Happily Reconciled

Our little reconciliation meeting went well last night, if not some what quietly. I think each of us left that meeting a little wiser, and hopefully more optimistic about the possibility of reconciliation.
What more shall we do? It will be slowly, slowly and hopefully onwards and upwards.
And I did think the best quote of the evening was one who struggled for a word ....

You know what is it when they all went into the Territory. The interference? No that's not the right word....

meaning of course the so-called 'intervention'. Perhaps more to it than meets the eye

The story goes on

As part of GetUp's Reconciliation meetings tonight (see details of ours here) participants will be asked to share any stories.
Hopefully this is an exercise in listening rather than grandstanding, which would seem to me to be part of the fundamental principles of reconciliation, something I think John Howard didn't get easily. The image, that stays imprinted with many of us, of him thumping the lectern at the Melbourne reconciliation conferenece (see a YouTube reflection on it here) is hideous. And gave a defiunitive meaning to the idea of 'tub thumping'.
So today I have been thinking how scant my 'story' is:

• The only Australian my father knew when we came here 40 years ago was an aboriginal manwho had played rugby with a local English league team, he was working quietly in the town of Whyalla where we came to live
• I am totally unaware of any aboriginal kids who were in the post year 10 classes at Whyalla High School...that may be because I was streamed academically ...but even that speaks
• In the early 70s I didn't come across any aboriginal students at eitherAdelaide University, or Adelaide CAE and certainly not at that bastion of elitism, St Mark's College
• There were no aboriginal teachers or aides at any of the large high schools in which I taught.
• There were a few students, but, I suspect, they were less represented than they should have been
• None of this says anything other than what I might have observed, and therefore says as much about me as anyone else.

I am afraid my time at theological college is not much better. I don't ever recall ministry with aboriginal people being discussed, let alone presented.
There was one Torres Strait Islander student and I was pleased to help him with some language development. In reality we had more exposure to the South Pacific and Asia than to local indigenous culture.Neither of my training parishes had any contact with indigenous people
In my first parish there were aboriginal people, but they had little to do with Church. One Ngarriendjeri woman in our small congregation.
I then didn't have much to do with aboriginal issues until I worked at St Paul's Centre where part of our watching was to promote aboriginal interests in all the fields of interest we were operating.
So I met some good people working with aboriginal social issues, promoting aboriginal interests in finance and small business, and in trying to address some fo the issues of homelessness and dispossession in the city.
My current parish has the dubious honour of having one of those places of shame in its midst, yet it has become a focus for galvanising community spirit and hopefully moving middle-class endearment and apathy to something like social action. That place, Colebrook Home, (something of the story here) is a mixed blessing. Whilst, no doubt, saving the lives of some it destroyed others. I remember the chilling photograph the day the memorial was opened and hearing one of the fine women saying of a photographic display....."None of the men in those photos are still alive!"
How little I have done, and how much I could have done. Perhaps I can try a little harder

Failing to remember

April 25th is a day of great solemnity for Australians, known as ANZAC Day when we commemorate the awful fighting in the Dardanelles which it is often said, though I think some what inaccurately, is the time when Australia became a nation.
The whole idea that you can only become a 'nation' as a result of some awful war is in itself suspect. It is perhaps a justification of the foolishness of old men who seem to think that war solves things.
War, however, should be recognised; and the sacrifice of those who suffer honoured.
We will hear many times the phrase, 'Lest we forget' . Am I being too pedantic to plead that rather than failing to forget we should make sure that we remember.
It is. these days, often remarked that re-member is the way that we can think of that word. Make sure that we add members, of the quality of those we have lost.
And that we embrace the philosophic/theological idea of re-membering, in such a way that we are present at past events and that we bring their meaning into the present....we call this anamnesis.
THis is what I think we are quite good at enabling to happen on ANZAC day...making that event preset in such a way as to appropriate it for thew present.
May it not be morbid, may it not be jingoistic. May it be true!

