From the Dean: Labour Day, A Sad Celebration

Labour Day: A sad celebration

This weekend is a sad celebration. Sad because it is a holiday that has lost its meaning. Sad because the victory it celebrates has been lost in our affluence.

It was called ‘Eight Hour Day’ because it marked the historic nineteenth century battle to reduce working hours. The cry was for eight hours work, eight hours rest and eight hours recreation. The unionists’ plea was not for more money but for more time. This was to create some balance in work and life. It led to the forty-hour week. Over time it has come to be known as ‘Labour Day’.

Australia and New Zealand led the world in the victory of workers’ rights to rest and recreation. Sydney was at the forefront of this campaign. In 1855 stonemasons were in great demand, as major building programmes were undertaken using the newly found wealth of the gold rushes. Two church buildings, Holy Trinity Millers Point (the Garrison church) and the Mariners’ Church (the Seafarers Centre) were the scene of a two-week strike that initiated the change in work-rest balance. Up until then workers were usually required to work ten hour days Monday to Friday, and eight hours on Saturday (fifty-eight hours a week).

An annual march and picnic on the first weekend in October to celebrate the initial victory and promote the ongoing eight-hour campaign commenced in 1871. It was not till the 1890s that the eight-hour day became widely accepted across most industries. The forty-hour week did not come into effect until the mid-twentieth century.

In 1885 the first public holiday to celebrate Eight Hour Day was held. The man responsible for establishing this public holiday was the trade unionist and member for Balmain, Jacob Garrard. Mr Garrard was a keen Methodist who joined the Salvation Army in 1896. He is another example of the Evangelical influence that lies behind the labour movement of our society. Historians and subsequent generations have routinely ignored this influence, though Kevin Rudd pointed to it on his way to becoming a Labor Leader who professes Christian belief.

Christians are, and should be, concerned about the working conditions of our society, especially the plight of the economically and politically weaker members of our community. This is not a breach of state-church relationship. This is the active participation of Christians in a democratic society. Today the battle to establish a work-life balance has returned for many people, though it is a different battle to the mid-nineteenth century.

In 2007 the Relationship Forum of Australia reported the shifting pressure in work-life balance. 22% of the workforce are working more than 50 hours a week. 30% of the workforce are working on weekends – a percentage only exceeded by Italy! Over 60% work after 6pm or before 8am on weekdays. The proportion of two-income families has increased from 42% in 1981 to 60% in 2007. While the majority of people may be working less than forty hours a week, families are working longer and many are working at more unsocial and unpredictable times.

There has also developed three different kinds of employees, who have quite different reasons for working long hours.

Some people make a living out of their hobby and pleasure. The sports professionals and musicians, the artists and academics and, yes, the ministers of the gospel. These people do not work according to hours or for money but because of their passion. Many people in professional life have a passion that leads to imbalance in work-rest patterns. Many teachers, doctors and farmers live for their work and ignore the hours that it takes them. That is their choice, though wisdom should remind them that the graveyard is full of indispensible people and God himself rested on the seventh day.

There are also some people who do not work but rather have a career. Work for them is the principal place for personal development. Their primary motivation is career advancement. They are not committed to the work itself – they will easily move from one industry to another. Nor are they principally committed either to serve their employer or to provide for their customers/clients – these ultimately are only a means to an end. Nor are they committed to their family or community – they will jump at the chance of advancement overseas or interstate irrespective of the dislocation it causes their family and friends. These people will work whatever hours are required for their personal advancement. Their own ambition is their bondage to long hours.

There are also some people who still work for money to live on. This is not a bad or unworthy motive for work. The Bible lays upon us the responsibility to provide for ourselves and our families (2 Thessalonians 3, 1 Timothy 5). The person who labours to provide for their family, and is not a burden on other people, is to be commended and encouraged. But unfortunately the desire of an affluent, hedonistic and materialistic society is to have these people available to work for us seven days a week and twenty-four hours a day. Limiting the hours to forty makes no difference in the inconvenience that is laid upon them. If the only jobs available are at night or on weekends, the poor have little choice but to leave their families and friends in order to work. Often these people live furthest from their workplace and their unsociable time of work means very long hours from home. Too often they have to rely upon overtime pay to make a decent living – again adding to the hours away from home, rest and recreation. Add to this the rising house prices that have been fed by and led to the need for two incomes in a family to pay the mortgage, and the ‘working family’ finds real tension in the work-life balance. The steady encroachment of work on weekends has not been sufficiently resisted by the present Labor movement.

So this weekend is a sad celebration. We have largely forgotten the costly battle won by our forbears, and in our pursuit of wealth we are voluntarily putting ourselves back into the bondage that they worked so hard to liberate us from.

From the Dean: Materialism

Click here for another insightful From the Dean, on materialism.

From the Dean: Sydney and a new year

The Sydney year starts in February. The long summer holidays are over with. Christmas is but a memory. The work starts in earnest and so we commence the Cathedral programme.

This year, as in every year, the Cathedral strategy remains the same.

The strategy is to prayerfully proclaim Christ to Sydney. This work has two foci: - "Building the Church" and "Reaching the City". Within the Cathedral we have many congregations that each aim at building. Not just building numerically but also building spiritually. Building into Christlike character of loving service of each other and sacrificial concern for the lost.

It is the Christlike concern for the lost that is the springboard for the Cathedral's other focus - "Reaching the City". The city of Sydney is on our doorstep in several fashions.

It is the central business district where thousands come daily. We are surrounded by thousands of people living without their families, mainly in high-rise apartments. But we are also at the very centre of a metropolis of nearly four million people scattered over a huge suburban hinterland.

But the city of Sydney is an even more complex mission field than that. People are pouring into this city from all over the world. We are one of the most multicultural cities in the world, or in the history of civilization. The reasons people are in our city are many and varied. It is the home of arts and culture, as well as finance and business. It is a major provider of education as well as remaining the seat of government for the state of New South Wales.

Religiously, Sydney has a confused history and a quickly evolving landscape.

From the days of our penal colony, Christians have had a leading role in framing our culture without ever being more than a minority amongst the community. With the present migration patterns our numerical significance has been waning since World War II. Our nominal adherents are decreasing with every census. There are now some parts of Sydney with very few Bible believers. Some alternative minority religions have been steadily growing with migration. But the real growth has occurred amongst the materialists - living for themselves in the pleasures of wealth.

Individualism and materialism have been promoted through the staggering economic growth of the second half of the twentieth century. Only rarely was it so crude as to articulate its philosophy: "greed is good". This week I read an article promoting individualism under a new word: "frending". Frending is not making friends, but dumping friends whom we no longer want or no longer suit us. It is part of the overcrowded busy lives of individualistic self-centred materialism. As the author of the article wrote: "These go against time-honoured traditions of community and society. We used to rely on our neighbours, as they depended on us, but in the age of frending, we act far more independently. The nuclear family is behind us, and we now live nuclear lifestyles." (SMH, 28 Jan 2009).

