A number of social and political issues were addressed during the period 1970-1990. The following selection of documents is highly selective.

1. Social Concerns
a. Social Issues
i. Divorce
ii. Unemployment
iii. Homeless Youth
iv. The Disabled
v. Migration
vi. Decentralisation
vii. Human Relations
b. Social Ills
i. Drugs
ii. Alcohol
iii. Films
iv. Television
v. Literature
vi. Poker Machines
vii. Pornography
viii. Sex Education
2. Political Issues
a. Overseas Aid
b. Peace
c. Racism
d. Capitalism
e. Rhodesia
f. South Africa
g. Political Prisoners
h. Party Politics
i. Trade Unions
j. Uranium

1. SOCIAL CONCERNS

      Social concerns touched on in this section relate to social issues and social ills. The former include divorce, unemployment, homeless youth, the disabled, migration, decentralization and human relations. The latter relate to drugs, alcohol, films, television, literature, poker machines, pornography and sex education.

      a. SOCIAL ISSUES

            i. DIVORCE

A.C., 1977, p. 175.

      That this conference of Churches of Christ in Western Australia views with increasing concern the growing number of divorces in the Commonwealth. The conference, while appreciating and supporting to the full the work being done through agencies and individuals associated with the Family Law Courts in the promoting of reconciliation in cases of broken marriages, yet feels that a more effective remedy to the situation lies in adequate preparation for marriage by the parties entering into it. In this connection, that is, the importance of the step being undertaken, the conference believes that the suggested provision of a longer period of notice of intention to marry is a step in the right direction.

G. R. Stirling, A.C., 1980, p. 469.

      John Chivell has written with frankness and anguish in "On My Mind" in this issue of "A.C." He is concerned at the increase of divorce in the community and now in the church and even in the ministry. He refers to relevant scripture passages that cannot be ignored: Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 19:1-12;

Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 and the Old Testament reference made by Jesus, in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

TRYING TO TRAP JESUS

      As usual the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus, asking him, "Can a man divorce his wife for every cause?" There were two schools of thought concerning Deuteronomy 4:1-4 where divorce was permitted if a husband lost interest in his wife because of her indecency. " On school of thought said that indecency meant adultery. The other said that it could not mean adultery because adultery was punishable by death and not by divorce. So this school gave to the word indecency a very wide interpretation as hinted at in the words of the Pharisees' question, "for every cause." This latter was of course the most popular view and there was general agreement in Jewry that a man could divorce his wife for anything that was offensive to him.

TOUGH ON THE WOMAN

      Divorce procedures discriminated against women. All a man had to do was to write his wife a "bill of divorcement," a traditional note that in effect drove her out by telling her that she was free to remarry. She might be permitted to keep the children until they were twelve when they would be handed back to their father. In some cases the husband had to return the dowry, not to the wife but to her father. This was the only impediment to hasty divorce a wife could only divorce her husband on the limited grounds of his having a loathsome disease. Also she might ask her husband for a divorce, but whether she received it depended on his whim. In Jesus' day divorce was a serious social problem with men discarding their wives as their beauty faded, for new wives. Luke 16:18 seems to hint a wife-swapping that was prevalent.

JESUS' ANSWER TO THE PHARISEES

      As usual Jesus refused to fall into the trap set for him. Rather than supporting either of the schools of thought, both of which provided negative answers to the problem of disturbed marriages, he pointed to God's positive ideal for marriage. This is the God-made marriage which man cannot destroy.

      His answer is actually threefold.

      1. God's ideal is the God-made marriage that is permanent. Those really joined by God will not be sundered by man.

      2. Because of your human-ness ("hardness of heart") and inability to reach God's ideal, your law makes a bill of divorcement possible. (Note: Deuteronomy records that Moses believed that he had received this instruction from God).

      3. You are using this provision, not as it was meant, to dissolve problem marriages, but for your own adulterous and lustful purposes.

WHAT CAN WE INFER FROM THIS?

      We can infer from Jesus' words that the ideal marriage is made by God and sustained by God and is thus for life. But what does being "joined together by God" mean?

      The fact that a wedding is held in church and prayed over, with the vows made before God, does not necessarily mean that the couple are joined by God. To be joined by God requires two people whose lives are so open to his indwelling Spirit that God in fact is the creator and sustainer of their relationship. Such a marriage is indestructible as long as God remains within it.

      Such God-built and God-sustained marriages are ideal for the growth and well-being of man and wife and children. A society full of such marriages would be an ideal society because they would produce that sort of people who make ideal citizens.

SUCH MARRIAGES ARE RARE

      Unfortunately such marriages are rare. However large numbers of Christian couples work towards this ideal and keep together marriages and families that are fairly good a good bit of the time. These marriages are not greatly threatened by the new climate that is making divorce more generally acceptable.

      In the past there have been many marriages of Christians that even if made by God in the first place have not been kept together by God, but rather by the pressures of custom and tradition. In such marriages the virtual breakdown of warm and intimate relationships and the thin veneer of respectability that has covered the breakdown are evidences that God is not joining the couples together any more, however much they may continue to believe in him and worship him. For many centuries such couples stayed together because of economic, religious, social and family pressures. It was easier to endure such marriages than to face the economic hardship and social and religious ostracism involved in leaving them.

      These are the marriages of church people, including ministers, that are under threat in the new climate concerning divorce. Changed economic conditions make it easier for women to go their own way. Changed public opinion is removing the stigma from divorce. Religious ties bound only by tradition and not really by God are easily severed when a marriage has really failed.

      (In the next issue we will look further into Jesus' teaching concerning divorce and at some of the questions that Christians should be asking and answering. Editor).

G. R. Stirling, A.C., 1980, p. 501.

      In our first article we referred to marriages of church people which had virtually ceased to be God-made marriages, but which in former days were kept together because of economic, religious, social and family pressures. It was easier to stay in a bad marriage than to leave it. We suggested that these pressures on such marriages had weakened greatly today, hence the tendency for divorce to be found amongst church people, including ministers.

"HARDNESS OF HEART" STILL WITH US

      We are having to come to terms with the fact that human-ness or what Jesus called "hardness of heart" is still with us, even in the church. Some marriages of Christians who are not really God joined are so bad and so emotionally destructive that it could be better to end them. This does not mean that divorce is a good thing, but rather that divorce is sometimes the lesser of two evils. This is the sort of thing that Moses provided for, and that the Jews in Jesus' day misused for their adulterous purposes.

DIVORCE FOR SELFISH ENDS

      There is no doubt that Jesus took a very dim view of the practice of breaking up a marriage because the male had become tired of one woman and wanted another. He was uncompromising in calling such persons adulterers. He also accused them of forcing their mates into adultery. This easy discarding of partners for selfish reasons was destroying Jewish family life.

      Our Australian Family Law makes it easier for divorce for selfish, trivial and adulterous purposes, even if the intention of the modern Moses' who wrote it was to enable the ending of hopeless marriages as painlessly as possible. Almost certainly, as in Jewry, easier divorce adds one more threat to the concept of marriage as the basic unit of society. And as Jack Chivell reminded us in "On My Mind," even the church and its ministry are not free from the problem and all that goes with it.

SOME SEARCHING QUESTIONS FOR THE CHURCH

      All of this leaves the church with some searching questions.

      Is divorce ever justified?

      Can we accept that sometimes divorce is the lesser of two evils?

      Should our ministers remarry divorcees?

      How does the church minister pastoral care to those involved in divorce?

      How does a church handle the break up of a minister's marriage when it may very well have contributed to it by extraordinary demands made upon him and upon his family?

MORE QUESTIONS

      Most churches can cope with caring for those who are suffering after divorce, and in some cases with the "guilty parties" who are not suffering nearly enough. But what is the church's pastoral ministry to those who are in the agony of contemplating divorce because they cannot handle the greater agony of staying in a soul-destroying marriage? And how does the church minister to those who are in the middle of the hell of divorce proceedings, especially when both parties are members of the same congregation? Do we withdraw from them while they are "unclean" and then when it is all over try to heal some of the hurts and to re-church them? And if the church is caring and loving to people involved in divorce is it thus condoning a social evil?

