There is a debate raging within the Anglican Church of Australia at the moment around the issue of the blessing of Same Sex Marriages. At the end of last year the Appellate Tribunal of the church (essentially the equivalent of the High Court for Anglicans) delivered an opinion on a liturgy developed and authorised by the Diocese of Wangaratta which would allow for the blessing of same sex marriages performed outside the church.
The tribunal chose to apply a novel definition of 'doctrine', (which was contrary in the view of many to the plain meaning of the word as understood for essentially all of Christian history), in order to opine that the liturgy is not contrary to the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. This was despite comprehensive submissions from the Board of Assessors and the House of Bishops, both of which supported the traditional orthodox view.
In response to this opinion being handed down by the Appellate Tribunal the bishops struck an agreement to wait until General Synod met and could address the opinion of the Tribunal. There has however been at least one use of the liturgy in the Diocese of Wangaratta and it is well known that in other parts of the church there have been 'unofficial' blessings taking place for years whilst diocesan leadership has turned a blind eye.
It is clear that revisionists intend to push ahead with authorising same sex marriage blessings. As mentioned there is a bishop's agreement in place which has so far held firm to hold off doing anything until General Synod meets. However There is a general understanding that no matter what General Synod says (it has re-affirmed the traditional understanding of marriage as recently as its last meeting in 2017) revisionists will push forward with the blessings.
With this in mind Gafcon Australia has announced that they are planning to create an extra provincial structure in order to provide alternate episcopal oversite of orthodox parishes who find themselves in Dioceses which have taken a heterodox position.
As a result of this the Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia, The Most Rev Geoffrey Smith wrote a letter to bishops condemning the actions of Gafcon while claiming that the revisionists had shown great restraint. Most concerning for me was the Archbishop's implication that those conservatives that support the actions of GAFCON are in danger of breaking their vows as Anglican clergy:
My expectation is that people who say they are committed to the Anglican church, and who have made oaths and promises upholding its constitution and canons and therefore its governance processes, would be committed to keeping it strong, united and effective. I have to say this is difficult to see in Gafcon’s statement and proposed actions.
What this fails to address is the fact that the only reason that orthodox Anglicans are making preparations is because revisionists are willing to break their vows of ordination which include:
Will you faithfully and humbly minister the doctrine, sacraments and discipline of Christ, as he has commanded and as this Church has received them?
(From 'The Ordinal', A Prayer Book for Australia - Again emphasis mine)
How anyone in the revisionist camp can claim that they can uphold the vow to minister doctrines as the church has received them, whilst simultaneously seeking to change that doctrine is beyond my understanding. Yet the primate elected not to address this clear breach and instead chose to target those who are simply putting in place contingencies. The idea that Gafcon Australia and its supporters are eager for a 'quick exit' simply shows that the Archbishop doesn't understand Gafcon.
Making preparations as a contingency is not the same as wanting to use that contingency. If we were to look at other parts of the world where Gafcon has done similar things we will find it is only AFTER the church/diocese elects to make a change in doctrine which is contrary to scripture - and is no longer the doctrine of the church as it has been received that Gafcon has acted. The same is true here - the great hope of all who uphold the orthodox position is that Gafcon's extra provincial structure will never have to be used. The great hope is that bishops will not walk down the path of heterodoxy and will uphold their promise to:
...correct and set aside teaching that is contrary to the mind of Christ, both privately and publicly urging all to live according to God’s word...
As noted above however, the sad fact is that there are bishops in the church who will push ahead with this change no matter what General Synod says when it can finally meet. Gafcon knows this, the revisionists know this and anyone suggesting otherwise is either very naïve or just isn't paying attention.
When that happens there will be whole churches and individual clergy who find themselves in a difficult position, where they may feel they are unable due to conscience, to stay under the leadership of their bishop. At that point they have tough choices to make:
1. Stay, with the intention of simply getting on with orthodox ministry despite being part of a heterodox diocese. This doesn't solve the issue of being under what they see as heterodox leadership, and being part of the diocese would require the parish to financially contribute to its upkeep and diocesan ministries which were against their own beliefs.
2.Walk away. This is an option for clergy and for individual lay people or whole congregations. They may choose to simply leave the church and take up membership and ministry in other churches. The cost of this is great - they will lose their Anglican identity, and historical and familial connections to buildings etc. Clergy may seek to move to orthodox dioceses rather than leave the church altogether at the cost of uprooting their lives and families.
3.Go with Gafcon. This may be an option for whole churches, where they could seek to move under the oversight of the bishop of the proposed extra provincial diocese. This will be painful also. For example it is unlikely that Diocesan bishops will be willing to let these churches continue to use their buildings. However, they will remain Anglican, under the leadership of an Anglican bishop. Where they go as a whole church they could maintain their current clergy and lay leadership.
The truth is these options are all horrible. The best outcome would be for the church, its bishops and clergy to hold firm by upholding and teaching the traditional orthodox doctrine of the church as it has been received and taught for 2000 years and which all the ordained have vowed to uphold.
This post will discuss abortion, and may be upsetting or distressing for some. If you believe you may struggle with this topic, I encourage you not to read on, or to read it in the company of someone who can support you. I am always available to talk and provide support for any of you, don’t hesitate to call me.
As I commence I want to be clear: If you or someone you love has had an abortion, you/they will not face any judgement, hate or discrimination from me. You and/or they are welcome here, you are loved here and you are deeply loved by God.
Recently there has been significant media coverage of a letter written to the Prime Minister and co-signed by the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney and the Primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia. Much media reporting has been rather uninformed or outright sensationalist on this issue.
So what exactly did the Archbishops write to say? Are they demanding a boycott? Are they anti-vaccination? Despite the sensationalist reporting, no they are neither of these things.
The letter in fact begins with a clear statement that the Archbishops are praying for an effective vaccine to help bring an end to the pandemic. The concern raised is that the the vaccine for which that the Australian Government has signed an agreement to procure, should trials be effective, is one which is being researched with the use of human foetal cells which have been cultured and grown for research, the original cells used to begin this culture were taken from an electively aborted baby.
This along with initial statements from the prime minister that the vaccine would be made 'as mandatory as possible' raised concerns for the Archbishops that some people may find themselves with an ethical dilemma regarding taking a vaccine that was developed using tissue that while now many years removed, was originally taken from an electively aborted baby.
The Archbishops do acknowledge that for some people, even those who have a significant concern regarding the use of the cells, the cells in use now are sufficiently remote from the abortion that occasioned the original cell line that there will be no impediment in taking the vaccine. Their concern however is that there will be some who despite the 5 decade gap will find themselves unable to accept something they know began with such an ethical problem.
