The Nativity is recalled at Church of All Nations

Christmas far from being the season of peace, joy and goodwill, is often the season for being trite, silly and insincere. Standing in a shop, paying over hard-earned money, for a gift the recipient may not want, certainly does not need, all while Silent Night is belted out on the PA system is bizarre!

During the week I had a conversation with Omar Farah, the Somali Muslim leader on the estate.  He was as puzzled as me as to what Christmas and its marking has become.  He respected Christians marking the birth of Jesus.  He thought, however, he had read somewhere that the date, let alone what we do at Christmas, was just made up.  It really wasn’t there in scripture, he said.   After all, he continued, “Wasn’t Easter more significant for Christians than Christmas?”

Somehow, amid all of these contradictions and puzzles as to what passes as Christmas celebrations, I still think we know, deep down, it is a special time.  We need to give to ourselves space and time to “ponder these things in our heart” – like Mary did when she reflected on what surely would have seemed to be bizarre events in her life surrounding the birth of Jesus.

May this Christmas you find this time to simply “ponder” – and you too may treasure the reality of Emmanuel, God with us – and all that means for our lives and our world.

Rev. Dr John Evans

Fr John Dear

Renowned US peace activist John Dear SJ urges us all to support the nonviolent resistance against US military training in Queensland next month, one in a series of a joint exercises code-named Operation Talisman Sabre:

“Dear friends,

Blessings of peace to you!

Now more than ever, we all have to stand up, walk the Way of Nonviolence and pursue the vision of a new world without war, poverty, nuclear weapons or global warming.  My friends and I in the USA are doing what we can to resist the culture of war and its weapons, and I thank you for doing all you can for peace and disarmament.

I urge you to join the campaign to resist Operation Talisman Sabre, to say No to the presence of the US war machine operating in your country in July, and to say Yes to God’s reign of peace and nonviolence.  I hope people of faith and conscience will speak out, pray, vigil, march and act for an end to war preparations, and start instead the alternative of peace preparations by training and exercising in Gospel nonviolence.

Thank you for witnessing to the God of peace and nonviolently resisting the presence of US soldiers and weapons.  The only way we will ever welcome that new world of peace is if we stand up publicly, say No to every act of war and Yes to every movement of nonviolence.  Thank you for all you do for peace.

May the God of peace bless you!

John Dear”

Environmental activists are also part of the Peace Convergence, owing to sensitive location of these exercises, including the biodiverse region of Shoalwater Bay on the central coast of Queensland.

How can you support the Peace Convergence?

• Pray for the ‘Af/Pak’ war (US military short-hand for allied interventions in Afghanistan and Pakistan)

• Study and understand this 30-year war.  A recommended resource is Descent into Chaos: The World’s Most Unstable Region and the Threat to Global Security (revised edn) by Ashmed Rashid (Penguin 2009).

• Take nonviolent action against Talisman Sabre in Queensland July.

• Wherever you may be, take nonviolent action against Australian/British/US/etc war-making: public vigil, speak out, sit-in etc.

• Support those taking direct nonviolent action — including Rev. Simon Moyle from Melbourne — to fund their transport, outreach etc.  Cheques made out to ‘Ciaron O’Reilly‘ may be sent to 38 Elbury St, Mitchelton, Qld 4053.

Rev. Dr Brian Howe

Professor Brian Howe, “one of Australia’s leading thinkers on social policy,” contributed a guest column to this month’s staff news at Melbourne University:

The right of the disabled to become equal citizens

During the past 25 years disability policy has increasingly been anchored in a human rights philosophy, which has been encouraged by the United Nations and progressively taken up in Australia by successive federal, state and territory governments. Such a philosophy encapsulates the basic principle that people with a disability should have the same basic rights and opportunities as other members of society.

In March 2007, Australia was among the first of around 80 nations to sign the United Nations Convention (treaty) on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The stated purpose of the convention is to ‘promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, for all persons with disability, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity’ (UN 2007). The creation of such conventions has been a bottom-up process in which delegates from government, the disability sector and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) have been involved, suggesting that there is broad support for such a developmental approach.

The universal character of conventions such as this one suggests that they are not only about winning active support from governments, they look also for support from business, trade unions and civil society to ensure that people with disabilities are not denied “the same rights and opportunities as other members of society”.  Unfortunately the language of human rights represents at best aspirational policy and is often a long way from what happens in the real world.

Especially disadvantaged are the 700,000 Australians of workforce age who suffer severe or profound core activity limitations requiring regular assistance in getting organised for the daily round. Often suffering from serious physical or mental impairment or psychiatric disorders they place enormous pressure on their carers and their families.

The inadequacy of the funding base forces the severe rationing of services, effectively damaging the quality of life for the severely disabled. As Australian disability advocate Mary Lou Carter says, “the disability system in this country is entirely crisis driven” for the most relying on caring families to sustain care as the resources available are rationed to care for the most needy.

The policy takes little or no account of the aging of the population, an important driver of increased numbers so people with disabilities or the pressure point driven by ageing carers worrying about the future of their disabled dependents.

Australian social policy which has for the most part been developed incrementally usually tries to avoid facing up to fundamental inequalities, which are presently placing enormous and damaging pressure on families.

During the 1970s there were proposals considered by the Whitlam government and presented to parliament to create national and universal no fault insurance scheme to cover sickness and injury such as then existed in New Zealand and continued to operate until the present. The approach then advocated by Mr Justice Woodhouse would ultimately influence work place and motor vehicle accident schemes, but the lack of a comprehensive scheme has meant that people with very similar disabilities will be treated very differently if they compulsorily insured (as they are at work and in motor vehicle accidents) than if they have an accident at home.

