationem non habet nullam iudico. Pentecost seems a suitable occasion for a little speaking in tongues! It's a statement by Roman politician and orator, Cicero, that means: "Eloquence that does not startle I consider not to be eloquence." [Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus . . . trans. and ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Harvard University Press, 2002 (Loeb Classical Library), p. 311[
Were you a little startled when I began by speaking, no doubt badly, in Latin? The people waiting in the upper room on the day of Pentecost were surely a little surprised to see the tongues of fire and to hear each other speaking in many differing languages.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the unexpected, the Spirit of freedom, the Spirit of the unanticipated. If we are not sometimes a little startled, a little surprised or disturbed by what happens in church and in our parish life, perhaps we might ask ourselves, "Where is the Spirit?"
The disciples were not drunk, nor were they out of control. Though the Spirit was bringing something new and startling, the Spirit did not bring disorder or loss of control. There was no cause for fear. Quite the opposite, in fact. The coming of the Spirit gave the disciples of Jesus new boldness, new courage, and new ability to fulfil the mission that Jesus had given them.
Jesus had told them to wait until they received power from above. This was not power in the sense of domination, force or political power. Rather, it meant ability. On the day of Pentecost, the disciples received ability to speak in many languages. Peter found new ability to preach boldly and clearly. The disciples received renewed ability to heal the sick.
Every Christian is a charismatic, a person with a gift, for that's what charismatic means. There is no un-gifted life, no life of total dis-ability. Everyone is of great value. All have their own special charism, or gift, in the community of Christ's people.
The Holy Spirit and the power of God is given to all believers. Our baptismal calling puts our lives at service of the kingdom, including whatever gifts--abilities--we have and whatever gifts we may receive. Yet there are many differing abilities, gifts, charisms, given to and exercised by each person individually.
The letter to the Corinthians encourages us not to be ignorant concerning spiritual gifts. Yet perhaps we do not live out our gifts as fully as we might. The place is to start is wherever we are aware of God's presence in our lives with who we are, what we are and how we are.
Not only special religious experiences are so-called ‘charismatic'. The whole of life, and every life in faith is God's gift, for the Spirit is ‘poured out upon all flesh' to quicken it, to give life.
Our individual abilities and energies become charisms--gifts enabled by God--in the relationships which form our shared life. It is often in our relationships that we discover God's gifts for the first time.
Yet the Holy Spirit does give new gifts to believers. We may find the Spirit encouraging us to exercise God-given abilities that are new, that we did not have before. These include especially gifts that build up the community of Christ's people, as witnesses to the coming kingdom. Besides the nine gifts we heard described in the reading from I Corinthians 12, there are many gifts of ministry, service and leadership.
Paul needed to emphasize the use of spiritual gifts to build up the church. He taught unity but not uniformity:
"there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit, varieties of services, but the same Lord, varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good."
It's not agreed doctrine or submission to authority that creates unity and harmony. Restriction and uniformity in ideas, words and action makes the community numb and boring.
The power that unites us as differing people with many differing gifts is love in the fellowship of the Spirit. Today, however, we need to emphasise unity's complimentary principle, that it is freedom that releases the different gifts. The power of unity is love. But the power of diversity is freedom. "The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." (2 Cor. 3.17)
The Spirit is spontaneous and free. Our regular church services display a wealth of ideas and reflections in prayer, preaching and music. In this, they certainly make a place for some God-given gifts. Yet we do limit severely our forms of expression, and we offer little opportunity for spontaneity. Perhaps too often we ask "what does the rule book say?" instead of "what says the Spirit?"
We have become disciplined and disciplinary assemblies for talking and listening. Yet, we need also the opportunity and willingness to express freely our experience of the things of God, to employ gifts that God has given us, personally and individually.
Yes, the Holy Spirit works in the church, but the Spirit does this by guiding, inspiring and giving abilities to individuals--in fact to all of us. The speaking in tongues experienced by the disciples was a personal ability, made possible by the Spirit. Paul said he desired that all, each one personally might be able to pray in this way, to experience this particular ability from the Spirit.
He went on (in chapter 14) to urge the Corinthians (I Cor. 14. 1) to ‘earnestly desire' the best gifts and especially ‘that all may prophesy'--which includes personal, everyday witness in sharing the faith in ways that build up, encourage and comfort.
The only way to find out whether one has a gift of healing is to pray for the sick. The only way to speak in tongues is to open one's mouth. The only way to be a witness to the faith is to start doing something, personally, in action or words. We need to 'have a go' when we feel prompted to exercise any gift.
Of course we need to be wise and discreet, but if we are over-cautious, because we are afraid of mistakes, embarrassment or failure, we won't understand our potential or live in all the opportunities God offers us. If we don't 'have a go' we won't learn our genuine limitations either, and be at peace with them.
To exercise and ability from God is often something we learn. Of course we make mistakes and encounter defeats, but we also receive the ability to continue learning. The person who believes is a person full of possibilities. Let's not limit ourselves to the roles laid down for us by others. And let's not tie other people down to our preconceptions of them.
The potential of our gifts is awakened by trust: trust in God, trust in ourselves and each other. Here are some suggestions as to how we might put such trust into practice here and now.
First, let's continue to encourage another in sharing our faith and the use of God's gifts to minister to each other and those around us. Small groups are an excellent opportunity for this. Besides the home groups (of which I hope there can be more) any collection of people in the Parish can grow in abilities given by the Spirit and the sharing of our lives. Nothing in the church is exempt from the experience of God's power by the Spirit. Why not simply gather together a few people for morning tea or supper regularly to pray and share good things from God?
Second: let's give leaders in ministry as much room to move--as much freedom--as the Spirit would give them. I don't expect our pastor would want to swing from the rafters, but when he seeks do something different or new, spontaneously or with careful planning, we should applaud and give thanks, not bring out the rule book. And the same should apply to others working in any capacity in the parish who seek to do new things.
Third, let's be both spontaneous and persistent. If God is prompting us to do something, the best time may be often at once but, as well, we may find that we need to stick with something for quite a while before it matures and becomes strong.
Fourth: "seek earnestly the best gifts", as Paul says. It is a proper and good thing to seek an ability or gifting from the Holy Spirit.
Lastly (for the moment): a ministry and gift that I believe we should think and pray about in our Parish is healing. In the gospels the disciples were commanded to heal the sick. They healed the sick in the name of Jesus directly after the day of Pentecost. The healing of the sick in body and mind is a completely natural part of Christian life and experience and an essential part of the church's ministry.
May the Holy Spirit grant gifts of ability and power, to build us up in the church, to bless those in need, and to share with all the good news of Jesus Christ.
Since the Sunday announcement that the Rudd government would use Commonwealth powers to disallow civil partnerships in Canberra on the grounds they would too closely mimic marriage, it has coped a lot of criticism, nullifying the praise it has received for its decision to reverse many laws that financially discriminate against same-sex couples.
Yet I cannot avoid the feeling that it is much ado about very little. The announcement of federal reform of many laws that discriminate against same-sex couple will be vastly more valuable in practice. The ACT has accepted a compromise that would allow same-sex couples to register their relationships and have a ceremony paid for by taxpayers, but without any legal recognition. The federal government correctly argues that its policy is based on the national ALP policy platform. Yet Mr Rudd had said in December that same-sex unions were a matter for the states and territories. Tasmania has already introduced a system of registering same-sex relationships, which the federal ALP supports in its official policy. The only difference is that the ACT proposal required a ceremony that provided for public acknowledgement of the relationship.
Relationships between the ACT and the federal government on which it depends for its well being have soured. ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope characterised the federal decision to disallow the civil unions as "a dreadful day for the Australian Labor Party". Mr Stanhope said:
What hurts me so much, is that the attitude of Kevin Rudd and Robert McClelland is no different from the attitude of John Howard and Phillip Ruddock in relation to the democratic rights of the people of the ACT and the human rights of gay and lesbian people in our community.
At the end of the day, the Commonwealth made not a single concession to the ACT Government; it was just a blanket position of opposition, no different to John Howard's.
I don't believe for one minute that by recognising gay and lesbian relationships under the law, we are in any way diminishing marriage. It's my 36th wedding anniversary tomorrow. Recognising the loving relationship of [gay Labor MLA] Andrew Barr does not diminish my marriage one iota and I challenge anybody to suggest it does.
