Stanley Hauerwas - 'Thinking, Writing and Acting Politically'

Prof Stanley Hauerwas delivers the 2013 New College Lectures

We have just completed the 2013 New College Lectures that were delivered by Professor Stanley Hauerwas from Duke University. His lectures had the title 'The Work of Theology: Thinking, Writing and Acting Politically'. In the three lectures Professor Hauerwas revisited positions he had taken in the past, and reframed them to help clarify and understand how he has engaged in theology as a practical discipline. Hauerwas suggested that the talks were in a way inspired by Karl Barth who wrote an essay entitled, “Rudolph Bultmann—An Attempt to Understand Him.” However, Prof Hauerwas suggested that they might best be characterised as a series of thought experiments entitled, “Stanley Hauerwas—An Attempt to Understand Him.” There were three lectures in all on consecutive nights (17-19th Sept) preceded by a shorter address to the residents of New College at a formal dinner prior to the lectures (16th September). You can download the lectures plus the formal dinner address HERE.

‘How I Think I Learned to Think Theologically’ – In the first lecture Professor Hauerwas explored the character of practical reason as an exemplification of the kind of reasoning that is intrinsic to the theological task. In this first lecture he drew heavily on the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and MacIntyre's argument that if we are to consider questions of justice and rationality, then we must recognise that such questions are not the same for all people. Hauerwas (acknowledging MacIntyre) argued that "...a person of practical reason is able to think for themselves only by thinking with others." He suggested that this will also depend on who you are and how you ultimately understand yourself. The ideas explored of course owe much to Aristotle and the way he distinguishes between scientific knowledge and practical wisdom. Having provided an account of practical reasoning Hauerwas then turned to a reflection on how he might have learned to think theologically drawing in particular on his memoir 'Hannah's Child'.

‘How To Write a Theological Sentence’ – In his second lecture Hauerwas drew heavily on Stanley Fish’s book ‘How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One,’ and explored how difficult it is to write a sentence that expresses what we should say theologically about God. Before discussing Fish he again reminded us that how we understand and communicate theology reflects '...how Christians find themselves in the world' and that for theological writing to have impact it must make the familiar strange. Theology also needs to be writing about God rather than writing about what theologians in the past have said about theology. He explained that one of the key foundations of the theories of Fish is that syntax has an inexorable logic '...a ligature of relationships that makes a statement about the world that we can contemplate, admire, or reject'. He then used this to consider effective theological thinking and writing. In doing this, he drew many examples from the work of Robert Jenson. For example, his sentence 'God is whoever raised Jesus from the dead, having before raised Israel from Egypt' was unpacked and the power and work of 'whoever' discussed. Theology he suggested frequently confirms the familiar and that a sentence like Jenson's makes the familiar strange and engages us. This he argued should be the quest of any theologian.

‘How To (Not) Be a Political Theologian’ - In the final lecture Professor Hauerwas considered how politics has been at the heart of the first two lectures by drawing attention to current developments in political theology and in what ways he is, and is not, a political theologian. Of course, whether he is a 'political theologian' as some claim, will depend on how one defines 'political theology'. In the first section of his talk he considered how in Christian America there has been a sense of 'moral obligation to be political actors in what [is seen] to be democratic politics.' This talk drew heavily on John (Howard) Yoder's work, a critique of the work of Richard Niebuhr on 'Christ and Culture', and Walter Rauschenbusch's argument that the social gospel is the '...religious response to the historic advent of democracy.' With this as a backdrop he explored the relationship between Christianity and politics and suggested that, in a sense, the development of Christian thinking about politics and government resulted in '...the loss of the politics of the church.' Hauerwas suggested that Yoder's thinking is a strong counter argument to Niebuhr and Rauschenbusch and that the church can serve democracy by being a community that respects adversaries within and outside the church, rather than simply becoming a '...tributary to whatever secular consensus seems strong at the time'.

A section of the audience of almost 400 on the first night of the lectures

The lectures where challenging and yet very practical. As always, Professor Hauerwas provoked all in attendance to examine varied assumptions and offered insightful and enjoyable critique, analysis and synthesis of the work of some key thinkers. He engaged the work of these theologians as he tussled with the challenges of thinking, writing and acting politically by using himself as a case study and backdrop to his thinking. Once again, you can download all three lectures plus his after dinner address below.

