My HR colleague at work has just taken the staff through a process of dealing with bullying and other unethical behaviour. Unfortunately I missed the session because of illness. But I still have the notes from last year.
It’s interesting that a church organisation needs to provide this kind of training every year. However, from my experience, it’s vital that we have strategies for dealing with abusive behaviour rather than pretending it doesn’t exist, or throwing our hands up in despair and putting up with it.
A lot of the principles we have developed as an organisation (The Uniting Church in Australia) are based on this passage from Matthew 18: 15-20, in which Jesus gives very practical instructions for confrontation and reconciliation.
If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won’t accept the church’s decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.
“I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.
“I also tell you this: If two of you agree here on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you. For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them.”
So how is my behaviour being affected by Jesus’ words?
First, I’ve learnt that confronting someone for the first time, no matter how petty, is best done in the context of a private conversation, in which amends can be made and face can be saved. The fear of public humiliation makes it very difficult to achieve any change in behaviour without lasting shame and resentment.
I still remember as an eleven year old on a school camp being hauled over the coals in front of 60 of my peers for leaving a half eaten sandwich in my drawer. Oh, the shame, the shame, of being made a public example without any means of making things better!
However it’s no easy thing to confront a bully face to face when you suspect that your words will be ignored or set against you in return. I’ve learnt that agreeing to meet together in a neutral space makes a huge difference. In retrospect, I’ve also learned that it could be helpful to have a tape recorder ready at a moment’s notice!
I went through mediation with a colleague some years ago, as we discovered we were undermining each other. We clearly needed to sort things out if we were both going to be effective in our roles. We found someone who was skilled enough in mediation. In fact, two people. One to document and one to facilitate. As painful as it was, I highly value that morning when the two of us shared our stories, our experiences and values, and sought to find ways to understand the best way to work with each other.
Sometimes, more serious interventions are needed. I think of Edwin Friedman’s fable, The Friendly Forest. A tiger approaches the residents of a forest about coming to live with them. They are mostly quite excited - they’ve never had a tiger before. The lamb is not so sure. However they form a covenant in which the tiger must accept all the other residents of the forest. The lamb discovers however that despite not being eaten, the tiger is engaging in threatening behaviour that becomes unbearable for her. She tells the other residents that she must now leave. Some of her friends in the forest wonder what she’s doing to provoke the tiger. Others say she needs to just accept that tigers are by nature threatening and get used to it.
The lamb thought there was something wrong with the notion that an agreement is equal when the invasive creature agrees to be less invasive and the invaded one agrees to tolerate some invasiveness.
One of the animals, not concerned about being politically correct, suggests that there is only one way for a lamb and a tiger to coexist in the forest. Cage the tiger.
There is a time for corporate confrontation, in which unacceptable behaviour is named, along with consequences.
So how do we treat pagans and corrupt tax collectors? How did Jesus treat them? I suspect that it might involve starting all over again.
John Evans, a fellow Uniting Church minister, based at Church of All Nations in Carlton, Melbourne, has hit the news with his suggestion that Australia rethinks Good Friday.
John’s arguing that in a more multicultural, multifaith society, designating the Christian festival of Good Friday as a public holiday is becoming less and less appropriate. Outside the Christian community there is little religious significance for most Australians. “Whether Good Friday is a public holiday or not will not change or challenge the day’s significance. In fact, in the place of Good Friday, there should be a national holiday to mark our endeavours towards Aboriginal reconciliation”, John is quoted as saying.
How to respond?
I’ve heard people saying that the arrival of people with different religious beliefs shouldn’t lead to the abandonment of Christian practices and observances. But, of course, it’s too late for that. The arrest, trial and crucifixion of Jesus just doesn’t figure for most people. And aligning lives with the life of Jesus less so.
Many Christians, Protestant and Catholic, gather for Good Friday services in which they reflect on the suffering of the Christ. People from the Orthodox wing of Christianity, however, are usually observing Easter at some other time, this year on April 25 to 27. Fortunately for these people in Australia and New Zealand Good Friday for them will coincide with ANZAC Day this year.
Without Good Friday as a public holiday people would go to work as usual. Those who wished to take part in religious observances would have the choice of gathering before work, at lunch time, after work. Or taking the afternoon off to attend a service at 3 pm. Not a big deal. Easter camps for young people would be shorter however, starting on Friday nights.
Elsewhere in the world
Good Friday is a public holiday in Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Peru, the countries of the Caribbean, Germany, Malta, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Ireland observes the day as bank holiday and bans the sale of alcohol. Indonesia and Malaysia, majority Muslim countries, observe the day as a national holiday.
