I write to you today with a warning. I could simply point out that I don’t agree with the way this particular group does politics, and I could simply point that out with a quick comment rather than a whole blog post making use of the strong word “warning”… but, when I thought about it, there are enough people that don’t delve into political games enough to really be able to tell when something is biased. And so, I’ll take it on myself to point it out.
My warning is about the Christian Values Checklist, released recently for the 2010 Federal Election (and also released for several past federal and state elections).
(click to enlarge)
On the surface this checklist looks like a decent guide for Christians to follow when voting at the upcoming election (which is now only two weeks away! Gosh how that did that come so quick…). Based on this checklist, Christians should vote for the primarily Christian parties first (i.e. Christian Democratic and Family First), put the National & Liberal parties before Labor, and basically – put the Greens last as much as possible because their policies are basically anti-Christian and they only stand for one thing Christians stand for.
Fair enough. But if you look closely, there’s some glaring omissions in this checklist. There’s nothing about foreign aid (what about the Millennium Development Goals?), refugees, homelessness & housing… or other traditionally “left-wing” issues.
That’s right. This Christian values checklist – apart from a token environment question at the bottom – focuses only on right wing issues. It’s not a guide to how a Christian should vote – it’s a guide to how a right-wing group, run by Christians, thinks you should vote.
Now, I’m not saying the questions they ask aren’t important, but the fact that they leave out any issues that are traditionally championed by the left side of politics – well, it smacks of clear conservative bias. And as a Christian, it is clear that there are some issues on the right and some on the left which we really should be caring about.
And that’s my warning – when you’re told how to vote as a Christian, make sure you dig beneath the surface of who is telling you, and what they’re saying (that includes digging beneath what I say as well, and by the way, I generally vote conservative but there are clear issues in this election that drive me to critically analyse that).
Here is another Christian resource which helps lay out the positions of most parties on some key Christian-related issues: the Australia Votes website from the ACL. It will take you a little more time and effort to read, but it is a lot more balanced in the issues that are discussed.
I’d welcome your comments on this… do you think my criticism of the Australian Christian Values checklist is justified?
You know what’s funny? I’d actually rather vote for a non-Christian this election, even though I’m a Christian.
On the Salt Shakers Website, where I got the list from, they mention this very thing. I dont think they are intentionally sweeping it under the rug, they are just focusing the list on moral and ethical issues as opposed to social justice issues… But always good to be aware of, as you say.
I think it’s justified. The list is overly simplistic and, as you say, consists only of what one group considers ‘Christian Values’ to be. The ACL site looks to be a much more useful source of information! I definitely concur with your admonition to think critically about what anyone says about how you should vote. Hanging around with a lot of conservative American christians has been quite an education for me in what happens when we as believers hitch ourselves unquestioningly to the wagon of one political party. I would hate to see the church in Australia ever take the same path.
Yes, Tim – someone sent me that checklist and I was infuriated. I thought, where is the concern for the poor? The marginalised? The disabled? Global issues that we should be concerned about? How can we possibly call the issues listed “ethical” and “moral” but the other ones not? Every action and policy has an ethical dimension. To split some issues off in this way is a schizophrenic approach to faith and certainly to voting. The truth is that each party has strengths and weaknesses policy-wise and it is highly unlikely that you will get the ‘perfect’ package in a party. In the end it’s your local candidate that you need to be wary of! – and sometimes, as Stephen says, you’d rather vote for someone who shares many of your views but doesn’t share your faith. Equally you can often find that a candidate who does actually share your faith is a complete twit. Go figure!
I looked through a number of the policy wordings – very interesting framing. I am trying to remember back to my life as a Christian, can’t say my voting habits have changed that much. I advocate examining the issues yourself instead of relying on the ACL or whoever this sheet comes from. It strikes me that both groups are attempting to manipulate christians
Simple checklist for simple Christians – such as 2 elections ago when ACL in Canberra were pushing all Christians should vote for Christian Democrats”….
Let’s call it as it is – its values drive politics looking for a constituency.
Interesting how Jesus had some difficulty endorsing the Religious right of the day….
Sean, this checklist doesn’t come from the ACL. I’ve linked above to what the ACL has provided for this election. From where do you get the argument that ACL is attempting to manipulate Christians though? (I won’t comment on whether the group(s) that made this checklist are trying to do that…)
We do have freedom of choice as Christians to vote for whoever we think. However, while I would have (without hesitation) advised Christians to vote Labor in 2007 (because of Kevin Rudd), I would now (without hesitation) advise Christians NOT to vote for Labor (because of Julia Gillard). We now have presidential style elections when our view of the leader shapes the way we vote. And, voting for minor parties (such as Family First) – a complete waste of time.
leading a country is vastly different to bypass surgery. i would place faith values as very important in a leader, this can have a huge influence on the moral & spiritual direction of a country. And afterall, it is the bureaucrats that make the economic management decisions anyway (i once was there), so the “best surgeon” argument is found in them – and everyone knows we don’t get an opportunity to pick them.
