Download a PDF  of the full Minutes of the 7th Forum of the National Council of Churches in Australia

Numbering of Resolutions has been finalised and is included in the attached PDF of the full 7th Forum Minutes.

 Below are the Resolutions brought to the 7th Forum by the Churches
these resolutions are included in the PDF downloadable above

Priorities
Moved by the Anglican Church
Seconded by the Catholic Church
Supported by the Uniting Church
.......and the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

It was resolved that:

this Forum requests the Executive, until the next Forum, to

1. Give priority in its meetings to matters of
   ....a) Faith and Order / Unity and in particular
   ...........i. developments in national and international dialogues
   ...........ii. obstacles to progress in dialogues and means to overcome them
   ....b) Mission, and in particular
   ...........i. strengthening member churches as they go about mission in Australian society and globally
   ...........ii. facilitating cooperation in mission among the churches
   ....c) Significant public issues and the shape of Australian society in global context, and in particular
   ...........i. Promoting understanding of key issues through research, analysis and study
   ...........ii. Formulating joint statements to convey the views of member churches to the wider community
   ...........iii. Developing shared plans for advocacy and action
   ....d) Indigenous issues and concerns as guided by NATSIEC.
2. Consider whether, and if so how, changes in NCCA structures, processes and resource allocation might
   better serve these priorities;
3. Implement pilot changes where appropriate; and
4. Report to the next Forum with any recommendations

Member Churches
Moved by the Anglican Church
Seconded by the Mar Thoma Church

It was resolved that

the Forum, rejoices as we receive Churches into membership of the NCCA; and

• recalling that the trust and friendship which mark relationships among the member Churches
  developed through intentional conversations in years gone by; and
• seeking similar bonds with those Churches which have more recently become members

therefore recommends that the NCCA Executive consider establishing a framework for conversation in
areas such as our various church structures, our worship life and the different gifts we can bring to the
life of the NCCA.

Youth
Moved by the Armenian Apostolic and Coptic Orthodox Churches
Seconded by the Indian Orthodox and Mar Thoma Churches

It was resolved that

• member Churches be encouraged to include young people in their delegation.
• future Forums have member Churches nominate two youth members as observers to accompany

the church delegation so to encourage the preservation of the Ecumenical youth footprint.

Moved by the Indian Orthodox and Mar Thoma Churches
Seconded by the Armenian Apostolic and Coptic Orthodox Churches

It was resolved that

future Forums have time allocated for the youth delegates and observers to discuss current issues facing
the youth of churches today.

Refugees & Asylum Seekers
Moved by the Uniting Church
Seconded by the Churches of Christ

It was resolved that

the NCCA, while affirming the Australian Government’s right and responsibility to ensure legitimate border
protection:

1. Request the major political parties
   ....a) to stop engendering fear and anxiety in the Australian population by using asylum seekers,
   ........vulnerable people fleeing conflict and persecution, for political advantage;
   ....b) to work for a humane, bipartisan approach to this issue that fulfils our international obligations
   ........and enhances Australia’s reputation as a just and humane global citizen; and
   ....c) to meet Australia’s responsibilities by:
   ............i.  treating asylum seekers humanely,
   ............ii. processing asylum applications expeditiously, and
   ............iii.accommodating and processing in Australia asylum seekers who reach Australian territory .
2. In making this request we remind all political parties
   ....a) that asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants and have rights under international law to seek
   ........protection from persecution; and
   ....b) that Australia has committed, as a signatory to the Refugee Convention, to assess each asylum
   ........seeker case according to agreed criteria
3. the General Secretary be asked to send this proposal to all Federal Parliamentarians; and to issue a
   media release to this effect.

Finance
Moved by the Roman Catholic Church
Seconded by the Uniting Church

It was resolved that

1. it be noted that article 22.02 of the Constitution states that “Each member Church shall make
   financial contributions to the NCCA according to guidelines approved by the Executive.”
2. the Finance Committee be asked to bring appropriate guidelines to the next meeting of the
   Executive for approval.