The Archbishops therefore ask the Prime Minister for 3 assurances:
(1) that the use of the AstraZenica/Oxford University COVID-19 vaccine will in no sense be mandatory; (2) that no-one will be pressured to prescribe, dispense or consent to the use upon themselves or their dependents of the vaccine against their conscientious religious or moral beliefs or disadvantaged for failing to do so; and (3) that the government will ensure that an ethically uncontroversial alternative vaccine be made available in Australia if it is achieved.
So as you can see the main concerns of the Archbishops centre around the fact the vaccine is being developed using a cell line derived from a electively aborted human foetus and secondly that it may be made compulsory for people to take this vaccine - even if it goes against their religious or moral conscience to do so.
Addressing the ethical concerns:
So now we have established what the clear concern of the Archbishops is, how do we address it? Well firstly we can look at the work of Christian ethicists who have studied this specific issue in the past.
The Pontifical Acadamy for Life (A Vatican group especially established to support a pro-life stance) was asked to consider the issue of vaccines developed using cell lines from aborted foetus' in 2005. In their comprehensive response they make the point that where there is no other option available, and there is a serious health risk either to the individual or to wider society should a Christian refuse the vaccine, the Christian should take the vaccine for the benefit of the health and safety of themselves, and especially the wider society in which they live.
The document (which you can read here: https://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/vaticandocument.htm ) makes the point that Christians could and should still argue for the cessation of research using aborted human foetal cell lines, but until there is an alternative available they should also do what they can to protect health and life by taking the vaccine, and argue for the research and development of alternatives which don't benefit from these cell lines.
In 2017 the academy addressed this issue again in the context of vaccines for Rubella, Hepatitis A, Polio and other diseases which also use these same cell lines:
The technical characteristics of the production of the vaccines most commonly used in childhood lead us to exclude that there is a morally relevant cooperation between those who use these vaccines today and the practice of voluntary abortion. Hence, we believe that all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience and that the use of such vaccines does not signify some sort of cooperation with voluntary abortion
As you can see the key point is that whilst there is an ethical problem with the use of electively aborted babies in research, what is being done now is so far removed from that issue that it should not be a hindrance to people receiving a vaccine. This is because from an ethical stand point the breach is at the point where the abortion and harvesting of cells takes place. Those who utilise a vaccine decades later, which uses cells which are genetically derived and descendant from that event cannot be held to have participated in it or endorsed it.
The Academy also makes the point that research using cell lines from aborted human foetus' does not involve continual harvesting of cells or organs from abortions. In fact the cells lines in use today are from two abortions which were conducted in the 1960's. The cells that were taken from those babies were then cultured and have been grown in laboratories ever since. This means that the cells that are in use for research now are NOT in fact from a foetus, they are cells grown in a lab using technology, which are genetically the same as those which were taken from a foetus 5 decades ago, but which are obviously NOT the same cells.
What about me? What do I think?
This is a challenging issue. As I have made clear before on this site, my personal view, which I regard as Scripturally sound is that abortion should be a available for medical reasons to protect life, while believing that elective abortion where the mother or another child is not at risk should not be supported. Based on that., you may believe that I have an ethical dilemma with using vaccines which use these cell lines.
However I tend toward the same view expressed by the Pontifical Academy for Life. It was ethically wrong for the cells of an electively aborted baby to have been taken for research purposes, and where there are alternative options available they should be used. However, where no such options exist there is no sin or ethical breach in a Christian using a vaccine derived from cell lines which are 50 years separated from the original ethical breach, and which are in reality no longer foetal cells, but are in fact lab grown cells.
Also, as I think with sadness about the two babies who were lost to the world, I give thanks that despite their loss, their lives have been given meaning through what has been achieved through their cell lines. Literally millions of lives have been saved because of the vaccines that were developed using these cell lines. Their lives should not have been taken, but they were, so now we are left with a choice to make - do we reject a possible vaccine because of the tragic loss of these two babies 50 years ago, or do we focus on saving lives now, and honour the memory of these babies who though they were never born have contributed to the saving of millions.
From my perspective there is no genuine ethical dilemma for a Christian or any other person who is morally opposed to elective abortion in receiving a vaccine derived from the cell lines of aborted foetus'. While we should rightly argue that it should not happen again, the fact is that the cells that are utilised now are so far removed from the moral breach that occurred in the 1960's that there is no compulsion on us to boycott the vaccine or encourage others not to take it. In fact the morally right thing for us to do is to encourage as many people to get vaccinated as possible in order to protect as many lives as we can now.
With that in mind I believe that the Archbishops letter was not helpful in the current climate, and while the ethical concerns raised around abortion and the use of foetal cells are genuine, they have adequately been examined previously.
I encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated once there is a safe, tested vaccine available - whether it uses these cell lines or not.
Finally, I acknowledge again, this is a challenging topic, and for some it will have brought up painful memories and heartache. If that is you let me again re-iterate if you or someone you love has had an abortion, you/they will not face any judgement, hate or discrimination from me. You and/or they are welcome here, you are loved here and you are deeply loved by God.
Let me also say if this post has distressed you please know you can talk to me without fear of judgement or condemnation. However if you would prefer to talk to someone else please call:
Pregnancy Help Australia:
Offer post abortion support and counselling.
24 hour support:
1300 792 798
Lifline: 24 hour counselling support:
13 11 14
You can read the letter from the Archbishops below:
As someone who suffers from chronic pain it is one of my great frustrations when doctors/nurses ask you to rate your pain out of 10 without providing any context to enable an accurate reporting.
The problem is if I say that my pain is a 7 I am providing a response based on my history and experience of pain and what I 'think' pain at that level would be like given my history. It is an appalling measure because it actually tells the clinician very little about what the pain is actually doing and how it affects the individual - and I have repeatedly seen and experienced zero follow up questions to gauge why the person rates it that way.
Why is this so bad? Mostly because it provides a subjective response by the patient, which is then subjectively interpreted by the clinician based on their own (different) experience of pain and what they believe any particular rating means.
What's the problem with subjective interpretation of a subjective rating?
Glad you asked.
The problem is the clinician may feel a rating of X is no big deal, and take the view that someone is over-reacting and just needs paracetamol tablet. What they fail to understand is that the individual who rated their pain as a X interprets that to mean that their pain has passed the point of being bearable and is having a major impact on their lives - they don't rate higher because they have experienced a major trauma in the past which was more painful than this - so they base their rating on that experience which the clinician knows nothing about. In this scenario, the clinician if they were experiencing the same pain may have rated significantly higher - but they hear the number X, roll their eyes and tell the person to go home and rest... Yes, I have experienced that.
So what is the solution? If everyone experiences pain differently and reports pain levels based on previous experience etc. how do we get a measure that is more objective? Well pretty easily actually.
What we need is for all doctors, nurses and clinicians to be reading from the same script. What we need is for them to ask patients to rate their pain on how it actually affects their ability to function in day to day life.
