Orthodox political thought

In the last week I have had a bundle of political information but only two direct requests to make 'information' available to the people of our church community.

Now, the Anglican Church (despite often being otherwise characterised ) is not politically homogenous. It has often been characterised as "the Tory Party at Prayer"...or sometimes more whimsically (referring to the Anglo Catholic section with which I identify) as "The Communist Party at Mass"!

The reality is that we are theologically, socially and, most certainly, politically a heterodox community. It's often observed that our one defining characteristic is that we are all totally different...and we respect each other's right to be so.

This doesn't always make for easy living, but it does make life interesting.

So at times of election I try to be careful to not promote the line of one particular party, though many people would know and/or guess that I lean to the left.

The two requests to make the policies of particular parties known have actually come from other religious groups. One from an agency which promotes Christian Pastoral support Workers (formerly called chaplains) in state schools. Their advice is about the one issue of funding. Though they also urge people to write to their local member (of any persuasion) about the issue. This latter action seems to me perfectly reasonable. What is not reasonable is to be seen to be promoting one or other party in particular.

Given, also, what I note above...that Anglicans cherish difference...it would be a mistake to make the assumption that we are all particularly sympathetic and think the same way.

The second solicitation comes from a party which clearly identifies itself as a Christian Party-even though when it suits them electorally they back away from that association, though it is clear that Family First seeks to draw support from mainly conservative evangelical churches.

Such churches probably do not tolerate theological diversity in the way that the Anglican Church does!

It would seem that they also have a fairly narrow conservative political agenda. I don't have any particular problem with people being conservative. What I do object to is the use of descriptors that seem to claim there is only one Christian viewpoint.

Thus when they put out a Christian Values Checklist (see here for similar information) it is for me some what problematic.

Of the 15 points on this particular document, which seems remarkably like the document put out for the recent State election...even though it claims to relate specifically to the Federal parliament..I don't have problems with some (possibly 6 of the 15....) but I would take exception to the bland statement that some points clearly represent "Christian values"

Item 3 for example : Support parental choice of schooling with education vouchers is clearly not a specifically Christian value at all

Of more concern are those matters where I actually think the value is not Christian at all

Item 4 'Protect marriage' (quite happy with that...but it goes on) 'oppose Relationship Registers for same-sex couples'

To my mind this flies in the face of the freedom that God gives to us in the Gospel. I don't dispute that many Christian, perhaps even most won't agree with me. But while I want to protect marriage I don't think that opposing same-sex marriage is the key strategy. What about providing adequate childcare, support for new parents etc. etc?

In fact I want society to stop acting prejudicially against people simply because they are gay. Where is that Christian value.

Item11 also want to prevent same-sex couples from having access to IVF and adoption

There is an agenda here. But to my mind it is not a Christian agenda. It is an anti-gay agenda, and I find no Christian value on this 'checklist' about protecting gay people from discrimination.

Quite the reverse. Items 12 & 13 promote narrow religious privilege with regard to vilification laws and anti-discrimination legislation....that is they want religious groups to have the right to be intolerant and discriminatory in a way that no other sector of society can be allowed to be so. I just think this sort of narrow seeking of privilege is so against the spirit of Paul's teaching about being responsible citizens that it is shocking.

So, I won't be issuing their narrow political advice in the name of "Christian Values"

A

Who does God think should win the SA election?(i)

Yesterday I had half an hour to spare so I went and sat in the Dean's Chapel at the Cathedral and prayed for the State election. So it's all my fault! (here is why Anglicare urged us to do it)
In my last entry I made the not so bold statement that it won't really make much difference to our stability and sense of well-being whether Liberal or Labor win tomorrow.
No doubt some of us will feel disheartened (either way), but I suspect on Monday most of us will go about our normal business.
There has been much talk about people's personal religious beliefs, and in particular how this might impact on their ability to be able to carry out their role as an elected leader.
The (allegedly) non-religious seem to think that some how extraneous pressure will be brought to bear, but I think this is a bit bizarre.
I actually feel a lot happier knowing that Joe O'Flynn (it was St Patrick's day this week after all) has a coherent set of beliefs, even though I may differ in part or total. Than not-knowing that Jerry O'Grady is not religious...and I don't actually have a clue what sorts fo things he might regard as important.
I do remember being at one of those open-slather meetings some years ago when the clean-cut plants of the right were trying to expose some of the social policies of the local Greens candidates.
Most of us tend to think of Greens as being single-issue candidates. Plant more trees and save the whale sort of thing! But over the years they have taken time to develop social policies which would scandalise some and delight others. They are pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro delgalistaion of marijuana...and so on.
The plants in the audience were doing a good job of exposing some of these.
My point?
Everyone has some belief structure. At least the religious belief structure is open to examination where the private belief structure could be much more outrageous.
I am not of the opinion that we should dismiss whole classes of people because of their beliefs.
So lets have less of dismissing people just because they are 'religious'.
I will get round to telling you what is really going on...but maybe that is blog (ii)........