And Phil …if I was headed for bypass surgery, I would want the best surgeon…irrespective of his personal faith values…
Somehow that thinking has to translate into looking at the competency of the team, not just the leader.
Leaders can be replaced!!
If faith position is important to you (rather than standups outside a church on a Sunday morning) there are many fine Christians on both the major teams…who would be disvantaged by thinking which targets a leader selected by purely political motivation.
A person’s values are important so much as their work demands it.
E.g. most Australian medical schools promote the following ethics/values: beneficence, non-maleficence, confidentiality, justice, etc.
Now, if your surgeon didn’t have these values (especially the first two!) don’t let him/her near your body
.
Re: Christian value checklistss. As far as I see it, the CVCLs are not “right-wing, non-Christian”. They’re “right-wing, Christian”.
That is, if you were to draw a Venn diagram and include “Christian”, “right-wing” and “left-wing” as your subsets, the intersection between Christian and right-wing is what you would see in a lot of these CVCLs. That doesn’t make them non-Christian, it just means you might not necessarily get the whole picture.
Christian right-wingers do care about Christian values such as care for the poor, homeless, etc. But because of their right-wing values they don’t necessarily see government as the right way to approach these issues.
Think about the study in the U.S. that showed that religious conservatives were more likely to give money to NGOs- and to give more money too- than their secular left-wing counterparts. Which is interesting, because often it is the left-wingers preaching giving to overseas aid/the poor. The right-wingers believe that as well, they just have a different solution: private funding rather than govt funding.
(BTW the study also showed left-winger Christians were more likely to give than left-winger seculars. Not sure what the data was for right-wing seculars.)
Now ACL does a pretty good job of asking a wide-range of questions. But you have to take into account that the politicians themselves are answering the questions, which means they can do the whole “poli waffle” thing. Voting records are probably much better evidence, especially on a local level.
Of course the problem with ‘Christian Values’ is where do you stop in this statement. Obviously this list (in particular the salt shakers one) is primarily a personal/family moral and religious freedom checklist. Of which I have no particular problem (I actually agree with a relationship register unlike them but the list itself is not wrong)
Does it leave out some key ‘social’ and ‘justice’ values? Probably, does such make the list extreme. I don’t think so. Whilst I have specific concerns regarding major parties policies on these issues.
I have no problem in saying I would ‘tier’ my concerns. Intentionally undermining the solid foundations of society in the family in the policies such as the greens put forward do without any doubt in my mind cancel them out. You cannot suggest changing the very fabric of society in the redefinition of marriage and family and then go back. Changing a major parties activities on refugees is a flexible policy issue though that is not a ‘fabric of society issue’. A despite the left or right wing views on this area are not as easy as either would suppose.
I also think that social justice applications are also a little more difficult to define in a Christian values statement in policy application. Christian’s should be stewards of the earth God has created. How the best way is at times up for debate. Does that mean every Christian should sucker up ‘Global Change’ ideals, no that is a different issue. (though I have no problem with it as such) Christians should care for the poor, the broken and the refugee but how that is applied in political policy is still up for debate.
Is criticism of the checklist valid? of course in that it might not be extensive enough. Does the checklist reflect the vast majority of ‘born again’ Christian views as it stands. Pretty much.
Sorry Tim, but as one who was prayerfully and conscientiously closely involved with the checklist, can I say your shallow attack really adds nothing to the debate. Indeed, sadly, all you do is trot out the same vacuous lefty rhetoric and clichés. I have addressed these concerns time and time again. Why not actually interact with them instead of yet another cheap shot?
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/08/03/thinking-about-the-2010-election/
With all due respect, armchair critics are a dime a dozen. What exactly have you done in this area to help other believers think more carefully about the election? Or is your ministry simply to bash others who have done the hard work, and sought as best they can as followers of Jesus, to assist in this vital area? Sorry Tim, but I am not very impressed with your rather lame efforts here. Please spare us the typical leftwing rhetoric, and try to actually interact with the real issues instead.
Well Tim, I must admit that I’m with you on this one, and I’m normally well to the left of you politically. I would like to congratulate you on the care with which you have written your post and encourage you not to be upset or offended at being criticised for trotting “out the same vacuous lefty rhetoric”.
There is very little on this Christian Values Checklist which reflects the issues on which my vote hinges – mental health, refugees, the environment, political accountability & looking after the underdog.
Hope you are having fun out on the campaign trail with the Liberal Party. I’m about to start some GetUp action.
Thanks for attacking me back Bill – just for doing what I thought was important in this election.
I don’t see how discussing this doesn’t help other believers think more carefully about the election. Many non-politically-aware Christians are seeing the Christian values checklist, and making their decision to vote based entirely on what seems the more “Christian” party.