An angry Stanhope said he was embarrassed that his federal Labor colleagues would both deny human rights of gay and lesbian people within his community, and show disrespect for the democratic rights of the people of the ACT. "At both levels, Prime Minister Rudd has failed dismally.
Andrew Barr says that is a fair assessment. He says it seems gay people are tolerated and accepted but have not been embraced as full citizens. "I've never been so disappointed in the Labor Party as I am today. But we've got to move on, we've taken a step forward and let's recognise that and this fight will go on for years ahead I'm sure."
ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell had described the Rudd Government's position as "hypocritical" and "appalling", and accused Mr Rudd of being unduly influenced by the Christian lobby on the issue.
In 2006 Labor senators Kate Lundy and Penny Wong spoke passionately against federal intervention. Mr Stanhope said his federal colleagues could "rightly be accused of gross hypocrisy" and that when push came to shove, their "grand speeches" were just empty words.
Federal MPs have also attacked Kevin Rudd's decision and raised concerns that this threat flies in the face of a mandate the Stanhope government has from Canberra voters to introduce the legal reforms. Left-wing Rudd ministers including Tanya Plibersek have declined to publicly endorsed the decision. Northern Territory Labor Senator Trish Crossin, who is also a senator, said she could not support the use of Commonwealth powers to intervene in a territory’s laws. ACT Labor MP Annette Ellis said today she was concerned in-principle at the intervention. NSW Labor MP Julia Irwin said she also had concerns.
But ACT senator Kate Lundy and Labor MP Bob McMullan have no commented, prompting claims of gutlessness from the Liberal Party, especially from Liberal senator Gary Humphries who stood alone against his party to support the ACT laws in 2006. "Usually in politics there’s a fig leaf of difference between the circumstances that allow a government to back flip from what they did in opposition. There’s no fig leaf here.".
Asked what difference there was between McClelland and Philip Ruddock, the much-criticised attorney of the Howard government who overrode ACT legislation on civil unions, Rodney Croome, of the Coalition for Equality, said to Andrew Fraser of the Canberra Times (1 May 08), "In the eyes of a same-sex couple in the ACT who want to solemnise their love and commitment, I don't think there would be any difference. Both stand in the way of formal recognition of same-sex love, or, more to the point, their leaders do. . . . In my view, the Federal Government is bullying the ACT on this simply because it can."
Fraser opined (on 2 May 08) that there was at least one area where Prime Minister Rudd had a golden opportunity to draw a clear distinction between himself and John Howard, if he had had the nerve.
It comes from the ACT, which continues to have the temerity to insist that Territorians be allowed to govern themselves, just like everyone else in the country. There are two issues ripe for Rudd to seize:
That a properly elected and competent ACT Parliament (it's not just about the local Labor government) be allowed to legislate, within power (a power confirmed by Rudd himself in his very first week in office).
That formal recognition of unions (not, even on the ACT Government's formulation, "marriages") be provided for same-sex couples.
This would involve leadership.
The changes that Rudd's first law officer, Robert McClelland, announced this week for the financial security and equity of same-sex couples were universally hailed as significant and long overdue.
. . . As Corbell said, the mechanism is undemocratic and anachronistic, providing for the Queen's representative to dismiss the will of a section of the Australian people as expressed at the ballot box. It is possible only in the territories, and fits the description from Rodney Croome, of the Coalition for Equality, for disallowance itself: "bullying" that is done only because the Commonwealth can.
One option, Fraser notes, would have involved the Federal Government asking the Governor-General to recommend amendments to the ACT legislation that would have to be put before the Territory's Parliament. This would have meant that the Rudd Government would have had to publicly put forward its preferred course, rather than simply negating whatever the ACT put up. It had one big advantage, or challenge, Fraser says. It would have ensured that Rudd cannot be painted as Howard.
But that was not enough for the Prime Minister to act.
Today's The Canberra Times (5 May 08) reports that the ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell launched a "blistering" attack on the Rudd Government yesterday as he "capitulated" on his bid to legislate for same-sex civil unions.
Mr Corbell's anger is thoroughly deserved. However I have been concerned that a stand-off between the territory and federal government might prevent anything being done to allow formal recognition of same-sex relationships in the ACT.
The compromise adopted by the ACT Government will allow same-sex couples to register their relationship and have a ceremony paid for by taxpayers but carrying no legal recognition. The ceremonies will be conducted by the Registrar's office and cannot be vetoed by the Federal Government because they will not be written into legislation.
Faced with implacable opposition from the Rudd Government over formal ceremonies, Mr Corbell lashed out at what he called "fear and bigotry" influencing the outcome. "We are angry, disappointed and frustrated with the approach of our federal colleagues," he said. "We think it is appalling, unacceptable and completely at odds with the territory's status to make these laws for itself. It is a hypocritical position, it is a contradictory position and it is not a position that consistently adopts the principle of equality which they claim to profess in other areas of law reform," he said.
Mr Corbell accused Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of being unduly influenced by the Christian lobby on this issue. "There is no doubt there is an element of either fear or bigotry at play around this whole debate," he said.
In the SMH Mr Corbell is quoted as saying "Given the stubborn refusal of the Federal Government to consider any compromise, the territory has decided to amend its legislation to provide for a form of civil partnerships without ceremony. This will allow gay and lesbian couples in Canberra to legally formalise their relationships and unequivocally demonstrate their legal status so as to access Commonwealth superannuation, taxation and social security law reforms."
The federal government's action, although consistent with the ALP's national platform, are a reversal of its election policy that it would allow the ACT to make an autonomous decision. In December Mr Rudd said he would not use Commonwealth powers to override same-sex marriage laws passed by states and territories, as the Howard government did. "On these matters, state and territories are answerable to their own jurisdictions. State and territory governments are elected to govern, they are accountable to their constituents," Mr Rudd said then. Later, however, he directed Mr McClelland to threaten to override the ACT legislation, as the Coalition government did the last time it was put forward.
The decision by the ACT to water down its proposal, and adopt civil partnerships without legally recognised ceremonies, brings the territory into line with Tasmania and Victoria. But the Federal action is possible only because the ACT is a territory and not a state.
Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland repeated yesterday that the ACT's original proposal mimicked marriage. Mr Corbell again rejected this assertion and said the first informal ceremonies between same-sex couples should occur later this month.
After the earlier intervention by then prime minister John Howard, senior Labor figures spoke passionately in defence of the ACT's right to legislate for same-sex couples. Frontbencher Penny Wong, now a minister, said then the Howard government was using the issue as a political football to exploit prejudices in sections of the community. ACT Labor Senator Kate Lundy, who also spoke out against Mr Howard's actions then, yesterday welcomed the compromise. Senator Lundy would have done better to support the territory people who elected her and the local government that represents them.
Australia's Catholic Weekly (27 Apr 08) reports Michael Putney, Bishop of Townsville and Chairman of the [Australian Roman Catholic] Bishops' Commission for Ecumenism and Inter-religious Relations as saying that the consecration of women bishops in the Anglican Church further "deepens the obstacle" to reconciliation between the two Communions.
With no disrespect at all to the Bishop, I find it hard not to respond, "So what?" For, although I delight in fellowship with Roman Catholics, I have no desire for at all for the Anglican and Roman churches to become one organisation.
Bishop Michael said: "When the Anglican Communion world-wide began to ordain women priests, the Catholic Church made it clear to them that this was a further obstacle to reconciliation between our two Communions. Ordination for women is a doctrinal issue, not just a practical issue for us. And the ordination of women bishops enhances that obstacle because bishops are the leaders of the Church, and even within the Anglican Communion that leadership will be received ambiguously."
"It is the same doctrinal issue. It just makes it more complex." "We can't see how we can ordain women as priests from a doctrinal point of view. It's not a question of us choosing not to, it's a question of us being seen that we're unable to."
Roman Catholic pronouncements against women's ordination say that Christ, being male, may be truly represented in ordained roles only by males. [see John Paul II, On reserving the priestly ordination to men alone. 1994.]
To me, the Catholic argument is simply ridiculous. See for example Rosemary Radford Ruether "Can Christology be liberated from patriarchy?" in Reconstructing the Christ symbol: essays in feminist Christology. M. Stevens (ed.). Paulist Pr., 1993, pp.7-28. Despite the potential benefit to us from the history of Jesus the Christ, of all the doctrines of the church, Christology is the one most used to suppress and exclude women. So strong has this been that some feminists have found it impossible to relate to a God preeminently represented by Jesus, a male. Though he is the most overtly male person in the godhead, what is at issue is not that Jesus was a male human being. His maleness is intrinsic to his historical identity. Difficulty arises, rather, from the way this fact of maleness has been construed in androcentric theology and practice. In New Testament times, Christology was inclusive of women, but Hellenistic influences later gave it masculine bias. The very maleness of Jesus has become a basis on which to devalue those who are female
Bishop Putney says, "We will continue to dialogue and continue to collaborate, and ultimately with all things to do with ecumenism it's in God's hands to help us to find the way forward."
