Thank you, Wayne Sanderson, for drawing our attention to this article by Paul Collins and published on John Menadue’s Pearls and Irritations.

Stan Grant is always intelligent, insightful and provocative. He demonstrated this in his extraordinary farewell piece last Monday night on the ABC’s Q+A.

I have enormous respect for Stan Grant. Always intelligent, thoughtful and provocative, he has been an important contributor to intellectual life in Australia. His strength has been to move discussions on from the sterile economism and superficial secularism that characterises so much of our national dialogue, to the deeper philosophical and spiritual issues underpinning Australian culture.

That’s exactly what he did last Monday night on Q+A. In a three-and-a-half-minute piece to camera at the end of the show he took us to the heart of First Nations culture. Rather than bleating about racist slurs, he said that he was withdrawing from the media because “endurance is not always strength. Strength is to know when to say ‘stop’” and that, he said, is why he is pulling back from public life.

A Wiradjuri man from south-central NSW, Stan Grant said that his culture taught him to respond to the hatred directed to him and his family by drawing on “Yindyamarra”. He conceded that “it’s a word beyond translation to English because … it’s an idea … a way of living, a way of being.” It means strength in quietness, kindness and respect. “It speaks to the differences between us … [It doesn’t] shy away from the things that divide us, but looks for ways we can meet each other and see each other in each other, despite those divisions.”…………………

Go to:

Vale, Stan Grant – Pearls and Irritations (johnmenadue.com)

oOo

Recorded on October 17, 2022, in Fiesole, Italy.

Does God exist? Something—a being, a power—that’s supernatural? That is, an entity that we’re unable to perceive with our five senses but that’s still real? Ever since the Enlightenment, the knowing, urbane, sophisticated answer has been, “Of course not.” Now a historian, a scientist, and a journalist talk it over and reveal new threads in the debate around science and theism.

For further information: https://www.hoover.org/publications/u… Interested in exclusive Uncommon Knowledge content? Check out Uncommon Knowledge on social media! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/UncKnowledge/ Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/UncKnowledge/ Instagram: https://instagram.com/uncommon_knowle…

Tom Holland author of Dominion: the Making of the Western Mind (previously reviewed on the UCFORUM), also known in the USA as Dominion: how the Christian revolution remade the world

Stephen Meyer author of Return of the God Hypothesis: three scientific discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe

Douglas Murray author of The Strange Death of Europe: immigration, identity, Islam.

Get the coffee going, a quiet space and a comfy chair! Enjoy.

Paul

oOo

In affliction I am presented with a choice: surrender to the hopelessness brought upon us or to reach for hope?(ABC Alice Springs: Lee Robinson)

Stan Grant says:

“This Holy Week I have sat with affliction.

I have pondered the great suffering and abandonment in our world.

I think of those who know war, famine, oppression; children torn from their families; those who die lonely deaths in dark places. Those who live under the yoke of injustice.

Why?

For a First Nations person and Christian there is no more chilling prayer than the prayer of the forsaken.

The French philosopher and Christian mystic, Simone Weil, called affliction “the chill of indifference”.

It is, she said, “the metallic chill that freezes all those it touches down to the depths of their soul”.

Affliction is the cold hand of fate. The afflicted know that cold touch. First Nations people, the poor, the sick. The LGBTIQA+ people recently attacked outside a church by others proclaiming the word of God.

Simone Weil said of affliction that it “is anonymous. It deprives the victims of their personality and turns them into things.”

The afflicted cry out: Where is God? How can a God who wills all, allow such horror?”

To read the full article go to:

As we debate the Voice, I can’t think of a more profound meditation than affliction – ABC News

oOo

Thanks to Paul Wildman for this link.

from Frontline Study with Fritz Foltz

Christians have two options when it comes to war. They can either be strict pacifists, or they can espouse a just war theory. The latter is not that easy. Certainly, one of the most difficult ethical issues is drawing up moral guidelines for fighting wars. At every step, you must prevent national self-interest from trumping all other considerations.

Still, most people feel there should be some kind of accountability for actions, even in warfare. That includes rules about entering a conflict, agreements on fair conduct during it, and responsibility after it ends…..

To read the whole article and explore other topics with Fritz go to:  Lesson 5: Just War Theory (Part 1) : Frontline Study

oOo

UCFORUM subscriber: Rev Dr Lorraine Parkinson has written this article for the the UCFORUM. It is a case for looking at the First Peoples with a much wider camera lens than is usually the case.  She hopes it will make a positive contribution to the conversation around the Voice and the forthcoming referendum.

+++

It is fair comment that history is written by the winners.  Until recently the authors of Australian history from Captain James Cook onward may well have been described as such.  Harvard philosopher George Santayana’s adage: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”, bears repeating.  As this nation prepares to vote yes or no to the proposal to include the Indigenous Voice in the Constitution, Santayana’s axiom begs the question: are there lessons of history from which modern Australia is still failing to learn?  Where the original inhabitants of this continent are concerned, the problem may lie partially in the absence of historical records that could have been understood as such.  Before the arrival of Captain James Cook and his compatriots, apart from the odd European or Asian encounter with indigenous people, the continent of now-called Australia had not produced what in European minds could be called recorded history.  Ancient indigenous laws, art, song lines, dreaming stories, handed down traditions of daily life, could all be called a kind of history, as they speak of a mind-blowingly ancient civilization.  But who ruled it?  Where were records of the boundaries of tribes and indigenous nations?  What milestone developments had taken place in the lives of the people?   Eurocentric questions, one and all.

Non-indigenous modern Australians may think, so what?  The culture of the First Peoples is now known in sufficient detail to inform us of their lifestyle, including their deep relationship with the land.  Yet what has been regarded as ‘real’ Australian history taught in Australian schools, has until recently always begun with Cook and continued on through white explorers, federation and Australian involvement in overseas wars.  Attempts to include the First People’s story in the school curriculum are usually framed by lessons in culture, perhaps tribal and familial structures, some attention to traditional languages and, mainly for young children, spiritual resources such as ‘dreaming’ stories.  A didgeridoo player and indigenous dancers at public events, plus ‘acknowledgment of country’, are widely thought to be all-sufficient means of ‘paying respect’.  It is true that those developments are helping to bring Australia’s First People into sharper focus in the minds of contemporary Australians.  But surviving indigenous traditions differ from perceived ‘legitimate’ European history, where records of monarchs and their conflicts mark the shifting boundaries of tribes and nations.

The historical records of the colony that became Australia reveal that in the first encounters between First Peoples and white colonists, the prevailing European mindset could do no other than come to a comprehensively misguided perception.  For them, the lack of any sign of property ownership among the indigenous people meant the absence of civilisation as they knew it.  In their minds that left the way wide open to the complete (often deadly violent) appropriation of the whole continent.  As the indigenous people did not have ‘ownership’ of anything, particularly of tracts of land, it was believed to be legitimate to declare the land empty – terra nullius. 

 Or so they thought. There was no attempt to ask questions about the nature of the land itself and how the First People had regarded it in the absence of those Eurocentric property-based signs of civilisation.  The people were dismissed as primitive; apparently not worth the bother of investigating.  Only very recently have shameful massacres of indigenous people been included in Australian History.  Nowhere have the heroic efforts of indigenous warriors to defend their land in Australian wars been properly documented.  For those who survived the savagery of the colonists, the future was enforced deportation from their ancestral country into open-air prisons, otherwise known as reservations and missions.  That there still exist traditional customs, paintings and memories among Australia’s dispossessed people, brutally separated from the land that gave birth to those traditions, is nothing short of miraculous.  Yet those ancient traditions are now in danger of extinction, under the influence of racist-based alcohol-induced hopelessness in the current generations.  The disappearance of indigenous languages spoken under the southern skies for millennia is hardly disturbing the flow of modern Australian history.

Yet some understanding, or at least curiosity about the way of life the explorers and colonists found among the First People, must surely have begun with the first attempts to establish a European-style civilisation in the new land.  That process required absolutely everything apart from rocks, trees and water, to be brought across the sea.  Ship-loads of everything needed to set up farms and villages and towns had to be imported.  Ways of producing food for the settlements were invariably copied from the ‘mother’ country.  In the first instance, everyone knew that a farm has domestic farm animals – the cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and chickens needed to establish and resource permanent dwellings and settlements.  No such creatures had been sighted by the earliest discoverers of the Great South Land.  Neither had they seen evidence of crops grown from grains such as wheat, oats, barley, rice, corn.  Nor were there potatoes, pumpkins, peas, beans, turnips, tomatoes, apples, plums, apricots, peaches, pears and so on.  All needed to be brought here.

Most importantly, how could the land be cleared for the introduced grazing animals and ploughed for crops, without the most important animal of all – the horse, or even a bullock or donkey?  Other continents had those, plus camels, elephants, llamas or alpacas.  There were no draught animals anywhere on the Great South Land.  Climbing aboard a kangaroo was out of the question, as was hitching a wagon to a dingo or a wombat.   Without draught animals, inventing the wheel was unnecessary; unthinkable, to say the least of it.  All of those foundation stones of European civilisation were highly conspicuous by their absence.  So they all arrived on ship after ship, along with dogs, cats, rabbits, foxes, deer, trees such as elm and oak and the flowers of an English garden.

Apart from the work of a few anthropologists, it is unclear that while busily recreating Europe Down Under, any intentional investigation of the ancient way of life on the land was seriously entertained by successive Australian governments.  Few people looked past the colonial perception of the First People as ‘primitive’, to ask how they lived without what the settlers regarded as essentials.  Did anyone wonder how those colonists themselves might have lived without the resources they brought with them?  If anyone did think to ask that, around them were people who could have answered such questions.

Recorded Australian history has a long way to go to reach a sense of completion in the 21^st century.  That can happen only when the unique and enduring alternative civilisation that has lived and thrived on the Great Southern Land for tens of thousands of years is held up and celebrated for its own achievements.   Only then can an informed change in attitude truly overcome contemptuous inherited racist attitudes toward the First People.   When their unique relationship with the land, expressed in daily life on it and deep spiritual understanding of it, is recognised and respected, then Australia can begin to wake from its more than two-hundred-years-old sleep.

For at least 60,000 years this continent has never been terra nullius.  Beyond the understanding of the colonists, the first inhabitants of this land did have and still have, a comprehensive relationship with the plains, deserts, forests, mountains, lakes, rivers and coasts that provided them with all they needed to live and thrive as tribes and nations.  Their knowledge of the seasons of flowering and fruiting trees and plants, of the inland and ocean waters, plus the migration patterns of animals and birds, undergirded a lifestyle of moving on to where food was plentiful as the seasons went by.  For the most part a permanent dwelling was simply impracticable – out of the question.

Only lately have government departments begun to take real notice of the handed-down expertise of indigenous people in preventing big bushfires and conserving wildlife.  How much more can be learned about caring for this unique continent from those who have always known it best?  In this age of changing climate and its devastating effect on the land and its native animals and birds, the voice of the people of the land is sorely needed in the decisions of governments.  An indigenous ‘Voice’ to Federal Parliament, enshrined in Australia’s Constitution, would be one positive step in the direction of equality in living and life expectations.

Devoid of the burden of racist attitudes inherited from the Eurocentric impressions of colonists, a movement toward a wider view of history can open the way to respect and reconciliation.  The Uluru Statement from the Heart is an amazingly generous invitation from the First Peoples to all other Australians to join them on that journey to equality.  Australian history will be complete when the whole nation gathers yearly to celebrate the unique civilisation that has lasted for 60,000 years on this Great South Land.

Lorraine

oOo

Response to the call for submissions to the

Strengthening Community Safety Bill 2023 (Q)

from Peak Care (in summary)

ABOUT PEAKCARE’S SUBMISSION
Given the overlap of children and young people at risk of entry to, or in the youth justice system, with those engaged with the child protection system, PeakCare has a strong interest in youth justice reform including appropriate, proportionate, effective, timely, and holistic responses and interventions for children, young people and their families which also keep communities safe. With a longstanding history in advocating for better understanding and management of the complex intersection between the child protection and youth justice systems, PeakCare’s motivation in lodging this submission reflects the following:
• the need to address both the welfare and justice needs of children and young people who have been or who are in contact with the child protection system and the youth justice system,
particularly those who are subject to dual (interim or finalised) orders
• ensuring local access to prevention and early intervention services, responses and programs
for children, young people and families to ‘nip problems in the bud’ or ‘turn their lives around’
– the right service at the right time from the right provider for the right amount of time
• children and young people’s rights and entitlements (and that of their families) to understand
and participate in administrative and judicial decision-making
• congruence in legislative frameworks and the administration of youth justice, child protection,
and intersecting service systems (e.g., education and training, youth development, family
support, housing and homelessness, legal services and legal aid, health, alcohol and substances
misuse) directly or indirectly delivered across Queensland Government departments and their
agents
• the impacts and opportunities presented by adopting specialist and other reforms to court
processes and policing practices across Queensland
• developing specific strategies to address the disproportionate representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in the youth justice system, and
• the importance of underpinning policy directions and reforms with research evidence,
undertaking appropriate evaluation and acting on evaluation findings in a progressive and
transparent manner.

Consistent with these areas of interest, PeakCare wishes to express its disappointment with the Bill which we suggest will detract from the Government’s progressive work undertaken in the past to improve the youth justice system within Queensland. We consider that provisions contained within the Bill prioritise the offender status of children and young people and do not appropriately consider the fact that the children and young people who offend are first and foremost still children – children who are still developing physically, psychologically, socially, and emotionally and already have a relative powerlessness and lack of voice in our society. We consider, in alignment to the findings of the report into the evidence-base for the Child First Justice Initiative in the United Kingdom, the prioritisation of a child or young person’s offender status in youth justice responses can lead to further criminalisation within and by the youth justice system, increased marginalisation by society, and further disengagement by the child or young person.

