“MISSION AT A TURNING POINT”

“DISCIPLESHIP”
Mark 3:13-35

INTRODUCTION
It never ceases to amaze me that Mark made it into the canon of the New Testament. It speaks of such failure on the part of the disciples, more crass and blatant than in the other three gospels. It is a quite incredible statement of the sense of power of the grace of God and the Holy Spirit’s guidance that Mark and I and II Corinthians were included, for they are documents of human failure too.

MARK 3: 13-35
Let us look at the main lines of the passage:
13-19: Jesus goes to an uninhabited place in which to set apart the nucleus of the New Israel, the Twelve (cf.Mt.19: 28; Lk.22:30). They are

(a)  to be with him;
(b)  to proclaim the Good News Event, and
(c) to interact with the forces of evil (casting out devils). Then they are named. Many we do not know of. However, the sociological work on Galilee of Jerome Murphy-O’Connor and Sean Freyne (e.g. S. Freyne, Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels) is important here. Fishing in the Sea of Galilee in the economic circumstances of the First Century was big business. Galilean fishing syndicates were raising credit a thousand kilometres from their operations. Although fishing is not explicitly mentioned here, the name of one of the syndicates (“Sons of Zebedee”) is given. These were no lakeside bumpkins; they were major operators. The name “Peter” (“Rocky”: Kephas) is a dig at subsequent failure. So is “Sons of Thunder” (“Boanerges”). Simon is a Zealot, a member of a fairly radical nationalist movement. We are dealing with an influential group of competent operators.

20-21: Two factors are significant here: Jesus’ immense popularity and therefore opportunity to influence the people; and the way in which he unnerves the people with his exousia (“authority”).

22-27: In the Mt./Lk.version (Q/Mt.12:22-26; Lk.11:14-18) this Beelzebub controversy follows from an exorcism. There is academic discussion over the spelling of Beelzebub vs Beelzebul. Beelzebub was the god of Ekron (IIKg.1:2). The point is: Jesus is seen from the side of Jerusalem (regarded in Mark as the place of evil) as an Evil Force. Therefore, his controversy with Judaism is seen in terms of a fight of spirits. Verse 27 reminds us of Isaiah 49: 24-25. All this is “parable”, i.e. a story presenting an existential crisis for the hearers.

28-30: The central point of the section. What is this sin against the Holy Spirit? It has to do with Jesus’ very being.

31-35: A whole new understanding of community and even of existence is represented here. One’s very being is related to one’s relatives; so the sociological studies of Galilee reinforce.

It seems fairly certain that Mark was put together in Rome around 70 CE/AD. Its connections with Galilee too are very important.

Let us imagine its situation.

The Neronian persecution has taken place. Tacitus sets out for us the appalling record of what happened to members of the Roman Church:

“They were not only put to death but put to death with  insult, in that they were dressed up in the skins of beasts to perish either by the worrying of dogs  or on crosses or by fire or, when the daylight failed, they were burnt to serve as lights by night.” (Gwatkin’s translation, Vol 1, p78)

Tradition, accepted by the church in the absence of other evidence, records that the two leading apostles, Peter and Paul, perished in this onslaught. This would be devastating for the mixed Gentile/Jewish church. It would not be surprising if the number of apostates was high. How many would be able to face up to the prospect of an agonising death by fire or crucifixion or being torn apart by dogs, deliberately starved to make them more vicious? It should be noted that, from very early days, the concept of the believer being identified with his Lord in suffering and death appears to have loomed large. Paul seeks a share e.g. in the sufferings of Chris (Phil 3:10); he seeks to fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ as an “example to the members of the church to follow his steps” (2.21f). The passage on fasting is an example. It has to do with the death of Jesus and the fasting expressive of sorrow that belongs to that time. The present time with Jesus present is the time of joy. It is also the time of the presence of Peter, and the period of a wedding celebration: “Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them?. The days will come when the groom is taken away from them. And then on that day they will fast” (2.19f). The verb apairo can imply a use of force. Jesus was “torn away” from the twelve and the church by the crucifixion. Similarly Peter (and Paul) shared this experience of being “torn away” by hostile authorities and martyred. The church in the aftermath of the persecution of 64AD knew something of the distress expressed at the time of the violent death of Jesus and it could take comfort in this identification.