Rights of Indigenous People
Moved by the Anglican Church
Seconded by the Catholic Church

It was resolved that

1. the NCCA notes the Australian Government has adopted the United Declaration of the Rights of
   Indigenous Peoples (DRIP).
2. the Executive Committee be requested to consult with NATSIEC and bring to the next NCCA Forum
   for approval or, if possible introduce beforehand, proposals for an appropriate response to DRIP in
   the day to day work of the NCCA.

Palestine & Israel
Moved by the Uniting Church
Seconded by the Anglican Church

It was resolved that

the 7th National Forum

1. Reiterates the decisions of the NCCA Executive in March 2008 to “affirm the right of the state of
   Israel to exist, and to exist within secure internationally-recognised borders”2 and to “affirm the right
   of the people of Palestine to be freed from more than 40 years of military occupation by Israel, (and)
   to live within secure internationally-recognised borders”.
2. 
   ....a) Welcomes the Kairos Palestine document of December 2009 prepared by Palestinian Christians
   ........and supported by the 13 Jerusalem Heads of Churches as the “Christian Palestinians’ word to
   ........the world about what is happening in Palestine”.4
   ....b) Notes that the Kairos Palestine document provides a serious theological reflection on the
   ........situation facing the Palestinian people, and on the basis of that reflection addresses requests to
   ........Christians and churches throughout the world, to the international community, to Jewish and
   ........Muslim religious leaders, and to Palestinians and Israelis; and concludes with a cry of hope,
   ........believing that “God’s goodness will finally triumph over the evil of hate and of death that still
   ........persist in our land”.
3. In a spirit of repentance for past silence and indifference:
   ....a) adds the voice of the National Council of Churches in Australia to Christian voices throughout
   ........the world calling for an early end to the occupation of Palestine through a freely and peacefully
   ........negotiated solution in accordance with international law and United Nations resolutions; and
   ....b) adds the voice of the National Council of Churches in Australia to Christian voices throughout
   ........the world condemning all acts of terrorism.
4. In particular the National Council of Churches in Australia:
   ....a) affirms the solidarity of the National Council of Churches in Australia with Palestinian Christians
   ........and assures Palestinians that the National Council of Churches in Australia will continue to
   ........advocate and act for an end to the occupation and for an end to the injustice and suffering borne
   ........by the Palestinian people;
   ....b) in response to the requests in the Kairos document, calls on the member Churches of the
   ........National Council of Churches in Australia and the wider Australian community to consider a
   ........boycott of goods produced by Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories;
   ....c) requests member Churches to advise the NCCA General Secretary of the outcome of their
   ........consideration;
   ....d) requests Act for Peace to provide regular information to the member Churches to assist ongoing
   ........actions on the boycott; and
   ....e) welcomes the easing of the Israeli blockade of Gaza in recent days and calls for an immediate
   ........end to the blockade.
5. Requests Christians involved in inter-faith conversations among Christians, Jews and/or Muslims to
   include the subject matter of these resolutions in those conversations.
6. Requests the General Secretary to convey these resolutions to the Prime Minister, the Minister for
   Foreign Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, all members
   of Federal Parliament, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australian Federation of
   Islamic Councils and other individuals and groups as the General Secretary and the President so
   decide.
7. Requests the General Secretary to issue a media release relating to these decisions as soon as
   possible.

Welcome to Country Speech

7th National Forum of the NCCA, 9-13 July 2010
Aunty Agnes Shea, Ngunnawal Elder

 Download a pdf.

Good Afternoon All.

Let me begin by reminding all present that this is NAIDOC Week and today is NAIDOC Day.

The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander week unlike Reconciliation week is a time for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to come together with others to celebrate our life and culture and that we have survived. It is a time where we can highlight the import things that concern us and celebrate our unity as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Many celebrations are happening around the country and this years spotlight will be on Melbourne where the National Ball and awards will take place. Some may recall that Mrs. Elsie Heiss, a member of your Executive received the Elder of the year award at last year’s celebration in Brisbane. Many will receive due recognition for the tremendous work they do.

But the theme for this year is “Unsung Hero’s.”

This is a very important theme as it shines a light on many who have been struggling hard to bring about a better life for all of us. Many of us do this quietly in the background with little recognition. They are the teachers, coaches, doctors, Aunts, Uncles, parents and Grand parents to name a few.