PeakCare strongly supports appropriate diversionary interventions and addressing the causes of offending by children and young people to take priority over punitive and inappropriate punishments, and ensuring offending is considered only one part of a much more complex identity for these children and young people.

PeakCare appreciates that the Bill has, at least in part, arisen in response to the tragic deaths of a number of Queensland citizens. Their deaths, along with the death of Jennifer Board in Townsville, the innocent victim of alleged vigilantism, prompted immeasurable grief and an outpouring of public concern about youth crime widely reported on by the media. PeakCare also appreciates that the Government has attempted to confine and target the policy objectives of the Bill towards the small cohort of recidivist youth offenders who engage in persistent and serious offending. Little commentary is included within the Explanatory Notes about how these particular policy objectives fit within or are intended to support the Government’s overarching approach to youth crime.

Nevertheless, PeakCare’s concerns are that:
• some children and young people additional to those who constitute the targeted cohort will
inevitably become ‘swept up’ in the heightened responses, thereby reducing benefits of other
elements of the Government’s youth justice strategy in diverting these children and young
people from continuing on a trajectory into the adult criminal justice system, and
• assumptions have been made about the value of a number of the proposed provisions in
deterring children and young people from committing further offences that are not sufficiently
supported by research or an evidence-base.

Lindsay Wegener
Executive Director
PeakCare Queensland Incorporated

The full submission is available from (Rev Dr) Wayne Sanderson.

oOo

Thanks to Tim O’Dwyer for drawing us to this article from Project Plenty in the Queensland Synod of the UCA:

By Rev. Orrell Battersby, Gympie Regional Uniting Church.

“These words I speak to you are not incidental additions to your life, homeowner improvements to your standard of living.

They are foundational words, words to build a life on.

If you work these words into your life, you are like a smart carpenter who built his house on solid rock.

Rain poured down, the river flooded, and a tornado hit — but nothing moved that house.

It was fixed to the rock.”   (Matthew 7.24-25. MSG)

Has Church Become More Ceremonial Than Functional?

A vivid illustration of the ‘ceremony out-doing function’ occurred during an event that called for Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth to slice a relatively small cake with a rather large ceremonial sword.

As she was handed the sword, typically wielded to award knighthood, it became clear that manoeuvring the enormous blade would be far from a piece of cake’ (sorry).

For the complete article go to: Has Church Become More Ceremonial Than Functional? – JourneyOnline

oOo

Thank you to Rev Dr Wayne Sanderson for drawing our attention to the following:

This is an edited version of Rowan Williams’s (former Archbishop of Canterbury) contribution to the collection Statements from the Soul: The Moral Case for the Uluru Statement from the Heart, edited by Shireen Morris and Damien Freeman, and published by La Trobe University Press.

The issues discussed in Statements from the Soul are not just about political rights. Properly understood, they are about some fundamental principles to do with how human beings think about and feel about their environment. Colonialism takes it for granted that land and all that goes with it — wildlife, natural resources — is a bundle of objects that can be owned. If no one is claiming to own it, or if someone else judges that a current owner is managing it inadequately, it can legitimately be appropriated.

Hence the terra nullius argument was regularly deployed in the early days of imperial expansion and was heard well into the twentieth century: there may be inhabitants around, but they obviously have no interest in the land as an asset and so cannot be said to count as proprietors. And once again, in the early days of modern colonialism, you can find a significant moral philosopher like John Locke arguing for appropriation on the grounds that, even if there are long-established populations in evidence, these existing inhabitants are not competent to be stewards of their own environment.

For the rest of this article go to: Religion and Ethics

oOo

From our respected indigenous friend and subscriber: Glenn Loughrey

Glenn has worked with young people and their families for over 30 years in various fields. He’s currently a Vicar at St Oswald’s Anglican Church, Glen Iris in Melbourne, Australia.

He’s greatly interested in the work of Thomas Merton and his impact on the 20th century. He is an indigenous man with a particular interest in indigenous issues and spirituality.

Also he is an artist — Learn more at glennloughrey.com

+++

Matthew 5:21-37

In our continued reading of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew’s Gospel, we are confronted with a Jesus who crosses the line. In last week’s reading, Jesus says that he didn’t come to dismiss the law but to fulfill it. In today’s reading, he shows us what that looks like and it is not easy or comfortable.

D Mark Davis suggests that: “Jesus is quite willing ….- to take the Scriptures and recast them for a new moment. Neither Jesus or Matthew can be accused of being biblical fundamentalists when one reads the text.”

Constantly throughout this reading, Jesus says ‘You have heard that it was said‘ and follows with “But I say to you” before moving the pressure gauge up a notch or four! These are not simple acts of just doing what has been the accepted practice, this is about stepping out of our comfort zone, out of our zone of possessiveness (me and mine) into a place where simply living is costly and sacrificial. It is no longer about a sense of I belong to society because I follow the rules of the club. I am asked to make my way into a space where there are no rules except love, the custodial ethic embracing others as us and ensuring they receive more out of life, even if that means we give up our privilege.

He shifts the ethic of the law to the ethic of compassion. Jesse Middendorf writes: “It is easier to live by lists and laws than it is to live in authentic, dynamic redemptive relationship with people. Laws can be static and arbitrary. Jesus reached into the Law to reveal its objective: the valuing and the protection of others.”

Valuing and the protection of others is not a paternalistic act. We cannot do it to or for others. We can only do so if we live in “an authentic, redemptive relationship with people”, even people who have always been defined by race as the outsider, the indicator of our difference. We are defined by not who we are like but by who we are different to. That is the purpose of the myth of race. To set us apart from those who are not us and cannot be us.

Exile, self portrait of an indigenous man – Glenn Loughrey

Noel Pearson in his recent lecture series made the controversial comment that “Australians do not like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.” People reacted and said I do. I like Aboriginal people, I listen to Gurrumul, buy Aboriginal art, and read Thomas Mayo and Stan Grant……… On a personal and superficial level, this may be so.

But the truth is Australia is Australia because it is not Aboriginal. This dynamic of difference defines this nation, a nation built on racism and exclusion right from its beginnings. The White Australia Policy was a bipartisan policy aimed at the external – those coming from somewhere else. Its lifting changed nothing for Aboriginal people because were not included as immigrants or citizens in Australian society or politics.

Australia is Australia because it was taken from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and there has been no attempt to return it. Land rights have been so decimated by various governments that it has no power or benefits for Aboriginal people. This is an example of what happens when something is left solely to legislation and why the Voice enshrined in the constitution is important.

One could argue that the Statement from the Heart is the Sermon on the Mount set in the desert.

Like Jesus, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are not fundamentalists in terms of interpreting tradition and the laws in which they live. This statement shifts the focus from them to those who came later. It reminds those responsible for the dispossession and genocide of what happened and then offers an invitation to participate in a compassionate spiritual solution. This solution offers Australia the opportunity to share sovereignty with those who have been sovereign for 65,000 years, from the dreaming and to do so in such a way it will remain for another 65,000 years or to the end of time – in the constitution.

Here is compassion in action, love that expands to include those who were and are responsible for the loss of our culture, spirituality, lore, language, and traditions and offers them the opportunity for redemption. Stan Grant is right, the word missing in this discussion is compassion. He asks for Australia to be compassionate and vote to include us in the benefits of being Australian. And that is appropriate.

Not wanting to argue with a fellow Wiradjuri man, I would suggest he is looking at this from possibly the wrong perspective. It is allowing white Australia the power to define us with a stroke of the pen. Compassion has already been extended. It is there in the invitation from our people to your people. It is not about you doing a good thing for us but recognizing despite all that has happened to us since 1788 we still have the compassion to reach out our hand and say journey with us.

Yes, part of the journey is to allow us to share sovereignty with you, in fact, to legitimize the sovereignty imposed in the constitution by including the sovereignty that remains and will always remain. This is compassion. We do not want to take from you what you have, we only seek to enhance it by including us and what defines us, our relationship with this country, in the constitution allowing us to provide wisdom and insight on matters pertaining to us based on a millennium of experience.

It is not up to white politicians, media commentators, newspaper editors, or society to make the decision or to have compassion, although that would be nice. We have already decided to share sovereignty with you and to invite you into a compassionate spiritual process that will incarnate a new kin-dom in Australia. There is no hidden detail or catches. It is what it is. All you must do is accept this invitation by saying yes, I’m in.

• Perhaps one of the reasons people find it difficult is that it is simple, one question, one question only.
• Perhaps another is the scepticism that is rife in our society when someone offers us something we desperately need but fear it’s not real.
• Perhaps another is that people find it difficult to understand how people who have been so badly treated can remain so generous and compassionate that they invite us to let them bring redemption to our society.

Alan Brehm suggests: “We find freedom when we commit ourselves to do God’s will on earth as it is in heaven. We find freedom when we live our lives in harmony with God’s justice and peace and mercy. We find freedom when we embrace a way of living that is defined by love.”

We find belonging when we accept the absurd compassion of those who have no right to extend it. This is the core principle of the Christian gospel. It is the absurdity f the Statement From The Heart.

The Voice is just the beginning.

oOo

The Technology

Technology and the bible

In my previous commentary, we thought about how the books we have in our Bible were selected.  We looked especially at the New Testament selection, the ‘canon’ as it is called by scholars.   This time we will look at the technology that brought us and still brings us the Bible.

We will take a very broad view of technology, starting with writing itself and ending with the ‘digital revolution’.  A few questions to ponder:  How did technology affect the bringing or ‘transmission’ of the Bible down through the ages and across the world?  How does it affect what we think about it?  Does it actually change the Bible itself?  Again, our focus will be mainly the New Testament (NT).[1]

Writing

In the last two centuries archaeologists have unearthed much ancient writing. From Mesopotamia come thousands of clay tablets with a cuneiform script (made with a wedge-shaped stylus).  While most remain unpublished, great poems, loosely paralleling Biblical accounts, have emerged, such as the Creation and Flood stories, and the epic of Gilgamesh in his search of immortality[2].  The Egyptians developed hieroglyphs, a form of pictorial writing, with abundant examples painted on the walls of royal tombs and written on papyri.  Clay tablets found in Crete and southern Greece from the second millennium BCE were brilliantly deciphered in 1952 as primitive Greek in syllabic characters (Linear B)[3], predating alphabetic writing by several hundred years.

The Phoenicians developed an alphabet about the beginning of the first millennium BCE[4], that became with many variations the basis of the Hebrew, Greek and Latin alphabets and by derivation most of today’s Middle Eastern and European alphabets, including English.  An outstanding example of an early alphabetic script in Hebrew was found on the wall of the water tunnel King Hezekiah had cut under ancient Jerusalem in anticipation of an Assyrian siege in 701 BCE[5].  It described the amazing engineering experience of the workmen as they met underground tunnelling from opposite ends.

Writing in ancient and medieval times was mostly the preserve of a specialised caste of scribes and priests, who alone could read and write, along with the ruling class and their skilled staff.  Through most of history until printing, the great majority of people were illiterate, a fact we too casually overlook.  But their memories were better trained than ours[6].  They had to be, there was no mobile phone or internet to fall back on!

Writing materials

So what did they write on?  Carving on stone and using baked clay tablets is great for longevity of preservation, but not very practical for personal use.  Papyrus (from the Nile valley reed, 2 John v12) and vellum or parchment (dried and treated animal skin, 2 Timothy 4¹³) were the main media for ancient books in the West[7], until the technology of paper making spread from China in the 13^th century CE.  Personal notes were made on wax, wooden or soft-metal tablets or on ostraca (pieces of broken pottery or sherds)[8].  The letters were formed by carving, scratching or impression or with quill and ink.  A little reflection shows how limiting and expensive this technology was for the accurate spread of written materials (scriptures), let alone for personal ownership.

Book production

Written sheets were produced by an individual scribe copying from another manuscript or by a group of scribes writing in response to a reader following a ‘master’ text.  Book factories, or scriptoria, were not commonly used by the early Church[9]. Scribes wrote, not at desks, but sitting with the writing material on their legs – the reason the typical width of a manuscript column is 8 to 10 cm.  The posture would have been uncomfortable, indoor lighting poor, spectacles and hearing aids unknown and the hours long.  Although the general diligence of scribes is acknowledged[10], the opportunities for variations and errors to enter texts transmitted in this way were manifold.

In the 1^st century CE, finished sheets were traditionally glued together to form a scroll or book (biblion, Rev 5¹) about 10 m long.  But Christians had moved early (by 200CE) to adopt the new technology of the codex book with leaves sewn on one side[11].  This no doubt facilitated looking up passages of scripture, an incredibly difficult task using a set of long, rolled scrolls.  But the expense was great; 50 to 60 sheep or goat skins would have been needed for a bound parchment manuscript of the whole Bible, like the famous Codex Sinaiticus, before allowing for the enormous scribal labour of copying, checking and illuminating the text[12].  The small fortune required would have been beyond the reach of an average Christian household, for whom memory of Scripture would have continued to be the default method of reference.

Until the 9^th century, Christian manuscripts were written in capital letters, UNCIALS. The words were not separated and punctuation was minimal.  Private as well as public reading was therefore commonly done aloud to aid in the identification of the individual words.  Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah (Acts 8^27-30) and 300 years later Augustine showed his surprise on  finding Bishop Ambrose of Milan reading silently in private, when he visited him (Confessions 4.3).

