In Secular Times

In our latest edition of Case magazine we explore the topic of secularity. Christians have something of a love-hate relationship to secularity. Its seemingly unstoppable march across the Western world and beyond is lamented by those who attribute to it the passing of ‘Christian values’ from society, a reduction in church attendance, the end of school nativity plays, and sport rather than life-of-Jesus movies on TV on Easter Sunday.

On the other hand, history shows that Christians have frequently benefitted from secular attitudes, and have actively promoted the secular state for the protection it provides against religious coercion and persecution. Edwin Judge delves into the ancient history of secular government and the role of the early church in its development in his article ‘How religion became secular’ (p9). Addressing more recent history, Danny and Debbie Mullins’ plot the French path to secularism which, along the way, also illustrates how secular government can protect religious freedom.

This love-hate relationship may be understood according to where Christianity sits in the relevant power structures when it interacts with the secular. Where Christianity is (or has been) the dominant religion and there has been little persecution—in countries like Australia—a rise in secularity means a loss of comfort, loss of shared assumptions, loss of privileges (or an extending of previously exclusive privileges to other religions), and so it is viewed negatively. However, in contexts where Christianity is on the receiving end of intolerance and oppression from hostile state religion, secularity can be welcomed as a bringer of religious freedom.

But restrictions on religious freedom for ‘other religions’ do not always come from governments that are tied to religion. Legislation that protects freedom of religion itself can cross the line into an aggressive freedom from religion.
 

A secularity that provides space for the peaceful co-existence of different religious doctrines and ways of life (within limits of mutual respect of the rights of others), can slip into a secularism where that space becomes opposed to all religion. Ironically, secularism here becomes itself a kind of substitute religion—an anti-religion—with its own dogmas and practices that all must adhere to or be labelled ‘heretic’.

The political secularism of France is again illustrative of this, with its ban on wearing religious symbols in public educational institutions. Don Carson’s book 'The Intolerance of Tolerance', reviewed in this issue by Alison Woof, also points to evidence of this trend this in North America.

What should be the response of the church in this complex age where debate about secularism is a difficult and significant issue for the Christian church to understand and engage with? Stanley Hauerwas in his essay writes that the Christians are citizens of heaven and that this should lead us to embrace a ‘heavenly politics that makes it possible for us to be a people who are an alternative to the worldly politics’. In other words, he sees the church as serving democracy as a different type of community. This, he argues, should demonstrate respect for adversaries within and outside the church, rather than simply being a '...tributary to whatever secular consensus seems strong at the time'. The difficulties are not going to go away. Christendom has passed, and Christians must again learn ‘like the Jews, to live in diaspora… To so live means we will be without security of place other than heaven, but surely that is the grandest security to be had’ (p8).

In addition to our pieces dealing directly with the issue of secularity in this edition of Case Magazine, David Hohne’s article examines the epistemic and moral burdens sceptics bear in their disengagement from the world, and the relief that may be found in Christ. Finally, in ‘Manufacturing belief’ Dani Scarratt reviews a book on brainwashing, and looks at the implications for Christians on both sides of the persuasive interchange.

If you don't currently subscribe to Case there are many ways that you can read this edition. You could subscribe (here),  and receive a paper or electronic copy of the quarterly magazine. You could also read one of the articles free on the CASE website (here). Or you could buy single issues of the magazine online (here).  I hope that many will find this edition of Case helpful and thought-provoking.

The Not-So United Nations

A Post by Dr John Quinn

It is impossible to be anything other than appalled by what is going on in Syria at the moment. Each night seems to bring a fresh atrocity as violence grips that most ancient of nations. As we watch the reports and listen to the commentary, it is easy to forget that Syria is something more than a nasty regime: it is nation of people who, like us, want to live their lives in peace without fear. In geopolitical reporting the plight of individuals is easy to lose.

Watching the news here in Australia I feel nothing but desperate sorrow for those who find themselves, by accident of their birthplace, caught up in the bloodshed. Like most people I feel powerless to do anything about the situation, and less than optimistic about the trajectory on which Syria finds itself. It is difficult to envisage anything other than trouble in that country’s near future.

