Wish I was more optimistic about hate speech

I have said on numerous occasions that "Australian Christian Lobby" is a total misnomer. This ragtag group of aggressive evangelical/pentecostal people ( not ALL Pentecostals or Evangelicals by any means but certainly a significant and outspoken number) . I have been an Australian for over 50 years and I have been a Christian for almost 67 years...and in NO WAY does the ACL represent me...or most of the Australians or Christians I know. I find their theology violent and unloving...and indeed un-Christian. I would urge other Christians and Australians to repudiate their hate-filled homophobic agenda...I am not optimistic!!

Picking and choosing what gets you into Hell

So, like most amateur preachers,(nothing wrong with that in my opinion. )  Israel Folau picks and chooses from Holy Writ what he condemns

(why for example has he totally and grossly ignored the Levitical condemnation against tattoos (Leviticus 19:28)“‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord....which curiously (in chs 18-19) stand alongside each other.  More importantly look at 19:16 :
“Do not go about spreading slander among your people.
“Do not do anything that endangers your neighbour’s life. I am the Lord."

Given that it is clear that gay-identified teenagers are three times (at least) more likely to attempt suicide....what responsibility do the Folaus' take for contributing to this. Apparently none!

Back to bloggin' ...fig chutney

Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness... not quite at Autumn yet.. but we appear to have had the 'fortnight of pain' hoffentlich...a curious German/Deutsch word which means more than hopefully
So we love this season...late summer..beautifully 30+ for some days this week then mid 20s. But looks like weeks of 40 s are gone.
So amidst all this there is the mellow fruitfulness of the late fruit harvest,
Chief amongst these are the figs. The gentle succulent fruit, which fits the SA climate because we are Mediterranean.

I picked a bag and a half from the youngest S Clark's tree yesterday....and will be back to pick more tomorrow!!....I suppose we enjoyed eating half of them. I just think they are so gentle and beautiful, and your insides feel good when you eat figs.
Any way what do you do with them when they ripen so quickly and need to be dealt with, otherwise they are wasted.
So I have made some fig and tomato chutney this afternoon.
Simple ingredients of tomatoes, figs, brown sugar, serious vinegar (viz brown,caramelised, balsamic...and I used a bit of guava. Serious amounts a garlic...we Australians are like that...and onion. A cinammon stick really lifts the flavour...and ginger ( pickled or fresh.. or both), mustard seeds and coriander. I will also add fresh basil.
I think the figs just receive the blessing of companion foods.
I am resisting the temptation to add chili...maybe tomorrow's iteration.

God bless the season of mists and figly fruitfulness

Easy for you to say

I spoke in a previous post
about  how the Ration Challenge is  obsessed with food. But I have opined elsewhere that the real battle of the 21st century is about WATER ...and not just about water...but about POTABLE water. That is, water that is safe to drink...I would not be thinking (even though I live close to the Linear Park at Allenby Gardens) that I would allow the two most beautiful grandchildren in the world to avail themselves of that water...the River Torrens Adelaide.
It's one thing to  talk about water....but can you drink it?

Save us from zealots

I continue on my merry way with the Act for Peace Ration Challenge

I know the Roti, or flatbread doesn't look particularly appetising.

But I was surprised about how good it was.

For a person who's devoted to breakfast toast; I was more than happy to have this carbohydrate of flour and water.

No breakfast eggs!

One of the things that does concern me about the Challenge is its obsession with food!

While obviously that is important, there is also lots of other stuff.

A few years ago I was privileged to be in the Holy Lands (sic)... I note that the modern state of Israel is not THE Holy Land.

OLJC was up around Syria...we drove into the Golan Heights, once a place of fierce battle..then (2011) a desolate and barren desert...but once again a battleground.



And my friends  Jen and Bill went to Damascus, thrilled to go to Straight Street (the street called Straight) where blessed Paul regained his sight...and they brought me seasonings from afar ( Za'atar  (  Arabic: زَعْتَر‎, IPA: [ˈzaʕtar]   ) would have liked them during this Ration Challenge.



And we have seen the blatant vandalism of this great city by east and west alike.

God preserve us from the causes of misguided zealots.

It's only a week!