Interestingly, the next day the same paper reported on a well-being survey that showed people living in communities and connection with their neighbours were the happiest, while those in the isolation of the inner-city suburbs were the unhappiest.

We know that materialistic greed and self-centred individualism will never work, but Sydney-siders keep trying. That is because Sydney is a godless city - full of lost people desperately running away from God. As God says, "claiming to be wise they became fools" (Romans 1:22). Without God, people fill their lives with alternative gods that never satisfy. Sadly, friends, for all its beauty, peace, industry and wealth - we live in the city of the lost.

Yet in the very midst of this godless city, there is a robust strength to biblical Christianity that defies the prophets of doom who keep predicting the end of Christianity.

Each year we see the cause of Christ growing with the expansion of the city. All kinds of ethnic minorities who had little chance of hearing the gospel in their country of origin are turning to Christ. Our theological college is full. Our missionary society is sending out more workers into the world. Our conferences and conventions keep growing and expanding. And here in the Cathedral our congregations are growing in numbers and commitment to the gospel as we see people come to Christ.

God is at work in our midst. He has not yet abandoned our city. We must not abandon it either. We must persist with his strategy of prayerfully proclaiming Christ to Sydney as we seek to build the church and reach the city.

Driscoll's 18 Points

Unless you were at the recent conference, you wouldn't know what 18 points Phillip Jensen was talking about in his most recent From the Dean.

Here is a summary of the 18 Points. And here some of the bishops and church planters respond to them.

From the Dean: On Driscoll

Recently Sydney has had the pleasure of hearing an American preacher, Pastor Mark Driscoll. In a two-week period he spoke in many venues, including the Cathedral.

In the Cathedral he twice addressed a packed gathering of Christian workers. His second address was a challenge to our evangelistic ministry of the gospel in this city. He lovingly told us of eighteen problems that he saw we had. It was an address that has caused some considerable discussion amongst Sydney's evangelical community.

Since that address I have been approached by many people wanting my opinion on Mark Driscoll and in particular on his critique of Sydney's evangelism. As one of those who invited Mark to speak to us, I am keen to keep the conversation going and to ride the enthusiasm that he has engendered amongst the next generation of Christian leaders.

I hope to look at the eighteen points in subsequent articles but before doing that I think it is important to make some general observations about listening to criticism.

Mark Driscoll is a fine Christian man, gifted and blessed by God to undertake a great ministry in his home city, Seattle. He loves the Lord Jesus Christ as his Saviour and Lord. He upholds the great Reformation doctrines of grace and seeks to teach the Bible as he reaches the lost with the Gospel. His gifts in oratory and communication are enormous. He is a great evangelist: able to communicate with his generation, making the gospel clear and its claims compelling.

His address to us in the Cathedral was more that of a prophetic preacher than an expositor of the Bible. He spoke as a Christian friend about the problems he sees we have. As such, it is important that we weigh what he says (1 Corinthians 14:29).

There are three obvious mistakes that we can make concerning such a message and messenger.

The first mistake is that of reactionary defensiveness. He was hard-hitting and critical. He said things that can make us feel very uncomfortable. He said them with force and vigour. He was calling upon us to change our ways. All of this can create defensiveness within us. We want to argue with him and explain ourselves.

There are many ways that we can defend ourselves. We can find fault with his manner or his choice of words. We can look for holes in the logic or point out the minor errors of fact especially about Sydney. We can qualify what he has said to the point where we have domesticated his main points. Or we can complain about what he failed to address (e.g. some find fault in his attack on young men because he did not speak to young women - as if he was supposed to say everything).

Some people are unhappy with his rhetorical use of hyperbole, generalisations, stark contrasts, lack of nuanced discussion - but in all this he is not dissimilar to Jesus' preaching. He is a man who confronted us with hard questions - we must be very wary of our own defensiveness.

The second mistake is to become a sycophantic follower. Mark is a remarkable man with many clear and great insights but he is not the only one, nor is he always right about everything, nor would he want people to follow him instead of Jesus.

The prophet is without honour in his own country but has great honour overseas. It is humorous to hear of the respect that our preachers have overseas, and the honour that overseas speakers have in Australia.

We have had many compelling preachers come through our city over the years. Each arouses a new generation of enthusiastic followers. Over time we get used to the arrivals and departures of the John Stott, Dick Lucas, Billy Graham, Bill Hybells and Rick Warren. We have been blessed over the years by books and tapes from Francis Schaeffer, Tim Keller and John Piper. America is full of great preachers and leaders who influence Australian Christianity. Mark is not the only voice to listen to and learn from. It is immature to think that any single person is the answer to all our problems.

Mark Driscoll's challenge to us is timely and helpful. But his criticisms may be more helpful than his solutions. The gulf in church life between a denominational church in Sydney and an independent church in Seattle is quite enormous. Our theological perspective on church and ministry is also quite different.

This is not to say we have nothing to learn from him or that we should not change what we are doing in the light of his challenge. But just as defensiveness is wrong, so is slavish sycophancy.

The third error is to do nothing.

It is manifest that if we are going to reach our community we must change. Mark has challenged us to change and I believe he is right. Much of what he said is already in the Diocesan Mission statements. But having them in mission statements and putting them into practice are two different things.

I was glad to host Mark speaking to us because he is challenging us to change in the very direction that we want to change. But it is all too possible to spend time weighing what he said rather than doing anything about it. He has caused a real movement in the camp - it is important that we capitalise on his visit and bring in change.

Those who are defensive will oppose any change. Those who are sycophantic will wait till Mark returns to tell us what to do. Both errors we have to avoid. If Mark never returns it will be a shame and our loss. But it will be an irrelevance to his message - for his challenge to us was to get moving, to take initiative, not to wait around to be told what to do next.

Phillip Jensen
28 September 2009

From the Dean - 14 September 2008

The other day I went to the optometrist. It is a strange thing to look at glasses instead of looking through them - leaving aside the difficulty of looking at your glasses carefully when you do not have them on! Glasses are designed to look through, not look at. They are supposed to help us see the world in sharper focus. But, if the lenses are distorted or even dirty, they can distort your vision of the world instead of clarifying it.

For the last couple of centuries western civilisation has been looking at the world through the lens of the public media. The prophets have been the journalists as they mediated and explained the world to society, and ourselves to us.

Journalists have had to fight hard to avoid their message being compromised. They have had to resist the seduction of the media owners' profit motive as well as the government's desire to control public broadcasting. But the fight has become irrelevant in the face of the electronic revolution that is overtaking the world.

The revolution in electronic technology has overwhelmed us. Now anybody can speak to anybody within a few seconds without censorship. We no longer need the public media to describe the world to us. It is like laser surgery - we can see the modern world without our glasses.

