the church lobby
Posted on November 15, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Church
*WARNING* - You are reading a post on politics by a self-confessed lefty. Be careful.
At the moment, in Australia (where lots of your Amateur Theologians are living), we are in the midst of a Federal election campaign. I’m also aware that our poor cousins in the You-nited States are revving up for a big presidential election next year. So politics, and political campaigning is everywhere. And there’s no doubt that some of the really loud voices on both sides of the pacific come from christian churches and lobby groups. From the hard-right conservatives, through to the environment-loving lefty christians - it seems that Christianity is involving itself in the political process more and more. For the moment I’m not really looking to the “what” of their message (although that will inevitably seep into the conversation), but the “why” and “how” of church involvement in politics.
The way I see it, there are a few different approaches to politicking that churches and para-church groups take:
- The “Jesus would vote for…” approach. It’s not that hard to spot, but it’s certainly around - even from pulpits. It’s distasteful to many (myself included), but it does have one thing going for it: it’s transparent and honest. There’s no “read-between-the-lines-to-see-who-you-should-vote-for” - it’s this guy or you’re going straight to hell. I’d include in this basket the approach of: “we think you should be very serious about who you vote for so we’ve invited one candidate from a certain party to speak at church”.
- The “this position is the Christian position…” approach. A slight deviation from the “vote for Bob” but it can often end up being a thinly veiled attempt to say exactly that. At it’s best, this approach shows genuine concern for a specific issue and asks people to vote for whoever they feel best responds to that issue. At it’s worst, it reads from a party policy document (or words to that effect), highlights who might be aligned with that particular view.
- The “these are things that Jesus spoke about” approach. A deviation further away from number 2 - this presents issues as less explicitly political, but more issues of morality or justice. It has the advantage of not patronizing the people being presented to, but also has the potential to have people miss the connection between their Christianity and the rest of their lives (duality, etc.)
I can see people in churches and church-organisations adopting all three of these approaches. So I’m interested to see what people think? Should churches be voicing their opinions on political issues? Should that come from the pulpit? Is the line between issues that are “political” and “non-political” a furphy? Is it more OK for Christian organisations than it is for churches?
Rhetorical questions over. Comment away.
About Geoff Matheson
Geoff is a 23 year old database administrator who has birthed amateurtheology.org from some crazy thoughts he had early one Monday morning. Geoff does his best to sound lots smarter than he actually is. He also runs some youth stuff at Yarra Valley Vineyard, and he is married to the very lovely Rebecca.
Geoff's site: http://www.geoffreport.com/wp/
Comments
13 Responses to “the church lobby”
Leave a Reply
I haven’t looked into this in much detail at all, but I was wondering where this website: http://www.ces.org.au/ that i stumbled across fits in with these approaches to politicking? Is it really helpful to have a group that has compared the different parties in such a mathematical way? It’s certainly a quick and easy way of working out who to vote for!
You missed one…
4. Jesus loved the environment more than unborn children and the sancticty of marriage, so vote Green….
I dont think Churches should push any party at all…and despite requests, there is no literature, or candidates in my church. We have people who vote Liberal, Labour, Green, Family First, CDP and donkey….I think you can mount a biblical argument to vote for any of the parties…so in the end, it boils down to personal preference/conscience/bias.
I’m not sure that christians even agree amongst Christians anyway about that kind of thing… and I think there’s a big difference between agreeing and going along with the flock.
Why would we teach anything other than what we always teach in churches? There’s an election. Well sheesh if we haven’t been teaching kids how to make smart decisions based on values in the 18 years its taken them to be old enough to vote, then we’re in a lot more strife than just having another liberal government.
I think thats the sum of my opinion. If you have to do church differently in an election year to make some kind of political point… then why haven’t you been doing it consistantly anyway?
