Foundation and consecration of Church of the Holy Resurrection

20 April 2006
Edgarian Hall, 10 Macquarie St Chatswood NSW

The Church’s contribution to moral issues facing today’s society
Rev John Henderson, National Council of Churches in Australia

It is a great pleasure for me to be asked to address you this evening. The vibrant relationship between the Armenian Apostolic Diocese and the National Council of Churches predates the foundation of the Council, which is such a young body alongside the Armenian Apostolic Church, with its long history of faith and witness to the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

The Armenian Church was part of the discussions that led to the formation of the National Council of Churches in 1994, a new body that includes Catholics. It represents a new era in Australian Church relations, and it is significant that the Armenian Primate, His Eminence Archbishop Baliozian, was selected by the new Council to be its first President, a role he served with skill and no small distinction. His involvement continues unabated: until the 2006 Assembly he represented the Armenian Church at the World Council of Churches; in 2005 he led the Armenian Church into membership of the Christian Conference of Asia; and he currently serves as President of the New South Wales Ecumenical Council. 4 years ago His Eminence was one of those who sat on the selection panel for the job of General Secretary of the National Council of Churches.

Tonight, as part of these special 40th Anniversary celebrations, I have been asked to speak on ‘The Church’s contribution to moral issues facing today’s society’. There are many views on this topic, and the Churches themselves do not necessarily agree. Our views are shaped by the theology of our respective Church and our personal histories – that is, how we believe God acts in the world today. I confess therefore to being shaped by my own history and understanding, both within my own Church, and within the Ecumenical movement, where I have been formally employed for the last 4 years. So I want to start this topic from within, from the Church itself, rather than from without, where there are many pressing moral issues confronting contemporary society. Starting in this way will us help us get our bearings far more effectively than if we simply respond, piecemeal, to the urgent demands of modern life.

Just a few weeks ago I had the privilege visiting Israel, and I spent some days in Jerusalem. A memorable moment, and something I shall not forget, was a visit to the Armenian Patriarch, His Beatitude Archbishop Torkom Manoogian, and being escorted through the Cathedral and the Patriarchate by His Grace Bishop Aris. The visit was enabled by His Eminence Archbishop Baliozian, who I understand is a member of the St James brotherhood, vowed to maintain the existence and the rights of the Armenian Church in the Holy City.

It was a wonderful visit, and his Beatitude was gracious in the extreme. The Patriarchate was a haven of peace in a frantic and troubled city. Jerusalem has seen many conquerors, rulers, and nations come and go. Over the decades the walls of St James’ Cathedral have protected the Armenian people from swords and bombs. In his day even Sal ad-hin was forced to confess the sanctity of the place. As we were leaving, Bishop Aris escorted us through the main reception hall, where we viewed the objects and pictures. Around the walls there is a gallery of those who have led the Church, and those who have ruled Jerusalem, from the time of the Patriarch Abraham in the 7th century. It was a profound lesson in the deep witness of the people of God in that place. Rulers come, and rulers go, but the Church, the kingdom of God, remains.

I believe that’s an important place to begin this topic. It will be important for me to address some specific examples and I will briefly treat two: Australia’s current policies towards refugees, and the emergence of Islam in Australian society. Firstly, however, I want to say that making a genuinely moral contribution to society means understanding the principles with which you operate. We must know who we are and where we have come from. Otherwise as situations develop we will not know how to behave. There is a strong temptation for Churches to act opportunistically.

To make a contribution to moral debate today, we need to know three things. Firstly, history does not begin or end with us. It is in God’s hands. Secondly making a moral contribution means going back to the source. We have received the testimony of a long line of witnesses who have defended the faith. I need hardly remind the Armenian Church of this, as memories of the Genocide still resonate 90 years later, and 1700 years of Church history inform your thoughts and actions. Thirdly, how we behave will have an impact on others, both now and in the future. We are in the process of handing on our legacy. The choices we make will impact future generations, whether they remember us or not. What do we want to leave behind?