IT DEPENDS ON HOW WE USE THE NEW TESTAMENT

      The answer to these questions depends on how we use the scriptures concerned, and indeed the whole of the New Testament.

      Is the New Testament to be used as a law book in the way that the Jews used the Old Testament? If it is, are we then justified in attacking offending persons with texts, often out of context? And are such attacks the redemptive way of handling sin and the sinner? And are the situations that gave rise to the texts we use similar to the contemporary situations we are dealing with?

A BOOK OF RULES

      If the New Testament is to be used as a book of rules, there are so many of them that we can easily concentrate on those that enable us to judge others while conveniently ignoring those that judge us. And it is possible to use the New Testament in such a way that we designate certain behaviour (which we do not indulge in) as being very sinful and unforgivable, and certain other behaviour (which we do indulge in) as being easily forgivable minor slips. We knew of an elder whose family all left the church (I Timothy 3:4,5) objecting to the nomination of a divorcee to the board because he was an adulterer(Luke 16:18).

      And even if the New Testament is to be understood as a law book, not one of us has any hope of keeping the laws, any more than the Jews had of keeping theirs. We have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.

GRACE AND FORGIVENESS

      Surely the New Testament is about the grace and forgiveness of God who renews and recreates those who desire him to do so into loving, caring, understanding, responsible, Christ-like people. These are the sort of people who can have God-made marriages. All the trying in the world cannot make such marriages.

      If we are people who are being renewed and recreated by God because we cannot save ourselves, we will not use the New Testament as a set of rules to bind others when we cannot keep them ourselves. Rather we will use it as a record of guidelines and principles for life for those whom God is making into loving, caring, responsible, Christ-like people.

      Such people will act redemptively rather than judgmentally towards those whose marriages have come apart. Such people will keep before the church and the world the possibility of an ideal God-made marriage that does not come apart, as the real answer to the problem of divorce.

      (In the next issue we will present the third and last of the discussions concerning divorce. We will look at two questions. Should our ministers remarry divorcees? And should divorcees ever hold office in the church?).

G. R. Stirling, A.C., 1980, p. 533.

      In this third and final discussion concerning divorce we will look at two other matters. The first is the remarriage by our ministers of divorced people. The second is whether divorced people should ever hold office in the church.

DOES GOD FORGIVE DIVORCEES?

      Our answer to both of these matters depends on what we believe about God's forgiveness of sins.

      There is no doubt about the New Testament witness to the fact that God's forgiveness is absolute, if sought by a truly repentant person (1 John 1:9, Ephesians 1:7, Jude 24, Hebrews 12:8). It can therefore be reasoned that if God forgives absolutely, so should the church (Matthew 6:14,15; Ephesians 4:32; Matthew 7:1,2; Romans 14:10-13).

REMARRIAGE OF DIVORCED

      There is no doubt that the scriptures teach that whatever sins may have been associated with the pre-divorce period, the divorce itself and the post-divorce period are forgivable by God if the repentance is real and the forgiveness sought. If God forgives them absolutely, so must the church.

      So a Christian marriage celebrant needs to satisfy himself concerning this when a divorcee seeks remarriage. Obviously there cannot be Christian marriage for one who has used the divorce process to

leave one person in order to get into bed with another, and is unashamed and unrepentant about the whole deal.

DIVORCED PEOPLE AND OFFICE IN THE CHURCH

      The second question is whether a divorcee can ever hold office in the church.

      Even if we take Jesus' words as a fixed rule, rather than setting out a principle, there is no sin in the divorce as such, but in the remarriage after divorce (Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11). So if remarriage has not taken place after a divorce or separation there is no bar to a person holding any office in the church for which God has equipped him and to which God has called him. Some of his past sins may have contributed to the marriage breakdown, but they would be no different from the sins of partners in many marriages who cheerfully hold church office at local and brotherhood level, because God has graciously forgiven them.

REMARRIED DIVORCEES AND CHURCH OFFICE

      But what of those who have been divorced and subsequently have remarried? Are they perpetually in adultery? Or are the sins associated with the divorce and the sin of divorce itself and any subsequent sins, forgivable? The only unforgivable sin is the sin against the Holy Spirit which in effect is the deliberate putting of oneself outside of the forgiveness of God. The Bible also hints at another unforgivable sin. That is the refusal to forgive another which apparently also puts a person outside of the forgiveness of God.

      Therefore if any divorced and remarried person is truly repentant and seeks forgiveness, he or she is absolutely and totally forgiven by God. To hold the divorce and remarriage against him as he seeks to serve in an office of the church for which God has fitted him and to which God has called him, is to fail to forgive one whom God himself has forgiven. It is to sit in judgment on such a person as one forgiven sinner upon another.

POSITIVE ACTION IN RELATION TO DIVORCE

      Not only should we as a church address ourselves to the questions we have been discussing in these articles, but we should be taking positive lines of action if we really care about the problem of divorce and its threat to the family as the basic unit of society. We refer to two:

      1. Uncompromisingly we must continue to present the marriage ideal as Jesus presented it. That is as being made by God, kept by God, and "for keeps" by the grace of God. Divorces in church and community are not going to be prevented by condemnation and judgmentalism. They will decrease in proportion to the idealism that Christian couples are encouraged to keep in mind for marriage and their faith in the power of the living Christ to re-enforce that idealism.

      2. The answer to the divorce problem is not laws and rules and protests and resolutions. Rather it is reinforcing family life by the message and ministry of the church. As John Chivell points out, it is shocking that we now have divorces amongst church members and ministers. But it is a great deal more shocking that churches concerned with such people did so little to minister to them and to support them during their emotional agonies, which eventually led to divorce.

      If I were a member of a church where the minister's marriage failed, I would not only be asking myself serious questions about the burdens that my church unwittingly placed upon him and his family that may have contributed to the breakdown. I would have to ask myself what personal care and encouragement and concern that I as a member had failed to give him that could have helped him under God to hold his family together.

SUMMING UP

      Concerning the whole question of divorce and remarriage, not one of us is so much without sin that he or she can afford to cast stones. There are no easy black and white text-quoting answers. To quote texts as though that settles the matter is to "cop out" on responsibility for my brother's marriage, and his divorce, and his subsequent rehabilitation into fuller living. The church has an enormous pastoral responsibility to its families, both to prevent their breakup and during the divorce and remarriage when such breaks occur. And by the church's pastoral responsibility I do not mean the minister's responsibility only!

ABOVE ALL

      And above all, every marriage which by the grace of God and with the pastoral support of the church, is a God-made and God-kept marriage, is one more relevant answer to the problem of divorce and the breakdown of modern family life (Editor).

A.C., 1984, p. 601.

To the Editor,

      During the recent Federal Conference there was an elective on Divorce and Remarriage. Some in the group were disturbed by more things that the leader said.

      Reference was made to 1 Corinthians 7; Mark 10:1-12; Matthew 19-3-9 and Deuteronomy 24:14. Instead of just accepting Jesus' plain statement in Matthew and Mark that if a man divorces his wife and marries another he commits adultery, an obscure reference was made to the translation of the original "agamos" to mean de-married and not unmarried.

      This was then extended to include divorces. This would negate what Jesus said in Matthew and Mark. During the discussion an hierarchy was listed as follows:

      1. Perfect marriage.

      2. Divorce and stay single.

      3. Reconciliation.

      4. Remarriage.

      Some ordained ministers have divorced and remarried, so they could be designated as fourth-rate Christians! How can they claim to be authorities of the Word of God and continue to present themselves as ministers shepherding those higher up the list.

--D. B. Price (Grange, Qld).      

A.C., 1985, p. 324.

To the Editor,

      One thing that disturbs me greatly is the frequency with which news comes through on the grape-vine that yet another trained, ordained, Christian minister serving with Churches of Christ has become involved with a woman other than his wife. As a result the church is thrown into turmoil when the minister suddenly resigns and leaves. Young people and new Christians are confused when a loved and trusted friend and counsellor has not lived up to his profession and confession. Potential Christians seriously looking at the church and Christianity through the minister must question if there is anything in the talk of new life.