Episcopal Caféstates that Archbishop Williams will not allow Bishop Gene Robinson to function as a priest in England during the Lambeth Conference. Thinking Anglicanssays that "In the Church of England, the legal position on preaching is not the same as the position on 'exercising priestly functions'. It appears that an overseas bishop would not necessarily need permission from anybody but the incumbent of the parish in order to simply preach there.
It is here reported that a spokesman for the Archbishop, on 2 May 08 denied press speculation that Dr Williams was attempting to silence Bishop Robinson and has confirmed that Bishop Robinson has not been banned from pulpits in the Church of England. The Archbishop had not issued Bishop Robinson a license to officiate, but canon law does allow the Archbishop the ban a preacher.
However, on the BBC's Hardtalk, Robinson said he would not preach without the permission of the Archbishop. "In the past he has . . . declined to give me permission to preach and to celebrate the Holy Communion and I would never do so without his permission."
Episcopal Cafédescribes an email to Robinson which Williams cites the Windsor Report and recent statements from the Primates Meeting in refusing to grant Robinson permission to exercise his "priestly functions" during his current trip to England, or during the trip he plans during the Lambeth Conference in July and August. The email, which came to Robinson through a Lambeth official, says Williams believes that giving Robinson permission to preach and preside at the Eucharist would be construed as an acceptance of the ministry of a controversial figure within the Communion.
Yet, Williams has not denied permission officiate to Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, who gave his support to a failed legislative attempt to limit the rights of Nigerian gays and their supporters to speak, assemble and worship God collectively. Williams has not denied permission to preach and preside to Bishop Bernard Malango, the retired primate of Central Africa who dismissed without reason the ecclesiastical court convened to try pro-Mugabe Bishop Nolbert Kunonga for incitement to murder and other charges. Williams has not denied permission to preach and preside to Bishop Gregory Venables, primate of the Southern Cone, who has now claimed as his own, churches in three others provinces in the Anglican Communion. Nor has he denined permission to preach and preside to Archbishops Henry Orombi of Uganda, Emanuel Kolini of Rwanda, or Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, all of whom have ignored the Windsor Report's plea not to claim churches within other provinces of the Communion.
Mild mannered though I normally am, and in many ways an admirer of Dr Williams, I cannot but describe this denial of Robinson's priesthood as cowardly and a disgrace.
I am cautiously optimistic following an announcement today (30 Apr 08) by Attorney-General Robert McClelland that legislation to remove discrimination against same-sex couples from a "wide range" of Commonwealth laws will be introduced in the Winter sittings of Parliament. "Cautiously optimistic" because there have been promises and disappointments in the past. Yet it seems that the Rudd government will keep its promises, for which it will deserve considerable praise.
I note that, in radio interviews, Mr McClelland has given some priority to superannuation entitlemenys. This is certainly the worst area of discrimination under federal law and critically important.
"The Rudd Government is delivering on its election commitment to remove discrimination against people in same-sex relationships from a wide range of Commonwealth laws and programs," Mr McClelland said.
This long-overdue reform follows the landmark report of HREOC [the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission], Same-sex: same entitlements, which focussed on financial and work-related legislation. On coming to office, the Rudd Government commissioned an audit of Commonwealth laws, which identified other areas of discrimination.
"The changes will provide for equality of treatment under a wide range of Commonwealth laws between same-sex and opposite-sex de facto couples. Importantly the reforms will also ensure children are not disadvantaged because of the structure of their family," Mr McClelland said.
Areas where discrimination will be removed include tax, superannuation, social security, health, aged care, veterans' entitlements, workers' compensation, employment entitlements, and other areas of Commonwealth administration.
. . . Most reforms will commence soon after the legislation is passed. In some areas (such as social security, tax and veterans' affairs), the reforms will be phased-in to allow time for couples to adjust their finances, and for administrative arrangements to be implemented. All of the changes are expected to be implemented by mid-2009.
"In keeping with the election commitment, the changes do not alter marriage laws. They will make a practical difference to the everyday lives of a group of our fellow Australians who have suffered discrimination under Commonwealth laws for far too long," Mr McClelland said.
In commenting on the fuss caused by the staging in Sydney during Mardi Gras of Terrence McNally's play Corpus Christi, in which Jesus and some of the disciples are portrayed as gay, I was unkind enough to say that I thought the idea not so much blasphemous as simply silly. But I said I would get a copy (Terrence McNally. Corpus Christi: a play New York: Grove, 1999. 0802136354) and then see what I thought.
The cast of a 2008 production of Corpus Christi at San Diego's Diversionary Theatre.
On reading the play, I can see that to portray Jesus as gay in the way that the play does is in fact profoundly orthodox. For in some way (much debated by theologians) he stands in place of us all in confronting and suffering the hurts and pains of us all (and sharing the God-given joys and pleasures as well). So, in a sense, Jesus is gay for the gay, straight for the straight, white for the Caucasian, black for the African, male and female -- for the whosoever will.
And, as McNally says "Jesus Christ died again when Matthew Shepard did. Look. Remember. Weep, if you will, but learn. And don't let it happen again."
McNally best explains in his own Preface (which, of course, isn't part of a performance)
I'm a playwright, not a theologian.
But it would have been just as naive of me to think that I could write a play about a young gay man who would come to be identified as a Christ figure without stirring up a protest as it would to think I could write a play about Jesus Christ Himself in which He would come to be identified as a young gay man without a lot of noses getting bent out of joint.
I was not mistaken. The level of the dislike of gay men and the vehemence of the denial of any claim they might make for spiritual parity with their Christian "brothers" that Corpus Christi revealed was disheartening. Gay has never seemed less "good." Once again, we had not come a long way at all, baby.
Now I'm sounding like a homosexual.
Let me try again: If a divinity does not belong to all people, if He is not created in our image as much as we are created in His, then He is less a true divinity for all men to believe in than He is a particular religion's secular definition of what a divinity should be for the needs of its followers. Such a God is no God at all because He is exclusive to His members. He is a Roman Catholic at best and a very narrow-minded one at that.
Jesus Christ belongs to all of us because He is all of us. Unfortunately, not everyone believes that.
Very few Christians are willing to consider that their Lord and Savior was a real man with real appetites, especially sexual ones. To imagine that He was not only sexually active but a homosexual as well is gross blasphemy. And they would deny others the right to conceive of Him as such. They do not understand that a good part of our humanity is expressed through our sexuality and is not exclusive of it. Such a concept is as alien to them as their notion of "sin" and "evil" is to me.
In their self-defense, they tell us they hate the sin but love the sinner. Nonsense. The sinner is his sin and in their eyes it is an abominable one. Naturally, they tried to suppress Corpus Christi with threats of violence. Just as naturally, the New York theater community said no to this attempt at artistic repression and the play went on as scheduled. I have never been prouder to be a part of that community. I owe them-we all owe them-big for this one.
However, at the same time that we were all feeling so good about overcoming these forces of ignorance and prejudice, a young man in Laramie, Wyoming, by the name of Matthew Shepard was losing his life to them. Beaten senseless and tied to a split-rail fence in near-zero weather, arms akimbo in a grotesque crucifixion, he died as agonizing a death as another young man who had been tortured and nailed to a wooden cross at a desolate spot outside Jerusalem known as Golgotha some 1,998 years earlier. They died, as they lived, as brothers.
Jesus Christ did not die in vain because His disciples lived to spread His story. It is this generation's duty to make certain Matthew Shepard did not die in vain either. We forget his story at the peril of our very lives.
Maybe I should say a few words as a playwright.
The production the play received at the Manhattan Theatre Club will remain, I suspect, the definitive one. Joe Mantello is a theater poet. The appellation "director" seems too circumscribed to describe what he brings to a production. His vision for the play was met on its own high terms by the extraordinary design team and cast he assembled prior to the first day of rehearsal. Our collaboration began with Love! Valour! Compassion! I can only think the best is yet to come.
