But she seemed at her eloquent best in the Senate yesterday in the debate about the abortion pill RU486. She is regarded as a fine orator by many who know.
I am quoting from memory but she said:
"Can they (presumably moral theologians) not find , just as they have done for war in defining a "just war", justification for such a thing as a just abortion?" She has a point, I may not agree with it but she makes a valid poinbt.
Heffernan, he of the outspoken loud mouth and bully-boy tactics, and I quote from memory again, shocked me (presumably speaking against) by predicting the advent of a euthanasia pill and saying something like...next time it won't be babies(sic) it will be people!
Abbott, the Minister said (here), the Senate vote was a no-confidence vote from the Senate in Ministers. I suggest it is a no-confidence in him on this particular issue. If he wants to take it more personally than that then he is not quite the total political animal he like people to think he is. And I am glad for that!!
Gillard suggested on Lateline that Abbott should get over himself...in something of a purple passage I suggest.
"Tony Abbott, really is getting into some very unusual territory here. I mean, he's almost like a sort of, you know, ageing rock 'n' roll star walking around saying, "That's enough of me talking about me, why don't YOU talk about me for a while?" Abbott actually doesn't realise this whole thing isn't about him, it's actually about a health policy decision and about serious policy and what people think is in the best interest of the nation and Australia's women. So, it's only going to be viewed as rebuff to Tony Abbott if he continues to conduct himself on the basis that he's not the Health Minister looking after responsible health policy but a strong protagonist in this debate and, clearly, one who's ringing around trying to influence colleagues. "
On top of this, I don't like the way that Abbott's Catholicism is regarded as something of a slur, which should be put to one side as being of no importance. This is, I suppose, the failure of non-Christians to understand that Christianity is actually about "where the rubber hits the road". And the failure of Christians to display that in their lives.
Great...and important stuff in the processes of democracy.
4 comments:
It struck me that in lobbying government to retain the status quo with respect to RU486, the churches continue to squib out on one of the most important things which they should be doing.
Instead of trying to get governments to impose "Christian values" upon society, the churches should perhaps do what they are supposed to be doing and make disciples of all men, so that people can make a decision to not use RU486, or to not undergo an abortion, by personal choice based upon acceptance of Jesus, rather than by imposition of a secular law. Then even if RU486 and abortion are legally available, they will not be used or performed.
Does that make sense?
Instead of doing an easy thing like lobbying government to impose moral values upon people, the churches should do the hard work of bringing knowledge of Jesus to society so that people will adopt those moral values as an act of free will.
Like it or not, there is truth in what Trevor said.
I actually think that it is more complex than this.
I don't think that you just convert everyone and suddenly they start making the right decisions.
Is lobbying easy? .... I don't think so, politicians are more responsive than we think they are to lobbying...but that doesn't make it easy.
What does it mean "to make disciples of all men(sic)"? At least part of that must be about challenging people's behaviour and attitudes. Life in the gospel doesn't exist in a theological isolation room. Richard Rohr says "When are we going to wake up and realise that God comes to us disguied as our life".
Would Bonhoeffer have been better off focussing his energies on "what he was supposed to be doing" rather than getting involved in assassinating Hitler???
The matter of morality is complex and I think your point about Bonhoeffer is a very good one.
Nevertheless, I still think The Church tends to take the easy (or cheap) options when it can.
Lobbying the purveyors of power is easier than communicating the Gospel to 21st century men and women. If we are dinkum about who we say Jesus is and the powers we ascribe to him, then perhaps we should trust that a knowledge of Him will cause a rebirth, and get on with the commission that He has given to us.
I get frustrated by the interminable squabbles within the Uniting Church about sexuality, because once again it seems that The Church is taking the easy option. It is so much easier to get indignant about homosexual men and women being ordained than it is to work out how to communicate the Gospel to our fellow 21st century Australians. It is easier to be indignant than it is to be compassionate.
But I suppose Bonhoeffer warned us that discipleship isn't easy.
Richard Rohr?
Post a Comment