The funny thing is, I’m generally a Liberal voter, so in that way we have similar politics, and if I had no integrity I’d push the Christian values checklist as much as possible just because it would get “my side” more votes.
But that’s the thing: the checklist is unfortunately helping non-politically aware Christians remove themselves from the issues and let others do the thinking for them. When those others are groups (Salt Shakers especially) who are far more right-wing than Christians in general (and certainly more than what I can imagine Jesus being), I think it’s important to present the other point of view so that people realise they actually need to think through these issues themselves.
I’d be doing the same thing if the checklist focussed only on left-wing issues. I strongly believe that allowing abortion can not be a truly Christian thing to do and if a left-wing checklist claiming to be “Christian” left abortion off, I’d be posting about it quicker than I posted about this checklist.
I think you have done a fantastic job and obviously a lot of man hours have gone into this project. My only wish is that it was more balanced towards a centrist view, so that people could look at the list, look at the values, decide what they believed was important to vote for, and then made their own decision based on that.
I think the article you wrote (that you linked to) to is a very good overview, and you’ve explained well the reasons why you believe conservative values deliver a better outcome for the poor. But this is your politics. It’s your opinion, and to be fair, it’s not shared by every other Christian. I think it would be fair, on a Christian values checklist, that the option for both left and right methods of dealing with social justice issues are considered – and not just shrouded in partly hidden conservative views (I say partly hidden because, as you’d expect, the majority of people are just going to look at the checklist and not the writing behind it).
Bill, I don’t think it’s appropriate to call Tim an arm-chair critic just because of this post. He is asking a question about the CVCLs and I think that’s valid.
“Gold does not fear fire. In the same way, truth does not fear testing.”
If “Christian right-wing values” truly are good/Christian/etc. then asking about them isn’t an issue, and in fact, can only offer an opportunity for explanation as to why they are good.
If “Christian left-wing values” aren’t valid, then asking about them isn’t an issue, and in fact, can only offer an opportunity for explanation as to why they are bad.
I know your heart Bill, but I think your comments would be better if they were less “attacky” and just simply explained why you thought Tim was wrong.
Thanks Amanda, but you miss the point. Just who exactly started the attacking here? What would you think if I posted on FB something like the following: “WARNING! WARNING! Avoid Tim M (or Amanda) like the plague. They are misrepresenting historic Christianity.” Would your heart warm to that? Would you consider that to be Christlike constructive criticism?
The truth is, I have offered a number of lengthy rationales for what the list is all about. I would have thought it would be more Christlike and helpful for critics to interact with those, instead of posting juvenile and judgmental ‘Warning’ notices on FB.
I agree that the use of the word “warning” was a bit over the top. But the reason TM did so was because he believes a lot of politically disengaged people might unquestioningly accept the CVCL without looking into it.
If I was producing publications claiming to be the Christian point of view, without seeking to rebut alternative claims of the Christian point of view, I wouldn’t at all be surprised if people started posting “Warning! Question Amanda’s publications before you accept them!” posts. In fact, I would welcome the discourse.
Thanks, Bill.
Yeah – I’m with you Tim on this one, which is odd as I am a little left politically, and you sit somewhat to the right… Has Bill not noticed you Liberal campaign photos?
Bill – what irks me about your response is your willingness to claim right wing views and engage in “right wing rhetoric” and unilaterally declare it to be biblical and Christian. The Bible, and our God, is not so narrow, not so easy to pin down into a checklist. For one, I am all too aware of our shortcomings as a nation in terms of coming to the aid of the poor and the oppressed. I am also concerned about the watering down of the institution of Marriage – but to me that comes further down the list than showing compassion to a family that is fleeing a war-torn country. You can argue this or that about actual policies – I have, and it is my prayerful position that I cannot support a campaign of fear. Just give us room to disagree. Speak for yourself and not the faith. The church is diverse, and dialogue is good.
The issues with the checklist isn’t that it focuses narrowly on a few social issues. There seems good reason for selecting a few issues where there are real difference between the parties. And the bias is clearly explained in the larger document of Supporting Statements.
But that is the problem. The document that will end up in most people’s hands is a one pager without any of this justification. It’s stated aim is to assist people who want to make a Christian-values based vote. No “select issues where there is real difference”, no “issues such as social justice are covered by other groups”, nothing.
Justications on pdf documents on website and addressing concerns over and over again on blogs does not help the Christian who is handed one of these cards in church.
The card doesn’t mean to cover all the issues which Christians should consider, but it is presented as if they are all the issues. If you have a disclaimer, publish it on your distributed documents.
Hi Tim, thanks for lighting the fire under this one, I am sure it has generated interest in the CVCL.
What I find interesting is that you attack the check list, which is intended to deal specifically with certain issues, (but can you say any one of them is unimportant – I digress) but appear to support the ACL question & answer sheet.
