Rod Benson Ethics

CHRISTMAS - December 2006

2006-11-21T17:13:00.000-08:00

CHRISTIAN ETHICS

CHRISTMAS

For many Australians, Christmas is that peak commercial period between Halloween and Valentine’s Day. It’s a time to give free rein to festivity and frivolity and greed.

We yearn for fake snow, pine and deer in our homes and shopping centres – while singing platitudes about jingle bells and Jesus. No wonder it’s “the silly season.” But life was utterly different for those who shaped the original Christmas story.

In Exiles, alluding to Richard Adams’ classic tale Watership Down, Michael Frost reminds us that

Christian experience is not primarily formed by our liturgy, doctrine, or ecclesiology … [but] by the dangerous stories of our great hero … radical stories of Jesus, the prince with a thousand enemies.

The most dangerous story of all is the story of Christmas. At his birth, Jesus was as vulnerable, dependent and small as you and I were at birth. Socially he was marginalised by his birth to a poor tradesman and his teenage fiancé. Culturally the family was excluded by their Nazarene roots and their looks – no room at the inn for such as these.

Later they were politically exiled out of fear of Herod’s sword. And for three decades they were virtually forgotten, until Jesus stood to speak in the synagogue at Nazareth, and swiftly assumed the mantle of the exile. But that’s another story.

The experience of marginalisation, exclusion and exile, reflected in the faces of the young Mary and Joseph, and in the cries of the infant Jesus, is worth some reflection.

To what extent, and to what purpose, do we shield ourselves from the experience of exile? What do we lose by convincing ourselves of respectability, surrounding ourselves with things, and amusing ourselves to death?

To what extent do we, followers of this extraordinary exile, allow the soft clay of our lives to be touched and shaped by the values and practices that shaped him? Food for thought this silly season.

Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney. You can contact him at RodB@morling.edu.au

The war in Lebanon and the return of Christ - Sept. 2006

2006-08-22T23:33:00.000-07:00

The war in Lebanon and the return of Christ

Since 12 July scenes of destruction, despair and death have filled our TV screens as conflict between Israel and Lebanon escalated into war. Hundreds have died, most in Lebanon and almost all civilians. Israel has also inflicted massive infrastructure damage to southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah has terrorized northern Israelis with multiple daily missile strikes.

Israel claims its legitimate right to self-defence, while Hezbollah retaliates in the name of religion. Meanwhile the U.S. government links the conflict to the so-called “war on terror,” and implicates Syria or Iran in encouraging Hezbollah’s activities and in the supply of weapons. In my opinion, Hezbollah terrorism must cease, but so must the disproportionate Israeli aggression in response to Hezbollah’s outrageous acts.

Aside from the tragedy of preventable suffering and death, and the perennial ethical questions about the purpose and consequences of war, another issue concerns thoughtful Christians. Some well-meaning Christians identify any and every military conflict in the Middle East with a particular view of biblical prophecy and the return of Christ.

That view, commonly called dispensationalism, holds that the return of Christ is imminent and will be accompanied by an increasing global conflagration. Fortunately for the true believers, though, Jesus will return in two stages, first to take them to heaven and – some time later – to return in wrath to reign on earth. Unfortunately, some of the emphases of the dispensationalists support the interests of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, and (to a lesser extent) political Zionism.

Such fears and hopes are fed by fundamentalist websites, dispensationalist authors such as Tim LaHaye (in his Left Behind series which has sold more than 55 million copies), and other neo-conservatives on the extremist fringe of the American Christian Right. RaptureReady.com, for example, posts an index estimating the imminence of the “rapture” on the basis of selected world events, and the recent war in Lebanon has both raised the index and raised the profile of the website in the secular press – who find the whole business laughable.

But the current war in Lebanon, or Jews fighting Arabs anywhere, or even modern Israel’s political existence, has little to do with biblical prophecy. Christians should resist putting a theological or eschatological overlay on Middle East politics and wars. In particular, evangelism based on this theme is misguided and inevitably discredits both messenger and message. That is not to suggest that people cannot find faith in Christ through this means, nor to question the validity of the faith of people who have, but to point out that there are much better and more ethically defensible ways to go about sharing the Christian gospel.

Instead of a preoccupation with current events in and around Israel, and surmising on the likely date for Jesus’ return, our emphasis should simply be on “leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming Day of God” (2 Peter 3:11-12). As we follow Jesus in obedience to his word, we can pray for peace, lobby our politicians to exert appropriate diplomatic pressure on the players, and send aid where it is most needed. Right now Baptist World Aid Australia and other aid agencies are assisting refugees and displaced persons in Lebanon, and preparing to meet immediate and longterm needs, and they desperately need our help.

So rather than getting your hopes up on the imminence (or otherwise) of the Lord’s return, perhaps it is time to get your wallets out in order to give away to your preferred charity what the Lord has blessed you with – to assist people you will never meet but who are grateful for basic mercies such as food, shelter, clothing, medicines – and love.

And wouldn’t it be wonderful if the people behind the Rapture Index found a way to measure the amount of love and mercy expended in the world’s hotspots, and used that data to crunch their numbers…

Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney.

Recommended websites:

Baptist World Aid Australia (click “Middle East crisis”) – http://www.shareanopportunity.org/

Christopher Davey, “The Israel-Palestine Conflict: reality and the demise of evangelical Christianity” – http://www.zadok.org.au/papers/ChrisDaveyPaper.pdf

George Marsden, “The sword of the Lord” – http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/2006/marapr/3.10.html

Andrew Cameron & Tracy Nodder, “Justice and hate” – http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/socialissues/51_justice_and_hate/

The Rapture Index – http://www.raptureready.com/rap2.html

“Dispensationalism” on Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism

YIELDING to Yoga ?

