Advent Christmas 2013

Advent  Christmas 2013

The news of the death of Nelson Mandela has seen a flurry of words, and expressions of sadness and celebration from people of all walks of life across the world.  His ability to forgive and to offer hope will be his most poignant legacy and model of leadership to be emulated by all of us no matter our status or level of responsibility. He will be remembered as one of the greatest leaders in modern times, after he himself experienced abuse, exploitation, degradation and humiliation, including 27 years' imprisonment, at the hands of the political elite in South Africa. Like most black South Africans, he was subject to the  cruel apartheid regime of the white minority South African government who maintained power by denying the vast majority of africans rights to education, health, housing and the vote. Black South Africans under successive apartheid governments were regarded as second class citizens and continually suffered on account of their colour.  It is reported that, on his release from prison, Mandela believed that unless he was able to forgive the treatment he had received from  the police and political authorities he would remain a prisoner in his own mind and be unable to move forward.

Many who have commented on Mandela's contribution to the rebuilding of South Africa recognise that much is still to be done in order  to ensure that all are treated equally, and receive education, housing, properly paid  employment  and access to health services.  This is undoubtedly true, but Mandela's concern for the other, his words of forgiveness, his humour and ability to relate to all people shine out as his legacy and contribution  to building  a better and more just global community. He lived a Christ-like life in his relationship with others, while his own failures and sadness remain part of who he was and how, in his later years, he lived life. In his inaugural address as President of South Africa he spoke about the capacity of everyone to be a light to the world and the responsibility we all have  of not hiding our own talents. Mandela was a man of hope and his legacy will continue.

Hope is central to the meaning of Advent as we move to the celebration of God coming among us in human form at Christmas. Each season of Advent, I scan the newspapers, and now social media, for messages and writings that reflect words of anticipation and hope for a more just world where the broken and dispirited are welcomed and the bounty of our nation shared . In recent times there has been a growing number of articles suggesting that we need as a community to look for more at Christmas than parties, family gatherings and gift giving. These sentiments stand in stark contrast to the endless crass commercials urging us to spend, spend, spend, as though our whole future as a nation depends upon retail therapy as the antidote to our anxiety and unhappiness.

The essence of Christmas is more than family gatherings , although these are important. The essence of the Christmas story encapsulates the whole human experience including rejection, alienation, fragility, abuse, loneliness, love, forgiveness and hope. Each of these can be found in the account of the birth of the babe in Bethlehem recalled each Christmas. Mandela showed in his own life the great capacity for forgiveness, the need for personal reflection, the setting aside of hurt and pain experienced in the past in order to embrace the future and offer hope . His life was Christ like and a call to us all to act with justice and love .

Christmas is  a time for the celebration of the human potential that is within us all. It is a time for not just words, but actions. It is a time for our own political leaders, for all who exercise leadership, to deliver more than words and to seek to build our common life together on forgiveness and hope for everyone . This claim is at the heart of the Christian message at Christmas, but it equally applies to a multicultural and secular observance of the times.  Christmas condemns all acts of abuse, terrorism, greed and exploitation.  With the birth of the Christ child at Christmas, God dwells among and with the people of all nations and seeks to encourage us to dwell with Him in building a world of hope for all.

So be it this Christmas.

Position Paper on Migrant Children and Youth: A Global Crisis

Attached is a position paper on the subject of Migrant Children and Youth as a discussion document.

I have contributed to this document in my role as Board member of the IFCW and as part of my outreach contribution from Trinity College Theological School. The document is to be discussed at a meeting of the IFCW in October in New York.

Download paper here: Position Paper Link

Victorian Council Of Churches Forum, 29 July 2013

Thank you for the opportunity to be part of this forum this morning. Victoria has a long tradition of being involved and initiating services for people who experience a range of disabilities, who are disadvantaged, or who have been shunned and made outcasts of society because of their behaviour, mental health or criminal actions.

Two early examples of these agencies are the Melbourtne City Mission and the St James’ Ladies Benevolent Society. In the intervening years, other churches also responded to the needs of children and families with a pattern of service delivery across the metropolitan area of Melbourne and rural Victoria.  Many of these agencies still remain strong, while others have have amalgamated to form new entities, such as Anglicare, Catholic Care, Uniting Care, and the Salvation Army.