The lectures and after dinner address

'A Theologian at Work', address to New College Formal Dinner, 16th Sept, 2013

‘How I Think I Learned to Think Theologically’, New College Lecture, 17th Sept, 2013

'How To Write a Theological Sentence' - New College Lecture, 18th Sept, 2013

‘How To (Not) Be a Political Theologian’ - New College Lecture, 18th Sept, 2013

Presenting the New College Lecture's medal to Prof Hauerwas

Professor Stanley Hauerwas is an American theologian, ethicist and public intellectual. He currently teaches at Duke University serving as the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke Divinity School with a joint appointment at Duke University Law School. He is considered by many to be one of the world's most influential living theologians and was named 'America's Best Theologian' by ‘Time Magazine’ in 2001. His work is frequently read and debated by scholars in fields outside of religion, theology, or ethics, including political philosophy, sociology, history and literary theory.
 

Pushing Through The Election Blues?

A post by Rev Ben Gooley

Australians have an upcoming Federal Election. In many conversations I have had, disillusionment seems to be high with many struggling to find a party or leader to support with genuine enthusiasm.

For all its faults, the democratic system we enjoy in Australia works best when the wider populace is properly engaged with the electoral process, understands the key issues and asks their candidates intelligent questions.

For Australian Christians there are a number of tools to help move beyond the sound bites of the nightly news and understand a little more about the stated positions of the various parties.

The ABC has launched their Vote Compass which tries to plot your answers to a short set of questions against the policies of the major parties (they evaluate the ALP, Coalition and Greens). Its plotting is necessarily fairly basic, but it is also quite straightforward to use and may be helpful to some in understanding the differences of the major parties on a variety of issues. There are also links that give more detailed summaries on various issues.

The Bible Society Australia has also tried to gather relevant information on a variety of issues for Christians in their Federal Election Guide 2013. It considers more than just the major parties, and unashamedly takes a Christian perspective. With the enormous breadth of opinion among Christians on every issue this is non-trivial. Their methodology is to provide quotes and articles by key leaders and commentators, as well as a summary of the party positions, and allow the reader to reach their own (better) informed opinion. It takes a little work, but is a useful summary on understanding the issues more deeply.

While it’s often easiest to slide into a cynical disillusionment about Australian politics, remaining uninformed will only encourage more sound-bite policies. Perhaps these resources will help in pushing through the election blues.

Christianity and Terrorism

Above: Photo 2013 Boston Marathon (WikiCommons)

We are often reminded that we live in a fallen world. Incidents such the Boston Marathon bombing, or the killing of the British solider a week or so ago are cases in point. In the aftermath of these events people are left scratching their heads and often fingers are pointed every which way.

In Case magazine  #11  in 2007,  Moore College Lecturer Dr Andrew Cameron, wrote a particularly helpful article on Christianity and Terrorism. He asked, since terrorism is firmly implanted in our social landscape, how does it connect with Christianity and how can we respond? What type of voice should we have in public debates on terrorism?

Christians who engage in these debates are often confronted by the retort "but Christianity advocates similar violence, just look in the Old Testament". Regular viewers of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Q&A television program would have seen this demonstrated as this very question was posed to conservative Christian politician Rev Fred Nile, specifically referring to Psalm 137.  Rev Nile tried to explain to the audience that the Old Testament was part of God's 'Old Covenant' and for Christians the emphasis is in the 'New Covenant' .  Christians who viewed the program most likely could see the point that Nile was trying to make. Of course we need to remember that covenantal language is unfamiliar to most people, so the idea that the 'Old Covenant' is fulfilled 'in Christ' is not easily grasped. Thus Nile's point was lost on most.

It occurred to me that the ideas raised and explanations in Andrew Cameron's article 'Christianity and Terrorism' (Case #11) would have been very useful when trying to respond to the accusation that the bible advocates acts of terrorism. In particular Andrew's article explains well that there is no justification for Christians to engage in holy wars as described in the OT. He wrote:

Even when they occurred they were pictured as a special occurrence, not a general rule; and because in the ‘story arc’ of the Bible, the death of Christ is the penultimate fulfillment of the same purpose as these wars. The satisfaction of the wrath of God, instantiated in these wars, is for the time being completed on Christ’s cross (and finally completed at humanity’s final judgment). Hence in Christian theology, there is no longer any warrant for any holy war anymore

In addition to the above explanation, Andrew's article has an excellent analysis of how governments  are responding to terrorism around the world, and I found his concluding remarks on how Christians should respond to such events as very timely.

This cry of ‘come, Lord Jesus!’ lies at the core of a Christian response to terrorism. To pray for angry and misguided Islamist terrorists; to pray for our leaders in the fearful decisions they must daily make; to pray for the wounded lying in hospitals; to pray that it doesn't happen again and that peace reigns—in such prayers, we do well, because we take our helplessness, and the lostness of humanity, to the powerful throne of God.

