becoming

Anglican Bishop N.T Wright Interview
17 November 2004

audio Listen Real Media | Windows Media

The Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, is one of the leading intellectuals in the Anglican Church today, a New Testament scholar who describes himself as “a good Calvinist”. He speaks about what St Paul understood about homosexuality, and what he meant by “Justification” and Christ being “the end of the Torah”.

Program Transcript

Stephen Crittenden: Welcome to the program.

[Choir]

Stephen Crittenden:

Borne by his faithful friends
From his loved home of Lindisfarne
Here, after long wanderings,
Rests the body of St Cuthbert.
In whose honour William of St Carileph
Built this cathedral church
And at his side lies buried
The head of St Oswald, King of Northumbria and martyr,
Slain in battle by the heathen
Whom he so long defied.

The inscription at the foot of the tomb of St Cuthbert in Durham Cathedral, in north-east England. Durham Cathedral is one of the most beautiful cathedrals in England, and in fact travel writer Bill Bryson says it’s the most beautiful building in the world.

Today on the program we meet the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, one of the leading intellectuals in the Anglican church, and indeed one of the leading New Testament scholars writing in English. He has a particular interest in St Paul.

Tom Wright is a conservative, he calls himself ‘a good Calvinist’ and I went to see him at Auckland Castle, the seat of the Bishops of Durham, and we spoke in front of a crackling fire in a vast gothic study surrounded by portraits of his predecessors.

I began by asking whether modern scholarship had given us a Bible which is more about how various Jewish communities, in the Old Testament and one breakaway Jewish community in the New Testament saw themselves and their relationship with God, rather than as a road map for how we should live our lives.

Tom Wright: You’re right in saying that modern scholarship, or some modern scholarship, has given us a Bible like that, but I would emphasise that that is something which the scholars in question have brought to the texts, rather than discovered within it. Because it’s the either/or that matters. If you say ‘Oh my goodness, we have discovered that these texts were actually people blundering forward and trying to find their way, and trying out ideas’, and therefore you say, ‘Ah, then it can’t have been all dictated by the Holy Spirit and written down on tablets of stone with a sort of take-it-or-leave-it about it.’ That’s a completely false either/or.

People have known for many generations that the Bible is a very composite book which was written by very different characters over a very long period of time, and yet sophisticated Christians, as opposed to the rather simplistic naïve pious believers on the one hand, and the simplistic and naïve would-be critical scholars on the other, have accepted that and said, ‘Nevertheless, it is precisely through this strange human history of how it got written, that the living God has provided the church with the book which it needs at its elbow in order that by living by it, they may be God’s people for the world today.

So I reject the either/or which that kind of critical scholarship has imposed on the text, and in company with quite a lot of recent writers actually, both Catholic and Protestant in various shades, I see the Bible in a much more dynamic way as coming through that dynamic process, meeting the dynamic needs of the church in the world today.

Stephen Crittenden: Nonetheless, as we cover a story like the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians on this program, I’m increasingly beginning to wonder what we should be making of some of the really fundamental findings of archaeologists and historians, for instance that there isn’t a skerrick of evidence that Abraham and Moses existed, or more importantly perhaps, that the Israelites were never in captivity in Egypt. Should those kinds of findings and arguments have any impact on contemporary international affairs?

Tom Wright: There are at least three different questions snuck in under there, and I think let’s first say, just try widening your reading a bit, and if you read Kenneth Kitchens’ new work on the Old Testament for instance, you’ll find that he takes on the people who say what you just said, extremely vigorously and as an historian of ancient Egypt, comes back with a very strong view. Now of course some people would dismiss him as hopelessly conservative, whatever, all I’m saying is that there’s a wide variety of views out there, and that it’s been coming and going in Old Testament scholarship for well over 100 years that maybe Abraham didn’t exist, maybe there wasn’t a Moses, maybe a few of the Israelites went and had a picnic in Egypt sometime, but actually most of them didn’t. And of course, as with most ancient history, evidence for what actually happened is remarkably slim. It’s important to say ‘Look, let’s not pretend that the historians have actually disproved anything’. They can go on raising questions and then it’s a matter of further work to see. But we certainly shouldn’t give up talking about Abraham or the Exodus or whatever while it’s going on.