The believing community at Rome we can surmise had its own considerable portion of defectors. It may have been expressed in all sorts of ways, giving up membership of the community and so not being brought before the authorities; keeping their identify secret; clearing out altogether in an act of sheer panic and yet wanting back; under the strain of torture and its physical agony reaching breaking point and willy-nilly denying Christ; perhaps there were those within the community who betrayed others to the authorities for gain, a pagan son his Christian father or a pagan mother her converted daughter, utterly resentful of her leaving the pagan gods. The list of failures could be multiplied. The unit on sin without forgiveness could meet such a situation” “All sins and transgressions will be forgiven” – what a sweeping statement! Then the salutary finish: “but the sin against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven” (28-30). Many of those who had failed had never lost their faith in Christ. If in a moment of agony and stress, they lost their true identify in an involuntary denial; they had never in their hearts lost touch with Christ.  Perhaps there were those who thought that there was no acceptance for them. Their sin was too great, too heinous.

MARK 8: 27-38

This section is the beginning of the second major part of Mark's Gospel.  The first part, up until 8: 26, is crammed full of activity on the part of Jesus.  He heals, he teaches, he moves from one place to another.  Crowds are drawn to him; Jewish leaders begin to show their opposition.  Two impressions, among others, are left: the furious activity of Jesus. and in addition a strange inability on the part of his closest followers to understand what he is about.

From our passage (i.e. from 8:27) it is of a different kind altogether. It moves more leisurely. We are now made to think about Jesus and what he is about. The structure is that of a journey. It begins with Jesus as far away from his own area as possible, out in pagan Caesarea Philippi. Caesarea Philippi, the ancient Paneas, on the slopes of Mount Hermon, was rebuilt by Herod Philip, whose name it bears to distinguish it from Caesarea on the coast, the seal of the Roman government.  Mark traces a journey which Jesus makes as he moves south from there through Galilee, along the Jordan through Jericho and up to Jerusalem.  On this journey Jesus teaches his disciples about himself and about how they are to be disciples.  It is no chance that this takes place on a journey, it is a kind of pilgrimage.  Mark draws this out by continually referring to Jesus as being on the way or on the road at the head of his disciples.

Although he begins in pagan Caesarea Philippi, strangely he enters deeper and deeper into the area of estrangement from God as he reaches the so-called Holy City of Jerusalem.  We know from earlier, in Chapter 3, that the struggle between him and the authorities from Jerusalem begins in Galilee.  He is associated with Galilee, they are associated with Jerusalem.  Each side points to the power of evil spirits in the other.  For Jerusalem stands over against God's apocalyptic act in Jesus.

But what does Jesus teach his disciples about himself on this pilgrimage to the estranged city? - this anti-pilgrimage?  Chiefly what is going to happen to him; he says it on three different occasions: "I am going to be delivered into the hands of men/people who will kill me; and when 1 am killed, after three days 1 will rise".  This is to happen in Jerusalem; hence the journey is a journey to that place. We can see by now how the end of the story is beginning to dominate what precedes it.  The three predictions that Jesus makes of what is going to happen to him are brief.  They do not need to be lengthy.  Mark's readers already know the full story and what is going to happen when Jesus reaches Jerusalem.

However, each time Mark gives one of the predictions he goes on immediately to drive home its implications for the disciples.  If he is about to take up his cross, then they must take up theirs.  If he is not about to demand his rights as a true leader of the Jewish people and so be saved by God from humiliation, then they too must learn what in fact it means to be humble, and he sets before them a child and tells them that their behaviour should resemble the child's.  If he is king of the Jews and does not assert his kingship with worldly authority, then they must learn that the ideal for them is not ruling over people but serving others as a slave does.

If the religious centre of Judaism is to demonstrate that it is, in fact, the centre of estrangement and alienation from God, the Jesus' way of pilgrimage is the opposite. it is God's anti-pilgrimage, over against Jewish pilgrimages.  God in Christ becomes totally alienated from religiosity, from playing religion, by hanging on a gibbet close to a Holy Feast.  God in Christ enters into full humiliation in religious terms, if religiosity, playing religion, means demonstrating religious rights.  God in Christ becomes the slave of all, if civil religiosity, playing civil religion, means asserting that he behave in Jerusalem's terms as to how that estranged place thinks a king of the Jews should behave.