The original New York cast, from the published script
Corpus Christi is a passion play. The life of Joshua, a young man from south Texas, is told in the theatrical tradition of medieval morality plays. Men play all the roles. There is no suspense. There is no scenery. The purpose of the play is that we begin again the familiar dialogue with ourselves: Do I love my neighbor? Am I contributing good to the society in which I operate or nil? Do I, in fact, matter? Nothing more, nothing less. The play is more a religious ritual than a play. A play teaches us a new insight into the human condition. A ritual is an action we perform over and over because we have to. Otherwise, we are in danger of forgetting the meaning of that ritual, in this case that we must love one another or die. Christ died for all of our sins because He loved each and every one of us. When we do not remember His great sacrifice, we condemn ourselves to repeating its terrible consequences.
All Corpus Christi asks of you is to "look what they did to Him. Look what they did to Him." At the same time it asks you to look at what they did to Joshua, it asks that we look at what they did one cold October night to a young man in Wyoming as well. Jesus Christ died again when Matthew Shepard did.
Look. Remember. Weep, if you will, but learn. And don't let it happen again.
This time, I hope, I'm sounding like a human being.
The behaviour of Chinese students in Canberra was bad, but in Seoul it was much worse. The Beijing Olympic torch relay began its South Korean leg with cheering flag-waving Chinese vastly outnumbering protesters amid a huge police presence. No less than 60 police runners accompanied the torch, part of a security operation involving 8,300 regular and anti-riot officers.
As in Canberra, thousands of badly-behaved young Chinese assembled in Seoul to 'defend' the Olympic torch relay. Unlike in Canberra, however, some pushed through police lines, hurling rocks, bottled water and plastic and steel pipes at protesters.
In Seoul the hot issue was China’s forced repatriation of North Korean refugees, who face torture and execution. But pro-China demonstrators in their thousands vastly outnumbered protesters. Activists say China has been stepping up repatriations before the Olympics and has increased the rewards it gives for tip-offs. When protesters demanded that China stop repatriating North Korean refugees, they were quickly surrounded by jeering Chinese. Near the park, Chinese students surrounded and beat a small group of protesters, news reports said. In the city centre, Chinese surrounded Tibetans and South Korean supporters who unfurled pro-Tibet banners, and kicked and punched them, witnesses said.
South Korea says it will deport Chinese citizens who assaulted demonstrators during the torch relay in Seoul. Some Chinese threw rocks and other objects at the protesters, angering South Koreans.
The violence surrounding the relay has stimulated strong anti-China commentary and demonstrations. "It was an incident that got people wondering how a country of 1.3 billion people will face the world when it clings to such narrow-minded nationalism," said Joong Ang Ilbo. South Korean activists protested yesterday near the Chinese Embassy in Seoul, condemning the Chinese government for promoting the violent protests.
A group of South Korean civic activists plan to sue the Chinese Embassy and an association of Chinese students, demanding an apology and compensation. China's ambassador to Seoul, Ning Fukui, said he regretted the "extreme behaviour" of the Chinese protesters, but the Chinese Foreign Ministry, however, refused Tuesday to condemn the students' actions and blamed pro-Tibetan protestors. (Source: IHT) Supporters of Tibet staged their own 'torch relay'.
IHTreports that Norbert Vollertsen, a German doctor and advocate for North Korean refugees, found himself surrounded by jeering Chinese students. "This torch run reminds me of Hitler, who first invented it in 1936 to divert world attention from human rights problems in Germany under the disguise of 'world harmony.' You will see a scary Nazi-like scene tomorrow when the torch runs through Pyongyang and all those people are mobilized for the event."
Jack Waterford, distinguished editor of The Canberra Times, describes how the participation of the Chinese students in the Canberra leg of the relay was very much the work of the Chinese embassy, although the participation of the students was enthusiastic and willing, not coerced.
"The emergence, and, in their terms, effectiveness of the red Chinese army in Canberra yesterday was a stunning success for a Chinese embassy intelligence operation which has long maintained close surveillance on most of the nearly 100,000 Chinese students in Australia, and which controls most of the Chinese student associations.
Most of the expenses, and virtually all of the organisation, down to transport, accommodation, strategies, tactics, marshals, face markings and issues of Chinese flags, was arranged by the embassy, which has good reason to think that what occurred overwhelmed protests about Chinese actions in Tibet, other ethnic regions, treatment of the Falung Gung, or actions in Iran, Darfur or Zimbabwe. By comparison with the value of international and Chinese headlines reporting basic calm, a few arrests, local shock and official distaste in Canberra for the ruthless efficiency of the operation is of little moment.
. . . It was not threats, real or implicit, that mobilised the students, even if a good many of them understand perfectly well that negative reports could make life unpleasant back home, including for members of families. . . . It was by appealing to a sense of pride, a sense of siege from "unfair" criticism, and a strong belief by many ordinary Chinese students that the upsurge of affected interest in Tibet, or criticism of China, is itself a staged intelligence operation by China's enemies.
Fine, but even in genteel Canberra their behaviour was not good. Some sections of the Chinese were ugly and aggressive, screaming abuse at Tibetan supporters and giving Tibetan monks the finger. (Some Tibetan demonstrators, too, seemed to want to provoke a response, repeatedly walked past the aggressive section of the Chinese crowd). There were complaints of Tibetan supporters being roughed up and their flags being smothered.
Aided by their embassies, the Chinese students have, sadly, created much ill-will toward themselves in Australia, Korea and elsewhere.
With the announcement that that the Revd Canon Barbara Darling is to be appointed assistant bishop in the Diocese of Melbourne, Kay Goldsworthy is no longer the only woman to be a bishop-designate in the Anglican Church of Australia.
Canon Darling was ordained priest in 1992 in St Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne and elected a canon of the Cathedral in 1995. Over 20 years ago, she was a lecturer at Ridley College in Melbourne, where I came to know her slightly. In announcing the appointment, Archbishop Freier said that he believed Canon Darling is a woman of "deep faith, as well as outstanding pastoral, teaching and organisational ability," and that he was greatly looking forward to working with her as a member of his Episcopal team.
Barney Zwarts has an excellent piece about her in The Age (26 Apr)/
Canon Darling said that she wants to be a bishop, who "walks alongside people." "Being aware of people's concerns, fears and doubts and helping them to grow and develop, and to understand where God is in their lives, is very important to me." She is also passionate about sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ. "I love teaching and making the Gospel relevant to people's lives and in the Australia of today."
Excerpted from Brave boys and the bigots, by Paul Syvret, Assistant editor and columnist, The Courier-Mail, Brisbane (15 Apr 08)
If you want to be truly astounded at some of the bigoted lowlifes you share our corner of the world with, just have a quick skim through the hundreds of on-line responses to the story about the Anglican Church Grammar School and same-sex dates at the school formal.
I'm not going to pass judgment on Churchie management (for a start -- disclaimer time -- I was a student there many moons ago and any comment I made could be perceived as biased). Suffice to say that all such schools have their own strict codes of conduct relating to everything from hairstyles and dress regulations to attendance at religious ceremonies. Their business.
But all power to those boys who spoke up about the issue.
Let's face it, people, these students probably had more courage to question the school (and potentially out themselves and their gay friends in the process) about its equal rights stance than those poor students many years ago who were molested -- and too afraid to complain at the time -- by a certain former teacher who is now residing at the pleasure of Her Majesty. The issue here is not school policy -- and Churchie's headmaster has been very measured and reasonable in his comments on this -- but rather the response of the wider community to questions of tolerance and acceptance of those who may be different in some way to their own definition of the accepted norm.
It is not about when a person begins to discover their own sexuality, and nor should it become a theological debate about what certain passages of scripture may or may not have to say about homosexuality. The issue, given some of the hateful submissions to The Courier-Mail website, letters to the editor and other online comment, is more about what sort of a society we really want to be.
Personally, I'd wager my own tainted soul that God, St Peter and the Good Shepherd himself will take a kinder view of those who demonstrate compassion and understanding towards slightly different coloured sheep, than to the self-righteous bigots of this world.
Ian Thorpe is well protected as he completes the final leg of the 2008 Olympic torch relay in Canberra.
Northbourne Avenue in the inner city of Canberra was dominated by Chinese flags as the Olympic torch passed this morning. It was as if the 5,000 or more students who had bused in from as far away as Brisbane were applying the 'human wave' principle to overwhelm their opposition. They chanted loudly, even outside the Australian Federal Police HQ.