2006-05-21T14:44:00.000-07:00

Yielding to yoga? by Rod Benson

In one of my previous churches, I discovered to my surprise that one of the organists, an octogenarian and foundation member of the church, had spent many years practicing and teaching yoga. It seemed incongruous that such a devoted follower of Jesus would so enthusiastically embrace what appeared to me to be a Hindu religious practice – and initiate others into the tradition.

Since then, I have discovered that many who identify as evangelical Christians, especially young women, practice yoga as an important part of their daily or weekly regimen. They have used yoga to reduce stress, as part of a holistic fitness program, and – less commonly – as a spiritual discipline not unlike certain forms of mystical Christian meditation.

Practiced carefully and consistently, yoga achieves all these goals. And it is especially useful in raising awareness of one’s body, and bodily rhythms, and in helping to ameliorate the Western dichotomy between body and mind. Serious non-Christian practitioners of yoga are more specific about aims and outcomes, speaking of a desire to empty the mind and achieve a sense of union with what is euphemistically termed the ‘transcendent.’

Yoga does indeed find its roots in ancient Indian philosophy and religion. And there are ethical as well as spiritual concerns to be considered. Teachers, for example, tell me that children are now introduced to yoga at some Australian public schools, and in after-school care programs, by amateur instructors who insist that it is “secular” and “values-free.” Like the Japanese spiritual practice of reiki, performed (I am told) by nurses on newborn babies without the consent of management or parents, yoga is at the very least a values-laden practice that children should arguably encounter in religious studies classes rather than the gymnasium.

Yet for evangelicals like Agnieszka Tennant, yoga is merely “bodily-kinetic prayer,” and, she says, “the Hindu gods don’t make it onto my mat”:

My natural response to any deep-breathing exercises is an emotionally-felt love of God. Soon after I take off my socks and do a couple of poses, spontaneous prayers soar to Christ … The Spirit – which in both biblical Greek and Hebrew also means breath – is indispensable to my soul. Breathe in. Breathe out. Holy Spirit in. Anything that’s not from God out …” [1]

Then, at the end of her yoga session at the local gym, Tennant’s instructor bows and says, “Namaste,” which, she points out, can be translated, “The soul in me honours the soul in you.”

Are Tennant and her ilk onto what appears to be a good thing but deluding themselves as to its basic nature? Are they, in fact, mistaking darkness for light, falsehood for truth, evil for virtue?

Some Christians would suggest they are, and urge them to cease practicing yoga for their soul’s sake. Among other things, these well-meaning Christians might argue, a more accurate translation of “Namaste” is, “I bow to the god in you” – a clear echo of basic Hindu doctrine. Others would no doubt respect Tennant’s integrity and freedom to express her Christian faith in whatever manner she wished, within reason.

But there is a third response, one that is more than likely coming soon to a church near you: full-blown, no holds barred Christian yoga! The widespread popularity of yoga among evangelical Christians has created a burgeoning market in yoga programs, purified and packaged for Christian consumption. One of the most popular of these is Laurette Willis’s PraiseMoves.

Willis has responded to the spiritual challenge of yoga by reworking it to conform to popular evangelical spirituality. In place of yoga stretches, vinyasa flows and meditation, her product offers “Walkin’ Wisdom Warm-Ups,” “Scripture Sequences” and – wait for it – “What Would Jesus Do? Relaxation Time.” You can buy her book, Basic Steps to Godly Fitness, peruse the website, and purchase the workout DVD. And the movement is growing: Monica Byrne reports that, in 2005, Willis trained nearly 60 instructors across the US to offer PraiseMoves classes in their own places of worship. [2]

PraiseMoves is a well-crafted program aimed to appeal to the evangelical enthusiast. Each pose is tied to a Scripture verse. “During the standing posture known as The Angel,” gushes Willis in her promotional material, “we’re stretching one leg back, stretching the hamstrings and reaching the arms up and forward slightly, lifting up the torso through the crown of the head. At the same time we’re focusing on the Scripture from Psalm 91:11, ‘For he shall give his angels charge over you to keep you in all your ways.’”

For Willis, any belief system not explicitly sanctioned in Scripture is a potential threat to the individual’s moral compass. When it comes to yoga, importing Christian theology, prayers and Scripture quotations to the regimen seems to do the trick.

On reflection, it all sounds pretty harmless, and preferable to traditional yoga. I’m all in favour of encouraging a closer relationship between the evangelical body and the evangelical mind. But one wonders what Jesus and Paul would have made of PraiseMoves and similar programs, and, more generally, the increasingly fad-based and product-oriented nature of evangelical experience and discipleship.

Now, a confession. Despite my evident evangelical skepticism toward yoga, I do have a personal exercise regimen that reduces stress, increases fitness and – I think – deepens my spiritual life.

It’s very simple: I walk and pray, though not as often or as long as I should. I walk the dog; I walk to and from the bus that takes me to work; on weekends I walk with my family to the duck pond near our house, and through the awesome Blue Mountains National Park, and along the cliff-top paths between Sydney’s equally stunning eastern suburbs beaches.