I know Case subscribers would enjoy Dr Cameron's  article. So I encourage you to pull out your back issue of the magazine. The article can be viewed online.  New Case subscribers are also welcome. More information regarding our publication is found at the Case website  

The Christian and Politics

A post By Edwina Hine

All our readers who live in Australia must be aware that this is an election year. In fact the count down has begun, and it is only 120 days until the next federal election. This week it will have been difficult to escape news telecasts of the federal budget speech by Wayne Swan or the opposition's budget response a few days later.

The news from Canberra gives all Australians much to think about, as we ponder how the budget and other government initiatives may effect our vote later this year.  Case edition #13 ( from 2007)  entitled "The Christian and Politics"  has been a helpful read for me this week as my thoughts turned upon the subject of Australian politics. The articles in Case 13 are certainly not a "how to" of  Christian voting, but it is an excellent collection of articles. Collectively, the essays look at the way Christians view their citizenship and the roles of government, the stated purpose of Case #13 as Trevor Carney points out in his editorial, the magazine offers

".... a collection of papers that present arguments concerning the way our biblical understanding  should inform our political minds and actions"

One article I enjoyed was penned by the Hon. John Andersen -who was at the time the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. His article  entitled 'Church and state' outlined the role people of faith should play in politics. He reminded the readers that the

" debate over the relationship between church and state is alive and well... The issues are difficult, they create real tensions and there are, in the end no definitive, final, neat formulas"

Courtesy of Google images

We are also reminded that in 1 Timothy 2 that Christian relationships with the 'state' are within the
framework of Gods eternal plans. Christians are to pray for political leaders so that they govern and oversee a peaceful society in which the gospel can be preached. Anderson  concludes his thesis by reminding the reader Christians

"must have a distinct world view that allows us to contribute  thoughtfully and theologically to public life"

In addition to John Anderson's article, this edition of Case also includes an article by Mike Thompson on 'Western Christians and democracy as a foreign policy objective' , and an article by Andrew Errington entitled 'Representation and good government'.  The latter can be read online as can he article by John Anderson. There are a number of other articles in  edition #13 well worth a look.

A back issue of Case #13 can be purchased here, or  if you wish to become a Case subscriber you should visit here. Case edition #13 on Christians and Politics also followed the 2005 New College Lecture Series 'Church & State'. Both John Anderson and Kevin Rudd were amongst the guest speakers and for those in an interest in the topic - you might enjoy visiting the New College Lecture website to view their talks here 

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.

How Should Christians Vote in 2010?

The Australian Christian Values Institute has just published a checklist for assessing the major political parties contesting the Federal election on the 21st August. Checklists of this type have been appearing regularly just before Federal elections for some time. The 'Australian Christian Values Checklist' is used widely by the Christian Democratic Party in its campaigning and is supported by a number of other small organizations.

It is argued by some that there is merit in such a checklist and its desire to compare major parties on a basket of 'Christian Values'. Many Christians struggle to decide who to vote for in any election.  But is this checklist helpful? I don't think so. There are a few reasons.

First, the whole approach is simplistic and reductionist in nature. It is based on the assumption that you can distil what matters most for Christians from a party's policies to a set of values, and that these can be assessed for each party in a fair and equitable way. There is little evidence to suggest that this has been achieved.

Second, the checklist omits many areas that for any Christian should be of concern.  For example, treatment of the homeless, poor, aged, disabled, mentally ill and aliens. While the Australian Christian Values Institute argues (here) that they don't include such issues because there is little difference between the parties on such issues, no real evidence is given to support this claim. To be fair, they also suggest that they focus on the values that they do because they believe that these are the values for which there is a defining difference between the parties. There is some truth in this and I see value in encouraging each other to consider the issues which other parties fail to mention for fear of voter backlash, and those that might be abhorrent to most Christians which might just make it difficult to vote for a party even if their other policies you find acceptable (for example, support for euthanasia).

Third, the creation of a list of this kind presents a view of Christian concern for the world that is a pale shadow of the picture of the concerned, engaged life of the citizen that the Bible presents.  

Fourth, the way the parties are assessed seems rather arbitrary, especially when the question mark is used (with the tick and the cross) for some values, suggesting a degree of uncertainty.

What's missing?

There are a wide range of Christian values that should be included if one is to try to provide a more comprehensive assessment of key issues that should influence our votes. For example:

It doesn't mention the need to support the aged, the homeless and the poor.
It fails to address the call to welcome the alien (see my previous post on 'Boat People').
It omits the need for justice for Indigenous Australians.
It overlooks inequities in health funding and educational provision for isolated communities.
It fails to mention the need to help starving and strife torn nations and those threatened by climate change through foreign aid.
It overlooks care of the disabled and the mentally ill.