Not many locals lined the route; most were at work on this Thursday morning and in the city most were simply waiting to cross the road . Some news broadcasters said they found it hard to find a local Canberran for a comment. Some went before work to the early morning ceremony beginning the relay, but most of the guest chairs were empty.
A deserved thrill for the runners, a patriotic buzz for the Chinese students, an agony for the pro-Tibet protesters, and a big (expensive) yawn for everyone else.
Kevin Rudd has been presented with his first major challenge on gay law reform from within his own party, with ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope challenging him to allow gay and lesbian civil unions in the territory. . . . It is the first time Mr Stanhope has spoken publicly about the federal Government's intervention to see the ACT laws blocked. The Rudd Government is in discussions with the ACT Government to remove clauses in its civil partnerships bill that would allow gay couples to hold a public ceremony marking their union. . . .
"I have hopes that a Prime Minister and a Government capable of advocating for the basic rights of the Tibetans will - must - comprehend the justice of formally extending each of those same basic rights to folk back home," Mr Stanhope said.
"I have hopes that this Prime Minister ... will respect the right of the component parts of our federation to legislate as they are constitutionally empowered to do and as they have received a mandate to do." He said legislating for civil partnerships was within the powers of the states and territories. "We know that what the ACT is attempting to do is no more than to extend to same-sex couples equality with other Canberrans, under ACT laws," he said. "Not commonwealth laws: that would require a national bill of rights. Just ACT laws . . . in the community to which they contribute, and to which they belong."
But Mr Stanhope said that unfortunately for the men and women in the ACT who desire recognition of and respect for their long-term "enduring primary relationships, efforts by the ACT Government to deliver these things have been thwarted". "The evidence suggests the rights of a significant number of Canberra's men and women cannot be guaranteed by my Government, because of church disapproval," he said. "This in a nation that has committed ... to a separation of church and state."
"In light of the hatred, mockery, loathing, fear and rejection directed at homosexuals in our society -- and in our churches -- I hope to God that I am not and never have been a perpetrator. But I fear I have indeed been a bystander. I am trying to figure out what it might mean to be a rescuer."
I'm one of the few leaders in Baptist life with the freedom to talk openly and honestly about the complex theological, moral, pastoral, and public policy issues raised by homosexuality without destroying myself professionally. Because I hold a tenured professorship in Christian ethics at Mercer University, I am one of those rare souls who can talk candidly about this hot-button issue. And these days I'm finding it hard to avoid the nagging and unsought conviction that this freedom now demands responsible exercise.
Methodology is everything. Starting points are everything. Glen Stassen and I wrote a widely read book in which we argued that truly Christian ethics focuses relentlessly on Jesus Christ. It starts there, it dwells there, it ends there. All statements about Christian morality -- all statements about anything -- must fit with the Jesus we meet in the Gospels. Jesus is where God meets the world, and thus where any who bear his name must meet the world as well.
Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. He defined neighbors to include everyone. Absolutely everyone. He sharpened that definition by calling us to attend to those regarded as the last, the least and the lost. The most rejected, the most hated, the most abandoned, the most feared, the most loathed, the most despised, the most mocked -- these are the people to whom Jesus most directs us to offer our love.
I go to press conferences sometimes and talk about what Christians ought to stand for in society. Two times in recent months I have finished one of these press conferences and been approached quietly afterwards. Both times a young man has handed me a business card and gently said something like this to me: "Please do not forget about me and people like me." They were homosexuals. They were seeking Christian love. They were asking for some help.
In my doctoral dissertation I studied Christians who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. I discovered that in that horrible drama there were essentially four categories of behavior: victim, perpetrator, rescuer and bystander. Most instances of mass evil involve a small number of direct perpetrators killing a large number of hated victims in the presence of a much larger group of acquiescent bystanders, and resisted by a tiny number of rescuers. Scalded by that research, I have vowed with God's help to be a rescuer kind of Christian.
In light of the hatred, mockery, loathing, fear and rejection directed at homosexuals in our society -- and in our churches -- I hope to God that I am not and never have been a perpetrator. But I fear I have indeed been a bystander. I am trying to figure out what it might mean to be a rescuer.
There are always very, very compelling reasons to be a bystander. Mainly these revolve around self-interest. You live longer when you are a bystander. People like you more. And even if you entertain nagging questions of conscience about your inaction, in the end it is easier to stay out of it. And so the hated group keeps getting thrown under the bus.
There are dozens of such particular flashpoints related to the issue of homosexuality. Christians, their churches, their denominations and their institutions are arguing about everything from homosexuality's causes to whether active gays can be church members or leaders to even whether gay couples can appear alongside other families in church pictorial directories.
I want to begin a dialogue in this column by simply calling for the rudiments of Christian love of neighbor to extend to the homosexual. And the place to begin is in the church -- that community of faith in which we have (reportedly) affirmed that Jesus Christ is Lord. I call for the following Christian commitments:
The complete rejection of still-common forms of speech in which anti-homosexual slurs ("queer," "fag") are employed either in jest or in all seriousness
The complete rejection of a heart attitude of hatred, loathing, and fear toward homosexuals
The complete rejection of any form of bullying directed against homosexuals or those thought to be homosexuals
The complete rejection of political demagoguery in which homosexuals are scapegoated for our nation's social ills and used as tools for partisan politics
The complete rejection of casual, imprecise and erroneous factual claims about homosexuality in preaching, teaching or private speech, such as, "All homosexuals choose to be that way."
The complete recognition of the full dignity and humanity of the homosexual as a person made in God's image and sacred in God's sight
The complete recognition that in any faith community of any size one will find persons wrestling with homosexuality, either in their own lives or the lives of people that they love
The complete recognition that when Jesus calls us to love our neighbors, that includes especially our homosexual neighbors, because the more a group is hated, the more they need Christ's love through us
There is more to be said. But this is at least a place to start.
The Olympic flame has in Canberra. The Beijing Olympic Torch Relay will cost Canberra's people the absurd amount of $125 per metre, as the total has doubled to $2 million for the 16km run. Assurances that the Commonwealth would pay half of this seem likely to come to nothing. My share of the cost will be about $7.00. May I have a refund please?
ACT Policing says at least half of the territory's 700-plus sworn officers will be involved in protecting the Olympic flame, as well as other Australian Federal Police from interstate. Ugly fences are being erected along both sides of the 16km route. The traffic chaos (on a work day) will be appalling.
The Prime Minister has at least voiced his expectation that Australian police to step in and restrain the Chinese attendants if they tried to interfere with protesters on Thursday. He insisted that all security work would be done only by Australian police. Nonetheless the Chinese ambassador has suggested that his country's torch attendants would "use their bodies" to protect the torch from attack. "Their role is to make sure that the flame will not go out. If the flame was attacked, I believe they would use their bodies."
Meanwhile, Canberra's Australian of the Year and social justice advocate Lin Hatfield Dodds has dropped out of the Beijing Olympic torch relay because she does not want anyone to doubt her workplaces' commitment to human rights. Ms Hatfield Dodds, is national director of Uniting Care Australia, president of the Australian Council of Social Service and the ACT Australian of the Year for 2008. She said her decision not to run reflected "the changed symbolism of the Olympic torch relay", from one of harmony to one of multiple meanings, including concern about human-rights abuses. She wanted to make a "clear and unambiguous statement" that she and the organisations she worked for were on the side of human rights.
A.C.T. Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says he is disappointed the relay route had to be changed and shortened for security reasons and that Canberrans had to put up with a steel fence snaking around their city. "I don't like the look of it, I don't like the feel of it ... It's quite a blow, to some extent, to the innocence of our city . . ."
In 1894, Baron Pierre de Coubertin . . . settled upon the revival of the Olympic Games as his life's work. He saw sport as a higher calling, a religion. And he saw the Olympics as an event that would enhance moral virtue . . . but if he were alive today and witness to the Olympics over the past 40 years, he would almost surely come to the conclusion that his grand idea had failed, that idealism is no match for the troika of politics, money and sports.
The Summer Games in Beijing are four months away and already a predictable mess. . . . But protests and boycotts are no longer effective remedies. There is only one way left to improve the Olympics: to permanently end them.
. . . A permanent end to the Olympics might actually not be that difficult. . . . In place of the Olympics, world championships would still be held in individual sports as they are now, but perhaps at permanent venues designed for optimum performance. This would be a good thing for athletes. For all the hype, the Games often don't provide the greatest performances.
