Rev John Henderson, General Secretary, National Council of Churches in Australia
Malek Fahd Islamic School, 405 Waterloo Rd Greenacre

Saturday 30 April 2005

My friends, it is a great pleasure for me to be with you again this evening.

I bring greetings from the National Council of Churches in Australia and its 15 member churches across the country. I also bring particular greetings also from our President, the Revd Prof James Haire

I also have been pleased to meet here tonight the Hon Peter McGauran, Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, and acting Minister for Immigration. Like other speakers tonight, I also checked his press releases, and I saw that on 14 January he commended the Australian National Dialogue of Christians, Muslims, and Jews for its efforts in community harmony. I am pleased that he appreciates the importance of dialogue between religious faiths, for the welfare of the Australian community at large.

Now, at this time, for us, it is more important than ever that we have a mutual understanding and appreciation of our varying backgrounds, traditions, and religious beliefs:

• People of good faith and commitment can stand against apathy and self interest that leads to a lazy society that is only concerned with self interest
• People of deep conviction and compassionate ideals can show a way of living that is not dominated by fear or victimisation
• People of difference with diverse backgrounds can unite in their common humanity and find cause for doing good at all levels of society

Australia today is a unique opportunity to build a unique society. We gather our strength from around the globe. Our backgrounds are from many nations, cultures, and faiths. Out of that variety we can demonstrate a society which is symbol of hope for the world.

Our belief, through the Australian National Dialogue of Christians, Muslims, and Jews, is that we can make a difference. We can own what we do here, in this place, without mindlessly importing agendas, hatreds, or issues from other places. They will affect us, for sure, but we must equip ourselves to assess their reality under the light of an Australian sun, and transform what could hurt us into a force for good.

To do this we must be in dialogue. Dialogue between faiths “requires a knowledge of (your) own faith, and both humility and openness to the spiritual depths of the other person’s faith… (Dialogue) demands that there should be no fear, no arrogance, no domination, and no exclusion in the discussion. It presumes a sense of adventure, a wish to work for the future, and sensitivity to the infinite mystery of God.”*  Those words are the reflections of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne after it made an intervention on behalf of the Islamic Council of Victoria during the recent case under Victoria’s new anti-vilification laws. To me they also accurately reflect the views of the wider Christian community of churches as represented by the membership of the National Council of Churches.

It is surely also reflects vital aspects of a healthy Australian society – a place of safety and inclusion, yet also of joint enquiry, with a sense of adventure, working for a common future.

As a Christian I am obliged to be involved in dialogue. One day, when Jesus was asked, “And who is my neighbour,” he told a remarkable story about an outcast who became a real neighbour to a man in need. We call it the story of the Good Samaritan.**  Jesus revolutionised the concept of neighbour, the fellow traveller who is there beside me, and whom God asks me to love as myself. The true neighbour is not someone I select, but someone whom I meet on life’s journey apparently by chance, but within the providence of God.

You and I are neighbours. We are not the same as each other in every detail, and neither should we be. God did not create clones, but people. Life is not about sameness, but about relationship, both with the divine and with each other.

We are here, in this place, together, and we dare not, we cannot, walk past each other as though the other did not exist. It is our sacred duty to share this place, this time, and this nation, with its opportunities, its struggles, and its unlimited potential. How we deal with this challenge will be the measure of us as human beings, as citizens, and sons & daughters of God.

Let us remain committed to each other. Let us never ignore one another. Let walk together into the future, in dialogue, in partnership, in life, and in hope, as Australians. Let us never label one another with tags, but always see in each other a fellow human being, a traveller, a neighbour, a friend.

My friends, thank you for your hospitality tonight and for letting me say these few words.

----
* ‘Talking about other Faiths’ A Position Statement of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne. Adopted 16 March 2005. Available at http://www.melbourne.catholic.org.au/eic/Talkingaboutotherfaiths.htm
** Luke 10:29-37

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

Wesley Uniting Church, Forrest, Canberra, ACT
Tuesday, 10 February 2004, 7:45 a.m.

SERMON by The Reverend Professor James Haire, KSJ MA PhD DD D
UnivPresident, National Council of Churches in Australia: Executive Director, Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture
Professor of Theology, Charles Sturt University