Today, whether the agency is small or large, they are often complex organizations with partnerships, links to government, various connections to their church hierarchy, strong in service delivery while having a declining volunteer and staff basis grounded in their respective churches.  Most were established by employing dedicated Christian volunteers and staff.  None could survive today employing only staff or volunteers who have a faith perspective.  While there may be some in the sector who are saddened by this, I suggest the contrary view, that the sector has been enriched and challenged by this new wave of professionals, and the role of agencies today would be greatly diminished without them.  This new professional group has opened the eyes of agencies to different types of services, a range of readily accessible research, a commitment to human rights and new partnerships. Without these attributes, today’s faith-based agencies would be the poorer.

Let me briefly summarise what I want to share with you this morning:

1. Agencies represented in this room have charisma, meant in the biblical sense, not of charm, but wisdom, experience, commitment for the long haul, working with the most disadvantaged (prisoners, the homeless, those with a mental illness)

2.  We have a narrative that frames our approach: a story of redemption, of hope, of reconciliation and sitting with those who are rejected by society.  We represent and embody in our practice and service a mission exemplified in the stories of the Good Samaritan, the Feeding of the Five Thousand, and the Prodigal Son.  We have a distinctive story to tell and share. Our approach and belief is that every person has the capacity to change and grow. Agencies in the sector are not only about service provision, but also provide opportunities for personal and social transformation, as the principles of restorative justice spell out.

3.  We deliver the goods.  Once we did this with our own resources, while today it is in partnership with government.  Part of our mission is to ensure the active sharing of the resources of this great land through advocacy, perseverance, and beliefs of people like yourselves here today.

4.  A key element of our history has been the central place of the Christian meta-narrative, the story that speaks of the overwhelming generosity of God.  I want to suggest and challenge you all to consider how this narrative fits and sits with your agency today.  My own assessment is that the narrative is often camouflaged, ignored, or presented in what I call ‘religious speak’.  Advocacy statements are often in no way dissimilar to those of a non-faith-based agency.  Theological reflection is at a minimum.  That is how it appears, I suggest, in public statements, annual reports, and brochures.  The narrative, the Christian foundations and principles that undergird an agency’s history and rationale are divorced from the words and deeds.  Our ability as leaders in the sector, our ability to influence the agenda must value-add to public discourse or service delivery.

5.  Change will continue to occur across the sector as our community changes. Peter Shergold’s Committee of Review will without doubt explore myths and facts of the sector.  Increased government funds will mean greater accountability.  Agencies in this sector, however, as I have already said, are not proxy government departments, as some public servants think, acting as though the agencies are at their beck and call.

We are much more than the cleaner who comes in to pick up shattered lives.

1. We inform social policy by being a voice for the voiceless.

2. We add on our own resources to government-funded services.

3. We ask the tough questions when a voiceless minority is being ignored or exploited.

4.  We are on the side of the poor and disadvantaged.

5. We bring a moral dimension to discussions in the public arena.

6. We invest in infrastructure and people.

Here I am reminded again of the question that Alice asked the White Rabbit in Alice in Wonderland:

         “Which way do I go to get out of here?”

 The White Rabbit replied, “That depends.”

“Depends on what?” said Alice.

“Depends which way you want to go,” replied the White Rabbit.

In conclusion, I want to suggest to you today that our way forward is to be a vibrant and prophetic part of the reawakening of the Australian community, an exemplar of vision, hope and a ‘hands-on’ approach.  “Without a vision the people perish,” says the ancient sage.  Jesus calls us to the building of God’s Kingdom.  It remains as true today as then.

In his inaugural speech as President of South Africa in 1994, Nelson Mandela spoke these words.  Let me leave them with you.

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.

It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.

We ask ourselves, “Who am I to be brilliant?”

Actually, who are you NOT to be?

You are a child of God.

Your playing small doesn’t help the world.

There’s nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you.

We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it’s in everyone.

And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same.

As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

I challenge us all to imagine what we could be.

Voting In September 2013

How will you vote this year in the forthcoming  September Federal election? What criteria will you use to decide who to vote for and what are the crucial issues that will determine your vote?  If the polls are a reliable guideline Australians have already made up their minds which way they will vote and the likely outcome is an Abbot lead coalition. It appears that the posturing and lobbying , the rolling out of new policies by either side of politics  will have little if any influence on how we will vote.  A  commitment to the common good and issues of justice and concern for those most in need rate only as side stories and not fully debated within the public space and as being crucial to defining who we are as a nation and our hopes for the future.  Day by day media comments by those who call themselves political analysts , the Federal Press gallery included,  often  present our polticians as entertainment reporting their comments in a demeaning way and coloured by the journalists own political leanings. Others report with minimal details leaving the listener or viewer unsure or even confused about the  issue. Headlines that do not reflect an accurate account of the policy outlined and are sensational lack integrity.