Those, like Peter, who do not see that, are indeed Satan, standing, like Jerusalem, against the way of the presence of God in Jesus Christ.  So Jesus links his fate to the way of discipleship.  In that way Mark makes our understanding of Christian life depend on our understanding of God's action in Christ.  It should be noted that, from the earliest days of Christianity in Rome, the concept of the believer being identified with his or her Lord in suffering, death and resurrection appears to have loomed large.  Paul seeks a share, e.g., in the sufferings of Christ (Phil. 3: 10).  He asks to fill up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ (Col. 1: 24).  Peter, in 1 Peter (2: 21 - 22), talks of the vicarious suffering of Christ as an "Example to the members of the church to follow his steps".

So Christian discipleship is comprehensible only in Christ.  This stands in stark contrast to the outwardly successful activities of the Pharisees.  They most successfully in first century Judaism were able to combine sectarian movements and mainline aspirations.  They were outstanding experts in propagating religious comprehensiveness.  However, Christian discipleship stands over against successes.  For Christian discipleship is only comprehended in God's strange actions in Jesus' anti-religiosity pilgrimage.  Our identity in him comes from God; it is given to us by God's grace.  It stands over against all self-conscious discipleships, all posings, all self-validated pilgrimages with predetermined outcomes, and optimal results.  Despite ourselves, it is given to us.  For Jesus, in his resurrection message speaks first to Peter, the one who has gone further than the other disciples in denying Jesus, the one who goes against God's will, and says that he is going before him into Galilee, the place not estranged by religiosity.  There he will see him, as he told him.  Discipleship is not self-justification; it is gift.

CONCLUSIONS
The following factors need to be noted:
1. Those called to be disciples are confrontational to religious institutions.
2. The situation in Rome was a re-run of Passion Week. So it is for all Christian life and existence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APOSTLESHIP
Acts 9: 1-19

“Damascus Road”

INTRODUCTION
There is a phrase which is sometimes used : a Damascus road experience.  What is such an experience? Acts contains three accounts of what happened to Paul: 9:1-19, 22:4-16, 26:9-18. There has been much discussion whether these describe a conversion or a commission or something else. The account occurs three times in Acts, apart from the references to it in the Pauline letters. Why was it given so much significance? Who was this Paul, about whom it is written, anyway? The Acts of Paul and Thecla, Section 3, describe him as follows: “A sturdy little bald-headed, bow-legged man, with meeting eyebrows and a rather prominent nose.”

He was a very major problem to the Early Church. First, the ablest arch-enemy of Christianity had become its most articulate evangelist. Second, and perhaps even more problematic, was Paul already a missionary before his conversion, taking part in a Jewish proselytising campaign? (Schoeps and Bornkamm). The evidence is somewhat elusive. In part it consists of the unspoken presumption that the Christian Paul could not have taken such an overwhelming interest in the Gentiles if, before he met with Christ, he had not also been concerned about their fate. More substantial evidence may be found in Gal. 5:11 where Paul asks, “And I, my friends, if I am still advocating circumcision, why is it I am still persecuted?” From this it has been assumed that before his Christian baptism Paul had practised the calling of a Jewish preacher of circumcision. However, the juxtaposition of two “stills” means that this interpretation is not necessarily implied. We might draw a picture of Paul being heavily involved before his conversion in a Jewish proselytising campaign. This would certainly help us to see his later struggles in a new light.

ACTS 9: 1-19
Against this background we have a picture of a number of events occurring for Paul: the call–vision is the tradition of Jeremiah, the reception of the Holy Spirit, and baptism. The conversion is separated by three days from the reception of the Spirit and baptism.

Let us overview the passage:
1-9: Paul, the arch-enemy of the Christians, is presented, armed with letters presumably from the Jerusalem Sanhedrin to the synagogues of the Jewish community in Damascus, a major Jewish colony. It may have had close connections with the Qumran community. The right to arrest Jewish fugitives is mentioned in 1 Mac.15:21. The three accounts differ in detail but agree on the central conversation between Jesus and Paul:
“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” “Tell me, Lord”, he said, “who are you.” The voice answered, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”

It is not clear whether Paul alone heard Jesus (22.9) or also those journeying with him (9:7), whether he alone saw the light (20:11) or whether those also with him (22:9; 26:13 – strangely unlike Paul they are not made blind by the light). These variations seem not significant, for there is no indication that anyone other than Paul saw Jesus. We can safely conclude that Paul’s experience was quite different from that of any of his fellow travellers.