Ongoing Reconciliation

We (friend Cath, Sue and I) are hosting a Reconciliation meeting on Tuesday 29th at 7 p.m. These are being promoted by activist group GetUp, which seeks to ensure genuine grass roots political action.
After the historic apology it would seem important that there is at least some talk about next steps.
So if you would like to come then you can take a look here (Cath, Sue and Stephen's GetTogether)

Caring Little, Caring Less

Few Australians know or care much about Tibet. What we do know seems to be largely romanticised twaddle about a Shangri-La like culture which existed before the Chinese occupation just after the war, which sent the Dalai Lama into exile in Northern India.
The Dalai Lama is an exemplary person who appears to live out in reality what he proclaims in practice, non-violence. Whilst being articulate and outspoken, he nevertheless has refused to be drawn into a slanging match with the Chinese.
If China decided to end the Tibet crisis it could do it now. The truth is that China can essentially do what it likes. It comes from being the biggest kid in the classroom. It doesn't do it (presumably) because it cannot afford to isolate itself from world opinion when it has just spent the best part of the last two decades getting back into the mainstream.
Australia has discovered an interesting thing, we can be frightened or we can be strong. Frightened that we alienate the world's largest market. Strong as we realise that we are not without bargaining chips...coal. But also a sense of place in the world.
We cannot get too cocky, China could sit on us as easily as it sits on Tibet.
But we should try and be strong and do what is right. That's what seems to be hapenning.
Cooperating does not mean agreeing to every whim. Nor does it mean being painfully priggish.
But one imagines no one will pretend any more that the Olympicxs are or can be politics free

2020 cynicism

A couple of weeks ago my Master's degree coordinator accused me of being 'cynical' when I was making a comment about my dealings with one of the teachers.
I was bemused...though I am often cowed by such comments, needing to be seen as more benevolent than 'cynical'...I did feel slighted by this. I was trying to make a serious comment about (failure of) service delivery, and in fact was being put down.
I surprised myself by asserting that I was not being cynical I was trying to be honest.
But I am easily convicted of cynicism.
I am NOT cynical about 2020, though the usual suspects have already been shouting their mouths off...with comments like '1000 softy liberals, pinkos and Labor party sympathisers' and the endless stream of comments that no amount of talk will solve the problem.
All those statements are demonstrably untrue (and predictably cynical) ...while Phillip Adams, who fits almost all those criteria was there...what an insult to the other fine people, particularly those who represented Aboriginal, multicultural, high-end business, science, youth and educational interests...and even Phillip says the occasional good thing...he just doesn't really listen (in my opinion).
It is true that it won't be worth a fig if words are not translated into action, but it seemed to me there is a great desire to do just that.
If it opens up the narrowness of the political system to a wider stream of thought, if it challenges decison makers to be visionary, if it helps us recover a sense of confidence and if ti translates to action then it will have been well worth it.
I am heartened

Over compensating

The thing I hate most about Imperial Leather soap is the horrible little metallic paper tag in the middle of the bar. I always remove it.

But, of late, it is not the only thing that gets to me. As we look at banning plastic supermarket bags in SA I wonder why Imperial Leather soap has to:

1. Come in packs of three or more covered in unrecyclable plastic wrap
2. Have each bar in its own individual cardboard carton
3. Then have each bar individually wrapped again. Opening the cardboard is always tricky for uncoordinated klutzes like me, but when you achieve it you discover that each individual bar inside its own carton is wrapped again in unrecyclable plastic wrap

Having done all that, and remembering that I am not good at unwrapping (having only two degrees, a diploma and all manner of safety accreditations) I still struggle to make sure the nasty metallic tag is removed so as not to scratch my delicate body.

Title fight

I am having a bit of a stoush on another site (here) about the use of appropriate titles.
this is largely because certain nasty people insist on referring to the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church as Mrs Schori.
Let us not pretend they do not know what they are doing.
By not even according her the minimalist title The Reverend Katherine Jefferts-Schori they are saying she is not even an ordained priest.
She is properly styled the Most Rev'd Katherine...etc, which puts her on the same sort of level as our own Primate, The Most Rev'd Philip Aspinall, and the Archbishop of Canterbury The Most Rev'd Rowan Williams.
Now on one level it doesn't matter, because many people will happily call her Katherine, just as I get called Stephen by young and old alike. On a formal level I like to be called Father Stephen. On an official level I am styled The Rev'd Fr Stephen Clark. And it all doesn't bother me very much.
I rather think, as a matter of courtesy, people should be styled (within reason) as they want to be...thus I prefer as a Catholic Anglican to be called Father Stephen rather than Mr Clark.
If and when I get a doctorate I will still prefer to be called Father rather than Dr (unless I need to bulk-bill).
But of course, there seems so much vitriol in all this name calling of women by men who simply wouldn't make it in the episcopal race. And so they name call.
No wonder people desert the church in droves!