As I walk, if I’m not listening to radio current affairs or to those around me, I admire the natural revelation of God’s glory and goodness. Or I pray a prayer to accompany my breathing, in and out, in and out, “Fill me with your Spirit, cleanse me from my sin.” Other words or phrases could reasonably be substituted. That’s as close as I have come to practicing yoga, and it’s enough for me.

There is a place for physical exertion, and for stillness. There is a time for mental exertion, and for release. The pace of modern living is often exhausting. Each of us needs spiritual, emotional and physical refreshment every day. “Be still,” counsels the ancient Hebrew poetry, “and know that I am God!”

Frankly, it is those who can’t, or won’t, find this quiet place within to relax and refresh and refocus their spirits who need exhortation – not those whose private spiritual disciplines may look and sound a little unorthodox but who are otherwise spiritually, emotionally and physically healthy. It’s the old distinction between method and message, form and content, and the wisdom to discern the good in things and in persons.

Now, to put on my walking shoes, find the dog, and hit the pavement for an evangelical mind-body workout – minus the merchandise and mumbo-jumbo.

References

[1] Agnieszka Tennant, “Yes to yoga,” www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/120/42.0.html, dated 19 May 2005.

[2] Monica Byrne, “Yoga and fundamentalist Christianity,” Sightings, 18 May 2006.

Rev Rod Benson is Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney Australia.

AFTER RU486 - what next ? - MARCH 2006

2006-02-25T19:00:00.000-08:00

Australian subscribers to Soundings and its more verbose sister publication, Religion & Ethics Australia Digest, will be aware that the federal government moved last week to allow the abortion pill, RU486, to be approved for distribution in Australia.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration, the body that regulates therapeutic goods in Australia, will no longer be dogged by the Health Minister’s power of veto on RU486 approval. We shall have to wait and see what decision the TGA makes if and when the pharmaceutical industry applies for permission to import the drug, given the TGA’s brief to ensure public health and safety, and its reliance on “evidence-based” medicine.

Speaking of evidence, one of the clear winners in the current RU486 debate is Australian democracy. The Prime Minister was right to allow parliamentarians a conscience vote, and the Senate did the nation a service in requiring the Community Affairs Committee to call for public submissions and produce a report.

The evidence contained in the Committee’s report, in the wide media coverage of the issue, and in the protracted and remarkably personal debates in the Senate and House of Representatives over the last few weeks is voluminous and telling.

I have expressed my support for the current legislation elsewhere, and I am therefore disappointed in the decision made by federal parliament last week. What history will make of it all is not for me to guess. But I am pleased that I live in an open society in which the church, as well as its ideological opponents, can have their say and be heard, even if they are misunderstood and misrepresented by some. Our democratic freedom is to be celebrated and defended.

It is important to note that the debate concerned whether RU486 should be permitted in Australia, and who should decide. It was not a debate over the legality of abortion, which is legal in Australia (although abortion is technically unlawful in NSW, I am told that no court will prosecute).

It is therefore disappointing that the Rev Fred Nile, national president of the Christian Democratic Party, condemning the 95 federal MPs who, he says, “voted for the RU486 drug” and, by implication, voted for more abortions in Australia. In fact they did not. And the TGA is not likely to be impressed by a party leader calling on “everyone” to write to its chairman, urging him to suspend availability of the drug. Such action may well prove counter-productive.

The editor of the Catholic Leader goes further, claiming that, “like Pontius Pilate, more than half of [federal politicians] washed their hands of the responsibility … [and] like Christ, possibly millions of unborn babies have been possibly sentenced to death by them. These politicians will have the blood on their hands” Little wonder, then, that Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle felt compelled to counter earlier religious rhetoric by wearing a T-shirt in the House during debate, emblazoned with the offensive words “Mr Abbott, get your rosaries off my ovaries.”

As I reflected on recent events in Australia, and as I contemplated encroaching political and ideological battles on issues ranging from “ethnic cleansing” to euthanasia to executive salaries (I am, according to my job description, a lobbyist as well as a researcher), I found myself reading a recent collection of essays by Thomas W. Ogletree, titled The World Calling: The Church’s Witness in Politics and Society (Westminster John Knox Press, 2004).

Currently Professor of Theological Ethics at Yale University, Ogletree reflects on the church’s public witness in a world of competing interests, entrenched injustice and radical individualism. He is optimistic about the church’s capacity to fulfil its prophetic calling, and has something important to say to liberals and conservatives alike. In the preface he offers this wise advice on strategy:

… sometimes our most energetic efforts will prove fruitless … We have to learn to discern the times of opportunity when openings emerge that present unprecedented new possibilities for constructive change. At other times, we must learn to practice patient waiting and faithful enduring, holding steadfastly to our deepest convictions even when prospects for constructive change are slim.

These skills of judging and perceiving, and virtues such as patience and faithfulness and courage, are caught rather than taught, and seem to me to be under-valued and under-used in public discourse today. Elusive though they may be, such qualities are among the essential components of an effective public Christian witness.

Eminent social justice advocates like American Baptists Coretta Scott King and Foy Valentine (both of whom died recently, leaving extraordinary legacies for Christian ethics and social justice – more on them next week), and their Australians equivalents, such as the Protestant evangelist and prophet Alan Walker and the Catholic intellectual and strategist B.A. Santamaria, possessed and expressed such qualities.

We need more of them.

WORRIES ABOUT WORKPLACE REFORM - NOVEMBER 2005

2005-10-29T14:36:00.000-07:00

Worries about workplace reform

What are Australian church leaders saying about WorkChoices, the draft federal workplace reforms? Three initial observations.