10-19: A number of factors indicate that Paul’s three-day experience was a unified crisis, extending from his conversion and re-orienting right through to this reception of the Spirit and his baptism. First, in the three accounts there is no distinction between the commissioning he receives on the road and that which he receives from Ananias. In ch.9 the commissioning comes solely through Ananias; in Ch.26 the whole commission is received outside Damascus. Paul, it appears, did not distinguish the means and the times of God’s dealings with him. It was all the one event and experience, and it was impossible to disentangle the various elements in it.

Second, Paul’s blindness lasts for three days. From the background above we can see that his entire world-view had been shaken, especially if he had been a Jewish proselytiser. He was not converted in an instant. That is what the blindness means. He was shattered.He had to let the pieces of his shattered life re-assemble themselves round the new fact which had broken in upon him. It was only when this was done, and this faith had been re-created from it deepest levels, that he was ready to take that step of commitment after which he could not go back.

Third, in ch.22, Ananias has to persuade him to take the final step of baptism. It all runs together: conversion, a sense of commissioning, re-orientation, receiving the Holy Spirit and baptism.
Note: in verse 5, Paul calls Jesus “Lord” (kurie); this could equally be “sir” or “the one who clearly is putting me in subjection”. Again: in verse 17 Ananias calls Paul “brother” (adelphe); it is used 19 times in Acts to mean “fellow Jew”.

CALL-VISION AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
A number of factors need to be borne in mind here:

First, there is the very important phrase in 1 Cor. 15:8. Within I Cor.15:8, there are two expressions which require a little further examination. Of the first of these, “last of all”, could be taken to mean “least in importance”, and this would agree with verse 9. “Extromati” has been variously translated into English. It probably means something like “an abortion”. This can hardly be taken in a strictly literal sense but might signify that he had been born before his time or without the preparation necessary, the preparation which the other apostles had through their earthly fellowship with Jesus. It is likely that the term was not his own choice but had been used about him by his critics “that he was as much an ugly parody of a true apostle as an abortion is of a healthy infant born at the proper time,” Paul uses it against himself. Yet he went through the call-vision, gift of the Spirit and baptism experience. This was the miracle.

Second, the coming of the Spirit overcame the Evil Inclination, or “yeser harã” in him. In popular Judaism the Evil Inclination was in all people, for Jews it could be partially controlled by strict adherence to the Law. It is referred to in the Damascus Document (CD) 19:20-23:

“Each man did what was good in his eyes, and each one chose the stubbornness of his heart, and they kept not themselves from the people and its sin but lived in license deliberately, walking in the ways of the wicked, of whom God said, “Their wine is the poison of serpents and the head of asps is cruel” (Deut 32:33). The serpents are the kings of the peoples and their wine is their ways”.

At Qumran, the “stubbornness of his heart” (sryrwt lbw) is synonymous with “the thought of his yeser,: as the Manual of Discipline 5:4-5 shows. The Torah, for them, would be the antidote to rabbinic traditions. Paul, however, discerns an antinomy between being “led by the spirit” and being “under the Law” (Gal 5:18).  For him the Spirit alone, sundered from the Torah, is the antidote to the yeser, and in Gal 5:17, Paul goes on to describe the battle between the yeser and the Spirit. For Paul, the change to his life comes from the outpouring of the Spirit of God, and the recreation of humanity.

A Global Dilemma, A Challenge for Christians
Elizabeth G. Ferris
World Council of Churches

No government in the world wants refugees who turn up unannounced on their border, in search of protection and assistance.  Even countries such as Australia and the United States, which have long traditions of refugee resettlement, devise ways to prevent the arrival of asylum-seekers and to make life uncomfortable for those who do manage to get in.  Why is this?  Why would a government which devotes considerable energy and expense to resettling refugees in a country with a rich multi-cultural heritage be developing draconian policies to keep other refugees out?  Some politicians would argue that the people arriving now aren’t really refugees or if they are fleeing persecution, they are somehow “jumping the queue.”  Others would argue that they have used criminal means or falsified documents to gain entry to Australia and therefore can’t be “genuine.”  There is a confusion in public opinion, sometimes exacerbated by politicians, between refugees, migrants, victims of trafficking and asylum-seekers.

