davidould.net

non angelus, sed anglus!

Melbourne and Abortion - an update, clarification and apology

Readers are probably aware that last month we posted a story entitled “Melbourne and Moloch“. Since posting, I’ve received a great deal of correspondence, both indirect and direct, complaining about various aspects of what was written. I think it is important at this time to clarify a number of matters from the original post.

While my intention was to raise some important ethical issues regarding a Christian approach to abortion, I have had brought to my attention some inaccuracies in my report which, though originally presented in good faith, were not true. Upon reflection I also realise that some of my language was intemperate and unnecessarily provocative. I now discover that on these accounts I have offended a number of brothers and sisters and for this I unreservedly apologise.

Resignations from the “think tank”

I wrote

...you canâ€™t have failed to have spotted that there were only women on the working group. That decision on its own should let you know the prejudices of those running this show. But the assertion that the report is â€śa consensus opinionâ€ť is complete baloney.
We were put onto this story about a week ago because of this outrageous claim. The truth of the matter is that two members of the group resigned rather than have their name put on the report. As we go on youâ€™ll see why that is. Those women, a source very close to them has told me, have been the subject of persistent harassment since then because of their refusal to sign the report. When the Bishop claims that this is a consensus he is either massively mistaken (and quite ignorant of the workings of the group that he convened) or lying to us. Our source tells us that the women named in the report are â€śhardly representative of the broad range of opinion in the Dioceseâ€ť.

Where I had claimed that a certain member of the â€śthink tankâ€ť had been harassed, I am now assured by her personally that she had not been harassed in any way. I am sorry to have caused her any distress. Nonetheless, it is also true that she resigned as a matter of principle, feeling unable to support the final report by the group. It is thus also apparent that the report could no longer claim to be a “consensus” or represent or reflect “the broad range of opinion in the Diocese”.

Use of the name “Moloch”

I have been criticised for equating the members of the “think tank” with Moloch by giving the post the title “Melbourne and Moloch”.

Comparisons have long been made between the rejection of the absolute sanctity of life that groups such as “pro-choice” advocates hold to and the ancient practice of sacrificing children to Moloch. Certainly, for many Christians abortion appears to be sacrificing the life of the unborn for other moral goods, and thus the parallel has often been drawn.

When I stated that fellow Anglicans had “bowed to Moloch”, I was not stating that those people were Moloch nor was I drawing parallels between the “think tank” and Moloch himself; I implied that the production of the report had submitted to the attitude and spirit of Moloch, by which I meant sacrificing the interests and life of the unborn child to a supposedly higher set of values. Of course, all Christians must be careful to submit themselves—their hearts and minds—to Jesus; and of course, all Christians fail at that goal and often submit themselves to the desires and attitudes of “false gods.“ I believe it was GK Chesterton who said, the human heart is a veritable “idol factory.“

However, I realise it was provocative language and easily misunderstood. I am sincerely sorry that my words were misunderstood and offence was taken and I am grateful for the opportunity to state that clearly here.

Abortion is an emotive subject, and rightly so for it involves the taking of human life. It is very easy for language by both sides to slip into intemperance. Where I have done so myself, or aggravated another into doing so, I am sorry.

I hope these two clarifications will aid readers in their understanding of this ongoing issue.

In reflecting upon this matter over the past week, two thoughts have occurred to me. The first is that since we are all sinners we will always fall short of the high standards that our Lord calls us to. However, the complete justification that the Cross brings teaches us that we may repent of these things and continue to tread our paths. Readers should be assured that, having made the above clarifications, we will continue to follow this and other stories.
The second thought is that on the Cross Jesus Christ, in enduring suffering that He did not deserve, showed us that we do not always need to be seen to be right. Good friends whose counsel I value highly have suggested that some of my apologies above are unnecessary, indeed that they compromise my integrity. That may or may not be true, but I am persuaded that the Cross speaks into that question as I have indicated and so I am happy to write all of the above without any reservation. The Cross speaks to us of the precious value of all life; that is why we are motivated to speak out again and again against abortion. That same Cross also speaks to us of reconciliation and truth; that is why I have written this article.

Posted by on 02/01 at 11:16 AM

The Molech (how I spell the same thing) link, I think is a very astute one… but I think it may be more deep seated as many view our relationship with God more closely to the worshipers of Molech than a Scriptural understanding of worship in receiving the gracious gifts of God in Spirit and Truth. Thus a Molech morality is not all that surprising.

Posted by on 03/02 at 12:12 AM
Good on you, Rev David. Tough to do. But needed doing.

But isn’t your second apology one of those apologies where you are sorry that the other person was offended, rather than actually sorry for anything that you were responsible for? Shouldn’t you have said ‘I am sorry that I used provocative language that was unclear and open to misunderstanding?‘

Posted by michael jensen on 03/03 at 02:31 PM

Page 1 of 1 pages

<< Back to main

Statistics

This page has been viewed 107918 times
Page rendered in 0.9742 seconds
Total Entries: 877
Total Comments: 3530
Total Trackbacks: 96
Most Recent Entry: 11/19/2008 01:28 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 11/18/2008 01:54 pm
Total Members: 5
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 10
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 11/20/2008 03:48 pm
The most visitors ever was 96 on 07/01/2007 09:30 am