Church Role in Politics
Does the Church have a role in politics? Or perhaps the question you are asking is should the Church have a role in politics?Interesting question I think. And one that seems to continually come up.
I admit, I dont have a great interest in politics - most of the time its just too confusing and all the politicians seem to do is criticise each other!
But I also personally think there are two reasons why the church does play a role in politics:
1. Chrisitans are needed in every industry and part of life, and politics should be no different
2. Christians need to play a role in politics in order to be active rather than simply offering criticisim or rebuke
Anyway, you may have read the two articles in the SMH about and by Kevin Rudd and his belief that the Labor party needs to have Christian input in politics - that we need to change our perspective that this is solely the role of the Liberal party and irrelevant to Labor - and it seems this attitude stems from the fact that Rudd himself is a follower of our Lord Jesus.
I find it exciting whenever I hear that someone is a Christian, but unfortunately I was also a little concerned about the way he expressed some of these views...
Firstly though, have a read of the following articles : Rudd seeks church role in politics and It's time to fight for the true Christian principle of compassion.
In the latter, Rudd says the following:
Christians are as entitled as anybody else to advance their views, so long as their views are tempered by reason, to the secular forum that is Parliament. My concern is that in recent years we've only been hearing one set of Christian views on politics - and that has been an overwhelmingly conservative one. The answer to this does not lie in a greater Christian voice in politics - it lies in a different Christian voice in politics.
Ok, I agree that Christians have just as much right as anyone to express their views, including before a secular parliament - in fact, i think its incredibly important that Christians in that position use it wisely and effectively express their views (or rather, the Gospel!).
Where I get a little concerned is when Rudd speaks of the 'different Christian voice' to be expressed in politics.
Shouldnt the Christian voice be unified??
I understand that the 'voice' expressed so far may not exactly be the most effective nor the most desirable and thus he wants a new approach. However, when speaking on behalf of Christians surely politicians need to be unified in their voice, just as the ministers of a church need to be unified in their mission and focus?
Justin recently quoted Buechner who said of those preaching (of course, formally or informally) “Let him tell them the truth.”
I think this should be the ultimate 'voice' of those in politics too.
I argue for a unified voice simply because they should have a unified purpose, coming from one truth alone.
Let them tell Gospel truth!
Thoughts??
9 Comments:
Hi Chelsea, I don't know you, but I saw your blog on Walshy's site. By strange coincidence, we have both posted on the same topic tonight. So here are a few of my thoughts on it...
When Rudd said a 'different Christian voice' is needed in politics, I think he is referring to a non-conservative voice.
It is commonly acknowledged that conservative parties have always held the Christian vote. Usually because they invoke "christian" values to win votes. But when you step back and take a larger look at the way this country is being run you can see some very un-Christian policies (though they are still uber-conservative policies). Examples: asylum seeker policies, mandatory detention and offshore processing, anti-terror legislation, sedition, IR reform, detention of David Hicks, military support for the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and other offensive wars where dirty tactics and illegal weapons are used, resulting in huge civilian casualties...
I could go on forever, but I think you get the picture. These are very non-Christian. But the government still has the Christian vote. The Christian voice that is heard is usually just on traditional values within ethical debates like abortion and stem cell research.
I think Rudd is calling for a different Christian voice. One that is opposed to the un-Christian policies mentioned above. One that does not blindly follow the state, but applies Christian ethics to social issues.
Does that make sense? Sorry, it's late. Let me know if I need to clarify anything.
Nice blog by the way. It's nice to see a few religious/political bloggers out there.
Interesting post Chelsea. You can read my thoughts on the article here.
I think I agree with Angie's reply - it seams to fit in with the rest of what he says.
But you're definitely right - our Christian voice should be unified - and it should be based firmly on the Gospel.
Angie,
thank you for dropping by and commenting :)
Always nice to meet other bloggers and have some thoughts shared!
