Thursday, 26 May 2011

Time to get back in the kitchen, and knit that new set of saucepans

A number of things have happened up here in National Party heartland in the last two weeks.

The first ‘high’ point was that John and I have found ourselves immortalised in the pages of the Port Paper, my favourite scurrilous local paper. And page 2, no less.

For those of you that read my last rant, you would know that one of the things I objected to in my litany of complaint against the media was that the Port Paper had hired someone with no qualifications and touted him as an “expert” on climate change at a rally organised in part by themselves.

I emailed them and objected to what I saw was a blatant attempt to beat up hysteria about the carbon tax, and assured them that some people in this electorate did in fact support one.

Lo and behold, there were the names of John and myself enshrined on page two, as representing the voice of those who were happy to wear such a tax if it lead to cleaner air and less emissions. It is worthy of note that despite having my electronic text, the PP still managed to misquote us, and they carefully omitted all my objections to their alleged ‘facts’ in their article and to their rally.

So now I stand proudly alongside the likes of Mr Carp, who has been strangely silent the last two weeks. Perhaps he has fallen foul in an encounter with a groper, or has been removed from his habitat as an introduced and exotic species.

The next issue worthy of note is some further correspondence with our erstwhile local member, who is also Deputy Premier and leader of the State National party, Mr “72%” Andrew Stoner. You may remember that when we enrolled in this electorate, John received a welcome letter from him and I did not. I wrote and expressed my disappointment, and got a letter with a brief apology from his office.

In recent time, John and I wrote to Mr Stoner again, to express our disappointment at the reduction for the feed in tariff in the Solar Bonus Scheme. We receive the feed in tariff for our 6 solar panels, and signed an agreement with the government to this effect, and we felt retrospective legislation to remove this was a breach of contract, not to mention short sighted. Did you know that this scheme feeds around 365 MW of clean renewable energy into the NSW grid, and has the potential to remove the need for a new coal-fired power station if increased? We thought this was a great chance for the new government to really do something different and exciting, to help the state to reduce its reliance on coal, and to reward people who contribute to cleaner energy.

A lot of the objections to the government’s proposed action have in fact been from the North Coast, as there are many solar panel installers here, and many homes have taken advantage of this clean and renewable energy source. Our state members were shown together on TV, objecting to the deleterious effect on the people of the electorates here from Taree to Lismore. Except Mr Stoner, who was conspicuous by his absence. The solar industry is pretty big here, and employs a lot of people. The former state government’s incentive scheme has not only helped to keep our emissions down, but has employed many local people. In an area with the highest poverty rate in the state (yes, Oxley is officially the poorest electorate in NSW), this is a great feat. The letter was signed by myself and John.

The reply to our letter was pretty predictable. The last government’s debt was to blame, and that was that. No mention was made of the other issues we raised.

I could live with this, as this is what politicians do. When we lived in his electorate, Philip Ruddock used to send us screeds of photocopied information on Australia’s border policies when we objected to mandatory detention, so such tactics are nothing new.

BUT Mr Stoner (and he signed the letter even if he didn’t write it so the buck stops with him) wrote back to John and John only. Never mind we both signed as Reverend and joint ministers in our two positions here. Never mind that I actually wrote it and it was sent from my email address. Never mind that my name was listed first. In the reply, I had completely vanished.

Perhaps he? they? thought John as a man would be a more rational being to address. Perhaps in good Pauline fashion, Mr Stoner thought that in the home, the man is the head of the household and all information should be channelled through him.

Whatever he or the office staffers thought, I am deeply offended.

Mr Stoner, I find it unacceptable that you and your office persist in ignoring me and addressing all correspondence exclusively to my husband. If a letter is signed by both of us, I expect any response to be addressed to both of us. Whatever your own or the National Party views on women and their place in society are, I assure you I am not going to disappear into the CWA, a craft group or the kitchen. As more and more women like myself choose to live in places like Wauchope, it may be time to drag the National party into the 21st century, which you will find is an era that on the whole values women for their individuality, their skills, and their independent contributions to society.

If this is a religious thing, understand that the Uniting Church values, educates and ordains women into ministry and considers them equal to their male counterparts.

