Touched by an Idea

The youngest SC (and 120 others)had an a capella workshop yesterday with The Idea of North
What an amazing concert then followed with 5 very different choirs, ranging from our fantastic Chanterelle to a small ensemble of Mick Rostrevor boys who may not have been perfect but who threw themselves into it with such enjoyment and enthusiasm that they were a joy to behold.
The Idea themselves are a fantastic ensemble of four singers, who obviously love working with kids and getting them enthused about it. I mean I suppose they get paid for it, but what they have to give is just incredible.
I heard SC whisper to L (who is TION's number 1 fan) "Best day of my life!"

It's a bit of a worry

We got a report on Lambeth yesterday, from our two Bishops.

It was, I must say a bit of a worry, about what might now happen.

Archbishop Rowan Williams has asked for three moratoriums

• There be no consecrations of partnered gay people to the episcopate
• That blessing of same-sex relationships cease
• That cross border interventions by Bishops outside their own dioceses cease
  

Our Bishop was obviously pained to explain what the implications of this might be for him and our Diocese, and in a very laboured and careful way sought to explain how he anticipated this might be implemented.

I make two observations on this:

One, that he actually only addressed the first two moratoria. When I questioned what the implications of the third moratoria might be for this Diocese; and asked whether it was really a sop to those who did not like the first two he was rather defensive.

Given that we have already had cross-border incursions in this country, and it does not seem entirely unlikely that they could happen in this Diocese, it is naive to think that it does not or will not apply . There have also been internal cross-border moves which have not been without controversy and indeed pain. My impression is that the Bishop was suggesting that this sort of thing might be OK.

My point? That moratorium number 3 is of a different order from 1&2.

My second observation is that there was a disproportionate focus on the the same-sex moratoria. The bishop, it seemed to me, actually went further than Lambeth which talked about not consecrating bishops who were in same sex relationships. Jeffery seemed to extend this to ordinations to priests.

I am not aware that any bishop in this Diocese has actually knowingly ordained a homosexual person, let alone one living in a committed same-sex relationship. That such have been ordained is evident. By and large the strategy seems to have been to not ask the question on the one hand, or to not answer it on the other.

I was left feeling sad (yet again) about what this meant for any men and women of homosexual orientation in our midst. About how they must feel. When good old Fr Andy got animated and questioned whether we had really taken the responsibility to listen to gay people, the Bishop offered to lend us a couple of books!

Andy said..."Why would the gay community want to talk to us when we want to persecute them?"...was there a tear in his eye? The Bishop looked unknowingly at what this exchange might mean.

I think it means we have certainly not taken seriously the need to listen. We have not even really gone through the motions. And once again we allow a vulnerable minority to bear the suffering of us all!

As I say, it's a bit of a worry isn't it?

After word and clarification

Since I first wrote this the Archbishop has clarified with me the fact that I am mistaken about his having gone further than Lambeth he says to me:

"You suggested that the Lambeth resolution related (only) to ordinations to the
episcopate. This may be what people have focussed on as a result of events
in the US, however the text is “nor ordaining those involved in same gender
unions”. The reference is not simply to the episcopate and I am not (if I
might quote you) going further than Lambeth. "

Very sad

The very sad case of Michael Gugliemucci, pastor of a leading Pentecostal Church, pretending to have cancer and reaping a degree of financial reward from that begs all sorts of questions.
Not the least of which is the venom that is spewed out by correspondents to the local rag. Today, for example , all letters are very anti-Christian and anti-religion. They are, of course also pretty shallow.
But it needs to be observed that in a pluralist society the wholesale ridiculing of people's sincerely held religious beliefs is to be deplored. The sad failure of one person does not give others the right to make blanket accusations about other Christians which are shallow and untrue.
Comments such as "self deception.. is the core business of all religions"and "religion is superstition" are wild and open to question.
More than that they are insulting to those whose religious commitment is genuine, sincere and good. And whose works are charitable, generous and kind.
I think there are all sorts of serious questions about this case that need to be asked. By and large they are not being addressed. The serious questions are being ignored (in my opinion) in favour of sensationalism...but why should we be surprised by that
One of the questions is why a young man who was obviously very seriously disturbed from the age of 12 onwards (all admitted in the press) allowed to exercise such power and control any way.