While these things might seem self-evident, they are not so in contemporary Australia. Australia can seem like a kind of ‘historical bubble’, de-linked from thousands of years of preceding human history. In this country it can feel like everything began yesterday, or perhaps 100, or at the most 200 years ago. This is a great grief to Indigenous Australians, but it should also be a massive concern to us immigrant Australians. It is what happens when a culture focuses on gratification of the self, the ego. From economics to personal lifestyle, popular morality immodestly promotes self-gratification and growth. It persists with the assumption that big is better than small, strong is better than weak, now is better than then, and new is better than old. When this becomes our attitude over an extended period of time, the lessons of history disappear. In the end we don’t even notice what’s missing and we have no resources to fall back on when contemporary answers fail us. Recent events like the so-called ‘Cronulla riots’ show the difficulty contemporary Australia has in coping with issues that have history, such as the Christian/Muslim relations.

To discover our place in the world, including what it means to be moral, Christians must return to their first witness, the word of Scripture, preserved as it has been in the Church. They must especially turn to the New Testament. What Jesus and the Apostles have to say about the human condition still matters as we make our moral choices today.
 
In this context Romans 12 is particularly relevant. There are many others passages like the Beatitudes and the parables of Jesus. I have chosen Romans 12, however, because it is addressed to the Church at a time when it was emerging as a community of faith, a community of difference.

1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect...

3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. ...

9 Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; 10 love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honour. 11 Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12 Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. 13 Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16 Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; do not claim to be wiser than you are. 17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. 18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. 19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 No, “if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

There is enough material here to supply a month or more of Conferences. Christian moral responses are based on the principle of self-sacrifice, modelled on the sacrifice of Jesus. The moral balance is shifted from self-preservation to conformity with God’s will. Difference is to be valued. The law of retribution is to be replaced by the law of love. The cycle of greed and envy is to be transformed into the growth of blessing and peace. No-one is to think too highly of him or her self or to pretend to have superior wisdom. It is all summed up by the well known words, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Whether now, or then, these commands are counter cultural. They go against the grain of much accepted human behaviour. The first, and ongoing, lesson about the moral leadership of the Church is that it continues to be counter cultural. It swims against the tide. It will not be controlled by wealth, big business, political expediency, or even survival. To be Church takes courage, courage that is impossible without faith.

When the Church loses courage and fails to act morally it not only lets itself down, it lets the world down. The results can be immense evil. The Churches of Germany, and parts of Europe, are still in shock over what happened in the 1920s and 30s, and their failure to act morally in the face of hatred, prejudice, and genocide. Their experience then explains their sensitivity today, as they repeatedly examine their theology, and always decide to err on the side of supporting those who are vilified or oppressed, often at their own cost. Per capita today European Churches are among the largest supporters of international advocacy, development and aid as they live out that legacy and vow never to repeat it.

I should also point out, however, that the Church has no monopoly on morality or on good deeds. Many people, Christians and non Christians, act morally and in accordance with the law of love. The Church, however, is in a special place, and it has no choice but to behave in this way, or lose its birthright as the people God called to be witnesses to love and to truth.

In summary, then, here are some of the things the Church contributes in general terms to the moral issues of society.

In their internal life Churches contribute by:

• Being ‘Church’ – God’s people gathered in worship and prayer. “And let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another ...”  Being Church, worshipping regularly, is not only a reminder of the ‘otherness’ of God, and our moral responsibility to a higher power, it speaks of the self giving sacrifice of God for the sins of the world, a particularly poignant message at this time of the year. Worship provides the moral base for all of our statements and actions
• Creating & sustaining a sense of community, continuity, and belonging. Moral action requires a reference point in human society. We must be able to measure what is ‘good, and acceptable, and right’. To be truly moral we need each other.
• Raising believers with lives of personal modesty & restraint, resistant to models of excess, the pursuit of wealth, & over indulgence. It takes training to behave morally, and the Church has for centuries provided this training to generations of young people. This should be reinforced by all levels of Church structures.