Now the other key question, and there’s a few others in between, is whether that relates to the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I remember being shocked some years ago when I saw the title of a book in a bookshop saying, ‘The Bible in my Life’, and I thought, I wonder which pious, devout Christian this was. And it was one of the Israeli generals from the Six Day War, who had been using the narrative of the conquest as his kind of rule of thumb for what we Jews now ought to do in taking the land back from the Palestinians, and included somewhere in the middle of that is of course the fundamentalist Christian view that the return of Israel to the land after the Second World War was the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. Now there are several different interpretative issues which are lying underneath that, and they need to be drawn out one by one, and laid out probably more time than we’ve got, to do here. But the critical thing for the Christian is to say with Paul in 2 Corinthians, that all the promises of God find their Yes in Jesus, and that it’s very interesting that in the New Testament you do not get a re-affirmation of the promises about the land, that just as in Paul, the language about the Temple has turned from being about a building, into being about a group of people, so the promises about the land have turned from being about one strip of territory in the Middle East to being about the whole world. For Paul, the entire cosmos is now the Holy Land, so that any idea of going back to an idea of a Holy Land which has to be fought for and defended and cleansed etc., is simply a way of going back to something that God has now gone on beyond.

Stephen Crittenden: Well let me take you up on this point that you’re making, because I’ve also read your comment that Christ is the end of the Torah. You know, Christianity’s theological understanding of its relationship with Judaism is changing, I think quite rapidly, certainly the view of the Catholic church is changing in the wake of the Holocaust. What do you mean by ‘Christ is the end of the Torah’?

Tom Wright: Well it’s interesting of course, the phrase ‘Christ is the end of the law’ isn’t my phrase, it’s Paul’s, and it comes from Romans: Chapter 10 Verse 4, and when I was a graduate student, whenever I got a new commentary on Romans, that was one of the two or three passages I always turned to first to see what the commentator would make of that verse. And I have now published two and a half commentaries on Romans and I keep on coming back through that. So if anyone wants to know more detail they can go and look up what I’ve said.

When Paul uses the word ‘end’, it’s one of those interesting facing-both-ways words for him, telos ( τέλοζ ) in Greek, which can mean ‘end’ as in the sense of something coming to a full stop, something hitting the buffers, or can mean something more like ‘goal’. I mean if I drive from here to Edinburgh, Edinburgh is the end of my journey, not because my journey was a bad thing, but because my journey was a good thing which was reached where it was supposed to be getting. So there’s a sense of fulfilment, of consummation, and not, as in much older Christian, particularly Lutheran, theology, the sense of the law as a bad thing which Christ has brought to an end. I mean, let’s get that out of the way for a start.

Stephen Crittenden: Nonetheless I can hear every Jew in the audience saying ‘That’s replacement theology’. Is it indeed replacement theology?

Tom Wright: No, it isn’t replacement theology. The difference between replacement and fulfilment, and there’s a lot of confusion about this, and people have accused me of supersessionism and some of these other ugly words, and of course what you find in the New Testament is precisely a group of Jewish people looking to a Jewish man who they believe is Israel’s Messiah, and just like the people who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, believed that the teacher of righteousness who had begun their sect or at least was one of the great early leaders of it, was God’s man for God’s time, and that all true Jews should now gather around him. Was that replacement? In a sense it was, in a sense it wasn’t. They were fulfilled Jews looking to bring more Jews on board with that, writing letters to the Jerusalem hierarchy and saying, ‘You’d better come in line with what we now know to be the case’. And that’s not replacement in the sense … the word ‘replacement’ and ‘super-session’ get their sting from something which happens much later, from the really, more like the 4th, 5th, 6th centuries at the very earliest, but then through the Middle Ages and through particularly the 19th century with then some pagan ideas coming in, piggybacking on Christianity – you see it in Wagner, you see it in Hegel, you see it in a lot of 19th century thought – where then Judaism becomes a type of the wrong sort of religion, and we enlightened Gentiles have the right sort of religion. So we’ve got rid of all that stuff. Now some people have tried to line up a genuinely historical reading of Paul with that 19th and 20th century ideology. And frankly, it can’t be done, though these are very, very complicated issues, and I’m doing a very broad brush overview of them.