Few  journalists attempt  to evaluate and analyse policies with out an already predetermined  position  nor  seem to understand the complexity of political life and the many competing demands that politicians face in responding to the ethical, social and economic  challenges  of the day. If they do, they ignore many of these issues and instead continue to  offer  to the public limited factual news and more opinion. Many newspaper and media editors, proprietors and journalists all appear to believe they know what is best for our society and how  to achieve it, often denouncing the advice and knowledge of experts with  their own idealogical viewpoint without substance. For the average voter  the challenge is to sift  through the mountain of commentary and to decide that which is helpful and to discard the rest.

  Recent comments by senior corporate  bankers and retail giants that suggest that caring for the disabled and poor is something we cannot afford at the present  and who are opposed to any form of tax increase , while they themselves draw large salaries, is a disturbing trend and suggests a growing divide between the haves and have nots. Wealth is increasingly capturing the public and political debates necessary for a healthy democracy. while less well resourced and community groups struggle for space and time in the media. Economic justice for all , where the common wealth is shared among all Australians has become unpopular among the  new elite of the nation. 

For the average voter what  then can we use as the criteria or guidelines to decide how we vote.?Self interest or pragmatism is one and a voice for the common good another  Vote we must because men and women of times before us have fought for our freedom and our right to participate, to govern ourselves for all Australians.  Not to vote at all is not an option and also a statement that we are not responsible for the state of the nation.

 Politicians alone are not responsible for the lack of good public debate. We all have a role to play. Increasingly many voices are now calling for attention to core values as the basis for sound public policy that does does not support  self interest. Issues  of climate change  affecting the life of the planet and its inhabitants is not a matter of opinion but fact. The plight of refuges and asylum seekers is not a problem but the cry of displaced and exploited people.  The place of work is not only about earning an income and  paying as little as possible for labour but also about identity and hope. The values of honesty, transparency, compassion justice and mercy are not to be seen as added extras and only important when you are caught or  in extreme emergencies.  Social cohesion may be at risk in Australia if we do not set aside ideology for the sake of me rather than embrace policies for the we.

Australia has a stable democracy the envy of many nations. The challenge for us is to preserve it for the future and not let ourselves be captured by an elite that puts self before all. 

The role of the media - a reflection

Holiday time gives you the opportunity to take things a little slower and to read newspapers, journal articles, social media and books more thoughtfully. Reading one of Melbourne’s daily newspapers during this time alerted me to the fact that journalism and reporting is on the decline. It was apparent that some stories were run day after day in a slightly different form and new news was thin on the ground, as we say. Headlines bore little resemblance to the content of the articles.  The range of opinion writers during this time and their contributions to their subject matter left a great deal unsaid or not well understood.  Lindsay Tanner spoke in a similar fashion about the media in his book Sideshow: dumbing down democracy, when he stated what many across the country had been thinking for a number of years, that the media had reached an all-time low with debates trivialised and often reframed as entertainment. Many journalists are now writing opinion pieces that seem to reflect their own ideology or political bias. Editors appear to like the smart headline or pander to perceived public opinion.  The retrenchment of many seasoned journalists is now reflected in the written word.  Thankfully, this did not apply to the crossword during the holiday season; otherwise I may have cancelled my subscription permanently. Despite all, the media organisation that publishes my chosen paper assures the reader of quality reporting for 2013.

In a democracy we all want newspapers and the media in whatever form, including social media, to be a free press and not subject to state interference, censorship or control.  Likewise media ownership should not dictate what the media publishes, and, as with government, should not exercise censorship or control that favours certain agendas or causes that suit their owners. In a democracy the need is also to ensure that the media acts responsibly and in the interest of the public or common good, reflecting the values and aspirations of a civilised community that is concerned for the life of all its members, rich and poor, born locally or arrived from other shores. Where this line is transgressed or trivialised, ignored or abused, there needs to be some form of public recourse to amend and redress false or inaccurate claims or the abuse of privacy.  The media in whatever form has a privileged and important role in a democracy in reporting and analysing public policy, corporate activities, and community organisations including churches, synagogues and mosques, but in doing so it is not above the law, and like the medical and the legal professions, to name just two, some form of regulation or oversight is necessary in our increasingly complex society of today. The media must also critique and evaluate its own performance and ask whether a non-elected individual or organisation has the right to decide the future direction or behaviour of a community. Hasty judgements, sensational reporting for its own sake and engaging in partisan reporting should be avoided and replaced with factual reporting. Opinions should be restricted to the opinion pages and be clearly identified. While the media should be entitled to express a view it must also be aware that it is only one voice in shaping and forming what values our society should embrace and not set itself up as the sole voice.