Calling prison home

Number 3 came home today full of the case study they had done in 'extension'. It was about the Stanford Prison Experiment. Those who like me are involved in minor acadmeic research will be intrugued what you could get away with in the name of psychology in 1971.
S was fascinated by an academic experiment which had gone both horribly wrong, and intriguingly also exposed some very important truths.
I didn't really know very much about it; some volunteers are invited to play prisons. Half being the prisoners and half being the guards. It is a fascinating study of how we seem to intuitively know what to do when we imprison people...it's worth spending ten minutes to buzz through the slides. But pretty frightening really. (here)
What is of great interest to me is how my little girl is growing up!
I remember when K first started to tell jokes what a sign that was of intellectual growth, now the baby is critiquing the ethics of psychology experiments.
It's good isn't it?

Bread and circi

In the end sport is a game, it is not welfare, education or health.
Its attraction is that it figures prominently in the public imagination.
That fact alone should tell us that it has more capacity to raise its own funding than any other sector of the economy.
The dilemma for politicians is to resist the temptation to feed the circus side of the 'bread and circuses' equation in order to appease the seemingly insatiable public desire for sporting prowess
So, in the wake of the Olympics, it is good to see the pursing of lips and biting of tongues on both ends of the politcial spectrum when the possibility of increased funding for sport is raised.

Bread and circi

In the end sport is a game, it is not welfare, education or health.

Its attraction is that it figures prominently in the public imagination.

That fact alone should tell us that it has more capacity to raise its own funding than any other sector of the economy.

The dilemma for politicians is to resist the temptation to feed the circus side of the 'bread and circuses' equation in order to appease the seeminly insatiable public desire for sporting prowess

So, in the wake of the Olympics, it is good to see the pursing of lips and biting of tongues on both ends of the politcial spectrum when the possibility of increased funding for sport is raised.

 

 

The party's (nearly) over

It's difficult to imagine that the Olympics is now nearly all over. Though of course when you catch yourself watching European handball, synchronised swimming, and strange types of shooting...then you should probably recognise the signs.
What a concatenation of conclusions it brings about.
The stupid headlines which says "Phelps unseated as King" because now a runner has run faster than he can swim. Isn't there room for both.
The obvious sadness about the assessment of some (even many) that the Olympics has actually worsened the Chinese human rights situations...this depends of course on the side you are on.
And has the voice of Tibet been heard...the words "The Dalai Lama is a fool" from the mouth of a 16 year old resonate recurringly.
And then the incessant whining that we haven't won enough gold medals, as if some how our athletes have let us down. Read the story fo Anna Meares (here) who only won silver! I thought her father said the most perceptive thing I have ever heard anyone say..."I would have been pleased if she had come last!" Indeed all of them should be proud of just being there.
Any way, for most of us the Olympics will be put to bed until 2012.
Can't get enough of that synchronised swimming!

A good death

One of those letters appeared in the paper earlier this week in which a correspondent declared she was positioning herself to make a decision that would allow her to die decently.

This seems not unreasonable. All of us, you would think, should be allowed to die with dignity.

Often we don't pay enough attention to this, and some times it is hard.

But it strikes me that it should be hard. Life is not without cost, and that much at least should be evident as we die.

It should be more than just ensuring that the appropriate tablets are in the top drawer so that if we feel we are ready today then we can just pop them.

There is a certain sense of irony that just at the moment there is a lot of ruckus about an abandoned whale calf becasue one of the suggestions is that it should be put down. People seem to be worried about humans getting too much treatment, and in this case Colin the whale (who calls a whale 'Colin?) not getting enough, Could you do more for a dying animal? It is of course the question that haunts us all (as it has done about our own beloved dog in the last fortnight)
But I rather think that euthanasia of people is different.
It should, as I say, be hard not easy.
One of the comments the letter-writer made earlier in the week was that she didn't want to be in a nursing home "losing control of my bowels". This is nasty stuff, but would it now mean that gastroenteritis or irritable bowel syndrome is now an indicator for potential euthanasia.
I personally don't believe that the health system is keeping anyone alive who shouldn't be.
The fact that the last few weeks or even months may be awful for the dying and for those who surround them, is something of the nature of death.
But more goes on at these times than just the breakdown of the body. Our engagement with the process of grief is probably the most important thing human beings do. I have had enough encounters with raw grief to know that this approaches the truth.
Cut it short, and you risk cutting off this process in mid-stream.
No one should be treated beyond the level of reasonable intervention. But the bar cannot be set so low that we can no longer engage with the sadness of death.