I find that interesting. I would have thought that someone who is politically astute would have known that when you ask a political Party or politician a question, the first thing they will do is think “now what can I say to impress this person and get their vote”.
Yep, they spin the answer to suit the audience
Now I would suggest that is more dangerous because most people are going to take it at face value and vote accordingly. Sad but that is the reality.
At least our checklist, with all it’s perceived shortcomings, actually researches the Party policy documents, and voting records to give an accurate picture on where they really stand on those issues – No spin, just facts. Except perhaps for the motherhood statement “Support greater care of God’s environment” which, as a person who loves God’s creation, I objected too.
If you don’t believe me, please check my Picasa web site: http://picasaweb.google.com/Peter.Stokes08
Two final questions Tim.
Firstly, what specific question on ‘the poor’ would you suggest that would highlight the true Biblical position. No motherhood statements allowed!!
Secondly, on the same theme, have you seen the web site of Dambisa Moyo called ‘Dead aid’ http://www.dambisamoyo.com – does she have some very interesting things to say about Aid that Christians could do well to consider as they attempt to throw the responsibility on to governments? A responsibility that I believe the Bible says very clearly is a personal one?
Peter,
Thanks for taking the time to visit and write a response. I am happy to generate interest in the CVCL – I think it is important, and certainly part of the arsenal of tools that Christians can take into consideration this election. But, I also think that given the fact the checklist is biased and the fact that most people don’t delve into politics deep enough to realise that that bias exists, warrants other voices out there to deliver an alternative point of view. That’s all I’m doing – I’m happy for people to look at what you’ve written and what I’ve written and make up their own minds, and I’m happy to do all I can to help them do that. After all, we’re in a democracy, and I could even be wrong.
As I mentioned, I’m actually usually a Liberal voter and several (although not all) of the points on the checklist are ones that I agree with. It’s the claim that it is “the” Christian Values Checklist that I think is a misrepresentation – naive at best, and deceptive at worst. I would have no issue if it presented a wider range of topics, or if it was labelled the “Conservative Values Checklist”. If a checklist labelled the Christian Values Checklist came out asking only about issues on the left side of politics, and ignored an issue such as abortion, I’m sure you’d also have something to say about it (and quite rightly, in my opinion).
I guess what you’re suggesting is that it’s safer to guard voters from politician’s answers by interpreting the answers (and other available information) for them, then providing the voters with a tick or a cross. I understand your logic here, and I don’t completely disagree with it, but I think it also has the effect of causing people not to look further into the issues and just to trust one checklist’s answer. Like anything – say, the media for example – there are always inherent interests taken into account and we’re not going to get the full story on an issue unless we investigate it for ourselves. Yes, answers on the ACL’s website could be spun by the politicians, but it is up to voters to read and come to their own conclusions (of course, with the help of others who can extrapolate the issues too) – not to just decide based on a tick or a cross that could have any number of assumptions (and perhaps even hidden spin?) behind it. I realise though that this is my opinion and not everyone may agree with it. It is certainly easier, and perhaps even more appropriate, for busy people to use a checklist – but then the inherent bias of a checklist, especially one claiming to be Christian, should be honestly declared.
Re questions on the poor – or in fact, any group of disadvantaged people – I’d suggest there could be several questions that would take into account policies affecting foreign aid, refugees, homelessness & housing, disabilities, and mental health, to cover a few that have already been mentioned here. I don’t think there is one specific question to cover it all. Although, I am aware of one specific question that would easily have fit in for foreign aid – and that’s raising our national foreign aid commitment to 0.7% of GDP, like Micah Challenge, Oxfam, Make Poverty History and World Vision are campaigning for.
I haven’t heard of Dambisa Moyo before – thanks, I have started to follow her on Twitter and will read what she has to say. She looks like a credible and influential voice.
I should point out again, to finish, that just because some people believe that government cannot do anything to help the poor, doesn’t mean that all people (indeed, in this context, all Christians) believe the same – and that is what I think you could be more upfront about. And I should also add that even if the government is doing something, it doesn’t remove any onus on us individually to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
OK.. I having read this… Both brothers have valid points. The important issue here is unity is it not? Scripture implores us to “maintain the Unity of the Spirit (until) we reach the Unity of the Faith”…. (Paul’s paraphrase).
Let’s keep up the fight and remember the obvious – that we fight for the same side.
Thanks for the lengthy reply, Tim.
Firstly, (and I meant to put this in my first comment) let me say that I accept that the two pages – the checklist and the One page substantiation sheet – should always be presented together as suggested by one of your readers. We have certainly done that in the past.
That was a mistake due to Jenny & I being away when Julia called the election and a perceived rush need to get this out quickly – the 8 page substantiation was posted the next day, the one page one was posted a couple of days later. It will not happen again.