First, church leaders across the theological spectrum are saying quite a lot, and the national media are reporting it – in some cases, I suspect, with glee.

Second, it is all negative: unless I’m reading all the wrong papers, not one church or parachurch agency spokesperson has spoken publicly in favour of the reforms. Talk about separation of church and state!

Third, the comments do not support the notion of a division of the church into “Christian Right” and “Christian Left” factions, a notion that journalists, politicians and academics love to advance. Conservative and liberal Christian leaders alike question the wisdom of the government’s reforms. The relations between faith and politics are complex and nuance, as the key players are well aware.

Now to the specifics: as one might expect, the churches have raised concerns about justice for the vulnerable and erosion of leisure time under the new structures.

Here are some examples.

Australian Catholic Commission for Employment Relations executive officer, John Ryan, said the proposed system did not appear to address fundamental concerns about “fairness and balance,” and claimed the system provided safeguards to workers only “after the fact.” Ryan expressed concern that “the changes appear to leave us without any future means of maintaining a fair safety net of award conditions for those who cannot bargain effectively.”

Melbourne Anglican Archbishop Peter Watson weighed in, saying that “there are some issues which stir the soul … about which Christian leaders cannot remain silent.” Chief among these, for him, was preservation of weekends and leisure time for the wellbeing of individuals, families, community, and “ultimately, the health of the economy.” Hmmm.

Uniting Church President Dean Drayton criticised the government’s plans to replace the Australian Industrial Relations Commission with a new Fair Pay Commission, saying its mandate would be to keep wages low rather than assess what workers needed to live a decent life. He viewed this as “incompatible with Christianity,” since “Christians are called to challenge systems and structures that breed hate, greed, oppression, poverty, injustice and fear.” Indeed we are.

Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen observed that, under the new regime, families would spend less time together. He feared the reforms risked turning workers into robots, and voiced concern over the need for preserving shared time for children, families and relationships: “That’s what life is about, not merely the economy.” Jensen is right, but he could have mounted a more substantial biblical-economic critique.

Ironically, Australian Greens senator Bob Brown – no friend of the churches – applauded Jensen for having “hit the nail on the head.” Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison agreed with the stance taken by the churches. The Labor Party opposes anything the Howard government proposes – except, of course, anti-terrorism legislation.

Baptist Dr Mark Tronson wrote,"Both Mr Howard & Opposition Leader Mr Kim Beasley have it right, Mr Howard is wanting ‘good-will’ to play a larger part in the ‘negotiation’ equation on workplace relations reform, Mr Beasley that ‘good-will’ legislatively needs a little help. Legislating for ‘good-will’ is the tricky part."

Brian Houston, Assemblies of God president & senior pastor of Sydney’s Hillsong church, officially opened by John Howard in 2002. Houston made no comment on economic or justice issues, but said he felt “relaxed” about the impact of WorkChoices on worship attendance, pointing out the need to make church services relevant enough for people to make them a priority. If I were unaware of Houston’s strong commitment to the poor, I’d say that sounded like tacit approval for WorkChoices.

And what are we to make of the Prime Minister’s appointment of Ian Harper, a “dry” economist and evangelical Christian, to chair the new Fair Pay Commission?

Harper, currently executive director of the Centre for Business and Public Policy at the Melbourne Business School, grew up nominally Anglican but embraced an evangelical faith in the late 1980s. He is not coy about his Christian convictions, citing “strong religious convictions” as a chief reason for accepting the job. He claimed to live by values that addressed the best interests of the poor and the vulnerable, adding, “That’s what Jesus Christ stood for.”

Harper presented the 2003 Acton Lecture titled, “Christian morality and market capitalism: Friends or foes?” [Centre for Independent Studies], in which he acknowledged the difficulty of working as a Christian and an economist.

Christians, he said, “often find it hard to accept that someone who claims to follow the preacher of the Sermon on the Mount could also follow the teacher of the doctrine of ‘the invisible hand’” while for his professional colleagues, “the rationality of economics reigns supreme, sweeping all forms of non-rational enquiry – including superstition and religious dogma – before it.”

His response was “to have an appropriately modest view of the realm of the market within the sphere of our lives. …. treating market capitalism itself as religion.” Indeed!

GIRL-TIME AT THE HIGH COURT BUT NOT IN THE CHURCH - September 2005

2005-09-28T00:26:00.000-07:00

Girl-time at the High Court, but not in the church

We learned yesterday that a new judge was on its way to the High Court. Attorney-General Philip Ruddock announced the appointment of Victorian judge Justice Susan Crennan to replace retiring judge Michael McHugh in November.

This is the fifth Howard government appointment to the Court’s seven-member bench, and - according to most pundits - ensures a conservative High Court well into the future. And the government’s political influence on the High Court will continue, with three more vacancies due in the next four years as judges attain the compulsory retirement age of 70.

Girl-time in the judiciary Justice Crennan, 60, is the 45th appointment to the nation’s highest court in its 102-year history, and only the second woman appointment. The first was Mary Gaudron, who served from 1987 to 2003.

Crennan began her legal career at the NSW bar in 1979 after a first career as a teacher of English literature. In what was seen as a very rapid elevation, she was appointed a Queen’s Counsel in 1989. She chaired the Victorian Bar Council in 1993 and was the first woman President of the Australian Bar Association from 1994-1995.