I first saw a similar rating system to this provided by a member of a chronic pain support group I am a member of, but this is by far the best I have seen. Yes it still gets a rating out of 10, but the rating has a clear explanation of what that actually means, which gives the patient an objective way to report what they are actually experiencing and the clinician some actual context and understanding. It also gives a starting point for clinicians to ask further follow up questions.
Now of course this rating system isn't perfect. However this is a million times better than a smiley face chart or a question asked without context. It allows the patient and the clinician to both understand what is being said when a patient rates their pain.
If all hospitals, GP's specialists etc used a standard pain chart like this, I believe it would see a huge leap in understanding. When everyone is working with the same understanding we may actually see treatment appropriate for the pain.
Some will want to point out to me that medical professionals are given training to understand pain like this chart describes - the problem however is that they never show their patients the chart and as a result patients report based on subjective experience, which doctors then misinterpret. How do I know? I have been a pain patient for 16 years and have never seen anything like it before today, even in a pain specialist's office. But I have been asked countless times to rate my pain out of 10. Without a clear understanding of a scale like this, very few people for example are going to rate their pain as a 4 out of 10 if it is so bad they can't adapt to it and it never goes away as described in the chart, without the context provided 4 would to many seem a very low for that kind of pain.
I know that using a tool like this won't be a magic fix. I have seen and experienced the doctors who refuse to believe your pain level no matter what you say. I have seen the doctors who refuse to prescribe medication no matter the clinical need and make excuses about how the government sends nasty letters. I have seen the doctors who are more interested in assuming people are addicts and giving them lectures rather than helping them. Having a chart like this to work from won't stop the lazy and incompetent doctors/nurses do better, but for the vast majority who genuinely want to help their patients it will be a good objective place to start as they work together to find the right treatment.
So I intend to copy this picture, take it to my doctor, encourage them to use it with me and with other patients when discussing pain. I intend to explain I want to use it because it provides a clear objective place for us to start a conversation about your pain. Maybe you'd like to as well?
I went to a new doctor today. We have recently moved and it was time for me to renew a prescription for medication that I take daily for chronic pain. The response of the doctor was not to enquire about my background, nor my general health or well being. Instead he proceeded to give me a condescending lecture on how he had been practising medicine for 15 years and had never given anyone pain medicine as strong as the one I am on not even bone cancer patients (Which if true is appalling, because bone cancer patients are generally given medication such as fentanyl - which is literally hundreds of times stronger than what I take to deal with their pain)
He told me he would write one prescription, to give me 'time to find someone else to handle you.' He then said he would be willing to see me again only if I went to a pain specialist... I had already mentioned that I was prepared to see anyone who can help me... but he wasn't listening. He was too busy explaining to me that he didn't want to be getting emails from the government, which he views as threats, asking if he is sure he needs to be prescribing opiates.
Then, when referring me to a pain specialist he informed me that he was going to refer me to someone in Victoria well over 13ookm from my location and I could speak to them over Skype. I asked if I could be referred to someone more local because that would surely be better for ongoing care... so he referred me to both, because the local one costs money upfront and may take a while... I told him the cost was irrelevant and I was prepared to pay anything to get real support, he ignored me, he just wasn't interested in what I wanted, or felt or needed. I left the surgery with my prescription for one box of medication and the referral was sent to the pain specialists.
On the way home, I cried. I am a 38 year old man, and I cried because I had been made to feel like a school boy being scolded by the headmaster. I cried because I was treated like a lying drug addict out to get a score. I cried because I have been struggling to get proper treatment and support from doctors for 16 years, and in my previous doctor I had found someone who genuinely engaged with my care and supported me... and today I took a huge step backwards.
I suffer from chronic pain. I have been suffering from this pain in varying degrees since 2004 when I had a back injury while in the Navy. However over the last 8 years especially the pain has been steadily getting worse. Over that time period I have had multiple MRI's, x-rays, bone scans... you name it. I have been put on countless medications. The only thing that has actually helped with ongoing pain relief is the current medication I am on which is a controlled release opiate.
I deliberately only take the medication once a day, even though it is designed to be taken twice, because I know that opiates are dangerous, I know they can lead to addiction. So I take it in the morning to get me through my day, but at night when possible I just go to bed early because laying down relieves the pain (most nights I am in bed at 8:30). I tried to explain these things to the doctor... he wasn't interested and cut me off to continue his lecture.
Today I cried because I went to see someone who is supposed to help, and instead they put my mental health back to a place that I hate - Today I started taking an anti-depressant again for the first time in 6 months because my mind is back in the black hole.
Why am I writing this? Am I seeking attention? Do I want people to call me or come up to me and tell me how they read it and check on me? No. Please don't - I am ok. I will be ok.
I am writing this because what happened to me today is not OK, and the fact is, it happens to people every day. Doctors are being told that opiates are the enemy - I get that - and it is true when abused they are incredibly dangerous and can cause incredible damage.
However there are literally millions of people like me, who are suffering, and who have found that opiates DO work for us. They do relieve the daily pain we endure, and because of that they help our mental health as well. Suffering chronic pain wears you down, both physically and psychologically, getting relief has a major impact on our ability to think, and feel.
The message needs to change. Doctors need to stop looking at opiates as the enemy and the people who take them as 'addicts' or at best 'addicts in waiting'. If doctors do their jobs and manage their patients well, then opiates are no more dangerous than any other medication. My previous doctor would ensure I was back to see him monthly for assessment, he would take the time to listen to what I was experiencing, and would occasionally change medications (because different opiates affect different receptors) in order to manage the risk and prevent dependency.
The key for me though is that doctors need to stop lecturing and start listening. The doctor I saw today could have delved into my medical history, he could have asked about my general health and wellbeing, he could have checked on my mental health. Instead he lectured, condescended and completely ignored everything I had to say.
I will see the pain specialist, I am more than happy to explore alternative treatments. But I will be looking for a new GP, I will be looking for a doctor who actually considers their patient's wellbeing and doesn't jump to conclusions based on one prescription.
Please pray for me, and pray for the doctor I saw today. Pray that he is willing to open his heart and mind and think more carefully about how he engages with patients. Pray for those who are making decisions about what doctors are told about opiate medications, that they consider that while dangerous if misused, they are vital for the health and well being of millions when managed properly. Pray for the thousands of people who are likely to get treated the same way I did today by doctors who are more concerned about giving lectures than engaging with and caring for patients.
Yesterday Eternity published an article written by Mark Powell who is the Associate Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Community Church. Mark presents 10 'reasons' why Christians shouldn't engage in Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country ceremonies... and for some reason also throws in an uninformed rant about smoking ceremonies.
So lets look at Mark's 'reasons':
1. It takes away from the worship of God. The Bible declares that “The earth is the LORD’s and everything in it” (Psalm 24:1) and that God says “I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols” (Isaiah 42:8). Hence, the practice of things such as smoking ceremonies to ward off evil spirits is completely at odds with Christian theology.