It is part of Christianity to say that Jesus of Nazareth really was and is, the Messiah God intended to send for Israel. Where we’ve got to go now is into the post-Holocaust generation. I grew up under the shadow of the Holocaust; all of theology in the last 50 years has been affected by it, and indeed Deconstructionism, Postmodernity, is in some ways part of the response of Western culture to the Holocaust. I accept all that. What we’ve now got to do is to say OK, we’ve heard that question, now we’ve got to find the way through to a new type of integrity, and simply throwing around these labels as being anti-Jewish or pro-Jewish, or whatever, simply isn’t going to help especially when it then gets muddled up with ‘Do you agree or disagree with Ariel Sharon’s wall that has driven a coach and horses through the road map and through Palestinian territory?’ And to say what I’ve just said is not anti-Semitic, it is not anti-Jewish, it is a comment on present political process, which cannot be taken as theologically or ethnically freighted.

Stephen Crittenden: Let’s come back to Jesus, because I’m sure it’s fair to say he’s your big specialty.

Tom Wright: One of them.

Stephen Crittenden: It’s generally accepted as I understand it, that the four canonical Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written after Paul’s genuine letters to satisfy curiosity about how Jesus lived amongst the early Christians. Surely that’s not a substantial base on which to build the vast superstructure of Christianity?

Tom Wright: The four Gospels that we’ve got in the Bible were pretty certainly put together sometime between when Paul was writing his letters and, say, AD80. Actually though scholars make grandiose claims about knowing exactly when they were written, we really don’t. I’ve been studying this stuff most of my life, and if somebody suddenly dug up a manuscript in the Egyptian sands which could prove that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all there by AD60, I would say, ‘Well I’m surprised, I didn’t think they were that early’, but nothing actually major stands or falls that way. Likewise if they went to 80 or 90 or something. But what I want to come back on particularly, is the idea that they were written to satisfy early curiosity, that’s simply not the case. When we examine the Gospels as they stand within the light of Jewish writing at the time, Roman, Graeco-Roman biography at the time, it’s clear that they share a lot of the characteristics of the sort of books which are called βιοι, ‘biographies’ in the Greco-Roman world, but that they’re doing two other things as well, and they’re highly sophisticated and actually difficult documents when you get down to this level. On the one hand they are telling the story of Jesus precisely as the fulfilment of the story of Israel and the world. Each of the Gospels in its own way – and they’ve got very different ways of doing this – doesn’t just begin ‘Once upon a time there was a man called Jesus’. They hook into the great narratives of the Old Testament, and they draw on those narratives in order to say the prophecies are fulfilled, this is what God was doing all along, this is where it was all going.

So that’s one thing, they’re telling the biography of Jesus in such a way as to show how it’s the culmination and fulfilment and celebration of that long story of Israel. And the second thing they’re doing simultaneously, is that they’re doing that in such a way as to say “and this is the foundation for the life of the community that says that Jesus is Messiah and Lord”. So the Gospels as we have them, those four, are highly sophisticated documents, and I think they’re a spectacular base for all sorts of things, over against the very thin, shrunken, and yet at the moment rather popular books like the so-called Gospel of Thomas , which actually explicitly disavows that hooking into the narrative of Israel. And the only sort of community that could base itself on Thomas would be one of individuals exploring their own spirituality. That’s of course exactly what a lot of people in the contemporary Western world want to do which is why there is at the moment a reaction against the canonical Gospels. But for me, those canonical Gospels, they do the business.

Stephen Crittenden: You make a most suggestive comment in another interview I read referring to the fact that the narrative structure of the four Gospels culminates in the passion and the death and resurrection of Jesus, and you say “it’s not much of a caricature to say that orthodoxy, as represented by much popular preaching and writing, has no clear idea of the purpose of Jesus’ ministry”. Now I wonder whether that’s where the liberals begin to come into their own, because they perhaps have a clearer sense of the purpose of the Jesus’ ministry being to set us free.