      Add to this the ministers who have divorced or separated from their original partners for a wide variety of reasons and we have a very sorry picture indeed.

      What is wrong or missing in the Churches of Christ ministry today that makes ministers so vulnerable? This sad situation makes me wonder about the future of the trained Churches of Christ ministry.

      I am disturbed because men, with great potential for good are wrecking lives, including their own. I am saddened because the Churches of Christ has always been my church. I am deeply concerned because I also am a minister and married.

--Ken Wray (Keith, S.A.).      

A.C., 1985, p. 8.

To the Editor,

      Refer to the letter of D. B. Price under the above heading ("A.C." 15.12.84). The writer refers to a "hierarchy of marriage status" and claims from this that some ministers, due to their remarriage after divorce, are "fourth-rate Christians."

      Such a rating of Christians is incomprehensible in the light of Christ's teaching on whom is greatest in the Kingdom of God. (Mark 9:34-37).

      To classify those unable to maintain a perfect marriage, despite their Christian commitment, as second, third and fourth rate Christians is also difficult to understand when one considers Jesus' compassion for the woman at the well (John 4), and his forgiveness for the woman caught in adultery (John 8).

      This latter illustration also offers a valuable lesson regarding the rights of one person to condemn another within the Kingdom of God.

      Perhaps D. B. Price could consider that all have sinned and come short of God's glory, and that a Christian or a Christian minister, able to reconcile a broken marriage, has a great deal to share with others because of his or her own experience of forgiveness through the grace of God.

--Peter G. Hilbig, (Kensington, Vic.).      

A.C., 1985, p. 376.

To the Editor,

      I am making a plea for three things in relation to ministers' infidelity.

      First, a balanced view. We should always take into factual consideration that there must be two parties involved. Let us prayerfully recall Eve's fruit and that Bath-Sheba's bath was in the back yard.

      Second, Christian forgiveness. God is a seeking God. He always takes the prior step, not because he is soft or fair game or whistling in the dark, but because he sees beyond our sin and beyond what we see. In the Lord's prayer, bread and forgiveness are twins. As surely as we need bread we need forgiveness. The Lord's statement "as we forgive" is not conditional, but initiatory. The uniqueness of Christian forgiveness is that it takes the first step, in love. We read that "while we were yet sinning Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8). We don't merely say, "be more forgiving" but we institute a situation of forgiveness.

      Third, Christian forgetfulness. The scriptures say "as far as the east is from the west . . . so far does he remove our sins" (Psalm 103:12). If infidelity has happened in your church and it has been rectified, put it behind you. God does! He asks us to forgive in this way and it will work.

--Doug Smith (Ashgrove, Qld.).      

            ii. UNEMPLOYMENT

A.C., 1977, p. 172.

      A lengthy notice of motion addressed itself to UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE. Member churches are asked to provide help for young people out of work by concern, pastoral oversight, assistance in job hunting, activities and finance for planning use of leisure. Individual church members as employers are urged to use various government subsidy schemes to employ unemployed young people. Governments are commended and further encouraged in present and possible extension of programmes to assist unemployed young people.

A.C., 1979, p. 87.

      Resolved that as unemployment is degrading and humiliating to a large percentage of the Australian people, this Conference declares that the present unemployment situation is intolerable land a major social problem and urges:

      (a) members to write to local members of Parliament and local aspirants for office pressing for immediate action to reduce unemployment and to provide relief employment to maintain self respect.

      (b) members to write to the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer strongly requesting that budget and other planning give priority to the reduction of unemployment and that anomalies in the unemployment benefits system be rectified.

      (c) members to acknowledge their responsibility for Christian social justice and to press for personal, church, and community resources to be used to create work for people.

      (d) members become more sensitive, affirming and encouraging in their relationships with the unemployed, and that State Executives be invited to investigate social, mental, and spiritual problems of unemployment and make recommendations to the churches as to ways and means of alleviating the situation and that members acknowledge that unemployment is a community problem where adjustments need to be made by--

      (1) Employers seeking opportunities for further employment training, and accepting lower profit margins.

      (2) Trade unions seriously challenging the spiralling wage and penalty rate structure,

      (3) Individuals accepting a 'slow down' in the standard of living.

A.C., 1979, p. 207.

      This conference of Churches of Christ believes that Christian churches have a special pastoral responsibility to unemployed people. We therefore call upon local churches to offer spiritual and psychological support, as well as material support to those who are unemployed, and we urge all Christians to become more aware of the social and economic conditions which have brought about such unemployment and to become involved with local community groups who are offering practical support to the unemployed.

A.C., 1980, p. 512.

      The recent Federal Conference at Stanwell Tops made the following resolutions on the matter of unemployment and related matters.

      1. This Conference affirms its grave concern about the increasing plight of the large numbers of unemployed.

      2. This Conference believes there is a direct link between the social dislocation (which expresses itself in unemployment, illness and the increasing level of crime) and the rapid introduction of advanced technology which has led to the displacement of large numbers of people in the work force.

      3. This Conference urges the Federal Government and State Governments to take account of not only the needs of industry but also the needs of people to be gainfully employed. We would urge that far, greater attention be given to the development of both support structures and social skill training programs to assist those materially and emotionally affected by unemployment.

      4. This Conference urges our State Executives of Churches of Christ to investigate measures which will give assistance to the large number of disadvantaged people who relate to our churches by the provision of support and social skill groups to help combat the serious psychological and sociological impact upon disadvantaged people, and to take appropriate action at State and local church level.

      5. That this Conference appoint a Working Committee whose responsibility will be to--

      1. Research the problem of unemployment in Australia, its extent and effects, with particular reference to its effects upon Churches of Christ members.

      2. Conduct a continuing program designed to inform and stimulate active concern amongst our members for the plight of the unemployed.

      3. Develop practical strategies whereby our combined resources may be used to assist the unemployed, e. g., Work Co-operatives, Support Programs.

A.C., 1981, p. 227.

      "That this Conference commends the Federal Government for apparently discontinuing the requirement for unemployed persons to report fortnightly to the Department of Social Security Offices. However, recognising unemployment to be endemic within sections of the Australian Community and that there are many times the number of unemployed persons than job vacancies and believing that the community as a whole bears the responsibility to ensure the social security and dignity for the jobless, this Conference of Churches of Christ in South Australia calls upon the Federal Government to:--

      (1) Increase the Unemployment Benefit to a minimum of the poverty level as determined by the Henderson Commission.

      (2) Maintain the payment of Unemployment benefits to persons under the [age of 18.]

      (3) Investigate all possible avenues to distribute work opportunities more evenly through the community in Australia."

--Ed. Roffey.      

            iii. HOMELESS YOUTH

A.C., 1979, p. 207.

      That in view of the increasing numbers of homeless youth within our communities we call upon the churches of conference to investigate and where appropriate establish homes to care for such young people.

            iv. THE DISABLED

A.C., 1981, p. 251.

      Whereas this year 1981 is known as "The Year of the Disabled" we would draw the attention of congregations and members of congregations to the particular need to make provision for disabled persons both in the church and in the wider community.

      This Conference urges congregations to study the architecture of their buildings to ensure this provides ease of access and use of buildings by those who have physical disabilities.

      This Conference reminds churches that we are all equal in the sight of God and have equal responsibilities and privileges in the Kingdom. We, therefore, urge congregations to extend the opportunities of leadership, and particularly leadership in worship, to all who desire and are willing to be trained for such leadership.

      We urge congregations to pay particular attention to programming so that people are not excluded from participation because of disabilities.

            v. MIGRATION

A.C., 1972, p. 196.

(Notes of an address to Sunday Forum, P.S.A., Wesley Church, Melbourne. Alan Matheson, B.A., Dip.R.E., is a Church of Christ minister and social worker with an experimental welfare and research migrant project of the Australian and Victorian Council of churches).

      The visit of President Theodore Roosevelt's Great White Fleet to Melbourne earlier this century was reported in great detail by the newspapers of the day. One noted that "Melbourne won an unofficial record for the most parties and entertainments in a single day. Some American seamen were rarely sober and 250 succumbed to the hospitality and were officially left behind without trace."