OK... acknowledging and giving respect to people apparently takes away from the worship of God... Let's look at the opening of the acknowledgement of Country used by Bishop Chris McLeod provided in his article on this topic :
We acknowledge that God is sovereign over all land. Everything in heaven and earth belongs to God. We acknowledge the Kaurna people as the traditional custodians of the Adelaide region in which this church is located, and we respect the spiritual relationship they have with their country.
I don't know about you, but it seems pretty clear that God is first and foremost here - God is acknowledged as sovereign creator, as the one to whom all belongs. You see doing a welcome or an acknowledgement of country takes nothing away from God - it in fact honours Him first and only acknowledges the fact He entrusted custodianship of this land and waters to certain people groups... where have we seen that concept before I wonder...(c.f. Genesis 12).
As for the smoking ceremonies... it is a completely different topic. But to be clear, smoking ceremonies when done in the context of Christian worship are used as symbol of cleansing and of our prayers rising before the throne of God (Revelation 8:3-4), they have nothing to do with warding off evil spirits.
Lets move to No. 2
2. It leads to syncretism. Following on from this, because Aboriginal cosmology is pantheistic – God and the creation are one – there is a tendency for the traditional religious beliefs to be fused
Where to start. Aboriginal cosmology is pantheistic? Well it is true some parts of Aboriginal spirituality exhibit signs of pantheist ideas to be sure. However In my own people's spirituality there is an 'All Father' Creator Spirit (Called Baiame), from whom all of creation comes. He is not part of creation, He is separate to it...yes there are many other spirtual beings in our Dreaming Stories - but all of these also only exist because of the All Father's creation, and they mould and change the created land and waters - they do not create them themselves - nor are they the same as or part of them. Essentially there is one creator and then there is creation, including humanity, animals, land, sea and spiritual beings. Sound familiar?
However if we move on from Mark's clearly misinformed and also rather insulting take on Aboriginal spirituality, he then makes a remarkable claim -He claims acknowledging that Aboriginal people are traditional custodians of the land and waters of Australia leads to Syncretism...He then promptly demonstrates this alleged syncretism by pointing to an article written by CEO of Common Grace Brooke Prentis which he (mis)quoted completely removed from context - Brooke did not refer to Uluru as'the most sacred and holy place'. She had spent a significant part of her article explaining that all lands and waters are holy and sacred because they all come from God as creator, and in the actual sentence that he pulled this wording from the full sentence is:
'This weekend, I was in a place that I consider one of the most sacred, most holy of places. Uluru.'
You see Brooke at no point equated creation with creator, she at no point even came close to suggesting that creation should be worshipped or idolised. I encourage you to actually read her full article. For Mark to have deliberately misquoted Brooke like this to try and establish some form of 'evidence' to support his syncretism claims is appalling - and sadly I can't think of any way this could have happened accidentally.
3. The parallel to ancestor worship. Official Indigenous protocols insist that words like “Elder” should be capitalised to acknowledge the continuing real presence of those who have died. (This is also why there is a warning on television programs which show images of deceased Aboriginal people). However, acknowledging Aboriginal “Elders”, past and emerging, is not simply honouring the memory of the departed – like many Australians do on Anzac Day – but is more akin to the ancestor worship still practised by many people today.
The more I read of Mark's article the less I believe he actually knows anything about Aboriginal people, our customs and beliefs. Protocol dictates that 'Elder' be capitalised because it is a title! It is capitalised for the same reason that we put a capital at the start of Rev. or Dr. or Mr, Mrs, Miss, Ms... etc.
The reason that there is a warning on TV programs which show Aboriginal people who have died is precisely because they are NOT still here and it is considered to be insensitive to show the persons image or speak of them directly because they are no longer here.
Then of course there is the next unsubstantiated claim - that acknowledging those leaders who have come before is different when it is done for Aboriginal people, apparently when we acknowledge past elders we are worshipping them... but when non Aboriginal people acknowledge those who have gone before its totally different... presumably because of... what?
4. Biblical peacemaking principles of forgiveness teach that past sins should not be continually re-raised once they have been repented of. However, these prescribed “politically-correct” statements do precisely that. They have the practical effect of perpetuating guilt, while allowing no final resolution or real reconciliation to occur.
Now we start to see Mark's real motivation start to come out. He objects because he sees these ceremonies as 'politically correct'. He also makes a hash of trying to use 'biblical peacemaking principals'. He seems to think that acknowledging that we meet on land that was forcibly removed from others is 'perpetuating guilt' without offering solution, while also leaving the implication that we should all just move on - it's the classic line from racists rehashed - 'why don't you just get over it, it was years ago'.
Well here is the thing - the fact that this appallingly ignorant article has been written by a Christian pastor and published by a Christian organisation demonstrates that people simply do not understand Aboriginal culture, or the history of this nation. That tells me if we want to see genuine peace making, and genuine reconciliation, we need more of these ceremonies and more education on the real history of this nation.
5. The political nature of language. The secular form of language used in Indigenous protocols (such as “Traditional Custodians,” and “Respect to Elders”) is neither politically nor theologically neutral. As such, if we are serious about reconciliation, then we ought to use biblical language to express theological truths of sin, repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation.
Mark again betrays his real motivation - which actually has nothing to do with Christianity - he objects because he sees it as 'political', and clearly not on the right side of politics for Mark. The fact that he sees using a term such as 'Respect for Elders' as being anti biblical raises some alarm bells though - the BIble is in fact clear that we are to honour our elders... (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16; Leviticus 19:3 & 19:32; Job 12:12 & 32:4; Matthew 15:4). Now I assume as a good Christian man Mark seeks to follow the will of God in honouring his elders? So why the opposition to merely showing respect to Aboriginal elders? The more I read and reflect on Mark's words the more I worry about his view toward Aboriginal people in general...
Traditional Custodians is the other term he rejects as being neither 'politically nor theologically neutral'... I'm not sure how to respond to that - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders had custody of this land for thousands of years... it is simply a fact that our peoples are the traditional custodians.
6. It implies guilt by association. There is a growing pressure in our country to conform to a progressive social agenda involving identity politics. As such, to what extent are Christian denominations – or their individual members – responsible for historic crimes committed during the colonial period of Australia? Whereas injustices have tragically occurred, we should be careful of condemning our own spiritual forebears or of implicating the church today through guilt by association.
Mark again lays his own political agenda over the top of what is actually being discussed. I am no 'progressive' with a 'social agenda involving identity politics', I am however a Christian who seeks to follow the example of Jesus in showing honour and respect to all.
To what extent are Christian denominations responsible for historic crimes? It depends doesn't it? What did the denomination do? When did it do it? Has it been involved in truth telling? Has it apologised for the previous actions? Has it made any attempt at genuine reconciliation with the people they wronged or their descendants? All of these things matter.