I guess that makes me a number 3, but maybe a militant number three. I probably indoctrinate children with green socialist values long before they are old enough to vote. The nice thing is that on the odd occasion, the government pays me to do exactly that
Oh and breifly, re: CES
Climate change is the only environmental value listed… and climate change isn’t about environment for conservation, its about human survival.
I’d want to have a really good look at their analysis before I trusted these guys. How have they measured those statistics? what do they actually imply?
A while ago I was emailed this article (Voting Christianly, by John Dickson) which provides what one could only call a fairly counter-cultural way of thinking about voting.
Ill let people read the article for themselves so that you arn’t reading it through the tinted glasses that im wearing
http://www.plebeians.net/votingChristianly.pdf
I will probably post my thoughts about it later, after i have recovered from 90mins of riding.
i think being political wise is one thing, lobbying is something different - often it comes down to which set of self interests do i fit most with - which pretty much depends on where i am in life.
So perhaps the vote is a discipline of considering what is not only best for me but what would be better for others?
As for ethical issues i think the vote can sometimes be a cop out for actually doing something about our ethical stance
I am leaning towards 3 too….in this sense at least.
We should teach and disciple people in the whole word of God, all year, every seasons. This includes the idea that creation is a gift from God which should be treasured. So is human life, this should be treasured too. Both principles inform our decision making in regard to issues about conservation and abortion.
I suppose I get frustrated with both left and right as I strive (unsucessfully of course) for balance.
The problem with being a pastor is that people are used to you preaching the word of God…if you start talking about politics, I wonder if they dont then subconsciously carry the same weight to your words when you tell them to vote for such and such a party. I reckon the same thinking goes for youth pastors as well
I’m glad nobody at ours voices their opinion with SHURE in hand: I don’t like the idea of constituents not deciding for themselves.
I go for 5.: through the prism of your faith, what hierarchy do issues wind up in, and which party meets most of the top 10? It’s never clear cut.
-this is, of course, assuming there’s a discernable difference between the choices-
I voted for the natural law party once as a young(er) man. They made me laugh.
Seriously, given where we’re at as a country, I think it’s all but irrelevant which party gets into government regards the substantive issues you raise (in the comments) Geoff - they’re near as dammit centre stage conservative: neither is going to legislate anything significantly different from our current position, and one questions the point of law as a visionary social framework anyway: drugs, underage drinking, hardcore porn, speeding in traffic, software piracy: these things are apparently all illegal, but substantial social issues today.
I think in a democracy, social change is brought by the people, celebrities, commercial interests and the media: pollies, for all the bluster that an election brings, simply set the framework for when you can be either charged, fined, jailed or sacked or not for doing what you were going to do anyway.
Thank the big guy(s) we have the freedom to change society without the Government’s say so: THAT’s the beauty of our government.
i like matt’s number 5.
i had made a little hierarchy of issues in my mind, issues that I think are in God’s heart (as seen through MY tinted glasses) and on that basis i will cast my vote on saturday.
sorry, no great christianese talk here. (i suck at it anyway).
Hmmm werry interwesting…
I think peole tend to underestimate the importance of the preference system as a measure for social conviction.
For instance if you intend to vote labour, but you care about the environment, you might want to vote green (assuming green preference labour). You’ll be voting labour, but you’ll also be adding one more number to the statistical emphasis on who cares about the environment. It makes a big difference in regard to social perception, and lobby power. Plus more green seats in the senate is going to be very valuable. (IMO)
Its interesting the whole discussion about heirarchies of values… what’s most important to you and why… and the article by John Dickson was worth a read.
I’m not sure that everyone’s interpretation of “what’s best for the gospel” is the same. I won’t be voting family-first, because their over-emphasis on enforcing values instead of tartgeted social justice doesn’t adequately represent the gospel I believe in. I’m hoping more young Australians will voice similar opinions to the family first guys, because I find them embarrassing.
Sorry if I’m a bit opinionated today. You’re all discerning readers, so I’m sure I won’t have brainwashed anyone to my perspective.
no fear of that tim!
Thats an excellent article by John D….