Last month Justice McHugh challenged the Howard government to appoint a woman to replace him when he reached retirement age on 1 November. But despite a long campaign by female lawyers to appoint a female judge to the nation’s highest court, Ruddock’s decision was made, he said, "on merit alone and not because of any pressure to appoint a woman."

Nor would Crennan herself want you to imagine that her appointment was a win for feminists, for gender equality, or indeed for women. Earlier she rejected suggestions that her remarkable career success was a victory for feminism, saying it merely reflected the "increased numbers of women working in the profession."

When she chaired the Victorian bar, Crennan insisted on being referred to as "chairman," not chair, chairwoman or chairperson, apparently regarding the term "simply as a title, not a gender-positive appellation."

Victorian barrister Kate McMillan, SC, said Justice Crennan was "a beacon for the modern woman who wanted to have it all, but not for those advocating affirmative action."

When first touted for judicial office a decade ago, Crennan said the feminist argument about the paucity of women in the professions was wrong. They wanted to play a blame game, she said, when the real reason for gender-imbalance in professions such as law and medicine were "biological imperatives" and the overwhelming demands on those who chose to combine career and family.

In my view, the appointment of Justice Crennan augurs well for the High Court, the Australian judiciary and the nation.

I’m pleased the Attorney-General made the call on the basis of merit alone. I’m also pleased that the Howard government happened to appoint a woman to a bench that currently seats seven men.

Even two out of 45 appointments is better than one - or none.

Girl-time in the church?

So it is girl-time, of a sort, at the High Court. But all the media talk today about affirmative action (or its lack) leads me to ponder the state of women’s leadership in the church, and in Australian Baptist churches in particular.

In NSW, the state with which I am most familiar, local churches may ordain women and, since 1999, the denomination has accredited women as professional ministers.

Even in a denomination that is predominantly conservative and evangelical, the critical theological and cultural battles, it appears, are over.

Yet while the number of women graduating from evangelical theological colleges is significant and on the increase, to my knowledge the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT have only one female lead pastor, and very few female pastors in pastoral teams.

There is arguably a "blokey" church culture; women find it difficult to join (and remain on) denominational committees and taskforces; women "of child-bearing age" find it almost impossible to secure full-time pastoral positions; and those women who do succeed in gaining employment as a pastor rarely succeed in moving from that role to a similar role in a second church.

These features are common to Baptist churches across Australia.

If you thought the gender issue was pertinent to the senior judiciary, it is at least as pressing in Australian Baptist churches. In the light of this situation, I was pleased to note the arrival last week of a new publication from Morling Press, Leadership and Baptist Church Governance, edited by Dr Graeme Chatfield, which features a chapter on women’s leadership written by Rev Belinda Groves and Kristine Morrison.

The whole chapter is an illuminating and disturbing read, but I want to highlight what they suggest as the way ahead for Australian Baptists:

(1) revisit what it means to be Baptist (a reference to the cardinal Baptist principal of religious liberty);

(2) celebrate female Baptist leaders of the past, and ensure better recognition of the contributions of women to Australian Baptist work in future histories;

(3) rejuvenate and transform the culture of committees and meeting practice; and

(4) actively seek out women to serve in key leadership roles.

The authors boldly add that, "in order to establish a gender balance, a woman may have to be given preference over a man" (p. 132).

Will we see a sea change in gender-based attitudes and practices among Baptists in Australia?

I doubt that it will occur in my lifetime. The most important change that needs to occur, if women are to be accorded equality with men as pastors in our churches, is for local churches to view women and men as God views them.

A majority of members in Australian Baptist churches today, and almost all the opinion-makers and gatekeepers, are cultural conservatives who are tacitly opposed to women in lead roles.

The church of Jesus Christ once led the community in facilitating social change - I think of slavery, trade unions, civil rights. I look forward to the day when the church once again takes the lead.

In the meantime, thank you, Mr Ruddock, for appointing a woman to the bench of the High Court, even if her gender is irrelevant to both her and you.

LEARNING FROM LONDON 7 - 7

2005-08-01T08:09:00.000-07:00

by Rod Benson

By the time you read this, the immediate shock of London’s latest bomb blasts will have passed. There has been a lot of analysis – in print, on screen, in face-to-face conversations. For many Australians, Islamic terrorism in London’s underground, and on a ubiquitous red London bus, feels closer to home than did the equally awful spectacle of aircraft flying into buildings in New York and Washington. The death toll in London was small compared with the toll from the September 11 attacks. But the fact that over 50 innocent people were killed and 700 injured on their way to work in central London almost defies belief.

I’m left with four big questions. Why did this atrocity occur? Will it happen again? Could it happen here in my community? If so, what should we do in response?

As for causes, two possibilities immediately stand out. The first is that the London bombings were in retaliation for the West’s preemptive war on Iraq, with the loss of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, hundreds of thousands of combatants, enormous collateral damage, the transformation of Iraqi society and culture, and the imposition of a pluralist and secular Western democracy. I have no doubt that George W. Bush’s words and actions have incited hatred and retaliation against his country’s foreign policy, but it is virtually impossible to prove that the London bombings were a direct result of the war in Iraq.

The second possibility is that this is not evidence of a war against the West but a civil war between rival brands of Islam. There is an ongoing struggle within Islam between moderate Muslims who have embraced the values and obligations of liberal democracy and those who favour Sharia law and its imposition on the world by Jihad. Perhaps the suicide bombers in London, and in New York and Washington D.C., and in countless Islamic hotspots, are not merely striking at the heart of the “great satan” (the US and its allies) but specifically showing contempt for their more moderate co-religionists and their secular brothers and sisters.