In the face of such trouble and turmoil the world invariably looks to the United Nations.  The United Nations was set up in 1945 (at the end of the Second World War) with an initial membership of 51 nations, and has the aims of

·                     Keeping peace throughout the world;

·                     Developing friendly relations among nations;

·                     Helping nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, conquering hunger, disease and illiteracy, and encouraging respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;

·                     Being a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals.[i]

Leader of the UN Security force in Syria (Source  telegraph.co.uk)

There can be no questioning that these are noble aims. That said, there has been plenty of ink spilled over whether the UN is effective in achieving its aims. The primary vehicle by which the UN aims to keep the peace of the world is through the Security Council.  The Security Council is made up of 15 member nations, 10 of which rotate and five which are permanent.  The five permanent nations are The United Kingdom, France, the United States, the Russian Federation and China. Importantly, these permanent members have right of veto over any resolution of the Security Council.  In other words, any resolution can be struck down on the say-so of one of these five nations.

I don’t think we pause often enough and reflect on how decidedly strange these arrangements are. The five permanent members have those positions because they held a certain status at a fixed point in history (which, arguably, they still do).  Had the UN been constituted in the 1700s, the permanent members may well have been Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands  and Russia.  If it were constituted in the 1930’s, it might have included the Empire of Japan and Nazi Germany.  You might argue that this is a ridiculous assertion, but remember the millions who suffered in Mao’s China and Stalin’s Soviet Union while those nations enjoyed a right of veto on the Security Council.

We seem to have an in-built faith in the power of collective action, and the hope of a resolution from the Security Council seems to provide some sort of salve to our consciences that “at least something is happening”. We hold the Security Council out as the arbiters of justice and the protectors of peace, when in reality they are a (highly) flawed human institution capable of willful inaction in the face of insurmountable evidence. Moreover, the bickering that goes on between the permanent members as they settle old scores ensures that any progress will be slow, if there is progress at all.
 

UN Security Council

I wonder whether Christians ought to be a little more skeptical about the United Nations.  Some Christians have seen the UN in the beasts of Revelation 13, or in the woman riding the beast of Revelation 18: those are views of the fringe rather than the mainstream of evangelical Christianity.  That said, in Jesus’ own words we will hear of wars and rumours of wars[ii], and nation will rise against nation[iii].   We ought not to be surprised by geopolitical trouble, and even by the unedifying , almost callous, horse-trading that goes on in diplomatic circles while another nation burns.  Rather than relying on the quasi-democratic “goodness” of the UN, we ought to pray for that organization so that, in spite of its flaws, it might work more effectively toward bringing peace and security in troubled parts of the world. In the words of Paul’s first letter to Timothy:

“I urge, then, first of all, that requests prayers intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”

In the case of Syria the UN’s processes, to date, have been found wanting. We ought to pray that, for the sake of the Syrian people, God might shape those processes to bring a lasting peace a security to that country.  At the same time we should remember that God is the true arbiter of justice and bringer of judgment, and that the United Nations is but a human institution, as capable of evil as it is of good.

---

[i] http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

[ii] Mark 13:7

[iii] Mark 13:8

Dr John Quinn is Dean of Residents at the New College Village

Send CASE an email

The Loss of Civility in Public Life

Australian readers of this blog will be well aware that the last 12 hours have seen the unfolding of a leadership challenge to the existing Prime Minister Juliard Gillard by the man she deposed in 2010 Kevin Rudd. Some of the early exchanges from some of the sitting members who are Gillard supporters have been appalling. There has been little civility evident. As to whether it is any more honest? We will wait and see. Below is a post that I wrote in April last year on the need for greater civility and why it matters.  

Crean outburst on Rudd sets new low benchmark

Does civility matter? I think it does, but sadly, the signs are evident in Australia that it isn't valued as highly as it once was.  By civility I am not talking just about good manners (though they are important), but rather about the behaviour between members of society that leads to a social code and foundational principles for how a civilized society functions. This historically has been a major focus of political philosophers and has included concern with principles of justice, liberty, rights, freedoms, the law and the duties of citizens to government. The Carbon Tax protests in Canberra during 2011 set new low standards for public political debate. It made me wonder whether we should we be concerned when we have public protests of the type we witnessed? And is public civility important?