The earth is not flat, women are now educated, and we know that if we leave the domicile we will not fall off the edges. Yes, women belong in the house – but they also belong in parliament, churches, universities, law courts and management.

As it should be.

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

The Great Aussie Carbon Tax and why I am not revolting (with references)

As I have had a number of responses to this particualr blog, I have re-writtten it slightly to include all references in such a way that you can find them if you would like to read original documents for yourself.


I am tired of hearing about polls about which party is “winning” in the polls. I am very tired of hearing that the carbon tax will ruin us. I am sick of an insistence that we need a government budget surplus. I am tired of hearing about the pink batt debacle. I am wondering about the discernment and common sense of the great Australian public at the moment. I am particularly wondering about the propensity to believe anything that appears in the media, particularly if that media is on the conservative side. And I have been wondering why such information is believed, and how this information is processed.

Did you know that there was no real increase in fires during the insulation scandal? I am serious. Yes, there were fires caused by carelessness and ‘cowboy’ installers. But there always have been. The insulation scheme meant more batts were installed in more houses, so the number of fires therefore rose. The percentage (2.4%) remained stable. If you want to check this, read the CSIRO’s report on it (see http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/programs-and-rebates/hisp/reports/~/media/publications/hisp/factsheet-csiro-report.pdf). The great beat up by media and Opposition would have us believe that the fires and the cowboys were as a direct result of government policy. There were not. Yet no one reported this (with the exception of Crikey,com), or bothered to report the CSIRO’s findings when it they released. The common perception remains that the scheme caused more fires and more deaths. It didn’t.

I am also tired of hearing about our ruined economy. Watch SBS news, and see how many nations are still in deep strife from the World Financial crisis – Greece, Brazil, Italy to name three. We are not. Why? Because the government at the time was smart in its decisions. This is agreed by all our national economists. But is this the story we hear on the media?

And why must we always have a budget surplus? What is wrong with a debt that can be serviced, but may also provide important and necessary works in our country? Who nowadays is not in debt? Why should governments not have managed borrowings?

Being up here in National Party country, the big thing reverberating around the paddocks and beaches is the carbon tax. My favourite local paper wants me to believe that a carbon tax will bankrupt me, that no other country has such a tax, and that the climate is really cooling. I was fascinated by this last statement, and immediately got online to look up the credentials of the climate change expert that they had hired for the anti-carbon tax rally, and who was making this assertion.

The first thing I found was a rebuttal of one of the expert’s papers by a climate change scientist who described it as possibly the worst paper ever written on the subject. The next thing I noticed was the same information about the expert cited over and over again by various small newspapers and conservative groups such as Quadrant. Even on the expert’s own website, there was no biography or list of qualifications, and when I read one of his papers, he cited his own ‘research’ as evidence. The best I could find in regard to his qualifications was a newspaper who stated that the expert was from Perth and had a BSc in geology.

Mmmmm. Expert? Climate change scientist? I think not, yet here he was last Sunday addressing a rally of people against carbon tax, acknowledged as a climate change scientist and expert. The earth is cooling, and CO2 is harmless. Everything is OK, and Labor are ripping you off for no reason. And according to the paper, apparently this crowd believed him. Why? A few minutes searching showed this man is probably a fraud. Even if the crowd had no access to the Net, the paper did. Why didn’t they check his credentials?

Have you wondered why the shock jocks of radio keep trotting out the same experts rather than having a debate from both sides? One of their current favourites is Prof. Ian Plimer, a respected geologist who has written a book on climate change, stating we are in a ‘normal’ cycle of warming. What they don’t tell you is that he is also director of three mining companies, and is Chairperson of TNT Mines Ltd. The Age newspaper reported he earned over $400,000 from these interests. Can he really claim objectivity?

I also checked whether other countries had carbon taxes, as I was pretty sure they did. The United Kingdom has one. The European Union has one that covers all their member countries. Finland, Norway, Denmark have one. Even certain American states have one. And the list went on. So why did the paper say Australia is alone in this? And it was clear that no one had been bankrupted from it, as I found in the following article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The SMH reported on March 8, 2011 that

A European Union climate expert has described Australian opposition to a carbon tax as bizarre, diplomatically pointing out Britain's Conservatives were more co-operative in opposition.