You'll see from the change to the header that this week, 17-24 June is The Ration Challenge.
This is a promotional activity of the Council of Churches to raise money (this year) for refugee work with Syrian refugees.
They are but one group of refugees amongst many cast on the world's woes.
Basically it's a sponsorship deal ...and I am being sponsored by a few (hopefully more . go here  https://my.rationchallenge.org.au/stephan-clark).
This pic is a 'set-up' riding on my breakfast.

Today's breakfast was Rice, rice, and more rice.

I often have great deliberations over breakfast...shall my eggs be scrambled? Or shall I poach them ... in a poacher, or in a tumbling pot (where the water is gently churning). Sometime I like perfectly fried eggs...these are not just chucked in the pan...the oil is gently warmed and the eggs cooked slowly...God save us!

All this and breakfast too.
I stop for a moment and realise (trying not to be a ridiculously pious priest) that I don't imagine most Syrian refugees have an egg...let alone can worry about poaching, scrambling or frying.

And I give thanks that my grandadughter (like me) loves gruel [thin porridge]...[we sometimes phone each other during breakfast and enjoy each other enjoying porridge!]

I can't have any for a week. BUT it's only a week! I need to get over myself

One a penny...

Was interested in Big W's 'cookbook'....here are their"Hot Cross Buns" 
none of which seem to me to be Trad...but all seem yummy: 
Date Orange and LSA(don't even ask); 
Pear & Pecan with Maple Glaze[good idea]; 
Carrot and Sultana (very Sophie Vegan!); 
Mega Chocolate Buns (pictured)..(What the?) ; 

& finally Dairy & Egg-free [the closest thing to Trad...but contain 'egg-replacer' (it's the War all over again) . 
The single Hot C-B factor is that you pipe the sacred sign in 'flour paste'....
My people what have you done!

Faintly Bemused

It has now been over a week since the Federal Parliament passed legislation to allow marriage equality. I have watched local papers for the tedious flow of letters that might have followed.
But curiously there have been none.
What! The skies have not fallen in.
In fact, it all seems to be a bit ho-hum.
Exactly what we all predicted.
We have spent over a  100 million pursuing a questionnaire no one wanted, which  exaggerated popular fears and which told us what we all already knew.

I am personally glad, as a priest-religious celebrant that we have taken this step.
I doubt,  that I as a priest of the Anglican Church, under the rules of our organisation will live to see a marriage between two men or two women, or  intersex men and/or women in one of our 'hallowed precincts'. While I am sad about that I do get it.
And, as I choose to remain an Anglican, I endure that sadness.
Sorry because I think we can do better, as our Scottish, New Zealand, American & Canadian sisters and brothers have done and will do.

Meanwhile I am 'bemused' and totally GLAD that Australia has so embraced Marriage Equality that it is a non-issue

Deeply disturbing

Having been to the funeral of a saint this week.
(Going from my own experiences , and those of Fr Grant Bullen who eulogised our mutual friend Tim Deslandes)
I am deeply disturbed by how the 'net throws up 'saints'. Apparently they mainly lived in the 19th Century...what the ...
The only one who vaguely appeals to me is Mother Teresa.
When I was about18 I got into a party for her, and I shook her hand.
It was certainly worth it.
I know there are lots of questions about her practices but she just oozed the Holy Spirit.
As Ben B and WBY once said (but I was young and foolish)
None of this makes life easy or more understandable...I just think I am not a 19th century Catholic.
Here is a spooky wonderful version of Salley Gardens

10 reasons I would walk out of Church

Today was a joyous and sad day. Christians get this.
My friend Tim died, his funeral was an unhurried festival of joy. Most of the two or three hundred gathered there were walking backwards and forward from joy to tears.
As I say, Christians get this. While saddened that one of us dies, yet we are glad of Jesus's prophetic words . This day you will be with me in Paradise.
Fr Grant Bullen spoke eloquently in his eulogy about how today we have friend on 'the other side'.
While we may want to demythologise this ( I am not terribly fussed) this seemed to me an authentic expression of my relationship with this saint of a man.
In one of the conversations I had today, someone noted that Tim had walked out of a local church when the priest started ranting against marriage quality.
It caused me to wonder what else would make me walk out of church
...I don't intend to fill out the whole list but here are a few things....perhaps you can send me some more.
1. I agree with Tim, while the Church respects everyone's views...when it starts saying that LGBTIQ are disordered and not worthy of equality...I get up and walk out
2. When it says Children should be seen and not heard...I get up and walk out
3. When it says women are subordinate ...I get up and walk out
4. When it prefers the affluent middle-classes, and overlooks the faithful poor, and humble....I get up and walk out

and so this might go on...What are your suggestions?

