It is no longer possible for anyone to go on claiming that everything Kim Jong-il does is an effort to get America's attention, or that he just wants to go into the next round of disarmament talks with a stronger hand. Nor can anyone seriously argue that all these hugely expensive exercises are aimed at securing more economic aid.

In short, it has become obvious that North Korea's nuclear and military provocations and the escalating belligerence of its rhetoric are motivated by domestic political considerations instead. This does not mean that we must now waste time speculating about which of Kim's sons will someday take over, or whether the army and the party are struggling for power. It hardly matters who succeeds Kim. All players in the elite are wedded to the same paranoid, race-based nationalism, without which the country has no reason to exist at all.

Over the past 15 years the regime in Pyongyang has painted itself into an ideological corner — or, to put it better, it has pushed itself up to the edge of an abyss. Kim Jong-il shook off responsibility for economic matters in the mid-1990s in order to avoid public blame for the famine. The propaganda machine claimed that his new "military first" regime would henceforth be too busy defending the country from the Yankees (who in fact were sending aid at that time) to bother with economic issues. This line not only maintained support for Kim, but also enabled officials at the provincial level to begin dismantling the command economy.

The West, of course, was overjoyed to note that the North Koreans no longer took all that Communist nonsense seriously. But the spread of capitalist values is what made the current string of nuclear provocations inevitable. Simply put, the more North Korea resembles a third-rate South Korea on the economic front, the more the Kim Jong-il regime must justify its existence through a combination of radical nationalist rhetoric and victories on the military and nuclear front. This is why North Korea will never disarm, for to do so would be to declare itself irrelevant.

Some in the West are now suggesting that North Korea's nuclear capability must be accepted as a fait accompli, but that is no solution either. Needing constant tension with the outside world for his own political survival, Kim Jong-il is no more interested in winning international acceptance of his nuclear ambitions than in normalizing relations with Washington. The West must assume that he will always find a way to make his nukes unacceptable, while at the same time engaging sporadically in arms talks to keep the tension from tipping into all-out war.

It is time for America to shift its focus from negotiating with North Korea to negotiating with the Chinese about North Korea. Beijing understands how vital these nuclear provocations are to Pyongyang's survival, which is why it continues to bankroll them. Washington must therefore do more to assuage Beijing's fears of a collapse of the Kim Jong-il regime. Let us remember how opposed the Soviet Union was to a unified Germany, until NATO came up with a promise not to station troops in the former East Germany. It would be a step in the right direction for the United States to assure the Chinese that they will never have to face American troops along the Yalu River.

One thing is certain: We cannot simply wait for Kim's death and hope for the best, because whoever succeeds him is going to need an especially dramatic military crisis to legitimize his rule. What we have seen in the past few weeks may well end up looking tame in comparison.

Soon I shall be a name on a list of vicars past. One day, all will be distant memory. New vicars will come and go . . . Has anything lasting been achieved? I built a new building. But one day that will be demolished for another. In the great scheme of things, it is as passing as a well-struck five iron.

One of my favourite verses from scripture is 1 Timothy 6.16, where we are told that God alone is immortal. It is worth spelling out. The only thing that will last for ever is God—not Giles Fraser, not Putney Church, not even the planet itself.

Folk religion commonly imagines the soul continuing after death, with scant reference to the existence of the Almighty. It is as if the immortality of the human soul is something that happens by itself, under its own steam. No: without God, we are food for daffodils and nothing else besides.

This means that the desire for some sort of solid and permanent achievement over time is utterly impossible without the author of life itself. Achievement is little more than a soon-to-be-forgotten name on a board. The only thing we have is God, and it is only by indexing our existence to that reality, only by participating in the divine life, that we find the permanence that we so often crave.

It is counter-intuitive, but the firmest foundations for life are to be discovered in activities that do not have a look of concrete-and-steel solidity: acts of loving kindness and the life of prayer. "Solid joys and lasting treasure None but Sion's children know."