Will it happen again? London has had more than its fair share of terrorist acts, and I suppose these will continue in one form or another. The move, in Madrid and London, to targeting mass transit systems, is a new and disconcerting development. If terrorist cells continue to exist, their organisers are likely to choose the most vulnerable targets with the greatest power to disrupt social and economic life, and I don’t think we have seen the last terrorist bombing in London – or in other UK cities.

Could it happen here? If it could happen in London, it could happen in Sydney or in another Australian city. The Bali bombing was specifically intended to kill Australian tourists. The world is a global village, and Australia’s immigration policy over half a century has brought the world’s cultures and faiths to our suburbs. This is overwhelmingly a good thing, despite the racist condemnation of multiculturalism by people such as Pauline Hanson and – most recently – Macquarie University Associate Professor Andrew Fraser. But factors such as isolation, resentment and ostracism provide fertile soil in which evil people may seek to recruit and train terrorists, as they seem to have done in the UK.

What can we do? We can refuse to allow threats of terror to dictate how we live or where we go. We can pressure our government to scale back its military presence in Iraq. We can increase humanitarian aid to Islamic countries. We can learn about the complex and fascinating world of Islam – preferably from reputable scholars rather than Christian pastors with a passion for confrontation and exaggeration. We can build relationships of trust and fellowship with Muslim believers. We can pray for peace and justice to prevail in the world. We can live as followers of Jesus, in the shadow of his cross and the power of his resurrection.

Just days after the London bombings I came across a poem by Percy Bysshe Shelley in a book I was reading, including these remarkable lines:

Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you –
Ye are many – they are few!

Rise, yes, but rise not as slaves of an earthly kingdom reflecting worldly values, but rather as devoted followers of Jesus, working toward the goal of a new world where peace and justice and love are at home.

ANZAC DAY - Can Change Your Life's Attitudes

2005-04-19T15:24:00.000-07:00

by Rod Benson

At the going down of the sun
and in the morning
we will remember them.

On Anzac Day last year, my two eldest sons and I woke early, well before dawn. We drove in the dark along almost deserted suburban roads to join thousands of fellow citizens in an “ANZAC Ceremony of Remembrance” in the middle of Sydney – just metres from the place where, during the First World War, the main army recruiting office stood.

It was a passive act. We stood on the rim of the fountain in Martin Place, Sydney, and watched the crowd as it gathered. At 0430 hours the brass band struck up “Abide with me,” and the crowd tried to sing along.

There was a formal prayer by a defence force chaplain, a brief address by Rear Admiral Raydon Gates, and another mournful hymn. The NSW Governor recited the Dedication, a wreath was laid on the Cenotaph, and the Last Post shattered the silence with its clear and distinctive notes.

A few more formalities, another traditional hymn, the benediction, and then we were singing “Advance Australia Fair,” which everyone seemed to know and sing with gusto. Dawn was breaking across the tall buildings of the CBD as the official party, uniformed soldiers, and civilians dispersed. On a building high above us, now catching the sun’s golden rays, an Australian flag flew.

We do it every year. We were there again in 2005. For us it’s not about sampling the national culture. It’s not about glorifying war. It’s not about honouring members of our own family or fulfilling a sense of duty.

It’s mostly about sharing a solemn public occasion with countless strangers, and appreciating the complexity and contradictions of contemporary Australia. Nowhere else do thousands of people quietly congregate in pre-dawn darkness to participate in such a serious event. Nowhere else does one observe such an apparently seamless mix of secular and religious culture. And no other national pastime conveys such rich and concrete human values.

If ANZAC Day means anything, it is that it brings an awareness of the painful reality and the terrible tragedy of history for a culture steeped in the shallow pleasures of so-called reality TV and sitcoms. ANZAC Day opens a space for quiet reflection on the stupid waste and unbearable loss that wars deliver. It provides a moment to appreciate the high cost of peace.

ANZAC Day tells a story that is bigger than us all, and it helps us begin to value the liberty we possess as Australians. What we do with the fruit of that hard-won liberty – what we create from it, how we share it, to whom we sell it, and for what reward – is for future generations to judge.

The ANZAC tradition as we now know it is alive and well. I have no doubt that it will endure in Australian cities and towns for many years. But if the ANZAC Day ceremony is reduced to nothing more than a sentimental ritual, or a mark of civic duty, it will have lost both its soul and its power to change our future.

It’s whether an ANZAC Day ceremony can shape us into better persons, and what we do for one another in the year that follows, that really counts.

REFLECTIONS ON JOHN PAUL II

2005-04-04T16:37:00.000-07:00

by Rod Benson

John Paul II was the 265th pope. He was born Karol Wojytla in 1920 near Krakow, Poland. His father was a retired non-commissioned Polish army officer; his Lithuanian mother, a schoolteacher, died when he was eight. At 19, when the Nazis invaded Poland, he was condemned to forced labour in a chemical factory and a quarry. By 1942 he had lost all his immediate family.

Wojytla was ordained a priest in 1947, installed as Archbishop of Krakow in 1964, and created a cardinal (by Pope Paul VI) in 1967. He was inaugurated Pope on 16 October 1978 at the age of 58. John Paul was the first ever Slav to be Pope and was the third-longest reigning pope in the 2,000-year tradition of his church.

He uttered at his 1978 inauguration: “Fear not, open wide the doors to Christ and his authority of salvation. Open the frontiers of states, [of] economic and political systems, of broad domains of culture [and] civilisation [&] development.”