. . . Would some athletes become innocent victims with the loss of the Olympics? Yes. But it would be nothing close to the number of innocent victims killed in Darfur with Chinese-supplied weapons, or in Iraq during the U.S. occupation.
The world would carry on without the Games. The ideals set forth by Coubertin, instead of being routinely mocked, would be honored by the admission that the Olympics have simply failed.
Binoy Kampmark expresses a similar view in Australia's Online opinion 15 Apr 08).
Terminal boycott
"[T]he issue here should be less about a boycott, or even protest, than abolition. The case for finally ending this monumental charade can be done by looking at what the Olympics is not."
Kampmark shows that the Olympics are "certainly not a democratising, let alone humanitarian venture." "Sport is not in itself a catalyst for change. To suggest that the Olympics somehow turned authoritarians into democrats is disingenuous and historically shallow. . . . The bargaining between the IOC with Beijing officials which saw some promises of "social change" was barely credible."
Similarly, "The Olympiad is certainly not for the host country’s poor. Notoriously, staging the Olympics reverses the fortunes of the impoverished while proclaiming the reverse. . . . The toiling poor and the aesthetic of sporting prowess tend to be incompatible."
"The games are certainly not for the peaceful", Kampmark argues, with wars and conflicts often reflected on the sporting field. "[T]he Cold War was but one era of sporting hypocrisies, where ideological titans used athletes as cultural and political muscle."
"The Olympics is invariably tainted. . . . Far from being an occasion for uplift, the games provide an occasion for mourning."
With all this in mind, it is perhaps time to consider a terminal boycott, and one that is equally discriminating. A sporting event so riddled by loathsome intrigues, so steadfastly saturnalian in its outlook (its children, peace, internationalism, all consumed), ought to be scuttled. That way, everyone might be so disgusted there will be no choice but to talk.
I admire this design for new British coins, created by Matthew Dent and based on the shield of the Royal arms. It has a unifying simplicity and beauty, as do the best of the Australian coins, especially the 5c, 10c and 20c--designed by Stuart Devlin and in use since 1966. (The 1c and 2c are no longer used, and the $1 and $2 were introduced later.)
In its Editorial "This surprising Pope" of 19 April 2008, The Tablet says
Benedict XVI, who has just celebrated the third anniversary of his election as Pope, has surprised those who expected his papacy to be a seamless continuation of his role as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There has been no witch-hunt of those who do not subscribe to a narrow conservative orthodoxy.
If one ignores the witch-hunt of gay men, even celibate gay men, seeking ordination, and those willing to instruct and ordain them.
. . . He has been disinclined to be judgemental, for instance, recognising that a Church that is only ever heard saying "No" will attract few and repel many.
Women, for instance, seeking entry to the ordained ministry.
. . . His election to the papacy has revealed Joseph Ratzinger to be warmer and more human than his image projected; and as a man, even at 81, of formidable intellect and character.
Security concerns have shortened still further--to 16km--the now farcical Canberra leg of the Beijing Olympic Games torch relay and will restrict it to wide main streets rather than weaving in and out of the city. Garema Place and Bunda Street in the heart of the city have been dropped, as well as the Chinese embassy, with Falun Gong supporters maintaining their eight-year vigil across the street.
Security barriers and fences are making a mockery of a people's celebration of the 'glory of sport'.
Chief organiser, Ted Quinlan says,"It's quite clear we would have liked to have used some narrower access ways, particularly through Civic, to get closer to the people and spent more time in the narrower access ways within the Parliamentary Triangle, but now a major criterion is the ability to keep the whole thing secure." Mr Quinlan said organisers were prepared for the "lowest common denominator" showing their hand and being "more interested in a little day of anarchy". As a result the relay route had to be "highly secure". "Unfortunately, because that is the case, the view of the relay and our ability to bring it much closer to the people is inhibited." There are also concerns of a 'ratbag element' infiltrating the protests, with Foreign Minister Stephen Smith fearful of an "Olympic torch equivalent of football hooliganism".
Pro-Tibet groups ask protesters not to hijack the torch relay, saying it will only be counterproductive to their cause. A Canberra Chinese Students and Scholars Association spokesman said he expected up to 500 local students and 2000 interstate students to attend the torch relay as a show of support for it. He did not want any violence.
The Olympic torch will arrive in Canberra on Wednesday with fireworks at 6pm on Red Hill, Black Mountain and Mt Ainslie. On Thursday, in a first for Canberra, there will be pre-dawn at 6.10am on the foreshores of Lake Burley Griffin, at Rond Terrace and Commonwealth Place. The 80 runner torch relay starts from Reconciliation Place at 8.45am and the torch begins its journey by being rowed across the lake. Organisers warn Canberrans to be prepared for traffic mayhem. The relay finishes in Commonwealth Place about three hours later.
First, remember that the D stands for democratic. People would prefer to move forward 'in the style to which they would like to become accustomed'.
Second, work the legal and democratic processes.
a) Keep up to date – a couple of RSS feeds should do it. Sokwanele is good. So is SABC News. If you have universal blog feed that will help. For a human account Comrade Fatso.
b) Keep Zimbabwe on the agenda. At each critical moment, email your legislators and diplomats expressing your concern and commitment to democracy.
c) Inform others. Comment in the press and focus attention on the next action.
Keep people focused on democratic change in Zimbabwe.
Mr Eliphas Mukonoweshuro, foreign affairs spokesman of Zimbabwe's opposition Movement for Democratic Change, says (IHT 14 Apr 08)
The Movement for Democratic Change won the March 29 parliamentary and presidential elections in Zimbabwe. That fact needs to be stated time and time again, for it is in danger of being gradually buried in a haze of obfuscation and bluff by Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party.
. . . Zimbabwe at this moment exists in the midst of a coup led by the loser of the elections and aided by inaction on the part of the global community. The victims have names and faces . . . And there are other victims. They are the many Africans who are looking to Zimbabwe to watch one of the few local opportunities for democratic change.
Agreed, but what, short of an invasion, can the international community do?
In Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe has upturned democracy. This is not a matter of discussion or in need of high-level analysis. It is a fact and it needs no solution other than the removal of Mugabe himself.
It is clear that this needs to be done strategically. This we can accept. Mugabe and his powerbrokers have the potential to wreak havoc on the country should they be slighted in the changeover process. It is a sad truth that dictators rarely respect the law, only doing so when they themselves are threatened by it.
But first, Mugabe must agree to release the full election results and leave the presidency when those results reveal his demise. This is the single bottom line requirement before any further progress can be made in Zimbabwe.
But is this not naïve? What if Mugabe were to simply stay where he is and do nothing except create diversions, such as a recount or a fresh election?
As these diversions are wound tighter they trap the democratic process in Zimbabwe. This is of course the intention from Mugabe's point of view, but what is remarkable is that many in the international community seem to have entrapped themselves. . . . [A]s discussions continue around regional summits and presidential run-offs, it cannot be forgotten that Africa is watching and it is learning the hard facts of global geopolitics. They are seeing behind the façade of international diplomacy.
History may well look back on this moment and blanch. So far, it represents a moment lost. Zimbabwe sits awaiting a resolution, not distractions. The people of Africa are waiting too. Zimbabweans, on behalf of all Africans, have spoken and they want a new deal.
True, and all very well. We share the frustration, but what exactly is the rest of the world to do? Difficult as it may be, the Movement for Democratic Change needs to be specific in its request for help and bold in its demands.
Psalm 23 was set last Sunday. I so much enjoyed singing the setting Brother James' Air, the first time I have heard it and a relief from deary Crimond.
Brother James' Air is a brief setting of a familiar hymn tune from Scotland. Written by James Leith MacBeth Bain, or 'Brother James,' as an accompaniment for the 23rd Psalm, it was first printed in London in 1915. Originally titled Marosa to honour the seventh daughter of a friend whom he had christened, the melody eventually came to be known by its present name.
It is disappointing to read a report (The Australian 16 Apr 08) that the Rudd Government is considering delaying the promised removal of legal discrimination against gays and lesbians because of the possible cost of up to $100million per year.
The cost of removing legal discrimination against gays and lesbians is less than half the amount claimed by the Howard government, but the Rudd Government is still undecided about whether to include the reforms in the May budget.
The Australian has learned the Government has obtained new figures on the cost of implementing the reforms that fall short of the projected $1billion the Howard government believed law reform would cost. The Government is considering delaying the reforms to allow them to begin next year. But senior government insiders said the delay was not driven by cost savings.