As I expected though, you really didn’t answer the one question about the poor. I meant the Australian ‘poor’, I deliberately separated out that specific issue from overseas aid or any of the other perceived Left ‘slogan’ issues (refugees, homelessness & housing, disabilities, and mental health, to make it easier.
I say left slogan issues because that seems to be what you are suggesting – assuming ‘conservative means ‘right’ to you.
While the ‘left’ talk a lot about them no party really has a real solutions for them and, in most cases, the policies of both major parties are very similar.
Please, if you disagree don’t just say so – show me how. I won’t hold my breath though.
So, on the basis that I did not expect an all encompassing answer, let me try again
What question would you suggest we should have, on which one could evaluate the perceived difference between the parties on how their policy says they will treat Australia’s ‘poor’.
Please then show how me how you would answer for the different parties so as to guide Christians about their perceived differing positions.
Re Party answers…
I was suggesting it is more honest to show people what the parties actually do support, rather than let them waffle/spin an answer. with the substantiation provided.
Either way, Christians have the choice to dig deeper or take it at face value. Knowing that most will unfortunately do the latter, surely the truth is a better guide than spin.
please also remember that this CVCL is just one email among many we send on the election and we constantly tell people to analyse and question their own candidates as to their worldview and the issues important to them.
Lastly, Another question
You seem to suggest we should not call it a ‘Christian values checklist’ and you suggest it should be titled the ‘Conservative values checklist’.
Which of the values we list would you say was NOT a Biblical one, in other words Not a Christian perspective?
If we had included two or three questions about the ‘so called’ left issue, would the issue we list cease to be conservative?
By the way, at the last election a Greens candidate distributed a “Christian Values checklist’ that gave the Greens all the ticks and the CDP all the crosses!!!!
I think I still have a copy if you would like to see it.
Hi Peter, I have read your comment with interest – and would like to throw in my 2 bobs worth once again…
Firstly, there is no doubt that most of the issues you have focused upon are founded in scripture. Some are not biblical, but rest in the misconception that we should live in a Christian country, which we do not, or that the biblical injunctions to a holy life are mandated outside the Church of Jesus Christ, which they are not. You will not agree with much of this assessment, but you can surely see that some of these positions arguable at the very least.
Secondly, the bible has much to say about an enormous number of issues, not a lot to say about many particular issues facing this generation, but is in any case primarily about who God is, and where we stand before him. We love to distill these truths into doctrines and policies, but the effect of the Gospel is to be “written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (2 Corinthians 3:3 – some poetic license with the context). Our response to God in any given context cannot be codified. The few issues we focus on out of the many say a lot about how we look at life, and where we come from. You are politically ‘conservative’, and that is fine. I am not – that should be fine too. We can all come out with checklists of issues we feel are the most important. We need to be honest enough with ourselves to admit that it suites our political agenda as much as it does holy desires to help and protect.
Thirdly, your insistence that giving is a personal responsibility is somewhat confusing. Of course generosity and concern for the poor are a personal responsibility (or journey, I believe, as we learn to leave our excuses behind). But at the same time, we want to be the ‘salt’ of Christ to our society, do we not, and encourage the nation to compassion, to the benefit of as many of the poor and oppressed as we can conceivably reach. It is the same motivation behind extending the injunction to holy living (same-sex relationships, pornography) outside of the Church because we know the damage these ‘freedoms’ cause, and we are concerned to limit the damage.
Incidentally, I agree with most of your points. But I do not agree with their priority. No political party is blessed by God, but each is as deeply flawed as the human agendas that drive them – including those that purport to be Christian. Surrendering to political stereotyping is the easy path and absolves us of the responsibility to struggle with the consequences of participating in government – the good and bad. Taking part in politics in a secular nation is an exercise in pragmatism – what do I feel are the most important issues right now? What fatal flaws can I stomach? Which of these policies are likely to actually see the light of day?
The struggle to express genuine faith in a broken world continues…
Tim’s comment above wraps up it up well and I agree with what he says.
Peter, how about this. If you’re happy, I will work with you on the next checklist (the one for the Victorian election) to include some more questions about other issues that Christians care about. There are Christian organisations we could speak to (first to mind is UNOH – there are several more) that work here in Melbourne who, being at the coalface, would have incredibly valuable input into what they would like to see Governments do to help the poor right here in Australia. I’d be happy to work with you to facilitate this.
Of course – that doesn’t negate the need for helping other marginalised groups, nor increasing our overseas aid budget – again, I have suggested one question and I am sure that we could research many more.
“Which of the values we list would you say was NOT a Biblical one, in other words Not a Christian perspective?”
None could be shown to be not Christian IMO, but as I have already said, there are many that Christians would disagree with. Me personally, issues 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 17 would not be on my “personal checklist”. Actually, 10 and 17 would be but with the opposite answer to what you’re looking for, and those other few, while good things, are unlikely to sway my vote. The rest I broadly agree with you on but probably at different levels of commitment (a couple even teetering on the fence). But, that is just my opinion. Other Christians will think differently.