Not surprisingly-tough versus right

No surprise that Malcolm Turnbull gave Kevin Rudd the thumbs down at the National Press Club today. What fascinated me was that while admitting he had taken many 'right' decisions, his strongest critique was that he had not taken 'hard' decisions. There was an implication that it is easy to take right decisions but only 'real men' can make hard decisions. I
I sort of understand this, but I actually wonder if it's merely populist nonsense, that appeals to a pseudo macho ethic that some push-poller is promoting as the latest differential to be exploited .
Does the Liberal party assume that the electorate prefers someone who does what is hard to someone who does what is right? (The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive).
They may be correct, but that doesn't mean that this makes for good government.
Howard was 'hard' about immigration, sectors of the electorate loved this. But in my opinion it was poor policy, opportunism of the worst sort. It caused Australia to be perceived as racist in the eyes of the world, it was expensive and divisive. But hard....yes it was hard!
Hard is, of itself, not a value. We should be asking questions like is this policy good and right? These are the values; 'hard' is simply a description of how easily the policy can be implemented.

Loyal Citizenry

I was interested to catch a story on the ABC's Landline yesterday (coming here soon)about helping Zimbabwean farmers to come to Australia. It was a good story about positive immigration, and did not pretend to be easy.
At the conclusion of the story one of the English, (I think) commentators made the observation about receiving Australian citizenship that "An Australian born here will never understand how wonderful it is to have a piece of paper that says "Australian Citizenship". I know this feeling well, and have sometimes voiced similar sentiments to all the members of my family who (unlike me) happen to have had the good fortune to have been born here. Mrs C being a fourth generation Australian, and the little Cs therefore being fifth.
We take so much for granted. Our recent jaunt overseas, as enjoyable and wonderful as it was , did not diminish our delight at coming back to Australia. And I have no doubt that I am an Australian, and I am pleased to be able to say it is not just an accident of my birth.
It was interesting to read a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald by Richard Ackland (here) about the Haniff affair. Interesting because, in a way, everything has quieted down.
But he notes (amongst other things) how protagonists of tighter immigration laws, indeed the present Minister, wear the paraphernalia of citizenship...lapel badges and the like, almost in inverse proportion to their proclivity to breach values like the rule of law, freedom, and the right to a fair go. He has a point. Even if it is a little far-fetched to blame the lowly lapel badge for so much.
But at a time when we are talking about what sort of statements new citizens will have to sign up to...we should perhaps be prepared to seriously address the issues of what words and expressions like "the rule of law", "fair go", and "mateship" mean.
Personally if I was a Digger of the First War I would laugh every time the PM declares mateship to be one key value. While one can see how the filth of the trenches and the camraderie of war may indeed breed something so powerful called "mateship" that it can almost not be defined, but what suffering have Howard and Andrews endured that is anything like that supreme bonding experience.
From the comfort of the Parliament, and the bastion of power it is easy to call everyone your mate; and bear none of the consequences.
My piece of paper is worth more to me than that!

Death be not proud

One of my lurking fears is the reintroduction of the death penalty. Nothing it seems to me so betrays our corporate humanity as the desire to kill each other. That we should choose to do it 'legally' is profoundly confronting. One can criticise illegal acts, and violence...but when someone is killed by legal prescript then we are making a profound statement about our values.
We can all understand why people think Saddam should be executed, that doesn't mean we should do it. In fact I find it rather disturbing that so few voices (if any) can be heard saying that the death penalty is wrong. Just plain wrong.
One of the ironies is that it allows the voice of evil itself to paint himself as a martyr. That is an obscenity.
I go on record as saying that I believe no good is achieved by executing criminals. I do not think Saddam should be legally murdered (an oxymoron if ever there was one).
If anything Hussein should be left to rot in jail like Hess, an ongoing reminder to future generations of his evil.
He will, of course, be subect to the blood lust of the Iraqis but more realistically of the American administration. Less than human behaviour by those who claim the moral high ground.