The issues are complex and messy.  Sometimes we get so caught up in our procedures and processes that we forget the human side of the dilemma of people forced to flee for their lives. Desperate people do desperate things.  The conflicts that uproot people are not neat, orderly processes.  Sometimes people seize the chance they have to escape and can’t wait in the resettlement queue (although the term ‘queue’ itself is misleading.) Sometimes the only way to reach safety is to lie or to buy a false passport.  Does that mean that individuals who do so are less worthy than those who come through “established channels?”  We need to remember that when Jesus Christ urged his followers to “welcome the stranger,” he didn’t limit this to people whose documents are in order and who follow the procedures followed by our governments.

Today, on every continent, Christians are being challenged in unprecedented ways by the politics of international migration.  While much of the public debate focuses on policies, procedures and numbers, the questions raised by migration are ultimately ethical, moral and theological issues.  How do we define the “other?”  Where do we draw the line to exclude others?  What are we afraid of?  What is our responsibility for suffering in other parts of the world?  What is our responsibility as Christians and as human beings to those who arrive on our doorsteps after having been forced to abandon their homes and flee their communities?

You can’t understand what’s happening in the area of refugees without considering the broader question of migration.  And migration is too important an issue to leave to the politicians.  It is also not a new issue.  Since the time of the Old Testament, people have fled their homes because of persecution, war, famine and poverty.   The Bible has been called the “ultimate immigration handbook” and is filled with admonitions to do justice to the stranger and “to show hospitality because in doing so you may have welcomed angels unawares.” But the stories of the Old Testament also reflect their historical context in the tales of backlash and scapegoating of foreigners.  Those of us working with immigrants and refugees don’t often quote the texts from Ezra and Nehemiah, but those stories remind us of the ageless tendency to exclude those who are different.  It is Christ’s message of inclusion that transcends these Old Testament stories. “From his parables and his actions, it is clear that Jesus not only challenged those individuals (e.g. the Pharisees) who maintained the barriers that marginalized whole groups within his society, but was prepared to confront any system of thought or practice that created those barriers…It is this challenge to the dominant, and dominating religious system which provides the basis for the church’s obligation to call into question any system which leads to or justifies discrimination, regardless of the form that discrimination might take: economic (hunger, thirst nakedness), national loyalty (foreigners), physical (sick), or social (in prison.)”   Christ himself identifies with the migrant when he tells us that in welcoming the stranger we are welcoming him (Matthew 25).

Migration issues are complicated and (given limitations of time this afternoon), I will risk over-simplifying complex issues and confine myself to making 4 short points, raising questions about Christian responsibility “for such a time is this.” This phrase comes, of course, from the story of Esther, but for me, it evokes memories of the last time I was in Australia where this was the theme of the Pre-assembly Women’s meeting in Canberra in 1991.

1. INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION IS A FACT OF LIFE AND WILL INCREASE IN THE FUTURE.

We live in a world where people cross national borders for many reasons.  Some are forced to flee their communities because of persecution and violence.  Others are forced to leave because they can no longer survive at home because of economic or environmental disasters.  Still others migrate because they hope for better economic prospects or to reunite with family members.  While the cornerstone of globalization has been the increased international flow of trade, capital, information and services, the right to freedom of movement for many people – especially refugees, asylum-seekers and non-wealthy migrants – has been severely curtailed.  Governments in both North and south have become more active in trying to limit the movement of people into their territories.  Control of borders is perhaps the last bastion of sovereignty at a time when governments are no longer able to control the movement of money, information or jobs from their countries. But in spite of governmental efforts to control migration, international migration – particularly irregular migration – continues to rise.  Indications are that in our globalizing world, the pressures for migration will further increase in the years to come.  The causes of migration are rooted in the dozens of conflicts around the world as well as the underside of globalization – the growing disparity between rich and poor resulting from the inequitable distribution of resources.  Until the international community is prepared to tackle the fundamental causes of violence and inequality, migration will continue.