      Now according to some, Melbourne has changed little. However the ways and means by which migrants are reaching our shores has drastically changed since those earlier days.

      Immigration has played an integral part in our development, and will continue to play a significant role in the future. For 20 years there has been little political partisan thinking on migration . . . all agreed it was good and necessary. However, for the first time since its inception, Australia's post war migration policy is beginning to emerge as a political issue over which much fire and brimstone will be breathed before the electors go to the polls in 1972.

      There can be little doubt that this post war programme has contributed dramatically and spectacularly to the way of life we now enjoy. The diversity and richness of differing customs, traditions, languages, religions, have all added much to our society. For a country that has always suffered culturally, politically and artistically from its isolation, a vigorous migration policy is the most effective conceivable way of attaining social diversity.

      There appears to be a growing wave of doubt and questioning of the present policy on economic and environmental grounds--implicitly it is being suggested that the quality of life in Australia is being threatened. This kind of direct relationship between migration and a whole host of social and urban problems seems to me to be but a peculiar psychological and philosophical aberration.

      We are able to make this kind of relationship, to blame migrants for our problems of environment and essential services, because of a deep-seated paternalism in our community. By talking of the "migrants" or the "new Australians," we deny to them their uniqueness, their individuality, their personal, cultural, historical meaning and identity.

      Some see our response and reaction to the ethnic groups in our community as racist, prejudiced, antagonistic, apathetic, accepting, or one of straight out discrimination. However I believe that it is the concept of paternalism which more accurately describes our attitudes. And by paternalism I simply mean we see them as objects and not people.

PATERNALISM

      It matters not where they come from: Sicily, Chile, Scotland or Macedonia . . . they're all migrants.

      It matters not how long they have been here: 20 days or 20 years . . . they're still new Australians.

      When we deny them their individuality, their cultural diversity, we deny them as persons, and regard them as objects. Is that too harsh a judgment? Every government since 1947 has expounded a policy of migration based on the need to be nationally secure and economically developed. New settlers, to use current usage, are often seen as little more than appendages to gross national product; an attitude summed up in the reported comments of an eminent figure of Melbourne town who explained a few days ago, "find me a sewer trench or a gas main not worked by an Italian or Greek migrant and I would be amazed. Our own people are of course the foreman."

      Because we are able to think like this, because we often see them as so many bodies added to the workforce, so many hands, so much manpower, we are able to think of them in terms of statistics, quotas and yearly targets to be achieved. Much of the current talk on quality rather than quantity suggests show horses or stud cattle rather than people.

POLICY

      (A) Take particular note of the way we implement our assisted passage scheme. Neatly we divide the world. Such passages are available to most Europeans, but not to a Ceylonese doctor or the 800 who came from India last year. As the Australian Council of Churches noted, "if these people are good enough to be accepted as Australian citizens they should receive government assistance." But the Acting Minister of Immigration clearly stated that such passages were just not available to non-Europeans.

      (B) One of the most suspect areas of present policy is the relationship between selection and annual target figures. The tragedies in the selection process are one of the saddest aspects of our whole policy.

      "The Commonwealth Government a short while ago repatriated a Macedonian family in which four children were mentally retarded; they all had undergone a routine health check before coming to Australia; the circumstances of the parents and the condition of the children made Australia impossible as a home."

      While we have annual targets, while we follow a policy of obtaining as many as possible in 12 months, the selection and screening process is threatened. We are continually going to be confronted with such survey findings as . . . "nearly 25% of migrant admissions to one psychiatric hospital, had histories of hospitalisation prior to migration."

      I have a great deal of sympathy for the selection officer, he has an onerous task--how do you assess integration potential? Nevertheless present practices leave much to be desired.

      Scenes of crowded waiting rooms, hurried interviews, selection officers unable to speak the language, medical officers making psychiatric assessments, inadequately informed people, inexperienced selection officers, do little to give credibility to the claim that the selection process is responsible. Pre-embarkation counselling and English courses could be vastly improved. At present English classes are so often characterised by untrained teachers, themselves sometimes poorly versed in English, an absence of creative teaching techniques, together with the fact that the period of waiting so demoralises many that they drop out anyway.

      (C) A further insight into the expression of this paternalistic attitude can be found in a number of small but insignificant and unpublicised programmes. Because there was some concern expressed at the sexual imbalance of our intake, a solution was sought in a "single girl" programme from Italy and Greece. The Italian scheme folded after vigorous opposition from the Catholic Church who found that too many girls found themselves in unacceptable situations. The Greek programme continues.

      Our own case files indicate the depth of the tragedies implicit in such a shortsighted programme. Given little support, short term accommodation, left to fend for themselves, the pattern of isolation, unemployment, unstable personal relationships, illegitimate children, are sad commentaries on a scheme that was well intentioned but hardly realistic.

A.C., 1972, p. 223.

      (D) Political reality and the individual migrant. One effect of migration has been that Australians have been forced to examine their own ideals and seek answers to the kind of society that they wished to create. The Prime Minister believes that the kind of society that most Australians desire is "of one people sharing the same ideals;" a former minister thought our aim should be a society without a number of "undigested minorities."

      i. Education: Whatever the kind of society, and whatever the kind of integration we desire, there is almost universal accord on the significance and importance of learning English. It is seen as an integral element in the integration process. And it is at this level that the ambivalence of the community is reflected in government decisions. A recent survey had a young police recruit expressing an all too common attitude, "I don't like migrants--especially the non-English speaking ones. They stick to themselves too much . . . of a Saturday morning you can't go down the street without going through a bunch of them all yapping to each other."

      Of course the learning of English is important. But in recent months thousands of dollars have been slashed from adult migrant programmes, scores of classes have been closed, no expansion of classes can be planned, 5,000 are on waiting lists for intensive classes.

      The situation in migrant child education is little better. Certainly it is a vast improvement on what it was even two years ago. But look at the descriptions given by school head-masters and principals on the "rooms" where migrant children are at present being taught . . . ours are in the corridor . . . we have a portable . . . ours are in the ladies' retiring room . . . we use the infant mistress' office . . . ours are in a cloak-room . . . ours are in a little room that holds seven knee to knee . . .

      For too many migrant children in inner and northern suburbs in our city, a meaningless school system becomes an introduction to truancy, unskilled employment, the first step to becoming a poverty, criminal, or psychiatric statistic.

      The Commonwealth Government at present is making large grants of money available for teachers and equipment. But what good is a teacher or a mini language laboratory if there is no place to put them. The State Government currently says, we have no money, and the Commonwealth says it is not our responsibility. This kind of political impasse is one of the travesties of the present educational approach to the migrant child.

      ii. Social Services. I believe in a migrant policy for I believe that it links us inextricably to the world at large; it breaks open our society and encourages a diversity and richness in our way of life. But the morality of a migrant policy which does not care sufficiently for people who come here for our economic development must be critically reviewed and questioned. Again one does not want to undervalue the achievements of the various Government departments in the past, but there does appear to be evidence that we are appallingly slow to realise our responsibilities.

      Committees, advisory councils, seminars and conferences have urged the Department of Immigration to provide greater support after the migrant has arrived. Where does a newly arrived Turk go for guidance? More often than not, not to a Government department, but to the interpreter at the local bank. The migrant advisory services provided by the banks are contributing more to smooth settlement than is realised.

      What happens if a Sicilian or Serb is admitted to hospital? Who explains to him, who interprets? Probably the cleaner or wards maid or in one rehabilitation centre the gardener if he can be spared. Or take the newly-arrived refugee from the Middle East. Today he finds a job, next month the factory closes for three or four weeks. It's evident he's not going to receive holiday pay for all of that period--what happens? There appears to be an implicit belief that he must stop living and eating and providing for his family during that period of time.

      The Government introduced one of the most creative support programmes nearly two years ago, whereby financial grants were made to a select number of social workers involved with migrants. This was a major development in structured support and assistance. However, the grants are made only to established and well organised agencies and ethnic groups. Those ethnic communities whose needs are greatest--Greek, Turkish and Yugoslav--are by-passed in favour of well established programmes and in a recent case to yet another research programme.