The consideration of civic virtues is not new, two of the world's oldest republics, Athens and Rome, gave much time and energy in seeking to define civic virtues. Socrates and Plato were central in the debate concerning Athenian polis.  Civic virtue was also a matter of interest in the Renaissance, during the Enlightenment and as part of republican revolutions during the 18th century.  This of course has been played out with different priorities, purposes and social agendas. With the rise of Humanism and institutionalised education in the 18th and 19th centuries, some believed that society could be save from itself by the development of virtuous children through education. Biblical Christianity of course would suggest that man's sin and rebellion against God makes this hope of the goodness of humanity rather tenuous. We live together in our imperfection and fallenness.

Photo credit: Alan Porritt (AAP)

When people talk of civility today, they might well mean the cultivation of character traits and virtues that are consistent with their own cultural and social practices. These at times simply reflect one's social class rather than well thought out ideas of civil society.  The distinction between practices that some see as demonstrating civility and others that are uncivilised, can be based on the most tenuous of justifications.

Roman Forum,  Centre of Public Life

Attempting to move beyond subjective debates about manners requires us to return to the root of the word, that is the opposite of civil. The word 'uncivil' comes from the Latin word incivilis, meaning "not of a citizen." To be civil, is to play one's part as a citizen in building a civil society. What any society needs to guard against is behaviour that runs counter to the well being of a society; that is, behaviour that strikes at the very structure and foundation of one's civil society. In the recent decades, many western democracies have seen the topic of civic virtue gaining attention. This has been particularly the case in relation to the good practices of government and the participation of citizens in relation to government.

In countries like Australia, France, Canada, Britain and the USA, political parties seem to be at war with each other rather than setting debating and agreeing on policies that will help to shape nations for the common good.  Political parties spend millions of dollars to tear policies and each other apart. And leaders are constantly being undermined from within their own parties. Issues are rarely debated with transparency and civility, lies are told, tricks played and voters deceived. What such behaviour can unwittingly encourage is extreme responses by minority groups in any society that is fuelled by the behaviour of our leaders as they provide simplistic messages designed to raise fear and incite anger, rather than opening up reasoned civil discussion.

In the 'The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends On It', well-known Christian Os Guinness argues that civility needs to be rebuilt in western societies like the USA if they are to survive:

"Civility must truly be restored. It is not to be confused with niceness and mere etiquette or dismissed as squeamishness about differences. It is a tough, robust, substantive concept… and a manner of conduct that will be decisive for the future of the American republic" (p. 3).

Os Guinness's book proposes that the restoration of civility in America could well have an influence around the world. He points to the threat of minority groups like the Religious Right and the secular Left, arguing that there is a need to avoid privileging one interest group over another, including religious groups. But equally, in the case of religion, we must avoid gagging public debate and making all public professions of faith illegal. He argues that the United States is uniquely placed to demonstrate how this can be done for the benefit of the world. In doing so, any nation should avoid two false responses to the challenges of a secular society where cultural and class wars eat away at civil society.  First, we need to avoid any notion of a “sacred public square", where one religion has a position of privilege that denies religious expression by others. Second, we need to avoid what he calls the “naked public square", where public life leaves no place for religion.

Guinness presents an alternative to both these problematic public squares, what he calls a “civil public square”. This is one where everyone is free to be part of and engage in public life with or without a faith, and in accordance with reason and conscience.  He sees the Constitution as a starting point in the USA, supported by an agreed covenant or civic vision for the common good.

Such a civil society, that is able to demonstrate a "civil public square", may well avoid the type of false tolerance that we have witnessed in Australia in recent times as diverse political parties have attempted to maintain a government where no party has a clear majority. A mature civil society will need to enable minority groups to have a voice, but they must not be allowed to seek to establish their position by yelling the loudest or the longest. Guinness reminds us that in a democracy all have a right to believe anything, but this does not mean, "anything anyone believes is right". We need to expect differences of opinion in a civil society and also to work out ways to discuss them and reach consensus for the common good. Christians have a part to play in such public discourse, participating openly as people of faith with godliness, humility and respect for the rights of others to participate as well.

The Loss of Civility (& its Consequences)

Photo credit: Alan Porritt (AAP)

Does civility matter? I think it does, but sadly, the signs are evident in Australia that it isn't valued as highly as it once was.  By civility I am not talking just about good manners (though they are important), but rather about the behaviour between members of society that leads to a social code and foundational principles for how a civilized society functions. This historically has been a major focus of political philosophers and has included concern with principles of justice, liberty, rights, freedoms, the law and the duties of citizens to government. The recent Carbon Tax protests in Canberra set new low standards for public political debate. It made me wonder whether we should we be concerned when we have public protests of the type we witnessed? And is public civility important?