Human rights commissioner Graeme Innes has told The Australian any further delay would be unacceptable. "Cost is not the issue. The issue here is a basic right and that is the right to equality, and we don't judge those in financial terms," he said. "The budget is the absolutely right time to send that message that couples shouldn't be treated differently simply because of who they love." He said delaying the reforms until the end of the year or next year would be "disappointing".
Attorney-General Robert McClelland recently told The Australian the number of laws discriminating against gays and lesbians was almost twice what it was thought to be, with about 100 federal pieces of legislation ignoring homosexual couples. A spokesman for the minister would not comment yesterday on whether he was working towards the May deadline for reform.
Australian Coalition for Equality spokesman Rodney Croome said that there were many older and retired same-sex partners for whom reform was urgent. "Clearly, same-sex partners have been subsidising the public purse to an extraordinary degree, thanks to the fact that their equal financial contribution to government coffers has not been matched by equal entitlements," he said.
The modern Olympic torch relay was propaganda when it was first invented by Hitler's Germany in 1936 and it is propaganda for another totalitarian regime in 2008.
The presence of propaganda in our city of Canberra will require special police powers to sustain. (This is not a criticism of the our local police, who generally do their job well, but of those who give them their orders.) The Australian Capital Territory police will have additional temporary powers to deal with protesters in Canberra amid fears of violent clashes during the Olympic torch relay. Police will be able to stop and search people along the relay route and ban them from carrying "prohibited items".
I am glad to note that Chinese officers escorting the torch will be arrested if they "laid a hand" on anybody during the Canberra leg of the Olympic torch relay. Chinese organisers have warned pro-Tibet protesters not to provoke Chinese students, who may travel Canberra to protect the torch. There are thousands of Chinese nationals studying in Australia.
Secrecy surrounds the shortened Canberra route of 20km, with the new path to be revealed only 48 hours before the torch arrives here. The new route will use wider roads, with the public to be kept further away from the flame than in previous cities and more security between them and the torch. The Chinese Embassy in Canberra has been dumped from the route because of concerns it would be a magnet for violent protests.
ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope is demanding the Australian Government make a bigger contribution to the cost of security for the torch relay in Canberra on 24 April, warning that bill could exceed $900,000.
By all means run, swim, jump, whatever, in Beijing. But I wish the relay were not happening near my home and that we did not have to spend local money enabling pro-China propaganda. If we have to have the relay, I hope that it will be peaceful because it has been ignored.
The selection of Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC as Australia's Governor-General designate has been widely applauded. By all accounts she is a person of great skill and outstanding public service. Ms Bryce been a distinguished champion of women in public roles. This, allied with her considerable legal experience and, of course, her current role as Governor of Queensland, makes her a fine choice. She is both the first woman to be the Governor-General and, should Australia become a republic under the Rudd government, may be the last Governor-General. The only truly high offices yet to be filled in Australia by a woman are the Prime Ministership and the leadership of the Australian Defence Force.
This appointment is just one of many actions establishing the new government as one of change and reform. It has done much:
-- the apology to Australia's indigenous people;
-- abolition of reactionary labor laws;
-- the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol;
-- progress toward education and health reform;
-- greater and more positive participation in the UN and other international partnerships.
Yet there remains the wait between expectation and completion. The crucial test will be in the May Budget. " Where's the money coming from?" is the well worn cry as the Government promises better services for less expenditure overall as well as tax cuts. The Government line on the economy hasn't been entirely clear.
The primate of the Anglican Church of Australia, the Most Revd Dr Philip Aspinall has backed students taking same-sex partners to school formals. Archbishop Phillip Aspinall yesterday said he had no "personal objection to a school deciding to allow boys to take friends who are boys, or girls to take friends who are girls to school formals". His comments came after Churchie--the Anglican Church Boys' Grammar School in Brisbane school insisted students take a member of the opposite sex to their school formal.
Once again, Dr Aspinall, who is president of the school's council, has done his best to speak inclusively and even-handedly. Yet he said the school had a right to enforce a ban on same-sex partners if it felt the move was necessary. "I understand that in this particular instance the school has decided that its approach is to emphasise the interaction of young men and young women and provide them with an opportunity to do that in this kind of formal setting and I have no objection to that either," he said. "I think that's a reasonable and legitimate approach for a school to take."
Several students had wanted to escort their same-sex partners to the event in June, and approached a senior member of staff to raise the issue. Headmaster Jonathan Hensman said, while no one had approached him personally, he would refer any requests to the school council if they did--although it was tradition for the young men to escort a member of the opposite sex to the school formal.
Now, the debate is becoming increasingly convoluted, with the school apparently maintaining its ban, many comments in the press, which unclear as to whether or not the students have now discussed this with the Headmaster, who said what to whom, and the possibility of a boycott of the 'formal' by some students. Archbishop Jensen of Sydney has weighed in with his predictable thoughts as well.
Only in a church school could all this happen. Government schools are supposed to have anti-discrimination and inclusion policies. The 'formal' is an archaic (and expensive) mating ritual that could surely be done away with. (I never went to a school formal. My school was too poor to contemplate such a thing. There were 'socials', but I stayed away as I couldn't dance and hated being a wallflower.)
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007) directed superbly by Sidney Lumet from a solid, well crafted script by Kelly Masterson, brings to mind the classical tragedy, where a single disastrous action brings about a long saga of terrible consequences, often within a family. But as NYT reviewer A.O. Scott says,
the evil in this world arises not out of any grand metaphysical principle, but rather from petty, permanent features of the human character: greed, envy, stupidity, vanity. There are no demons on display, just small, sad, ordinary people. The filmmakers rigorously tally the results of their sins, minor lapses made monstrous by the failure of love and the corruption of ambition. Simple, familiar desires--for money, sex, status, respect--end in murder.
Almost every character is corrupt in some way, or many ways, but Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is the horribly corrupt as he plans the robbery at the centre of the plot, enlists his younger brother, Hank (Ethan Hawke) to do the robbery and then kills to cover his tracks when it all goes very wrong. Yet I liked the film--even enjoyed it--for, as Scott also says,
As pessimistic as it is--you have to squint hard to find the barest flicker of redemption in its denouement--"Before the Devil Knows You're Dead" is also curiously exhilarating. Some of this comes from the simple thrill of witnessing something, or rather everything, done well. Even the overwrought performances--Mr. Finney's growls, Mr. Hawke's twitches--have integrity and conviction. This is a melodrama, after all, and its lifeblood is in the manic acting . . .
On my birthday a few weeks ago, a generous friend gave me a full set of DVD's of the whole of The West Wing; hundreds of hours of superb viewing. Would that all US presidents were as clear about sexuality and Scripture as the fictional Bartlett.
I am delighted that the Archbishop of Perth, The Most Revd Roger Herft, has announced, yesterday (11 Apr 08), the appointment of the Venerable Kay Goldsworthy Australia's first woman bishop. She will be consecrated on 22 May as Assistant Bishop in the Diocese of Perth.
Over the last several months and particularly since Synod in October, I have been praying for God to lead us to a person who would be a Godly leader in the Episcopate--close to the heart of Jesus, attentive to the Spirit and humble in mind--someone who could add gifts to the Episcopal Team. After prayerful deliberation, obtaining advice from others and with the unanimous endorsement of the Diocesan Council, it is with great joy that I bring before you the name of The Venerable Kay Goldsworthy to be a Bishop in the Church of God in the Diocese of Perth. In making this announcement I am delighted that we in the church of Perth continue our unwavering commitment to Christ's gospel by recognising women and men as equal partners in the world.
Although the legality of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia was settled last year the bishops had agreed not to consecrate women to the episcopate until they had met this year to discuss the issue further. After long discussion during their annual meeting in Newcastle this week, the bishops announced their unanimous agreement to a protocol on women in the episcopate.
The protocol recognises "the good faith" of those in the church who support the new development of women bishops and of those who find that they cannot. The bishops resolved to "nurture the highest possible level of collegiality as bishops" while agreeing to make special provision in situations where the ministry of a woman bishop was accepted.
Archbishop Herft said he expected the news of his announcement "will be greeted with joy and excitement among Anglicans and many others in Australia and beyond.".