The way we were

"Will he dance?" was the great question. And indeed he did, and then grabbed the microphone to 'thank' everyone.
ABC2 screened Keating the Musical last night. The great man was in the audience.
Aaaah! The alpha male! Always has to be in control. While in one sense it is about him, he also doesn't get that it is not about him. It is about Australia.

About our curious laughing at arrogance and authority. But then the arrogant do not see beyond themselves. I should know!! (some will say)

I have blogged elsewhere about how perceptive Benedetto is in this creation. It is indeed very edgy, and should be compulsory viewing for all with the slightest interest in politics.

More than that it reminds us of what a great era the 90s were in terms of landmark decisions and changes in community attitude.

Contrast that with retiring Chief Justice Murray Gleeson's comments to the National Press Club yesterday, that there is too much legislation coming out of the parliament. While he was always cautious (as befits his role) he seemed to be suggesting that we have mistaken legislation for change, when it may just be nitpicking.

Our ethnic heritage

K, presently in the US, assures me that their Olympic coverage is impossible, as they seem to think that only America is competing!
In this country, where the majority of us also have strong ethnic links outside our nation's borders thank goodness for the wider Olympic coverage being offered through SBS.
At least it gives us the opportunity to understand that this sports fest is not just about who Australia is beating or getting beaten by.

We just don't get it

I imagine it will be the first of many poor jokes/comments about Portia de Rossi and Ellen de Generes who yesterday honoured their relationship by marrying each other.
The fact that they are both women is (of course) of interest but 9's morning program made the obvious comment. Ellen wore pants, Portia wore a dress. "Oh," said the idiot anchor, "does that mean Ellen wears the trousers?" "I think it does" said Karl the straight-man.
Then, I suspect, they both realised they had strayed where they probably shouldn't go.
We were told Portia wears the pants sometimes (how do they know?), then we were told Ellen was coming to Channel 9 soon...and wouldn't that be a hoot as she was absolutely fabulous...and so talented ( should they have added 'for a lesbian'?)

What gets me is why same sex relationships have to be interpreted in the parameters of male-female relationships. It is generally accepted, for example, that one of the reasons why numbers of women go into same-sex relationships after having been in different sex relationships is that they want a relationship that is on a better footing. It is often because they long for companionship, rather than the war of the sexes that they find themselves wanting to be partnered to a woman rather than an adversary.

Of course we men have some difficulty understanding this, and we make so many of the rules.

My feelings?

In a world where there is too little love and commitment, I wish all those
who seek it well. And I wonder why so many of us are hateful about those who
look in different places for what we ourselves long.

Do not call

Last week I (reluctantly) decided that I was not going to give money over the telephone any more. Whether it be for Leukemia, Guide Dogs, Epilepsy...raffle tickets, or raffia baskets.. I seemed to have a bundle of phone calls and just felt uneasy.

The Leukemia one just made me feel uneasy..and I thought I actually have no idea whether the money ends up there or not. The following day I got a phone call from Guide Dogs...who I also have supported in the past, but it actually sounded like the same person who had rung me the day before. It may or may not have been. And of course we all know about call centres.

Finally I rang and registered with http://www.donotcall.gov.au/ so I will be interested to see if it works. Haven't so far had any more calls after having had at least one every day for the last week.

I think we should give to charities...probably more than we do...but (for me at least) it's going to require a bit more thought.

Death wish of a eunuch

Like many programs on the ABC you can have a love-hate relationship with them, such a one is Q and A. Excellent in that it gives presenter Tony Jones a free-er hand than does his previous incarnation on Lateline. So he is chipper and often asks 'inappropriate' questions that an unbiased interviewer is not supposed to ask.