Malawi, formerly Nyasaland, is a land-locked country in East Africa. In its northern region lies the town of Livingstonia, named after David Livingstone who had travelled and worked in the area. During the British emergency prior to Malawi’s independence in 1964, there were fears of violence between the European settlers and the indigenous Malawian population, and indeed between the various Malawian ethnic groupings. Communications from the north had been cut off. A British reconnaissance aircraft set out from the colonial capital, Blantyre, to observe the area. From the sky they could see no activity. They feared the worst. Had the population turned on itself? African and European against one another? African against African? In Livingstonia’s town centre, on the grass in front of the town hall, they observed from the air whitewashed stones in a shape which read “Eph. 2: 14”. What did it mean? Was it a message? The RAF blokes hadn’t a clue. Was there a Bible – maybe a Gideons’ Bible – in the aircraft? No, there wasn’t. They circled over Livingstonia a few more times. No signs of activity. So they rushed back to Blantyre. As soon as they were on the runway, one of the crew ran over to the mess, and came back with a Bible. He read the words, read again by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago, from Ephesians 2: 14, pointed to on the whitewashed stones, which you will see to this day, if you go to northern Malawi. They are the words of our text this morning: “For he (that is, Christ) is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us”. That was the message to the world from northern Malawi. As they moved towards an independent Malawi, they were at peace – African with African, African with European. These whitewashed stones are northern Malawi’s proudest symbol of independence.

“For he is our peace”. Peace. Eirene in Greek. Shalom in Hebrew. Salaam in Arabic.

We live in a deeply ambivalent age, an age of high technology and of mediaeval conflict. In this age we in the church are called to speak of, and to live out, God’s peace for us. We speak of the wonder of God’s grace, that is, we speak of the wonder of God’s condescension to us. Our Christian faith and life is built on the inexplicable will of God to be with, and for, humanity. The mystery is that the triune God chooses not to be God apart from, or separate from, humanity, but rather to make God’s very life intersect with our human life through Christ. The theological basis of all Christian life, then, is the wonder of God’s condescension, in the intentionality of God to be in solidarity with those who find their self-identity completely within themselves. Here is expressed the fact that God does not wish to be alone in celebrating the wonder of God’s inexpressible love for humanity. God in Christ calls into existence an earthly Body of His Son who is its heavenly Head, in order that humanity may responsively rejoice with God in the harmony and peace which God has established for creation.

We are called to a life of praise, the praise of God, which embraces all of our personal and social life, in all its practical, ethical, religious, political and intellectual aspects. It is a praise which stands counter-culture, over against the idolatrous self-worship of individuals and even nations in our time. In our time especially we are called to stand against that self-worship, and to stand for the true praise of God, the praise of all our life, in public and in private. This is the heart of the Christian faith.

At the beginning of 2001, I was the first foreigner permitted to travel through the Moluccas in Indonesia, after the violence, because I had worked there for many years. I preached one Sunday at a makeshift camp for internally displaced people. They were deeply grateful to the Australian government and people for the assistance given to them. Most of them I knew; many I had baptised in years gone by; some I had confirmed. All were traumatised by events so gruesome. Afterwards some Muslim acquaintances of mine joined us from nearby. Both Christians and Muslims had been engaged in atrocities. We talked of burnt homes, ruined schools, and desecrated churches and mosques. I remarked how amazed I was that both sides we meeting together so soon. An elderly woman, who had lost everything, used the words: “He is our peace”.

The Greek word for peace, eirene, based on the Hebrew shalom, means harmony and security. In the New Testament it points at two factors. First, it means the final salvation of the whole community, and of the whole person. Secondly, eirene proleptically refers to a condition of peace and harmony here and now. The New Testament in this is bifocal. It always looks to the perfect end of history, and at the same time seeks to see how our life today can reflect that.

In more precise terms this New Testament concept of peace, based on the Old Testament, assumes three factors. First, it points to one’s identity under God. Second, it speaks of a harmonious relationship with God. Third, it points to a harmonious relationship with one’s neighbour and in one’s community.

So, how do we live out the vision of peace presented here in Ephesians? Paul was addressing a divided Christian community in Ephesus. The Church in Ephesus was in the process of formation. It was formed of Christians of Jewish descent, and Christians of Gentile, or non-Jewish, descent. It would seem that the Christians of Jewish descent had very considerable economic power. They had, however, suffered political oppression. Between 49 and 54 CE/AD they had been excluded from public life, at the end of the reign of the Emperor Claudius. They remained economically powerful, but politically very incorrect. The Gentile Christians, on the other hand, had much more political influence, although in all likelihood they were largely economically disadvantaged. They certainly had the numbers, but not the financial clout. So here was a Church in Ephesus with a minority of people who were economically powerful and politically oppressed, on the one hand, and a majority of people who were poor, numerous and politically powerful. It was the perfect cocktail for social chaos, as it is in many situations where these factors exist. Moreover, in the world of Early Christianity, social groupings were based on kinship, ethnic issues and power. Kinship was the central factor of social organisation. Religion was enmeshed in issues of kinship. So here were all the ingredients in the creation of social chaos.

Out of this, Paul’s community stipulations summon Christians to new social roles. They are to be based on peace, shalom, identity in Christ, harmony with God, and harmony within the community. The ideals of the end of history are to be sought as far as possible in the present.