The consideration of civic virtues is not new, two of the world's oldest republics, Athens and Rome, gave much time and energy in seeking to define civic virtues. Socrates and Plato were central in the debate concerning Athenian polis.  Civic virtue was also a matter of interest in the Renaissance, during the Enlightenment and as part of republican revolutions during the 18th century.  This of course has been played out with different priorities, purposes and social agendas. With the rise of Humanism and institutionalised education in the 18th and 19th centuries, some believed that society could be save from itself by the development of virtuous children through education. Biblical Christianity of course would suggest that man's sin and rebellion against God makes this hope of the goodness of humanity rather tenuous. We live together in our imperfection and fallenness.

When people talk of civility today, they might well mean the cultivation of character traits and virtues that are consistent with their own cultural and social practices. These at times simply reflect one's social class rather than well thought out ideas of civil society.  The distinction between practices that some see as demonstrating civility and others that are uncivilised, can be based on the most tenuous of justifications.

Roman Forum,  Centre of Public Life

Attempting to move beyond subjective debates about manners requires us to return to the root of the word, that is the opposite of civil. The word 'uncivil' comes from the Latin word incivilis, meaning "not of a citizen." To be civil, is to play one's part as a citizen in building a civil society. What any society needs to guard against is behaviour that runs counter to the well being of a society; that is, behaviour that strikes at the very structure and foundation of one's civil society. In the recent decades, many western democracies have seen the topic of civic virtue gaining attention. This has been particularly the case in relation to the good practices of government and the participation of citizens in relation to government.

In countries like Australia, France, Canada, Britain and the USA, political parties seem to be at war with each other rather than setting debating and agreeing on policies that will help to shape nations for the common good.  Political parties spend millions of dollars to tear policies and each other apart. Issues are rarely debated with transparency and civility, lies are told, tricks played and voters deceived. What such behaviour can unwittingly encourage is extreme responses by minority groups in any society that is fuelled by the behaviour of our leaders as they provide simplistic messages designed to raise fear and incite anger, rather than opening up reasoned civil discussion.

In the 'The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends On It', well-known Christian Os Guinness argues that civility needs to be rebuilt in western societies like the USA if they are to survive:

"Civility must truly be restored. It is not to be confused with niceness and mere etiquette or dismissed as squeamishness about differences. It is a tough, robust, substantive concept… and a manner of conduct that will be decisive for the future of the American republic" (p. 3).

Os Guinness's book proposes that the restoration of civility in America could well have an influence around the world. He points to the threat of minority groups like the Religious Right and the secular Left, arguing that there is a need to avoid privileging one interest group over another, including religious groups. But equally, in the case of religion, we must avoid gagging public debate and making all public professions of faith illegal. He argues that the United States is uniquely placed to demonstrate how this can be done for the benefit of the world. In doing so, any nation should avoid two false responses to the challenges of a secular society where cultural and class wars eat away at civil society.  First, we need to avoid any notion of a “sacred public square", where one religion has a position of privilege that denies religious expression by others. Second, we need to avoid what he calls the “naked public square", where public life leaves no place for religion.

Guinness presents an alternative to both these problematic public squares, what he calls a “civil public square”. This is one where everyone is free to be part of and engage in public life with or without a faith, and in accordance with reason and conscience.  He sees the Constitution as a starting point in the USA, supported by an agreed covenant or civic vision for the common good.

Such a civil society, that is able to demonstrate a "civil public square", may well avoid the type of false tolerance that we have witnessed in Australia in recent times as diverse political parties have attempted to maintain a government where no party has a clear majority. A mature civil society will need to enable minority groups to have a voice, but they must not be allowed to seek to establish their position by yelling the loudest or the longest. Guinness reminds us that in a democracy all have a right to believe anything, but this does not mean, "anything anyone believes is right". We need to expect differences of opinion in a civil society and also to work out ways to discuss them and reach consensus for the common good. Christians have a part to play in such public discourse, participating openly as people of faith with godliness, humility and respect for the rights of others to participate as well.