It is clear the problem was not just "a few bad apples" or even a whole barrel of them, but the arrogance of an almighty Church too powerful for its own good. It is useless to blame the state or society for allowing it to happen. The blame lies within the Church itself. The power and the glory that were so badly misused had a theological, even ideological, basis. This told the Church that it was "a true and perfect society" (in the words of Pius IX): whatever it did was right, and whatever might contradict that impression had to be suppressed. Only "bad Catholics" would dare whisper it. If the Church has a future in Ireland it will be because it now has the courage to say such things to itself out loud, and repudiate the habitual abuse of power that lay behind all the other horrors. . . .

One priest's reaction sums up Ireland's increasing fury over the sexual and physical abuse suffered by so many of its children, and the cover-ups and paltry compensation offered by the religious orders guilty of such appalling crimes against those in their care.

"They raped me on a Saturday, gave me an unmerciful beating afterwards, and then gave me Communion on Sunday. My God."

... To try to calm public outrage, the Minister for Justice said he would ask the police to study Ryan's revelations in the light of possible criminal proceedings. Undaunted, the head of the Conference of Religious of Ireland still insisted that "the deal is done", which left one archbishop, Dr Diarmuid Martin of Dublin, to reiterate the question asked of the orders by the Ryan team: "What happened that you drifted so far away from your own charism?"

It is said that the Ireland of these horrors was a theocracy. In as far as the word has any meaning, this is probably correct. It is difficult to outline now the fabric of a culture in which the Catholic Church was the effective moral government of Irish society, deferred to by state institutions and personnel. Violence was taken for granted in a way that is certainly no longer the case. Although I was never in one of the institutions implicated in this week's report, I grew up in a culture wherein men and women in the uniform of the Catholic Church would make daily attempts to inflict on me serious physical pain. They did not do this because they were stupid, or because they had not watched enough current affairs programmes on television. Curiously enough, they did it because they were trying to "civilise" me. The irony at the heart of this story is that the brutality now adumbrated arose not from any condition of backwardness, but from a desire to drive a society towards what was understood as civilisation.

... The dominant ideological proposition was that troublesome children were a threat to public order, rendering justifiable almost any means deemed necessary for their subjugation. A child sucked into this system was made beyond the embrace of public compassion.

There has been a lot of talk about "the culture of the time", as though there must in the recent past have existed some less civilised understanding than is available now. What this analysis proposes is that, 50 or so years into the past, the underdeveloped nature of the human mind, as it existed in Ireland, was such that it was believed appropriate to beat and torture little children, and only the enlightenment of the present moment enables us to see that this was not a good thing. This is dangerous nonsense because it enables us to perpetrate in the present precisely the same culture of denial in respect of horrors happening today. It is, in particular, a strange defence for a follower of Jesus Christ to proffer in defence of their institution. For if the thinking of the 1950s has become so exposed in the glare of modern enlightenment, what might happen next? What view will the future Church take of today's Church? And where does this leave the eternal word of Christ?

There was nothing intrinsically "backward" about the barbarism of the 1950s, any more than there is anything intrinsically backward about the barbarism of 2009. Barbarism is barbarism, past or present.

First, there is a denial of the proper goodness of creation, of human createdness, of all that is good about natural human living as made by God. This has been justified by an interrelated understanding of sin and of perfection. So when the Church has taught about sin, it has done so in such a way that much of human life, and especially human desire, has been understood as essentially concupiscence, or sinfully driven desire, and often located in the 'flesh' and even more specifically in sexuality. ...

This is linked intimately to the second element: the belief that the essential flaw in humanity is pride and that therefore the key spiritual work is to break the human will. Thus both human desire and human will are portrayed in a largely negative light.

The third element is the Church's frequent inability to live in a counter-cultural way, in particular when related to the social, economic and political hierarchies of human societies. …

The fourth element enters the picture when the Church — the visible institutional Church — takes to itself inappropriate and unwarranted authority and becomes a master rather than a servant, pretending to be infallible rather than honestly fallible and structurally designed to manage the consequences of fallibility. For someone nurtured in the Evangelical tradition, I have to note that this also applies just as much to our handling of the Bible.