The text of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6^9-11a) as it appears in the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript (4^th century CE) is shown opposite, with the word divisions imposed on the original in red.

In the 9^th century CURSIVE manuscripts, written in lower case “running” writing began to appear.  They allowed faster production. But by then so many variations had entered the uncial template manuscripts, that the plethora of these subsequent cursives (5-6,000) contribute little to the task of establishing the original text, the role of textual criticism, which we will consider below.

Review

What were the implications of this technology of the Christian Bible in the first millennium and a half of its existence till the advent of printing?  (In the final part of this series we will consider the issue of translation into other languages, including Latin, using both the same and newer technology.)

• Bibles became precious, because Christians believed they contained God’s words, because they were individually crafted and because they were expensive beyond ordinary Christians’ means. Consequently, they were mostly known by memory.  And there would have been much variation in the details of wording because of the heavy reliance on memory and the means of transmission.  Any idea of ‘inspiration’ precisely at the verbal level would have been problematic.
• Christians were early adopters of new technology, notably the codex book, which has been a major contributor to the advancement of Western civilisation generally. Because the codex book allows non-linear access to a text, in contrast to a scroll or a long inscription carved on a wall, scholarship was unshackled.  An early example was the development in the 3rd century of the Eusebian canons or tables, which compared materials in the four canonical gospels.  They are still used in today’s printed Greek texts.
• There was enormous ‘fluidity’ in the text arising not only from the technology of transmission, but also because of editing by its religious custodians.

This was not the Bible as we have known it in our lifetimes!

Mass production

The advent in the West of Johannes Gutenberg’s moveable-type printing press in 1439 and the publication of the printed Gutenberg Bible (in Latin) in 1455 heralded a momentous technological advance for civilisation.  One uniform publication could now be distributed in vast numbers at relatively low cost.  Copyist errors became a thing of the past, unless they were accidentally (or deliberately) incorporated into the printed text, as with the Wicked Bible of 1631, which omitted the negative from the seventh commandment.

From this time pressure began to grow for Bibles to be authorised by both church and civil authorities, examples being the King James Bible (KJV) of 1611 in English and the Luther Bible in German.  The Latin Vulgate had long been the underlying standard for Roman Catholics.  The tide seems to have turned from increasing ‘fluidity’ towards ‘standardisation’.

The other major consequence was the rapid rise of literacy among the populace.  William Tyndale’s wish to put an English Bible in the hands of every ploughboy, echoes the spirit of the times.  The use of the Bible among lay people was beginning to move towards the 19^th and 20^th century experience of every household having and reading a Bible.

Establishing the new testament text

Printing also enhanced the application of scholarship to the Biblical texts in the original languages. Translations of the New Testament into English, German and other European languages were made from a printed Greek text which had been primarily established by Desiderius Erasmus, an esteemed Renaissance scholar.  It was published in 1633 as the ‘Received Text´, or Textus Receptus, by the Elzevir publishing house in the Netherlands, with the division into verses, as we now have it, done for the first time by Robert Estienne (Stephanus)[13].  It was effectively the text on which the KJV translation relies.

As impressive as was Erasmus’ scholarship, his text relied on only a handful of ancient manuscripts.  Textual criticism since the Enlightenment has been prodigious, especially in recent years.  The ‘Received Text’ contrasts with the latest, scholarly ‘received edition’ of the Greek New Testament (Nestle 28)[14], in which over 120 papyri and 280 uncial manuscripts are cited in evidence for the resultant text, most of them many hundreds of years earlier than the manuscripts used by Erasmus.

In its 28 editions across 115 years and building on the inputs of many great researchers[15], the reconstructed Nestle text of the original Greek New Testament represents layer upon layer of research and refinement, leading to the most reliable reconstruction of the originals of any collection of ancient literature in existence.  Be clear, however, that we do not possess any of the actual original documents, from the hands of their authors!.  The earliest piece discovered to date is a tiny fragment of papyrus copied from John 18, dated about 125 CE, perhaps 30 years after John was written[16].

What does it mean?

The nature of the New Testament documents as Christians have received them, moved over 1400 years towards increasing fluidity as thousands of variations entered the text, partly because of deficiencies of the manual technology and partly as the currents of interpretation influenced their transmission.  Since printing, that trend has been reversed, towards ever greater certainty in the reconstruction of the original text.

Another trend has been the huge increase in literacy and the ready availability of written material, including the Bible, in both paper and electronic forms across the world.  Now ploughboys/girls in tropical rice paddies can read the New Testament on their mobile phones.

Technology has also seen an explosion of biblical scholarship.  More research is now being done on the Bible than in all of previous scholarly history, be it in archaeology, history, culture, linguistics or interpretation.  Modern software[17] allows instant access to the analysis of grammar, syntax and interpretation for any passage of the New Testament in the original or translated languages.  Contrast this to the handful of literate first Christians who laboriously unrolled a scroll as they read it out aloud to themselves and their illiterate friends, wrestling all the while in their memories to relate it to some other passages of ‘scripture’.

Are these really the same New Testament documents as we receive them?  Yes, there were disputes back then (2 Peter 3^15-16), but over the same minutiae of interpretation which entangle us?

And ironically, as we shall see in the next part of this series on translation, with multiple versions of any passage instantly available to us through digital media, it is now possible to effectively ‘tailor’ or ‘cherry pick’ the translation of a passage to suit our individual tastes.  The slow cycle we have seen in the New Testament as we receive it, from fluidity to certainty, may now be swinging back again to greater fluidity.  In all of this, where is the Spirit of Truth, who Jesus promised would guide us into all truth (John 16¹³)?

John Court

[1] An excellent summary of the technology behind the Bible was presented by Prof Pamela Eisenbaum (Iliff School of Theology, Denver, Colorado) in her keynote address to the 4th Common Dreams Conference, Brisbane, September 2016, “The End of the Word as we know it?  The Future of Scripture Past”,

http://www.commondreams.org.au/index.php/brisbane-info?id=ARTICLE_61,

[2] Pritchard JB (ed.) 2011 The Ancient Near East:  an anthology of texts & pictures (Princeton Univ. Press), Ch 2.

[3] Robinson A 2002 The Man Who Deciphered Linear B:  the story of Michael Ventris (Thames & Hudson).

[4] The Gezer Calendar on a limestone tablet is an early example, Prichard p287 & Fig 65.

[5] Pritchard p290 & Fig73.  The date is disputed by some.  The photo above was taken in the tunnel by the author in June 2015 – standing in running water!  It is of a replica of the inscription which is now in the Museum of the Ancient Orient, Istanbul.  References: 2 Kings 20²⁰; 2 Chronicles 32^3-4,30; Isaiah 22¹¹.

[6] Botha PJJ 2012 Orality and Literacy in Early Christianity (Cascade Books), Introduction and Ch 5.

[7] Aland K and Aland B (trans. Rhodes EF) 1989 The Text of the New Testament; an Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, 2^nd ed. (Eerdmans), pp75-77.

[8] Lightfoot, NR 2003 How We Got the Bible, 3^rd ed.(Baker), Ch1.

[9] Aland & Aland, p70.

[10] Lightfoot, pp30-31.

[11] Aland & Aland, pp75 & 102;  this was a human technological advance as important as the wheel!

[12] Lightfoot, p51 and Aland & Aland, p77.

[13] Aland & Aland, pp 3-6;  Lightfoot, pp 106-108.

[14] Aland K & B, Karavidopoulos J, Martini CM and Metzger BM (edd.) 2013 Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece 28^th ed. (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft).

[15] K Lachmann, C von Tischendorf, BF Westcott & JA Hort, SP Tregelles, HF von Soden and E Nestle, to name but a few of the prominent forerunners in the discipline.

[16] Aland & Aland, p 85;  Lightfoot, pp 122f.

[17] Logos Bible Software, Bibleworks, etc.

oOo

The work of Robin Meyers is the central focus at tonight’s seminar at Redcliffe Q.

With the current lectionary readings now focused on the Sermon on the Mount, we are reminded of Jesus call to action rather than to belief.

This quote is from his book: Saving God from Religion: A Minister’s Search for Faith in a Skeptical Age.

oOo

From our new friend and explorer:

Brendan MacCarthaigh. “Born Dublin 1938. Eleventh of eleven children, loveless childhood, eventually fled into first escape route available – the Christian Brothers, at 14. Fled further to India at 22, lived there for 64 years, legal realities compelled return to Dublin in 2022, where now am. Negative life experience turned miraculously (yes) positive in 2019, and have lived in that glow since then. Loved India. The meaning of life is God, another name for Love. Have loads of qualifications in various fields. bursting with new ideas, mostly denying the beliefs we have nourished for decades, even centuries., enough about me!”

“One grows foolhardy, I guess, when none of the bullets one is braced for actually strikes. By now you know that for me Jesus is a role-model. I don’t tie up Jesus with religion past the point of his name going on to Christianity as a religion. Religions I am pretty cynical about, regarding them as very useful, very bonding of people (both strong reasons for associating with them, I grant) but insofar as they are exclusive of all interpretations of divinity except their particular one, I dismiss them. They bond adherents – great! They exclude others quite pointedly who interpret God differently – a result of anthropological illiteracy. And that last sentence includes of course Christianity, and its various offspring such as Catholicism, Protestantism, Presbyterianism, etc. as well as the non-Christian faith traditions.

“I suppose I must believe in what is commonly indicated by ‘life after death’.  By ‘must’ I mean, I draw such strength as I have from my association with Jesus, who of course is dead. The Roman soldiers on Calvary knew their job. But I believe that the spirit of Jesus lives in millions of people all over the world, as does the spirit of every other human person who ever lived, but with the difference that the one I refer to lived such a life that his spirit remained and remains influential in the choices millions make about their lives ever since. What’s more, I recognise that those who are not thus influenced are quite likely touched by other great names, and live equally if not more admirable lives as a consequence.

“Thus, if I happen to have a function centering on Jesus, I do not exclude someone who draws all her/his inner inspiration from someone I had never heard of, or had heard of, but do not myself know enough about to find inspirational. For me, as I have said earlier, the entire meaning of life arises out of love. That love is, in my case, modelled after the example of Jesus. Others see it modelled elsewhere. Fine. So long as it is all-inclusive love, I say welcome.

“Yesterday I was at a function where one of the participants quite emphatically dismissed prayer as useless, and that the future of our earth depends not on prayer, but on each of us doing our thing to save the globe from destruction. He dwelt on the idea quite strongly, and in fairness I learned that he was himself, though old, vigorously involved in various measures towards rescuing our earth from her destroyers.

“This issue didn’t arise in the life of Jesus, so there didn’t look like there was any connection there. (I do acknowledge that Jainism and Zoroastrianism might demur, and I appreciate their hesitation. They are an important minority.) Still, this old man had a point. The rescuing of Earth from her destroyers is scarcely a religious issue. Ok?

“Not ok!

“Although the scientist Rupert Sheldrake didn’t intend it, his thesis arising out of, and leading to the term morphic resonance has become a common term in religious literature for quite some years now. Morphic resonance is defined as, a paranormal influence by which a pattern of events or behaviour can facilitate subsequent occurrences of similar patterns. Very briefly, birds in one town discover they can with their beaks stab open the tops of milkbottles, soon other birds living far away make the same discovery. Monkeys discover that it’s easier to rinse the sand off their washed-up coconuts than eat them and then wash the sand out of their mouths, soon other monkeys living far away make the same discovery. Scientists, who devise brand-new equations to explain problems, discover that far away other scientists at the same time are making similar discoveries.

“And so when you and I pray for things to improve in the healing of our Earth, our prayer becomes linked with the same idea all over the place, and action is motivated on a wide scale. This old man’s desperation is understandable, but in practical reality his impatience with prayer as an effective instrument is actually misplaced. Prayer prompts ideas, strengthened by this morphic resonance phenomenon, and ideas lead to practical involvement, because it gathers power in the process of performance.

“Thus, our love for Mother Earth is enriched by our prayer life – and indeed, let me add, by the impatience of this old man, though he may not recognise it, because it strengthens the power of the idea now found all over the globe, thereby prompting the rest of us to do our individual and group best. It is of course helped by the power spelled out in Laudato Si’, while that itself is a result of the listening world to its message.

“God bless.”

Brother Mac.

Link: Leaving India after 62 years.

oOo

Shaping the Basis of Union of the UCA: the influence of progressive thinkers

We are privileged to have received a positive response to our request to Rev John Gunson, author of God, Ethics and the Secular Society: does the church have a future? to produce a brief paper on the influence of the Congregational representatives at the negotiated construction of the Basis of Union first published in 1971 prior to union in 1977 of the Methodist, Presbyterian (in part) and Congregational denominations. The original BOU can be found here.

The historic text of the Basis of Union was prepared at a time when the desire for gender-inclusive language was only just emerging. By the early 1990s there was a need to re-examine the language and the Assembly Standing Committee approved the publication of the 1992 edition, which incorporates relatively conservative changes to the language of the Basis, while seeking to retain its meaning. The 1992 version can be found here.

John’s words below remind us of the importance of keeping the challenge of Paragraph 11 at the forefront of our progressive work.

+++

“Openness to new understandings of the Faith”

As one who was heavily involved in the life of the Congregational churches at the time of the negotiations for union with the Methodist and Presbyterian churches, I believe I can accurately comment on the process by which union was consummated.  While I was not on the Joint Commission itself, which undertook the negotiations and drew up the Basis of Union, I was involved in inter-church discussions and in other ways preparatory to union.

There are those in key positions in the UC today who believe that the Basis of Union was intended as the forever definitive theological basis of the Uniting Church.  Some of those on the Joint Commission may well have believed that, or at least hoped that would be true.