Burning up - a new poem

I am burning up!

There is a bush,

plenty of bushes in this wilderness.

I am glad to see them

because  they break the monotony.

This one seems to burn,

or is it me. 

I am burning.

My heart is wasting

the wilderness just eats me.

I am too hot.

Too hot even to wear shoes.

I take them off.

the ground seems cooler 

than my sandals.

Don’t you think I  am?

You are what?

I am feet and sandles

I am enough for you today.

I laugh!

Tell them, I suggest, I am has sent you.

I am.

Sandals, smell, burning,

cool ground. 

Enough.

Why don’t you tell them

I am has sent you.

Marriage Equality---opportunity to act SUPPORT NOW

I have taken up the invitation to write to Parliamentarians in anticipation of next-week's resumption of sittings in Canberra about Marriage Equality.
In particular you could do likewise by following Australian Marriage Equality's link.

I chose to write to C Pyne, as a prominent SA Liberal politician ( or another similar) along the following lines

Dear Mr Pyne

You are more than well-aware  that the nation is paying close attention to the discussion in your Party room next week about Marriage Equality.

I happen to be a priest of the Anglican Church, and along with a number of my colleagues am steadfastly in favour of Marriage Equality. Many Christians are in favour of this move

I also recognise, sadly, that it is unlikely that internal processes within a number of Christian Church's themselves will allow this to happen within Church ranks.

Yet this does not mean, I suggest, that our Nation as a whole should not go forward .

It seems unlikely to me that, as a priest, the Anglican Church will allow me to pray for God's blessing on the marriage of same-sex partners who clearly wish to make a lifelong marriage commitment to each other and their children. This is to the Church's shame.

I am sorry that, as a Commonwealth,  we have got stuck, largely because the plebiscite as a process  is clearly not going to work!  

This is so atrociously political on all sides as to be offensive.

I think it is incumbent upon the party of Government to move to break this impasse and exercise leadership.

The community is more than tired of the petty-politicking and I urge you and your colleagues to move definitely to resolve this.

[I think the 'Dutton Postal Vote' option is just a bizarre distraction, and cynical in the extreme.  Non-compulsory, non-binding. In other word 'non helpful' & 'non useful']

All the best and 

Respectfully,

Stephan Clark

Parish Priest: St Mary Magdalene's  

Anglican Church, Adelaide.

You might like to write to Pyne (above), or Birmingham or similar .
Birmingham seems to have become such a 'creature of the machine' which is deeply sad as he is creative thinker and should do better

The mistake of the mandate

In the days when I was much younger and ( perhaps) more naive, a University lecturer reminded me that the Westminster system is not about mandates.
"We elect people to govern, not to implement a narrow raft of policies" he would say ( or words to that effect ).
He was not saying, I suggest, that politicians should be  allowed to make a swathe of promises and then not be held to account; but rather that we, the electorate, should pay attention to the tenor of the discussion rather than the minutiae.
We are not electing people to implement piddling little policies. that would be far too small,  but to govern according to clearly articulated principles.  This is of course easier said than done.
We, the electorate,  by and large have allowed ourselves to be seduced by minutiae...make my tax go down, stop the boats, free beer for all...
Rather than demanding that our politicians GOVERN according to PRINCIPLE.

The reason why the narrow mandate is a mistake, is that we actually discover there is not one but  a number of mandates (plural)....[housing, infrastructure, security, States' rights, increased wealth, closed borders, care for refugees, better education, military expenditure, lower taxes, improved health care, indigenous rights, marriage equality, law and order, water quality, a republic, farmers' rights, housing costs...... you get the idea...and I could go on]

Thinking back to the last election ( which was close... almost too close) all of these things and more were aired.

The electorate votes, I would say, not for one of these issues . But for the Team it believed most closely approximated most of their views in principle.
Some would hold that border control and lower taxes were what they held to be important. Others that water quality and military expenditure, law and order and marriage equality were what suited them.
We could go on and realise that some of us want part of this agenda and others want a different part.

This is NOT a mandate, this is an accomodation to a way of thinking.