We like you want the best for our families and friends and work tirelessly in our communities to try and bring it about. If you know anything about our communities and the amount of outside influences that affect our lives, then you would know it is not always so easy. We do it because of love. Love of our brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and all that have gone before us. Our strength we draw from our past and one another.

This week then, it is important to stop and reflect upon those many unsung heroes who have gone before us and are around us now. It would be good if you yourselves take a short moment to think of some of those Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders who work tirelessly to make this community, this country a better a place for all.

Many thanks for thinking of them and hopefully while you are here together pray for them for the strength and courage to continue.

I warmly welcome you back to Ngunnawal Country some 16 years after your first Forum here and pray that your time here will be fruitful and remember, whatever you do tread lightly across my Country as we have done for thousands of years.

Thank you.

Sermon
Ecumenical Public Worship

7th Forum of the NCCA, 9-13 July 2010
by Archbishop Aghan Baliozian

(delivered by the Revd Dr Ray Williamson)

 Download a pdf.

In the liturgical calendar of the Armenian Apostolic Church, today we celebrate the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Befittingly as we come together in fellowship and worship at this 7th National Forum of the NCCA with the theme of “Shaping Our National Ecumenical Footprint” we can look to this holy feast day to inspire our direction and shed the glorious light of Our Lord Jesus Christ upon our witness, by the grace of God.

The Transfiguration was a vision, a brief glimpse of the true glory of the King. As we read today from the Gospel of Matthew, this was a special revelation of Jesus’ divinity to three of the disciples, and it was God’s divine affirmation of everything Jesus had done and was about to do.

The distinct revelation that Jesus is God’s Son comes to us in three specific episodes. The first public declaration was at His baptism when the heavens opened, the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the bodily form of a dove and a voice from heaven declared “You are my Son, whom I love; with whom I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22) 

Second, Jesus appeared to three of his disciples – Peter, James and John – in glorious splendour upon the mountain high, beside him the prophets Moses and Elijah. As Peter was speaking to Jesus, a cloud enveloped him and the prophets and a voice was heard saying “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” (Luke 9:35)

The third affirmation of Christ’s glory and purity was revealed in the resurrection and ascension which was witnessed by many.

Whilst the public witnessed the first and third revelations of the incarnate Christ, for the transfiguration Jesus singled out Peter, James and John. Why? Perhaps they were the ones most ready to understand and accept this great truth.  Jesus took them to the top of the mountain to show them who he really was – not just a great prophet, but God’s own Son.

These three disciples were the inner circle, the closest to Jesus of the group of twelve. They were among the first to hear Jesus’ call, they headed the Gospel lists of disciples and they were present at certain healings where others were excluded. Peter, James John would eventually play a key role in the early church. Peter became a great speaker, John became a major writer and James was the first of the twelve disciples to die for the faith.

When Jesus transfigured before them he was joined by Moses and Elijah, the two greatest prophets of the Old Testament. Moses represented the law or the old covenant and predicted the coming of a great prophet. Elijah represented the prophets who foretold the coming of the Messiah. Moses’ and Elijah’s presence confirmed Jesus’ Messianic mission – to fulfil God’s law and the words of God’s prophets. Just as God’s voice in the cloud over Mount Sinai gave authority to his law, God’s voice at the transfiguration gave authority to Jesus’ words.

The transfiguration revealed Christ’s divine nature. God’s voice exalted Jesus above Moses and Elijah as the long-awaited Messiah with full divine authority.

When Peter suggested making three shelters for Jesus, Moses and Elijah, he may have been thinking about the Feast of the Tabernacles, where shelters were set up to commemorate the exodus when God delivered the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. Peter was impulsive in nature and wanted to instinctively act, but this was a time for worship and adoration.

Like Peter, we too may have such inspiring experiences that we want to react in ways which are not intuitively correct. And at times with such experiences, we may want to stay where we are – away from the realities and problems of our daily lives. Knowing that struggles await us in the valley encourages us to linger on the mountaintop. Yet staying on the mountaintop prohibits our ministering and instead of becoming spiritual giants we become dwarfed by our self-centredness. We need times of retreat and renewal but only so we can return to minister to others. Our faith must make sense off the mountain as well as on it.