What does it conclude?

The checklist concludes that we should all vote for the minor Christian parties. Three parties score almost perfectly on all 23 Christian Values - the Christian Democratic Party, Family First and the Democratic Labor Party (DLP). The Greens Party scores a tick on just one item, 'supporting greater care of God's environment' (but all 7 parties are given ticks on this!). The Labor Party scores just three ticks, and two of these are also given a question mark. The Liberal Party scores 14 ticks (2 with question marks) and the National Party 15 ticks (two with a question mark).

It is difficult to see this as a fair assessment of the parties. To suggest that all seven parties have equal concern for the environment is at best misleading and probably dishonest. There also seem to be many other gross simplifications in the way the parties are assessed. As well, the checklist includes some items that are policy commitments of the minor Christian parties and presents them as 'Christian Values'. For example, suggesting that support for 'educational vouchers' as a Christian value is difficult to justify. It may well be a worthwhile policy agenda that people who send their children to private schools would support, but it is hardly a defining value that should significantly shift our vote.

What is disappointing about the list is that in presenting such an incomplete and flawed list, it might inadvertently deflect attention away from issues that Christians should be concerned about and campaign for.  In taking such limited view of 'Christian Values' it might well lead many Christians to dismiss the checklist without properly considering areas of policy in the major parties that should concern us. For example, The Greens while the key party on the environment, support many policies on the family, abortion and end of life that few Christians would find acceptable. Issues like preservation of marriage, support for families, opposition to abortion and euthanasia, rather than being considered as issues by Christians, might be ignored as some Christians reject the limited nature of the overall assessment of policies.

How should Christians vote?

I believe that it is possible for Christians to vote for different political parties and for different reasons, with a clear conscience. I do not believe that we can use a checklist to establish which party should get our vote, although it might well help us if we can be sure of its accuracy. I also do not believe that we should vote for a party, or even a local politician, just because they say that they are Christian. Mind you character should be at the top of our list, but Christian politicians can be found wanting in relation to character just like some of the non-Christian politicians. It's important to know a lot about the people we vote for; do we want them to lead us?

As well, some Christians will feel so strongly about a single issue such as euthanasia or abortion that they will vote for one local representative over another, or one party over another - I don't usually vote this way, but it's a legitimate response. However, we should never vote out of self-interest, we should seek the good of others. In a recent article Michael Jensen helpfully suggested the following five factors that should inform our vote:

We should vote for the sake of others - honouring one another above self
We should seek righteousness and justice in our community.
We should vote for the poor and the weak.
For freedom to preach the gospel message of Christ.
We should do it prayerfully, praying for our leaders and ourselves as we choose them.

It will be an important day on the 21st August. We should be grateful and thankful to God that we have the opportunity to choose who will govern us in this country. We should all give our vote very careful consideration and vote in an informed way.

Other posts

Michael Jensen, 'How Should a Christian Vote' (here)
'Dispelling Myths About Boat People' (here)

So which one was God's party? Any post-election lessons?

Australia has just voted in its federal election and the government of 11 years led by John Howard has been defeated and Kevin Rudd is the new Prime Minister. I was 'over' the election by the time it came and was glad that Australians finally had a chance to cast their votes. I'm a very interested citizen in politics but I have to say that I was weary from political advertising overload, from dissecting policies, listening to media reports and debating the same issues - call it campaign fatigue! I felt that we had the opportunity to be informed and I was ready to vote. And as a Christian I felt that we had political parties that were offering a choice. I don't buy the argument that the major parties were the same - there were some key differences. It was also helpful to have some new tools designed to help negotiate the policy maze and unpack the differences. The most useful was that offered by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) that I described in a previous post. One of the most helpful bits of this site was that it showed me how my local member had voted on legislation that is important to me. But the frustration above all frustrations that seems to be part of every election, is that some of my fellow Christians pedal three simplistic false assumptions EVERY time!

1. That if you're a Christian you'd better vote for Christians because no-one else will.
2. That if you're a Christian that the Christian Democrats are the party that we should vote for because of its stand on a number of critical moral issues; and a sub-theme that there is a limited set of moral issues or values that should concern me.
3. That if you are choosing to vote for one of the two major parties to have your say about the government in the lower house then you need to vote Coalition because no right thinking Bible believing Christian would vote Labor.