So it is not appropriate or accurate to say that if I happen to have been elected, then everyone agrees with everything I said.
It is not even accurate to say that all those who voted for me ( and in this case it was barely 50%) were agreeing about the things that I was proposing.

There was no mandate for anything.
There was rather permission to govern.
Do not use the Mandate Argument to say...I cannot do this. Rather take the cudgels and govern.
Nothing would seem to be black and white, it is rather an invitation to enter into the mêlée of proper discussion.
Not applying the arbitrary mandates, but rather the principles that engender good government.

I fear that the "mandate argument" is the excuse of the craven to not declare themselves.

I do not believe that this wafer-thin government had a mandate for a plebiscite. If anything the reaction of the Houses shows that they clearly don't.

Get on and govern! You do not have a mandate for a plebiscite. And possibly not for much else either!
Get on and govern ...and realise the art of the possible......which after all according to many luminaries (Including J W Howard) is what politics is all about.

Don't we ought to have friends?

In conversation with a friend recently

I rethought these two poems

My friend threw me away 

My friend threw me away 

the other day 

Suddenly from being great 

I was ‘non grata’ 

Maybe it wasn’t sudden at all, 

from the moment 

we met 

I was being dumped. 

I should have seen the signs 

if only I had known 

what the signs 

might have been 

If only I knew now 

what happened then 

I could avoid 

doing it again 

But I am puzzled 

at why one day 

I was his friend 

and then I wasn’t 

I don’t have 

enough friends 

that I can afford 

to be thrown away 

But, rubbish does not 

climb out of the bin 

Unless the owner realises 

he has thrown way 

a treasure! 

-0--0--0--0--0-

I threw away my friend the other day 

I threw away my friend the other day 

and couldn’t get him back. 

Before I’d turned to walk away 

the rubbish van 

had scooped the garbage up 

and taken it away. 

I wrote a letter 

but they would not give it back to me, 

“I accidentally threw a precious gift away 

Can you get it back?” 

I’m sorry sir, they replied, 

if we were to answer every request 

to rescue rubbish 

then we would never collect any. 

“But it isn’t rubbish!” 

I said emphatically. 

Then why, they said, 

did you throw it away? 

Why indeed? 

A poem about - The Ascension

Without being presumptuous, always think I did quite well with this poem:

Even as you wave goodbye

 On a mountain somewhere,
lifted up for all to see
you went
Just when we were beginning to have fun.
So, as if to comfort me,
a little while
you promised to be with me
not just now but always.
 
How could I have believed you
(fool that I am)
“I’ll be with you always”
as you waved goodbye.
 
Now on that same mountain
years later,
and then a little while,
why do I stand looking up
wishing, waiting, wanting
your return.
 
My soul longs for you.
And as I stand there gazing
I look sideways,
left and right,
and backwards
and see you standing here with me.
 
While that for which I am least grateful
tries to tell me
you deserted me
That for which I am most grateful
reminds me
that you enlivened me
you thrilled me
summoned me.
 

 

Not to float away
but to remember
that with you
a promise is a promise
even as you wave goodbye.

Straw dollies

It's the usual "straw dolly" ...set up a false assumption and then knock it down..How clever are you!

There are/is at least one/or more alternatives.
1) The Heimlich is not without consequence...and can cause damage.
Inappropriate intervention..particularly by amateurs can/could/perhaps should leave you open to assault charges
2) Not all "choking" is appropriately treated by the HM..eg. serious internal regurgitation and vomiting. However
3) I would say the BEST treatment is to:
Perform the appropriate action, (if you know how/are qualified/can actually accurately diagnose the condition)
and ALSO pray.
Most good doctors get this!

Some would say..'well prayer can't hurt'
Others, myself included have experience which suggests that when I put my arrogance aside; Prayer does considerably more than just 'not hurt'

As for the esteemed Professor Krauss, one would expect considerably more intellectual integrity than the establishment of such straw dollies ( I do recognise that he may not have been specifically responsible for this meme...but I suspect he did say the words!)

a classic straw dolly

just bash it and it will fall apart!

aka The Easy Target

O spotless virgin - A Christmas poem

O spotless virgin 

O spotless virgin

you should have been more careful

of your son

to place him

amidst all that straw

which could have scratched his skin

or worse still

poked his eye out.

what where you thinking?

O sinless son

you, too, should have been more careful

of your mother

to get blood

all over her best dress.

what were you thinking?