      To be a Southern European migrant in Melbourne, a Turk, a Serb, a Macedonian, is in many ways a political and social condition; all too often it is a condemnation to poverty and political impotence. One of the hopeful signs is the way some of the ethnic groups are becoming organised and beginning to voice their concern and point out some of the injustices of present policy. The action of the Italian community in petitioning Parliament for the reciprocal payment of pensions should be an action that brings widespread support. Why should an Italian devoting a lifetime of labour to this country be denied his pension rights should he choose to live out his retirement in the land of his birth?

END TO PATERNALISM

      The continuing debate and discussion on our migration policy can only be for the good. I believe that this attitude of paternalism, this implicit belief that migrants are less than people, this concentration on the economic contribution of migrants, this wholesale devaluation of their culture, language, must be confronted, recognised and worked out in our community. The steps I believe necessary are:

      a. A greater awareness in the community on the injustices and weaknesses in our present policies. I believe it is the churches' task to begin confronting the Government and the community with such injustices. One of the problems that the church faces is that almost every programme being conducted by the churches at present, whether at an ecumenical or denominational level, belongs to the 19th Century. The voice of the wider ecumenical movement, the challenges of the World Council of Churches are almost unheeded. Service and welfare programmes cannot be separated from programmes that seek justice and self determination. The churches will need to develop a political awareness, be less paternalistic, be less enthusiastic about "doing things" for migrants.

      b. Mr. Snedden, a former Minister of Immigration, back in 1967 challenged the Good Neighbour Council on the need for a community relations programme. He spoke of tensions between children, too often mirroring the attitudes of their own homes. Educationists need to begin understanding how urgent is the need for a positive educational programme that places high values of differing cultures, traditions and languages. Social workers and welfare workers will need to develop meaningful programmes of community relations--programmes that build bridges between ethnic groups, programmes that involve all people in the community in the continuing search for a better society.

      Various ethnic groups will need to be encouraged to further meet their responsibilities.

      With an informed Australian community, a responsible church, a Government policy that is always being questioned and reviewed, an ethnic community that is responding to the demands on it, then, and only then will we develop a rich and diverse acceptable Australian society.

            vi. DECENTRALISATION

A.C., 1970, p. 270.

      DECENTRALISATION: The Conference requested the Federal and Victorian State Governments to encourage secondary industry and processing of primary products in country areas and that primary producers be assisted by being given long term, low interest bank loans; that teachers' colleges and university colleges, etc., be established outside the Melbourne area; that Government departments be decentralised to the areas they deal with; that cultural, recreational, and entertainment amenities be provided for country areas, and that the announced regional development plans for Latrobe Valley, Wodonga, Bendigo, Ballarat, and Portland be more vigorously promoted.

            vii. HUMAN RELATIONS

A.C., 1979, pp. 87, 93.

      I. Believing that New Testament Christianity implies the intelligent, enlightened and thoughtful application of love to the well-being of others, this Conference acknowledges the diligence, integrity and scholarship of the Royal Commission into Human Relations. We welcome their contribution to the deeper understanding of many matters that are of deep concern to Christians. We urge that the Report and recommendations be closely studied by our churches and by individual members, and that the recommendations be supported or rejected on the basis of their accord with our understanding of Christian principles.

      II. Recognising the social evils, unnecessary distress, suffering, and human tragedy that results from total inadequacy of education in human relationships in our community, as revealed by the report of the Commission, we urge that studies be made of the problems involved in the adequate provision of sex education in the community, within the framework of a respect for and an appreciation of the worth of the persons concerned.

      III. Understanding that the Christian ethic is accepted by individuals as an outcome of their Christian faith, and understanding that the Christian ethic cannot and should not be imposed upon others by legislation or by other forms of compulsion, this Conference notes the Royal Commission's proposals that sexual practices as are privately engaged in by consenting adults be de-criminalized. At the same time, this Conference urges our churches to continue to encourage all people to conduct themselves at all times in ways consistent with the Christian faith and Christian principles as revealed in the scriptures.

      b. SOCIAL ILLS

            i. DRUGS

A.C., 1979, p. 87.

      Resolved that as alcohol is an even more potent drug than tobacco, this Conference urges all churches, temperance societies and other welfare organizations to concentrate on one control programme at a time, and that the first such programme seek to have all labels and all advertising relating to alcohol carry the simple statement that:--"Alcohol is a dangerous drug."

            ii. ALCOHOL

A.C., 1975, p. 284.

      Alcohol and Driving. Conference urged the Victorian Government (1) to ensure that all learner-driver publications include a section on the effects of alcohol and other drugs on driving ability and that candidates for licenses be also tested on this section, (2) to legislate for a driver on a charge of driving with a blood alcohol content over .05% to have his or her driving licence automatically suspended for any period during which the case may be adjourned, (3) to legislate for the driving licence of a person (convicted for the first time of the offence of driving under the influence of a drug) to be suspended for a period of at least three months.

            iii. FILMS

A.C., 1977, p. 175.

      That this conference conveys to the Federal Government its very strong objection to taxpayers' money being used to produce M-rated and R-rated films in the Australian film industry.

            iv. TELEVISION

A.C., 1979, p. 87.

      Resolved that this Conference deplores some television programmes and advertising which are in obviously bad taste but draws attention of church members to the more subtle influence of television in establishing in the minds and feelings and tastes of viewers a life style that is materialistic, avaricious and self-centred. While acknowledging the great benefits of television this Conference urges members to discuss as families the corrosive effects of the media on Christian life-style and to provide positive alternatives as well as being aware of Television Awareness Training Courses and also encouraging them to convey to T.V. stations and sponsors, any deep feelings of commendation and condemnation.

            v. LITERATURE

A.C., 1977, p. 175.

      That this conference condemns the use of filthy or indecent literature in our education system.

            vi. POKER MACHINES

A.C., 1981, p. 251.

      This Conference of Churches of Christ in Victoria and Tasmania commends the Premier of Victoria (The Hon. R. J. Hamer) for his Government's stand against the introduction of poker machines into this State and by so doing indicates the support of Conference for him in this matter.

            vii. PORNOGRAPHY

A.C., 1975, p. 196.

      Conference objected strongly to open display and sale of pornographic material. A letter expressing objections to be sent to the Attorneys General, Federal and State. A petition to be circulated to all churches and church agencies which, when signed, to be forwarded to the Attorney General.

            viii. SEX EDUCATION

A.C., 1974, p. 296.

To the Editor,

      I write as a concerned parent about the proposed "Personal Development in Secondary Schools in N.S.W.--the place of Sex Education."

      I have read the statement of principles issued in May 1974, and I am very relieved to note-that the views of the parents are to be of primary importance. Since the vast majority of parents in N.S.W. have the Family Life Style it seems logical to conclude that this would be the context in which sex education would be taught to the thirteen and fourteen year old girls and boys.

      We must be in no doubt, however, that the atheist secular humanists are pushing to have the permissive life-style taught. I have been in two television discussions with these groups, and in one, at least, they were very honest about their aims. One representative from the Teachers' Federation called my views "authoritarian" and said she did not want parents "interfering with the way teachers presented the syllabus." Privately one of them said to me, "Do you think that your children are your property?" I replied, "To put it another way, I think my children are my great responsibility."

      So the fight is on. The syllabus could be of great use in supporting the family life style which parents have been teaching their children from their earliest years. But there could be a disaster if it were wrongly implemented as it has been in the U.S.A., the U.K. and the Scandinavian countries.

--Frieda Brown, N.S.W.      

2. POLITICAL ISSUES

      Subjects treated in this brief section are overseas aid, peace, racism, capitalism, Rhodesia, South Africa, political prisoners, party politics, trade unions, and the mining and export of uranium.