How are we to live out this peace in this country?

We are blessed in this country with a land of remarkable peace and harmony in many ways. Great numbers of those who have come to this land have sought peace as much as they have sought freedom. For they have often come from places where both peace and freedom have been denied them.

However, much in the processes of our democratic society depends on confrontation, adversarial stances, competition, and symbolic conflict. Much of this is predicated on the search for truth, and the avoidance of corruption. The processes of our representative parliamentary democracies (in local government, in the States and territories, and in the Commonwealth) demand confrontation and adversarial stances, however benignly they are carried out. The legal system cannot function without confrontation, in its inexorable pursuit of truth.
However, we must face the fact that the requirements of the processes of our democracy can so easily spill over into the content of our democracy. Confrontation and adversarial stances – the quite legitimate servants of our democracy – can become its master.

Let us go back to Paul. Paul calls us to peace, to shalom, to a life where our identity comes from beyond, from Christ. Christ Himself is our peace, for God in Christ creates a new humanity. Christ is not only the Son of God; He is also, in the seventeenth-century English translation of Martin Luther, the Proper Man. In today’s language we would say that Christ is also the picture of humanity as God intended humanity to be to live in perfect confidence in God, and in perfect harmony with God’s intent.

Peace within us. Peace in the Australian community, in our region, internationally.

Peace within each one of us. “He is our peace”. God in Christ has created us to share in this new humanity. God has given us a new identity, a new harmony with God’s very self, and thus a new human community one with another.

As you, our parliamentarians, the Members of the House of Representatives and the Australian Senate, begin this new year of service; you do so with the knowledge of that internal peace, which is God’s gift to each of you, and to each of us also. Members of my own family have served in both the Commons and the Lords on both sides, and I know how relentlessly stressful life can be for parliamentarians. Yet that peace, that identity in Christ, that harmony with God can make it all possible, indeed energising. Popular polls in the media (even with very doubtful research methodologies) often place politicians pretty far down the list, along with journalists and used-car salespersons! (And, may I add, the clergy in recent times have been far from the top of the list!)  However, we all know that that is not the whole story. The Australian people, especially recent arrivals, have very high aspirations for their parliament. Maybe that is why at times they become disappointed. May each of you this year have lives of true peace, as you seek to have your identity in Christ reinvigorated, and as you seek to live in harmony with God. For myself, I am very happy at any time to provide whatever pastoral support I can.

Peace in the community, in Australia, regionally, internationally. “He is our peace”. A remarkable multi-cultural, multi-linguistic, multi-religious society has developed on this continent. There are still pains. There are still those who are marginalised. Our identity in Christ calls us to share that peace, that harmony, throughout this continent, throughout our region, across the world. In our time it is not easy. No one but a fool would imagine that it is. At times it is important to be sceptical. But we must not become cynical. If we in this country can be an example of harmony and peace, and can demonstrate that style of ours to our neighbours, then that fact alone can have a vast impact internationally. It comes, first of all, by being secure in ourselves.

Twenty years ago I took part one Saturday afternoon in a march in Northern Ireland of the Peace People, the group founded by two women, Betty Williams and Miread Corrigan, both later to go on the receive the Nobel Peace Prize. We walked through both Catholic and Protestant areas, trying to pull the community together. As a Protestant minister I walked alongside a colleague from the university where we had been lecturing, who had become a Catholic bishop, later Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh, Cahal Daly. Protestant young people were hurling abuse and rotten fruit at me for consorting with a Catholic. A person rushed out of a Catholic church wielding a great crucifix with which they hit Cahal over the head, questioning whether his parents had been married at the time of his birth. Cahal fell. I asked him if he would like to sit down for a few minutes in a shop door. Although in his seventies, he looked at me with steely eyes. “James”, he said,”there’s a handkerchief in my pocket. Get it out and clean up my head, and on we go, arm in arm. If we give up at this point, there will be no peace”.

As you come down from the Hill each night, or even in the wee small hours, can you ask yourself two questions: Am I at peace with God? And, what this day have I done to advance the peace, the harmony of this Australian community, of this region, of the world? May God richly bless each one of you this parliamentary year!

I speak on behalf of the churches which established homes to which Aboriginal children removed from their families were taken.

First, on behalf of the churches, I wish to acknowledge the pain, and the profound hurt, experienced by many of the children removed from their families into the care of church-run homes.  The churches were involved in the implementation of these cruel and misguided policies.

The pain must have been profound.

The hurt must have been deep.  We grieve with you as best we are able.

Second, I wish to acknowledge and honour those carers of removed Aboriginal children, both indigenous and non-indigenous, who worked in the church-run institutions.