Tom Wright: Yes, it’s very interesting, the divide between different kinds of reading of the Gospels, includes a divide between those who see Jesus as the great moral example, the great teacher, the great friend of little children, the great confronter of the self-righteous etc., and then on the other hand, those who Jesus as simply coming in order to die for our sins. And in the former case, you get Jesus as a kind of a social prophet (“let’s do it differently”), and then you get n the other hand Jesus as the one who embodies a system of salvation. Now both of those represent significant belittlings of what the Gospels are actually trying to give us. So that contemporary Christianity, and this is really a post Enlightenment phenomenon and we have to unmask it as such; has divided down the lines of “is this about a supernatural salvation somehow accomplished by Jesus’ death”, or “is this about a social agenda which we can now reconstruct in our work for social betterment at the present”. And the Gospel writers I think will be tearing their hair out and saying For goodness’ sake, it’s both; but it’s both because it’s something much bigger than all of that. It’s about the one moment when the living God actually came and did this kingdom thing, which involved necessarily his own embodied dying and rising so that we’ve got to have the whole package and not some shrunken thin version of it.

Stephen Crittenden: Nonetheless, and this is going to sound like I haven’t been listening to a single word you’ve just been saying. But I want to come back to that word ‘freedom’ that I just dangled in front of you, and say, I wonder whether the church will only reconnect with ordinary people again when it starts to see the whole progress of Western history, including the Enlightenment and modernity as an expression of that freedom.

Tom Wright: I think that’s probably right. I’d rather affirm that and then say some buts than deny it.

Stephen Crittenden: Absolutely, but the starting place for a new discussion.

Tom Wright: Well it might be. The trouble is, I’m not quite sure who this mythical ordinary person is. I know a lot of ordinary people and actually here in the Diocese of Durham which I’m privileged to serve, there are some ordinary people who seem to me to be basically still living in pre-modernity; there’s an awful lot who are living in modernity and who are very frightened of Postmodernity even though they don’t really know what it is, and there are others who’ve jumped feet-first into Postmodernity and are wallowing around and then one.

Stephen Crittenden: A lot of the freedom we’ve won for ourselves may be an illusion.

Tom Wright: Yes, and that is the thing which Postmodernity names, that the freedom is simply turning over in your sleep within your prison cell and in fact you’re still pretty stuck. But I have always, in my scholarly work, taken very serious the Enlightenment’s historical question, because it seems to me that before the Enlightenment, the church was getting away with murder, sometimes literally, alas, by simply saying “We’ll tell you how it is, we’ll tell you what the Bible means, here it is, boom-boom. No questions to be asked. And then along comes the Enlightenment and says “Wait a minute. We think that there’s some history under there, and it might just disprove what you’re saying”. And I and a lot of people have taken that on board and said “Yes, OK, we will answer that, we will go to those historical sources and we’ll show that we can actually do this a lot better than you guys can”. And, I see this, because I know some people who are listening to this will have a further question, I see the model for that as Jesus’ dialogue with doubting Thomas. That Thomas comes and says “Here, I want some hard evidence , I want to be able touch and I want to be able to see”. And Jesus doesn’t say to him “Oh you silly boy, you know, you shouldn’t ask for touching and seeing, you know , go out of the room until you’re prepared to come back with a better question”.

Stephen Crittenden: He gives him touching and seeing.

Tom Wright: He says “be my guest. Bring your finger here and touch my hands”, and then when Thomas has done that and said “My Lord and my God”, Jesus says, “Actually it would have been better if you had done this without your silly questions”. So I want to take the Enlightenment on like Jesus took Thomas on. I think then the trouble with the Enlightenment’s rhetoric of freedom and human rights and so on, is it’s now over-reached itself. And part of the postmodern critique, which I endorse, is to say “Don’t believe all the rhetoric of the Enlightenment”. Because in fact there’s much more and a rather dark side to that. And people are using this language to crowbar particular agendas through and because we all signed up to the Enlightenment, we daren’t stand up against it. It’s happening in the European Union at the moment, but that’s another story which no doubt people in Australia are happily well off without.

SONG: ‘Durham Town’

Stephen Crittenden: I’ve seen you saying that you’re a good Calvinist, but of course you’re frequently vilified by other Evangelical Anglicans indeed. So I want to ask you a question that I hope will have particular resonance for the Sydney Anglicans in our audience. I’ve just been reading the theologian Hans Küng’s autobiography, and it’s fascinating, a great ecumenist saying ‘I basically agree with Luther. In the end, in the great debate about faith and works, I believe we’re justified through faith.’ You on the other hand, as I understand it, say there’s been a conspiracy of silence about St Paul, amongst Protestants, that St Paul’s pretty unambiguous. In Romans 2 , and Romans 14 , and 2 Corinthians 5 , We will be judged on the entirety of our lives, we will be judged on our works.