Stilted, because there is a degree of control on 'audience questions' (we are told endlessly this is your program). The control is not so much on content as on the fact that questioners have to obviously submit their questions and write them down, this at least means we don't have audience members rabitting on; but does mean their delivery is often wooden; and you sometimes wonder whether schools teach people to read out loud!
Excellent also because the guests are not just the political wannabes or usual suspects. They are there, but others are too. So last night we had not only Bob Carr and Julie Bishop (both excellently arrogant in their own right) but also Germaine Greer, former , The Australian newspaper's foreign editor, Greg Sheridan and curator and critic, Marcus Westbury.
All contributed well, Westbury declared himself to be the 'token young person', Sheridan offered a different view from the narrow line of political self-interest and called Greer old! (she was not amused), And Greer herself, of course, was splendidly ridiculous.
So capable of thinking on her feet, there were times when you wondered whether she had given any of the issues a moment's thought before she opened her mouth. This used to be fun to watch, but is now a little tiresome.
However I do have to admit that it was because she and Carr were on it that I made sure I stayed up.
At one stage, commenting on literature, religion and a whole host of other things she said something like: it surprised her that people held up the Holy Koran and the Holy Bible as paragons of literature.
It surprised her because she thought both were bullshit!

A sweeping comment if ever there was one!

I wondered if she had heard of Salmon Rushdie!
The comment was all the more surprising because when commenting on the place of her seminal work of the feminist movement..The Female Eunuch... she seemed at pains to try and say that she had moved away from its naivete. Which is not surprising, it was after all 40 years ago since it was written.
She, being quite brilliant, and well-versed in literary theory would well know that the place of Scripture is not to be high Kultur (with a capital K) but as the record of belief and ideology of a society. To say such is bullshit is just shallow!
I think the scriptures are more valuable than that, but I am a person of faith.
She is not and doesn't have to be (though she does appear to be a dogmatic Marxist...and admitted as much last night).
And she is after all a controversialist rather than a seminal thinker. I think that much was evident last night.
Good TV, not necessarily intelligent thought.

Collegiality and the modern priest

When clergy get together we talk a lot about collegiality. The college of presbyters(priests), the college of bishops, we even have a service called a collation...which leads to the obvious jokes...but more of that at another time
Our monthly Deanery meeting, which is a principle expression of our local collegiality (clergy of the southern region) was yesterday. One of the things we do is talk about what we are going to preach about next Sunday (riveting stuff...but it is of course our bread and butter)
It was hard work yesterday, the passage we looked at principally was Matthew 15:21-28, Jesus's encounter with a Canaanite woman. It is quite a tricky little passage as Jesus seems to eb quite rude to a woman. One of us began with assertion, "Of course this is clever it is a play on words...", another (perhaps the least formally trained of us all) had obviously done more preparation than any of us and gave us a sensitive pastoral account, I chipped in with my usual this is about struggling with what it means to be authentic. The theologian tried to link it backwards and forwards.
I was left wondering what the people would hear on Sunday.
It was, this time, a fairly frustrating sort of discussion in which we didn't really engage with each other. Sometimes (even usually) we spark each other. But this time weall seemed to have quite different agendas.
I suppose this is both the strength and weakness of a college. It allows for difference, but that difference can also be frustrating.
I remain committed to the idea that it is the struggle with difference thta is creative and dynamic.
But I would, wouldn't I?

Inexorabilis

And so the inexorable Olympic marathon has begun. I don't mean the race, I mean the wtaching of events that you normally wouldn't care about. And, indeed, finding them strangely compelling.
Like the Women's Hockey, Australia versus Korea. Oz down 1-4 at half time came back and won with a compelling second half 5-4. Strangely riveting.
Or, all thosoe butterfly heats.
Of course you miss the actual finals and only see them on the news...and think why?
Because it's the inexorable Olympics I suppose!

btw

Internet seems to have fixed itself!!!!

Should just mention

For those of you who know her, I need to mention that we had a death in the family this week.
Tilly died on Monday night. She had not been well for a couple of weeks and just didn't seem to come good.
She does appear to have died peacefully.
She was a lovely dog, gentle and quiet. And has given us such pleasure
Today they tried to persuade me to get another dog...but it is too soon.

Unexpected side effects

No one could doubt the Opening ceremony of the Olympic Games was stunning.

What did it say?

It certainly said Chine has a lot of people who we can make do the same thing at the same time. Was this deliberate or is it an essentially Chinese thing any way? Maybe both.

Any way it was good.

Wasn't it also crazy that it was impossible to predict which nation was coming next, another way of saying that 'order' as defined in the West is not the only?....perhaps

This morning I can send email, but I can't connect to the net...and I am uploading this by email (send me an email if you see this on your browser) is the Olympics affecting the internet...I am just going to check on another browser.