Of course, my point is not that you should be removing issues, but either adding more to give a more balanced view, or changing the name…
“If we had included two or three questions about the ‘so called’ left issue, would the issue we list cease to be conservative?”
Possibly. If it was a balanced checklist – rather than just adding ‘two or three’ token questions, then it may possibly be! If you want to do this, I would suggest consultation with a range of Christian groups who advocate on different issues. For example, groups like Compassion (as well as the others I have mentioned above) will have a lot to add to your already good research, and will mean that your influence will extend further and bring more value to the body of Christ in an election period.
Hey, in the name of unity, what could be wrong with some wide consultation in the aim to have the checklist supported and endorsed by a wider range of churches and organisations?
And yes – I’d love to see the Greens Christian checklist that you came across!
Thanks again for your dialogue on this. I can only hope that we’re both here to learn from each other, rather than just to defend our point of view.
Cheers,
Tim
By the way, here’s another person who has blogged critically of the Christian Values Checklist:
http://andjustincase.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-should-christians-vote-in-2010.html
And another one, from Tim Goodwill who commented above:
http://fedbyravens.net/archives/360
Fantastic discussion by the way Tim. You have a very diverse group of friends, which has contributed to a very robust discussion. This says something about you – your balance and willingness to engage. My hat is off to you.
Thanks Tim, I really appreciate that.
For those who are continuing to follow other discussions, here is a third link:
http://cloudofsteam.com/?p=881
Peter, I look forward to hearing from you re my offer to help you with the next checklist.
I note that both of you (good) men have presented powerful arguments to defend your (apparently) opposing positions.
Ultimately, both of you (as do I) will have to present yourselves before the Lord and give an answer for the way you’ve lived your lives on this earth.
What I do want to say to both of you (Tim M and Bill) is that I enjoy the rigour that both of you bring to this debate.
Bill acknowledges his Right Wing predilections, as Tim admits his desire to balance the debate to examine issues upon which Bill might not have so clearly focussed.
Both of you are well read, intelligent and passionate men who desire that Australia becomes more Christlike – a “Godly Nation”.
For Australia to move “forwards” surely it can only commence by individuals choosing to serve the Lord.
“If MY people who are called by MY name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from THEIR wicked ways, THEN will I hear from heaven and forgive their sin and heal their LAND” (emphases mine).
Righteousness exalts a Nation. Righteousness starts with US (actually with ME). Only if we choose to repent will God move and “heal our land”.
So for me.. BOTH of you have led me to examine my heart. Both of you have led me to examine my motives, my desires and my drivers… Both of you have caused me to consider carefully how I vote. For that I thank God for you both.
Scripture implores us to “Maintain the unity of the Spirit (until) we reach the unity of the faith”.
Blessings brothers.
Paul
Coming late to this conversation, I’m intrigued by Lucy’s comments where she says, “they are just focusing the list on moral and ethical issues as opposed to social justice issues.” Since when did injustice cease to be a moral and ethical issue?
Hi Tim M
Late to the convo too! I actually spent more time writing about the ACL survey.
I think these kind of voting tools, while of some use, highlight all the more that voting is only possible while holding your nose (as someone recently put it).
I’m keen to keep talking about this stuff even though (or especially because) the election is over. We’re reaching the end of Christendom in the West, looking at a future of a marginalised church, and we need to be clear about the main game!
Cheers
@Arthur… I tend to agree. We are no longer a Christian nation and Christians are in a clear minority. There is not “proper way” for Christians to vote and never will be for we are a diverse group heralding from left wing, right wing and centre political ideologies.
It matters not who governs. The sun will still rise and Jesus will still be Lord over all…
Hi Folks
It always concerns me when Christians surrender territory to satan.
The start of the Preamble of Constitution of this nation states…
“An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia. [9th July 1900]…
Whereas the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and under the Constitution hereby established:”
I would also like to suggest people discover what takes place in a Coronation of a new Monarch of the Commonwealth. Among other important things they promises, on the Holy Bible, to serve the people under God. That oath is supposed to be taken by every person seeking authority in this land. But we have surrendered to apathy and political correctness.
Before you all hit the keyboard. let me say that while our government – not the people, but the system – is not perfect, is one of the best and most stable in the world.
It is supposed to be government by the people (as against a dictator) of the people (sort of democracy BUT under God’s guidance) through the Monarch, her representative here (our head of state) and the governments of this nation.
IF it was followed correctly – those people would serve people, not ‘rule over them’ and they would do it ‘justly’. According to God’s Justice not some hypothetical false justice.
The comment has been made by Paul, and alluded to by others, that “it matters not who governs” – I suggest you tell the Jews that who lived in Germany last Century, or the Russians who lived under Communism for so long, or the people who lived under Poll Pot or those who live today in Zimbabwe, etc, etc.