Mark Scott, the General Manager of the ABC, is reported as saying: “We are seeing a great transformation from the era of media barons and public broadcasters, controlling all that was seen or heard or read, to a great democratisation of media where anyone, anywhere can report or comment or analyse, and find an audience.”

Naturally such an open and free system has created all manner of problems. For example, the revolution has given rise to the spread of pornography, the availability of on-line gambling, and the rapid dissemination of misinformation. Human sinfulness will always use the technology of the day to rear its ugly head.

Yet the advantages of the new world of communication so vastly outweigh the problems, that it is overpowering all other media. As the telegram is no longer available, so the newspapers, mail, fixed line telephones, and large commercial TV stations are all undergoing threat. Even some basic books, like dictionaries and encyclopaedias, seem to have a limited future.

Today we access information rather than read. We relate technologically rather than physically. Our “friends” on Facebook are people we have never met and yet are more important and even more real to us than the people living next door.

Advertising in mass media has paid for reporters to research and recount the news of the day. Smaller readership means declining advertising revenue. This in turn reduces the quality of journalism - which further erodes readership.

For some time regular readers have noticed the blurred line between editorial and reporting. All news stories have become editorialised. In one sense it is impossible to report without opinionating. All stories are biased summaries. However, objective reporting has been replaced with intentional subjectivity.

Journalists have long argued for the importance, even necessity of their profession. Their commitment to fearless, impartial investigation and exposure of the truth is said to be the necessary foundation for a free and democratic society. But the lack of professionalism, their clear bias, their involvement in creating the news rather than reporting it, their stereotyped way of framing stories, all belie their claims.

Fast disappearing are the reporters who reported what happened. Today journalists create the news by stimulating conflict and then “reporting” on their own homemade stories.

The high moral ground of concern for the truth has become just empty rhetoric used to gain readership and credibility. The moral imperatives of professional journalism are about as believable as “Truth, Justice and the American way”. It is only believed within their own circles.

The public media are now in the optometrist shop trying to look at themselves.

This week the journalist Paul Sheehan complained of the traditional media's political bias concluding “Everywhere there are signs of growing cynicism with the media: an unwillingness to pay for what can be obtained free on the internet, a refusal to shuffle through the old media information portals, and a contagious knowingness and irony about the traditional media's self-proclaimed role as moral guardians and custodians of the public good.”

And Mark Scott expressed his desire for the future of the ABC as “to create a service - online and on television - that allows citizens to watch for themselves key democratic processes and public events: unmediated, unfiltered.”

Unmediated media is a wonderful idea. It is impossible, because the media is the message. But it is a wonderful play on words as well as a great ideal to pursue. To let people speak for themselves and to be heard without intermediaries distorting their message. How wonderful to put the speaker and the hearer in direct contact with each other. This is the electronic revolution that the public broadcasters are struggling to keep up with.

This is the media revolution that Christians have been wanting for years. It suits us as the printing press suited us back at the time of the Reformation. It enables us to speak directly to the world without media distortion of our message.

It is like that greater media revolution that happened in the first century. Then all intermediaries were abolished as God became Man and removed the sin and judgment that separated us from God. Now we no longer need mediums, priests, sacrifices, temples or gurus. Now we are in direct contact with God in the man Jesus Christ. Only the man who is God can be the mediator between God and man.

“For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Timothy 2:5f).


Phillip Jensen
14 September 2008

From the Dean: The Foundation of Father's Day - 7 September 2008

It appears that Father's Day is about 100 years old - at least in the USA where it was started.

Australia's history of celebrating Father's Day may be different. Unlike most of the world, we do not follow the American date of the third Sunday in June. But finding the source of our celebration is not as easy as discovering the American foundations.

There are two common accounts of the commencement of Father's Day in the USA.

The first comes from a mine disaster that killed 361 men. A Methodist Episcopal Church in Fairmont, West Virginia, held a special service on July 5th 1908 to celebrate fathers, seeing that so many had died in the tragedy.

The other foundation of Father's Day in America is more personal. It was the story of Mrs Sonora Smart Dodd of Spokane, Washington. When she was 16 her mother died in childbirth leaving six children. Her father, a civil war veteran, raised the children as a single parent. Sonora's deep appreciation of the father lay behind her desire to honour fathers. It was while she was in church on Mother's Day 1909 that she thought of celebrating fathers with a special day.

With the help of the ministers fraternal and the YMCA she organised the first citywide Father's Day. Her plans were to hold it on her own father's birthday (June 5), but could not organise it in time. So it was held on the third Sunday in June 1910.

It seems that from these two events the modern idea and celebration spread across the nation and from America across the world.

It is not surprising that both ideas were connected with church. Not just because, in the early twentieth century, the church was the centre of social organization - but because family, honouring parents, giving thanks, and fatherhood are all such integral parts of Christianity.

It is not surprising that the celebration went beyond the church into the community as a whole. Fatherhood is part of creation. It is intrinsic to humanity and the concern of the whole society.

What is surprising, and very sad, is the failure of much modern fatherhood. There is today a failure to take paternal responsibility, matched by the failure to respect honour or value fathers and fatherhood. Words like "patriarchal", "paternalism" and even "father" itself are seen as derogatory terms. Through divorce, de facto relationships and sexual permissiveness, the "absent father" is becoming all too common, as many single mothers are left to raise their children alone. More concerning still is the danger involved in the growth in numbers of de facto stepfathers.

Christianity has an important contribution to make to society on the subject of fatherhood. We are committed to the Creator God whom we know as our Father. He has always been the Father. For all eternity, before the creation of the world, he was the Father. He is the one upon whom all human fatherhood has been modelled (Ephesians 3:15). He is called the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, 17, 1 Peter 1:3, Revelation 1:6).

Our focus on Jesus does not distract us from the Father. Just the reverse, it models for us the relationship of Father and Son and introduces us to God as our Father. Jesus is God the Son become man. And as the Messiah, the Christ, Jesus is also the Son of God, just as all who are his people - the Christians - become the children of God (John 1:12-13).

The work of Jesus was to do the will of his Father. Ultimately Jesus will hand his kingdom over to his Father as he is subject to his God and Father (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). Jesus' work in dying and rising for us brings us to his Father. For Jesus is the one and only way to the Father (John 14:6). It is as the Spirit of the risen Lord Jesus is poured into our hearts in rebirth that we come to call the almighty creator of the universe and judge of all the world: "our father" (Romans 8:15f, Galatians 4:6).

Fatherhood is built into creation and is central to Christianity. This is one of the bridges by which society can understand the Christian message and by which Christians can make contribution to society as a whole.

As Christians we know the importance of honouring father and mother. It is built into the very commandments of God. We also know the importance of being a father who loves and provides, protects and disciplines his children as God does for us.