John Paul possessed an immense personal magnetism that endeared him to crowds. Within days of his inauguration, his staff realised he brought joy and engagement. He took to swimming and mountain skiing, kissed children on the forehead and touched visitors on the arm in greeting. He talked freely with journalists, a dynamic Catholic evangelist and skilled apologist for Catholicism. He loved mass rallies where his oratory and theatrical skills could be displayed.

His motto was Totus tuus – “entirely yours.” He travelled the globe as no predecessor had done. It was his custom, on arriving in a new country, to kneel and kiss the ground, apparently in honour of those he was visiting. After surviving an attempted assassination by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agka in St Peter’s Square in 1981, he sat humbly with his would-be killer in a prison cell in an act of forgiveness and attempted reconciliation.

Cardinal George Pell has called him “one of the greatest Christian pastors in history.” It is true that during his reign the number of Catholics around the world rose by over 40% to about 1.1 billion.

But the statistics are not all good, for it is also true, that during the same period, more than 100,000 priests left the Catholic priesthood, most apparently because they were unable to accept the pope’s insistence on priestly celibacy.

As always, John Paul remained resolute. Faced with revelations of widespread and entrenched sexual abuse of parishioners by Catholic priests, in 2001 he formally apologised to victims, and confessed that “As priests we are personally and profoundly afflicted by the sins of our brothers who have betrayed the grace of ordination.” Even with advancing age, John Paul maintained the adulation of the faithful, although authoritarian and a disciplinarian, yet one of the most illiberal and reactionary popes of the C20th.

No one doubts John Paul’s capacity for intellectual labour or the breadth of his interests. He preached more than 4,000 sermons, and produced something like thirty pages of prose for every day of his 26-year pontificate. In his 1994 best-selling book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, he identified a common thread, to affirm “the value of existence, the value of creation and of hope in the future life.”

For him, the twentieth century witnessed a fundamental rejection of human dignity, and it was the church’s responsibility to call people to a Christian understanding of human persons as created in the image of God and constituted as moral beings with the freedom to realise their full spiritual and moral potential.

He addressed a broad range of contemporary moral and social issues and religious understanding. The official conversations between the Vatican & the Baptist World Alliance are in part, a result. He encouraged inter-religious dialogue especially with Muslims & Jews. In 1986, he arranged a gathering of 150 world religious leaders at Assisi, the birthplace of St Francis, including Native American representatives.

Human rights, the oppressed, the unborn and others who could not speak for themselves, he spoke. His world view and mission led him to consistently oppose contraception (even in the face of a global AIDS epidemic), sex outside of heterosexual marriage, divorce, abortion and euthanasia; he coined the term: The culture of death.

He defended marriage and the family. He was generally anti-war, in particular opposing both Iraq wars and upheld patriarchy and hierarchy within his church, insisted on mandatory celibacy for male priests, refused the ordination of female priests.

After 359 years of condemnation by his church that the earth revolved around the sun, Galileo was finally rehabilitated in 1992. He revised his church catechism, first revision in 5 centuries and similarly the way his church rosary prayers are recited, first revision for 9 centuries. Central to John Paul’s vision has been the question of the meaning of human life and of suffering, demonstrated by his silent example of suffering and dying with human dignity, “serenely abandoning himself to God’s will,” (Vatican).

He walking the world stage as an eminent statesman and as a spiritual leader. In June 1979, as newly inaugurated pontiff, he preached to more than a million people in Victory Square, Warsaw, in the heart of communist Poland. “Come, Holy Spirit,” he called, “fill the hearts of the faithful and renew the face of the earth.” Then he added, “Of this earth,” (Poland) indicating with a gesture the people gathered to hear him. If there was a defining moment in his pontificate, suggests Vatican expert John Cornwell, “it was that declaration of liberation of his oppressed homeland.”

Times have radically changed. Protestants and Catholics have much in common. They differ on important beliefs & (to a lesser extent) practices. Baptists, for example, do not accept the view that the Catholic Church is the only one true and authentic church of Jesus Christ. Similarly the doctrine of the primacy of Peter; apostolic succession; papal supremacy and infallibility. Substantial differences in interpretation of the doctrines of justification; Mary (on this some Catholics now hold Baptist views); the sacraments and the mass. Likewise, concern that the Second Vatican Council’s apparent admission that salvation is possible without explicit Christian faith: possible universalism trend.

However, at the beginning of the C21st it’s clear that there is greater dialogue and deeper understanding between Baptists and Catholics. Scholars, clergy & laypeople are increasingly bridging historic gaps & learning to speak a common ‘language.’

John Paul II wrote that Jesus Christ is “the one mediator between God and humanity” and warmly endorsed Billy Graham’s Poland visit.

Baptists in Australia are generally evangelical in their theological orientation, and as strange as this seems, evangelical Baptists have more in common today with orthodox Catholics than they have with liberal Baptists. The same may be said for orthodox Catholics with respect to liberal Catholics.

RELIGIOUS VILIFICATION IN AUSTRALIA

2005-01-12T13:21:00.000-08:00

by Rod Benson

Once there were two frogs. One suddenly found himself in a pot of hot water and promptly jumped out; the other found himself in a pot of cold water, slowly heating, and grew used to the increasing warmth until it was too late.

You’ve heard the story. George Barna even made a book title out of it. But it articulates a very real danger. Sudden change for the worse is often easily identified and we are able to take appropriate action. But incremental change for the worse has a nasty habit of creeping up on us, and by the time we realise the peril we are in it is too late.