      Politics is treated in broader compass in: C. McCann & A.V. Page, Growth Through Culture: A Study on Racism, The Pamphlet Club, Dec., 1971, No. 200; Christianity and Communism: A Dialogue by J. Halfpenny and E. L. Williams, The Pamphlet Club, July, 1975, No. 242: G. Chapman, What About Politics? The Pamphlet Club, August, 1979, No. 284; D. Feeney, The Church, Secularism and Social Change, The Pamphlet Club, Sept., 1979, No. 285; E. Baxter, The Pacifist Dilemma, The Pamphlet Club, Nov., 1979, No. 287; J.W. Roffey, The Christian and Social Action, The Pamphlet Club, June/July, 1983, No. 322/333; G. Chapman, Marx on Suffering: A Christian Perspective, The Pamphlet Club, Feb/March, 1984, Nos. 328/329.

      a. OVERSEAS AID

A.C., 1976, p. 245.

      "THAT the 102nd Conference of Churches of Christ in South Australia now meeting views with grave concern the Australian Government's recent reduction of Overseas Aid by $21 million. Conference urges the Prime Minister and all members of Parliament to increase the Overseas Aid allocation in the next budget to 0.5590 of Gross National Product in line with the United Nations and target. Furthermore this Conference urges its congregations and church members to give regularly to relief amongst the poorest of the world and to programmes encouraging self help, productivity and human dignity where poverty is most acute."

A.C., 1977, p. 206.

      This Conference urges congregations and members of Churches of Christ in Victoria and Tasmania to renew, or implement their commitment to overseas aid and relief in the following terms:

      1. That support be given to World Christian Action and Churches of Christ Overseas Aid by means of

      (a) Churches accepting, for a period of three years, a voluntary tax of 2 per cent of weekly offerings to be devoted to overseas relief.

      (b) Members working for one day each year, for a period of three years, for underprivileged i. e., to give one day's salary to Overseas Aid and Relief.

      2. The Australian Council of Churches "self-tax" movement through its "Force Ten" programme, be promoted by the Churches and recommended to the members for their participation.

      b. PEACE

A.C., 1971, p. 198.

      World Peace. The Conference commended the United Nations for its efforts towards justice and peace and (1) called upon church members to attain adequate understanding of the causes of violence in society and to promote international justice and goodwill; (2) recommended churches to actively, urgently, and sacrificially seek the reform of conscience and will which alone can inspire greater international justice; (3) urged governments to increase financial aid and technical assistance to developing nations. Copies were to be sent to the United Nations, the Aust. Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches.

A.C., 1979, p. 93.

      I. Resolved that this Conference of Churches of Christ in Australia expresses its concern at the excessive expenditure on armaments by all nations of the world, even those amongst the very poorest and least able to afford it, and urges each local congregation to include in its programme during the next two years a serious consideration of the issues of Peace and Disarmament.

      II. That this Conference takes note of the Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations on World Disarmament held in New York, June, 1978, and seeks from the Australian

Government and the opposition, a statement of their intentions with regard to the decisions of the Special Session on disarmament. Further that this Conference requests that their replies on behalf of the Government and the Opposition should be made known to members of Churches of Christ through the pages of "The Australian Christian." It is also requested that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Defence, of the Australian Government.

A.C., 1984, p. 542.

      At the recent 40th Federal Conference the following motion on peacemaking was passed. Motion "That this Conference of Churches of Christ in Australia affirming that the Lord Jesus Christ is sovereign over this earth and that He is the Prince of Peace who restores complete harmony, calls on all Christians to join together to become peacemakers: (i) by praying for peace in an attitude of repentance for the attitudes and values which lead to war. (ii) by studying the scriptures, the history of the church and other material, to find God's way for peace and justice; (iii) by working towards a halt to the arms race and a freeze on the number of nuclear weapons; and to this end, Federal Conference of Churches of Christ in Australia--

      (i) commissions the Federal Conference Executive, in response to an emerging need within our congregations and particularly amongst young people, to actively encourage State Conferences to conduct within our congregations, a program of education for peace and justice, and to give all possible practical assistance to State Conference which conduct such programs.

      (ii) authorises Federal Conference Executive to expend limited funding to cover the education, program for peace and justice,

      (iii) recommends that state conference departments and affiliated churches co-operate with the Federal Conference Executive to become involved in education for peace and justice within local congregational and departmental programs.

      (iv) recommends that Federal Conference Executive, in co-operation with state social questions committees, prepare a biblical statement for study, reflection and action within our churches.

      (v) recommends that the faculty of the College of the Bible consider expanding its peace and justice studies within Biblical, Mission and Evangelism subjects in all its programs."

      c. RACISM

A.C., 1971, p. 198.

      Conference supported the United Nations International Year to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination and requested the Federal Government to ratify this year the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. Federal and State Governments were urged to review their policies, internal and external, to ensure that no support is given to racial discrimination. Social Service, Christian Education and Aborigines' Mission Departments were asked to prepare information and study material on the subject of race relations. Churches were requested to study race relations during 1971 to enable the 1972 Conference to make an informed statement and deal with specific issues which require Christian comment and action.

      d. CAPITALISM

A.C., 1972, p. 334.

      In the recent Action for World Development studies, concerned people kept asking, "What do we do next?" One thing we can do is to listen to Camara.

      Dom Helder Camara is R.C. Archbishop of Olinda and Recife in Brazil, a small figure with a wizened face and strong personal magnetism. He is waging a remarkable campaign on behalf of his underprivileged people and to many throughout the world, not only Roman Catholics, he is a hero, a saint or a prophet.

      He has just been to Britain where his simple, uncompromising, and uncomfortable message claimed that the peoples of the Third World are being plundered by the Dives nations of North America and Europe, whose vast international corporations use investment, trade patterns, and inter-governmental economic relations to maintain profiteering and restrict local self-development.

      He denounces capitalism as "fundamentally anti-Christian, having profit as its main concern and highest law," yet in rich countries it is not easy to accept that poor countries find the main cause of their misery in their exploitation by the super powers. It is easier to assume that the cause lies in the supposed inferiority of coloured peoples, their lack of hard work and honesty, and an explosive and irresponsible birth-rate. In fact, "the growing wealth of industrialised powers feeds itself on the injustices of international trade policies between rich powers and poor countries."

      He names major international corporations as being the supreme exploiters of poor countries like his own and shows in detail how specific companies, especially in the U.S., draw back annual profits ten times greater than the entire gross national product of the country in which they are operating.

      He says that underdeveloped countries are encouraged to adopt neo-capitalistic models of development which have nothing of authentic development in them, since they only promote the economic growth of privileged groups. With the collaboration of banks, insurance companies and investors, a false mystique of development is maintained, an effective barrier to the spirit of liberal education and truly human values."

      Although influenced by Marxism, he has no illusions about the defects of Communist systems in practice, and scathingly denounces Russia and China who "impose dialectic materialism by force and adopt a militant atheism. They have created a climate of suspicion, fear, denunciation, pseudo self-criticism and periodical purges." He fears that the Communist and capitalist super-powers are dividing the world into spheres of influence with little regard for the Third World Economic colonialism has taken over from political colonialism, but it is just as shackling.

      Dom Helder states that the Church's commission it to take seriously "A religion committed to the liberation of man, not only after death throughout a long and mysterious eternity, but also during this life here on earth. It is quite possible to care about eternal life and also to give counsel about what happens on earth. Christ came to free us from sin and the consequences of sin, from selfishness and the results of selfishness."

      In Brazil, Camara is unpopular with the government. Last year his personal secretary was assassinated and there has been at least one attempt on his own life. But he is a man of courage and refuses to be silenced.

      Brian Cooper who wrote about Camara in the "British Weekly" says that both Vatican II and Uppsala aligned the Church with the poor. "Dom Helder Camara is certainly doing so with a degree of conviction, compassion, and courage at great risk to himself, but with great hope for his people and great challenge to the Church and the rich nations. For in the diminutive figure of the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, the poor of the world have found a new, prophetic Christian voice."

      e. RHODESIA

A.C., 1972, p. 52.

To the Right Hon. Mr. William McMahon,
Prime Minister of Australia,
Parliament House,

Canberra, A.C.T., 2600.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

      On behalf of the Federal Conference of Churches of Christ I respectfully urge that you make intercession to the Prime Minister of Rhodesia for the release of Mr. R.S. Garfield Todd and of Miss Judith Todd from prison. It is apparent that they are incarcerated without trial or charges being laid against them Latest news releases state that they are held in separate prisons and in solitary confinement. Lord Pearce's comments of today laid disturbingly bare the disregard of human rights and the protective legal proceeding all people have a right to expect.