We live in a society that is confused about gender roles, unsure of how to raise boys, and with a generation of adult men unwilling to make commitments or undertake responsibility for others. It is the individualism that atheism teaches. It is miserable and lonely for many men as well as women. It fails to reproduce itself as the birth rate drops well below sustainability.

The message of the Bible was never more needed in Australia than today. Let us be bold to declare the greatness of our great God and Father. Let us be bold to uphold the importance of fatherhood in the structure of a healthy society. Let us train up our boys and young men to rejoice in the privilege of taking on the responsibility of becoming fathers. Let us encourage fathers to stick to their task of raising their children in the fear and nurture of the Lord. Let us invite all Australians to come into the family of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.





Phillip Jensen
07-09-08


.

From the Dean: Colin

I do not know who named him Colin, but personalising him only increased the pathos of the baby whale in Pittwater. Separated from its mother the calf could not be persuaded to go into the open sea, nor could humans provide for it inside Pittwater. Each day brought starvation closer.

Words are such important tools in moving our opinions and affections. The name Colin moves us from calling the whale "it" to "him". Similarly calling it a "baby" instead of a "calf", affects our response to the tragedy.

The sight was sad, even forlorn. To see the poor confused creature nuzzling into boats was pathetic. Our inability to help the poor animal was frustrating. There were so many different ideas on what to do but no one in any authority able to help.

Then came the question of killing it - or should I say "him" or "the whale". We did not talk of killing Colin. That would be murder. Killing sounds barbaric even immoral but murder is by definition wrong. For murder involves wrongful killing. There was even talk of it being wrong because killing whales in Australian waters is illegal. As if legality determines morality rather than morality determining legality.

Some people spoke of killing the whale as wrong. "Other alternatives should be attempted." "While there is life there is hope." So ran the arguments as the week came to an end.

But when all other alternatives ran out, the best experts in the field (a rare and strange field to be an expert in - "how to deal with deserted whale calves") declared that there was no hope. Then came the dreadful word - the whale would have to be "euthanased".

We have just had two weeks of the Olympics where the noun medal has turned into a verb ( e.g. "More British than Australian athletes medalled.") English has this wonderful capacity to keep expanding its vocabulary in this way. So turning the noun "euthanasia" into a verb "to euthanase" is a natural if unpleasant linguistic evolution

This linguistic evolution is driven by the powerful political forces behind the move to legalise so called "mercy killing" of humans. To normalise (to use a similar evolutionary verb) the word euthanase is a very important part of the argument. We have to develop language that makes killing acceptable.

We have done this with abortion. We no longer allow abortion to be called murder. It is not even killing. We remove any stigma of having an abortion by talking of terminating and termination. Termination is a neutral sounding medical procedure rather than a moral choice to end the life of the embryonic or foetal child.

Let us be clear in our language about what we are doing. It enables clarity of thought when making moral choices. This is especially needed with heart rending and difficult choices - such as killing the young whale.

To kill is to cause the death of some other living creature. It is never something that we should do without respect for that life. So we are never to drink the blood of the animal we kill (Genesis 9:5). Nor are we to kill in a cruel and unnecessarily painful fashion. Killing is to protect ourselves and to live. All eating involves killing something.

Murder is more than killing, it is wrongful killing. But not all wrongful killing is murder. For murder is the wrongful killing of another human being. Not all killing of another human is wrong, though the burden of proof lies with those who want to start war. Killing a whale may be the wrong thing to do but it is never murder.

To confuse whale killing or any animal killing with murder is to make a very serious error of categories. It is the confusion of the moral order of humans and other animals. Humans alone are created in God's image and protected by God's edict "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" (Genesis 9:6).

Humans have responsibility for the animals but animals do not have responsibility for us. You can blame a human for cruelty but you cannot blame an animal for cruelty. They do not kill out of cruelty - that is part of human sinfulness - they act out of their natural instincts when they kill.

Euthanasia can mean "a painless death". In this sense palliative care can be a form of euthanasia. But today the word is used to mean "painless killing" or "killing motivated by the desire to end pain". We have been doing this to animals for a long time - but the pressure is to do the same to humans.

Again the issue is the category confusion between animals and humans. To those who do not believe in God humans are not made in the image of God. Christian belief appears irrelevant to them and they would argue should be irrelevant to society.

To such people we can appeal to the intuitive notion that humans are different morally and personally to animals. This is why we have to beware of the attempt to humanise animals (e.g. calling the baby whale Colin). Or we could appeal to the intuition that questions who should/could take responsibility for another human life.

If these intuitive arguments fail then we can point to the inevitable negative outcomes of legalising the killing of humans under this guise. It pressures old people to give up on life. It makes them fearful of seeking medical attention. Those who stand to inherit will be morally compromised by the decisions they make. The list of arguments is extensive. These cannot purport to be moral arguments but then the people we are arguing with have already renounced Christian morality.

It is very sad to kill a whale calf. But no police force is out looking for the mother to charge her with wilfully abandoning Colin - her baby.

Phillip Jensen. August, 2008.

From the Dean: Polygamy

What kind of nation is Australia? This is a question that is answered in several ways. It is sometimes answered by describing the way in which people live. Or it is answered in terms of our historical heritage and culture. Or some people answer in terms of what they want Australia to become or think it should be.

Some people do not care because they are more interested in their own lives than the social context in which they live. They unwittingly assume that individual freedom is normal rather than a particular feature of today's society. They are gullibly unaware of how much their freedom relies upon other people. The recent collapse of some loans in America warn us again “that no man is an island” complete unto himself.

We all live in community. Society sets for us boundaries and possibilities. It influences and affects our opinions and behaviour. Even the most rugged individualists are moulded by their social context.

This is not an easy time in history to raise children. Gone are the protections of agreed social constraints. Now every child is on their own - negotiating gambling, alcohol, sexual experimentation, drug-use, powerful cars, depression and suicide - all by themselves, or worse in the company of confused peers.

The pressure on young people to conform to the fashions and behaviour of their peers, or of mass media entertainment, or to school policies is, at times, intense. The teenagers' inexperience in discernment while given unprecedented freedom and independence makes them vulnerable to dreadful mistakes. And yet they have to learn to negotiate the shoals and depths when parents will not be around to make decisions for them.

There is no real point in describing the nation by the political pattern of “a democracy”. For that describes the form of government, not the nation. There is much more to the nation than the present form of government. Furthermore, Australia's “rule of the people” is limited to a choice every few years of which elite will make some decisions for us.

So what kind of nation is Australia? To promote individual freedom our governments have chosen the course of multiculturalism for the past thirty years. It is better than the racism of the White Australia Policy. It is a reasonable way to include the migrants that we have invited to work with us for our common wealth. It enables people to enjoy equality before the law. It is part of the Christian culture of hospitality to sojourners and refugees.