John Evans points out that Good Friday is not a national holiday in the United States. The day is given as a holiday in some states, including Connecticut, Hawaii, Louisiana, Tennessee. Some schools and universities observe the day as a Spring holiday.
Bottom Line
Easter, although associated with a Christian tradition, is a key part of the Australian culture. Most Australians, regardless of beliefs or ethnic backgrounds, enjoy having an extra long weekend, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday observed on Monday. People get to travel, see family and just have a relaxing time. Judging by the number of people at the bottle store on Thursday, it’s also a traditional time for communal consumption of food and alcohol. The long weekend is a chance for the practice of ’sabbath’ - recognising that we need to stop our obsession with making and spending money.
Now the discussion of a day of reconciliation is another question, worthy of a discussion in itself.
Colin Scott, an ordained Baptist Minister in Sydney, is developing a network of Christian ministers to apologise to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community for the way they have been treated by the Christian churches in Australia. Representatives of 100Revs joined in the Mardi Gras march in Sydney over the weekend.
Regardless of any position on Biblical teaching or policy on leadership, we need to acknowledge the impact of exclusion on people who don’t fit the ‘normal’ framework expected by congregations and their leaders. I’ve found some inspiration in the work done by the United Church of Christ in the United States (to which Barack Obama belongs), in their Still Speaking and Rejected by Religion campaigns.
The Apology
As ministers of various churches and denominations we recognise that the churches we belong to, and the church in general, have not been places of welcome for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people. Indeed the church has often been profoundly unloving toward the GLBT community. For these things we apologise, whatever the distinctive of our Christian position on human sexuality – to which we remain committed. We are deeply sorry and ask for the forgiveness of the GLBT community. We long that the church would be a place of welcome for all people and commit ourselves to pursuing this goal.
We ARE a group of Christian ministers who voluntarily and individually bring this apology.
We ARE NOT official representatives of our churches or denominations.
We ARE recognising the lack of hospitality, care and welcome that the churches have offered the gay and lesbian community.
We ARE NOT making a statement on the biblical position on gay and lesbian relationships.
Colin is a chaplain at University of Sydney, and director of HOPESTREET, a ministry of the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT working amongst the most marginalised groups in the inner city of Sydney, including sex workers, the homeless, public housing tenants, Aboriginal people, problem gamblers and the unemployed.
It’s been a significant day today - February 13, the day Australia’s Prime Minister issued an apology to the stolen generations on behalf of the Australian Federal Parliament and Government.
I heard Kevin Rudd’s apology and speech on the radio on the way to work, along with the response of the Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson. I spent the morning in Goodna and Inala, working with members of multicultural communities, reflecting on what it means to develop an authentic and sustainable community. The apology formed a poignant reminder that we can be blind to the impact of our actions. We need to listen to one another, treat each other with respect.
I believe today’s apology was a significant step in reconciliation. The commitment to closing the gap in housing, infant mortality and education is going to require the commitment of an emerging generation of Australians and the support of national and State governments. We’re going to need to hear more of the stories like those told by Brendan Nelson today. Too many Australians appear to have little idea of what Sorry Day is all about.
Today the New Zealand Parliament voted in amendments to the terrorism suppression laws, allowing the government to designate terrorist organisations and creating a new offence of commiting an act of terrorism (penalty of life sentence). The Prime Minister will have the responsibility of designating groups and individuals as terrorists. Police will have the power to lock people up without charge, under the instructions of politicians.
It’s a move that is said to arise from international response to the existence of groups such as Al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah. Only problem is that violent activism has been part of New Zealand’s short history since European invasion. And the raids of Tuhoe land in the Ureweras over the last month would have cut to the bone of the memories that were associated with resistance to land confiscation.
With the restriction of certain rights the Government has a responsibility to ensure that extra efforts are made to protect vulnerable bicultural relationships. Nothing can be taken for granted.
Heavenly Sanctuary, a Christian conference organisation focusing on the character of God, have stirred public opinion with a set of posters showing Jesus washing the feet of international leaders.
In the poster Jesus kneels at the feet of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former English Prime Minister Tony Blair, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, US president George W Bush, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Jiang Zemin, former president of China.
The poster was designed by Lars Justinen from the Justinen Creative Group for use on posters advertising the conference. Different versions of the posters had captions such as “Follow the Leader,” “God IS Great,” and “Jesus - Still Too Radical?” Heavenly Sanctuary had the posters in several Seattle malls but had to take them down after complaints from the public about the inclusion of Osama Bin Laden in the line up.