The fifth element is an inappropriate, unrealistic and even illusory supernaturalism that fosters belief in systematic miraculous interventions at the cost not only of truthfulness but also of a commitment to enabling people to develop towards mature human responsibility.

So we create a Church that is hostile to human desires and careless about human dignity, indifferent to a full life in this world but also too closely allied to existing unequal human power structures and authoritarian in its attitudes and practices. We see churches that in theory teach Christian poverty and obedience but in practice enforce submission to unjust structures and promise relief only in the next life or perhaps through a miracle in this life, thereby playing on people's deepest desires and longings but without enabling them to strive positively for change.

This means "a way of being Christian that is marked by a fundamental shift from a primarily negative to a primarily positive conception of life in this world and from a primarily negative to a primarily positive motivation for the Christian life. It is celebrating the best of what it is to be human at the heart of our faith and life — not because we are subverting the place of God but because he has placed such value on human life, in creation and redemption. God is always the life-bringer. Therefore the heart of the Christian faith is not threat but invitation. Not, 'you are bad and I will punish you, unless ...' but, 'I am offering you goodness, beauty and life: respond to me.'

After more than three hours of debate, the Church of Scotland's General Assembly, meeting in Edinburgh, has this evening avoided a confrontation on sexuality and ministry, after a motion from anti-gay hardliners was withdrawn before it could be voted on. The development is being seen as a significant achievement by those who want reason and conciliation rather than anger and confrontation in the argument over homosexuality. Some church members claim this is incompatible with tradition and scripture but others see it as part of the variety which God blesses and uses for good in the face of fear and prejudice.

The 'overture' (the Lochcarron and Skye motion), if passed, would have had the effect of barring those whose sexual relationships fall outside heterosexual marriage from ministry and the life of the Kirk - an approach deliberately targeted against gay people. Ekklesia has been told that part of the motivation in withdrawing the resolution was for the anti-gay lobby to avoid another damaging defeat. This follows their attempts to rescind the decision by a parish and presbytery in Aberdeen to recognise the call of the Rev Scott Rennie, an openly gay minster who lives with his partner David, which were decisively rejected on Saturday night (23 May 2009).

. . .Leaders of the Church of Scotland are pleased with the outcome. They will respond to those who accuse them of a fudge or of delaying tactics by pointing out that the great majority of those involved with the Church - other than some who actively seek confrontation - want a reasoned process and discussion.

It takes a certain mix of optimism and frustration to contemplate the possibility of space travel. To dream of navigating the cosmos is to assume that man has the resources and the know-how to propel himself into the heavens, but also some compelling reasons to exchange his home planet for the cold vast unknown.
[. . . ]
Forty years later, as Star Trek is returning to its past so is America: the country is again gripped by anxieties about entanglements abroad, compounded by the fear that the economy could collapse at warp speed. A cautious optimism has emerged in the afterglow of the election of President Obama (whose Vulcan-like composure has invited frequent comparisons to Mr. Spock), but a surge of foreign violence, a swine flu outbreak or any number of other events could easily dampen that mood.
[. . . ]
But at least one person closely identified with Star Trek argues that for all the ways in which the franchise has been affected by current events, its optimistic vision has persisted. "A lot of science-fiction is nihilistic and dark and dreadful about the future, and Star Trek is the opposite," Mr. Nimoy said. "We need that kind of hope, we need that kind of confidence in the future. I think that's what Star Trek offers. I have to believe that — I'm the glass-half-full kind of guy."

Despite all the high-tech wizz-bangery, the story is "fundamentally about two men engaged in a continuing conversation about civilizations and their discontents. Hot and cold, impulsive and tightly controlled, Kirk and Spock need each other to work, a dynamic Mr. Abrams captures with his two well-balanced leads. Mr. [Zachary] Quinto lets you see and hear the struggle between the human and the Vulcan in Spock through the emotions that ripple across his face and periodically throw off his unmodulated phrasing. Mr. [Chris] Pine [Pictured] has the harder job — he has to invoke Mr. Shatner's sui generis performance while transcending its excesses — which makes his nuanced interpretation all the more potent. Steering clear of outright imitation, the two instead distill the characters to capture their essence, their Kirk-ness and Spock-ness.

