Heaven help us if churches don’t speak about politics

Why stop at binning welcome to country and prayers

by Chris Deal

110
Twin revolutions to help troubled suburbs

by Nick Champion

210
Ignore water, ignore women

by Juliet Willetts

310
Let the aircraft noise roar

by Paul Colgan

410
Don’t bring your kids and other supermarket rules

by Lucy Kippist

510
Woman who wants to be world’s fattest reveals more

by Daniela Elser

610
SA’s whispering campaign has Adelaide by the balls

by Tory Shepherd

710
Punch on: Open thread 18/03/10

by Lucy Kippist

810
Question Time Live: 17/03/2010

by Tory Maguire

910
The Senate protects us from bad government

by Mathias Cormann

1010

21 Jul 05:35am

Filed under: Churches, Faith, Politics, Religion, Theology

Writing on The Punch yesterday David Gazard bemoaned the left-winged over-righteousness of some parts of the Christian church, who get all hot under the collar about political stuff rather than sticking to the spiritual. This is, I suppose, a change from the attacks on the right-winged over-righteousness of the other parts of the Christian church.

Of course, problems emerge when God and the Church are captured by just one side of politics. The Church may be vulnerable to such temptations in the wildernesses of power, but any God worth his name surely isn’t. It’s a lesson the followers are still learning.

David’s is a fair call in part, especially the bit about sticking to your area of expertise. After all, we Christians hate it when a Dawkins starts to teach us theology (one critic compared Dawkins on God with listening to someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds).

But it is also true that there is an overlap between theology and politics (not to mention anthropology, sociology, philosophy, literature and a whole lot more).

Theologians and other church figures must be allowed to speak on such related issues when (and, I suppose, only when) they have expertise and understanding in these areas.

At least, their contribution should be judged according to their experience and expertise. Mind you, a Ph.D. doesn’t equal the sum of all knowledge on a subject.

I would take seriously the view of many a Christian missionary on the social impact of, say, Hindu understandings of people and animals, over the armchair dissertations of some university anthropology lecturers.

I’m on holiday in Bali as I write. The political impact of Balinese Hinduism is obvious, some of it for good, some not. There’s no pretending here that theology doesn’t affect politics. Likewise, filming a documentary on the Life of Jesus last year in Jerusalem, the importance of the God-priest-city-individual complex cannot be ignored. It’s there everyday, in every quarter, at every checkpoint, in every sight and sound.

Here in Indonesia, talk about theology and politics is all over the place in this week’s papers. After the bombing, clerics are rushing to either blame one religious group, or absolve another. Others want to make the claim for peace across all religions.

Says Salahuddin Wahid, head of the country’s largest Islamic organization (Nahdlatul Ulama), in The Jakarta Post: “The bombings are definitely not compatible with the teachings of Islam or other religions, because every religion respects human life”. One hotel security guard working in Jakarta has a more resigned (and pragmatic) approach: “Having a job is a blessing for me…Whether it’s a secure place or not, that’s all up to God”.

Perhaps it is only in places like Australia, where there is an expectation that religion will be a quiet, backward thing, that we are surprised when religious leaders speak out, left or right. Surely religion should be on public display, since it drives so much of who we are and how we organise ourselves.

David, your call for churches to focus on the spiritual is a good one. For too long, it is been impossible to get airplay for basic Christian teachings.

But the spiritual enters the political for all bar the most gnostic of theologies. Views on the nature of God often drive a person’s views on politics or social issues. You care about boat people for at least two reasons; one, you are a compassionate human being (that’s most of us, I think, or am I wrong?); and two, you have learned from your theology that the world is God’s, that God created all human beings “in his image” so none is more valuable than another. At least, that is the case in the Christian tradition from which I work.

Whether it is bleeding-hearted leftiness or moralistic rightishness, the church should be listened to when it speaks, in proportion with its experience and expertise.

For some, serious theological reflection and life’s experiences may lead them to extreme political positions; let them speak.

For others, the political outcomes of their beliefs and lives are less straight-forward; let their nuanced voices be heard, too.

Actually, it’s the politically disinterested believers with whom I have a bigger problem. Rather a zealot than an apatheist.