In fact such a simplistic statement as “The sun will still rise and Jesus will still be Lord over all”
is an insult to Christianity. Tell that to the Christians in China who suffer for their faith every day!!!
Yes, “the sun shines” (unless you live in Melbourne today!!!) and “Jesus IS still Lord”, but he is not a dictator and therefore people still go to HELL and bad governments are elected. Mainly because we Christians have become so apathetic that we say “it does not matter who governs”.
GOD gives us the freedom to elect better or worse governments – no none are perfect but certainly some are better than others – no God is not ‘right’ or ‘left’, but they are simply wrong constructs – what we have is a choice between totalitarianism or anarchy and in between the two is Christianity – Freedom with responsibility/self control.
We can chose and indeed we must if we live in this country because we all have to vote (or are given the opportunity to because, as well as being Christians, we are citizens of this Nation and should act responsibly UNDER GOD.
All men need to be reminded of the Law of God because they are all UNDER the law – like it or not – and will all be judged by the Law. God’s Grace gives them a way out of that judgement – ONLY if they repent and are saved. If they don’t know, because we have not told them, WE will be held accountable
Romans 3:19-22 (NKJV)
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 (NKJV) “But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.”
Sorry this is so long
Now, Tim, to address your offer of help with the checklist: Thanks but no thanks.
I could have based this simply on your statement that your answer to question 10 would be the opposite answer to ours.
Firstly, I cannot find any Biblical substantiation, or any common sense reason for that matter, for society to endorse any form of sexual immorality let alone one God calls an abomination, Jesus said was “unclean” (Matt 15: 18-20 and Paul says flee from. (1 Cor 6:18)
To think that you can give part of the ground to satan in order to save the rest is at best naïve, but it also shows a very poor lack of understanding God’s Word and a lack of research which clearly shows that that strategy has not worked anywhere else in the world.
But there are more reasons than just that one.
I do lean towards your suggested answer for Question 17 because I am concerned about governments being able to control more than just explicit material – as happens now in China. I also don’t want parents to be fooled into thinking such a system will solve all the problems.
That said, I do think that ISPs should be responsible enough to stop some of the appalling violence and sex that is currently freely available. Just as we expect newsagents to. This material has a detrimental effect on everyone who watches it but is especially dangerous to many already vulnerable/disturbed people.
As for your suggestion that UNOH might help – Jim Reiher works for them and just stood for the Greens!!!
Whilst I can accept a Christian joining a Party like the Greens to sort them out, to be salt and light in their midst and point to their errors, – as we need to do in all Parties – Jim is not doing that, he actually agrees with their policy of legalising the killing of the unborn (abortion), he also supports euthanasia and homosexual relationships. Not only does he state that by actually standing for the Party, he has told us personally.
Yes, it could be possible to expand the issues, but those who evaluate what the questions and answers should be need to have their theology based firmly in the Bible.
By the way, if you can show me Biblically that our values are not, rather than that simply being your ‘opinion’, then I’m happy for you to do that.
Hi Peter
I’d say that people go to hell because their hearts are hard, good government or bad. The key to change, and to fighting Satan, is the people of God, the place where God is in the business of creating new hearts by his Spirit to be his temple. This nation desperately needs spiritual renewal, but a government can help precious little with that. Christian values do not maketh the Christian.
That’s not to say that Christians ignore politics — far from it…
Hi Peter,
I appreciate your continual and constructive dialogue on this.
Re my opposition to number 10. That’s fair enough that you would not want me to be involved given we have differing opinions on this. I should point out though that I would not be suggesting every question be changed to please me – I would agree to disagree on questions like that – and I’d just be willing to help out with the addition of other questions that focus on areas left off the checklist. Changing the checklist to match my opinions would make me guilty of bias as well, rather than opening it up to include a range of issues that allows Christian voters to choose what is going to sway their vote (based on their own priorities – remember, we live in a democracy).
But I should point out that the Australian Christian Lobby also disagrees with you on question 10. Which isn’t to say that you’re necessarily wrong, but it is another indicator – of an issue seen moreso in what has been left off the list – that the naming of the list as the “Australian Christian Values Checklist” is misleading.
Which brings me back to the original question underlying my primary criticism of the checklist: from where do you take the authority to claim that this checklist is the “Australian Christian Values Checklist”, when it is clear that the questions and answers on the checklist are based on your opinion?
Bill Muehlenberg wrote the other day:
“I think no one political ideological or party can ever claim exclusive allegiance to or representation of biblical Christianity.”
Yet the Christian Values Checklist seems to claim that conservative values – and political parties which subscribe to them – can “claim exclusive allegiance to” and “representation of biblical Christianity”.
Apart from an explanation of your opinion being that social issues are best dealt with by the not-for-profit sector rather than government, I haven’t seen any “rebuttal”, if you like, of this direct criticism – and that’s what I really am looking for.