Faith & Politics: Our rights and responsibilities

In an article titled 'The voluble and the Word: amen to that' (Sydney Morning Herald, 10-11 October, 2009) Damien Murphy wrings his hands at the increasing influence of Christians in politics. He frames his article with the question "Is politics becoming more entwined with Christianity while Australian society becomes more and more secular?" He points to the Prime Minister's public professions of faith (and that of others) as if this may be a troubling development:

"No politician has ever spoken so frankly or linked his [i.e. the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd] beliefs to political policy. His open and sincere religiosity even provided an ethical public persona that enabled him to battle John Howard for the hearts and minds of Christians and eventually lead the ALP out of the political wilderness. Rudd is now joined by political contemporaries like Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott in overtly embracing religiosity as a shorthand way of proving credentials and displaying the sort of principles to which they aspire."

What place does faith have in politics?

At various points in the article Murphy makes it clear that he is of the view that Rudd, Abbot and Hockey have made use of their faith for reasons of political popularity. I've heard comments of this type before about politicians who dare to mention their faith. I have no idea whether any of them (including the Prime Minister) have been open about their faith simply for political gain, but surely what is at issue here is whether one's faith is relevant to one's politics, which Murphy appears to question. Indeed, he questions whether faith, as a basis for one's values and as a shaper of actions and concerns, is as relevant as it once was. He continues to imply in his article that this rush of 'religiosity' (as he describes it) is somehow disconnected to the needs of our secular society:

...Australia is an increasingly secular society. Although 64 per cent say they are Christian, fewer than one in 10 attends weekly church. Compared with many countries, Australia has invested little energy in public debate about the place of religion in a secular society. In some, such as the US and France, protecting religious freedom means rigorously policing the boundary between church and state.

He continues with his thesis that religion is somehow less relevant than it once was for public debates about Australia's political policies.

Curiously perhaps, Australian politicians have 'got religion' while more and more people around the country are letting go......In the 1996 census, 71 per cent of Australians said they were Christians. By 2006 Christians were down to 64 per cent. The number of Australians who professed no religion soared to almost 19 per cent.

Interestingly, a recent piece of research by McCrindle research for the 'Jesus All About life' campaign (here) shows that a majority of Sydney people (51%) believe Jesus was a real figure, that he had miraculous powers, and that he was the son of God.

The views of Kevin Rudd

It might also surprise Damien Murphy to find that Prime Minister Rudd would agree with him that religiosity and moral arguments have little place in politics. In a lecture given at New College (the home of CASE) on the 26th October 2005, 'A consideration of the relationship between Church and State' the then member of the Opposition offered 5 models that can be used to link faith and politics. He rejected (almost disdainfully) the first three that encourage voters to offer support to the Christian politician simply because the politician has a faith position, supports a narrow set of values, or stands for the family. He rejected a fourth that he saw as deficient because this model had a limited application of faith on values and stops short of making stands on what he sees as critical policy areas like foreign affairs, Indigenous issues, industrial relations etc. Instead he argues that:

"....the Gospel is both a spiritual Gospel and a social Gospel. And if it is a social Gospel then it is in part a political Gospel because politics is a means by which society chooses to exercise its collective power. In other words the Gospel is as much about decisions I make about my life as it is about how I act in society and how in turn I should act, and react, in relation to the exercise of the coordinated power of society through the State. This view derives from the simple principle that the Gospel which tells human kind that they must be born-again, is the same Gospel that says that at the time of the Great Judgement that Christians will be asked not how pious they have been but instead if they helped feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the lonely. In this respect, the Gospel is an exhortation for social action."

Prime Minister Rudd concluded by making the point that Damien Murphy seems to miss, Christians have a right and in fact a social obligation as citizens to engage in political thought and action. He comments in the same address that while the number of Christians has declined in Australia that they nonetheless have an obligation to be politically involved:

"Whereas a Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not, therefore, prevail, it must nonetheless be argued. And if argued it must therefore be heard by those in authority. It should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere."

The challenge to Christians to be better citizens

Just as it is relevant for Christians to enter politics, all citizens who call themselves Christians have a responsibility to contribute to better government and justice for all people.

In his book 'The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology' Oliver O'Donovan reminds us that two New Testament phrases sum up the role of government. It is a “minister of God” and it is a “human institution”. That is, it exists to serve the will of God that there should be government and it exists to give order and shape to human society and its affairs.

