Bishop: Anglicans must abandon Anglicanism in order to save it

Or something like that. Decoding theologians is hard work. The take-home message below seems to be that the Sydney diocese is divisive and a big problem and it should give up its old-fashioned adherence to the Bible. The Sydney diocese is the only one that is true to the heavily evangelical principles of the Church of England's original 39 "Articles of religion" of 1563. It is also the only diocese that is flourishing and growing. Just that one diocese accounts for a third of Australia's churchgoing Anglicans. So how come it is the problem? Is it not the other dioceses -- which are fading away -- that are the problem?

Tribalistic tendencies are preventing the Anglican Church of Australia from presenting a united front to the nation and only a comprehensive "makeover" will render it a viable force. Warning of the potential for "anarchy" and highlighting the "political naivety" of church leaders, bishop and scholar Tom Frame says market research is needed [Good Lord! Market research to dictate what is taught!! How pathetic can an alleged Christian get? A real Christian would look to the teachings of Christ] to improve the denomination's profile and boost creative planning.

Bishop Frame, director of St Mark's National Theological Centre in Canberra, has set out his thoughts on the future of the church in a book, Anglicans in Australia, released as final preparations are made for the three-yearly general synod, which begins in Canberra on Saturday. "Both clergy and laity have a poor understanding of Anglicanism, and in many places commitment to the church is weak and faltering," Bishop Frame writes. Highly critical of the in-fighting between the church factions - evangelical, liberal and Anglo-Catholic - Bishop Frame says Anglicans "need to develop and retain a clear focus on the world and its redemption rather than focusing on the church and its structures".

Anglicans are the second-largest group of Christians in the country after the Catholics. According to last year's census, there are 3.7 million adherents. But attendance has been slipping for years and latest national attendance figures, from the National Life Survey of 2001, show 178,000 attend weekly. [less than 5%] Archbishop Peter Jensen's Sydney diocese is a notable exception to the trend.

Bishop Frame's Anglicans in Australia is a history of the church, and while he does not offer a plan for wholesale reform, he casts forward to the likely fate of the institution if trends persist. "I believe that in a generation's time, the Anglican Church of Australia will continue to exist as a national entity, although it will remain internally fractured by theological differences entrenched in diocesan identities." One of these is the ascendance of the evangelical viewpoint, which emphasises the authority of the Bible above all else, including the church traditions of Anglicanism.

But he warns Sydney will face an identity crisis when its leadership finds "the abandonment of Anglican structures and customs leaves little in church life that is distinctly or demonstrably Anglican. Ecclesiastical anarchy and theological incoherence is a distinct possibility." [Adherence to the 39 articles is "abandonment of Anglican structures and customs"??? Pure projection. It is the "modernizers" who have "abandoned Anglican structures and customs"]

Source

Below are some of the great old 39 articles that have defined Anglicanism since 1563. They remain a pretty good statement of evangelical Christianity to this day. The Christian message doesn't need changing. It is hypocritical bishops who need to embrace it. They are just men in dresses otherwise -- or "whited sepulchres" [whitewashed tombs] as Christ vividly called their equivalents in his day:

Article 6:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

Article 20:

The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.

Article 21:

General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

Article 22:

The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. ["fond" at the time meant roughly "insane"]

Article 24:

It is a thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God, and the custom of the Primitive Church, to have publick Prayer in the Church, or to minister the Sacraments in a tongue not understanded of the people.

Article 38:

The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.






NSW hospital crisis deepens: Toddler with head injury waits five hours for treatment

More examples of the state's crumbling health system had the Government on the back foot yesterday, after two Sydney families reported waiting up to five hours in emergency for treatment. Howard Williams likened Liverpool Hospital's emergency department to a "war zone" after he rushed his injured son to hospital on Monday night. Mr Williams, a marine engineer, condemned the Government for forcing the public to sit and wait in "third world conditions". Having moved from the US 10 years ago, Mr Williams said he was considering returning because of the poorly run state.

When he arrived at Liverpool Hospital's emergency department at 6.40pm, Mr Williams did not expect to see close to 40 people in front of him. His screaming 15-month-old son George had blood dripping down his head yet it was not until 11.30pm that Mr Williams said he left emergency. "There were people who had been waiting hours before me just sitting out on the street with IVs in their arms," he said. "It was like a war zone." A hospital spokeswoman denied the toddler waited an excessive period. [I would like to see him wait around for 5 hours with his head split open!]