What in fact determined the theological position expressed in the Basis of Union was the pragmatic need to find a basis upon which three very different denominations with widely diverging theological positions could come together in union.  In other words it had to avoid looking like a normative/typical statement of any one of the three negotiating churches.  e.g. “That’s Presbyterian.  We can’t agree to that.  That is a takeover.”  So let’s base it on one of the historic creeds that we give lip service to as part of the church’s history – a kind of neutral ground.  The Nicene Creed is more or less recognized across the major expressions of the church as the first official definition of faith and the first that came out of an ecumenical council.  Among other things it was an attempt to unify the many different theological positions of the time.  Congregationalists recognized the creeds as historic formulations of the church’s faith, and also Reformation confessions such as the Savoy Declaration and the Westminster Confession.  But for Congregationalists none of these were forever definitive, nor were they to be used as tests of faith.

Our union some 50 years ago happened at a time when neo-orthodoxy /Barthian theology was resurgent (that doesn’t mean it was right).  As a young man I had a decade previously returned from post-graduate theological study in the USA , my head filled with the excitement of Karl Barth’s massive and scholarly restatement of theology, in the light of which I moved away from the rather “superficial” expression of 19^th century liberal theology that was characteristic of Australian Congregationalism at the time.  It was this neo-orthodox theology that was being embraced by  the young “turks” and the academics of the three negotiating churches at the time of union.

It should surely be clear to us now that the form our Basis of Union took was inevitably an expression of the times.  Had we come together in the 19^th century we would have had an entirely different Basis of Union,. but simply the best and most pragmatic way to get agreement/union between the churches at the time, and thus subject to review and change.

The majority of Congregationalists would probably not have entered into the Uniting Church if they had not believed that the Basis of UNION was a starting point on which we could come together, not a permanent “once and for all” expression of the faith of the Uniting church.  Such a confession would have been called “The theological basis of the UC’, not the basis of UNION.

The second factor at work 50 years ago was the ecumenical spirit of that time.

Dominant in the life of our three churches, it brought home to us powerfully the scandal of denominationalism and disunity.  I, along with many others, was heavily involved in ecumenical activities and the work and scholarship of the World Council of Churches and the Australian Council of Churches.

Congregationalists historically did not look on themselves as a denomination but as a reforming movement in the life of the church, and we urgently desired and worked for both the continuing reformation of the churches and the unity of the church.  That was a much higher priority than a particular choice of a confession of faith we could all agree about at the time.

We believed that the Basis was a necessary pragmatic concession, in order to achieve union – which we could each interpret in our own way, in spite of its Greek philosophical thought forms, themselves incomprehensible to most.

To make absolutely sure this was the case Congregational representatives on the Joint Commission insisted on the inclusion of Paragraph 11.

Our representatives believed that modern scholarship was giving us new knowledge and understanding of our sources and our faith, and that we expected the Uniting Church to take that seriously.

For Congregationalists the church was always a church under reformation, and not to be imprisoned by a nearly 2000 year old statement of faith, expressed in the limited knowledge and ancient Greek thought forms forced on the church by a Roman Emperor; nor a 2000 year old interpretation of it, nor a modern re-expression of it.   Scholarship and knowledge has moved on, both in our understanding of the world and especially in the new insights into the sources of our faith through the work of the Westar Institute.

Our representatives on the Joint Commission would have approached each meeting of that body with the words of Pastor John Robinson ringing in their ears as he farewelled the Pilgrim Fathers (Independents/Congregationalists) on the Mayflower, fleeing persecution from “orthodoxy” in England for a new life in America in 1620.

Robinson urged them :    “I charge you before God … to follow me no further than you have seen me follow Christ.  If God reveal anything to you by any other instrument of His, be as ready to receive it as you were to receive truth from my ministry, for I am persuaded that the Lord has yet more truth and light to break forth from his holy word. …..  The Lutherans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw  … and the Calvinists  … stick fast where they were left by that great man of God, who yet saw not all things.  This is a misery much to be lamented.”

The Congregational representatives were of course outnumbered and exercised very little influence on the Joint Commission, but insisted on the inclusion of Paragraph 11, their version of which I am sure was carefully re-worded by the drafters of the Basis so as to not seem in conflict with the rest of the Basis.

Paragraph 11 reads as follows:

 Scholarly Interpreters.

The Uniting Church acknowledges that God has never left his Church without faithful and scholarly interpreters of Scripture, or without those who have reflected deeply upon, and acted trustingly in obedience to his living Word.  In particular she enters into the inheritance of literary, historical and scientific enquiry which has characterised recent centuries, and thanks God for the knowledge of His ways with men which are open to an informed faith.  She lives within a world-wide fellowship of Churches in which she will learn to sharpen her understanding of the will and purpose of God by contact with contemporary thought.  Within that fellowship she also stands in relation to contemporary societies in ways which will help her understand her nature and mission.  She thanks God for the continuing witness and service of evangelist, of scholar, of prophet and of martyr.  She prays that she may be ready when occasion demands to confess her Lord in fresh words and deeds.

(Note: Highlight & bold are my emphases).

The first problem with the expression of this paragraph (which I suspect was deliberate) is the heading.  It should have been headed “Openness to new understandings of the Faith”.  But that was not what the majority framers wanted to hear or express.

A third and powerful factor also determining the Basis of Union was the vision expressed in the deliberate wording of our name – the Uniting Church in Australia, not the “United” church.  In coming together we all believed that this was only the first step in a larger on-going process of union, beginning with the Anglicans with whom preliminary discussions were already underway, and ultimately, some dared to hope, even with Baptists and Roman Catholics. (See paras 1&2 of the Basis.)

To even start conversations with Anglicans and Roman Catholics we knew we had to have a theological/creedal basis with which they would readily agree.  Nicaea made obvious sense.  Further, in support of this goal, great consideration was given on the Joint Commission as to the possibility of including Bishops in the polity of the new church.

Again, “The Basis” was about achieving a starting point, and assumed an ongoing reformation and reformulation of the faith, not a capitulation to the other churches with whom we hoped for union, but from which we had deliberately distinguished ourselves since the Reformation.

Ecumenism, unity, and the scandal of denominationalism was the driving motivation, formulation of the faith was secondary and pragmatic (but not to the framers of the Basis.)

Ecumenism and ongoing church union is no longer a central priority of the Uniting Church.   Anglicans and Roman Catholics are only interested in absorbing us, not uniting with us.  The priorities of 50 years ago need no longer delay our urgent attention to a ”fresh confession of the faith” and the ongoing reformation of the church.

John Gunson.    30/1/23

oOo

From Bev Floyd

What else hasn’t ‘organised religion’ understood?

It doesn’t realise people no longer want to be TOLD what to believe. They’ve gone off ‘authority’. It’s let them down so much in the past. A fair proportion of both secular and religious leaders have been arrogant or corrupt or just ‘not up to it’.

AND…

The culture of ‘organised religion’ is very patriarchal. In an era where concerned folk are striving to obtain equality for women, most religious leadership positions are reserved for men… particularly so (and medievally so) in the Catholic church but also in other religions and denominations.

Structures and procedures are also based on what I call a ‘male’ hierarchical model.    It is the ‘who can get to the top model?’ and the ‘who can we kick off the bottom?’ model.

This is a power-based model. Not inclusive. Decisions flow from the top to the bottom. It does have its uses. Emergencies are best handled this way,  as are certain key decisions that need to be made quickly and expertly, such as construction and war (both of which men seem to like and to do so well).

The alternative is a flat structure where decisions are made collectively at the lowest suitable level. It is an inclusive model. No-one is left out. Everyone can participate.      It does take longer and can be challenging to ‘efficiency nuts’ or people who are impatient, but the outcome is better. People feel involved… part of something. Decisions are more likely to fit the needs of the group. I’m inclined to call this the ‘female’ model. It’s emerging more as more women are coming into their own in the secular world. It seems to be a better way of for people to share decision-making and problem solving.

How far behind can ‘organised religion’ get?

The problem seems to be ‘doctrine’… that’s a set of ‘beliefs’ which have been formalised and handed down over many years. They appear to be set in concrete… never-changing.

I suppose for many the idea of something unchangeable in an ever-changing world would make life seem more comfortable, more certain, more manageable.

But people who are searching for ‘Godliness’ should not be using doctrine and churchiness as a mattress to slumber upon… true religion can be a springboard to life abundant… to joy and love and hope.

oOo

Why The Church of England Is Talking About Artificial Intelligence

People are often surprised and encouraged when I tell them about the work the Church of England policy team and its bishops are doing in the areas of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotics. Purple-shirted, dog collar-wearing members of the House of Lords are frequently spotted at committee meetings and sessions on these topics. Indeed, bishops report sensing surprise from some delegates who may be wondering whether the senior Church of England leaders belong in this environment.

Until 2016 the Church of England was not formally involved in this area. Then, thanks to some synergistic happenings, AI and Robotics arrived firmly on the Church of England’s radar.

One of these happenings was a 2016 ECLAS conference at the University of Durham. There, bishops and other senior church leaders were immersed for two days in the world of AI and Robotics. The delegates met research scientists in their labs and saw the painstaking work that goes into training machines to recognise chickens, cats, and dogs (all part of that fascinating area termed ‘machine learning’). They saw the ‘raw’ ‘training’ of machines to accurately perceive distances and objects while in motion, for use in technology to support driverless cars. Our church leaders were delighted to meet and interact with robots. Later, together with scientists, ethicists and theologians, they reflected on big questions emerging from the event. By the end of the conference, if they hadn’t been already, delegates were convinced that it was vital for the Church to engage with AI….

For the complete article go to the link below:

Why the Church of England is talking about Artificial Intelligence – ECLAS (eclasproject.org)

oOo

by JOHN COURT –  JANUARY 2023 [ previously in 2018 for Eastwood Uniting’s quarterly magazine, Contact]  

John Court ‘put bread on the family table’ through a 50-year career as a professional engineer in the chemical and environmental industries (BSc & MAppSc).

Raised in a fundamentalist Christian environment, he also undertook tertiary studies in classics (BA major in Greek) and ancient history (MA on Greco-Roman social life) with the aim of deepening understanding of things Christian, in parallel to rather than in concert with the conventional seminary scene.

Not surprisingly, this led John to re-think many aspects of his faith.  For the past 40 years he has found a friendly home and worshipped in the Uniting Church in Sydney.   He has also savoured the worlds of antiquity and early Christianity through some travel in the Middle East, Greece and Italy. But for his wife and himself, both now octogenarians, such adventures are realistically over. With retirement have come opportunities to indulge in eclectic reading and discussion.

***

John has kindly given us access to some of his writing on this topic. This is Part 1 of 3 parts.

How the New Testament came to us – 1 Inclusions and exclusions

Our Bible

We tend to take our Bible for granted:  39 books in the Old Testament (OT); 27 in the New Testament (NT); usually bound together; and often in black leather with gilt edges – at least when a book was something we read on paper rather than on our mobile phones.  Many of us have known this format from our youngest years in Sunday school and church youth groups.  But does this give a misleading picture of its origins and its immutability?  We will explore this question in several short pieces.

The old testament

The Old Testament preceded the New, to which it is inextricably linked.  It was composed in the ancient Hebrew language and transmitted orally and in writing by Jewish priests and scholars over a period of more than a thousand years.  When Christians adopted these ‘scriptures’, as they called them, they mostly used a Greek translation made by Jews about two centuries earlier.  Why Hebrew and Greek?  Well Hebrew was the language of ancient Israel.  The Old Testament is often called “the Hebrew Scriptures”.  And Greek because it was the lingua franca of the world of the early Church – a little like English tends to be today in many parts of the world.  That’s why Christian scriptures, of which our New Testament is the prime collection, are also written in Greek, a language which could reach many people.

Were these the only writings held to be ‘holy’ in their time?  Not at all!  In the Jewish world the writings we call the Apocrypha roughly fill the four-hundred-year gap between our Old and New Testaments.  They are not included in today’s Protestant Bibles but are found in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles.  And there were other writings besides these, as shown abundantly by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls last century.  And we now have many other ‘gospels’, ‘acts’ and ‘revelations’ written in the early years of the Christian church, including the large collection in the Coptic language from Nag Hammadi in Egypt.

Choosing what’s in and what’s out

When a community ascribes special status to a set of writings, as when it considers them to be the ‘Word of God’, it becomes important for it to define what it accepts into this collection of sacred writings, the so-called ‘canon’.  Jewish councils basically decided what constituted the Hebrew scriptures, or the Old Testament, by about 100 CE (AD), although they did not precisely codify this for another eight hundred years.  Church councils had basically decided what constituted the Christian scriptures, the New Testament, by about 400 CE.

Over the last two hundred years scholars of language, ancient literature, history and theology have delved intensively into the way these selections were made and the nature, form, source and circumstances of the writings selected.   They have done this in the context of a plethora of additional ancient writings and archaeological information coming to light from the same environment as the chosen writings. The net result at present is some real divergence in the world of Biblical scholarship as to just what constitutes ‘our Bible’.  This fascinating and growing field of study has raised many questions, including the nature and working of ‘Divine inspiration’ in the original writing and selection of the canon, the transmission of the text and the authenticity of claims of authorship.

My understanding of what the Bible is has changed enormously in my Christian lifetime.  What about yours?  Perhaps you just accept it as a given in our Church without further concern.  Most Christians probably do.  Perhaps you find it all too difficult to sort out and just give up on it.  A lot do.  Perhaps you are inclined to reject it in whole or part, based on what does and does not appeal to you.  Not a few do this.  Does it matter?  I don’t know, but I’m one of those who are intrigued, rather than put off by such questions.  So, with your indulgence, I’ll explore them a little further in three brief pieces.

