Remembering the War or Promoting the Peace?

Bev and I went to Auckland Domain today and walked a lot of the memorial ground where the 18,000 crosses are set up. It was a sober, thoughtful time for us and for the many who were doing the same thing.
As it happened, we located the crosses for Bev's uncles, one of whom lied about his age. But both were far too young... It was a bit special to find them.
But I have been challenged today by Ian Harris's column "Faith and Reason" in the Otago Daily Times three days ago. 
"A hundred years on, it’s time to lay World War 1 to rest and focus forward on constructing the peace," suggests Ian.  "Now it is surely time to lay that war to rest and refocus our vision and our energy on the subtler challenge of building a truly just and lasting peace."
Thank you, Ian. I needed that reminder...

Gaia - again

I see that Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis is "in the air" again. In 1972 I themed a whole church service around what was then a relatively unknown concept that would predict the coming of the global conditions we are experiencing today. (I think I even pronounced a benediction in the name of Gaia!)

What struck me then, was that the environmental balance in the planet's atmosphere  might collapse quite suddenly. The greenhouse gasses might not gradually reduce the availability of oxygen but could overcome it all at once. Remember the Rotorua Lakes a few years ago - they didn't gradually turn foul, the whole system crashed virtually overnight.

It may be wildly optimistic that we can stand by and measure the gradual deterioration of the quality of our environment and then - when things seems to have got really serious - proceed to take steps to correct the situation. We may be headed for a sudden and catastrophic failure of the planet's vulnerable system.

Heresy in the United Church of Canada

As I write, Gretta Vosper, a minister of the United Church of Canada, is in the second day of a trial for heresy.

More than two years ago the Church found her “unsuitable” for ministry but her congregation has continued to stand steadfastly behind her ministry. Now the hierarchy is conducting a formal trial of heresy which could deny her access to all pulpits in the UCC and sister denominations. If the charge of heresy is not proved during this formal Church hearing, the denomination can then press the matter in the Civil courts. 

Those of us who have been lucky enough to hear her would say: Yes, Gretta is not at all a conventional believer; yes, she happened to be ordained at a quirky moment in the 1990s when the UCC’s ordination procedures did not require her to answer specific questions of personal belief; yes, her congregation rarely hears the name of God mentioned in worship.

But the support of her people is overwhelming and the UCC widely claims to be inclusive and flexible in matters of personal faith. Furthermore, all round the world there are individuals and groups who have been grateful for the opportunity to have their thinking stimulated by her sharp mind and engaging personality.

I have long held the view that all the signs around us are that the Creator must have a sense of humour, if often mixed in with profound sadness over the wreckage we are making of our planet.

Right now I think God must be laughing out loud. 

PS  (Next day)  God's laughter must have been short-lived because a few hours after I wrote the above, Gretta and the Church issued a joint statement that all matters of difference between them are now resolved. She will be celebrating with West Hills United Church next Sunday. 
UCC has always considered itself to accept wide divergences in belief and practice but this settlement must be surely herald a new era for the Church. Other denominations, please note.

Just the facts, Ma'am

Maggie Barry, MP, should be pleased at the misinformation shared on TV1's Breakfast Club this morning. The participants had really taken a leaf out of her book.
Otago university has just announced that 68% of NZers are in favour of some form of "euthanasia" (NOT my word!) and only 15% are opposed to it, but all the panel could do was mumble about it probably being a good idea to have the discussion.
I guess that's a start. But it had better be more informed discussion than either Barry or her stooges on TV1 have done so far.

Good news and bad

A couple of weeks away with Family Time from Ashburton, Wellington, Palmerston North, Tauranga and we came home to some demanding deadlines and a couple of bits of interesting news.
The first item was that an interview that I did some weeks ago become part of an open public challenge to Maggie Barry concerning her bias on the Justice Committee. I missed it on Stuff but our local paper while we were away gave a very full report - including Maggie's infamous invitation for me to "have a cup of tea" instead of listening to serious questions on my submission to the Committee in June. Other instances of her bias against submitters in favour of the Bill in various venues were reported including a moment I saw in which Maggie left the table to make herself a cup of tea while a submitter (in favour!) was presenting to her.
However, the Chairman's full reply was also published, claiming that all his members put aside their personal opinions when hearing submitters and no action is proposed. So the matter is going to go no further. But Maggie has heard what people think about her attitude.
The other bit of news was that the Presbyterian Assembly voted against supporting the End of Life Choice Bill. This should be no surprise since conservative theological thinking and Presbyterianism go pretty much hand in hand these days. The Methodist Church Conference appears to have not even debated the matter in the midst of what one friend described as a "shambles" of cultural celebrations. If the Methodists had voted, I'd have put my money on another vote Against. The fire of social justice burns faintly in Methodism these days, so perhaps it was a good thing that there was no vote.
The debate must go on. But it is going to need a lot more commitment from the general public before our Parliamentarians finalise their personal views and vote next year.