Another family from Sutherland gave up waiting at St George Hospital and took their hysterical son - who had split his head open - to Sydney Children's Hospital, Randwick where he was admitted immediately. The entire debacle took close to four hours.

A member of the Government's Emergency Department Taskforce and Nepean Hospital's head of trauma Dr Rob Bishop said there was no excuse for the public to wait. "We don't accept that people should have to wait for long periods and hospitals are overcrowded," he said. "We should be able to treat these people and not have their experience described like a war zone. "It's not a war zone, it's a first class health system." .... [!!!!]

Source






"Green" water supply is filthy and unhealthy

Tank water is often so contaminated with bird and possum poo that it does not pass minimally acceptable standards for consumption, a new study has revealed. Research presented in Queensland suggests about 40 per cent of rainwater tanks contained "heavy amounts" of animal faeces contamination that could lead to gastrointestinal disease. The findings, from a study of 560 homes tracked over five years, originated from New Zealand but Australian experts say the data, the first of its kind, would be an accurate reflection of contamination rates here. It comes as authorities encourage more Australian households to take advantage of tank subsidies to cope with drought and be more environmentally sustainable.

Microbiologist Stan Abbott, director of the Roof Water Research Centre at Massey University in New Zealand, analysed samples of roof-collected rainwater and found 41 per cent were heavily contaminated with faeces. "This contamination can lead to gastrointestinal diseases such as salmonella, campylobacter, giardia and cryptosporidium," Mr Abbott said. At least half the rainwater samples would not have passed the minimally acceptable standards for drinking water, he said. "The likely sources of the faecal contamination were faecal material deposited by birds, rodents, possums and frogs either on the roof, in the gutters or in the water tank," Mr Abbott said.

Relatively few disease outbreaks linked to contaminated roof-collected rainwater have been reported, but specialists in the field believe there is massive under-reporting of such illnesses. Professor Ted Gardner, an expert in water-wise strategies at Queensland Institute of Technology where the research was presented, said more than two million Australians depended on roof-collected rainwater for their drinking water. Most lived rurally with the exception of Adelaide, where well over a third of residents had opted to use rain water. "People love rain water because it's soft and apparently pure, but clearly it comes with more risks than many people realise," Prof Gardner said.

He said authorities nationwide were actively encouraging more Australians to use rainwater, with the Queensland government offering up subsidies for 147,000 tanks in the past 18 months. While these tanks were designed for garden irrigation only, there was a risk that people will decide to drink it too, he said. Experts recommended householders use downpipe debris screens, a first-flush diverter and regularly disinfect their tank to reduce the risk of contracting waterborne diseases. "The risk of disease from roof-collected rainwater can be low if the water is visibly clear, has little taste or smell, and the collection of the rainwater is via a properly maintained tank and roof catchment system," Mr Abbott said.

Source





Can Kevin Rudd ever stop his whining?

Leftists just can't stand criticism



By Andrew Bolt

CRITICISM in politics is not just healthy. It's essential. So can Kevin Rudd stop his whingeing? On Sunday, in his first speech of this election campaign, the Labor leader just couldn't stop complaining about being criticised. "In the days and weeks ahead, the good people of Australia are going to be bombarded with the mother of all negative fear campaigns," he moaned.

But while it was meant as a complaint, it turned out to be a promise. You see, Rudd went on to devote precisely 458 words, or 31 per cent of his speech, to a negative fear campaign, attacking Prime Minister John Howard as "old", "stale", out of ideas and "negative". By the time he'd fielded questions as well, he'd used an astonishing 1820 words, or more than half his comments, berating Howard.

Howard, by contrast, devoted just 125 words - or 20 per cent of his own election announcement -- to criticising Rudd. Same story the next day. Howard went positive, announcing a $34 billion plan to slash taxes over three years. Rudd's line for the day? An absurd scare-'em claim that a re-elected Howard might force state employees on to individual contracts. Yeah, right. So, who's really peddling scares?

Mind you, Rudd's spin sure is working. Here, for instance, is The Age's Michelle Grattan commenting on the two leaders' opening speeches: "Resting heavily on the crutch of negatives, he (Howard) played up the inexperience of the Rudd team . . ."