But multiculturalism is a failed and impossible dream. Nobody wants to create a bi-lingual society let alone a multi-lingual nation. No other language than English is ultimately accepted. Everybody has to learn it if they are to function as full members of society.

Rather, multiculturalism is a redefinition of Australian culture to the lowest common denominator: usually commerce and money. It is a method to assimilate migrants slowly. The migrants are made to feel welcome with their culture but their children will be different and their grandchildren will not be able to talk to them.

We have welcomed Muslims into our nation. Now some of them want polygamy legalised. Deep in Australian culture is the Christian taboo on polygamy. Wherever Christianity has travelled it has weaned society off the terrible practice of polygamy.

But if you believe in Islam then four wives are permitted to a man. That is their culture. Is Australia going to be so multicultural as to accept this?

If you believe in the atheistic non-judgemental self-determination of individual freedom then any woman who willingly wants to be wife number two, three or four should be allowed to be so. And if you are sexually amoral and say everybody should be free to do as they please “in the privacy of their own home” - then you can chose to be wife number twenty-four or concubine forty-four if you like. And if you believe in de facto marriages, then polygamy has nothing to do with the state anyway.

Previously, Christians have been able to persuade society that polygamy is bad for women, bad for children, bad for poor men who miss out on the joy of family life, bad for society as a whole, and ultimately bad for the rich men whose souls are corrupted by their power over women.

Muslims argue that polygamy should be permitted because it is already happening and people want it - (but then again that’s the case with child pornography). They express concern that all their wives should be protected not prosecuted by the law. Why, it is asked, do you permit a man to have four divorces but not four wives at the same time? Why argue for homosexual marriage and not polygamous marriage?

It will be interesting to see if atheistic feminists want to argue for the right of women to choose their own marriage arrangements or against the appalling abuse of women that polygamy implicitly and inevitably involves. Maybe they will solve their conflict of interests by mounting a case for polyandry. Now there is a winning argument if ever you have heard one!

Australia is a nation that has inherited a Christian culture. It is therefore a tolerant and open society that tries to limit law and government to matters of fundamental creation ethics - like life, death, marriage and raising children. It is a culture that welcomes others to share in our common wealth and blessings. But our culture is not endlessly flexible. To recreate Australia as a culture-free model of individual amorality is not so much a dream as a nightmare. Some time we have to say “thus far and no further” - for the sake of our children if not our migrants who want to share in our blessings.

Jesus said …“from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:5-9).

From the Dean - Anglican Family (15/06/08)

You can't split a marshmallow. You can melt it. You can even cut it. But, marshmallows are too malleable to be split. Something has to be brittle to split.

So there will be no split in Anglicanism. It is just not the kind of thing that is open to splitting.

The heat of the society in which we operate may melt us. Outside forces can even cut into us. But we have no mechanism to split even if we had the desire to do so.

Here is the strange strength and weakness of Anglicanism. Having resisted the tyranny of Roman rule, Anglicanism could not replace it with Lambeth rule. Thus each national church is free to follow the Lord Jesus in their own culture.

Anglicanism has expanded and developed in much the same way as a family. Over generations we have gradually changed and drifted away from each other. Cousins know that they are related but have never met. Second, third and fourth cousins do not share the same culture or even speak the same language. They do not even recognise each other as relatives. It is not that families split - they just grow apart.

Sometimes families fight. There are divorces and sibling spats. There are members who refuse talk to each other or visit each other's house. Sometimes this is justifiable because of unsociable, even criminal behaviour. Often the fight is worse than the issue over which they are fighting. But unlike disputes with neighbours or at work, you can never leave relatives behind. There is no mechanism to “de-brother” or “de-sister” your sibling. Even with divorce, splitting is near impossible. Marriage intertwines our lives over children, friends, families and property. It is nigh impossible to unwind it completely.

Recent actions of some Anglicans have loosened the family ties. Certain relationships are now untenable. Some joint family activities have been undermined. But the communion is not split - just weakened further and melted a little more into the morass of society around it.

Two such related actions have been the unrepentant consecration of an openly practicing homosexual man as a bishop in USA, and the consecration of a woman as a bishop in Perth.

In some ways they appear different. One is about behaviour, the other about gender. One affects the world wide family, the other the Australian branch.

In other ways they are related and their effect on the Anglican family is the same. Both place the “rationality” of modern culture above the word of God. Both are intentional departures from the practice of the church over centuries. Both aim to change and “reform” the church. Both cut deep into the family unity, making certain joint activities impossible.

Sadly, the Lambeth Conference is no longer viable. If those who consecrated the bishop in the USA are present, then those who see the consecration as promoting sin should obey the Bible and not fellowship with them. Thus many bishops this time are not going to Lambeth to meet the rest of the family.

The Archbishop of Canterbury had to choose whom to invite. He tried to be diplomatic and basically invite everybody - but that was never going to work. He chose to welcome the unrepentant sinners and so excluded the faithful. It is not the end of the family. The Lambeth Conference is only a once every ten year get together of bishops. It is not the essence of the family.

The consecration of women bishops is a much more serious rent in the family fabric. For it institutes into the national church a practice that the Bible explicitly prohibits. It strains long-term relationships for it forces us either into conformity with the new order or into partition so as to protect the old.

This was the consequence of the ordination of women as presbyters in the 1990's. The consecration of women as bishops only pushes the partition wider and deeper. The whole family is reshaped into “no go zones”.

There is no longer one interchangeable and recognized ministry across the nation. Some people ordained and consecrated in one diocese are not recognised or able to exercise their ministry in another. The family has spread further apart and can have less to do with each other in the future.

Wherever these changes in practice enter, those who oppose the changes are persecuted into conformity or forced to leave. However, some parts of the family, some parishes or dioceses, have resisted these novelties. In those places people are allowed to continue without change.

There is nothing new in this. In the nineteenth century, the Anglo-Catholic (commonly called the high church) movement forced all kinds of changes upon the communion. Many parishes and some dioceses (like Sydney) resisted those novelties.

The latest novelties are very serious. They are damaging the family as a whole. They have already involved appalling and unconscionable persecution of faithful Christians.

We are still family - just more distant than we used to be. There are still matters of common concern to which we have to attend. But these become more limited in scope. They usually deal with legal matters, especially concerning common property and constitutional issues. They are hardly the basis for a Christian family.

The marshmallow of Anglicanism is melting a little further into the surrounding culture. But remember the words of the Apostle: God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.” (2 Timothy 2:19).

Phillip Jensen

From the Dean - God's Character 08/06/08

The Bible clearly teaches that there is ultimately only one true God. It should not surprise us that such a God is complex. This is seen in more than his triune nature of being three persons, but one God. It is seen also in his intricate and multifaceted character.