Greg Boyd
Greg Boyd reflects on the negative reactions to the poster by suggesting that many Christians have tragically allowed their patriotism to co-opt their faith.
“They have allowed their American citizenship to take priority over their Kingdom citizenship, despite the New Testament’s instruction for disciples to consider themselves “foreigners” and “exiles” wherever they happen to live (Heb. 11:13; I Pet 1:17, 2:11) and to consider their real citizenship “in heaven” (Phil 3:20). Many American Christians seem to want a Jesus who will defend their country and hate their national enemies as much as they do. Many want the Jesus of the Middle Ages whom Crusaders called on to help them slaughter, not serve, their Islamic enemies. Many seem to want to reduce Jesus to just another version of the tribal gods that have been called on for centuries to bless tribal battles. Most wars throughout history have been fought under the banner of some god or another.”
Greg goes on to write about the real Jesus who wrapped a towel around his waist and washed the dirty, smelly feet of people he knew would deny and betray him in a couple of hours.
Kofi Annan
What I find interesting is that Jesus is actually washing Kofi Annan’s feet. The guy who’s been responsible for challenging, rebuking, negotiating, supporting and resourcing world leaders, is the first to have his shoes off and treated to a foot bath by the one many would consider to be the ultimate expression of God’s character in the flesh. The others know that they’re possibly next in line for this treatment. They’re being taught a valuable lesson in leadership and character, a radical alternative to the survival-focused model of rule or be ruled.
The front page of the Courier Mail (Brisbane) this morning began with a classic typo. “The wormed turned on John Howard last night as Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd outshone the Prime Minister in the one and only debate of the campaign.”
I listened to the first half an hour of the debate on ABC Radio, without the benefit of a worm. I arrived home to see the rest of the debate on Channel Nine.
It was surprising to see the audience response to Howard and Rudd as they spoke. I think I agree with Tony Abbott’s assertion that most of the audience had already made up their mind and were reflecting their personal response to the two contenders rather than engaging with what they had to say.
There were exceptions. Howard’s assertion that George Bush was changing his mind on climate change sent the worm to the pit. Howard saying that George Bush was wrong and Turnbull was right on climate change sent him up again. Rudd got a solid response to his claim that Bush was not open to discussing global warming. His alternative vision of reconciliation sent the viewers’ responses soaring. Rudd talked briefly about saying sorry as a matter of respect that could make it possible to get on with the task of working together for positive solutions.
It would be interesting to see the two prospective treasurers in debate. Peter Costello clearly would have liked to have been up front last night. The wormed would be treated to a different perspective on taxes and IR reform perhaps.
John Howard has opened a new door with his policy announcement on reconciliation. Howard on Thursday evening told the Australian nation that he was ready to lead the next phase of Australia’s move through reconciliation, calling for a national referendum on the formal recognition of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as the indigenous people of Australia.
John Howard introduces the move by referring to the recent legislation surrounding intervention in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
“This intervention – and in particular the public’s reaction to it – has been a watershed in Indigenous affairs in Australia. It has overturned 30 years of attitudes and thinking on Indigenous policy. The response from people around Australia has again highlighted to me the anguish so many Australians feel about the state of Indigenous Australia and the deep yearning in the national psyche for a more positive and unifying approach to Reconciliation.”
OK John. The intervention brought the federal government back from thirty years of leaving reconciliation in the too hard basket.
“This new Reconciliation I’m talking about starts from the premise that individual rights and national sovereignty prevail over group rights. That group rights are, and ought to be, subordinate to both the citizenship rights of the individual and the sovereignty of the nation. This is Reconciliation based on a new paradigm of positive affirmation, of unified Australian citizenship, and of balance – a balance of rights and responsibilities; a balance of practical and symbolic progress. It is this balance which holds the key to unlocking overwhelming support among the Australian people for meaningful Reconciliation.”
Individual rights and national sovereignty are concepts at the heart of the colonialism that has got us where we are today. It was the ignorance of group rights that led to the belief that the continent of Australia was unclaimed and open to ownership by the British. If there is to be any sense of balance, then individual rights, national sovereignty and group rights need to kept in tension. That of course will require governments with great skills of diplomacy, patience and discernment.