To what extent are individuals within denominations responsible? They aren't. No-one believes that Individuals should be in some way held accountable - however church bodies? You bet. Just as churches are being held responsible for historic child abuse because of the appalling policies they had in place at the time, so to they should be held responsible for the crimes that they committed against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
I would love to know when Mark believes the 'colonial period' ended, and presumably therefore when all the crimes against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people ended?*
I could go on... but instead,
7. Theft must involve financial reparation. While many regularly acknowledge their guilt of dispossessing Aboriginals of their land, very few are willing to make financial restitution. But if one truly believes that they are in possession of “stolen property”, then they should give it back and not simply engage in disingenuous displays of virtue signalling. What’s more, this should be done by the individuals most concerned and not merely projected onto their own particular religious institution.
The implication being of course that Mark doesn't believe he is on 'stolen property'. But here's the thing - the High Court has determined that the land we now call Australia was not Terra Nullius (Land belonging to no-one), it has determined that the land and waters did in fact have owners. That is significant. That means unless there is a treaty in place or a deed of sale, the land and waters of Australia were forcibly removed from their rightful custodians by a superior military force - that is called invasion. Given this clear fact of history, Mark is on stolen property.
Now does that mean he should start paying 'rent' as Mark seems to imply as the only solution in this case? No. There is another solution - it is called treaty. The fact is the land and waters of this country were taken by force by government using military and police at their command. Originally the British government, and then that was passed to colonial governments and then at federation to the Australian Federal and State Government(s). It is at government level where action needs to be taken through treaty and voice - A voice is not a third chamber of parliament, it is an advisory body only. Treaty can bring about fair and just outcome, and is the only logical and fair outcome after an invasion.
Australia is the only Commonwealth nation that doesn't have a treaty with it's Indigenous peoples, which is a clear demonstration that the argument of it being unworkable and too hard is just nonsense.
8. It undermines gospel reconciliation. As the gospel goes out to the ends of the earth, the redemptive power of the cross will continue to deliver God’s chosen people from enslaving idolatries and unite us together in Christ. But Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country protocols support a worldview that privileges Aboriginal culture within our society and thereby hinders – rather than promotes – the work of reconciliation.
Ah, the privileges of being Aboriginal... Is Mark seriously suggesting here that having a Welcome or Acknowledgement prevents people being saved? Is he seriously suggesting that being asked to show respect for the history, culture and people of this nation who have been here for over 60 thousand years is something that splits us apart rather than joins us together?
Here are the simple facts - Aboriginal people are the rightful custodians of Australia, the land was taken by force and without consent. Those are incontestable. Now knowing that, and knowing that we can never undo what has been done, a simple way to acknowledge this truth and the hurt it has caused - and continues to cause - is to say a few words at the beginning of a gathering which acknowledge this truth. If possible it is even better to have a member of the local Aboriginal community offer welcome.
Think about that for a moment, a member of the community who had their land, waters, culture and language all stripped away by force, a person who likely has significant trauma in their family due to the effects of stolen generations, a person who almost certainly knows several people who have committed suicide in their community due to the substantially higher rates in Indigenous communities due to inter-generational trauma... this person doesn't stand up and condemn, rather they stand and hold out their hands and their heart in welcome.
If Mark looks at that person and thinks they are being offered privilege... I am lost for words. If he looks at them and believes they are hindering rather than promoting reconciliation, then I fear he doesn't understand what reconciliation is.
9. It harms Christian unity. Our doctrine of the unity of the body of Christ is harmed since it perpetuates an unnecessary distinction between Aboriginal and all other Christians who live in Australia. In short, it rebuilds the dividing wall which previously existed before the cross (Ephesians 2:14-18; Galatians 3:28).
It harms unity to acknowledge and give respect? Again - this just demonstrates more ignorance - there is no barrier being created here! It is about tearing down barriers! You are being welcomed by someone who has every right to reject you.
For me this is clearly analogous to what God does with us through the cross. He has every right to be mad with us, to reject us, to cast us off, and yet he humbles himself, bears the pain and offers forgiveness and welcome. The only ones erecting barriers are those who reject the welcome.
10. Because the current Aboriginals were probably not the original inhabitants. This is a position historically held by many Australian anthropologists, scientists and academics. For example, Professor Manning Clark (1915-1991) originally argued that the modern Aboriginal was a descendant of a racially distinct, third wave of immigrants, who had themselves invaded and conquered those living here before them.
This is so ridiculously out of step with modern anthropological study that it would be laughable if it wasn't the same kind of trope trotted out regularly by racist groups.
So lets put it to bed. Firstly Manning had a reputation for being a great narrative historian - who often ignored the facts in favour of his view of the narrative*.
Secondly the 'three wave' theory of migration to Australia has been soundly refuted and the vast majority of anthropologists now reject it along with the alternate two wave theory. The general consensus is now that there was one wave of immigration to Australia by the ancestors of the Aboriginal people who still inhabit this land.
Senator David Leyonhjelm made a similar claim to Mark back in 2015 arguing that Aboriginal people were not the first inhabitants of Australia, this claim which the senator clarified was based on his understanding research into 'Mungo Man' and also into rock art was subjected to a fact check by independent scholars over at 'The Conversation'. I include the full 'Review' of the fact check for your reference, and also provide links to the full article and other articles which conclusively show that modern scholarship is in agreement that Aboriginal people were indeed the first to settle these lands:
...The evidence from DNA of today’s Aboriginal populations, as well as those from the past recovered through ancient DNA is revealing new insights into the complexity of the First Australians population history. What we see in the DNA is evidence of an unbroken Aboriginal lineage for well over 2,000 generations.
In conclusion to what has turned into a much longer piece than I had envisioned. Mark's piece demonstrates an almost complete ignorance of Aboriginal culture, practice and history. It uses terms of the political right and far right to attack a perceived (though in my view non-existent) political slant to the issue. He uses arguments that are often used by racists and their supporters, to be honest I was waiting for him to use the line 'I'm not a racist... but...' or 'I have friends who are Aboriginal'...
Now I want to be clear, I am NOT accusing Mark of being a racist, I do not know him, and one article doesn't provide me enough evidence to make such a judgement. What I will say is that this article demonstrates the same tired, disproven arguments based out of ignorance that many racists use. I hope that Mark will take that on board and seek to learn and be better informed going forward.
I encourage All churches to include the use of welcome or acknowledgement of country, because it pretty much does the very opposite of what Mark's article suggests: It shows honour and respect to people and creation without elevating either to divine status. It brings us together for genuine reconciliation through truth telling, and sharing together. It is a way to educate our people on the importance of creation, care for it, and honouring others - even those we don't always fully understand.