I don't want to bore readers of this Blog by examining each of these assumptions but I feel compelled to comment in general terms. I struggled to vote for the CDP. Why? Because I have never been able to trust the policy platform of the party and the accuracy of its policy analysis. Yes, I do agree with its stand on specific moral issues and can stand with them on many of the values that are explicitly outlined (e.g. opposition to the creation and destruction of embryos for research, opposition to same sex marriages, opposing adoption for same sex couples, opposing euthanasia and abortion etc). But there always seems an intellectual dishonesty about the way the party defines its key values, the values it doesn't concern itself with, and the way its members denigrate other politicians and parties based on their assessment. As well, many of the issues on the checklist assume only one Christian position and I believe that for some of the issues they outline there are different positions that are possible (e.g. in relation to school vouchers, vilification laws etc).

In 1998 I was horrified to see the CDP preference Pauline Hanson above the local Labor party candidate in my electorate. Given Pauline Hanson's policies at the time it was difficult to see how this could be justified as a Christian. I was appalled in the current campaign to hear a CDP supporter talking about God's blessing on Australian being withdrawn if Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister of Australia. Why, they were asked? Because John Howard is a Christian and Kevin Rudd is not. I haven't spoken to John Howard about his faith but I am confident that Kevin Rudd has a genuine and sincere faith in Christ based on the words from his own mouth when he visited New College in 2005 and the testimony of others who know him well, including some politicians on the other side of the house. I won't say much about the failure to understand the sovereignty of God in assuming that God is somehow powerless to work through a Labor government. God's word teaches us that "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases (Proverbs 21:1)".

The latest CDP analysis of 27 moral issues prior to the recent election is yet another example of how selective choices of moral issues and selective assessments of party policies leads to misleading guidance for Christians on how to vote. It seems that The Rev Canon Sandy Grant from St Michael’s Pro-Cathedral Wollongong is just as annoyed as I am. In his assessment of the regular CDP analysis of the major parties he suggests that the Australian Christian Values Checklist 2007 ‘is simplistic, reductionistic, and unbalanced’ and therefore ‘runs the danger of being sub-Christian’. While the last point is harsh I agree with the first three comments. Like Sandy I have pointed out omissions from the checklist in the past to no avail. He points out that as usual the checklist is reductionist, limiting values seen as relevant and simplifying others. I agree with these points. Could we not have asked for an analysis of the major parties' stance on:

* the care of widows and orphans;
* the homeless;
* giving aid to foreign nations in crisis;
* the right of an employee to receive fair pay and just employment conditions;
* policies on climate change and how that might impact on developing nations, especially their ability to feed their people, meet their health needs and so on;
* the treatment of aliens;
* the treatment of Indigenous Australians.

Some might also ask for an analysis of how our leaders handle the truth and how this aligns with the Scriptures. We might also consider an assessment of whether leaders can keep their promises, admit their mistakes, and lead with integrity. I could continue but others can join the dots.

At the end of all this, does it matter? Yes it does! Why? As kingdom people we are to be different, to view the world differently and to be salt and light in it. I want to make headway on the critical issues that I know CDP are committed to including abortion, stem cell research, gambling, the damage done by drugs and so on. But I don't believe that their regular checklist does justice to their cause, nor will it take us far enough. As a group of people who represent less than 5% of the population Christians are a minority in a secular society. Yes, we need to speak boldly and with conviction when necessary on issues such as the need to defend the rights of the unborn and to oppose any research that seeks to destroy or manipulate that which God has created. I applaud the Christian Democratic Party in its stance and courage in arguing for such issues. But we also need to open our eyes to the needs of the tragic deaths of children in developing countries who lack simple medication, clean water and sanitation, we need to seek justice for the alien, we need to respond with compassion to the poor. We need to be concerned that climate change has the potential to kill millions through extreme weather events. As a Bible believing Christian I know that this world is under a curse due to sin and that the pain we experience is but a symptom of a creation "groaning as in the pains of childbirth" (Rom 9:22). But I also believe that God expects me to strive to serve God earnestly all the days of life, to be a "blameless and pure (child) of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation" (Philippians 2:15). This of course is not about seeking perfection, but rather, wholehearted devotion to doing God's will. Like light in the darkness we are to shine. I believe that God meant the words he gave to the prophet Micah that what he requires of us is "To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with (our) God" (Micah 6:8b).

Our God works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (Eph 1:11). We receive the governments that our sovereign God has ordained. Kevin Rudd is not Prime Minister by mistake. Our prayer now must be that God will work in his heart to make him the best Prime Minister that this nation has had. We must uphold him in prayer and plead with our God that he might bless this nation and pour out his Spirit upon many. Our prayer must be that God might "let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!" (Amos 5:24).