Accident and worker’s insurance is not based on fault, reflects previous earnings, covers medical and occupational rehabilitation and may facilitate a graduated return to work.

For those most severely disabled as a result of accidents where there is no insurance policy the pathways may not be neither as generous nor as comprehensive. Income replacement is the lowest in the OECD, rehabilitation may be cursory, hospital stay may be limited and reliance on family support may come early and be life long.

One system is designed to maximise the chances of resuming normal life. The other is more accepting of long term dependency ultimately increasing overall costs for taxpayers.

It is for this reason it is so important to establish national disability insurance as has operated in New Zealand for the past forty years. With national occupational superannuation we are effectively ensuring that all Australians will have a decent level of income as they age. Everyone has some level of risk of incurring a serious illness or injury that will set limits to our capacity to participate in normal community life.

A National Disability Insurance scheme might help to mitigate that risk and share with families much more equally in the long term costs of caring for a severely disabled member. The existing medical insurance scheme could provide an equitable means of raising funds through an increased levy enabling the more equitable funding for the long term needs of those with more serious levels of disability.

It is good that Australia has signed the convention on the rights of people with disabilities.  This commitment would have about it much greater credence if it was followed through with a national Disability Insurance Scheme as was proposed and supported by last year’s summit.  This would help make the disabled equal citizens.

[Australia ratified the treaty in July 2008.  HREOC has been renamed the Australian Human Rights Commission.]

Bernhard Schlink

Last month ABC broadcaster Phillip Adams interviewed Bernhard Schlink, retired German law professor and author of a number of books including the novel The Reader, now a celebrated and controversial film of the same title (still showing at the Nova five times a day).

Born in 1944, Schlink has dealt a great deal with the question of guilt, especially guilt ‘inherited’ by his generation of Germans born during or after the terror of the Third Reich.  A brief extract of the interview:

Adams: “You identify another danger resulting from your generation’s preoccupation with the Third Reich and Holocaust, and that is that the lesson you drew from the past was a moral one rather than an institutional one.  What’s that mean?”

Schlink:

“What we thought we had to learn was, we need more individual moral courage to resist, to say the truth, to not waver in the face of pressure, all of that.

“And in retrospect, I think one has to realise that resistance against the Third Reich was only possible, or mostly possible, in those circles where there was an institutional background like the church for Bonhoeffer, like traditions of the military and nobility for those who resisted in the army, like the communist or socialist movement for workers.

“So I think that individual morality needs an institutional background, needs an institutional support and once this has been destroyed it’s almost impossible to resist, at least in a successful way, just by using one’s individual morality.

“And so that’s what I mean: the lesson that we should have learned as much as the moral lesson, is the lesson that we have to take care of our institutions.”

Schlink’s latest book is Guilt about the Past, a collection of six essays exploring the phenomenon of collective guilt and how it attaches to a whole society, not just to individual perpetrators.

“What are you and I afraid of?  How can one let go of fears and grow deeper in true faith, hope and love?  What keeps you and me from taking a public stand on the thorny issues?  How can we stay faithful to the Gospel work of justice and peace, whether we’re effective or not?

As a Lenten practice: name the fears, share them with one another, pray over them, ask for the grace to trust God and walk forward in faith.

Why is violence our first instinct?  Does this nonviolence stuff work?  We are all acculturated to violence and war.  To get beyond our impasse, we need to study — to learn the methods of nonviolent resistance.  We need to train ourselves to respond creatively and peaceably.  We need to process this Sermon-on-the-Mount way in our church groups and families.

By no means are we bereft of a role model.  The unarmed, vulnerable Jesus, who . . . acted contrary to expectations: He offered compassion, healing and love.  More, he spoke truth to the cruel and powerful in favor of the oppressed and poor.  He demanded justice, and resisted the empire.  Here, I submit, is our model.  Jesus shows us how to live a non-defensive, fearless, loving life.  Why not take Jesus at his word?  Why not take a closer look at his methodology of active peacemaking and universal love?  And then try it on for size?

Violence lingers in us all.  We put ourselves down, wallow in self-hatred, find ourselves shackled to ego, envy and resentment.

Thomas Merton (1915-1968)

It took Thomas Merton, the great monk, 20 years in a Trappist monastery, before he began to deal seriously with his own inner violence.  On August 21,1962, he wrote in his journal:

Today I realize with urgency the absolute seriousness of my need to study and practice nonviolence. Hitherto I have “liked” nonviolence as an idea. I have “approved” it, looked with benignity upon it, praised it even earnestly. But I have not practiced it fully. My thoughts and words retaliate. I condemn and resist adversaries when I think I am unjustly treated. I revile them, even treat them with open (but polite) contempt to their face. The energy wasted in contempt, criticism and resentment is thus diverted from its true function — insistence on truth.

If such is the case with Merton, certainly with us.  Our following the nonviolent Jesus requires the daily inner work of deepening nonviolence.  And what a better time than Lent?  It’s a time to look deeply at what’s going on inside us and, where we are violent, to repent and then to offer ourselves mercy.  The more we show compassion toward ourselves, the more we will toward our neighbors.

Then as we make the social, economic, and political connections, then — scandal of scandals! — we can love our enemies . . .”

Read the article in full.  Sign up for an e-mail alert of John Dear’s weekly column.