Jill Duggan, who managed Britain's initial emissions trading scheme (ETS), said there was an incorrect perception that Australia would be going it alone if it put a price on carbon.

"The thing that struck me is how the debate has changed here and also that wide perception that I keep hearing that Australia shouldn't go first," she told reporters in Canberra today.

"Coming from Europe, that sounds slightly bizarre because there are 30 countries in Europe that have had a carbon price ... since the beginning of 2005." Ms Duggan also dismissed suggestions that a carbon price would push up electricity prices dramatically, arguing higher oil and commodity prices accounted for three-quarters of the 40 per cent increase in power bills during the first year of an ETS in Britain.

Job losses were also minimal, with the European ETS creating service-sector jobs in Britain.

"I don't think we can think of any jobs losses that are the direct result of carbon policy," Ms Duggan said.

Note that Australia has been called ‘bizarre’ for not doing what other industrialised nations are doing. The Sydney Morning Herald managed to do its homework, and this was placed on the AAP service. So why haven’t other media picked it up, and are in fact promoting the opposite? And why do people believe them?

Media Watch tonight pointed out that many of the reports of the cost of a carbon tax – in particular The Daily Telegraph - cited a rise in household bills of around $840 a year. This broke down to: Power (carbon tax): $300 Food (carbon tax): $390 Petrol (carbon tax): $150 (Daily Telegraph, 11th May, 2011). As MW showed, none of this is based in fact. The group (Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal) and the document they allegedly cited (IPART, Electricity - Final Report, April 2011) did not put a figure on the rise of electricity bills as it stated clearly it has as yet no price on carbon. It didn’t stop the Telegraph citing a figure, and I am sure their readers believed them.

Part of the answer came from watching Q & A tonight. Anna Rose, a splendid young woman from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition suggested that politics was too complex to be represented by a media bite of a few minutes, yet this was how much of the information on the electronic media is presented. Tony Abbott presents as a strong leader because he is black and white on issues, and delivers the aforesaid bites. Unlike Julia Gillard, he has no need to negotiate complex issues with others, he is not constrained by a power sharing arrangement, and he doesn’t have to make – and live by – the daily decisions of the Government. Life is more complex than Tony would have us believe. Politics is more complex than Tony’s spin. The truth is out there, though don’t look for it in Tony’s comments about a carbon tax.

I still remember the claims of the tobacco companies that smoking was not injurious to health. It was debated by lawyers, doctors, smokers and the media. For years the companies claimed there was no evidence to support the claim. They lied, and have been sued successfully for this. I have a strong and very sad sense of déjà vu as the issue of climate change and the harm we are causing our planet unfolds before me.

The truth is that many of us just can’t face the reality. To accept this and do something about it means a radical reordering of society. It means giving up our current first world life style. Can we do this? Will we pay the money need to change the course we are on? Probably not.

What is the cost of this gullibility and studied ignorance to our nation? To our planet? Even to our local communities? What are we at risk of losing when we blindly swallow these black and white minute long bites of bullshit?

An educated nation is in a much better position to survive than an uneducated one. A thinking nation will act smart. There is nothing to be gained by blind ignorance.

All you media types out there, you have a duty of care to tell the truth, to inform responsibly and to check your facts and sources. Don’t just go for that controversial angle or sound bite. It is time to give the whole picture, so everyone has access to the whole story. We don’t all watch obscure documentaries. Truth should be mainstream, not just found on the ABC and SBS. We deserve much better than what we are being dished up.

Monday, 16 May 2011

The Great Aussie Carbon Tax and why I am not revolting

I am tired of hearing about polls about which party is “winning” in the polls. I am very tired of hearing that the carbon tax will ruin us. I am sick of an insistence that we need a government budget surplus. I am tired of hearing about the pink batt debacle. I am wondering about the discernment and common sense of the great Australian public at the moment. I am particularly wondering about the propensity to believe anything that appears in the media, particularly if that media is on the conservative side. And I have been wondering why such information is believed, and how this information is processed.