To give Peter credit however, his desire to build shelters may have shown his understanding that real faith is built on three cornerstones: the law, the prophets and Jesus. Peter grew in his understanding and eventually would write of Jesus as the “chosen and precious cornerstone” (1Peter 2:6)  of the church.

It must have been such an overwhelming experience for these disciples to witness the transfiguration. We read in the Gospel of Mark of Peter, “He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.” (Mark 9:6)   So terrified were the disciples that when the cloud enveloped Jesus, Moses and Elijah and the voice from the clouds was heard affirming “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Matthew 17:5)  the disciples fell facedown in fear.

Jesus is more than just a great leader, a good example, a good influence or a great prophet. He IS the Son of God. When we understand this profound truth, the only adequate response is worship.  Whilst the disciples were yet to understand this, we have insight today, the greater picture that assures us of Jesus’ divinity.

When the disciples looked up again they only saw Jesus and as they walked down the mountain with him, Jesus said to them “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” (Matthew 17:9)  Why so? Would it not have been be a natural response to want to rave about the majestic phenomenon they had just experienced?

Jesus knew they did not fully understand what had happened and could not explain what they didn’t understand. Even though they knew Jesus was the Messiah, they still had much more to learn about the significance of his death and resurrection. Then would they realise that only through dying could Jesus show his power over death and his authority to be King of all. The disciples could not be powerful witnesses for God until they had grasped this truth.

It was normal for the disciples to be confused about Jesus’ death and resurrection because they could not see into the future. We, on the other hand, have God’s revealed Word, the Holy Bible, to give us the full meaning of Jesus’ life, ministry, death and resurrection.

The vision of the transfiguration which appeared before them would have evoked a multitude of emotions – terror, amazement, shock, exhilaration, curiosity – but mostly I would think - bewilderment.

In seeing Elijah, the disciples questioned Jesus “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?” This question was based on the teachers of the Old Testament law believing that Elijah must appear before the Messiah as had been prophesied in the Book of Malachi. (Based on Malachi 4:5,6)

Jesus replied “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognise him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” (Matthew 17:11)  Jesus referred to John the Baptist, not the Old Testament prophet Elijah. John the Baptist took on Elijah’s prophetic role – boldly confronting sin and pointing people to God.

It would have been difficult for the disciples to grasp the idea that their Messiah would have to suffer. The Jews who studied the Old Testament prophecies expected the Messiah to be a great king like David who would overthrow the enemy, Rome. Their vision was limited to their own time and experience.

They could not understand that the values of God’s eternal kingdom were different from the values of the world. They wanted relief from their personal problems. But deliverance from sin was, and is far more important than deliverance from physical suffering or political oppression. Today more than ever, our understanding for Jesus must go beyond what he can do for us here and now. We should adopt an eternal perspective in our everyday lives.

The significance of the transfiguration is as profound for us as it was for the three disciples. As churches, we must look on high to the mountaintop upon which our life in Christ is founded and our witness of Christ originates. Our witness must be aglow, as the shining light of Christ in his revelation as the Son of God. 

As with the earliest church, today we confront the problem of declining commitment and conforming to world standards, compromised faith failing to stand up for Christ.  However as church leaders, we must lead by example to show the difference between light and darkness and to encourage the church to grow in genuine love for God and one another.

John, described as the “apostle whom Jesus loved” (John 21:20), walked and talked with Jesus, saw him heal, heard him teach, watched him die, met him risen, and saw him ascend. John knew God – he had lived with him and had seen him work. And John enjoyed fellowship with the Father and the Son all the days of his life. What a far cry was John the apostle who walked with Christ from the apostle who witnessed for Christ.

Our gathering at this forum, in true Christian fellowship with other believers is powerful testament of how we can walk and talk in God’s light to effectively shape “Our National Ecumenical Footprint”.  We must commit to three main principles in this endeavour.

Firstly, our fellowship must be grounded in the testimony of God’s Word as without this underlying strength, togetherness is impossible.  Second, it must be mutual, sharing and respecting ideas and focussing on the unity of believers. Third, our fellowship must be renewed daily through the Holy Spirit in worship and Bible Study.