Dont worry, what you said makes totaly sense. In fact, when I said "that the 'voice' expressed so far may not exactly be the most effective nor the most desirable and thus he wants a new approach." that is what i was alluding to, you just articulated it much better! hehe
I am completely aware of what you said and that being his purpose and meaning, and i think its a good thing for him to be doing too.
What i was concerned with and probably didnt effectively articulate in this, is that if both sides are claiming to be Christian in their values (which you have exemplified here, may not be accurate), yet even varying slightly in their views and policies (which we know they will), what kind of message does that give to the world about Christian people??
Does that make sense?
My point wasnt so much about the politics of it all, just simply that if you are in that position the world will be watching, so that we need a united front...
hmm, hope that clarifies things a little...
thanks for commenting guys :)
True, true. But this may not be as cut and dry as that. In certain issues there should be (you would hope) a Christian perspective. However for many policies you could be faced with two committed Christians with two completley different views.
Why?
Because we have a same faith, but are we are also unique and approach issues from many different angles.
At this point, it may be impossible to have a 'united Christian view'.
The most recent 'Quarterly Essays'(issue 22, 2006) had a paper by Amanda Lohrey called Voting For Jesus. It analysed the influence with which the Hillsong and the Assemblies of God churches have had upon the political landscape. I agreed with some the political views expressed by those churches and disagreed with others.
The difficulty with this is if we are to have a united front - who decides what we stand for?
it is quite a complex sittuation. And leads back to the basics of the influence of Christianity and State. Do we want a Church State?
But yes Chels, I hear you re. the utopic dream of a united Christian front.
Don't think it's ever going to happen though.
Hey Craig!!
Thanks for your thoughts!
I didnt really think much about the complexity of this issue when i wrote this - or rather, I avoided the complexity and stuck to the simple. - ie. like you said, on certain issues you'd hope it'd happen - i think that was my point with the whole sticking to the gospel truth thing...
But I think you are so very right -
there are unique approaches + perspectives (surely this makes life more interesting too?!)
And I also think your right in saying it wont happen either!
I hope the Christains sticking to the gospel truth WILL happen, but the unified voice thing is, as you said, much more complex...
hmm i feel a little bit like john lennon singing 'Imagine'...
hehe
Just one comment someone else made that I wanted to repeat. The person in question was not, if I recall correctly, a Christian. Their comment was something along the lines of "Who cares if a politician is guided and shaped by his/her Christian values, as long as they are upfront about it at election time." Fair call, I think.
Another reality is that so much Australian Christian involvement in politics begins to look like American Christian involvement in politics and without generalising too much that involves a bit of blindness on really key issues like the environment, "the war on terror", the significance of Israel etc
I'd assume that most young Australian Christian voters would be horrified by the American Christian approach to lobbying and voting.
For me, the fact that I'm a Christian informs the values by which I vote, but in most elections would actually prevent me from voting for the obviously Christian candidate for reasons that angie and craig articulated amongst others.
Here is an interesting post from my friend Byron. It raised a bit of controversy as you can see, but was helpful to think through.
Tiddy and Emma, they are both very good points!
Thanks for dropping by Emma! Nice to have you here!
I think we tend to leave the "Christian voice" to our church leaders. I often read in the paper concerns raised by Prominent Christian leaders such as Peter Jensen and George Pell about a range of issues. Well I have no problem with them acting as they do in there roles, but I think we too often sit back and, as they say, let the ball go through to the keeper on issues. We seem to think that our say in goverment is restricted to voting once every so often. Now while this is very important and something to be done carefully and prayerfully, there are other ways between elections that we can have a say. How about writing to your local MP on an issue? Or even the oposition? No goverment is ever going to get it all right. So in the inbetween years we should be saying something too. Now while it would be great to have a unified Christian voice I think step one might be finding our voice!? I would hope that we can make the truth of the gospel a reality to those in power all time!
Post a Comment
<< Home