The real question is what sort of and to what extent regulation by the state is necessary or desirable? Recent events suggest that the time has come for new thinking on the matter.  The whole community has been seduced into participating in the charade that is called news reporting. The Leveson inquiry in the UK exposed many shortcomings in the media with one-sided reporting, phone-tapping, abuse of privilege at the highest level, close personal relationships between politicians and corporate leaders seeking government contracts, and the promotion of views to shift public opinion to reflect a particular ideology. A case in point here in Australia has been the manner in which the mining industry has sought to defend itself against the federal government’s mining tax. Self-interest and profits have now become the number one priority, rather than the common good. Further it appears that cheap personal shots and guilt by innuendo are favoured over factual news reporting.  The values of honesty, integrity, fairness and concern for the common or public good are of lesser importance.

 Any form of statutory regulation being considered needs to guarantee the independence of editors and journalists from owners and shareholders, so they are free to report without fear or favour, but with evidence and balance. Freedom of the press, like freedom of speech, is not unconditional.  In a democracy, freedom of the press means freedom to act within the law, which includes laws against defamation; truth and accuracy in advertising; freedom from invading personal privacy; and ownership of intellectual property. In any new form of regulation the media must be required to separate evidence from personal opinion. Citing reference material should also be considered.

All who have the public interest at heart should reflect on the state of our media and demand higher standards as well as legislative control. Appropriate laws should be used to ensure media responsibility and to inform the social responsibility media organisations have in a democracy. The Australian Government has the responsibility to ensure that if existing legislation is vague or lacking enforcement then other measures should be publicly debated and legislated to protect the rights of all individuals and to ensure a balanced and responsible media committed to the common good and not to sectional interests or powerful individuals.


Dr. Ray Cleary

26^th March 2013

Beloved Father – Beloved Son

Book Review: Beloved Father – Beloved Son

by Graeme Rutherford and Jonathan Rutherford


Beloved Father – Beloved Son is the title of a recent book published by Mosaic Books of a conversation about faith and belief between a Bishop, Graeme Rutherford and his atheist son John. It is a remarkable book for its courage and clear presentation of ideas, beliefs and honesty by both father and son. I reflected on the book as a priest and father of three children myself. One who remains active and involved in the Anglican Church, while not without frustrations, questions and hope. Another who has converted to Judaism and the third who remains ambivalent. All have been raised in a family where going to church was a way of life, the existence God a foundation belief and who were encouraged to think outside the box, to take responsibility for their own lives and to seek after justice as a core outcome of faith.

The conversation in this book is of the highest level, with no ridicule or abuse associated with the dialogue. Both are well read and respect the position and ideas of the other seriously and with integrity. Not only are their respective thoughts and positions discussed as serious ideas but also there is a strong element of the personal and intimate in their words. This does not mean that challenge and criticism is avoided.  The discussion moves from the realm of theory and academia into the intimacy of family life and the struggles that many family members today are engaged with as they seek to find meaningful and fulfilling lives.  This is an important element of the book and adds to its meaningfulness as a good read. I found myself on both sides of the debate at times and enjoying the intellectual rigour that went side by side with the respect and love each had for the other. It further resonated with me as a reminder of recent discussions I had with my own children and to acknowledge how well read they are and their decisions about faith and belief are a result not of apathy but an informed decision. As I read the book I found myself yearning for this level of discussion in the wider church on the important social, ethical and economic issues of our times in addressing them, and showing the same level of respect and integrity Graeme and Jonathan show towards each other.  The same of course may be asked of our political leaders. Serious discussion on many of the life and death issues of our times facing the global community are often reduced to ideology, economics and ill informed opinion.

This book is not about creating drama and tension between a believer and an unbeliever. It has none of the Catherine Deveney self-righteous and mocking platitudes. Nor does it have the combative style of the new atheist movement. It takes seriously the complex issues challenging Christian faith  in today’s world.

I commend the book to all who are interested in growing their own faith or who want to examine the claims of those who deny belief in God. Like me I am sure it will challenge and may even provoke you to further theological study.