Two views on the New Testament

In 2017 I attended two fascinating presentations by visiting Biblical experts on aspects of the canon of the New Testament.  They held almost diametrically opposed views.  Professor Darrell Bock of Dallas, speaking at Macquarie University, Sydney, argued that the New Testament as we have it is the authentic Bible for Christians and that the additional early material now available did not come from an alternative, foundational Christianity.  Shortly afterwards Professor Hal Taussig of New York, speaking at Merthyr Road Uniting Church, New Farm, Brisbane, argued not only that early Christianity was more diverse than we had previously believed, but that some of the recently discovered early Christian writings should be included in our New Testament.  In fact, he has published, with support from other scholarly experts, A New New Testament, which includes eleven additional ancient Christian books not in our canonical Bible.

The case for the canonical new testament

Prof. Bock in his book The Missing Gospels[1] has made a close study of these additional Christian writings, many of them classified as ‘gnostic’.  He searches the Nag Hammadi collection for differences from our canonical NT on the subjects of God as Creator, of Jesus as a human and divine figure, of the nature of redemption and on Jesus’ death and salvation. He concludes that Christian orthodoxy is dominantly represented in the earliest strands of the canonical NT.  In summary, he claims that the alternative ideas on these subjects, as found in the alternative writings, are differences which entered Christian circles at a later time and were not part of earliest belief.  One belief in particular, which derives from the Gospel of Thomas, that Jesus was “the ultimate wisdom teacher, a kind of mysterious Jewish Zen master who scandalized his listeners”[2] by his radical teaching, is rejected as not a key part of earliest Christian belief.

I found that Prof. Bock’s book gave a relatively comprehensive and systematic overview of the Christian Gnostic writings, especially those from Nag Hammadi.  But he has an agenda which is apparent throughout.  He sees a trend in some modern scholarship dealing with these new writing to “cull out what fits nicely with our culture”, establishing “a case…for a historical makeover of early Christianity”, which he calls “the Buzz”[3].  He acknowledges that history is written by winners, so that the views which prevailed in the early councils of the Church are the views of those who prevailed.  But he asserts that sometimes the winners deserve to win.

The case for alternative writings in the New Testament

Prof. Taussig, a founding member of the Jesus Seminar, has also extensively studied the non-canonical writings of early Christianity.  He is of the view they genuinely reflect the diversity of belief in the early Church, to the extent that he has edited, under the guidance of an eminent scholarly council, A New New Testament: a Bible for the 21^st century combining traditional and newly discovered texts[4].

The books included, intermixed with canonical books are: The Prayer of Thanksgiving; the Gospel of Thomas; The Odes of Solomon (in four books); The Thunder:  Perfect Mind; The Prayer of the Apostle Paul; The Acts of Paul and Thecla; The letter of Peter to Philip and The Secret Revelation of John. A 100-page Companion is appended discussing the history, environment and some exposition of these new books and their relationship to the canonical material.  It is noteworthy that much material not selected from these new sources is strongly contrary to canonical texts, for example, portraying the god of creation as an inferior and ill-disposed deity.

Prof. Taussig senses a freshness and beauty in the additional material.  But, like Prof. Bock, he also has an agenda beyond the purely academic.  “There are beautiful prayers, stories and proposals to nourish today’s thirst for spirituality that are both grounded in tradition and new to almost everyone’s experience.” “Most powerful…is the possibility of claiming for the twenty-first century new meanings inherent in the first- and second-century Christ movements.”[5]

A question for reflection

The Basis of Union states[6]: “The Uniting Church acknowledges that God has never left the Church without faithful and scholarly interpreters of Scripture, or without those who have reflected deeply upon, and acted trustingly in obedience to, God’s living Word.”

Where do we stand then, when sincere and well-credentialed scholarship is clearly divided as to what is in and out of the Scriptures?  The Uniting Church in the same Basis lays on all of us the duty of reading these very Scriptures[7].  But which ones?

John Court

[1] Bock, Darrell L 2006 The Missing Gospels:  unearthing the truth behind alternative Christianities (Thomas Nelson).

[2] p xxii

[3] p xxiii

[4] Ed. with commentary by Hal Taussig with a foreword by John Dominic Crossan, 2013 (Mariner Books).

[5] p 519.

[6] Section 11

[7] Section 5

oOo

Richard Rohr on ‘The supreme unifying force’

oOo

A New Year and the Epiphany

The new calendar year is upon us, and we have now had the clearing of the Christmas decorations.   And we now have the celebration of the Epiphany – the Manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles.   All very well presented in the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.

We read of the arrival of “wise men” from the East in Jerusalem as they sought to meet the newborn king of the Jews whose star they had seen in the East – presumably in the western sky at sunset.   The tale continues that these three men whom we know as “The Magi,” although we do attach the names to them of Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, were able without any difficulty to have access to the head of the state, the king, one Herod, and to report the purpose of their visit.   Herod for some reason for all his learning needed to seek the advice of the religious leaders as to the supposed birthplace of the “King of the Jews” and was informed that the town of Bethlehem in Judaea was the location forecast.    That these visitors seemed to know more of the birth of the king of the Jews than the ecclesiastical establishment is itself interesting.   Herod, the sublime operator, then suggested to his visitors that they should go to Bethlehem (no major distance from Jerusalem) to find the newborn and to report back, so that he could honour him.

They took themselves then to Bethlehem with the guidance of the star and found the house where the baby Jesus was to be living with his mother.    Matthew reports, as we all know, the provision of great gifts to the newborn of gold and frankincense and myrrh.    For all that, they then had a dream which suggested not returning to Herod but going back to their own country by a different route.

I find all of this open to some measure of doubt in terms of historical accuracy.   We know that Herod died in the year 4 B.C. and that though Luke speaks of Quirinius being the governor of Syria at the time of the census which took Joseph to Bethlehem, the Roman records tell us that this was so in what to us is the year 9 A.D.    We are also aware that to the world of the scientists and astronomers, the year 7 B.C. (and its later months in our chronology) saw what they would call “the great conjunction of planets” when five of them were visible in the night sky almost as one.   Such an event did not occur again and then on a reduced scale until 1982.  If the Magi were astronomers (and astrologers) – they were almost certainly men to see in the night sky guidance for their own lives – it is quite possible that the conjunction of planets which would have been especially visible in the eastern Mediterranean was the cause of a journey westwards from lands to the East.    We do not know.

The stories from Matthew then tell us of the plan to take the baby to Egypt as Joseph had been warned in a dream to go to Egypt to escape what the angel who forecast the problem would be Herod’s reaction.    We are told Herod on realising that the Magi had not passed the necessary information on the birth of the child back to him, decided to kill all boys under the age of two years in Bethlehem in order to ensure that his throne was secure from challenge.   It has to be said that there is no historical record of such an event.    We are told however that after the death of Herod, and, with significant convenience, another angel appeared to Joseph in Egypt and reported the death of Herod and the succession of his son, Archelaus.   At this point, Joseph took Mary and their son back to Galilee (significantly further north in those days of no transport) back to Nazareth where Jesus grew up.   This met the vision that the Messiah would be called “a Nazarene” – perhaps again conveniently.

What are we to make of all of this?    My answer is to say that I do not know.   It is all so it seems very colourful and wish-fulfilling.   It suggests that Jesus was from his very birth the special man that he was to become in the eyes of those who knew him.   Is this however the embellishment of storytelling to make a good story even better?   And if we then go to the stories of his birth and the shepherds in the fields and the birth in a cattle shed, it all becomes yet more open I fear to doubt.    Have we been led astray?

Strangely enough for all my doubts of the historicity of the tales of his birth and earliest life from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, I find this rather charming.   I am sure that those who wrote the Gospels, and there seems unanimity amongst the scholars that the three synoptic Gospels drew upon common material including material that may have been lost and that the Gospel of John is a very different and a significantly more poetic version of the life of the man, were at pains to emphasise the extraordinary quality of the man Jesus and his wisdom.   Not to provide a decorated story of his birth and early life they may have felt would have reduced the quality of the sublime and extraordinary of the man who had touched their lives with such intensity that their lives were to be totally given to the promotion of its guidance.    The Jesus they knew would have had a birth as out of the ordinary as his later life and message.    I do not know.

What does come to me however from all of this and it is the Epiphany – the manifestation – that supports it is the extraordinary (I used that word again and without apology) quality of the man and his message.   The writers and teachers were determined that the wider Jewish and Gentile worlds of the first century would accept without demur that in the life of the son of the carpenter from Nazareth, wisdom had come to mankind of such measure as to be utterly foundational.   His birth must have been surrounded by events that reflected the measure of the gift that had been made to humankind.

It is in that context that I see the Epiphany.    Eternal wisdom had been given to men and women of such a scope and scale that its arrival must have been itself surrounded by events of truly cosmic proportions.   And it is the measure of that wisdom that we are now being offered again two thousand years later its glorious elegance and simplicity.

For all that, I am sure that whether we want to question the stories and their presentation really means very little.    What has come to the world through the wisdom of Jesus as the last of the great Jewish prophets is a vision of life to the full of such proportions that we must ourselves be the men and women whose lives in all their detail reflect that wisdom and its provenance.   We are the sons and the daughters of the Source of Creation, dignified and responsible with beings so fully equipped to live well that our failures to do so will always sadden.     We are born as individuals so brilliantly equipped and yet equally so brilliantly different from each other that the world can happily see the whole tapestry of earthly possibility in all its completeness.   We are the expressions of an Eternal and Greater from Whom we come and to Whom we go, and we are built to reflect our origins in all that we are and in all that we do.

But the message of the Epiphany is that we must reflect those origins in our daily lives of great energy and of significant constructiveness.   We are born to build our lives to the maximum and so few of us do.    If there be a message of the Epiphany as the season of the Manifestation and the new calendar year now with us, it is that we must resolve fully to grow and equally fully to expand and offer that growth and expansion to our fellow travellers in life.    This is the contribution of agape to the world.   Jesus observed so we are told in the Gospel of St. John in the tenth verse of the tenth chapter that he had come “so that they may have life and have it more abundantly.”   That is the sole test of the worth of our lives and our activities and in this new year we must be forthcoming and constructive in all we are at all times.

A Happy New Year of growth and fulfilment – your duty of the Eternal is no less.

 Maxwell Dodd, Friday 6 January 2023

As with gladness, men of old

Did the guiding star behold,

As with joy they hailed its light,

Leading onward, beaming bright,

So, most gracious Lord, may we

Evermore be led to thee.

oOo

As we commence our 23^rd year of sharing worldwide progressive Christian thinking, we look forward with hope, based on the growth of interest and support, for the continued transition away from the worst of the past and the adoption of the best of the present and past practice. We acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers and our thinking so often needs critiquing. We have learnt so much from each other, the scholarly work of others and the life experiences of some.

Much of the Church is changing slowly as it faces the big challenges of the era and collaborates with the major global movements for social justice, economic development, industrial ecology, environmental policy, developmental consciousness, and the sharing of and sustaining of resources.

Although a significant number of our subscribers have walked away from the Church, we have many friends active inside the Church making a great impact on where the Church is going. It is generally understood that change is often resisted and there is comfortableness in complacency. Two thousand years of an institution established and locked into governance and doctrinal models by the Romans and living with the tensions of the teachings of Jesus means that much of the change and reform will be resisted. But there are new imperatives that make this resistance futile.

These imperatives include the threat of a diminishing role for individual humans with technological superhuman powers, the escalation of political crises, the search for effective leadership, the acceleration of greed and how to address Jesus’ goal of heaven on earth.

Collective intelligence is the greatest resource available to us. The combining of spirituality and science is transformative and helps us to find meaning. It also helps us to address the imperatives and make sound judgements. It gives us better ways of discovering truth and thinking through the complex issues of our time. It makes the Christian (Jesus) notion of humanity even more significant than ever before.

Many young people are expressing and demonstrating strong moral values about the future of humanity. I am optimistic about the future of the universe in their hands. There is much to discuss and even more to do. I hope our many Explorers groups will continue the discourse and experimenting with applying new understandings.

Happy New Year!

Paul Inglis

oOo

In response to a request from the Assembly of the UCA, newly retired Uniting Church minister and scholar Rev Dr John Squires offers his thoughts about the highlights and joys of his 42 years of ministry and also his thoughts on the UCA identity, and that all-important question: what’s the future of the Uniting Church?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHEN WE CALL SOMETHING SACRED?

I reckon it is when something is the best we can do. When someone has achieved something they had to work very hard to achieve. When there is exuberant joy and positive goodness… beauty and truth. And maybe there are other things that should be on this list.

I recall the pastor of a church once bringing a young man to the lectern and introducing him. The lad was recovering from a drug addiction and he wanted to share with the congregation his commitment to keep going until he was once again well and free of his addiction.

He played a guitar and sang… and it was possibly the worst guitar playing I’d ever heard. Same with singing… his body was wasted and he could hardly hold a note. Yet somehow, he did what he was there wanting to do and took a step into a better future.

For me, that was a sacred moment. Whether it was the loving care of the pastor, the halting step forward by the young man or the reverence of people in the room, I’m not sure… but somehow we were all moved. Something important happened.

That took place in a church, but every day, in all the nooks and crannies of life, sacred moments  are happening.

A rescuer is winched down into a rough sea to save someone in danger of drowning.

A young woman in Iran who  understands the consequences yet still  demonstrates against laws forcing women to wear traditional clothes and not to be able to choose what to wear.