Tom Wright: Yes, this is a huge debate, and one of the difficulties is that people have used the word ‘justification’ in a number of rather slippery ways. And you actually find within the solidly post-Reformation tradition, very different views according to whether people are Lutheran or Calvinist or some other variety or sub-branch thereof. Paul uses the word ‘justification’ in a very specific way, which is a much more narrowly focused thing that he’s denoting by that word than people have often used it in the tradition. In the tradition, people often use the word ‘justify’ just as a general way of saying ‘to be saved’ or perhaps a general way of saying ‘to be converted’. For Paul, it’s never like that. Justification and salvation are not the same thing, and for Paul neither of them is the same thing as what he calls the ‘the call’, when God calls somebody through the word of the Gospel. That is Paul’s word for conversion, if you like. That when the Gospel impinges in the power of the Spirit on someone’s life, then that’s what turns them around. Then, when they have that faith, God declares as a judicial declarity of act, ‘This person is one of my forgiven family’, and that is Justification. Then, that person is thereby by the same spirit, committed to a lifelong following of Jesus Christ, of putting to death of the deeds of the body and the coming to life in the spirit. And Paul says in the passages you quoted, Romans 2 etc., that it is on that basis that the final judgment will take place. In other words, we’ve first got to distinguish justification from salvation, second we’ve got to distinguish present justification from future justification. This gets horribly technical, but actually that is precisely where Paul leads us, and it’s by grossly over-simplified views of Paul that we get into terrible confusion, and then people start slinging mud around saying ‘You don’t really believe in justification by faith’. And I want to say again and again to the people who say that, ‘Just go back and read the Bible itself’. Because I’ve spent my life trying to understand Paul in the Gospels, and particularly Paul in Romans and Galatians and so on, and if somebody can show me that what I’m saying isn’t in fact what Paul’s saying, I would love to see that, because I’d rather go with the Bible than with any tradition about Paul, including the Reformation ones.

Stephen Crittenden: Speaking of what Paul says and what Paul meant, the Anglican communion worldwide is split over understandings about what he meant about homosexuality at the moment. Your point I think is a very interesting one. It does seem to me that what you’re saying is that those liberal scholars who claim that when St Paul refers to homosexuality, what he really means is temple prostitutes, or whatever, aren’t really fair dinkum, that they’re trying to weasel out of a difficult problem and that really, Biblical scholarship requires more integrity than that. And if you’re gay and you’re confronted by St Paul, you’re just going to have to take it on the chin in the end, aren’t you?

Tom Wright: Yes, I think what I’ve reacted against in the area that you’re describing, and I should say that the whole question of sexual relations and identity and homosexuality, is one of these things that really needs another 700-page book which I haven’t got time to research and write. So I’m aware that there are multiple questions going off into the blue yonder on this. But the critical thing is when people say, ‘Oh well of course, when Paul refers to homosexual relations in Romans 1 or 1st Corinthians 6, or whatever, what he was talking about was the fact that when people would go off to the Pagan temples, then there would always be girls and boys hanging around outside, and that would be part of the deal, and that that has nothing to do with what we today know as committed faithful, stable relations’. There’s other questions down that line.

Now I want to say, just go back and read Plato. Read Plato’s Symposium , and you discover in Plato’s Symposium a panegyric on love, on erotic love, and specifically because women aren’t included in this, on the erotic love between probably a slightly older man and probably a slightly younger man, although sometimes the age isn’t so significant. And this includes explicit descriptions of the falling in love and the lifelong relation that some men will have with other men. Now Paul was around the Greek world, he was out on the street, he was in and out of places like Athens, Corinth and Ephesus etc. There was the full range of everything that was available, that was out there.

Stephen Crittenden: And we know, don’t we, we know about Emperors like Hadrian who had precisely those long-term committed relationships, we know that there were rites of gay marriage in ancient Rome.