But why criticism is suddenly a negative anyway is a mystery. For years, Howard has been subjected to one of the most brutal negative campaigns in Australian politics, with the happy participation of the very people complaining he's now going "negative" himself. Remember these lines? Howard is a "liar", a "racist" who "doesn't like Asians", a "suckhole", an "a---licker" and the rest. A Liberal Party elder badly injured in a car crash was "deformed". A conservative columnist and Howard supporter was a "skanky ho". All from Labor.

Rudd, to his great credit, has cracked down on Labor's tradition of vitriolic personal attack, best exemplified by Paul Keating, long a media darling. But more civilised though Rudd is, he certainly isn't above implying Howard is up to his neck in lies and even bribery. Here, for instance, is Rudd on Monday: "This is the Prime Minister who's never accepted a skerrick of responsibility for children overboard, a Prime Minister who's never accepted a skerrick of responsibility for taking us to war in Iraq . . . and a Prime Minister who's not taken a skerrick of responsibility for $300 million worth of bribes being paid to Saddam Hussein to buy guns, bombs and bullets for later use against Australian troops."

Some sledge. But do I criticise Rudd for being negative? Not at all. I accuse him merely of being a hypocrite. In fact, Howard indeed deserves some criticism over those very issues and it's Labor's job to hold his joggers to the fire. Rudd has done that brilliantly. Good on him. From criticism comes better performance. And we need politicians not just to advertise their best, but their opponents' worst, because unless we know the best and the worst of both, how can we wisely choose?

But if Rudd thinks criticism of Howard is legitimate, why is criticism of Rudd not? Lord knows he deserves the scrutiny, and here's why. Few of us really know what Rudd is like, and what a leader he'd make. I've had coffees, lunches and dinners with him, so am better placed to tell than most of you, and even I don't know. I admire his ferocious hard work, his self-discipline, his intelligence, his civility, and his apparently conservative bent - well, conservative for a Labor leader. His family seems a great tribute to him. But what does he really stand for?

So far, the best we know is that he's a mini-Howard. A me-too man, who said me-too when Howard booted out Mohammed Haneef, intervened in Aboriginal communities, sold off the last of Telstra, and tricked up the Murray Darling Basin plan. He also copied Howard's policy to send troops to Afghanistan, keep training troops in Iraq, and maintain logging levels in Tasmania. He even did a me-too on Howard's May Budget.

How much of that was sincere? Take Rudd's most recent me-toos - on the Government's decisions to take in fewer African refugees, approve a pulp mill and keep up funds to private schools. Was that politics or principle? Here's a more troubling example. Just before last week's Bali bombing anniversary, Rudd ran into strife over his policy to lobby everywhere against the death penalty, even for terrorists. He responded not only by junking his policy, but by waving a Liberal document on TV, and protesting: "The Liberal Party's policy, like Labor's policy, is identical." Identical to Howard's? That's all right then. But who will Rudd copy when Howard is gone?

Of course, you might like all this if you are a conservative, as I am, and thought Rudd was sincere. Yet even Leftist commentators are no longer sure of Rudd. Some are now even hoping he's just a fake. Take Professor Robert Manne, who on ABC TV reassured the Left that Rudd might still be their man, despite all his astonishing me-toos. "I think that we will only know what the Rudd government will do in three or four years time because at the moment the Rudd government is avoiding the kind of polemical stoushes with Howard because it knows it can't win ... when he gets into government then we'll begin to see the differences again."

Moralising Manne clearly hopes that when Rudd says me-too, he's just putting the con in conservative. So too, it seems, does the Sydney Morning Herald's political editor, Peter Hartcher, who claimed: "Rudd's me-tooism is his way of refusing to respond to Howard's agenda." Actually, no, Peter. Rudd isn't refusing to respond to Howard's agenda, he's adopting it. Or do you, too, believe he's just lying?

And that's precisely why Rudd, more than most Labor leaders, will face criticism - a "negative" campaign. When his policies to date are so close to Howard's, even on Iraq, the key difference between the two leaders must come down to believability. In Rudd's case we must ask - along with his supporters - whether he really means what he says. Is me-too a promise or a trick? And does he have the strength, the smarts and especially the team to deliver what's promised? That's not being "negative". That is asking the fundamentally important questions of a man who in November may well be our prime minister. Rudd's response should not be to complain, but explain. Oh, and do a little negative campaigning of his own.

Source