May the Almighty grant us wisdom, guidance, direction in our fellowship throughout these days and in our future mission together in the NCCA and as we commemorate the Feast of the Transfiguration of our Lord Jesus Christ, let us renew our commitment to faith life and outlook to eternal purposes. Amen.

President’s Address

7th Forum of the NCCA, 9-13 July 2010
by Bishop Michael Putney

 Download a pdf.

This is the seventh forum of the National Council of Churches and the second to be held in Canberra.  Moreover, the Council was inaugurated in 1994 here in Canberra.  This makes our meeting an historic one.  We have returned to the national capital, and to the place where we began.

The words ‘national’ and ‘Australia’ in the title of our Council are obviously words intended to express our identity and our mission as a national body drawing together in a Council representatives of the vast majority of Australian Christians.  Therefore, the national capital is at least symbolically if not also in reality of some significance for our Council.

This return to Canberra provides us with the opportunity of reflecting on the achievements of the Council since it was inaugurated.  The three objectives of the National Council of Churches in Australia announced in Canberra in 1994 were:
a) to encourage and enable churches to develop their existing relationships;
b) to encourage and enable the member churches in the light of the gospel to give prophetic leadership to each other and the community;
c) to promote other important relationships eg with other world religious.

It would be a valuable exercise for each of us here today to reflect upon the history of the Council as we know it and to point to positive achievements that satisfy one or other, or even all of these objectives.

I certainly would point to the signing of the Covenant in Adelaide at the Fifth Forum of the National Council as a very tangible and potentially very fruitful consequence of the formation of the National Council of Churches here in 1994.  One could also point to the memorandum of understanding between the National Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Ecumenical Commission and the National Council of Churches signed in 2005, as a tangible example of commitment to the prophetic role of the Council.  The representation of the National Council on national Muslim-Jewish-Christian bodies illustrates the capacity of the National Council of Churches to exercise a particular function that no other group can.  It is the most comprehensive representative of Australian Christians in dealings with other world religions.

There would be many other achievements which received less publicity but were none the less of great importance for the ecumenical movement in Australia.  I wanted to name some such positive achievements because we can easily forget that as the National Council of Churches in Australia there are some things we can do that no other body can do.  Each of those words has its importance.  We are a national body.  We are a Council drawing together, for deliberation and decision making, representatives of Christian churches.  We exercise this role in and for Australia.

At the same time I think we need to reflect upon what we have yet to achieve and that to which we might need to commit ourselves with increased energy after this Forum.  Therefore I will point to a number of issues that I think become obvious when one participates in Executive meetings of the Council and even in this Forum.

Firstly, I began my address by drawing attention to the significance of our meeting in the national capital.  We went to great trouble to invite the then Prime Minister to address our gathering and alerted the Leader of the Opposition that we were doing so and that we would in turn invite him, it our first invitation were accepted.  In fact, we were put on hold which is something politicians sometime have to do.  It then became impossible for us to put our own program on hold while we waited and waited.  Therefore we withdraw the invitation, and alerted the Leader of the Opposition’s staff.  What is significant for me is that we were not recognised as the most important Christian body to meet in the national capital this decade as I would like to claim, and so seen as a modest priority for the Prime Minister’s calendar.

I say this not with any sense of pride but simply because we are the National Council of Churches in Australia.  I am not ignoring the fact that some Christians, churches and communities are not part of the national council but the majority of Christians are represented by this council.  However, our national profile and our national “clout” is obviously not as great as we would like and maybe not even as great as some other national bodies representing a lesser number of Christians.  Perhaps, in fact, no Christian body is of such significance that the Prime Minister’s office would believe that he would need to accept an invitation to attend.

Australia is a secular country and the influence of Christian churches is diminishing.  How they respond to that diminishment varies.  This Council acts towards politicians and governments in one way.  Other groups engage with them much more directly as lobbyists.  Some would argue that our style makes us a less significant partner for the federal government than such more politically engaged Christian bodies.  However, again it would be very difficult for any Christian body, no matter how prestigious or politically active it might be, to become an essential part of the agenda of a federal government given our contemporary Australian culture.  All of this is worthy of our reflection because if we truly are the national Council of Churches then ideally someone in Canberra should think we are worth talking to.