O perfect God

you should have been more careful

of everyone

Why put them together

so that mothers scratch their sons

and sons bleed over their mothers.

Sensitive skin

best dress

fragile lives

what were you thinking?

Marriage equality- playing politics

The curious  Attorney-General, George Brandis, had the cheek to stand in thew Senate yesterday and yet again berate his fellow Senators (berating  seems to be a standard tactic of the Right these days...we are berated by Brandis, by Abbott, by Joyce, by Pyne...and poor Malcolm does not seem to like this tactic, but is increasingly seduced by his fellows to become the Berater -General!)
Brandis stood in the Senate and whined "Stop 'playing politics' with the lives of gay people"
His dubious argument being that (despite weeks of notice) because the Senate core: the Labor, Green and certain cross-benchers (NXT, Derryn and others)...did not capitulate to the berating ..they were 'playing politics'
Neither Brandis, Turnbull or Pyne and others have answered the criticism that The idea of plebiscite itself is a political ploy. And indeed a highly cynical political ploy.
There are two or three points I would like to make:

1. The Plebiscite Proposal of itself was a cynical political ploy of Abbott,  Brandis, Pyne, Abetz and Joyce et al .... ( as members of the inner group) by implication...
This proposal was shifting  the decision from the party to the amorphous voter...
It is noted in Western democracies (like the UK and indeeed Australia and elsewhere) that when decisions get too uncomfortable for the lily-livered..they then suggest plebiscites.  Get the people  to decide. Then the cowardly politicians, who are paid big bucks to dcide on our behalf, don't have to take the heat
Now mind you we pay the people ( in the Australian case) at least $200, 000 a year to be 'decision makers'
To me, not a politician, but an humble presbyter....it seems that the pollies who are paid this way should do what they are paid to do.
The cynical political ploy is to NOT do what you are paid to do.

2.The Pragmatism of Democracy.  This is a dogma much espoused in the Coalition: "Politics is the art of the possible"  we change and bend to accomodate changed circumstances.
Now circumstances have changed you need to accomodate the possible.
Yet there is no shift...why not? You would prefer to whine that Labor have denied this opportunity ...despite the fact that the LGBTIQ communities have steadfastly said they don't want it done like this...they want a direct vote NOW

3. In reality this vote could happen today! The Coalition can allow a direct vote today...this could be a Party Vote...then we would see how the Party is directing its members to vote.  Or if it allowed a conscinece vote..then how would individuals vote?
It does not allow this becaue of the POLITICAL PLOY of the factional right that knows on either scheme it would nbe defeated


Don't berate me George Brandis about playing politics with people's lives...you and yours  started this.
It is now up to you, and those who have any sense of decency and integrity left to STOP PLAYING POLITICS

More language of marriage

Marriage doesn't need adjectival qualification.

Indeed the only qualification that I have any sympathy with is "underage"; and indeed that is already covered by the law. Like namely it is NOT a marriage under law.

And we wouldn't for a moment  think of qualifying marriage of two people in their 70s as "Pensioner Marriage"---I have incidentally conducted such a wedding. The Bride's mother was also there (aged 95), and her daughter, and her granddaughter who was with child ...so there is an excellent photo of 5 generations even if the youngest is ion her mother's womb....

I myself was once party to a marriage of people born in two different countries....it has never-ever been referred to as "interracial", or even "international" or "cross national"..we were just married.

I likewise have married people of different races...it would be offensive to call this "interracial".

I have married quite a number of interfaith couples; and indeed couples of no faith (an expression, I suspect, which is devoid of meaning...yet full of import)

I have never enquired about people's sexual predilections; so I have no idea whether anyone of the 400+ people  I have married are same-sex attracted, racially attracted, religiously biassed (I have discovered latterly...and surprisingly...that a few are some of these things).

To my mind everyone should have opportunity to marry... this is not about sex, race, nationality...

Some more reflections on the language of marriage

The Marriage Equality debate for me is one of social justice.
Everyone should be allowed to have a committed relationship which is protected by law and which might allow for the nurture of children.
I  ( and most other commentators) am not at all convinced (along with mainstream political and language/linguistic) theory that language is neutral.
Basically...you open your mouth, or your pen hits the the paper and you have already declared a whole lot of stuff that you you may or may not wish to have disclosed.
So The Marriage Equality (my preference) discussion is subject to all sorts of renaming..eg:

Gay Marriage
Same-sex marriage

These both suggest that there are different types of marriage.
Obviously 'different types' of marriage does not suggest equality!