In the vast majority of cases, their genuine care softened the impact of the inappropriate policies of removal.  Many people, indigenous and non-indigenous, gave their lives to the care of Aboriginal children.

We acknowledge that care and the love.  In spite of this, we know that some of the Stolen Generation were abused by those who should have protected them.
In many cases, these wrongs have still to be dealt with.

Christians understand the ambivalent nature of human life – good in the midst of misguided policies; yet policies which were profoundly wrong.

This memorial assists us all to move forward.  It helps us to be honest about the past.  It gives us the gift of being able to live lives of healing for our future walk together.  It affords us the opportunity to move forward to a fuller shared life one with another.

July 2006
The NCCA President was asked by Sight Magazine* to respond in 200 words to the following question.

"What do you see as the most significant challenge
for the Christian Church in Australia at the moment?"

A serious challenge is how to discern the mind of Christ in situations where faithful Christians hold opposing views on homosexuality and the leadership of women.
 
This, of course, is not the first time Christians have struggled to respond to contemporary challenges.
 
In the early Church it was whether they could ignore the biblical requirement that converts be circumcised.  In the 16th Century it was whether the scriptural prohibition of usury could be put aside.  In the 18th and 19th Centuries it was the abolition of slavery.  And, as we know, in these situations the Church discerned the mind of Christ as not requiring circumcision; as allowing the charging of interest; and in favour of the abolition of slavery.
 
For many Christians today the issues are homosexuality and the leadership of women.
 
In this situation I know the National Council of Churches to have an important role.  For the NCCA brings together 15 national Churches and ecclesial communities enabling them to pray, share and work together.  In this they are helped in discerning the mind of Christ.
 
And, overcoming divisions is so important.  For, as Jesus prayed, "may they all be one".

*Sight Magazine is an online publication.  It is an editorially independent outreach publication of the Ocean Grove Baptist Fellowship.

The member churches of the National Council of Churches of Australia today raised concerns about the conflict unfolding in Aceh and called on the Australian Government to make every effort to secure independent human rights monitoring and humanitarian assistance to this region of Indonesia.

Although news from Aceh is limited and independent human rights monitors have been forced into hiding, reports of the massive military campaign in this region are alarming.  They indicate that serious human rights violations are occurring and that a humanitarian disaster is looming.

Many villagers caught up in this conflict have been subject to rights violations including extrajudicial killings, torture, rape, and destruction of schools, houses and even whole villages.  Activists including human rights workers have been put on ‘wanted’ lists and, in some cases, those arrested by the military have ‘disappeared’.  Reports of the displacement of many thousands of people also raise concerns about the humanitarian needs of a population that has few reserves of food and shelter.

The member churches are very concerned about this crisis and pray that the warring parties will end hostilities and return to the negotiating table as soon as possible.

National sovereignty should not be a barrier to international action when human rights abuses are occurring.  For the sake of the Acehnese people, we call for the access of United Nations Human Rights monitors and humanitarian agencies, noting that the UN often operates in such capacities within the borders of sovereign states.

We also support the immediate access of humanitarian NGO’s to assist with provision of food, shelter and medical assistance to those who are being displaced and injured in these military operations.

We call on the Australian government to urge the Indonesian government through all available avenues to accept independent human rights monitoring and humanitarian assistance as a matter of urgency in Aceh.

• On the 10th Anniversary of the Lutheran Church
  becoming a member of the NCCA

• Australia at a Turning Point - Hugh Mackay

• Manningham Civic Service - June 2008
• Role of Religions in Promoting Intercultural
Understanding for Sustainable Peace in the Asia Pacific Region - November 2007
• Address to the 6th National Forum - July 14 2007 
• Launch of Kerker - July 11 2007 
• Dreams and Visions: Considering Our Ecumenical Future
• The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006
                               - A Letter to the Prime Minister
• The Church's contribution to moral issues facing today's society
                               - Armenian Apostolic Church 40th Anniversary - April 2006
• Federation of Africa Communities Council
                               - November 2005
• Letter to NCCUSA & Church World Service
                               - Hurricane Katrina - September 2005
• Islamic Congress Dinner - April 2005
• Ecumenical Impressions - May 2003
• Address to ARPA - August 2002
• Enlarging the Circle of Trust - September 2001
• Reparations and Reconciliation - August 2001
• Project Abraham: The Holy Bible - January 2001

• Article for Sight Magazine

The Revd Professor James Haire (2003 - 2006)

• Keynote address, Annual Meeting
Tasmanian Council of Churches - May 2005
• 12th General Assembly, Christian Conference of Asia,
D T Niles Memorial Lectures - April 2005
• Stolen Generations Memorial - May 2004
• Opening of Federal Parliament - February 2004
•  Assessment of the Service of Pope John Paul II