As Andrew Errington also reminds us in an article in issue #13 of Magazine devoted to the 'Christian and Politics' (Case here) as citizens the right approach to political action is for us to help our representatives of government do their job well and ensure that we have a good government.

The Christian has a responsibility to challenge politicians to ensure they seek justice. This will mean reminding them of God's truth taught in his Word, that ultimately God governs this nation and indeed the entire universe. God's word gives us clear guidance about what is right and wrong, just and unjust, good or evil.

So the right approach for Christian political action is to seek to help our representatives govern well and to help our governments be good governments. This means setting before them the priorities of justice; it means calling them to the truth about the universe revealed in the word of God. We must also remind them that Jesus Christ is the only true King. It is before him that every voter, every citizen and indeed every politician and ruler will one day bow down. There will be a day of judgement, and on that day every one of us will be called "to give an account of every careless word" (Matthew 12:36). Rather than standing in judgement on our politicians' words, motives and actions, we must challenge them and remind them that they have a great responsibility to do good and that one day, like us, they will bow before God (Rom 14:12) and he will judge "the living and the dead" (1 Peter 4:5). We are all known to God who can judge words, motives and hearts. As the book of Hebrews reminds us we are all "naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account".

This responsibility is challenging for the person of any faith. Damien Murphy has it badly wrong when he questions the right of politicians to have faith and apply it to their politics. Every politician who has a faith has a right and responsibility to apply this to their actions, and hopefully this shapes their values. This does not mean that they can hope to enforce their faith on the people, nor to narrowly apply their faith to a limited range of social and moral agendas. If they do this then God himself will judge their actions.

Political accountability: God, the Rudd Code, us

It is refreshing to see that one of the first things the new Australian Prime Minister has done is to release a Code of Conduct for all ministers. Mr Rudd was highly critical of some past government practices and in particular the lack of controls on ministerial employment after resigning from parliament. As I indicated in a previous post, I place a high value on a leader's ethical behaviour and suggested that when evaluating candidates for an election we should consider

"how our leaders handle the truth and how this aligns with the Scriptures....(as well as) whether leaders can keep their promises, admit their mistakes, and lead with integrity."

In a recent article in Case magazine Andrew Errington reminded us that the:

"..right approach for Christian political action is simply to seek to help our representatives govern well, to help our governments be good" and remind our governments "...that their primary role is to defend the common good by making just judgements."

As Paul's letter to Romans 13:1-7 reminds us, government authorities have been established by God and are to be given our respect and obedience. They in turn are God's servants "to do (us) good" and to punish wrong-doing from citizens.

It is significant that as a new Prime Minister Mr Rudd has given some attention to the ethical behaviour of the Ministry. Mr Howard attempted his own code whilst in government (for which he also deserves some credit), but it did not go far enough and was regularly broken by his ministers. The new Rudd Code:

• places a 12-month ban on departing ministers having business dealings with MPs, public servants or defence personnel on any matter they dealt with in their official capacity during their last 18 months in office;
• requires departing ministers to undertake not to take advantage of their previous position as a minister;
• bans ministers from owning shares unless they are held in superannuation funds, publicly-listed funds or in a trust where the minister has no influence over investment decisions;
• requires all lobbyists to disclose their details on an online public register, kept by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, before seeking meetings with ministers or parliamentary secretaries;
• bans electoral fundraising at the two official Prime Ministerial homes, The Lodge and Kirribilli House (something for which previous Prime Ministers Howard and Hawke have been criticised).

The previous prime minister’s code of conduct simply required Ministers to sell shares in companies that came under their area of portfolio responsibility.

Mr Rudd was a strong critic of ministerial standards during the Howard years and has suggested that the new measures are designed to increase accountability and transparency.
"The Australian people are entitled to expect the highest standards of behaviour from their elected representatives in general and ministers in particular," he said in the foreword to the code.

Some like Ted Mack a former independent politician who served at local, state and federal levels, see this as futile, arguing that politicians can't self-regulate. Coming from a politician this is a little depressing. I agree that there are always problems with self-regulation but this Code is a good start in placing pressure on politicians to act ethically. As Christians we don't want to display the same cynicism as is common in the world and constantly run down our politicians. Instead, we need to give them the honour that the Bible suggests that we should give them (Rom 13:7; 1 Peter 2:17).