One of the characteristics of today’s globalization is that the world’s conflicts and suffering enter most of our homes every day by television, newspapers and the web.  As one of the CCIA youth commissioners said at our Commission meeting last month, “we can choose not to act, but we cannot choose not to know.”    The presence of refugees and migrants among us, invited or not, serves as a bridge across borders, enabling us to interact with other parts of the world in unique ways.  For example, you can read a dozen newspaper articles about Afghanistan, but your view of the Afghan situation and perhaps of that region of the world will be inalterably shaped by coming to know an Afghan refugee.   Refugees and migrants offer us a different way of knowing the world.

I invite you to think about Christian responsibility in a world of people on the move. In such a time as this, what is the appropriate response?  What is our responsibility towards refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants? Do people fleeing persecution have a greater claim on the churches’ compassion than those trying to escape poverty?  Does this imply that violations of civil and political rights are worse than violations of economic, social or cultural rights?  Should everyone fleeing violence or poverty be allowed to enter any country of the world?   How should governments set limits and what role should Christians play in the policy debate?

2. REFUGEE PROTECTION IS BEING ERODED IN EVERY REGION OF THE WORLD.
 
Fifty years ago, the international community developed a particular regime to respond to one group of forced migrants:  refugees.  This international refugee regime includes a common definition of the people of concern, proscribes certain standards for their treatment through an international convention, and recognizes an international agency, UNHCR, to protect and assist refugees.  Undergirding this international refugee regime was a consensus that individuals fleeing persecution (as defined by the Convention) required protection. 

This system has been far from perfect and the present UNHCR Global Consultations on Refugee Protection are intended to identify gaps in the 1951 Convention and to move towards common interpretation of the convention as well as to reaffirm the convention.  This international system of refugee protection, and particularly the institution of asylum, need to be upheld and strengthened to ensure that all those in need of international protection are able to find it.  The reality is that there are still many people in the world in need of protection from persecution and war who are not able to find safety.

In the past decade, the right to seek and enjoy asylum has been eroded in many countries.  Governments have made it more difficult for people fleeing persecution to even reach their borders and access asylum procedures through interdiction, visa requirements, carrier sanctions, immigration controls in airports of departure and other measures.  In many cases, it is impossible for people fearing persecution from their governments to obtain a passport from that government or to approach embassies in search of a visa.  Once asylum-seekers enter a country, they often find the procedures confusing and intimidating.  If they arrive without documentation, they are often treated with suspicion.  Moreover, they may be detained and lack legal counsel to present their cases in the best possible way.

The acceptance rates of asylum applications have plummeted in most Western countries over the past 15 years.  While governments argue that this is due to the fact that many “bogus asylum-seekers” are abusing the system, many refugee advocates assert that people with genuine asylum claims are being denied.  And many people with reasons to fear persecution in their home country choose not to enter the asylum process because they perceive that the personal costs are greater than their chance of success.

What is the particular responsibility of Christians to those forced to flee violence?  Most fundamentally, Christians are called to struggle for justice and to overcome violence in order to make ours a world where people aren’t forced to abandon their homes and flee their communities.   Churches and their organizations have been in the forefront of the struggle to protect the basic human right of every person “to seek and enjoy asylum.”   On the national level, this means urging that the benefit of the doubt must always be given to those who say they fear persecution back home.

3. DEVELOPMENTS IN AUSTRALIA ARE SHAPED BY AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE WEAKENING OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF REFUGEE PROTECTION.

Australia has a wonderful history and tradition of welcoming immigrants and refugees.  The treatment of aboriginal people is a dark side of the story in your country (as in mine) which must be acknowledged and redressed.  But your immigrant tradition is a tradition to protect, to be proud of, to uphold.  There is something very special about being a country of immigrants – something that sets Australia apart from most countries of the world.   Your country has meant freedom, safety, and opportunity for hundreds of thousands of people who could not stay in their country of origin. And your country has been transformed by the presence of immigrants.  While it’s not perfect, your model of a multi-cultural society has been a shining example to the world.   When it comes to refugees and immigrants, Australia has a wonderful international reputation.
 