Did you know that there was no real increase in fires during the insulation scandal? I am serious. Yes, there were fires caused by carelessness and ‘cowboy’ installers. But there always have been. The insulation scheme meant more batts were installed in more houses, so the number of fires therefore rose. The percentage remained stable. If you want to check this, read the CSIRO’s report on it. The great beat up by media and Opposition would have us believe that the fires and the cowboys were as a direct result of government policy. There were not. Yet no one reported this, or bothered to report the CSIRO’s findings when it they released. The common perception remains that the scheme caused more fires and more deaths. It didn’t.

I am also tired of hearing about our ruined economy. Watch SBS news, and see how many nations are still in deep strife from the World Financial crisis. We are not. Why? Because the government was smart in its decisions. This is agreed by all our national economists. But is this the story we hear on the media?

And why must we have a budget surplus? What is wrong with a debt that can be serviced, but may also provide important and necessary works in our country? Who nowadays is not in debt? Why should governments not have managed borrowings?

Being up here in National Party country, the big thing reverberating around the paddocks and beaches is the carbon tax. My favourite local paper wants me to believe that a carbon tax will bankrupt me, that no other country has such a tax, and that the climate is really cooling. I was fascinated by this last statement, and immediately got online to look up the credentials of the climate change expert that they had hired for the anti-carbon tax rally, and who was making this assertion.

The first thing I found was a rebuttal of one of the expert’s papers by a climate change scientist who described it as possibly the worst paper ever written on the subject. The next thing I noticed was the same information about the expert cited over and over again by various small newspapers and conservative groups such as Quadrant. Even on the expert’s own website, there was no biography or list of qualifications, and when I read one of his papers, he cited his own ‘research’ as evidence. The best I could find in regard to his qualifications was a newspaper who stated that the expert was from Perth and had a BSc in geology.

Mmmmm. Expert? Climate change scientist? I think not, yet here he was last Sunday addressing a rally of people against carbon tax, acknowledged as a climate change scientist and expert. The earth is cooling, and CO2 is harmless. Everything is OK, and Labor are ripping you off for no reason. And according to the paper, apparently this crowd believed him. Why? A few minutes searching showed this man is probably a fraud. Even if the crowd had no access to the Net, the paper did. Why didn’t they check his credentials?

I also checked whether other countries had carbon taxes, as I was pretty sure they did. The United Kingdom has one. The European Union has one that covers all their member countries. Finland, Norway, Denmark have one. Even certain American states have one. And the list went on. So why did the paper say Australia is alone in this? And it was clear that no one had been bankrupted from it, as I found in the following article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The SMH reported on March 8, 2011 that

A European Union climate expert has described Australian opposition to a carbon tax as bizarre, diplomatically pointing out Britain's Conservatives were more co-operative in opposition.

Jill Duggan, who managed Britain's initial emissions trading scheme (ETS), said there was an incorrect perception that Australia would be going it alone if it put a price on carbon.

"The thing that struck me is how the debate has changed here and also that wide perception that I keep hearing that Australia shouldn't go first," she told reporters in Canberra today.

"Coming from Europe, that sounds slightly bizarre because there are 30 countries in Europe that have had a carbon price ... since the beginning of 2005." Ms Duggan also dismissed suggestions that a carbon price would push up electricity prices dramatically, arguing higher oil and commodity prices accounted for three-quarters of the 40 per cent increase in power bills during the first year of an ETS in Britain.

Job losses were also minimal, with the European ETS creating service-sector jobs in Britain.

"I don't think we can think of any jobs losses that are the direct result of carbon policy," Ms Duggan said.

Note that Australia has been called ‘bizarre’ for not doing what other industrialised nations are doing. The Sydney Morning Herald managed to do its homework, and this was placed on the AAP service. So why haven’t other media picked it up, and are in fact promoting the opposite? And why do people believe them?

Media Watch tonight pointed out the many of the reports of the cost of a carbon tax – in particular The Telegraph - cited a rise in power bills of around $200 a year. As MW showed, this is not based in fact. The group and the document they allegedly cited did not put a figure on the rise of electricity bills. It didn’t stop the Telegraph citing a figure, and I am sure their readers believed them.