More video clips

An On demand TV programme called Re: has done some short pieces on death and dying recently. This is one that I was interviewed for last week. It's on Facebook and has had over 6000 Views...

A slightly longer version - the "Director's Cut" - is here.

Thank you, Philip!

What a great piece by Philip Patston on the yestodignity website!

There's been quite a lot of talk from the nay-sayers that the Bill does not take enough account of people with disabilities. 

Philip's testimony is concise and personal:  "As a disabled person myself I want the choice, if I’m in unbearable pain or suffering in my life, to end it in a way and at the time that I choose. I think it’s really important my voice and the voice of other disabled people, who aren’t afraid of the End Of Life Choice Bill becoming legislation, are heard as much as people who are not as supportive of the Bill."

Philip says it all. Nobody can ask for more. Nobody should have to accept less. 

We have to persuade our MPs that there is a clearly defined majority of the population who hope for something to come out of the tortuous process of legislative change to make choice possible for those who wish to have it.

More on the Orewa Meeting

Our other local paper, Hibiscus Matters, has printed a comprehensive write-up of the Orewa debate on the End of Life Choice Bill. It tells me there were 400 present, a lot more than I estimated.

It offers comments from a selection of audience members on both sides but also gave a lot of space to written quotes from myself (I didn't as much as ask a question on the night!), emphasising the usefulness of getting together and hearing others' views. It was not as pessimistic as my post of 22 August for which I am grateful. We need to keep having the debate, no matter how boring it may seem to those of us who've travelled with the issues for years.

However, the tally of only 200 votes handed in on the night is almost 50-50 on the main issue (Let's face it, the Bill would be lost on half a dozen of those votes!). But this informal tally of self-selected people cannot possibly be said to be representative of the Rodney electorate population at large. If our MP is thinking that will be good enough to "get the mind of the electorate" that would be a sad day for democracy.

A Moral Example?

As one who for most of his working life was heavily involved in church administration of one kind and another, I feel for our sister Church Leaders who are receiving devastating publicity all around the world for past behaviour among some of their agents. With their leaders, I regret that such actions were often covered over by the religious hierarchy. Only a very authoritative regime could survive the public odium currently in the air. Many another less organised religious community has fallen over for much less public disfavour or ridicule. It must be galling to have to swallow so much humble pie at once.

Given these difficulties for the Roman Catholic community, how is it that their leaders in this country can feel they have the moral authority to project their theological and ethical views on the whole of society in another area of human behaviour?

• It is an open secret that Catholic parishioners were instructed by the Bishops to write to both the recent Parliamentary Committees hearing submissions on End of Life issues.
• It is also known that the bishops also urged their people not to admit to being Catholic because the Church's image in the community is not too hot (Now there's a funny thing....).
• And it is on the public record that the current Justice Committee received around 27,000 submissions that were not much more than a name and an address and a sentence such as "I am not in favour of the End of Life Choice Bill". 

As if this attempt to manipulate the Hearings process is not enough, statistically ignorant people like MP Maggie Barry can reiterate in public again and again that this expression of opinion - devoid of any argument - means that 85% of people in New Zealand are "against the proposed Law."

How can they make such a claim? Will Parliament go along with this astonishing analysis? I'm no statistical whiz but I know that you cannot draw conclusions about the wishes of any population from a self-selected group who may have an axe to grind and want to lay their views on everyone else.

The fact is that the population has spoken. Every professionally conducted poll in this country for decades has produced a majority of respondents in favour of some form of Medical Aid in Dying. The latest was around 76% in favour.

The proposed Bill is not perfect but it is a cautious step forward. Anyone who wants to express doubts about it should read the wording before commenting. And Parliament should get on with doing the best it can for the majority. All we ask for is the one thing conservative churchmen and others are at great pains to deny us: CHOICE.

Where Does Meaning Meet?

A packed hall in Orewa last night had a really good airing of the issues around the End of Life Choice Bill. On a dirty evening there was an excellent turnout of locals - and probably a few carpet-baggers from adjacent electorates - and a top-line national panel of speakers for and against. The audience gave them frequent but not especially enthusiastic applause.

There were questions from the floor for a full hour but, as with the panel speakers, no new ground was broken. There are no new insights into the issue on either side.

I was reminded of the two housewives (this story must have come from the 1950s!) who used to argue the big issues of life across the fence between their two properties. They could never come to any agreement on whatever they discussed because they were arguing from different premisses.

That's the problem with the End of Life Choice discussion. Both sides start from totally different understandings of the meaning of life, death, compassion, and, especially, palliative care. Both even use language that is exclusive to their own side and not acceptable to the other.

It's great that there was such a good audience last night. I hope that many of them came without the strong prejudices held by some of us who have grappled with the issues for years. Perhaps last night's newbies to the discussion can make more dispassionate evaluation of the issues on both sides. If that is taking place around our community, the meeting must be considered a great success.