Share post:
Print page:
- Print Article

13 comments

Show oldest | newest first

- warmist says:
  
  06:58am | 21/07/09
  
  Great. Keep speaking up Tony Abbott! Take us back to the ‘50’s! This is not America. Keep your religious faith (and I do mean faith) out of politics and everyone else’s lives. Apparently the Victorian bushfires were revenge by God for passing abortion laws according to a Christain ministry in Melbourne! I mean seriously, please keep all the sky fairy, virgin birth, noah’s ark stuff to yourselves. It’s offensive to any free-thinking adult.
  
  Reply
- phil kyson says:
  
  09:12am | 21/07/09
  
  The disease of religion should always be kept out of politics. True democracies can not exsist without separation of powers. You don’t need god to make good laws, education is the key. Freedom of speech is also another cornerstone of democracy. How else would we know that Abbott was not fit to be PM. Religion was born out of fear and ignorance and it’s ignorance that keeps it alive.
  
  Reply
- R says:
  
  10:14am | 21/07/09
  
  science is the true religion
  
  Reply
- dani says:
  
  10:56am | 21/07/09
  
  Unlike the other three posters so far, I actually think this is a very well reasoned and explained point. It would help if people didn’t see “church”, “faith” or “religion” and immediately over-react and respond to claims that weren’t even made, but put their own prejudices aside and actually READ what was written.
  
  Reply
- EN says:
  
  11:58am | 21/07/09
  
  I agree with Dani, that unlike yesterday’s vaguely targeted piece, this is a lucid article, setting forth the interaction of belief with society.
  
  Can I ask ‘Warmist’ to explain how he deals with being ‘free-thinking’ but denying others the same privilege?
  
  And to Phil Kyson: my faith is not born out of fear. It’s my response to the love of God demonstrated to all people ‘in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.’
  
  And to R: Please expand on your blanket statement and how your belief affects your view of the world.
  
  Reply
- relativity is the true religion says:
  
  01:56pm | 21/07/09
  
  Er, I sort of agree with Tony. Up to a point. I mean I wouldn’t like him to call me an ‘apatheist’ because that sounds, well, not very nice, really.
  
  We can never be certain about the existence of God but never be certain of no God either, right? I mean, what if there is a whole Pantheon like the ancient Greeks and Vikings and Hindus believed. Maybe they’re ALL in there somewhere and just haven’t woken up to each other’s presence yet or the presence of the believers in other religions. If so, I certainly hope we don’t upset Thor or Woden, or Apollo, or those ancient Hindu gods in the Upanishad. You know, they could be a pretty vengeful lot and who knows how they would lean if invoked politically. Would they support the ‘bleeding heart leftists’ or the ‘moralistic rightists’ that Tony mentions? Or would they impatiently smite both with equal force?
  
  But religion is just relative really isn’t it? Just because Jesus exhorted Christians to give away their possessions to more needy people, no-one takes that seriously in the modern world, do they? That’s, like, communist or something. And churches would never support that. Would they?
  
  And that thing about human induced global warming - is it really induced by human materialism and the pollution produced in order to satisfy it? Couldn’t it be God’s way of reminding us he’s still around? An early doomsday reminder?
  
  It’s never so simple when you take a harder look.
  
  Reply
- Senecca says:
  
  02:42pm | 21/07/09
  
  Sure, let’s listen to the church on some political issues.
  
  For example, how about the treatment of non-human animals?
  
  Since all creatures were created for humans to use - we should be able to use them in any way we want. Why have free range eggs / pigs? What a waste of time. They are just animals after all - lets keep wearing fur from animals that are skinned alive. Who cares about sentience or interests?
  
  What makes the church such an expert on morality? Why should we listen to the church?
  
  God / religion are not necessary to act / think ethically. Nor are they necessary to be content, lead a fulfilling life. They are redundant in any quest for the good.
  
  The problems with the church are fundamental in nature; moral guidance from an outmoded text, coupled with the concept of an afterlife with potentiality for posthumous harm is a recipe for biased thinking; biased thinking that is rife with vested interests.
  
  This is why religion and politics shouldn’t mix.
  
  The truth is that people of religious nature effectively have their hands tied in many moral decisions. It is very difficult for the church to ethically progress.
  
  On the other hand, science alone is not to be trusted on many issues either.
  