A child sits with a placard in front of her school and her commitment is so strong the whole world will soon be following her example. The ordinary lives of parents are filled with many sacred moments… the joy, the love, the trust of a child as they grow in goodness are very special events.

There’s sacredness in the life of plants and animals… in the world of nature and the universe of galaxies and planets stretching out beyond the reach of humanity.

Some might not call these things ‘sacred’ but I do. The wonder and awe of the natural world is very comforting. The courage and commitment of people to be the best they can and to reach out to help others, even to risk their lives for others, is my definition of sacred.

I reckon there is a path, a journey, we and the world are travelling. We may not yet see the goal clearly, but each act of kindness, each acknowledgement of the beauty and power of nature, each act of love and sacrifice, moves us a little further in the right direction.

Bev Floyd

oOo

From Everald Compton

Sometime during the second half of 2023, we will be given the opportunity to vote YES or NO in what will be known as the VOICE REFERENDUM that arises from the ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART.

As announced by the Prime Minister earlier this year, a YES vote in the Referendum will create an amendment to the Australian Constitution that will enable Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to participate in a democratic election to establish a VOICE which will meet regularly to recommend policies to the Australian Parliament which will have the total authority to accept or reject them.

After the Referendum, Parliament will debate and enact a Bill that creates the rules that will apply to the way in which the VOICE is elected and operates.

In reality it is quite simply a positive step forward in integrating 65000 years of heritage into our Constitution and our life as a nation.

I will vote YES and actively campaign for a Yes vote.

In doing this, I am well aware that a significant number of my friends intend to vote NO and have carefully considered reasons for doing so. I respect their right to vote according to their conscience.

Here are some of their reasons for voting NO.

*Australia is a nation that already has a voice – our Federal Parliament – to which we have elected a significant number of indigenous parliamentarians.

*The Voice will create apartheid.

*Australia provides billions of dollars to Indigenous people every year and this has been wasted. No matter what is done for them, they are ungrateful and will always want more.

*The establishment of a Voice will not solve the problems that are ingrained in indigenous society such as crime, unemployment, alcohol, drugs, health, housing, domestic violence, poor education and lack of skills.

*It is only city aborigines who want a Voice. Country aborigines have no interest in it.

*A Treaty, based on the Waitangi Treaty of New Zealand, would achieve more.

In response to these concerns and beliefs, I tell my friends the reasons why I will vote YES.

*Indigenous people were excluded from the Australian Constitution in 1901. This was an insult and a mistake which must be rectified now.

*When Britain, in 1788, invaded the continent we now call Australia, they stole land which had been occupied by indigenous people for 65000 years. The welfare that is now given to them is a tiny fraction of the value of their land that they have never ceded.

*100 tribes of Indigenous people have never been able to speak to the Australian Parliament with one democratically elected Voice. Previous institutions have been comprised of political appointees who did the will of the governments that appointed them.

*White people have always decided what is best for aborigines, never the reverse.

*Defeating the referendum will achieve nothing. This issue will never go away. We will just irresponsibly kick the can down the road so our children and grandchildren will eventually have to do what we failed to do.

*It is quite simply the right and decent thing to do.

I am certain there are other important reasons why people will vote YES or NO and these will emerge during the referendum campaign. However, the ones I have outlined give an indication of the general scope of the forthcoming debate.

The Albanese Government will not provide funding for either the YES or NO campaigns. Both sides are required to set up there own organising teams and raise their own funds. This is a good thing as it would be wrong for the government to be seen to be promoting YES even though it is a clear policy of the Labor Party. So, it must promote neither.

I have joined, as a volunteer, a significant group called FROM THE HEART and my role is to help organise a strong YES vote from the Senior Australians. My plan is to enlist as many older Aussies as possible to visit everyone in the streets around their own home to chat about the absolute common sense of having a VOICE. We won’t waste money on advertising. Face to face talking is the powerful way to sell this historic strengthening of our national life.

My gut feeling is that there is a significant task ahead.

Right now, my private polling of public opinion tells me that Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania are likely to vote NO and this will create a national defeat of VOICE as our Constitution says that a referendum cannot pass unless a majority of States vote YES.

I also suspect that Senior Australians will vote NO by a margin of 60/40 because of ingrained negativity about all indigenous issues generated over many decades, but I think that a positive campaign could make it 50/50. Young voters will then take it over the victory line.

Overall, I reckon that with sincere and courteous campaigning the cause for YES can achieve a positive victory and I intend do my best to make it happen. My experience is that most older Australians are responsible people who will try to do the right thing for the good of Australia once they understand the issues at stake.

Creating a VOICE is clearly a nation building exercise that will benefit us all.

Nevertheless, I have an open mind to debate any better alternatives that sincere advocates put forward as this issue will never go away. Defeating it will achieve nil.

Grace and Peace in the spirit of ULURU. It is a symbol of unity.

Everald

oOo

AFTER ORGANISED RELIGION

The industrial revolution, which began in Britain the 17th century, saw the wholescale application of scientific theories to practical uses.

Science had been developing before that for several thousand years, but its industrial uses were minimal. THEN… mankind became the possessor of knowledge and power and energy beyond imagination.

Science steadily overtook organised religion as the new defining principle of life…. or at least, that was (and is) widely considered true.

Organised religion began its decline even more categorically in 1858 with the publication of the theory of Evolution which clashed mightily with the Jewish/Christian belief about creation.

Mankind now has (as Teilhard de Chardin proposed) the capacity to influence the future of the cosmos.

Science has gone from strength to strength. Organised religion is mostly in decline.

What will this mean in the future?

Traditional religious practices may be lagging behind,  but a new wave of thinking is underway. Spirituality. Meditation. Enhanced consciousness. Even drug-taking. These may be signs of what is to come… signs that people are looking for answers.

Science isn’t the answer. Nor is organised religion. Both are simply tools or methods that humanity has used to bring us to this point in our journey. Despite the huge benefits they have bestowed on civilization, both science and organised religion are flawed… in neither case are they sufficient to support or sustain the questing human spirit.

What is next?

SCIENCE

I’ve come across quite a few scientists who have become single dimensional… simply acolytes of measurement and willing to believe nothing unless it can be measured. Some are like Richard Dawkins, who is prepared to say categorically that he KNOWS religion is bunkum. I think his attitude quite unscientific. Where is his proof?

Some scientists appear to have CLOSED MINDS, inasmuch as they are only prepared to ‘accept’ an idea or phenomena if it can be PROVEN.

My view of science is one of ongoing exploration…   of being open to ANY idea as a proposition worthy of enquiry.

SO… perhaps we should reorganise our thinking into categories:
1. That which is most likely to be true and to remain so.
2. That which is most likely true unless we learn more.
3. That which may be true but we haven’t yet tested it carefully.
4. A whole heap of stuff that we have no idea if it’s true or not,                                           but which may be either.
5. Some things we are fairly sure aren’t true but…
6. Things which have been carefully tested and are almost certainly untrue.

Of course, not all scientists have closed minds, but there are enough for it to be a stumbling block to the view of science providing all the answers required for us to     live life to its full potential.

I suppose, because scientists are human, there will be some for whom the certainty   of science seems fitting, natural. At the other end of the spectrum will be adventurers who welcome the challenge of testing fixed ideas… although there are perhaps fewer of these intrepid folk than the world needs.

Has science gained dominion over us? Are we not to believe something unless it can be measured and/or proven? Oh dear!! Humanity is now in an era where science has overtaken religion as the prevailing paradigm. YET… despite many advances, we still require a more complete, more integrated way of looking at life.

We need awe. We need meaning. We need love. We need to belong. We need hope. We need answers to the troubling circumstances that distract us. Can science provide adequate answers for these  questions… or solace… or peace? Certainly not yet. Perhaps never.

What can we do? 

Bev Floyd

oOo

WHERE DID LOVE COME FROM IN A WORLD OF WOE?

Bev Floyd

Why call it a ‘World of woe’?

Well, for as far back as history goes, we see wars and destruction, cruelty, poverty and inequality. Closer to our times we’ve seen pogroms against Jewish people as well as the Holocaust. The Rwandan genocide. Crimes against humanity in Kosovo. The Myanmar conflict with the Rohingya… and that’s just a quick pick.

What is it about humanity that creates such atrocities?  We could surmise that increased consciousness and increased knowledge would have brought peacefulness… but it hasn’t.

What are we missing?  Is it Love?

There’s always been love. The love of a parent for a child… a friend for a friend… love between marriage partners. That love hasn’t always been extended to other tribes, other countries, or to people or groups who are different.

The human psyche is still a work in progress. Evolution brought Homo Sapiens to the point of consciousness and now the journey is no longer mainly anatomical, it has become cultural…  a matter of education and the freeing of our psyche from ancient ways of thinking.

Human beings are slowly sorting through conscious and unconscious elements to reorganize thinking in a better and more consistent way.

So LOVE…

It’s getting more attention. It is no longer just for parent and child or people close to us. It is now  understood to be a better way to deal with all kinds of things… recalcitrant children, those who are different or are irritable because they have been hurt. Enemies.

An important moment in human history marks the time when the idea of LOVE was put high on the agenda. It was the message of an obscure young Jewish carpenter. He paid for what he said with his life… but what an impact it has had on the world. It’s not as if love hadn’t existed before, because it did, but its fortunes began to flourish since a man in Judea saw how important it was.

We know the rest. It’s a slow, slow process, but it seems to me that learning to love is the next way-stop on our human journey.

A Franciscan friar, Richard Rohr has put it well. Talking about non-violence he says:

‘Non-violence is the quality that comes out of all the world religions. The notion that the creative force of the universe is love… that ‘God’ is love and that love is all encompassing.

Gandhi insisted— and I think this is Gandhi’s great contribution— that the creative force of the universe is the force that we humans must learn to exercise because that force is the only force that can cause the human race to do ‘God’s’ will.’

It seems likely that more of us will learn how to love. 

LOVE

 Sexual attraction
Family love
Sacred love

We use the word ‘love’ so readily, so carelessly, but what does it mean?

Sexual attraction is the most natural of the three. It’s a significant instinct for human beings to find a sexual partner and reproduce. And in same -sex relationships, there is also a desire for children… to create a family.

Sexual attraction is a very individual matter. We are sexually attracted to another person for many different reasons. It may be because of their appearance, their voice, their personality or even their smell… but it is quite subjective and depends on a person’s interest, perception and sexual orientation.

Family love begins when an infant is born. There’s a wonderful chemical cocktail of maternal love that a mother has when she gives birth. It’s nature’s way of ensuring babies are nurtured, loved, cared for when they can do nothing for themselves.

And that initial chemical boost can start a cycle of love, not only for the mother and the baby and the father… it can spread to the wider family and even the community.

The glow of family love is catching. We learn how to love. To nurture one another.   To help when our family or friends need help… to help even when we are annoyed or irritated, simply because these are OUR people. We are bound to them by the ties of family.

Sacred love is love that translates across and out of just the bonds of friends and family, tribes and nationalities. Sacred love is love for the world in all its variety…
the environment, the creatures, the people. Love for the unlovely, love even for those who may wish to harm us. LOVE that perseveres when human love might fail.

LOVE that is characterised by empathy, compassion, and support for others.

Love like this isn’t the result of physical attraction or body chemistry or family. It only develops over time as individuals learn to put their ego aside in order to care for others.

It is human beings in tune with the creative force of the universe… and we can call that ‘love’ or ‘goodness’ or ‘Godliness’… whichever we prefer.

The next time we are about to say, ‘I love you.’ perhaps we should pause a moment to make sure we mean the right kind of love for the situation we are in and the person we’re with.

Baby bird fell out of the nest. Mother bird caught it. Father bird held it up.

oOo

Baby bird fell out of the nest. Mother bird caught it. Father bird held it

What else hasn’t ‘organised religion’ understood?

It doesn’t realise that people no longer want to be TOLD what to believe.
They’ve gone off ‘authority’. It’s let them down so much in the past. A fair proportion of both secular and religious leaders have been arrogant or corrupt or just ‘not up to it’.

AND…

The culture of ‘organised religion’ is very patriarchal. In an era where concerned folk are striving to obtain equality for women, most religious leadership positions are reserved for men… particularly so (and mediaevally so) in the Catholic church but also in other religions and denominations.

Structures and procedures are also based on what I call a ‘male’ hierarchical model. It is the ‘who can get to the top model’ and the ‘who can we kick off the bottom’ model.

This is a power-based model. Not inclusive. Decisions flow from the top to the bottom. It does have its uses. Emergencies are best handled this way, as are certain key decisions that need to be made quickly and expertly (such as construction and war (both of which men seem to like and to do so well).

The alternative is a flat structure where decisions are made collectively at the lowest suitable level. It is an inclusive model. No-one is left out. Everyone can participate. It does take longer and can be challenging to ‘efficiency nuts’ or people who are impatient, but the outcome is better. People feel involved… part of something. Decisions are more likely to fit the needs of the group. I’m inclined to call this the ‘female’ model. It’s emerging more as more women are coming into their own in the secular world. It seems to be a better way of for people to share decision-making and problem solving.

How far behind can ‘organised religion’ get?

The problem seems to be ‘doctrine’… that’s a set of ‘beliefs’ which have been formalised and handed down over many years.

They appear to be set in concrete… never-changing.

I suppose for many the idea of something unchangeable in an
ever-changing world would make life seem more comfortable, more certain, more manageable.

But people who are searching for ‘Godliness’ should not be using doctrine and churchiness as a mattress to slumber upon… true religion can be a springboard to life abundant… to joy and love and hope.

Bev Floyd

Peacemaking

by UCFORUM Subscriber Len Baglow

I would like every Christian to join the peace movement.