Written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the story has plenty of chatter, but Mr. Abrams keeps the talk moving, slowing down only intermittently, as when Captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood) or the wryly smiling Leonard Nimoy (!) unload some paternalistic advice on Kirk. . . . By far his finest moments take place on the brightly lighted deck of the Enterprise, where against the backdrop of limitless space, Kirk, Spock and the rest of the young crew fumble with roles that — much like the young actors playing them, including Anton Yelchin as Chekov and John Cho as Sulu — they ultimately and rather wonderfully make their own.

(c) affirms the request of the Windsor Report (2004), adopted at the Primates' Meetings (2005, 2007 and 2009), and supported at the Lambeth Conference (2008) for the implementation of the agreed moratoria on the Consecration of Bishops living in a same gender union, authorisation of public Rites of Blessing for Same Sex unions and continued interventions in other Provinces.

1. deplores violence wherever it is used in conflict in the land of Israel/Palestine and affirms its desire that a robust peace process in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict leading to a two state solution should be pursued by all parties without delay;
2. expresses its deep concern about recent and continuing events in Gaza, and supports and draws attention to the Statement on the situation in Gaza issued by the February 2009 Primates meeting;
3. laments the fact that current Israeli policies in relation to the West Bank, in contravention of UN Security Council resolutions, have created severe hardship for many Palestinians and have been experienced as a physical form of apartheid;
4. noting that a just peace must guarantee the security and territorial integrity of both Israel and the future state of Palestine so that all the people of the area can live in peace and prosperity, applauds President Barack Obama for his commitment to work for a just peace for both Palestinians and Israelis, and calls on him and all governments of the Middle East to work in co-operation with the United Nations for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel as defined by UN Security Council Resolutions;
5. welcomes the Arab League statements which indicate a readiness to make peace with the state of Israel, the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the normalization of relations, and calls on the Israeli government to respond favourably to the Arab proposal in an effort to end all forms of belligerence on the basis of international law;
6. calls on Israel to:
   1. end its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,
   2. freeze immediately all settlement building with the intention to abandon its settlement policy in preparation for a Palestinian state,
   3. remove the separation barrier (wall) where it violates Palestinian land beyond the Green Line,
   4. end home demolitions, and
   5. close checkpoints in the Palestinian territories;
7. recognising that the city of Jerusalem is holy to Christianity, Islam and Judaism and is not therefore the monopoly of any one religion, upholds the view that members of all three faith groups should have free access to their holy sites; and
8. calls on all people of faith and good will to pray and work for peace so that justice and reconciliation may be achieved for all the people of Palestine and Israel.

• a increase in the size of the Army, of about 3,000 to 57,000,
• a completely new submarine fleet doubled in size to 12,
• a new fleet of 11 frigates and air-warfare destroyers, equipped, like the submarines, with cruise missiles, and
• about 100 new air force fighter-bombers.

For most of its life, Australia has relied for its security on the naval presence in the Pacific region of first Britain then, since the second world war, America. The paper predicts that China' s rise as an economic and military giant could well end all that. It sees China as possibly becoming the world's biggest economy by 2020. That, plus its military modernisation and the testing of America's primacy, could give China's regional neighbours "cause for concern".

This implies China has now replaced Indonesia as the main strategic threat to Australia. But the paper talks only of a remote but plausible confrontation with "a major-power adversary". The new hardware's priority will be defending Australia's northern approaches from the Indian Ocean via the Timor Sea to Polynesia. The American alliance will remain pivotal. But Australia will no longer put troops at risk "in distant theatres of war where we have no direct interests" (read Iraq, but perhaps not Afghanistan).

Self-reliance is one thing. How Australia's region will respond to its apparent preoccupation with China as a possible future adversary is another. Mr Rudd seems keen not to let China's status as Australia’s biggest trading partner override its security concerns. But Hugh White, a defence analyst, and an author of the last white paper in 2000, worries that this one lacks answers on how this can be achieved. "It's reluctant to tell Australians that we have to think seriously about living in an Asia that will be very different from anything we have known," he says.