I am heartened by Tony Kevin's conclusion (Eureka Street 11 Apr 08) that Prime Minister Rudd's current trip is doing much to repair the damage done by the Howard government to Australia's international reputation. For there is much repair work to be done. In particular, we must stop slavishly emulating the U.S. foreign policy. Mr Kevin says:
I don't think Rudd--immersed in domestic politics these past ten years--understands how much Australia put the UN General Assembly offside under John Howard's rule. . . . Still-fresh images of Australia voting with UN pariahs, the US and Israel and a few bought failed states, and of Australian delegates taking orders from US delegates in corridors, behind the meeting rooms and near the toilets, will not be quickly forgotten.
Australia offended the majority UN membership by the way we treated refugees in detention, by pushing refugee boats away, by anti-Muslim harassment at home, by our involvement in the Iraq invasion, by our complicity in Guantanamo renditions and torture at Abu Ghraib. We still look like a deputy sheriff in US-provoked wars. Our media bland-out such images, but I fear they are still stark in the UN Members' Lounge. We should have waited a year to announce the Security Council bid--to get our combat troops out of Iraq, to get runs on the board in terms of our human rights, international law, and post-Kyoto votes and statements in UN fora.
Meanwhile, Mr Rudd has made a good start. Australian Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown is a long-time advocate for peace and freedom in Tibet. Brown had previously criticised Mr Rudd for not taking a tougher line on human rights abuses in Tibet, has now told ABC NewsRadio that he believes the Prime Minister is now on the way to making a breakthrough with China. "Kevin Rudd's reading the Australian people's mood on this issue," he said. "I've always maintained that the best thing with the Chinese dictatorship is to look them in the eye and tell them what Australians think. And Kevin Rudd's on the way to doing that."
Tony Kevin says:
To raise the subject of Tibet on the first day, during a meeting with students at China's top university (where the democracy movement that led to Tiananmen Square was born), and to use the unprovocative words he used, was a master stroke. He raised Tibet in a respectful way, and as a human rights matter internal to China. His words to journalists regarding the Olympic torch relay were similarly careful. On trade relations, he affirmed national interest and economic interest in terms Chinese political and business leaders will understand and respect. So far he has made no self-aggrandising claims of strategic mediation between China and the US. . . .
In his earlier US visit, Rudd struck the right protocol notes. No serious business can be done with the Bush administration during its last months. Rudd observed the right courtesies as a visiting leader, to the President and to the two Democratic contenders. . . .
Finally, the United Nations. Rudd met the Secretary-General and flagged his determination to make Australia a better international citizen.
In a 10 Apr 08 leader, The Independent praised Mr Rudd fulsomely.
We were looking forward to Kevin Rudd's term as Australia's Prime Minister, and so far we have not been disappointed. On the contrary, with his plain speaking, his firm principles as a politician and--a bit of a luxury, this--his fluent Mandarin, Mr Rudd has not only met our expectations, but inspired not a little envy as well.
He has just been in Britain, where he held bilateral talks and delivered a packed lecture at the London School of Economics. Given Australia's geographical position, his past as a diplomat in China and the coincidence of the shambolic passage of the Olympic torch through London, he was bound to be asked for his views. This is what he said. On the torch: "We will not be having Chinese security forces or Chinese security services providing security for the torch when it is in Australia... We, Australia, are providing that security." On China and Tibet: "It's very difficult... you still have problems on human rights." On Beijing's refusal to meet the Dalai Lama: "There have been such contacts in the past--they need to be resuscitated." As for the Olympics, he said he opposed a boycott but had not yet decided whether to attend in person.
As it happened, Beijing was his next stop. Preceded by a diplomatic demarche over remarks on Tibet he made in Washington, Mr Rudd was undeterred. He gave a huge hall of students some unpalatable home truths; what is more, he did it in their own language. On human rights in China generally, in Tibet in particular, and on the need for dialogue, he was bang on message--his own. The world needs more leaders like this; we hope he has started as he means to go on.
I've neglected to take note of the Blake prize the 2004 winner, Pieta (Darfur) by Aña Wojak. 2007 saw the award of the 56th Blake Prize for Religious Art to Shirley Purdie for her "Stations of the Cross" (213x152, ochre and pigment on canvas) The judges described the work as
simply delicious in colour, texture and feeling. It is a marvellously realised painterly journey that recreates the stories told to the artist in childhood of the Stations of the Cross in Warmun country using a breathtakingly beautiful natural ochre pallette made from the earths eroded from the very Kimberley rocks whose mobile shapes enclose and frame the vignettes of story. A solidly honest, confident, and true painting it becomes a meditation on travelling within the artists country following a remembered and cherished biblical journey of suffering and pain towards redemption, and perhaps as well asks us to reflect on loss, pain and the journeys we all need to make towards each other.
The narrative is rendered in traditional ochre paint using the visual language of the Gija artists of Warmun. The relationship between the Gija people of Warmun and the Catholic community is a longstanding and rich, bringing together the traditional spirituality of the Gija people with Catholic teaching -- a dialogue between the Ngarrangkarni (Dreaming) and the Bible as the basis for a new worship and new art.
I appreciate the deep spirituality behind Purdie's painting, but I don't find it engaging as a work of art. Not many of the 2007 entries did. This photograph by Paul Green and Homi Vessal made me think .
In 2006 a fine untitled image (below) by Euan Macleod of a figure bat
Canon Darling was ordained priest in 1992 in St Paul's Cathedral, Melbourne and elected a canon of the Cathedral in 1995. Over 20 years ago, she was a lecturer at Ridley College in Melbourne, where I came to know her slightly. In announcing the appointment, Archbishop Freier said that he believed Canon Darling is a woman of "deep faith, as well as outstanding pastoral, teaching and organisational ability," and that he was greatly looking forward to working with her as a member of his Episcopal team.
Let's face it, people, these students probably had more courage to question the school (and potentially out themselves and their gay friends in the process) about its equal rights stance than those poor students many years ago who were molested -- and too afraid to complain at the time -- by a certain former teacher who is now residing at the pleasure of Her Majesty. The issue here is not school policy -- and Churchie's headmaster has been very measured and reasonable in his comments on this -- but rather the response of the wider community to questions of tolerance and acceptance of those who may be different in some way to their own definition of the accepted norm.
Northbourne Avenue in the inner city of Canberra was dominated by Chinese flags as the Olympic torch passed this morning. It was as if the 5,000 or more students who had bused in from as far away as Brisbane were applying the 'human wave' principle to overwhelm their opposition. They chanted loudly, even outside the Australian Federal Police HQ. 
The Olympic flame has in Canberra. The Beijing Olympic Torch Relay will cost Canberra's people the absurd amount of $125 per metre, as the total has doubled to $2 million for the 16km run. Assurances that the Commonwealth would pay half of this seem likely to come to nothing. My share of the cost will be about $7.00. May I have a refund please?
Security concerns have shortened still further--to 16km--the now farcical Canberra leg of the Beijing Olympic Games torch relay and will restrict it to wide main streets rather than weaving in and out of the city. Garema Place and Bunda Street in the heart of the city have been dropped, as well as the Chinese embassy, with Falun Gong supporters maintaining their eight-year vigil across the street.
Psalm 23 was set last Sunday. I so much enjoyed singing the setting Brother James' Air, the first time I have heard it and a relief from deary Crimond.
The modern Olympic torch relay was propaganda when it was first invented by Hitler's Germany in 1936 and it is propaganda for another totalitarian regime in 2008.
The presence of propaganda in our city of Canberra will require special police powers to sustain. (This is not a criticism of the our local police, who generally do their job well, but of those who give them their orders.) The Australian Capital Territory police will have additional temporary powers to deal with protesters in Canberra amid fears of violent clashes during the 
The selection of Her Excellency Ms Quentin Bryce AC as Australia's Governor-General designate has been widely applauded. By all accounts she is a person of great skill and outstanding public service. Ms Bryce been a distinguished champion of women in public roles. This, allied with her considerable legal experience and, of course, her current role as Governor of Queensland, makes her a fine choice. She is both the first woman to be the Governor-General and, should Australia become a republic under the Rudd government, may be the last Governor-General. The only truly high offices yet to be filled in Australia by a woman are the Prime Ministership and the leadership of the Australian Defence Force.
Almost every character is corrupt in some way, or many ways, but Andy Hanson (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is the horribly corrupt as he plans the robbery at the centre of the plot, enlists his younger brother, Hank (Ethan Hawke) to do the robbery and then kills to cover his tracks when it all goes very wrong. Yet I liked the film--even enjoyed it--for, as Scott also says,
I am delighted that the Archbishop of Perth, The Most Revd Roger Herft, 
I've neglected to take note of the Blake prize the 