It is this reputation which makes current policy developments so troubling.   For example, there is something profoundly disturbing about Australia putting asylum-seekers in isolated detention centers.  This isn’t a new or unique trend; many governments followed these kinds of policies, reflecting a global trend of isolating asylum-seekers from the general public.  It’s easier to deport people when no one in the country knows them, when they have no friends or advocates.  But it is new to see Australia doing it.  It is new to see Australia leading the critics of UN human rights instruments.  It’s shocking to see the government react to a few boatloads of asylum-seekers with draconian measures which undercut decades of generous policies.  A few months ago, UNHCR’s Executive Committee considered how the international community should respond to situations of mass influx.  What’s the appropriate response when a million Rwandans flee the genocide in their country?  How should the international community respond to the exodus of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo where hundreds of thousands of people flooded into neighboring countries in a few days?  Most of the interventions came from governments of countries that had experienced large-scale mass influxes – governments like Tanzania, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Iran.  And then the Australian representative said something like “well, small numbers of people arriving over time can have the same impact as a sudden mass influx.”  The reaction in the room was one of amazement – surely Australia isn’t claiming that the boats arriving on its shores are comparable to mass influxes of hundreds of thousands of refugees arriving in poor countries.  Unfortunately, the impact of these Australian policy changes and the tenor of the public debate goes far beyond your country’s borders. 

Negative public opinion towards asylum-seekers is obviously growing in Australia.  There is a backlash. But backlashes are like pendulums – they come and they go. It is sad to see Australia apparently willing to abandon basic standards in its treatment of asylum-seekers because of what is probably a transient phenomenon.  In my country, the United States, there was a horrible backlash against immigrants in the mid-1990s. Politicians railed against the “illegal aliens” taking Americans’ jobs and many restrictive laws were passed.  But now the pendulum has swung in the other direction and politicians are trying to undo some of the most egregious laws passed five years ago.
 
How are Australian churches and individual Christians responding at such a time as this?  I know that many churches are involved with these issues -- churches are speaking out against politically unpopular policies, advocating for changes in policies, organizing hearings and writing letters, visiting detention centres and assisting individual asylum-seekers and migrants in many ways.   Like Christians in many parts of the world, speaking out on behalf of uprooted people can be very difficult and very lonely.  You may sometimes think that no one is listening when you speak out and policies can be frustratingly difficult to change.  But you are not alone.   At church gatherings – like this one – in South Africa and Argentina, in Norway and Thailand, Christians are coming together to pray, to share experiences, to educate each other and to develop means of translating the Gospel imperative to welcome the stranger into concrete actions.

4. THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS. 

As long as we live in a world plagued by war and poverty, people will try to escape their conditions by migration.  They will bypass governmental efforts at border control and their journeys will become more dangerous and more costly.  The causes and inter-relationships of migratory flows are complex.  Governmental efforts to stop smugglers and traffickers can make it more difficult, more expensive, and sometimes impossible for people fleeing persecution to find safety.   We know that refugees frequently use routes used by traditional migrants when war forces them to leave their homes.  In a world where there are limits to the number of refugees and migrants who will be admitted into rich countries, the questions of whom to admit are difficult.  What should be the balance between admitting immigrants who meet Australia’s labour needs and accepting refugees for humanitarian reasons? 

Similarly there are no easy answers to questions about Christian responsibility in such a time as this. Like the Good Samaritan, we have a responsibility to the victims on the road -- to patch them up, to care for them, to help them.  This is noble work.  Even as we in the churches complain about the inadequacy of the international system of refugee protection, we recognize that millions of people every year are safe because of this system.  While we urge governments of resettlement countries to accept more refugees because the numbers are never enough, we know that hundreds of thousands of individual human beings are being given a chance to start new lives because of these policies.  We need to affirm the positive aspects of our present system – even as we advocate for changes which would make the systems more responsive to the needs of uprooted people.