  No - more than just hard science - it’s philosophy, law and psychology to which we should turn for answers on how to live and how to treat each other.
  
  Reply
- phil kyson says:
  
  03:02pm | 21/07/09
  
  I wonder how many have been murdered by zealot apatheists in the name of their church?
  The harder you look the simpler it becomes if you truely open your eyes and mind. Still in it’s childhood the human exsistance is slowly maturing as it evolves to it’s next stage where religion and the tooth fairies will share an honoured place in peoples hearts. All we need is time and the perspective it gives you if you wish to see. True faith and hope in the universe as it’s meant to be based on knowlege is a wonderful thing.
  
  Reply
Kevin says:

05:52pm | 30/01/10

Phil you make me laugh with your so simple view of life, your the exact example the article relates to Dawkins being theologically sound. Your ‘superior’ attitude that you display indicates a complete bias and non understanding of anything outside your own little bubble. And yet you are evolving???? Interesting that you say ‘the harder you look the simpler it becomes”, you obviously weren’t talking about the athiests view on the origin of man - not simple at all, considering you lot still haven’t come up with a logical or believeable answer - oh sorry, maybe you subscribe to Dawkins belief that life actually started from aliens visiting earth!!!! My friend, you are intellectually dishonest!!
- G says:
  
  03:10pm | 21/07/09
  
  Greg Greg Greg…
  
  The separation of church and state is essential to a functioning democracy, and as a representative of the Centre for Public Christianity you should know this.
  
  The Federal constitution states that the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
  
  Basically, it’s so we don’t have people like you in power who are affiliated with a religious group pushing their agenda over others.
  
  Reply
- R.E.L. says:
  
  04:00pm | 21/07/09
  
  Of course, most people don’t realise that most of our laws in Australia are eerily similar to those in the Bible: don’t murder, don’t steal, innocent until proven guilty, etc. etc.
  
  Reply
- John Dickson says:
  
  04:37pm | 21/07/09
  
  There is so little evenness in the sceptical responses to this piece. How could any unbiassed person think Greg Clarke was advocating the union of church and state? How could any careful reader think he wanted to impose the Bible on non-believers? How could anyone familiar with the Christian intellectual tradition, of which Greg is a good modern representative, compare the Christian worldview to devotion to the tooth-fairy? How could anyone vaguely in touch with the mainstream church think that blaming the Victorian bush fires on abortion laws is representative of Christianity in Australia? How could anyone committed to democracy disagree with the central proposition of this article that appropriately qualified religious leaders should be able to speak out on issues of political consequence—does democracy exclude the religious portion of the demos? I hope there is something revealing here for non-partisan lurkers: contemporary scepticism tends to respond to argument with insult, nuance with exaggeration and measure with chest beating.
  
  Reply
- Payton L. Inkletter says:
  
  07:14am | 22/07/09
  
  There is a compelling reason why religious establishments should keep out of politics in their own names, and rather focus exclusively on trying to be good at spiritually catalysing their members – who then as individuals can choose to morally and ethically enliven their families and the other people and secular groups with whom they interact – and it has all to do with the concept of, and the perception of, divine sanction.
  
  Countless times countless adherents, right to the present moment, of formalised religions around the world, even if and when the professionally ‘investitured’ proclaimer isn’t particularly seeking God’s weight behind his opinion, have taken the cloistered words to be of far greater worth than, if not even of an absolute status, all other opinions. And so writers have religious death sentences declared upon them, clergy ‘bless’ troops and warships, doctors are murdered at legal abortion clinics, suicide bombers kill infidel and gentile, dangerously celibate lives are embarked upon, Presidents and priests proudly call for the annihilation of whole nations, and so on and on.
  
  Yes these latter dysfunctions are at the extreme end, but are not uncommon, and currently are among the most pernicious problems confronting humanity.
  
  Professional religionists in the freer societies like Australia’s can comment politically, socially, scientifically, culturally, and so on, in their own names as private individuals or secular office bearers of whatever other interests they participate in, but they should stress their non-religious role at such times, and of course there are many easily accessible ways nowadays to make imperative comment anonymously.
  
  Better that professional religionists exclusively dedicate their lives (actions) to proving that love (the desire for good for one another) is the greatest thing in the world, and spreading this benign contagion by example.
  
  Reply