      This urgent request is made, Sir, on behalf of Australian people who cannot tolerate such injustice. Many people in this country were able to make their own evaluation in Australia of both the once Prime Minister of Rhodesia and of his daughter during their separate visits in 1970. We are convinced of the integrity of their stand on the issue of granting basic human rights to all. It is felt that the Australian Government from a long history of democracy could very well take such initiative as the one suggested.

--E.W. Roffey,      
Federal Conference Secretary,      
Churches of Christ in Australia.      

Mrs. R. S. Garfield Todd,
Hokonui Ranch,
P.O. Dadaya, Rhodesia.

Dear Mrs. Todd,

      It is at request of the Conference Executive and from my own desire that I write to express our deep concern to you that you and your family are called to pay such a price for your giving of yourselves to the people of Rhodesia. We know that this is done from a very deep love for all people and that it is motivated by the call of Christ. May God bless you all in your discipleship and witness . . .

      We recall with deep appreciation your husband's visit to our Federal Conference and to the World Convention in Adelaide in 1970. It was a privilege to me to correspond with and meet him at that time. His grace, frankness and deep commitment were all too evident. He has always been an inspiring figure to me, and to meet him lessened nothing of the image I had built of him.

      If you have the opportunity to talk with Mr. Todd or Judith, please convey our love and our hopes for sanity to correct this great injustice. And for yourself, please know that the prayers of the Australian brotherhood are with you and yours.

--E. W. Roffey,      
Federal Conference Secretary,      
Churches of Christ in Aust.      

A.C., 1976, pp. 36-37.

      The following article appeared in the Melbourne "Age" written by John Nedlin of the "Observer." Accompanying it was a news item indicating that Garfield Todd is being released to permit a visit of one month to his daughter, Mrs. Judith Acton, in England. Mrs. Acton said that under the terms of the permit, Mr. Todd would not be permitted to give any interviews or make any statements during his visit. Garfield Todd will return to Rhodesia to continue in detention.

      The leader of a faction of the Rhodesian Africa National Council, Joshua Nkomo, wants Mr. Todd released to join the ANC negotiating team in the current constitutional talks with the Government.

      Salisbury, February 1.--If a popularity poll were to be conducted among Rhodesia's 270,000 whites, their former Prime Minister, Garfield Todd, would doubtlessly hit the bottom

      His name is anathema to most whites who remember how--when the New Zealand born former missionary was a free man and able to speak his mind--Mr. Todd boldly championed the cause of majority rule for the 5.8 million blacks.

      That crusade landed the 68-year-old ex-premier in detention twice. And for the past four years, he has been under lonely house arrest in his 48,000 acre ranch in Ngwezi Valley.

      Mr. Todd last week began his fifth year as a detainee of Prime Minister Ian Smith's Government with a simple lunch with his wife, Grace, and a stroll around the grounds of his ranch.

      It was an anniversary that went unrecorded in Rhodesia, in terms of the Law and Order Maintenance Act under which Mr. Todd has been detained, his name cannot be published. Nor can he see anyone or speak to anyone on the telephone without the express permission of the police.

      "He's fine--under the circumstances," Mrs. Todd told me by telephone. "I'm the one who gets very emotional at this monstrous injustice."

      Mrs. Todd's bitterness was scarcely concealed as she spoke about the four years of restriction to his Hokonui Ranch.

      What disturbs Mr. Todd, according to his wife, is that he is becoming a forgotten man. "Since his name cannot be used in the Press or anywhere else, there are people who don't know that he has been locked away," she said.

      But he would never consider seeking authority to leave the country for good and he still refuses to go before a review tribunal to appeal against his case--on the grounds that such proceedings are held in camera and "this would deny him the opportunity of having the grounds for his detention aired before the court of public opinion."

      At the time of his arrest by special branch officers, Prime Minister Smith said that the move was "solely on the consideration of law and order in Rhodesia."

      At the time he seized independence illegally from Britain, Mr. Smith restricted him to Hokonui Ranch for a year, accusing him then of mixing with saboteurs and murderers.

      If the former missionary's reported preachings are any guide Mr. Todd is very much against violence. But he does advocate black rule in Rhodesia.

      "The Africans do not want to seek vengeance, simply their rights," he once told me. "But because of repressive measures and intransigence by the Government to entertain their wishes they are being forced to seek their just opportunities through violence."

      Such statements scarcely endear him to Rhodesia's prickly whites who have seized on such labels as "traitor," "commie," "Kaffir lover" and "scab" to smear his name.

      f. SOUTH AFRICA

A.C., 1975, p. 52.

Racial Discrimination in Southern Africa

      RESOLVED: This Conference

      (a) Condemns the apartheid policies of the South African Government and the Smith regime in Rhodesia because they are racist, and, in that respect, deny the will of God that all men be treated as equal and, in this respect, frustrate the will of God that all men might be free;

      (b) Urges the South African and Rhodesian authorities: (i) to abandon their policies of racial discrimination, (ii) to rescind all racist legislation;

      (c) Commends to the South African and Rhodesian authorities the need to establish the necessary political structure to enable all significant ethnic and political groups, including liberation movements, to arrive at a mutually acceptable multi-racial, democratic and egalitarian solution.

Investment in Southern Africa:

      RESOLVED: That this Conference

      1.

      (a) Urges church members and Conference bodies to withdraw money they may have invested in Australian and/or foreign companies operating in south Africa and/or Rhodesia.

      (b) Conference calls upon members and Conference bodies, when investing money, to be sure not to invest it with any company operating in Southern Africa.

      2. Urges the Australian Government to

      (a) Strictly police the trade boycott of Southern Africa;

      (b) Cease all economic co-operation between Australian Government Departments or public corporations land Southern Africa;

      (c) Use its constitutional powers to encourage companies in Australia to abandon any economic or trade links with Southern Africa except for humanitarian purposes.

      g. POLITICAL PRISONERS

A.C., 1975, p. 52.

      RESOLVED: That this Conference of Churches of Christ, believing that all men have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; that no person should be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; and that no person should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

      (a) requests the Federal Government

      (i) to pursue with vigour all avenues to induce governments of all countries to uphold the rights of all individuals according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

      (ii) to continue to press President Suharto to bring to trial immediately, or to release from prisons in Indonesia all untried political prisoners, and

      (b) urges all churches to support the efforts of Amnesty International to obtain justice for all prisoners of conscience.

      h. PARTY POLITICS

A.C., 1974, p. 225.

To the Editor,

      I was appalled when I read in the Sydney press on May 12 that a number of leading churchmen, including ministers of Churches of Christ, had subscribed to a document urging all Christians to vote for the Labor Party at the Federal Elections. The news item further stated that leaflets urging church members to vote for the Labor Party were handed out at church doors.

      Ignoring the argument as to whether church leaders are prudent or not in advising members of their churches as to what party they should give their allegiance, how church leaders could in all conscience subscribe to such a document is totally beyond my comprehension. How could they possibly advocate to other Christians that they should vote into power a party that is led by a man who openly asserts that he is not a Christian--who is but a "fellow-traveller" with Christians. A man, who to the personal knowledge of the writer, was given early advantage to become a Christian because he was brought up in a Christian home and attended church schools, but who obviously, of his own free will, chose to ignore his early teaching and background.

      For churchmen to advocate the candidature of a party led in no certain manner by a self-professed non-christian is, to my mind, highly reprehensible and deserving of the greatest censure. 1, for one, strongly protest at the action taken, particularly as it included ministers of our own churches, one of whom holds high office in the ecumenical movement.

Eric F. Morris, N.S.W.      

A.C., 1974, pp. 248-249.

To the Editor

      In our democratic system I would very strenuously defend every person's right to choose his own political allegiance, whether he be a minister of religion or indeed any other person. However, as a Christian whose membership in the Churches of Christ has continued for over 35 years, the last 20 years at least as a deacon; and as a Country Party Member of Parliament in the last Parliament and again in the new Parliament, I was extremely distressed to see two of our own church leaders, clearly identified as writing under the affiliation with "Church of Christ" publishing in the National Press with other clergymen, a clear recommendation to Australian electors to return the Labor Government to office.