Part of the answer came from watching Q & A tonight. Anna Rose, a splendid young woman from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition suggested that politics was too complex to be represented by a media bite of a few minutes, yet this was how much of the information on the electronic media is presented. Tony Abbott presents as a strong leader because he is black and white on issues, and delivers the aforesaid bites. Unlike Julia Gillard, he has no need to negotiate complex issues with others, he is not constrained by a power sharing arrangement, and he doesn’t have to make – and live by – the daily decisions of the Government. Life is more complex than Tony would have us believe. Politics is more complex than Tony’s spin. The truth is out there, though don’t look for it in Tony’s comments about a carbon tax.

What is the cost of this blind gullibility to our nation? To our planet? Even to our local communities? What are we at risk of losing when we blindly swallow these black and white minute long bites of bullshit?

An educated nation is in a much better position to survive than an uneducated one. A thinking nation will act smart. There is nothing to be gained by blind ignorance.

All you media types out there, you have a duty of care to tell the truth, to inform responsibly and to check your facts and sources. Don’t just go for that controversial angle or sound bite. It is time to give the whole picture, so everyone has access to the whole story. We don’t all watch obscure documentaries. Truth should be mainstream, not just found on the ABC and SBS. We deserve much better than what we are being dished up.

Saturday, 7 May 2011

What had happened on the road
(the Road to Emmaus --
Luke 24)

The gospel text set for Sunday 8 May (Easter 3) is a very rich text. We are taking it as the focus for our sermon and presenting it in dialogue form. We hope that our reflections on this very familiar passage might be of interest to readers of this blog.

Elizabeth: It starts with two demoralized disciples walking to Emmaus. They don't recognize the traveller who joins them, but they welcome him and engage in conversation. To their surprise, it is this stranger who explains to them the meaning of what has just happened in Jerusalem, and he does so by making use of the whole of scripture. He appears to offer a new and unheard of interpretation of scripture. He is hoping that they might find a new meaning in their lives and be empowered by this interpretation, until the moment when they recognize their companion in the breaking of the bread, and he vanishes.

John: Well, yes, I know this story well; and I know it has been used to help individuals reflect on their own individual faith journey. But I think it also has something important to offer, to help understand the way that we look at the world as a whole. It is the presence of the Lord who interprets scripture, which makes it possible for the hearers to think about what has happened to them; and they restructure their understanding of these things; and then, fired up with enthusiasm, they go out to reconstruct the world.

Yes, I can see how the story reflects this. But I also think that this story, one of encounter, listening, response, recognition, fellowship over a meal, and mission, is also a Uniting Church story. It is a story about being on the way, about going forward together with Jesus; about being a pilgrim people, on the way towards…well, if not the promised goal, as the Basis of Union says, then at least the next village, as Luke reports.

I agree with you. And not only is this a Uniting Church story that sums up the whole denomination; this, in fact, is a Uniting Church story that encompasses every local Uniting Church, rural, urban, regional, big, small, clergy or lay led. For this story is full of the essential elements of life that are at the very heart of the Uniting Church—starting, of course, with the most common activity of all: conversation, dialogue, discussion, even debate. Surely this symbolises all of our journeys, for without conversation, we are probably not going to get very far along the road.


Indeed. I would like to explore this idea further. Let us begin with the elements of what is being discussed. I mentioned encounter, listening, response, recognition, fellowship over a meal, and mission as the essential elements of the story. And the story begins with a pastoral encounter, the first tentative steps of making some connections between the two travellers and their one unknown companion.

The first thing that Jesus, the unknown companion, does in this encounter is listen. The recent experience of the two travellers is seared into their hearts; they must speak about it, even to a stranger, even though they do not know whether that stranger is interested, or has the pastoral skills to give them some gentle guidance through their distress.


I see the point you are making. As congregations, we are called to listen to those we meet along the way. We need to understand where the people we meet are at. We need to learn something of their context. The unknown companion of the two travellers does not respond immediately; instead, he listens to their words as they talk about their experience of loss, and their disappointment. It is clear that they couldn’t make sense of what has happened.

I think they are trying to make sense of it – they are drawing on their own traditions and history to try and understand. Isn’t that what we all do? We rely on our experience and traditions to inform us about the present. The two disciples are blunt: “we thought he was a prophet, we hoped he was the one who would redeem Israel; but he didn’t fit this historical and scriptural understanding of ours, we expected him to save us, not go to his death on the cross.”