However, I first have a confession to make. I have only recently become a peace activist, and I am not a very good one. There are many people who have been peacemaking for years and I have simply smiled benignly and wished them well.

My concerns were elsewhere: the environment, refugees and asylum seekers, those struggling on social security payments. War and Peace, liked Tolstoy’s novel, seemed too big.

This changed in 2020 when I started having coffee with Michelle Fahy, an investigator into the arms industry. I became concerned about a world that I had previously known little about, and by the misinformation fed to ourselves and politicians.

One of the first things that I did was look up whether the Uniting Church had said anything about the arms industry. I found an excellent short document from 1988 which highlighted the dangers of increasing the Export of Arms and Other Defence Equipment. Yet since that time both LNP and Labor governments have supported building a substantial export arms industry in Australia. The Uniting Church has largely fallen silent on the issue.

All this might not have galvanized me to action by itself, but then came AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Suddenly, there was not just the problem of Australia producing lethal weapons of war and selling them for profit, but of Australia tying itself inextricably with the military/industrial complexes of two superpowers.

The centrepiece of this partnership is the supply of nuclear submarines to Australia. I have written elsewhere on the many serious problems of the AUKUS partnership. In this current paper I want to reflect more theologically.

The AUKUS partnership challenges Christians in Australia to ask the question, “In whom do we have faith?” This of course is an old question in the face of violence and the threat of violence.

Isaiah gives one type of answer when he said to the people of Israel,

Alas for those who go down to Egypt for help and who rely on horses,

Who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong,

But do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the Lord!

…

The Egyptians are human, and not God; their horses are flesh, and not spirit.

When the Lord stretches out his hand, the helper will stumble, and the one helped will fall,

And they will all perish together. (Isaiah 31: 1 and 3)

Currently there is much support in Australia for throwing our lot in with the Americans, and there is little opposition or criticism in the mainstream media. The general common-sense approach is that we are a small country and that we need big powerful allies. At the same time, our fears about a potential threat from China have been stoked. In many ways, this is similar to the fear in Isaiah’s time when Israel is caught between two competing superpowers, Egypt and Assyria.

Yet, Isaiah doesn’t adopt a common-sense approach. He gives a religious answer. You can see, the King’s military advisors shaking their head in scorn. Perhaps, they asked, “And how many chariots does your God have?”

Yet Isaiah knows that to rely on the force of Empire, is to tie oneself to the oppression of that empire. It is to become a slave of empire once again. Empires give nothing away for free; they demand a fee. That fee is often blood. Empires much prefer to have soldiers of vassal states die in battle, rather than their own. They prefer battles to be fought on foreign fields rather than their own.

But America is not like the ancient empires of Egypt or Assyria. If you believe this, you have not been paying attention, or perhaps only reading the Murdoch press and watching Fox news. What is even more dangerous in our situation is that America is an empire which is in decline. Its democracy is a mess; corruption and violence are rampant.

So, what does it mean in Australia today to look to the Holy One of Israel and consult the Lord?

The verse in the New Testament that stands out for me is:

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. (Matt 5:9)

To be a peacemaker in the violent Roman occupied Israel at the time of Jesus was quite an extraordinary thing to be. It required a vision that saw realistically the current reality, as well as beyond it, to its divine possibilities. Then it required courage to act on that vision. No wonder that the next verse states:

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:10)

So, what does it mean in our time to be a peacemaker? It is not a simple role.

In the first instance, it means to be creative. Peace is not just delivered to us like a takeaway meal; it must be made. Hence the “maker” part of the name. This is a paradox. Initially the making of peace is not a calming experience. First, we have to be disturbed. We have to notice the threat that is drawing us onto war or violence, as well as the injustice and exploitation that underlies the process. This upsets our equilibrium, our blithe assumption, that because we are comfortable, all is pretty right with the world.

Then when we start to act, we find that the problem of violence is not only without, but also within. Often our first reaction is to use violence to stop violence. We find the same violent impulses within ourselves, that we can see so destructively acted out in others. If we go down this violent path, we do not make peace, but only create the conditions for further violence.

Early in the process, we can also be overwhelmed. How can little me effectively oppose and transform the whole industrial/military complex. (Defeat the chariots, as I stand here unarmed, even without a slingshot.) The danger is that we fall into despair.

The answer is prayer. A special kind of prayer. What Isaiah calls “consulting the Lord”. It is not the prayer of “Please smite my enemies”, but the humble prayer of “What do you ask of me to help your loving possibilities unfold.” It is the prayer of contemplation. It is no accident that so many great peacemakers of our recent history have been people of prayer and contemplation: Martin Luther King, Abraham Heschel, Thich Nhat Hanh, Richard Rohr, Thomas Merton, Daniel Berrigan, Jim Wallis, Dorothee Soelle. And of course, there are the Quakers who are profoundly committed to both openness in prayer and peacemaking.

In the last year, I have spent much more time with peace activists. Generally, they would not describe themselves as Christians or church goers, though many once were. Yet, strangely, they seem to have heard the holy one of Israel calling for peace more clearly than we in the churches have. Most are not just against war, but are actively seeking out peaceful alternatives. They are daring to believe in more loving and just alternatives. Also, they are not afraid to contemplate the widespread corruption and injustice that is leading us onto war. Further, they often feel in their very bodies the anguish of those in far off countries already subjected to the horror of war. It has been a humbling experience, that I as a Christian all my life have come to some of these realisations so late.

In this short article, I would encourage others to join in this adventure that scripture calls peacemaking. I would particularly urge leaders in the Church community to see peacemaking not as a peripheral activity, but something which is urgent for our times. However, every person can be a peacemaker. It is not necessary to stand in front of tanks. Only a few are called to such heroic actions. However, we are all called not to be complacent. We need to work at being informed, beyond the lazy propaganda of the mainstream media. And being better informed, our prayer is better informed, and we are more able to see the loving alternatives that God continually offers.

So how do we get involved? Of course, at one level this is always an individual question, depending on our individual discernment and personal and social circumstances. It might simply mean to be more open to what is happening around you and becoming better informed.

However, there is an event happening later in the month, that might be a good place to start. It is the IPAN Conference, Rally and Report Launch to be held in Canberra 22^nd to 24^th November. IPAN stands for the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network and is a network of organisations and individuals working for peace in Australia. Much of the event is online, so even if you are not in Canberra, you can still participate. The details can be found on IPAN’s website.

If you are a leader in your local church, I would also challenge you to think about what role your church could or should be playing in peace making. It will be too late when we find that Australia has drifted into war, due to the fearful, unfaithful and unwise decisions that we have made now.

Len Baglow, Facilitator, Against the Wind

Len Baglow: Former environmental activist and social policy advocate.

Email againstthewind.wvuc@gmail.com

oOo

The Basis at 50 – The Document and Ministry Practices: Reflections and Responses

Late in 2021 almost 70 people from across the national UCA gathered online for a day conference hosted by Pilgrim Theological College in the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania to reflect and engage with the Uniting Church in Australia’s Basis of Union. The event coincided with the 50^th anniversary of the final form of the Basis of Union being published and put forward for consideration and decision by Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational Churches.

Several of the conference papers are being compiled into an edited volume, but the day also included exciting panel discussions in which members of the Uniting Church offered thoughts on connections and provocations found between the Basis and their ministry practice. Some members of those panels have agreed to share their edited reflections as a gift for the church.

The intention in sharing these reflections is not only to preserve their longevity and increase their audience. To that end, after the initial posting of the conference reflections, several responses will be rolled out. These responses are looking for threads, themes, questions, and possibilities weaving between, hiding amidst, and hoping across several of the initial reflections.

Yet, they too are offered without the intention of providing a full stop. Rather they look to provide further openings for future responses and creative engagements with the initial reflections (if you feel so inclined as to develop a response to what begins to develop on this site, please do reach out!).

The first reflection to be published comes from Rev Dr Sally Douglas. In the weeks to come, four more shorter reflections from the conference will be published together, with the responses to follow after that.

This first reflection can be read here:

Basis@50 Rev Dr Sally Douglas – Uniting Church Australia

Future publications of reflections can be found here when they become available.

The Basis at 50 Reflections and Responses – Uniting Church Australia

oOo

From: ABC Religion and Ethics by Garry Deverell

Pain is part of the deal

Evolution… from atom to algy, plants to people… is full of struggle. It’s focussed on ‘growth’ and the strongest (?), smartest(?) get a ticket to the future.

Why didn’t the dinosaurs make it? Well, there was the small matter
of meteors, but even before that, they had grown too big… were consuming too much.

The evolutionary method is based on cause and effect. Mathematics even. It doesn’t seem to have the slightest care that plants or animals or people are hurt or destroyed. It’s simple, singular motive is ‘progress’.

Progress. To what end?

Is there some reason for all this struggle and pain?  Clearly, pain is part of almost every experience we have as human beings. Even a day of utter gladness can end with a feeling of sadness.

Pain. Pain. Unutterable pain. What has that got to do with progress?
and what have people had to say about it over the years?

A lot has been said… and written but the earliest and perhaps the best can be found in the book of Job in the Old Testament.

The book deals with the problem of ‘unmerited suffering’. It’s how a man responds when he loses everything… his cattle, his wealth, his children, his well-being.

We all know about ‘unmerited suffering’. We’ve all experienced loss and pain. What are we to make of it?  How should we respond? And where is ‘God’ in all this mishmash?

Job says ‘… it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty, that makes him understand.’ (Job 32:8)

And I suppose that is where we find ourselves. Struggling, yet convinced somehow there is a purpose behind it all… that searching for ‘Godliness’ in the midst of mystery may be worthwhile… that perhaps, it may be the meaning of it all.

Does this kind of belief fly in the face of scientific method and proof?
I don’t think so. Belief is outside the remit of science. The proof of our belief won’t be known until the end of time… if there’s to be such a thing. Meanwhile we risk our lives on what we decide to believe.

What an adventure!

Bev Floyd

oOo

From Bev Floyd

I want to talk about ‘prayer’ but first I will make a lengthy detour.

What do we need to do to stay healthy in body, mind and spirit?

My one-word answer is ‘awareness’.

Let’s take physical health. People stay healthy if they eat well and exercise to stay fit… if they pay attention to the best available information… have regular ‘checkups’, stay informed
and avoid danger.

It’s much easier in Australia, as we have a good health system, and most Australians can access the medical support they need.
Australia also has a well-educated population and a wealth of available information. All that is required to stay healthy is to keep an eye on
the state of our body and do what
is necessary… to be aware.

Then there’s ‘mind’. Australians have the opportunity for education, and most have completed several years of post-primary education… so there is a fair understanding of science and history etc. However, many Australians put a low priority on developing their minds. Fewer men than women are readers. There are now many new Australians who need to learn English and be able to access suitable resources. Individuals who want to develop their minds need to make an effort… to be aware.

Then there’s ‘spirit’… ‘heart’… ‘confidence’… this is a more difficult quality to define.  Clearly, someone who is confident and happy, with few serious problems, will have a less troubled life. As well, they will be more able to contribute   productively to their community.

Like physical and intellectual well-being, emotional well-being requires attention to basics. Perhaps the first requirement is for people to start learning about themselves… ‘know yourself’ is a famous saying. Another important requirement is to form a view on the meaning of life and be sufficiently aware to live according to that view and modify it as new information comes to hand.

So… that brings us to the matter of PRAYER and what it is… well, at least what I think it is.

It’s quietness. Inner reflection. Awe.
Awareness. Letting go of the ego to notice things that a busy and noisy life sometimes obscures. It’s opening the deepest part of our being to healing and goodness and love. It’s paying attention to truths about our body, our intellect and our spirit.

We need to pray.

Some pray with words. Some pray with dance or music or song. Some pray with poetry. We need to listen to the deep, deep wisdom from within ourselves. Some will call this the voice of Godliness. Some will call it an inner human knowledge.
I don’t mind what it is called. The important thing is that we learn to do it… regularly, happily, satisfactorily. When we do, we’ll find the gift of awareness close at hand. We’ll be able to live better and be an asset to the community in which we live.

oOo

I’ve come across quite a few scientists who have become single dimensional… simply acolytes of measurement and willing to believe nothing unless it can be measured.

Some, like Richard Dawkins, are prepared to say categorically that
they KNOW religion is bunkum.

I think his attitude is quite unscientific. Where is his proof?

Some scientists appear to have CLOSED MINDS, inasmuch as they are only prepared to ‘accept’ an idea or phenomena if it can be PROVEN.

My view of science is the idea of eternal exploration… of being open to ANY idea as a proposition worthy of enquiry.

SO… perhaps we should reorganise our thinking into categories:

1. What is most likely to be true and to remain so.
2. What is most likely true unless we learn more.
3. What may be true, but we haven’t yet tested it carefully.
4. A whole heap of stuff that we have no idea if it’s true or not, but which may be either.
5. Some things we are fairly sure aren’t true but…
6 . Things which have been carefully tested and are almost certainly untrue.

Of course, not all scientists have closed minds, but there are enough for it to be a stumbling block to the view of science providing all the answers required to live life to its full potential.

I suppose, because scientists are human, there will be some for whom the certainty of science seems fitting, natural. At the other end of the spectrum will be adventurers who welcome the challenge of testing fixed ideas… although there are perhaps fewer of these intrepid folk than the world needs.

Science has gained dominion over us. We are not to believe something unless it can be measured and/or proven. Oh dear!!

Humanity is now in an era where science has overtaken religion as the prevailing paradigm. YET… despite many advances, we still require a more complete, more integrated way of looking at life.