Satire: alive and well

K and I were pleased to go and see keating the musical tonight.
Fantastically well done performance. Reminding one of the power of satire, as well as of certain insights which maybe we have forgotten.
Particularly the one where Keating was defeated by the little chimp...the echo of the song being what chumps Australians are to prefer to'just go back to the way things were before'.
I was also deeply moved by the skittish Mabo song, so full of life and which reminded us of how wonderfully life-giving that was.
It is unremittingly cruel to Howard who seems more like Brezhnev than an Australian PM, and the fact that Hawke and Howard are played by the same person is telling us something about Hawke too.
It is a little but not totally unfair to both of them.
On the side we were standing in front of Bob Ling former CEO of Hill's industries who I knew from a long time ago. He must have been bemusedto see the range of new flags that Keating was allegedly promoting. One of which had a Hill's hoist on it. More importantly I spotted Lowitja from afar, she must have been cheered by the spirit with which the move forward in aboriginal issues was presented.
K struggled (being only 24) to keep upwith the history, and she wryly observed that was why the audience was mainly made up of people my age rather than hers.
I made sure to introduce her to Archdeacon C as my daughter, lest he think I was out with this gorgeous younger woman (which I suppose I was!)

Let us gaily tread the measure

A prize for recognising the quotation in the title, without Googling!
Any way, I am confused.
Some will not be surprised!
Channel 9's Today Show this morning was going into orbit and making much of the fact that Brisbane's "Churchie" school would not allow boys to take same sex partners to their formal. Even the good Archbishop Aspinall allegedly had weighed in saying the school had the right to uphold its values.
The pompous Cameron Williams kept reiterating that Churchie had the right to insist on its 'Anglican values'.
He seemed to to think that such a value includes the right to discriminate against people on grounds of their sexuality.
Not without controversy according to Williams' Wikipedia entry (here) he kept insisting that that was his viewpoint and blow everyone else.
The man is a sport's commentator for heavens sake.
In valiantly wanting to preserve Churchie's right to do what ever it likes (I wonder where he went to school) he kept insisting that 'such people' can always go to another school if they don't like this sort of discrimination.
Apart from the fact that that argument is obviously riddled with holes, I would maintain that the Anglican position is not that boys are not allowed to have friends of the same sex.
And indeed I would think that whilst most boys might want to take a girl to the formal, some wouldn't...and why should they?
It is of course one of those things about which there is a lot of wind.
Thank goodness the Courier-Mail has a much more measured account of what might be taking place (here) [and it' s really interesting to note that they have 873 comments on this story so far ...10 a.m. CST)

At last

It depends how you calculate it, but it has actively taken between 30 and 60 years for a woman to be consecrated in Australia.
Now at last we hear that Archdeacon Kay Goldsworthy will be ordained a bishop on May 22nd .
I don't need to relate the immediate events of how this has happened the ABC has a reasonable report on it here

Christian and Anglican and Catholic and Traditional and ......