In society Churches contribute by:

• Acting with love, compassion, and inclusiveness – the eyes of many people are on the church to see how it treats people. It model what it preaches. Cases of abuse within the Church are not only devastating for the victims; they are devastating for the Church and threaten to rob it of moral authority.
• Maintaining the language of hope – the Church has 2,000 years of preaching and teaching upon which to draw, as well as its experience under many circumstances. It is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, institution in the world. As such it has always lived in hope, both for this life and for the life to come. It is now more important than ever to maintain this language of hope.
• Telling the Good News – this is the core task of the Church, in word and deed. The Good News includes honesty about the human condition, and God’s response.
• Remembering the lessons of history in understanding the human condition – the Church is a reminder to society of a continuous human history that is constantly forgotten. Its antiquity, and its place in the roots of our culture, reminds society and its rulers of our ultimate accountability to God for our moral choices.

In relation to the authorities, Churches contribute by:

• Reminding governments of their God-given responsibilities – Churches have a legitimate role to remind government of the mandate by which it assumes power. As Jesus said to Pilate, when he refused to be afraid of him, “"You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above …”
• Bringing to their attention issues of morality and justice within their responsibility – since the time of the prophets religious leaders who are outside the structures of power have had the mandate to speak to rulers about issues of justice. This tradition continues today as Churches engage governments on matters of justice, peace, human rights, and now also on environmental matters.\
• Sitting with the excluded and those who have no voice – just as Jesus sat with us in our sin, so the Church is to sit with those who have no hope and no voice. This is the moral position of the Church dictated by the actions of Jesus – e.g. the woman caught in adultery . Such actions can have the most remarkable results.

Finally, I will look at two examples of contemporary moral issues in Australian society. These are symptomatic, and there are many others I could have chosen. For the sake of brevity two public issues will do. First is our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, which is fairly self evident. Second is our response to the emerging Muslim community in Australia. This may not strike us at first as being a moral issue, but I briefly hope to show why I think it is.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers

On Maundy Thursday, in the Gregorian calendar, just before the Easter long weekend, the Federal Government announced that it was changing the rules relating to onshore arrivals of people seeking asylum in Australia. A few years ago the Government established what it called ‘migration zones’ which ‘excised’ off shore islands that are normally regarded as Australian territory. For the purposes of refugees landing on these islands and reefs, they were now declared to technically not be in Australia, and so they could be sent to off shore processing centres, which we commonly call detention centres. These centres are to all intents and purposes prisons into which everyone is put: women, men, and children.

This was all part of the so-called ‘Pacific Solution’, and it rightly earned the condemnation of people across the world, including, locally, most if not all Australian Churches. The ‘solution’ was offered up amid a barrage of language that dehumanised those seeking refuge. They were called ‘boat-people’ and ‘illegals’, and accused at an earlier stage of throwing their children overboard to gain sympathy. This accusation is well known to have been manifestly untrue, but somehow the label has still stuck.

After a boatload of people from West Papua recently arrived in the Northern Territory seeking asylum they were granted Temporary Protection Visas. While many refugee advocates speak against the whole TPV system, nevertheless it mean there was recognition for these people as having legitimate cause to seek refuge. Soon, however, after a threatened diplomatic incident with Indonesia, our government promised that future boatloads would not be received even if they landed on mainland Australia, but will be sent to off-shore centres, where their cases will be reviewed after first discussing them with Indonesia.

As far as I know there is no precedent for this, and it smacks of legal convenience and a moral vacuum. While the intricacies of Australia’s relationship with Indonesia have to be acknowledged, and a lot of care has to be taken about what is best for the Indonesian province of Papua, this treatment of refugees has to be challenged. How can they at first be said to have valid cause, and then, suddenly, for diplomatic reasons, have nothing?