NT Intervention Facts:
On the claim Aboriginal people weren't here first:
The below is a copy of a letter I wrote to my parishioners in our weekly pew sheet for Sunday 11th August 2019.
This week I am writing about a very challenging topic. My letter will deal with the topic of abortion, and may be upsetting or distressing for some. If you believe you may struggle with this topic, I encourage you not to read on, or to read it in the company of someone who can support you. I am always available to talk and provide support for any of you, don’t hesitate to call me.
I have real concerns about the abortion legislation which has been passed by the NSW lower house this week. Now this is an emotive and polarising topic. Let me be absolutely clear, if you or someone you love has had an abortion, you/they will not face any judgement, hate or discrimination from me. You and/or they are welcome here, you are loved here and you are deeply loved by God.
I know having an abortion is an incredibly hard decision, and it has long lasting emotional, psychological and sometimes physical effects. And while the traditional Christian view on abortion is that it is against God’s will, because it amounts to taking another human’s life, it is not something that God will forever hold against you, it is not something that is unforgivable.
When we turn to Jesus for forgiveness and restoration, we are forgiven everything. I want to make this clear because I know that sometimes in the past (and even today in some parts of the church) people are made to feel unwanted, unloved and unforgivable for having had an abortion—that is simply not true. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (c.f. Romans 8:38-39).
What I do encourage, though is if you or a loved one is struggling with having had an abortion in the past (or any other thing), if you are struggling with doubts, or guilt, if you are not sure of God’s love or forgiveness, please ring me and arrange a time for a private sacramental confession. As always in a confession anything you share is completely confidential, I cannot share it with anyone—not even my wife. Speaking out loud your fears, your brokenness, your heart ache, and hearing those words of absolute forgiveness, hope and restoration in the absolution is a powerful and liberating experience, and I truly wish more Anglicans would avail themselves of it.
I want to tell you also, that if you disagree with my view on this, as always you are welcome to do so, and I would be happy to have a private chat with anyone regarding this or any other issue.
A view compatible with scripture:
So what exactly could be a Christian understanding of this issue? What would be acceptable in legislation for us as we seek to honour God, and value the life of all people? These are my own thoughts on this very difficult topic—I believe them to be honouring of scripture, honouring of life and also honouring of women.
Interestingly, based on this understanding the only thing that needed to be changed in NSW, was removing abortion from the criminal code, as it is already legal for women to acquire abortion where medically necessary. Abortion itself was not illegal in NSW as has been reported in some parts of the media, only abortion without a valid reason, such as protecting the health/life of the mother was illegal, it has been readily available for decades where there is a valid medical reason.
So, if it was already legal, why do I have concerns about the new laws? Primarily because they could allow for the abortion of a baby right up to birth, and do not require that there be a valid medical reason.
That means, that technically under the new law it would be possible for someone to procure an abortion at 36 weeks pregnant, due for example to a relationship breakdown, and no longer wanting the child. Now of course that is a very unlikely scenario, and even if it did happen it would be exceptionally rare… but why would we want to allow it to even be a possibility? Why would we not close that loophole in the interests of protecting life?
My second reservation is around the new provision for those less than 22 weeks which means abortion would be an ’on demand’ service. It will no longer need a doctor to say it is medically necessary to protect health or life—abortion will be done essentially no questions asked, up until 22 weeks. This opens up the possibility of gender selective abortions, where, primarily girls, are aborted by people because they aren’t as valued as a son in certain cultures—there is already evidence that girls are being selectively aborted in Victoria (see article from The Age)
Finally, and incredibly importantly, we as a society, if we want to lower the number of babies being aborted, need to provide proper care and support for mothers—especially young single mums. We need to provide access to medical, psychological and spiritual care for pregnant women, that allows them to know all of their options, including options for adoption where a woman is not in a position to care for the child post birth.
Other situations that lead to abortion include domestic violence and abuse, and again this is a place where we as a society should be demanding our governments provide proper care and support. Women in danger from their spouse should never be forced to face the added trauma of choosing to terminate a child.
I want to conclude this week by again emphasising that if you and/or someone you love has had an abortion—for whatever reason—you will never face judgement from me. I want to also re-enforce that you are deeply loved by God, and that nothing you or anyone has done, can ever separate us from that love, that hope and that forgiveness.
If this letter has distressed you, and you need to talk, please don’t hesitate to talk to me, or if you would prefer to talk to someone else please call:
Pregnancy Help Australia:
Offer post abortion support and counselling.
24 hour support:
1300 792 798
Lifline: 24 hour counselling support:
13 11 14
Within the Anglican Communion we often see those on the liberal end of the theological spectrum choosing to ignore our formularies and make up their own doctrine on the run.... today though I found an example of a conservative evangelical Anglican Church doing the same thing... Their website makes the following statement:
"Baptism is a sign or a seal. It neither confers God’s grace, nor is it a precondition to receiving God’s grace (his gift of salvation)."
Now, that may seem fairly innocuous and many non Anglican evangelical Christians would have no problem with it... however if you are an Anglican Christian you cannot accept this.
Why? Because those same formularies that we as conservatives so often direct the liberals to, also reject the notion of Baptism being a mere sign with no effect.
Lets look at what those formularies say:
In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer it says in the Catechism (emphasis mine):
Question. How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in his Church?
Hmmm…. Our friends said “…nor is it a precondition to receiving God’s grace (his gift of salvation)…” But it seems the Book of Common Prayer views it differently, making it clear that Baptism is in fact generally necessary for salvation… there will be exceptions, for example where it was impossible to baptise someone for some reason… but generally it IS necessary.
Question. What meanest thou by this word Sacrament?
The baptism is a sign, yes, but it is a sign of something that is actually happening – in fact it is the means by which that something happens. What is that something? Grace! So our friends have it wrong again when they say: “…It neither confers God’s grace,..”
Question. How many parts are there in a Sacrament?
So Baptism is actually a means by which we receive the grace of God through dying to sin, and being born anew unto righteousness. Our sinful nature is overcome, the wrath of God against us is overcome through his Grace and we are made His children.
It seems Baptism is much more than our friends at this church would have us believe. But lets look a little further shall we? Let’s examine relevant articles from The Articles of Religion – also part of the standard for doctrine in the Anglican Church of Australia - again the emphasis is mine.
XXV. Of the Sacraments.
So we see Article 25 declaring that the sacraments (including Baptism) are not mere ‘tokens’ but are in fact effectual signs of God’s grace being invisibly worked in us… in other words the baptism is the means by which the grace comes.
XXVII. Of Baptism.
Article 27 is clear also – speaking specifically about Baptism, it declares that it is not only a sign of profession, but is in fact the very instrument through which we are grafted into the church – i.e. it is through Baptism that God pours forth the grace of God to adopt us as His children.