I am happy to use all the above nomenclature to describe myself, though some would have thoughts on whether I fit some, any or all of these descriptive categories.
But that's by the way.
I had an interesting conversation yesterday with John Hepworth, former Roman Catholic priest, former Anglican priest and now the 'Archbishop' of the so-called 'Traditional Anglican Communion'(here).
We were both emptying our mail boxes at Blackwood Post Office! Hepworth actually lives within the geographical bounds of my parish, and has a small conventicle which ironically (but perhaps prophetically) used to be a Congregational Church!
The church now styled, strangely, St Etheldreda in the Hills reflects, I suspect, Hepworth's fascination with the quaint ways of Anglicanism. It has a sign outside which indeed says "Traditional Anglican Communion"; a euphemism for one of the groups of breakaway churches of the last three decades. My question is how can a church which has broken away from its roots describe itself as 'traditional', how can a church which is clearly not in communion with the See of Canterbury describe itself as 'Anglican' (No! Hepworth did not get an invitation to Lambeth); and which actually defines itself by removing itself from the 'Communion' be so described.(I have railed about this before..here)
On a pragmatic level I constantly get asked what St E's is all about, and have to tell folk that it's nothing to do with me...I tell them to go and have a look and suspect that most traditional Anglicans of my ilk would find little that would sit comfortably with their sense of being Anglican at all. They are of course anti-women's ordination. They seem to be opposed to modern language liturgy. And they like to dress-up!
Hepworth (strangely, given his origins) aggressively seems to court the Roman Catholic Church...and what he styles "the now famous letter" to the Holy See to seek some sort of recognition for his mob from the Roman Catholic Church is apparently the substance of active consideration in and around, before or after the Lambeth Conference.
I have no way of knowing how seriously the Roman Communion takes that letter, or how concerned they might be about taking Hepworth(and others) back into their bosom
In his inimitable way he talks of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope as 'Rowan' and 'Benedict' respectively, as though the three of them are equals.
Which I imagine in his mind they might be!

Carrying the torch

It is, I suggest, a vain hope that the Olympic will be free of political interference or issue. Even the Sydney Olympics had the question of who would open them, our Head of State or our benevolent dictator!
That question is mild by comparison with the complex of issues that surrounds the Chinese dragon, not the least of which is Tibet.
Although we have Olympic representatives like Monsieur Rogge wanting us to believe that there should be no protests, and that some how they should be kept free of politics, this is rather laughable. There will be protests (here), because the Olympics are political.
China, in wanting to stage sthe Olympics, is acting politically (when has it not). But it is nto alone in doing that. The IOC uses its not considerable influence to curry favour and influence in the whole process of country selection, it (if you like) plays the politcial situation off against itself.
The idea that 'sport' is some how pure and above the mortal plain is clearly laughable in these days of doping, sponsorship the billion dollar industries it spawns.
We should get real.
I think Rudd is right in not getting too alarmed by the possibility of protest. By saying that in Australia it is OK, and indeed we expect the right, to protest we are doing more for democracy than whisking the torch into some warehouse so that it is not some how 'defiled'.
China likes to do wrong in the world's eyes, and to use its might to forbid discussion.
That doesn't sound to me like new found freedom or emergent democracy, it looks rather like bullying and tyranny!

The Family

We have been forced to confront the unpleasant fact of incest on TV this week (why?,one might ask.)
It got a good run for its money. Two stories on 60 Minutes, one of a Scottish brother and sister who were not brought up together, and only latterly discoverred they were sister and brother.
The other, alarmingly closer to home in Mount Gambier; a father and a daughter!
Why, one might ask, would people who live in a smallish town go on national TV. I suppose money changed hands.
Nasty stuff. Interestingly, Stefanovic et al on morning TV gave results of a survey which (I think) said of 1100 people interviewed, 1000 thought incest should be illegal but (and they were surprised by this) 100 didn't.
9 or 10 % is surprisingly high.
I don't suppose that this 10% were necessarily saying that incest is right, just that it shouldn't be illegal; which is different.
There is an appalling interview (here) with the man's former wife. What it shows is, without going into detail, that these crimes are not victimless ( as is so often claimed)[children, wives, grandchildren, society, community etc. etct. etc.]...and does indeed suggest that we are being allowed into this tragedy because of money.
It also seems to suggest that (surprise, surprise) the man has been more than happy with this ...indeed one wonders who was the prime mover...the woman was in the midst of a marital breakdown when her father'comforted her' by having sex with her!
This is the problem with incest, it seems to me....you may want to stand back and say it is "private" or it may be morally OK because no one gets hurt. But the levels of hurt are complex, dark and even more than a little grubby.
I think we should visit age old taboos to see if times have changed, and maybe we can change them. But I think this case rather shows that we shouldn't have any automatic presupposition that old taboos are necessarily wrong and should be jettisoned. We may not fully understand the depth of why a taboo exists, but sociologically they are so powerful that it seems to me the burden of proof is on those who want to change them to make their case, and not just (as so often happens) give in to the modern trend that anything goes.