You might have already heard some Churches, particularly the Uniting Church, registered their immediate protest. Due to the Easter holiday, however, most Churches have not yet had a chance. Already the Uniting Church has been heavily attacked for what its moral stance, not least by the Indonesian Ambassador.

How do we make a contribution to this issue, which is undoubtedly a moral one? We can take the road of direct protest – as the Uniting Church has, and no doubt others will. We can join consultative processes of review within government departments, which the Churches have been doing for years. We can create support structures for refugees and asylum seekers – which is being done and Christians daily visit the centres, help people and ease their transition them into the community when they are released. We can take up individual cases by providing legal assistance and making representation and that is going on all the time.

Ultimately, however, the Churches must hold the government accountable for their moral responsibilities. In a democracy this finally happens through the electorate. Activists, advocates and Church leaders will do their bit, but it will require Australian voters to hold the government accountable and make moral issues matter. This is complicated, because a moral issue that appears black and white to one Church might seem quite ambiguous to another. The morality, for instance, of stem cell research, or of the so-called abortion drug RU-486, are cases in point. Churches should not tell their members how to vote. Such an effort would be misdirected, would transgress the principles of democracy, and would backfire in any case. They should, however, be ready to engage in the debate, and let their voices, even if not in total agreement, be heard among the members of their community.

The emergence of Islam

The growth of the Islamic community in Australia has been widely reported and frequently commented upon. Why do I view this as a moral issue? The growth of Islam in Australia is not in itself a moral issue, but it does present us with a series of moral choices. This is so whether people come from a country where there is a significant Muslim community or not.

The moral questions come from the choices we make as we respond to a growing community which is different from the mainstream and of which many are suspicious. How will we define it and how will we treat this difference?

On one level some try to elevate this to a ‘clash of civilisations’, giving conflict a sense of inevitability, and making it sound as though we can choose between a ‘Christian’ Australia and a ‘Muslim’ Australia. This polarisation precipitates tension and may well result in increased hostility and violence. It feeds the language of fear, and builds a desire to ‘get them’ before they ‘get us’. A simple comparison between this and the ethic outlined in Romans 12 will tell the Churches that even though some would agree with the danger, this is not a moral Christian response. Even more so, Jesus commanded us to ‘love our neighbour’. What does this mean when our neighbour is a Muslim? Does a Christian have any choice but to love them, and if we do love them, does this mean some kind of unconditional surrender? What about the untrammelled growth of the Muslim influence in Australia, and people’s fear of Sharia Law and Jihad? Are these fears realistic, or are they hyperbole whipped up by people who want us to hate?

On another level some people try to make this a matter of personal relationships. There are many dialogue groups based on this premise. If you get to know the ‘other’ they will not seem so strange and you will not be so afraid of them. You will start to see them as human beings, people just like you. At its best this approach can be very enlightened. At its worst it can be simplistic and ignore wider issues. All in all, however, surely it is better for neighbours to know one another than to listen to hearsay and even lies about one another. The Church’s moral response surely should encourage such interaction.

Churches must take a realistic viewpoint, but they are also required to counter the rhetoric of vilification and separation that makes some kind of war or violent struggle inevitable. If there were to be violence, the Church’s moral responsibility is to have done everything in its power to find another way. That better way has to be explored through dialogue – ongoing discussion that examines who we are, what our respective views are, and how we can live and work together.

A third alternative, and one I personally reject as immoral, is to try and make out that somehow Christianity and Islam are different versions of the same religion. This is immoral because it is dishonest about our differences and fails to witness to Jesus Christ. Christians have a moral responsibility to the whole of society to stand up for what they believe and to engage in genuine dialogue.

----------

In conclusion, I simply reiterate that the Church’s greatest contribution to moral issues today will come from us being who we are and have been for 2,000 years. This could be summed up by the Pentecost message of St Peter: “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”

This lack of partiality based on the Christian gospel is what sets the Church apart and makes its moral witness unique. That’s what we must preserve at all costs, as it is our basis for being and our ultimate and unique witness to Christ.

Revd John Henderson
20 April 2006