“I have never felt comfortable with the dominant paradigm for Indigenous policy – one based on the shame and guilt of non-indigenous Australians, on a repudiation of the Australia I grew up in, on a rights agenda that led ultimately and inexorably towards welfare dependency and on a philosophy of separateness rather than shared destiny. This nation spent (and wasted) a lot of time in the last 30 years toying with the idea of a treaty implying that in some way we are dealing with two separate nations. To me, this goal was always fundamentally flawed and something I could never support. We are not a federation of tribes. We are one great tribe; one Australia. I still believe that a collective national apology for past injustice fails to provide the necessary basis to move forward. Just as the responsibility agenda is gaining ground it would, I believe, only reinforce a culture of victimhood and take us backwards.”
Saying sorry is not about shame John. Collective responsibility for a nation’s past does not need to begin or end with embarrassment and disgrace. Apology paves the way for recognition of hurt, the giving and acceptance of forgiveness, and the shared will to work together for a better future.
Nations are almost always federations of tribes. Throughout the world attempts to ignore that fact have resulted in either the denigration of particular cultures or the disintegration of inter-tribal trust. Unity comes not from uniformity, but from reconciled diversity.
In his interview with the press, recorded on his Prime Minister’s web site, John says that he has no intention of saying sorry for the treatment of Aboriginal peoples, citing that the majority of middle Australia would not support it. A responsible government would take some responsibility for the education of citizens in their shared responsibilities for nationhood, including responsibilities for reconciliation. The present government is pouring millions of dollars into educating citizens about their responsibilities for the environment, stewardship of electricity and water, and internet safety. How about pouring millions of dollars into helping Australian citizens share responsibility for reconciliation?
Getup! Australia is responding to John Howard’s announcements by calling for the next parliament and PM say ’sorry’ as their very first act on the very first day. See the campaign page: The First Act Is Saying Sorry.
“Australia’s parliament holds a key to this new way forward - symbolically and practically. An apology is not about guilt or shame or individual responsibility - it is the embodiment of the spirit of reconciliation, and the springboard for a nation committed to stamp out the systemic ills that still flow from a nation unable to address its past wrongs. After over two hundred years of dispossession and ten years of despair, we must use this startling pre-election conversion to push for so much more: a commitment to close the health gap; Australia’s signing of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples; a consulted and empowered Indigenous community enjoying the rights and privileges of a first-world country - not just a non-binding amendment to the Constitution’s preamble.”
Brian McLaren’s new book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Change and Revolution of Hope, is coming out in October. He’s provided a few samples from the book on YouTube.
The first video comes from the introduction. Be aware that the last 50 seconds of the video allow you time to reflect on what you’ve just heard…
A reading from chapter 24, reflecting on materialistic culture and the pressure to keep up with the latest.
An explanation of the title of the new book…
Brian talks about some of the examples of deep shift he’s been looking for…
From Brian McLaren’s Deep Shift site, he explains the background to the book and the speaking tour he’s doing around its publication…
We Are In Deep Shift.
A time of transition, rethinking, re-imagining, and re-envisioning. A time for asking new questions
and seeking answers that are both new and old, fresh and seasoned, surprising and familiar.
What does it mean, in today’s world, to be a follower of God in the way of Jesus?
What does it mean to be a faith community engaged in the holistic, integral mission of God in our world today?
How do we, as individuals and faith communities, respond faithfully to the crises facing our world?
What is our duty to God, ourselves, our families, our neighbors, our enemies, and our planet in light of Jesus’ radical message of the kingdom of God?
How can we engage in personal formation and theological reformulation for global transformation?
Whakahuihui (Hui) Vercoe, Anglican Bishop of Aotearoa from 1981 to 2004 and Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia from 2004 to 2006, has died in Rotorua after a struggle with brain cancer.
Vercoe will be remembered as a radical, for his advocacy for the Maori people, speaking out in front Queen Elizabeth in 1990 over the honouring of the Treaty of Waitangi, and supporting the rights of Maori Vietnam veterans affected by Agent Orange. He was one of the leaders behind the development of three tikanga in the Anglican Church in 1992, providing space for Maori and Polynesian people to develop their own expressions of church without the imposition and control of the Pakeha wing.
Hui will also be remembered as a conservative. In his first speech as Archbishop Vercoe was touted in the New Zealand media as a bishop with a vision for a world ‘without gays’.
I remember Vercoe mostly for his role in the CCANZ (Conference of Churches of Aotearoa New Zealand), tirelessly working with other church leaders for social justice and peace.
Duncan Macleod posts on life, faith and culture in Australia, drawing from his involvement in the creative industry, the Uniting Church, the blogosphere, generational research, the emerging church and life on the Gold Coast.