He is the generous God. His creation of the world is not mean and niggardly but abundant and rich. There is almost a prodigal display of diversity in the creatures of the world. The biological world displays a brilliant range of colour. But God also gives to the creatures made in his image the wonders of musical appreciation and of speech and communication.

He is also the covenant God. He gives his word by a formal contract. He makes contracts that have requirements, guarantees and penalty clauses written into them. He does not treat us as mules and horses - guiding us by bit and bridle. He spoke to us. He made promises to us. He bound himself to his word and has fulfilled his undertakings.

He is the faithful and trustworthy God. He speaks the truth and keeps his word. He is not fickle or unreliable. His word can always be trusted: as he can always be trusted to keep his word.

He is the just and angry God. He is not temperamental in his anger. He is always just and righteous. He acts out of his character, which is profoundly just. He acts in accordance with his covenants and contracts. His justice is to give to people what they deserve - both reward and punishment. His anger is only reserved for those who are guilty.

He is the patient God. He is slow to anger. Although he will not leave the guilty unpunished, he does not rush to judgement or punishment. He does not desire the death of a sinner but rather that he may repent and live. So God patiently provides every opportunity for repentance and forgiveness. He patiently endures the rebellion of his creatures.

He is the loving God. This has always been central to his character. In fact it is said of him: "God is Love". This is in no way contrary to his justice or anger. They are but expressions of his love. The opposite of love is not anger but indifference. It is because he loves that he is so angry. But his love will always trump his anger as his mercy trumps his justice. For out of his love he provides the pardon of his people in the death of his Son. For by his Son's free offering of his life in the sacrifice of Calvary - justice is satisfied, anger is assuaged and mercy is provided.

He is the missionary God. His concerns are worldwide. There is only one God and only on humanity made in his image. All people are provided for in the death of his Son. His concern is for young and old, rich and poor, men and women, democrats, monarchists, republicans and anarchists. He sends his Spirit to preach the message of salvation through his people to all of nations tribes and groups.

He is the coming God. He keeps coming to us and for us. He came to us in the Garden of Eden. He came to us in the promises to Abraham. He came to us in the rescue of Israel from Egypt. But of course he particularly came to us in the life, death and resurrection of his only Son our Lord Jesus Christ. And the risen Lord Jesus did not abandon us but sent his Spirit who came to us on the day of Pentecost. His Spirit comes to us in the preaching of the Gospel through rebirth when he moves us to respond in repentance and faith. One day God will come again to us in the judgement of the world.

Our God is wonderfully complex but more than that he is wonderful in fact.

From the Dean (Censorship) 1July2008

This week felt like a return to the 60's. Censorship was the issue. There was a cause celebre: some highly respected creative genius pushing the boundaries of social tolerance. The intelligentsia were rushing to the barricades - all chanting the same mantra. There were endless repeats of unflattering images of police actions. The politicians and other community leaders were caught expressing popular but indefensible sound bites.

That is how the so-called "debate" about censorship was played out forty years ago - and nothing has changed. It was a silly debate then, it is no better now. Most of it is political posturing - forcing the issue by making others appear degenerate or ridiculous. It makes the perpetrators victims and the censored famous and wealthy. It never takes long before the usual litany of words get trotted out: Philistines, Nazis, moralizers and wowsers on one side and sleaze, decadence, corrupting the innocence of youth on the other.

Censorship is a very dangerous and undesirable blunt instrument. We can never be certain of the truth if people in power censor communication. Christians concern for the truth means we have to tolerate dreadfully painful and untrue things being said about our Lord and Saviour. Our opponents trade upon this tolerance in a way that they dare not with other groups. This time around the censorship debate is different in one respect.

This time all sides agree that there is something absolutely wrong - paedophilia. That was not agreed upon in the 60's and 70's. Back then a group of French atheistic intellectuals even argued for the decrimalization of paedophilia. Then most of society thought it unthinkable and so did not discuss it as a possibility. Now everybody knows it is more than possible and nobody is seriously arguing for it - though some people want to lower the age of consent.

The last thirty years have revealed the devastating consequence of tolerating the abuse of children. They have left nobody in real doubt that there is such a thing as evil. All now agree that society must protect itself and its most vulnerable members. Paedophiles are often predators using the open honesty of the community to reach their victims. Families, friends, schools, churches, scouts and other organizations that are built and operate on trust have had to change in order to protect the innocent.

But in a multi-cultural society there is very little agreement about morality. It is the creative community that has license to explore the nature of the human condition. But they have no central philosophy or ethics by which to conclude anything is right or wrong - good for humanity or bad for society. Their only commitment is to their own self-interested freedom. They want our protection to say whatever they like without bearing responsibility for its consequences.

The impact of any one creative work is usually too small to measure. Nobody can be shown to be significantly degenerated by one work of art. It is the cumulative effect that changes society's values. Highbrow culture has a trickle down affect on society. People do not wear what models display on the catwalk but everybody's clothing is altered as a result of the fashion show. Similarly, today's art film results in the raunch culture of tomorrow's TV and magazines. Richard Neville, one of our leading fighters against censorship in the 60's was appalled at the movies in the 90's. He wrote of "freedoms vulgarised", of his anger at "freedom corrupted", of movie critics being "desensitised by the lashings of violence" and of "corrupting society as a whole".

So how do we discriminate between "art" and pornography? The problem is usually posed in the impossible question - "where do you draw the line?" There is no answer. There is a thing called pornography and there is a thing called art. You can recognise the difference when the two extremes are put side by side, but there is no clear dividing line between the two. Beautiful art can be pornographic and pornography can be artistically beautiful.

The value of most visual representations lies in the context in which it is shown. The medical textbook and the art gallery are very different to the home computer and the "adult" movie house. The same image in the art gallery could be unacceptable on an office computer. A crucifix in a museum can be an important and challenging work of art but the same statue in the front of a Church can be idolatrous and corrupting. In the computer age we cannot control where any work will be shown.

Art is more than self-expression. When we place it in galleries for other people to see, or use a controversial photo to advertise an exhibition, it is a social activity. And its value lies in its impact on the viewer. One of the fundamentally weakest arguments against censorship is that art never harms anybody. If it can do no harm it can do no good either. If it can do no harm it cannot enhance, ennoble or help anybody. This argument is like the stupidity of the claim that advertising (e.g. for tobacco, or alcohol) does not affect consumer behaviour. If the argument were vaguely true nobody would spend any money on advertising.

Viewers differ. As the scripture says: "To the pure all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure" (Titus 2:15). The viewer brings their innocence and their corruption to any work of art. It is hard to blame the artist for other people's corruption. And yet the artist should know of our common corruption for there is no temptation that is not common to man (1 Corinthians 10:13). The intelligentsia should know the failure and weakness of humanity.