      Whether it was intended or not, the "imprimatur" of the Australian Churches of Christ was implied, and very many of our members were very seriously upset at that action. Surely to be pawns in a political campaign which involved the Labor Party using sympathetic economists, educationalists,

students, and other groups including "clergy," to publicly participate in their promotion, is most unwise. For every group there is an equally impressive group with a completely opposite point of view. I do not expect that all members of the Churches of Christ share my own political philosophy, but I expect that the membership of our churches will share my own distress at the blatant association (through such a statement) of our brotherhood with any one side of the political campaign.

      As a Christian I could be equally decisive as to why I cannot find any commendation for a Labor Government whose term of office was highlighted by:--Close association with Communistic and antidemocratic nations--the midnight raids in Sydney--the acceleration of permissiveness--the erosion of the family unit--the move for abortion on demand--the blatant deception in supplying answers and information to Parliament which have subsequently been directly contradicted in the other House--the virtual abandonment of censorship and the flood of pornographic films and literature which has resulted -the vicious discrimination against primary producers and other groups with a lesser political voice, and so on. I suggest too that the clergy who praise the Government so warmly should attend just one session of Parliament and see how many Labor members attend the opening prayers preceding each sitting. It would prove most educational.

      The letter of the clergy even commends trade policies and other policies of the Government as worthy of support. I cannot help but inquire how they manage to presume to have such expertise and authority to offer such advice in such fields.

      By all means let every man vote as he wishes and as his conscience dictates, but please let not the brotherhood name of "Churches of Christ" be associated again in this manner in what was a bitter political campaign. As a Member of Parliament I receive helpful and encouraging letters from church leaders of many denominations on my stand in Parliament on a number of moral and spiritual issues. The two members of may own brotherhood who are our "leaders" were not among them. Perhaps they weren't aware that we were fighting to preserve our moral and spiritual values--they were possibly studying trade statistics so they could expertly advise the electors in that complex field.

--A. EVAN ADERMANN M.P.      
Federal Member for Fisher.      

To the Editor,

      Unlike Mr. Morris and the Board of Management at Doncaster (A.C. 1.6.74), where apparently the church members were not consulted on what the Board considered an important matter, I was very pleased to see the statement by church leaders, including Churches of Christ ministers, prior to the elections.

      I would have thought by now it was well known that such statements, unless otherwise stated, were the persons' individual views and not necessarily those of the church or organisation they represent. Mention is made of congregational liberty and individual freedom. Individual freedom is what these men were expressing in their document when they asked us to vote a particular way. We in turn express our individual freedom by accepting or rejecting their advice. These men have opinions and a conscience the same as the rest of us and give much thought to political and social matters, more thought I would suggest than the average person.

      Mr. Whitlam has made his position quite plain and we know where he stands, which is more than can be said for most politicians including the leaders of other parties. In all the election campaigning I didn't once hear any of the other party leaders proclaim themselves Christian or non-Christian. I would suspect that most of them are fellow-travellers in the true sense.

      When are we as a so-called brotherhood going to stop this business of criticising every little thing with which we disagree, of reading into public statements something which is never intended, maybe, you know, the other person just may happen to be right!

      We have a bigger and better job to do. Read again the gospel the life of our Master, see again how he was involved in the political and social life in His day. Remember it was our Lord who said "Love one another, as I have loved you."

P. Collyer, Vic.      

A.C., 1979, p. 87.

      24. Resolved that as many needs in society can be met through political change, this Conference encourages members to be active in the political processes which may involve joining the political party of their choice, attending branch meetings and urges that at all times compassion takes priority over

economic theory, that people are considered more important than things, and that human rights are available to all--irrespective of race, class, religion, economic condition, age or sex.

      i. TRADE UNIONS

A.C., 1979, p. 87.

      23. Resolved that as the trade union movement has become a powerful force in the nation, this Conference urges all church members, who are trade union members, to attend union meetings and seek responsible positions with a view to representing the principles of justice, goodwill, honesty, and equal opportunities for all, and also to use every opportunity for Christian witness.

      j. URANIUM

A.C., 1975, p. 254.

      Uranium. It was resolved that the Conference urge the Australian Government to sell uranium only to nations which will contract that the uranium will be used only for peaceful purposes and that there will be the utmost responsibility exercised in disposing of radio-active waste.

A.C., 1977, p. 175.

      That in view of the intense controversy surrounding the nuclear energy issue, and the questions this raises for Christians as stewards of the Lord's earth, this conference calls on individuals and churches to study and debate the Ranger Report and further, urges the Commonwealth Government to allow ample time for public and Parliamentary debates before any decisions are made on this matter.

A.C., 1977, p. 301.

      At long last, Australia has something which all the world wants and there is mounting pressure to sell it.

      With the economic importance of wheat, wool, and beef, diminishing, the way seemed to be opening to supply the world with a mineral valuable and plentiful (Australia is thought to have at least 20% of the world's uranium).

      It is ironical that there is so much opposition in Australia when many other nations have already decided to go ahead with nuclear power reactors. The decision, therefore, is not whether nuclear power will be used, but where the supplies of mineral will come from. The Australian Government and the mining industry have described the protests against uranium as unjustified and against the national interests.

      Christians have at least as great a responsibility as others to think through the issues involved, and we do not believe that there has been the discussion called for by the Fox Report.

      A few weeks ago we had referenda on four items that can be called comparatively minor when compared with the consequences of the uranium issue. Yet for those referenda items there were months of public debate, political leaders toured every State to present the case for 'And against, and expensively produced "Yes" and "No" material was delivered to every home.

      Now on a matter that could affect the whole future of mankind (and that is not being overdramatic), there has been little in the way of debate. There have been extreme statements from those supporting uranium mining and those opposing it, but little has been done to inform the public, patiently and clearly, to enable people to reach conclusions that will not only have economic advantages but will be seen to be right and good for men, women and children for today and tomorrow and for the small planet which is our home.

      We started by doing the right thing. There was a long enquiry, but the Fox Reports did not make decisions or present strong recommendations. It said that there are hazards in mining uranium and in operating nuclear power stations, but that these hazards to not justify halting uranium mining. The risk of contributing to nuclear warfare was recognized and concern was expressed in relation to the disposal of nuclear wastes. It was left to the Government to determine and enforce adequate safeguards.

      In response, an 11-points safeguards policy was announced, and there has followed a declaration that there has been enough discussion. We need to be convinced that the proposed safeguards will really work.

      We are not competent to say that there are no convincing answers, or that the safety problems are insoluble, but there is not enough evidence yet to justify a decision.

      1. In the many stages of mining, development, fuel transport, reactor operation, reprocessing, and waste disposal, there are immense and undisputed potential dangers of the release of plutonium and other radio-active materials, either deliberately or accidentally. We know that dangers cannot be completely eliminated, but are they sufficiently understood and responsibly evaluated?

      2. Some of the wastes, especially plutonium, are potentially dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years, for a far longer period than all of the history of the past. To be safe, these wastes have to be stored so as to survive earthquake, wars, social and political change. Has sufficient attention been paid to the problem of long-term disposal?

      The question of uranium mining and development is not simply one of economic advantage. It concerns universal human values and ethical judgments. Decisions in these areas should be made only after the widest possible discussion.

      We call for a delay of at least two years in order that further study can be made of all of the matters related to uranium mining, and that during that period the public be clearly informed of the advantages of uranium mining, the dangers and the short- and long-term safeguards to be applied.

      On matters so vital we feel that a referendum should then be held to obtain the reaction of an informed public. (Federal Conference Executive).

A.C., 1979, p. 87.

      25. Resolved that at present and future generations could be in jeopardy because of the misuse of uranium, this Conference urges our churches to sponsor or attend public meetings, "teach-ins" and public forums in which representative experts present the various cases in the areas of (a) Uranium and aboriginal land rights. (b) safe disposal of radioactive wastes. (c) safeguards against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. (d) any other relevant aspects and urges the church to make this issue a matter of prayer for all involved.

[NOF 732-755]