Tom Wright: Yes, and if we look at a figure like Nero, who was of course Emperor through certainly the second half of Paul’s writing career if you like, Nero was notorious for doing all kinds of things, including at least one apparent homosexual marriage. And it may be, though the sources are not quite clear on this, that Nero underwent two such marriages, in one of which he was the ‘male’ or dominant partner, and the other one in which he was the more so-called effeminate one – that’s how they would have described it. So all this is known about in Paul’s world. The question then is how does what Paul says about what one does with one’s body relate to all the other aspects of his thought? Are these in other words simply abstract commands that he’s simply hurling at people’s heads? ‘I believe you shouldn’t do this, and I believe you should do that’. Or are they actually much more tightly integrated with all the other things he said? And on that, I would say very clearly they are extremely tightly integrated. The integration between the middle of Romans 1 and the end of Romans 4, and the beginning of Romans 12, if your listeners can bear to go and look up those passages, is extremely significant for the way Paul’s mind works. In other words, you can’t just take that bit of Romans 1 out, and say, Oh well, Paul had a headache at that point, we’ll just leave that.

And the other thing is, when we have found out what Paul says, what do we do with it? I respect the person who says Yes, it really does look as though Paul is saying A, B, and C, and I just think he’s wrong. I mean at least you know where you are with that. But if somebody is committed for quite other reasons, a view of Scripture, of the church’s tradition, etc., to say, When I have found out what this book says, then it is my Christian duty to struggle and live with it, within it, as best I can, then though that is always tough – and do you know, there are things in Scripture which are tough for all of us, there are things in Scripture about the use of money, which are horribly tough for Western people today, and that’s why we’re in such a mess about global debt. If we’d taken the Bible seriously we’d have solved that one long ago.

Stephen Crittenden: I must say I’ve always been puzzled by why any gay people would want to burden their relationships with theology, and in Australia there really isn’t much of a movement for gay marriage. Nonetheless, isn’t it a furphy, a red herring, to suggest that blessing a same-sex union implies that you’re conferring the same theological status as a marriage?

Tom Wright: There’s a huge amount of confusion on this at the moment, and the confusion takes different shapes in different parts of Europe, in Britain, in Canada, in the States, in different states within the States. I don’t know on this one about Australia. But for instance, there is legislation coming before Parliament in Britain in the not-too-distant future for civil partnerships, and the government has said, Oh these aren’t marriages, this isn’t gay marriage. But actually what they’ve done to construct the legislation is that they’ve gone to the marriage laws and they’ve just lifted whole paragraphs out of the marriage laws and they’ve plonked them in, including, believe it or not, the ban on consanguinity. Now what is the great deal about consanguinity for goodness’ sake, when you’re talking about two men over here and two women over there. This should not be a problem, and yet they’ve done it, because clearly, they are seeing it as a quasi marriage. And I know in my own diocese some people who work in Registry Offices, who are being told there’s no escape clause, if you’re working in this office, you’re going to have to implement this whether you like it or not.

Stephen Crittenden: We’re talking civil unions now. My question I guess was more about the difference between a marriage, and blessing a friendship.

Tom Wright: Yes, well that difference has been of course blurred in all sorts of ways over the last generation. I grew up at a time when I suppose perhaps still at least half the population, if not more, didn’t actually live together before marriage. There may have been some sexual relation here or there in the relationship, but they didn’t basically move in together until after they got married. And all of that of course has been blown away completely, and we’ve seen now a continuum, both in heterosexual relations and in homosexual relations, between casual encounters all the way through to publicly committed lifelong partnerships. And some of those are graced with the word ‘marriage’, and some of those have been graced with a service in church or a public Registry Office ceremony or whatever. And so we live at a hugely confusing time in all that, and it’s not surprising to me that however much successive governments say ‘Oh, this wouldn’t actually be gay marriage’, in fact the press know perfectly well that’s basically what it is. That is what some – not all – gay people want, and it’s what the church has agonised about. Because once it’s in the civil law, then of course there will be huge pressure on the church to say “Well, if somebody has a heterosexual civil marriage and then says I want this blessed by the church, you’ll do that, so why won’t you do that for us?” So we’re in a very, very murky world here and negotiating our way through it is going to be tough.

Stephen Crittenden: A fireside chat with one of the world’s great Bible scholars, the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright. And by the way, his books are under the name, ‘N.T. Wright’.

Well that’s all this week. Thanks to Noel Debien and John Diamond.

Full Transcript (abc.net.au)