Well traditionally, I guess we might have judged them too harshly for not recognizing Jesus. I can see how their experience was one of grief and despair; all their hopes had been dashed, they had lost their friend and leader. It would have been important to understand their context.

Yes, this is a good lesson for us. On the road of faith we take as congregations in our communities, how many disillusioned Christ-followers do we find along the way? Where have they seen Christ crucified? Have they seen him crucified again in the church as congregations fight various battles, and wondered if they or the church were living a delusion as Christians? It is a good point the story makes.

………………

Is it significant then, that, on the first occasion that the unknown stranger opens his mouth to respond to them, he speaks not gentle words of comfort, but confronting words of challenge? “Oh, how foolish you are!”

Well, it does seem rather harsh. Are you saying that is how we should be acting? What is the right response in this pastoral encounter?

To us it may seem like an odd line of approach, berating one’s fellow-travellers in regard to how slow they were to believe. But think of this ancient, first century context. The stranger presented as a prophet, a prophet quoting scripture. We assume that everyone then, would listen to a prophet.

This unknown stranger addresses the questions of the two by turning to scripture. (Here my bias is clearly displayed.) And not just a limited selection of scripture passages; no, here a full curriculum of biblical study is indicated: “he interpreted to them…all the scriptures”. Ah, the luxury of a completely comprehensive bible study!

So the stranger has become a biblical scholar and a prophet.

Yes. The key word that is used here, is important—it identifies the heart of scripture: the issue of interpretation. The stranger does not respond by reading or reciting the scripture to the two companions; he interprets it. Knowing the text is one thing; but understanding the text is another matter.

So on this learning journey, it seems that this part of it, the study of scripture, was so important as to occupy the remainder of the journey, right up until they drew near to the village.

But let’s not be slow to recognize that their impromptu study of scripture is not isolated from their experience, their understanding of history, or their theological explorations. All of these things feed into the biblical analysis that the stranger now offers them. Otherwise, how could it have made sense?

So: Another question for us as congregations is, just how ready are we to come alongside the disillusioned ones we meet and show them God's truth about Christ as revealed in scripture, cover to cover? How great an emphasis do we put on understanding and interpreting scripture? Do we encourage our members to learn more about scripture so they are well equipped for this task?

Of course, referring to the scripture alone won't work when we're talking to people for whom scripture or the church has no particular authority. These people will need to see the truth of the resurrection revealed in the life of our worshiping communities—how we live in response to the truth that Christ has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again. When they come to trust us, then maybe they'll come to trust the scriptures as they see what we do to live them out, or at least striving to do so.

………………

Well, that is encounter, listening and response taken care of – what about recognition and then fellowship?

I am getting to that! I think it is important that we recognize what happens next. Despite the prophetic encounter, these disciples are still grieving and unhappy. But they do something amazing. They reach out in hospitality, although their hearts are breaking, and they are emotionally tired and worn. As Jesus prepares to walk on to his next destination, they invite him to supper. And mysteriously, they are rewarded. Suddenly they recognize Jesus as the one who was with them.

Ah, but I can see there is more to this than recognizing Jesus. You are suggesting that it is especially important that they recognised him in the breaking of the bread. It is quite poetic really:

In the moment of pause, recognition takes place.
It is a significant a step forward in the formation of the travellers.
In the moment of pause, comes the mystery of God’s presence,
sensed in a new, more intense, more compelling way,
even in the midst of the familiar routines,
the predictable patterns of table and bread,
blessing and offering, eating and drinking.

It was the breaking of bread which was the transforming event; it was
“then their eyes were opened”. In the ordinary and mundane world,
suddenly they were aware they were in the presence of God.

Do you think congregations have ever stopped to wonder why it is that the central act we perform to remember Jesus, namely the Eucharist, is a meal? In theory, it could have been anything -- a special dance, a song, erecting booths, you name it. Heck, it could have been a sporting tournament (which no doubt would boost church attendance in some circles!). But it isn't. It's a meal.