Peter wrote that we are to submit to our authorities "for the Lord's sake" (1 Peter 2:13). We honour God by submitting to and serving those to whom he has given authority, in this instance, our political leaders. This is all part of God's plan for his people to submit first to him and then to others who have been given authority over them.

We do need to keep our leaders accountable, as our representatives they should expect this. Opposition Member for North Sydney Joe Hockey has already warned Mr Rudd that he intends to keep him accountable to his Code. But this isn't just Mr Hockey's job; it's our job as citizens to ensure that as our representatives and God's servants they are to act rightly and justly. Of course our attitude should not be one of looking out gleefully for the first minister to break the code, we should pray that they would keep the code. As Peter reminds us, we should pray "for kings and all those in authority, that they may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" for God wants all men to come to knowledge of his ultimate truths and his plan of salvation centred on Christ - yes, that's right, including our politicians! Our Prime Minister declares that he knows these truths and is a follower of Christ, even more reason to pray for him as he seeks to honour God as our Prime Minister. I intend to continue praying for Mr Rudd and also Brendan Nelson the Leader of the Opposition, and would urge all Christians to do likewise.

The Christian and Politics

The theme for the latest edition of Case (a quarterly magazine published by CASE) is The Christian and Politics. The motivation for this themed issue is not simply the upcoming Australian Federal election. Rather, it flows from ongoing debate about the way Christians view their citizenship and the roles of government and politicians. Readers of Case and this Blog would be aware of the issues that have been raised. This is not a Case ‘how to’ on voting; rather, it is a collection of papers that present arguments concerning the way our biblical understanding should inform our political minds and actions.

In 2005 I hosted the annual New College Lectures with three speakers, the Hon John Anderson MP (Leader of the National Party and former Deputy Prime Minister to John Howard), Kevin Rudd MP (at the time shadow minister for Trade, Foreign Affairs and International security) and Dr Andrew Cameron, (Moore College Lecturer in Ethics). The theme was Church and State. All three speakers gave wonderful addresses that are available in MP3 or Pdf forms from the College website or for sale as a DVD ($5 each).

In his address Kevin Rudd (who for non-Australian readers is now the leader of the Opposition and may well be our next Prime Minister) argued that Christians need to be engaged politically with views informed by the gospel. He suggested that there are a number of possible reasons that Christian politicians offer for voting in a particular way, including “vote for me because I’m a Christian” or vote for me because this is my stance on this particular moral issue. In rejecting the legitimacy of such reasons, he suggested that Christians should understand that the gospel should challenge the way they think about the broad sweep of political and social issues that we entrust to government. Readers of this Blog will be aware that I've written on an excellent tool that might help us to do this. The Australian Christian Lobby has provided on its website an outline of the major parties' responses on 25 key policy issues.















Kevin Rudd suggested that an understanding of “….the gospel is just as much about the decisions I make about my own life as it is about how I act in society and how in turn I should act, and react, in relation to the exercise of the coordinated power of society through the state.” He went on to argue that Christians need to be concerned with issues of justice not simply single policy agendas. Rudd's bigger point is that Christians should not focus narrowly on one or two moral issues and ignore other issues of justice, which also should be seen as moral issues by Christians. His point of course sits well with some of the points made in James stressing the close connection between faith and action (e.g. James 1:26-27). Rudd appears to be making the point that there is a danger that in (perhaps rightly) focusing on a narrow moral campaign one might just as easily ignore other significant issues of justice and fail to act accordingly.

The themed articles in this latest edition of Case all put the case (no pun intended) for an understanding of government and political issues from an informed biblical ethical framework.

Mike Thompson considers the Christian response and stance in relation to democracy. Should Christians support the promotion of democracy as a foreign policy objective? He argues that Christians need to be discriminating about the universal validity of “the constellation of ideas known as liberal democracy”.

Andrew Errington inspired by the work of Oliver O’Donovan and our 2007 New College Lectures has written a short discussion and reflection on the nature of representation. He argues (as O’Donovan does) that a right understanding of political representation is fundamental to understanding our roles as citizens in liberal democratic society.

Kenny Liew has written an article concerned with justice and its fundamental place in liberal democracy. Drawing partly on an earlier review in Case of Rawls' work by Andrew Bain, Liew suggests that Rawls' concept of ‘justice as fairness’ is consistent with a Christian understanding of the role that liberal democratic governments play in seeking to make just and equitable decisions that benefit all members of society. Rawls argues that a fair society is egalitarian with both the weak and strong citizens agreeing to the terms of their association. Liew suggests that while Rawls develops his position from a secular view of society that would trouble most Christians, his concept of justice provides room for Christians to “create space” in which to persuade others of the good of the gospel.