Churches should have done better in protecting children in their care because Christians teach the universality of sin. We, of all people, oppose the humanistic idealism of trusting in the goodness of humanity. It was to our credit that we thought paedophilia was an unthinkable taboo that nobody would break. But we were shown to be seriously wrong in that estimation. We should have been as vigilant in our auditing of relationships, as we have had to be with auditing accounts. Our credibility has taken a great blow.

But the artistic community would gain greater credibility if they took more responsibility for the consequences of their work. They would be more believable in their moral outrage if they unleashed it on some subject like pornography, prostitution and paedophilia than in defending their right to offend the historical norms of society. Artistic photographs of nude 13 year olds in the context of today's struggle with paedophilia and sexualization of children, is at the very least socially insensitive if not culpably irresponsible. The Bible says God made everything beautiful in its time - this is not the time.

Phillip Jensen, Dean of Sydney.

From the Dean ... Big Church Day ... 18 May 08

From the Dean…

Next Sunday is our Big Church Day - the day when all our congregations get together. It is when we spend time with each other, thanking God for his past blessings and praying to him for our future.

God has been so kind to us in this last year. We have seen his hand at work in the lives of so many people. Our congregations and their ministries have continued to grow in spiritual strength and morale as well as numbers attending.

Yet the challenge before us to reach our city and world with the gospel of Jesus has never been greater. We need urgent prayer to our heavenly Father as we make our plans for the future.

So what happens on Big Church Day?

It is still a "Church Day" so we hear God's word read and expounded, and we pray and sing hymns as we encourage each other in the fellowship of God's family.

But it is the "Big" Church Day so we engage with more than our own congregation. We prayerfully consider our own congregation but we also engage with all the congregations and ministries of the Cathedral. And, even bigger, we hear of the Diocesan plans for the gospel outreach to our city and beyond.

It is the day when we hear from each of the congregations about their ministry - both their past year and their hopes for next year. This feeds our prayers for each other.

It is the day when we also hear about the Cathedral as a whole. Again, it is about last year and the plans for the coming months. There are so many exciting changes and developments in the Cathedral's ministry that it is sometimes hard to keep up with what is happening amongst us. Next Sunday at the Big Church Day we get to see the big picture.

It is the day where we see how our own personal ministry fits into the picture. We are all to serve Christ and his people - using the gifts that he has given us. The Big Church Day shows how our many partners in the gospel at the Cathedral are working together to build Christ's church and to make Christ known.

“… speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” Ephesians. 4:15-16

How is the Big Church Day Organised?

Each of the congregations meets at their usual time. Some time will be given to talk and pray about the particular plans of that congregation.

From 2-4pm we all meet together to hear from each other and of our Cathedral plans.

Most of the congregations will be organising some meal break to assist people who have been in church in the morning or staying on to the evening.

The Big Church Day and Organizing the Cathedral

For those interested in the organization and administration of the Cathedral, the Big Church Day is also the day when we report on last year and plan for the future.

In the last year we have been introducing the new Constitution of the Cathedral. This will be explained briefly (full copies are available for any who want the details.) More importantly, some new elements of the constitution will be implemented.

For the first time we will be electing representatives of the new Cathedral Council. This Council will be comprised of representatives from each of the congregations to take some key responsibilities for the Cathedral's ministries. One representative will be elected at each congregational meeting on the day.

We will also be electing two members of our congregations to represent us in the diocesan Synod and one member to represent us on the Cathedral Chapter, at the combined meeting at 2pm.

The audited accounts for last year are available this week at the back of the Cathedral, and on the Big Church Day the treasurer will answer any questions you may have.

We also have time for discussion and input of ideas

Looking Forward to the Big Church Day

Next Sunday will be a great day for our life together as the Cathedral church. It is a big commitment from us all, as we come in the morning and stay onto the afternoon or as we come early in the afternoon and stay on for our evening congregation. But we can look forward to a spiritually exciting day together as we praise our God and pray for each other.

From the Dean ... 11 May 2008

Most people believe in discrimination. You need to in order to be just and fair, to say nothing of merciful and kind.

We discriminate in the sense of having taste and discernment. But we should also discriminate by treating people differently. It is important that we give extra help to some people. We should support the weak and vulnerable - the blind, the lame, the widow and fatherless.

Even within the family parents treat different children differently. They have to, in order to be just and fair.

This discrimination must not be based on favouritism. It must not be based on irrelevant considerations like race or good looks. But discrimination is normal. It is an important part of a just and civilised society.

Inevitably to support one group means to disadvantage others. Even to support one person means others miss out. But if the reason for the support is right: the discrimination is just. And if any person in a similar situation would be given the same support then there is no favouritism. This is discriminatory justice.

In this world it is impossible to treat all sin as criminal. If we did, then we would all be in prison. We choose to accept some sins as tolerable and punish other sins as intolerable.

So we do not tolerate theft but we tolerate adultery. We tolerate dishonouring parents but we will not accept murder. We tolerate lies except when given on oath.

There are bad consequences to these sins that we accept. But in general we see the consequences as punishment enough. There is no reason for the police or courts to get involved.

Some of the things we tolerate create misery. They also cost the people involved and the society enormously in money, emotion and psychiatric turmoil. But we think that making sin a crime will cost us more. The classic illustrations of this are drunkenness, adultery and gambling. They are all sin, they all create misery but they are not crimes.

So our society has become “permissive”. We do not approve of pornography but we permit it. We decriminalised it. There is no agreement whether such a choice was wise. In the later half of the twentieth century many sins were permitted.

But decriminalisation should not mean approval let alone promotion. We may not treat adultery as a crime but we should not encourage it or teach it in our schools. Society is benefited by people remaining faithful to their spouse. Parents staying together is basic to good child raising. The cost to society of family break up is enormous.

Society is built upon stable families. Governments do not create society. Families build nations and culture. It takes more than one generation. It is from the members of society reproducing and raising their children that a culture is built and maintained. The way we help families is a sign of the value that society places upon its own culture and future and indeed life itself.

This is why we must discriminate in favour of mothers. Especially those mothers with small children. For mothers are very vulnerable because of their huge responsibility.

This discrimination must be for more than the childbearing years. The great sacrifice of those years does not end when the children leave home. It takes so long to raise a family that the mother's life remains economically disadvantaged, long after the children leave. This is especially true of widows.

Yet we cannot discriminate in favour of families and, especially mothers, without discriminating against single people and couples who have no children, and men. To discriminate against us is just and fair if it is discrimination in favour of mothers.

The blessing of God on the Israelites was twofold: the provision of children and remaining in the Promised Land. These two things were linked together as the apostle Paul reminds us: “Honour your father and your mother (this is the first commandment with a promise), that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” (Ephesians 6:2-3)


Phillip Jensen
11 May 2008

From the Dean ... 4 May 2008

I think it was the early Easter that has thrown me but I am not yet ready for Mother’s Day. I know Christmas comes around quicker each year but Mother’s Day seems to have snuck up faster still.

