The June issue of Australian Presbyterian arrived. Yes, I know the date today, but living in the country we’re just happy if the mail turns up at all.
This month’s cover feature is on the subject of ethics. A very broad topic.
The feature interview is with Dr. Scott Rae, a Christian ethicist of note. The interview is more of a survey of the major ethical areas which are currently of note in the public arena and Rae’s insights into them. Prominent are issues surrounding attitudes to the life of the unborn, the profoundly disabled and the old. A good primer on these issues, with particular regard for attitudes toward life in a society which is increasingly moving away from any conviction about an inherent dignity or sanctity of human life.
Douglas Milne seeks to provide a more detailed exploration of contemporary trends in bioethics. His conclusions should raise our concerns.
Articles from Richard D Phillips on purity in the face of sexual temptation reprinted from the Reformation 21 website and an article reprinted from Christianity Today dealing with the resumption of the sale of indulgences round out the feature articles.
I missed the fact that the various Church and Nation Committees or Public Questions Committees of our State and Federal Assemblys were not referenced. They are doing some significant work and have major opportunities for input in the public arena on ethical issues. A survey of some of their recent works would have been welcome.
As a representation of this, my friend David Palmer, the chair of the Victorian Church and Nation committee provides an update on the ‘Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21st Century Project’. The article demonstrates just how much work these committees and their members have to do to have a comprehensive understanding of these situations and the opportunities that are available for meaningful and well thought out submissions. This is just one case study, there are many other similar projects being pursued accross our denomination.
The letters page lacked a certain cogency. This is a problem that arises when writers make reference to a response in an earlier issue that in turn was a response to a letter that they wrote in the first place. Even for someone who does read every issue it’s hard to remember what’s going on sometimes. I don’t know what first time readers would make of it. Still, they can only publish what people send in.
The issue closes out with some useful observations by Peter Barnes on public reactions to recent scandals which have plagued the sport of Rugby League. As I type this tonight yet another player has been fined and suspended for disgraceful behaviour which has nothing to do with his sporting prowess, but which is a reproach on the culture of the Code. Yet there are those who are talking on the late news of the person in question having made a ‘mistake’. Few things are wrong, but many are inadvisable, it seems.
Hmmm, sounds like an ethical morass, doesn’t it?
mgpcpastor's blog 