For churches in Australia, reaching out to the strangers in our midst or advocating with the government in an increasingly difficult climate is not easy.  Sometimes the people in our churches are confused or even hostile to refugees.  The backlash isn’t something that is happening “out there.”  It is also happening in our own communities.  It can be very tiring to always be explaining why refugees sometimes can’t enter through  established channels. Nevertheless, if we are to be faithful to the Gospel –- to welcome the stranger and work for justice – we have no choice.  It must be our task and responsibility to open our eyes to the uprooted among us.  Let us take to heart the words in the book of Hebrews that it is our privilege and duty as Christians to welcome strangers, for by doing so we may unknowingly have entertained angels in our midst

Refugee Policy: A Global Dilemma, A Challenge for Christians

6-10 July 2001
Melbourne, Victoria 

12-16 July 1996
Brisbane, Queensland 

9-13 July 2004
Lincoln College North Adelaide, South Australia

Inaugural Forum

Canberra, July 1994

Highlights

Participants

Priorities and Issues

Executive Membership

You can view other documents from the Forum by clicking here.

The mantle was part of the inaugural service, held at St Christopher's Roman Catholic Cathedral in Canberra, when the NCCA was formed on 3 July 1994.  It was made to celebrate the laying down of the old Australian Council of Churches and the lifting up of the new and larger National Council of Churches in Australia. 

The Committee working on the liturgy for this service chose the reading from the 2nd chapter of 2 Kings where Elijah asks Elisha "Tell me what I can do for you before I am taken from you."  Elisha said "Let me inherit a double share of your spirit."  Elisha then picked up the cloak which had fallen from Elijah.

Jennie Stevens (Anglican) was approached by the liturgical committee to create a visual art work to be part of the service.  She selected five other textile artists from four different churches:  Joan James (Roman Catholic), Bonnie Begg (Anglican), Nancy Tingey (Religious Society of Friends), Marlene Greenwood and Margaret Roberts (Uniting).  The group met and designed and worked for four months and they felt it was a most enjoyable and exciting experience.  Each one of them had special areas of expertise and they felt it was great to work with such talented women of faith.

When designing the mantle they focused on the story of Elisha receiving Elijah’s mantle on his death and with it, his spirit.  They saw the cross of Christ as their centre and the basis of their unity, from which the Spirit goes into the world, flowing as the river of life.  It was to be a larger than life mantle (it measures 7x3½ metres) – symbolising the whole community of faith encompassed by this garment.  It was also to be double-sided, one side representing the old Australian Council of Churches and the other new National Council of Churches in Australia.  Then the thought came that they could open it out to form an even larger covering to encompass many.  Gillian Hunt, from the liturgical committee described it as “big bold, brilliant and definitely more than a garment – it was the artists’ expression of God’s Spirit moving through time, flowing as water, forming as wind, flaming as fire, centred around the shared symbol – the Cross.”

The first step once the design was approved was to transfer the design on to 21 metres of silk.  This silk was then waxed and painted with dyes.  Machine embroidered overlays of silk georgette were appliquéd onto it before and after the three 7 metre lengths were sewn together.

The biggest thrill for the artists was the impact the mantle had on the service.  It was very moving to witness the mantle being processed in, unfolded, passed from representative of the Australian Council of Churches to the representative of the National Council of Churches and then unfurled further and in the hands of the dancers to flow over the heads of all those in the cathedral.  This was accompanied by the wonderful music of the instrumentalists and the  ecumenical choir singing You are my inheritance, O God.

Tapes of this historic event are available in the NCCA office.

Since July 1994, the mantle has been used in many ecumenical services around Australia – it has travelled around New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Canberra and the Northern Territory.

If a group in your area is planning an ecumenical event where you would like to use the mantle, enquire about its availability at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The cross and the boat, symbols of faith and unity, have long served as symbols of the ecumenical movement. The version currently used by the NCCA, incorporating waves and the Southern Cross was designed for the formation of the new NCCA in 1994.

This symbol portrays the Church as a ship afloat on the sea of the world with the mast in the form of a cross, itself the symbol par excellence of the Christian Faith. It is not clear when the symbol was first adopted for the ecumenical movement but it was in use before the inauguration of the World Council of Churches in 1948. It is likely the symbol of a boat has its origin in the Gospel stories of the calling by Jesus of Galilean fishermen and the stilling of the storm by Jesus on the lake of Galilee. (See FAQ on the WCC Website)

The version used by the NCCA, by including the Southern Cross, often shown against a night blue sky, indicates our position in the southern hemisphere, and identity as many races under the cross dwelling in the great south land, Terra Australis. The arrival of suffering peoples to Australia by boat have given renewed poignancy to this symbol in recent times.