Mothers are the conveyors of culture. They are the ones, more than any other, who teach us the way of life. They are the ones who often introduce little children to the gospel truths of God. Their sacrifice in raising children is usually more tangible and, sadly, more real than fathers.

So what are your plans for next week? Let me help you – for it is really simple – bring your mother to the Cathedral and then take her out to lunch afterwards. This is a fairly easy tradition to get into. It is a no fuss, easy day for all concerned.

There are many variations on the theme.

For some of us Mother’s Day is a little sad, for our mother has died. If she died recently it is more than a little sad. After more than thirty years I still feel the sadness of my own mother’s death and am quite pained about my wonderful mother-in-law who died eleven years ago. Still, coming to church on Mother’s Day gives me opportunity to thank God for the two women who “mothered” me. It also gives me the opportunity to support other mothers in their joyful day.

Some of us are mothers. It is not so much what are we going to do for our mother as what do I organise the family to do spontaneously for me? Again, tell them that you want them to come with you to the Cathedral and then take you out for lunch. Who can resist a mother’s request on Mother’s Day?

For some of us it is not so much Mother’s Day as Grandmother’s Day. The principle is the same. Grandmothers and grandchildren should come to the Cathedral to celebrate the great gift of life that God has given us through the creation of Eve.

When we celebrate Mothers and Grandmothers we are celebrating God’s good gift of creation. It is a time to rejoice and to honour our mothers as the scriptures command us.

But for some of us, the whole Mother’s Day is much more bitter and sad. It can be such a sad day for those whose children have died, or are alienated from us. It can be equally sad for those whose mother was cruel or neglectful and with whom we are alienated. It can be such a sad day for those who have struggled with infertility – longing to be mothers but unable. Sometimes this is the social problem of the relationship that never happened. Sometimes it is the physical problems of not being able to have children. The reason does not vary the sadness. It can be really sad for those who were adopted and feel the pain of not knowing their mother.

Yet we know that God is sovereign. He is working his purpose out in each of our lives. So this is not the day to hide from our sadness and disappointments but the very day to bring them to Him in prayer. Certainly in the Cathedral this element of the day will be remembered in prayer.

The Scriptures say that we should rejoice with others who rejoice and weep with those who weep (Romans 12:15). Mother’s Day is that kind of time. Do not let your weeping hold you back from rejoicing with others. Do not let your rejoicing hold you back from weeping with others.

Let us share with each other the wonderful kindness of God in giving us mothers.

Phillip Jensen
4 May 2008

From the Dean ...

Protestantism is a protest. Our protest is against the enormity of the claims of the Roman Catholic Church.

Some people are born as Protestants. They are anti Roman Catholic because of their own tribal roots. They have no belief other than Roman Catholics are wrong.

But Protestantism is not tribalism. It is the belief in the sole authority of the Bible. The Bible explains to us that salvation is only by the Grace of God. This salvation comes through Christ alone, and is received by faith without any works on our part. So all is to the glory of God alone. It is the belief that Christ's death was sufficient to pay for the sins of the whole world. In his death Christ turned away the anger of God. Our Prayer Book describes Christ's death as "a full, perfect sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world."

So we protest against Roman Catholic claims to authority. We object to the Pope claiming to be the Vicar of Christ. We reject all claims to authority that imply the insufficiency of Scripture. We oppose their confusion about the way of salvation. We reject any implication that Jesus work on the cross was insufficient or is received by more than faith or requires some other mediator.

This protest against Roman Catholicism is no small complaint. It goes to the very heart of the gospel and the way of salvation. The 39 Articles of the Anglican Church state "the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith".

That sentence was written in the sixteenth century. Since then the Roman Catholic Church has added to its heresies - the Immaculate Conception (1854), the Infallibility of the Pope (1870), and the bodily Assumption of Mary (1950). There is nothing in modern Roman Catholicism that reduces our need to protest. They have not repented of their Reformation errors.

In a few months time the local Roman Catholics are going to host the World Youth Day, in our city. This large congress of people will inconvenience the normal flow of our lives. It will cost our community large sums of money. Some people have protested against it. Their complaint is usually in terms of separation of Church and State or the undermining of the secular nature of our state.

These protests have little to commend them. Australia as a nation has a proud Protestant heritage. That is why we have so many policies on individual rights and tolerance. But about a quarter of Australia's tax paying citizens are Roman Catholics. They have every right to enjoy a gathering of their people.

It is an honour for our city to host people from all over the world. It is to the credit of our city that we are willing to be hospitable not only to people with whom we agree but also to those with whom we disagree.

Of course our hospitality is expensive. That is the nature of hospitality. But in the larger picture of our finances it is a small amount of money. Compared to the amount of tax our Roman Catholic neighbours contribute it is as nothing.

Naturally our hospitality is inconvenient. We are regularly inconvenienced by parades and demonstrations, by sporting events and parties. That is the nature of living in a world city. The sectional groups that invade our space are all part of the rich tapestry of city life. I do not have to like every group that meets in the public square.

The World Youth Day does not compromise the separation of Church and State. Nor does it undermine secular government. The government provides facilities and security for any group. This is done without reference to what they believe. To refuse to provide these facilities to the Roman Catholics would compromise the separation of Church and State. This is true especially if the refusal was because they were Roman Catholics.

Our secular government is just doing what they are elected, and paid to do. They are providing the things of this age - roads, power, police, electricity, etc. The fact that they are providing them for Roman Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists or Hindu's is an irrelevance. We can only complain when there is favouritism. The complaint then is about favouritism not about the group to which favouritism is shown.

Once again we see the confusion of secular with secularism. It is the confusion of secularist philosophy with secular government.

Secular means this age - of this world. We have a government that is secular i.e. relating to the things of this age - hospitals, building, roads, economy etc.

Secularism is the religious philosophy, which teaches that there is no other age or world than this one.
Secularism is another name for materialistic atheism.

The secularists wish to impose their atheistic belief on society through government. They are the ones who do not believe in the separation of church and state. They try to use government to enforce their viewpoint. Thus they oppose the normal secular support that is given to Roman Catholics.

It is perverse to think that the government is helping promote Roman Catholicism by assisting World Youth Day as they are. If this were the World Jehovah Witness day or the World Yoga conference the government support would be the same.

We live a city with neighbours whose life-style choices are varied and whose philosophies of life are diverse. As citizens we need to help each other whether or not we agree with each other.

The Government closing roads or making way for pilgrims does not compromise my protest against Roman Catholicism in the slightest.

I will not be welcoming the pope, going out to see him or waving a flag. But I am certainly not going to pray for rain on his parade. Remember our Lord said that our Father in heaven sends sun and rain on friend and foe alike. This is God giving secular support. We should want our government to do the same.

Phillip Jensen
27th April 2008