Finally an article is included from John Anderson that is based on his presentation at the New College Lectures in 2005. He argues that Christians should play their part in politics. While accepting that the separation of Church and State is justified, he argues passionately for the active participation of Christians in politics and cites the key role that Christian reformers have played throughout the centuries. He then lays out a framework for political involvement.

If you aren’t a CASE Associate and so don’t receive Case magazine you will find some of the past articles on our website, but if you'd like to receive the magazine quarterly and gain the other added benefits of being an Associate, you can subscribe for just $AU55 per year.

Oilver O'Donovan Speaks on Political Theology

Oliver O’Donovan is this year to present the New College Lectures. He is in Australia at the invitation of the College to deliver the lectures and to speak to residents at a formal dinner. The first official component of his visit took place on Wednesday when Oliver delivered a short address to the 250 residents of New College, plus a few life fellows and staff. The largely non-Christian audience of 18-20 year olds (about 30% of residents are Christians) were privileged to hear a brilliant address on political responsibility. His talk challenged them and provided an introduction to political theology and urged them to consider their responsibility to the nation. In doing so he addressed a theme that readers of his work (as in books such as The Desire of the Nations) would recognise – that through the nation of Israel God made known his purposes in the world. A kingly rule expressed in Israel’s corporate existence and brought to final effect in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. And of course he spoke of true freedom.

Australians he argued are a people with a government that serves the provision of freedom – being effective and being able to carry through purposes into action. Such a structure requires cooperation and collaboration. Quoting Rousseau he suggested to our residents that they are “not born free…… unless we are born into a society that makes us free.”

The New Testament he suggested sums up the role of government in two ways: it is a “minister of God” and it is a “human institution”. It exists to serve the will of God that there should be government and it exists to give order and shape to human society and its affairs.

He also explored the notion of representation - government is “representative”. Representation he suggested is a concept based directly on the model of Christ’s representative role in relation to the human race. Jesus is the one who suffers and triumphs for us, in whose suffering we suffer, in whose triumph we triumph. But the key to political representation is that authority is conferred by it. Government must be identity-bearing, speaking for the people, at the same time as it commands the people.

In challenging New College residents to consider their political responsibility he suggested that commitment to their nation required something that ancient Israel demonstrated, memory. The Israelites were a people with the consciousness of a common history. Second, they could see in their history how God’s providence had worked through their history to preserve and sustain them.

While introducing significant biblical themes he also posed some significant and practical questions. Can a nation of great cultural diversity develop a shared memory? How do people with family stories that are not bound up with the memories of this country develop shared memory? Can they make the memories of this country their own and recognise the hand of God in the events of their lives and that of the nation?

“How can there be a common memory when some memories can be very bitter? This is a common problem of ex-colonial nations such as Australia, in which the legacy of the colonial experiment is a terrible mixture of constructiveness and destructiveness. How is the memory of indigenous Australians to be held together in one with the memory of those whose people came from Europe? Will memory not be conflictual, tying us into repeating patterns of destructive behaviour? Much memory is not true memory at all, but obsessive images - often of violence and injury - which leap out at us from their context in the past and trail around with us in the present. Joseph’s brothers recalled the moment when they threw Joseph into the pit and sat down cold-bloodedly to decide how to dispose of him. And around the image of their own past guilt all their insecurity and nervousness collected. But they were not really remembering, since their attention was hooked on this one moment, and did not lead them on to think of Joseph’s success in Egypt and his role as deliverer. They had not learned to say, “but God meant it for good”. Good historians can always give us that view.”

There is much in these comments that resonate with the challenges we face as a nation, and pointers to the biblical insights that apologists might bring to bear when commenting on contemporary issues that we face collectively.

Case #12 will be in the mail this week (if you’re a CASE associate) in which an article by Oliver O’Donovan will appear. Don’t forget the New College Lectures next week (4,5 & 6th Sept). Come and hear one of the most outstanding Christian Ethicists of our time. Consult the New College Website for details. You might just be able to RSVP on Monday but that will need to be the cut-off, we have had a big response.