It is clear then, from the catechism and Articles that if we are to call ourselves Anglican, that we must hold to the belief that Baptism is not merely a ‘sign or seal’, but that it is in fact an outward and visible sign of the invisible grace of God acting in the soul of the person baptised. Baptism therefore does bestow the grace of God, which leads to us dying to sin and being reborn to righteousness. We are transformed through baptism to become ‘children of grace’ rather than the children of wrath we were born as and for this reason Baptism is generally necessary for salvation.
Then of course in the Nicene Creed we declare that we "acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins"... Through baptism then, our sins are remitted - in other words we acknowledge that God has established Baptism as the primary way in which we receive the Grace of forgiveness bought for us through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The baptism is not the thing that saves us - we are saved by the grace of God, through faith. However God has given us baptism as a means by which to receive that grace, We are called to put our faith in Jesus, that faith is enough to save us, but Jesus gave us baptism as a way to experience that saving grace in a real, tangible way.
Am I arguing then that someone can be baptised as an infant and then live a life without faith and still be saved? No. Of course not. Baptism pours out grace, the grace of forgiveness and adoption, but just as with any gift (grace means unmerited gift) we need to accept it, and we accept the gift of forgiveness and adoption given in Baptism by putting our faith in Jesus - it is the faith that actually unlocks the grace - it is the faith that saves us. So the baby is baptised in anticipation of their own faith, with promises made to raise that child in the faith of the church. If they as an adult reject the faith, the grace (unmerited gift) they have received is also rejected.
Recently a footballer in Australia listed a group of people he believes need to repent or face judgement after death - while also assuring them that they are loved and anything can be forgiven - the media and activists become apoplectic and his employer sacked him because it is unacceptable to say something so offensive - the offence being that he included homosexuals in that list of sinners who needed to repent.
Meanwhile our closest neighbours just to the north, regularly drag people into the public square and repeatedly whip them with a cane for 'getting to close to the opposite sex' or sex outside marriage and also for engaging in homosexual behaviour. Homosexuals and fornicators face up to 100 lashes.
What is the response of our media? - simply a matter of fact article that describes what happened (view it here). No outrage, no lengthy commentary about how the religion that endorses this (Islam) is horrible or backward or bigoted, no declaration that people who do this are extremists or fundamentalists. No cries of homophobia, no demands for action. In fact not even one harsh word.
People have told me many times this year that I am basically imaging things when I suggest that the media has an anti-Christian bias. Things like this however demonstrate the hypocrisy in the media when reporting anything to do with religion. To see it in action just wait for the next prominent Christian to say something that can be construed to go even marginally against what is the new social orthodoxy - there will again be outrage, calls for sackings, boycotts, mocking of Christians as 'sky fairy' worshippers - then recall and compare the article about homosexuals facing 100 lashes in Indonesia...
The media seems to become obsessed whenever a Christian makes a comment or suggestion that goes against the grain of society. Meanwhile the Islamic extremists to our North are publicly beating people for holding hands. Meanwhile child marriage is still being practised in this country, meanwhile female genital mutilation is still happening... but there is no outrage, there is no vitriol, no calls for boycotts, sackings and certainly no mocking of believers. To mock our Muslim neighbours for their faith would be Islamophobic!
But the argument still goes that Christians aren't being targeted by the media and by activists. Ironically, the mere fact we raise it as an issue is reason to mock and ridicule us more. The suggestion that we need religious freedom protected not just for us but everyone (because the freedom to believe, practice and manifest what you believe is a recognised human right) is instead made out to be a grab for 'power' or a demanding of 'special treatment' or the 'right to be bigots' because apparently wanting people who are employed by a faith based organisation to uphold the teachings and values of that faith is bigoted - yet no one ever suggests that political parties are bigoted for only wanting to hire people who are wiling to support and uphold their particular ideology.
No-one would bat an eye if the Greens fired someone for publicly advocating that climate change is a hoax, yet if a Christian school wants the power to sack someone who publicly advocates for things that go against their religious teaching and beliefs (say same sex marriage) then they are horrible bigots. Of course Islamic and Jewish schools want exactly the same right protected - to ensure people working in a faith based organisation support and promote that faith - but strangely there is no mocking of those organisations, no declaration of bigotry... hmmm...
So how do we deal with this? How do we as Christians respond to a society that is becoming increasingly hostile to traditional, orthodox Christianity? With love of course! We need to respond by loving the world around us, by loving our neighbour as ourselves - even the ones who mock us and ridicule us. We need to show the world the love of God poured out in our own lives and in how we relate to the world. What does that look like though? Do we withdraw from the public square? Do we cede to the demands to keep our faith to ourselves, caving in to societies mantra that 'faith is private'?
No, we don't do those things, instead I think we need to be bold, we need to engage and we need more than ever to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We will face opposition, and I suspect that as time goes by it will only get harder, society is on a trajectory which is moving away from faith and towards a militant kind of secularism - and this will affect not just us, as the activists and media seem to think, but also our Muslim, Jewish and Hindu neighbours. It will have a chilling effect on the freedom of faithful people of all religions, and be detrimental to the harmony of our pluralist multicultural society, as religious people withdraw into fear based 'silos' cut off from the hostility outside - indeed there are already mainstream Christians suggesting we do just that.
I don't think that is a viable or worthwhile option. I argue that in the face of ridicule and mocking, we need to respond with care and respect. In the face of threats to employment and reputational consequences, we need to speak the truth of the Gospel, the hope of the Gospel, the love of the Gospel. That means unlike much of the Christian commentary of the last few decades we cannot continue to be 'one issue' people. Issues like abortion, and same sex marriage have tended to dominate Christian commentary on society. While these are important issues and Christians can and should speak on them, we need to move away from speaking judgement - judgement belongs to God not us.
The key is that whenever we speak to the world outside the church, we need to speak not from a place of judgement, not from a place of condescension, but from a place of genuine concern, love and respect. We should only speak into the public debate for the promotion of the Gospel, and to give a Gospel focused voice into public discourse. That means we don't seek to condemn those outside the church, we instead seek to convict them through sharing the good news of God's love, forgiveness and hope.
We don't need to be targeting expectant mothers and homosexuals and warning them about judgement and Hell, we instead need to be walking along side them and sharing the love of God, being open, and supportive. Yes that will mean that when it comes up we will be honest about our view of things like same sex marriage, but our view on something like same sex marriage or abortion should not be the basis on which we establish a relationship with someone. The truth is we will never convince someone of God's love for them by seeking to argue with them, or by condemning them or their loved ones. Telling someone they are going to burn in Hell isn't loving - that footballer I mentioned at the start of this article should take that on board.