We need awe. We need meaning. We need love. We need to belong. We need hope. We need answers to the troubling circumstances that distract us. Can science provide adequate answers for these questions… or solace… or peace?
Certainly not yet. Perhaps never.

What can we do?

Bev Floyd

oOo

The time for religion… ‘organised religion’ is over. There will never again be just one way to think or believe. Each of us will make up our minds individually. This might seem anarchic, disordered, chaotic… but it is the future… a future where there is more individual decision-making.

There will be a flowering of ideas about the meaning of life and how to live it. People will no longer be IN or OUT because their beliefs are not orthodox. It will be easier to share ideas about ‘belief’. Barriers will fall away, and many will become explorers seeking understanding and fulfilment.

Some won’t live much differently from the way they have in the past… but others will relish the opportunity, the freedom… to find a way to be truly who they were meant to be without the constraining effects of organised religion which is about having a common set of beliefs.

This is how the world will be. It won’t happen suddenly or overnight. Vestiges of organised religion will remain for a long time. Moreover, many of the ideas and beliefs will continue to flourish in the hearts and minds of individuals. All the wisdom of past ages will be available for anyone who seeks it.
But… society will never again be anything other than secular. We
now know that everything is sacred. Nature, humanity, the cosmos, family, friendships, politics. The sacredness of life will become apparent in the secular. There is but one world and we will be drawn together by our common purpose.

To realise this potential, we must stop looking backwards and concentrate our thoughts and efforts on preparing for the future.

Bev Floyd

oOo

The conduct of the Queen’s memorial service in Australia’s Parliament sets a very good example for future sacred secular events.

There were references to the Queen’s faith in God being at the core of her life of service, but there was no mention of specifically Christian ideas.

The speeches were about values and ethics and beliefs but were based on the things she’d done and the way she’d lived out her commitment to serve.

The songs were about values that are important in a democracy… caring, helping, serving.

The memorial was inclusive. People of all colours and creeds met in a unity of purpose.

The ceremony of the Wattle wreaths was an original and fitting expression of Australian gratitude for the Queen’s reign. Perhaps it will begin a tradition.

In a country with people from so many different parts of the world, so many different beliefs, we need to devise ceremonies and deeply meaningful rituals that exclude no-one.

Bev Floyd

oOo

Theology uses words to frame an understanding of religion… studying ancient texts (like the bible) and ideas formulated by religious practitioners. By this method it seeks to bridge the gap between religion and the secular world.

Science and increasing knowledge has destroyed many traditional beliefs. The question becomes ‘Is there anything about “religion” still worth defending?’ and if there is, will it be possible to frame words to achieve this?

Many modern theologians emphasise the role of ‘ethics’ as if that is all we can rely upon in the ‘religion’ corner.

I think there is something else. It is ‘experience’… not an immediate personal experience of a divine presence but what Jung would call the ‘Collective unconscious’ perhaps even a ‘genetic inheritance’ from ancient times. Within each of us there is an impetus to grow, to understand ourselves and the world, to bring the conscious and the unconscious parts of ourselves into alignment.

Evolution is continuing. Why aren’t theologians taking more notice of this? Thinking and analysis and scientific study isn’t the only way to understanding. EXPERIENCE is also a formidable and reliable method of understanding ourselves and the world.

None of these methods of understanding the world and ourselves needs to stand alone. Clearly, they are complementary. Just the same, at present we see them not always aligned or fully called upon.

Theology based simply on thinking or analysis can go terribly wrong.

Science which doesn’t factor in the fully lived range of human experience, cannot explain everything.

Even experience alone, can be difficult to comprehend… it is slow, often confusing and takes considerable effort to understand… but it is a significant human factor that must not be overlooked. ‘Experience is the raw material… the source of revelation.

The word ‘experience and the word ‘experiment’ come from the same Latin root ‘experiri = to try’

Theologians and thinkers EXPLORE.

Scientists EXPERIMENT.

Ordinary folk EXPERIENCE.

The wisest people do all three.

2 Philipians 12-13

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfil his good purpose. 

Computer operating systems have a back door into the program to enable changes and improvements. Could we not imagine that a Creator would have a way to communicate with the hidden inner life of human beings.

Bev Floyd (August, 2022)

oOo

The Doctrine of Discovery established a spiritual, political, and legal justification for colonization and seizure of land not inhabited by Christians. Foundational elements of the Doctrine of Discovery can be found in a series of papal bulls, or decrees, beginning in the 1100s, which included sanctions, enforcements, authorizations, expulsions, admonishments, excommunications, denunciations, and expressions of territorial sovereignty for Christian monarchs supported by the Catholic Church. Two papal bulls, in particular, stand out: (1) Pope Nicholas V issued “Romanus Pontifex” in 1455, granting the Portuguese a monopoly of trade with Africa and authorizing the enslavement of local people; (2) Pope Alexander VI issued the Papal Bull “Inter Caetera” in 1493 to justify Christian European explorers’ claims on land and waterways they allegedly discovered, and promote Christian domination and superiority, and has been applied in Africa, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and the Americas.

From a stamp engraved on copper by Th. de Bry, 1590: “Discovery of America, 12 May, 1492, Christopher Columbus erects the cross and baptizes the Isle of Guanahani by the Christian Name of St. Salvador.”

Following an inquiry by a subscriber to the UCFORUM we have, with the generous help of Rev Dr John Squires, found this information about the UCA response:

At the 2015 Assembly in Perth

15.22.03.  Doctrine of Discovery

1. a) repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery, and its theological foundations as a relic of colonialism, feudalism, and religious, cultural, and racial biases that have no place in the treatment of First Peoples; and
2. b) affirm the World Council of Churches “Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery Impact on Indigenous Peoples”, and encourage its consideration in the Church and, in particular, in theological colleges. (Agreement)

https://johntsquires.com/2018/08/13/affirming-the-sovereignty-of-first-peoples-undoing-the-doctrine-of-discovery/

And see also

https://johntsquires.com/2018/10/13/on-covenant-reconciliation-and-sovereignty/

And see Uncle Ray Minniecon’s paper

https://assembly.uca.org.au/images/events/PNMC2017/Doctrine-of-Discovery-Pastor-Ray-Minniecon.pdf

Rev Dr John Squires, Presbytery Minister—Wellbeing Canberra Region Presbytery, Uniting Church in Australia

johns@nswact.uca.org.au      https://canberra.uca.org.au/  

blogs on ‘An Informed Faith’ at https://johntsquires.com/

Acknowledging the people of the Ngunnawal, Ngambri, Ngarigo, Yuin, and Gundungurra peoples, custodians from time immemorial of the lands on which the people of the Presbytery worship, serve, and witness.

oOo

From Everald Compton

Enjoyed a relaxing and interesting evening at the local cinema.

It was a movie filmed recently on the Gold Coast of Australia that powerfully depicts the spectacular life and sudden death of Elvis Presley.

45 years have passed since Elvis died, so he may not be on the radar of many younger Australians, but back in my more youthful days, he was a legend.

Neither his singing nor his acting ever impressed me at that time in my life, but he captured the hearts and minds of my generation in a hugely impressive fashion. Almost unbelievably, 500 million recordings of his music were sold and his movies were big box office attractions.

His style of singing was ultra physical, hurling and shaking his body in every direction and this caused far too many women to descend into a state of hysterical fantasy. Church leaders in America tried to have him banned from performing because he was ‘sexually provoking’. What particularly upset them was that, at every one of his performances, many women, both young and old, took off their panties and thew them on to the stage, right at the feet of Elvis.

Elvis had become a God and this upset Church leaders even more.

But we all have Gods because we have a very human need to worship heroes or believe in causes.

It is usually a singer, actor, sports champion, charismatic community leader or politician, or a football club or many similar obsessions. Gods can also be alcohol, gambling or sex.

In my life, my role model is Jesus of Nazareth.

There are other people whose lives have greatly inspired me too, such as Martin Luther King, St. Francis of Assisi, Winston Churchill and Mahatma Gandhi. In the sporting world, I am a huge fan of Roger Federer and I never miss plays or movies in which Judi Dench or Maggie Smith are acting.

What is sadly lacking in my life is a political leader to inspire me,

Just look at our current world leaders.

Putin (murderer) Biden (weak) Boris (irresponsible dill) Xi (utterly without personality), and until recently, Morrison (Australia’s worst ever Prime Minister).

But, I live in hope. This is an asset none of us must ever lose.

Nevertheless, back to Elvis. At the conclusion of the movie, I really did feel sorry for him.

His professional career was dominated by a retired Colonel who signed him up as a highly promising unknown with a contract that earned him half of whatever Elvis earned, plus endless expenses paid solely from Elvis share. This meant that Presley was constantly in a sparse financial situation.

It all got too much for him. He had to perform superbly every day or his fans would be stricken and, to keep going, he took huge number of pills daily, all washed down by lots of Coca Cola, a deadly combination. At the same time, his marriage broke up and his relationship with the Colonel became vitriolic.

Eventually, he just collapsed and died. Many say that his stage performance at Las Vegas the night before he died was his greatest.

Tom Hanks acts the fat old Colonel. Does it superbly. In the end, you hate his guts. This is not a trivial matter for any of us. We all tend to find people in our lives whom we hate and this, too often, sadly fuels our lives as much as our heroes do.

May, I make this trivial comment of personal fantasy in closing.

In my public life, I have made more than 10,000 public speeches in 26 nations in many settings that have occurred in my public life which has so far lasted for 70 of my 90 years, They were mostly about campaigns I have been organising or public issues in which I have been involved or sermons at Churches or talks at service clubs and conventions.

While, I was often able to stir up enthusiasm in the crowds of listeners, I did not ever cause women to rush forward and throw their panties on the stage. Elvis left me struggling far behind in the skills of human motivation. My life really has been a terrible failure in comparison.

However, I am absolutely certain that the world needs an Elvis from time to time.

Cheers, Everald

Books by Everald:

THE MAN ON THE TWENTY DOLLAR NOTES

DINNER WITH THE FOUNDING FATHERS

A BEAUTIFUL SUNSET

You can buy them online, in print or kindle, at Booktopia, Dymocks, Amazon, Book Depository etc

or from his website:   EVERALD@LARGE – Everald Compton

and click on BOOKS

oOo

Who or What is God?

I do not know. Nobody knows. There is no certainty in religion: faith and doubt must go hand-in-hand. Faith derives mainly from the innate human search for meaning, and although our life experiences are so different, inevitably we ask, “What’s it all about, Alfie?” Fortunately, in human life there is the puzzling little additive called intuition, which occasionally pricks us to think that there may be more than just the material world. It alerts us to the Mystery in which we exist.

Concerning the nature of God, anthropomorphism does not worry me because in the Mystery there is humanness. We are in the Mystery. We can do no more than try to apprehend it in human terms, but as Martin Buber argued, any type of I-It relationship with God should be avoided. In the Mystery the dialogue is I-You.

Abstract ideas about God such as panentheism sound reasonable, even scientific like physics, but they do not mean much. Religion is largely a human construct, and I think it is better to approach the Mystery from the human side.

As the psalmist wondered, what are we as human beings? We are not angelic beings. Our lives are limited in time and space, and our understanding is limited. As Christians we believe that the key to understanding our situation is Jesus. He emerged out of the environment of 1^st-century Judaism, and using the tools at hand he constructed a religious edifice based on the assumption that at the heart of the Mystery there is something positive. Call it Love, goodness, holiness or whatever. As Christians we joyfully enter the wonderful edifice that Jesus created.

The main ‘tool’ that Jesus used in constructing Christianity was given to him by the prophet Isaiah, and that was the idea of the Suffering Servant. Jesus took on this role believing that the Kingdom of God would result. What is truly mind-blowing is that it did. The establishment of the Kingdom of God confirmed Jesus’s belief and Isaiah’s prophecy.

Although we do not know the exact nature of God or whatever is at the heart of the Mystery we can be confident that it is something good. As Christians we are in the Kingdom of God: we are “alive to God in Christ Jesus”, and we try to obey the commandment to love God and neighbour.

oOo

Voting for hell.

If in the last election you voted for the Liberals, the Nationals, One Nation or the UAP you voted for hell.

Some progressives think that hell does not exist. However, if you work with and for the most marginalized people in our society you know that it does. Hell is the rubbish dump, just beyond our fine city walls, where we dump the poor, those on government unemployment benefits, asylum seekers, people with disabilities, people with low incomes or insecure work; the list goes on and on.

Yet we are one of the richest countries in the world. We don’t need to have people dumps. There is enough for everyone to gather round the table and to be fed with abundance.

But that would mean the rich would have to pay their fair share of tax. “Communism” cries the Liberal voter, the National voter, One Nation and UAP. No, it is called progressive taxation and is one of the bases of a functioning democracy.

It would also mean an end to cronyism, corruption and undue influence in high places. No wonder the Liberals and Nationals opposed an effective Federal Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Last week we elected a new Federal Government. If they deliver on their promises, the people dump will be smaller, but the pressure on Government will be tremendous. The rich and unscrupulous are powerful in this country and they control much of the media. They will hound this government, and if they cannot find weaknesses, they will invent them. We need to actively encourage this new Government and keep reminding them that we want no one left behind.

Now that the election is over, we cannot just sit back and hope change will come. We need continually to work with the most marginalized to ensure that their voices are heard. The reign of love in which no one is excluded does not depend on Christ arriving on a cloud, but on us each doing our little bit.

Len Baglow

Facilitator, Against the Wind, A new advocacy organization that you are welcome to join.

Details at  https://woden-valley.uca.org.au/groups-and-activities/against-the-wind/

oOo