Olympic Fever

Each time some manifestation of international sport occurs we are gripped with fervour,or is it fever. So it is good to have a Chinese citizen in the house on this day when the Olympics open.
I think she is a bit non-plussed about why everyone isn't just totally in love with the Chinese State (as she is required to be - see below or here)
But it is good to have someone who is so proud of her country with us today. This mornign as we watched 5 mins of breakfast TV she said to me "What does 'Bag China' mean?"
I didn't quite understand until I saw the little footnote on the screen which said "Everyone takes opportunity to Bag China!"
I was a little sad to have to explain to her what this meant.

Team playing

I pontificated in the past about team spirit when Wayne Carey was picked up by The Adelaide Crows after having been dumped by the Kangaroos for, amongst other things, bonking his captain's and alleged best-friend's wife.
Why, I wondered, would any team want to recruit someone who obviously threatened the cohesiveness of the team. The answer (though not simple) is of course talent. Carey, it seems to me, was not such a great pick-up; was never happy in Adelaide; and is now a rather pathetic picture. The game of football was diminished (I think) when it said that we can forgive anything if we can get someone who will kick goals.
So here we go again, Collingwood have had a little spat this week. And bad though it is that who ever was driving was also drunk, the issue that has caused dismissals is not the event itself but the lying about it. So Alan Didak (who appears to have been a passenger) is being disposed of for lying, to management and others.
This seems to me not totally unreasonable, since you should expect your team to have a certain loyalty and honesty.
Is there also a certain opportunism in getting rid of a rotten apple? Possibly
Eddie McGuire, the mega star and Collingwood President, was being grilled by principal idiot Sam Newman last night (I wonder if it really was hard hitting or if it was just meant to look so). It looked sort of convincing, but did he actually breach confidence by talking hypothetically about generic "Player's background", whilst engaged in a conversation abotu one in particular. (I mean he alluded to things that may have happened to some players when they were children which may explain why they were difficult...was he talking about Didak? I don't know! But he could have been, and it sort of seemed like that, but I don't know.
Eddie is alleged to have told the boys in the dressing room when berating them "I have sacrificed everything for this club, I have given up the chance of three Gold Logies!!" (Strewth!!)

Any way, moving on, it was fascinating to see that no sooner had Didak the loose cannon been released that there were murmurings about whether or not the Power would pick him up.
The ability to kick goals conquers all reservations.
So it was good to see Captain Tredrea and others (here), let's hope the Crows (for the team's sake) don't make the Carey mistake over again

Tibet or not Tibet

Tibet will no doubt get more coverage in the next couple of weeks, so it was opportune to ask QQ(a Chinese school student presently staying with us) about Tibet.
"The Dalai Lama, you know, " she told me, "is a fool!"
I obviously reacted visibly, but it did not stop her continuing the official line that such a young one has been so effectively delivered in her schooling.
It was difficult to continue the converse with one so young, without breaching good hospitality.
I suppose what shocked me most was how uncompromising the indoctrination has obviously been.

One day

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote the masterly "One Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich". In this brief narrative of a 100 plus pages he narrates the account of what happens to Ivan in the course of 24 hours interred in a Stalinist camp.
It is fascinating,complex and convoluted. There is a brutality about it which almost seems unrealistic. At the end of of these few pages you are left wondering how so much can have happened in just 24 hours.
Then Solzhenitsyn adds his final paragraph which reveals that there are three extra days in Ivan Shukov's sentence caused by the existence of leap years! They seem unbelievable,he says

"There were three thousand six hundred and fifty-three days like that in his stretch. From the first clang of the rail to the last clang of the rail. Three thousand six hundred and fifty-three days. The three extra days were for leap years."

Those three days.They are eternity.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn died today.

The Boys' Club

Acknowledging that the present divertissement in the Liberal Party is not about leadership in general but about Peter Costello in particular; it is interesting that no women are ever talked about as potential party leaders.
The other side are not particularly blameless in this regard either, but it is noteworthy that I could mention: Macklin, Wong, Gillard, Roxon off the top of my head. But I am hard pressed to mention any woman at all...other than Bronwyn...on the other side. No wonder the Liberals still present as a factional boys' club