Yes, it is a meal, and every time we break bread in this way, we are invited to do so in remembrance of Jesus. But it is more than that, especially in Luke’s gospel. At Jesus' table, all are invited to join the feast. Jesus ate with prostitutes and Pharisees, treating them with equal dignity, and we are called to do the same. One of the reasons I really like this gospel is that Jesus is always eating with someone. Luke 7:34 is one of my favourite verses, I could even adopt it as an epitaph – “Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend to tax collectors and sinners.”

Mmmm. I can see why that appeals to you. I guess Jesus had this reputation because he was known for dining with everyone who asked -- even to the point of sitting down with over five thousand people spontaneously for a meal. It would be great if the Uniting Church’s practice of table fellowship gave us the same kind of reputation.

And at Jesus' table, the walls between people come down. When Jesus sat down with five thousand strangers for a meal, slave and free, Jew and Greek, male and female sat down together, in one place, to eat it was unheard of in the ancient world. Indeed, how common is it for us to have people from many different socioeconomic backgrounds and ethnicities gathered around the table in our congregations? Shouldn’t we be encouraging this sort of practice?

………………

Well, I would like to know whether you think it is significant that it is at this moment that Jesus disappears? Why does it happen at this precise point? Why did Jesus ‘vanish from their sight’? How disturbing for the disciples!

Sooner or later they were going to have to press on and discover the way ahead for themselves. They needed this boost to be confident of Jesus’ calling, but they also needed to go on alone themselves. He couldn’t be around forever, you know.

I know, but I empathise with them. I take your point they need to keep going, and that it was impossible for them to hold onto the Jesus they knew. For all of us, mystical experiences come and go. Moments of assurance are often fleeting. Inspiration is short lived. But despite this, God invites us to remember, and by remembering we create new memories and new possibilities. As this story notes, hospitality is the open door to creative transformation and an expanded vision of what is possible.

………………

We are almost at the end of our journey. We must be up to mission.

Yes we are. The experience of sharing scripture and breaking bread has reoriented the travellers. From their experience at table, in the presence of God, they can review their experience on the road and the events that led them there, and put them into a new framework.

I bet they especially recalled the comprehensive, stimulating, invigorating, exhilarating time when they immersed themselves in the scriptural texts.
“Were not our hearts burning …while he was opening the scriptures?”
This was no dry intellectual exercise; this was a life-transforming experience.

Your bias is showing! But now I can see that the process has turned full circle; earlier on, scripture has illuminated experience; now, experience further illuminates scripture. The events in Jerusalem needed explanation; scripture provides resources to grapple with them.

What you said about a new framework is right. The experience at table has opened new perspectives, so the texts need reconsideration, re-viewing, re-reading; most importantly, I can see how this scrutiny and analysis
must have led them to action. “So they got up and returned to Jerusalem.”

………………

And so, at last, the moment we’ve been waiting for;
returning back home, approaching their congregation, ready to go.
Hey people, look at us; we’ve been changed!!
Remember what we were like when we left you??
Now we are back, and look what has happened to us!!!

Yes, now it was time to put that excitement into a mission plan for those communities the disciples had left behind. It was time to be identifying with the needy, proclaiming the gospel, being on mission, doing “real” ministry… do you think we are still good at this in our congregations?

Good question – what does the story say? It says that when they approached their congregation, the disciples find they are listening to the stories of the crowd who stayed home – and they too have experienced the missio dei
the actions of God in the ordinary places of the church…and they want to tell it out for all to hear!

As we ponder the end of the journey for us,
let us be open to the important pastoral moment, the moment of true mission:
when the story of the people draws us into a pastoral encounter,
when we can listen with due attention to the context of the story,
where we can respond with an awareness of history and tradition,
where we can offer biblical understanding,
a theological awareness of the Eucharistic meal,
and missionary leadership,

we create a moment where we can share our understanding,
nurture people’s faith, build up the church, and serve God in the world.

………………

So go, journey,
travel onwards as the people of the risen one;

In the midst of the ordinary,
be attentive to the mystery;
To the opportunity of the moment,
bring gifts and resources ;
At the time of encounter,
be open to the story;

And may the stranger that is Jesus
guide you, confront you,
serve you, equip you;
to go forth with God’s blessing, to love and to serve.

In the name of Christ: Amen.