The verdict at a recent hearing in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) may sound a warning that the water is getting a little too warm for evangelical Christians who value religious freedom of speech in Australia.

We might take our democratic, civil and religious liberties for granted, but laws that protect these rights are subject to change and reinterpretation. In addition, concerted efforts to stifle open religious debate by enthusiastic secular humanists, non-Christian religious groups with imperialist agendas, liberal Christians with humanist agendas, and politicians in thrall to pluralism all work against the interests of Christians committed to gospel-inspired mission, evangelism and apologetics.

On 17 December VCAT upheld a complaint by the Islamic Council of Victoria that Catch the Fire Ministries and Christian pastors Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah had vilified Muslims, Judge Michael Higgins finding that the defendants had breached Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001.

Section 8 of the Act states that “a person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.” Significantly, section 9 states that “the person’s motive in engaging in any conduct is irrelevant.”

Of course, the defendants may have acted unwisely in the manner in which they expressed their views. But it is the Victorian legislation that is the real ass. Responses to the verdict—largely from the religious media—have been varied.

The Islamic Council of Victoria claimed the verdict was a win for religious debate. A spokesperson said Australian Muslims would be pleased, adding that “Muslims have followed the case very closely. When your places of worship are described as ‘Satan’s strongholds’, you sit up and take notice.”

The Uniting Church in Victoria and Tasmania welcomed the ruling, saying it sent a warning to groups who sought to use religion to promote hatred and hostility of those with different religious beliefs.

But Gordon Moyes, member of the NSW Upper House and Superintendent of Wesley Mission, said he believed VCAT had made the wrong decision and that, as a result, religious freedom of speech had been outlawed in Victoria.

Jim Wallace, Executive Chairman of Australian Christian Lobby, said people had always been free to publicly debate the Bible, but the verdict seemed to indicate that such freedom did not extend to other religious texts.”

I believe that this decision has enormous significance for Christian people, churches and church-based agencies across Australia. It strikes a deliberate blow at religious liberty, freedom of expression and democracy. Who will be next to be charged with religious vilification? Pastors preaching from their pulpits? Academics writing textbooks on religion? John Safran? Mr Bean? The Vicar of Dibley?

I would like to think the Act was fashioned with good intentions, but as it stands it is deplorable and un-Australian, and must be repealed.

We evangelicals do need to express our religious views in a spirit of respect and love. But we should also actively defend our democratic rights and religious liberty by opposing the introduction of similar legislation in other states and territories.

Salman Rushdie was correct in saying that there is no such thing as the right not to be offended—at least, in a free society.

THE ETHIC OF SERIOUS REFLECTION

2004-10-17T19:57:00.000-07:00

by Rod Benson

Luke 14:25-35

Jesus’ ministry at this point in his public career was popular, especially in Galilee. He attracted people because of his radical teachings, his powerful miracles and his engaging persona. Others no doubt were attracted to the crowd. But Jesus is not just another crowd-pleaser.

He is on a mission from God to save the world. His opening words were sure to attract interest: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple” (v 26).

This sets the standard for discipleship, and warns off would-be followers who might possess divided or mixed loyalties. To our ears these words may sound harsh, but Jesus is using a common figure of speech. As Michael Wilcock explains, “‘To love this and to hate that’ is a typical biblical way of expressing preference: ‘to love this rather than that’.” [1]

So when Jesus calls us to ‘hate’ our relatives, he calls us to ensure that our primary allegiance, our first priority, is to him rather than to family. And when he calls us to ‘hate’ ourselves, he calls us to ensure that our primary sense of identity rests in being a follower of
Jesus rather than being a member of a certain family, or social group, or sporting team, or political party.

Then, echoing words he used earlier (in 9:23), Jesus says, “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple” (v 27). For Jesus, the idea of bearing a cross was central to one’s identity as his disciple. “If you want to follow me,” he seems to say, “get used to the weight and texture of a cross, to the taunts and cries of ridicule, to the agony of nails, to the smell of blood …”

Those who carried crosses were usually under sentence of death and about to be killed in one of the most hideous methods of murder ever invented. But the image Jesus discloses is one of continual cross-bearing, day after day, night after night, perpetually dragging the cross to the place of death.

It’s not the kind of advertising one would normally use in order to increase support for a cause, or to recruit followers. But this is how Jesus describes the lifestyle of the authentic disciple: one who is unreservedly committed to the purpose of God and the mission of Jesus, a purpose and a mission “that resists, and is resisted by, the habits and patterns and powers of the larger world.” [2] It is a counter-culture.

On the night of my high school graduation, nineteen years ago, the guest speaker did something I shall never forget. Instead of delivering a lecture from behind the lectern, he moved to a table on stage and proceeded to cook a hot breakfast!

As the bacon and eggs began to sizzle, he asked a simple question: “Who gave more? The pig, or the hen?”

The hen was involved: she expended energy to lay the egg. But for bacon to cook that night, a pig offered total commitment: it gave its life. There is a world of difference between involvement and commitment.

1. Michael Wilcock, The Message of Luke (Leicester: IVP, 1979) 147.
2. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 372.

INTRODUCING

2004-10-07T17:40:00.000-07:00

Rod Benson

Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College (N.S.W. Baptist Theological Seminary). We trust you'll enjoy his quarterly message on subjects relating to Christian Ethics.

PS: for our American readers, Rod Benson is Professor of Christian Ethics.