This leads to my second reflection.   Not even the churches themselves which are members of the National Council seem to be as passionate about its existence and its mission as the title would imply.  It is sometimes hard to get a quorum for executive meetings.  This raises real questions about a council of churches that does not so capture the imagination of the churches that they would think that they could not afford to be unrepresented at its meetings.

Such a council of churches needs to look at its agenda.  If it is not dealing with the issues that really matter to the churches and doing so in a way that they cannot do alone then in what sense is it genuinely a council of those churches?  If it is dealing with agenda coming from elsewhere or generated only from within its own structure then it ought not be surprising that the churches might think that, while it is a good thing that it exists, it in fact is not going to make any impact on their church life.  If this is so, they will not be motivated with any urgency to participate in all of its meetings all of the time, as one would hope.

This is a great challenge for the Council and one that it began to tackle at its last Executive Meeting.  The desire generated to address this question has influenced the agenda for the Forum.  Is the National Council of Churches really doing the work of the churches?  In theory they should want to come together nationally as a council to address those things which confront them all in our Australian context.  If it is not helping them to do that, it is surely not satisfying one of their basic objectives in the formation of the Council.

On a more spiritual level, if it is not drawing them closer together so that they can point to a real achievement of deeper ecumenical awareness, collaboration and spiritual union with each other, again it is not satisfying a fundamental objective for which it was established.  There is always a danger that no matter how hard we try, a council becomes just one other body alongside the churches rather than an actual coming together of the churches.

Thirdly, among others the Orthodox Churches in Australia are under-represented at this Forum and usually at the Executive Meetings.  This is a great sadness because we need to hear all the voices of our member churches if we are to fulfil our mandate.  This is not just the mandate accepted at our inauguration but the mandate that comes to us from God.  We need each other and we have to find a way of enabling Orthodox Christians to participate in a manner that will make them want to be part of us.  If would be tragic if they or anyone else came to Executive Meetings and to the Forum only out of some notional ecumenical duty.  We are the National Council and councils are meant to capture and shape our desire to work together both for Christian unity and to carry out our mission in our own country.

Fourthly, as we celebrate the centenary of the modern ecumenical movement this year we need to remember that the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference of 1910 generated the enthusiasm that lead to the formation of the Faith and Order Movement and the Life and Work Movement which in turn led to the formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948 in Amsterdam.  It was missionaries who began the ecumenical movement.

The poor relation throughout this great and exciting history was the World Missionary Council which did not join the World Council until much later.  There are Christians who are not very interested in the ecumenical movement but are interested in evangelism / evangelisation.  They are not very interested in the National Council of Churches because it can seem to be concerned with what they would see as a bureaucratic form of ecumenism rather than the urgent mission of proclaiming the Lord Jesus to our secular country.

Their absence from the ecumenical movement and our Council challenges us to look at our own priorities.  The original impetus for Christian unity was the need to be united for the sake of the mission of proclaiming the gospel.  The first two objectives of our National Council of furthering relationships that would draw us closer together and of enabling us to fulfil a prophetic mission in our country together, must be given appropriate weight in our agenda and in our deliberations.  But prophetic mission must include offering the gift of Jesus Christ himself to our nation.

Finally, we will lose the impetus that began in Canberra in 1994 if the National Council of churches in Australia is just one more business meeting.  The Executive Meetings and the Forum most not become just more meetings that tired and busy Church people have to attend because of their ecumenical commitment but which in fact offer them very little that is of value for their own churches.  We do not exist just to do business.

We must not let our return to Canberra become just one more item on the 2010 calendar of events.  The Forum needs to be the occasion when we reclaim the enthusiasm with which this Council was inaugurated and commit ourselves to whatever changes we need to make in our mission and our agenda in order to ensure that it is worthwhile being members of the National Council of Churches in Australia and actually coming to its meetings.  Will participants leave here on Tuesday, not just happy about the time they spent with interesting people talking about interesting things, but aware that through their participation, their churches grew closer together and learnt from each other how to take up together our mission in this country?  Anything less is the beginning of the end for the Council not the end of the beginning as this return to Canberra should signify.