The Dumbing Down of Public Discourse

At the heart of a healthy, vigorous and robust democracy in Australia is the Parliament elected by the people to govern and to represent the best interests of the nation. Central to the life and work of the parliament is a belief in the principles of law, respect for the individual and concern for the common good. In recent years the parliament of Australia, or perhaps more accurately the political process, and the behaviour of politicians alongside other institutions like the professions and the Church have come under increased media attention and public scrutiny. Many recent debates in the parliament have been no more than personal attacks on the integrity of individuals at the expense of serious debate on the economy and a future vision for Australia. One-liners, smart slogans and sound bites are no substitute for serious discussion on the nation’s future. At the same time the level of public discourse has taken on more of a “slanging match style” rather than open conversation and dialogue.  Increasingly, politicians appear to be poll-driven and lack the courage and leadership required to make unpopular decisions for the common good. One exception to this in recent days has been the decision of the Federal Treasurer to abandon the Government’s commitment to a surplus budget.  The same courage cannot be seen on the matter of boat people and asylum seekers.  Politicians themselves are not only to blame for the state of public discourse.  Following the Treasurer’s announcement on the budget, the Melbourne Age headline read “Treasurer Dumps Surplus”, with implied criticism of government failure despite the fact that both business and economists applauded the decision as the right one for the times. Recently, the ABC’s Q&A has seen cheap shots by Catherine Deveney, designed to gain audience approval at the expense of Peter Jensen, while on a previous occasion the discussion between George Pell and Richard Dawkins left most viewers wondering about the motives of the show’s producers. When Jensen tried to make serious comment on matters raised, Deveney pandered to the audience rather than responding with rational and intelligent debate. Controversy, not substance, seems to have become the objective of much journalism with information increasingly being seen as entertainment.

The mainstream media regularly talks about the role they play in a democracy and no one who cherishes and believes fully in the freedom of the press would want to see this freedom banished. However, this same media cannot claim this role with biased reporting and journalism that lacks substance by presenting the views they support strongly while alternative ideas or evidence are ignored or only briefly mentioned.  The media‘s own view should be limited to the editorial and not the content of articles. Opinion pieces should be presented by a greater variety of writers and commentators.  The growth in continuous TV news coverage and the steady decline in print journalism is contributing to this. As there are fewer and fewer journalists, factual research is being replaced with press releases often without question and the parroting of interest group views. In place of an expert journalist and one competent in analysing competing viewpoints to get the truth the media is increasingly hiding behind popular and often simplistic public views.   Media personalities who depend on shock tactics and scandal for their daily following on the airwaves should have no place in the political process or in matters of public concern. Growing support for social media as a way forward in addressing and improving the level of public discourse is gaining support, but this medium is also liable to scorn and unsavoury tactics in reporting as much as the mainstream media. Opinions are all very well, but opinions need to be based on facts, rather than perceptions and innuendo.  Social media is as much a problem here as a potential solution. It simply amplifies the number of uninformed opinions that then feed of each other in a classic feedback loop. It is still no substitute for proper research by expert journalists or analysts.

Unfortunately, there are some in the church who want to suppress free and open discussion on issues affecting the community and matters of faith.  They argue for a single view or so-called authentic or orthodox viewpoint on Christianity to be expressed in diocesan media, and wish to deny to those who have other thoughts an opportunity to share them. There have been numerous examples in recent times of comments that have been inflammatory, discourteous, lacking substance or rude posted on social media about individuals, including the retiring Archbishop of Canterbury, that place the Church in a poor light.  Christians or people of other faiths do not have an automatic right to criticise others for poor discussion and dialogue when they embark on the same path themselves.  Christians, as with all citizens, have a duty to lift the level of public discussion and we need to remind ourselves of the important role that the churches have played in shaping and informing our civil society.  Love, embracing justice, is at the core of God’s grace and our dialogue and discussion must always be open to the disturbing and even radical spirit of our calling for the time in which we live. The right behaviour we expect of others in public discourse must also be enshrined in our own. As The Age (Melbourne) editorial concluded on New Year’s Day:  “Australia needs people of strategic vision who will rise above petty arguments, the kind of people who are brave, compassionate and steadfast, who reach across political and social chasms to negotiate agreements because they want a stronger community”.

Christians have an obligation to respond to the challenge to ensure our internal and public discourse is of the highest standard and devoid of cheap shots and personal attacks.