If we want to bring people into relationship with God, if we want them to know they are loved, that no matter what they have done they can be forgiven, restored, and made whole, starting with: 'you are a horrible sinner who is going to burn in hell', isn't a good strategy. The core of the Gospel message is found in these words:
‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
Jesus died to save us - all of us. God loves us enough come to earth as one of us, to suffer and die for us, to rise again for us. His desire is to save us, and he does that because of his incredible, all encompassing love for us. If we want people to turn from sin and the desires and brokenness of this world, we need to start from the same place God started - love.
I know some of you are thinking that I am suggesting that we ignore sin, that we never mention it, and provide a watered down version of the Gospel. That is not what I am saying. Yes, we need to explain sin, yes we need to encourage repentance, but we do so first and foremost by explaining that our sin is not what defines us, our sin will not be a barrier to God's love. We start by recognising that while justification comes through faith, sanctification is a process and not instant. We should encourage people to identify and confront their own sin, by guiding them to the scriptures, and walking with them rather than making our own judgements, condemnations and demands for change. When we are asked about sin, we do not pretend it isn't real, but we also re-enforce that through Christ, sin and death have been defeated. That we need not fear Hell or judgement as long as we are genuine in our faith and seeking to follow Christ.
Love. Forgiveness. Hope.
In a hostile, angry, broken world, our response should be living the Gospel out through love, forgiveness and hope.
Mental health is a major issue for men in this country. Here are some startling statistics:
> 3 in every 4 suicides in Australia is a man.
> Today 6 men in Australia will take their own lives.
> Another 80 will need an ambulance due to attempting suicide or having suicidal thoughts.
> Aboriginal men are 40% more likely to die from suicide than non Aboriginal men.
> Suicide is the number one cause of premature death for men in Australia, killing more than cancer, heart disease and car accidents which all get much more public attention.
> Veterans commit suicide at much higher rates than the wider community.
This is an issue which does not receive anywhere near enough attention, or funding. We as a society cannot sit back and do nothing while 2000 men each year are dying at their own hand, with thousands more requiring hospitalisation.
The church also needs to step up and be a place which is safe for men (and women) to share their struggles with mental health issues. The leadership of the church need to be equipped and trained to support and refer people with mental health issues to appropriate professionals.
We especially need to be conscious of groups at higher risk, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men who are 40% more likely to commit suicide than non Indigenous men*, and members of our ex-service/veteran community where we see veterans under 30 are twice as likely to commit suicide and those over 30 18% more likely.
As someone who fits all of these categories (Male, Aboriginal and a member of the ex-service community) this is an issue that hits close to home for me, even more so as I have my own mental health struggles and am being treated for depression.
We need to help men understand that it is not weakness to suffer mental health issues. If we aren't ashamed to tell people when we get any other form of illness outside our control, we should not feel shame about mental health issues.
If you know someone (especially someone from one of the groups discussed above) please check in on them - sometimes asking if someone is OK is the first step in saving a life.
Please also share these horrifying statistics, let people know that this is happening, write to your local member and call on them to advocate for more funding and more support for men's mental health.
If you need support please call Beyond Blue on 1300 22 46 36 or
Lifeline on 13 11 14,
Members of the military and veteran community and their families can call Open Arms on 1800 011 046
if your or anyone else's life is in immediate danger please call 000
Beyond the Emergency - A national study of ambulance responses to men’s mental health
The Complex link between defence service and suicide
Creative Spirits - Aboriginal Suicide Rates
There is a lot of media attention at the moment about the appointment of The Rev Dr John Shepherd as the interim director of the Anglican Centre in Rome. The holder of the position essentially acts as an ambassador of the Anglican Communion to the Holy See - so it is a position of significant importance, and the holder of the post needs to be someone that can represent the official position of the Anglican church in ecumenical dialogue. This should be a person that can be supported by the broad spectrum of Anglican churchmanship - and also by the Vatican.
The problem is that Dr Shepherd is not such a person. Now I want to be clear I do not know Dr Shepherd personally, I do not make judgements about his general character as a man. I'm sure he is a perfectly nice guy - I can however make a judgement, based on his publicly espoused beliefs, that he should not be in this post, and in my opinion, that he should not be in Holy Orders.
Why? Because as reported in multiple places Dr Shepherd does not believe in the most fundamental of Christian doctrines - that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact he has preached this openly - during an Easter service of all places! He has also shared his view in op-ed pieces in the West Australian Newspaper. Why does that matter? Because as St Paul makes it clear in his first letter to the Corinthians:
.... if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Scripture then is clear - the resurrection of Jesus is absolutely fundamental to the Christian faith - and without that resurrection, the Christian faith is simply a waste of time.
So that raises some problems for Dr Shepherd. If he rejects the resurrection, he then declares Christianity and its teaching - as St Paul says useless - and the scriptures to be false.
How then can he even be in holy orders? Surely if he no longer believes the faith he vowed to uphold at his ordination (assuming he believed it then) he should stand down. Yet he doesn't stand down and instead he is rewarded for his blatant heresy, by being put into a high profile representative role.
This of course tells us a couple of things - the process for appointing someone to this significant role is very flawed, and there is also a fundamental problem within the Anglican Communion and within the Anglican Church of Australia which allows clergy who are openly espousing views in direct contradiction to their vows of ordination to not only get away with it, but get promoted into positions of authority and major significance. Dr Shepherd should not have been the Dean of Perth, and he certainly shouldn't be director of the Anglican Centre..
This is not an isolated incident, we have seen this previously with clergy in the Australian church. Rod Bower in Gosford, who as David Ould has reported, openly says Jesus didn't die for our sins, and that there is no such thing as heaven or hell, and also that God isn't a divine being was rather than being disciplined for heresy, made an Archdeacon. I could point to many more.
I have no doubt that there are many Anglican (and other) clergy out there who over time may come to have views contrary to the position of the church. Over non fundamental things this isn't really a problem, but when we find ourselves with clergy who stand up in church each Sunday and recite the Nicene Creed with their fingers crossed because they don't actually believe it, that is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable because it shows an incredible lack of integrity on behalf of the church leadership which stands by and lets these people lie to their congregations, to their colleagues and to the wider society they serve when in leadership roles. It also shows an incredible lack of integrity from those who are happy to continue to stand in front of their congregation each week, and take the stipend (salary) which is paid for through their donations, while not actually believing in, or upholding the faith they vowed to uphold when they were ordained.
To be clear, I am not asking for clergy to be perfect, and I am not asking for everyone to believe and behave identically - The Anglican tradition is broad, and we have room for evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics and Charismatics alike. I understand that there are areas within the Christian faith which are more grey than black and white, and that we can agree to disagree on those, without compromising our faith or the Gospel message. But when an ordained man or woman no longer believes in the fundamentals of the Christian faith, when they can no longer honestly recite the creeds of the church, they need to stand down - and if they won't, then the church leadership needs to deal with it - by removing them from ministry.
Daryl is an Anglican priest living in regional New South Wales Australia. Learn more on the About page.
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of my church or any other organisation I am affiliated with.