As a Christian I am well aware that conservative, right wing groups do not represent me (see below).
They are very strident and specific about using exclusive terminology 
as long as we describe marriage with other descriptors eg same-sex or Gay   then we are capitulating to the idea that marriage is not a Universal right, or that there are different types of marriage. Which is nonsensical!

To me I reiterate:
Everyone should be allowed to have a committed relationship which is protected by law and which might allow for the nurture of children.

But let me also add a discourse about the dilemma for Christians...particularly those of us who are NOT of the narrow/fundamentalist/evangelical/Pentecostal, right-wing perspective




Let me not begin to treat on the so-called Australian Christian Lobby, (ACL) I have already made a number of posts here, and occasionally written a few letters to the paper (see below(1)) about this misnomer

They are indeed "Australian"...
but "Christian"  is not an accurately inclusive descriptor...most ACL members are one or more  of evangelical, fundamentalist and pentecostal.
This may be a controversial statement...they (ACL) are no doubt Christian, but are they Universal (ie representative of ALL Christians)?  I would suggest No!

Indeed I, and many others in mainstream Churches are not only unrepresented  by ACL but at odds with their narrow, legalistic, moralistic, puritanical version of Christianity.
Which seems to me at odds with the Jesus who welcomed prostitutes, sinners and tax collec
tors

In traditional parlance  the universal term for all Christians is Catholic (not Roman ...which is only part of the Universal)
The Catholic Church consists of ALL Christians (not just the Roman). The ACL is certainly not representative of that Universal Church

________________________

(1)Extract from: Letter to the Adelaide Advertiser 12/9/16

I do not identify with conservative and fundamentalist Christianity.To caricature all Christians as being steadfastly opposed to this change is wrong. I suspect that proper investigation would surprise the community at large. The church of ordinary folk is much more tolerant than its caricature.So who then will receive the ‘equal funding’?.  I ,certainly, am not happy for extremist conservative Christians (the Australian Christian Movement & Family First, for example) to represent me, and do not believe that in any sense they represent 'the Churches'.  They are not  the representatives of Australian Christians.

\

(1)Extract from: Letter to the Adelaide Advertiser 12/9/16

I do not identify with conservative and fundamentalist Christianity.

To caricature all Christians as being steadfastly opposed to this change is wrong. I suspect that proper investigation would surprise the community at large. The church of ordinary folk is much more tolerant than its caricature.

So who then will receive the ‘equal funding’?.  

I ,certainly, am not happy for extremist conservative Christians (the Australian Christian Movement & Family First, for example) to represent me, and do not believe that in any sense they represent 'the Churches'.  They are not  the representatives of Australian Christians.

And then there's Halloween

The greatest thing about Halloween  is that the youngest Clark once said when kids come knocking for trick or treat (Does anyone in Australia understand how Trick or Treat works?) ...any way she said that we should not give them anything and say "We don't believe in Halloween, it's against our religion!"
I feel so efficient as an indoctrinator! I did have 5 or 6 kids knick tonight...and would have happily given them a Mars bar,but I had not a lolly in sight. They accepted my grumpy old man and I was a bit sad to tell them, I had 'absolutely nothing to give them' ( I realised after they could have shared my rice pudding which I had made to satisfy my own sugar craving!....perhaps not!

I don't think we should be so cruel, to Tricker and Treaters. 
The oldest child says she thinks Trick or Treat will be BIG this year. This is probably divined from the internet
Any way I am thinking we shpouldhave had saint cards available and a lolly or two.
As I understand it it is not so unChristian a feast.