Who was that man?

It's a bit much to think that American leaders are likely to be unduly impressed by our PM, I mean we are tiny!
So all this stuff in the media about Rudd being the "Deppootee!" is a bit rich, as indeed it was about Howard or any other Australian leader. We do not, will not and cannot stand as a substitute for the US...I say it again we are tiny.
It doesn't mean that we are insignificant, any more than your second cousin twice removed is insignificant. I mean they're not your grandfather or your great Aunt, but they are still family...and live (importantly) a life of their (our) own.

You should do it every now and then

You should untangle your computer cord every now and then.
Yesterday I slid the free wheeling shelf under my computer desk and it slid completely out. The phone fell on the floor, and the broadband which has been touchy for a fortnight stopped working.
I looked down at the floor and thought 'I don't know where to begin' though not quite as bad as the mess at left!
It had to wait for a day and took me about an hour to unravel everything, and extract the half a dozen cords that weren't even attached to anything!!
A little bit more fiddling. I moved the tower off the desk ( crikey Moshe I just had to answer to door to the Jehovah's Witnesses!!...they sucked me in by asking me what I was preaching about tomorrow...of course I couldn't resist)...any way when I moved the tower I pulled the curtain down. But it is now back up. All phones seem to be working again...no maybe still one more to do...and I am making soup for church lunch tomorrow.

Mastering the art

Some mornings I know when I have mastered the art of making coffee, when I make my morning espresso and think I am standing at a counter in the San Giovanni station in Roma, with all those other people.
Ahh good times!
Like this morning!

Scary Carey

I rushed home from a rather interesting group last night to not miss Enough Rope  in which Andrew Denton was interviewing Wayne Carey.

S said when I reminded her it was on "I'm not watching that rubbish!". Well after all it takes a lot to compete with Desperate Housewives and Money Lies and sex, or what ever it's called.

I dutifully watched fascinated, becoming increasingly bored by Carey trying to justify himself. It seemed to me that he thought he was going to try to and use this interview to tell a well-rehearsed story.

Since there had been much hype about it beforehand, Denton had had the opportunity to comment that he thought Carey still had serious issues. What was interesting was that although Denton is usually a very interactive interviewer my impression was that he sat back and let Carey hang himself. Not that he let him get away with things. And sometimes he asked questions like "When did you stop beating your wife?"...you can't win. Either you admit you once were a wife beater, or half the people who hear it  think ". He protests too much!"

Certainly his major defence was that the papers and the magazines were just lying through their teeth

Was Denton tendentious? I didn't think so. He seemed just to ask and sometimes push for clarification...So the New Idea didn't offer you $180,000 for your story...there was never any discussion of money...neither you nor your team talked money.

Now, by and large Denton doesn't use the sort of mud slinging tactic, so it makes it seem all the worse because the suggestion certainly was that there was more to this than met the eye.

But one commentator on the ABC website did suggest that Denton should have put or shut up...and he didn't.

It is interesting that on the Enough Rope  Guest book (here) most commentators are sad about Carey, but not negative towards him.

My impression is much more in accord with Denton's that this was a very sinister adn cynbical exercise.

I don't think it worked in Carey's favour, but some of the people have been fooled some of the time.

I have more sympathy with Nick D'Arcy, who like Mr Carey allegedly likes to drink to excess and then punch people's lights out.

The difference, maybe there is no differenece, but it could be that D'Arcy is 20 and at the beginning of a stellar career. Maybe there is some hope that he will learn his lesson. So perhaps it should not be, as St Kieran of the teeth says, "one strike and your out" but I certainly wouldn't be letting him have a second strike. Nor like Mr Carey, a third, fourth and fifth just because he's good at sport.

I want to be the  last to pretend that I am sinless when it comes to drinking too much, and nor do I pretend that I have not done anything that I am profoundly ashamed of. 

I just didn't think there was much that was sincere about what King Carey was offering us last night.