Halloween is a contraction of All Hallows Even, or the Eve (day before) All Hallows Day (Nov 1st). 
Naturally as we think about the glory of heaven on All Hallows (All Saints) Day we also think the day before of the other side of the coin...and so the ghosties and ghoulies and four legged beasties and things that go bump in the night get to capture our imagination.
But as blessed youngest S Clark would have you know... we don't believe in this.... it's not that we don't believe in the dark world so much, as we don't believe it exists with the sort of forces and powers that the movies and imaginations gone wild would have us imagine. In fact quite the reverse orthodox Christianity believes that when Jesus died he defeated all that sort of evil.
We need to believe this I think.
One of my colleagues once said to me, these things have the power we give them. The unfortunate thing about horror as a genre is it tells a lie about how powerful these things are, and gives them power they do not have.
So any kids who come deserve  to get  a nice saint picture....and a lolly too

The language of marriage

Let's make no mistake that the nuance of language does matter
I have been trying to encourage people to use correct ...perghaps the expression is more accurate ...language in regard to the present discussions about who is and who is not allowed to get married.
For me there is a universal human right that all adult human beings should be allowed to enetre into lifelong marital relationship.
More than this, I would maintain that traditional Christian doctrine has a high view of marriage as an agent for social stability and for the secure nurrture of future generations of children

In marriage a new family is established in accordance with God’s purpose, so that children may be born and nurtured in secure and loving care, for their well-being and instruction, and for the good order of society, to the glory of God.

N and N have now come here to be joined in this holy union to which God has led them. They seek his blessing on their life together, that they may fulfil his purpose for them; and they ask us to support them in this prayer. If anyone can show why they may not lawfully be joined in marriage, speak now, or hereafter remain in silence.

(The Australian  Anglican Church's current prayerbook)

If you dig back into this statement we well know that the social supposition has for most of recorded history  assumed, and indeed asserted, that  "N and N"  have actually been  Mary and Mark, rather than Mary and Margie, or Mark and Mike.

But I want to dig around that in the next few articles.

At the heart of my thinking is equality, social stability and, primarily, the secure and loving care of children.
This does not seem to me to be intrisnically linked to: the age difference of the parents, the racial or credal difference, the intellectual compatibility (or otherwise) and finally (the cause of the current dicussion in Australia) the requirement for N & N  to be  of different gender



Here's a couple of links to other interesting articles on this issue
http://splash.abc.net.au/home#!/media/1163914/presenting-a-point-of-view-about-marriage-equality

https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/sep/25/gay-or-straight-lets-embrace-the-language-of-marriage-equality

Equal funding

There is a lot of misleading nonsense being spouted about ‘equal funding’ for proponents and opponents of Marriage Equality.

Those who say “both sides” should be funded make the false assumption that there are only two sides. 

I, as you know, am a priest of a City Anglican Church, and am clearly aware that many of my colleagues in my denomination and other  denominations throughout the country are in favour of Marriage Equality. 

I do not identify with conservative and fundamentalist Christianity.

To caricature all Christians as being steadfastly opposed to this change is wrong. 

I suspect that proper investigation would surprise the community at large. The church of ordinary folk is much more tolerant than its caricature. (see here for example http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/a-majority-of-christians-support-marriage-equality/)

So who then will receive the ‘equal funding’?.  

I, certainly, am not happy for extremist conservative Christians (the Australian Christian Movement & Family First, for example) to represent me, and do not believe that in any sense they represent 'the Churches'.  They are not  the representatives of Australian Christians. And should nto be the ones who are the beneficiaries of such arbitrary largesse from government

Plebiscite schmebiscite..this post is worth repeating

In democracies, by definition, plebiscites must be almost always:  deceitful, deceptive, manipulative & unhelpful

 In a democracy we delegate responsibility to our elected representatives...occasionally we have a Referendum...when matters are so great that it is good to get whole-community consensus

Plebiscites, it seems to me, are when our elected representatives are so weak-kneed that they lack the courage and conviction to do what they were elected to do...that is DECIDE
To not be too cynical, it is the sort of thing our Lords and Masters ( for they are largely male) do when they are too lily livered to actually make a decision...God forbid that they might actually declare their hands!

Sooooo....the dilemma we now face in the Parliament which looks increasingly hung is this:

• Turnbull has declared that there will be a Plebiscite  
• Shorten, whilst not committed  to a Plebiscite, suggests that there should be resolution of this issue within 100 days

What it seems to me.....neither of these luminaries rate this issue as primary within their present DIFFICULT PARLIAMENT scenario

Even more importantly, neither Shorten nor Turnbull, seem to be able to  actually effect their agenda...

So my, SAD,  suggestion is that the expectation about Marriage Equality is not going to be addressed by either Turnbull or Shorten...they will both have their reasons.

None of them will resonate with people on either side.

I suspect it will make Australians seem like Luddites.
The people of a generation  a hundred years or more ago!...no wonder we don't trust them