I am sure the Checklist is influential in parts of the Christian community. Imagine if it could build on that by including policy areas that are of concern in other parts of the Christian community – and become a checklist which other Christian organisations are happy to promote as well?
That would be a great day for Christian unity and Christian political involvement. In my opinion.
@Peter, We differ in political ideology. I’d describe myself as centre right and reading your posts I suspect you are to the right of my position.
I make this point before commencing this response: I strongly endorse Bill Muehlenberg’s political actions surrounding the issue of abortion and also Bill’s unswerving desire to retain “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Religion” rights for all of us in this nation. He is to be commended for these efforts.
As to me: If you wish to research me you’ll find I’m the founding director of a quite radical Christian Not-For-Profit travel agency, Travel With A Cause. Why do I denote the organisation “radical”? It’s a company that gives away 100% of its net profits. (Hmmm… now does that make me left wing, or perhaps a highly benevolent right winger?)
Next time you or your friends book any travel anywhere, please consider us because just by booking travel with us you’ll have made a difference to orphans and widows throughout the world. http://www.travelwithacause.org/home.php. In fact, when booking we provide you choice as to where you’d like us to direct the net profits derived from your travel bookings. The website will provide you with some background to my “drivers” but more importantly, provides an avenue by which Christians and non-Christian alike can make a difference to those in need simply by booking travel through this company. I gain nothing from TWAC by the way. It costs all directors both time and money to direct the company – we work pro bono and, pay annual membership fees.
Peter I note you criticise my assertion. “It matters not who governs” but in-so-doing you utilise a belief system to which I do not adhere (because of my scriptural and political stances).
For example: Although I despise what the Jews encountered via Hitler (Hitler was not left wing by the way and he murdered homosexuals!) and I eschew the persecution occurring under a number of Communist regimes but you misunderstand me because our beliefs differ. This is where in brotherly love, we accept that we disagree.
I’m living Peter, with eternity firmly fixed in mind. For me, it matters not who governs because this life is but a breath. I’m living with my eyes on eternity and at the end of my ephemeral time on earth I intend to have pleased Him. I believe (see previous posts) that for God to bring “righteousness” to a nation He will always start and end with the condition of MY heart (and thereafter, the heart condition of all Christians). This belief opposes diametrically the notion that Righteousness somehow flows from Government DOWN to the population. (See my post on 11 Chron 7:14 above for clarification on this theological view to which I strongly adhere).
I do not (as you assert) show that I’m “apathetic” because I care little about who governs. In fact I’m described by most of my friends as “passionate” as opposed to “apathetic” (see my “CV” above). Neither to I “insult Christianity” by my stance for my stance is to cooperate with God to bring His Kingdom to earth as it is in heaven.
Despite life’s ephemeral nature, I choose to please Him and make a difference on earth during my transient sojourn. Jesus reminds us that we feed Him when we feed the hungry; we care for Him when we care for the poor. Therefore for this reason I’ve chosen to spend my life on behalf of the poor.
Additionally, I’ll speak out for those with no voice (especially on abortion issues – which ALL our political parties continue to endorse; for it would be political suicide for any Australian government to ban abortion). I intend to break the back of poverty by changing one heart at a time and one business at time. I show you my faith by my actions on earth Peter. I’m not apathetic – to the contrary, my faith is demonstrated by my work ethic on behalf of the poor and the needy and the marginalised.
I’ll speak out for the refugees (defined in Scripture as “the alien”).
On this important point (refugees) both Liberal and Labor have used “boat people” as a political tool and John Howard was the chief offender.
I wept over the Tampa “crisis”.
Boat people comprise just 5% of all Australia’s refugees. Do you know that of these “boat people” less that 5% of them (that is, less than 5% of 5% of all our refugee immigrants) are found to be “unlawful”? Yet both major political parties have abused this group of utterly vulnerable people, demonising them for political gain. THAT is a disgusting and unconscionable abuse of political power from which only the oft-criticised Greens are relatively free from guilt; for Greens is the only party that has a policy to act with acceptable humanity towards the now marginalised “boat people” and other refugees.
I note Tim has requested a rebuttal of Peter’s assertion that “social issues are best dealt with by the Non-Government sector” I’ll provide this much: Both are approaches are useful but crucially the issue of refugees demands strong Government intervention and this critical issue pertaining to “Social Justice” must only be driven by Government. But who cares about “boat people”? (Rhetorical). Social Justice also encompasses immigration, environmental issues, healthcare, housing, town planning, education – the list is vast.
But I digress…
I agree with Tim. I believe it’s nigh impossible to try to claim that one political party is “more Godly” than another.
Moreover, I suspect the issue that might underpin the “more Godly political parties” debate is the erroneous belief that some sins are “more sinful” than the rest – notwithstanding the political biases present in all of us.
All sides in this debate appear to agree that there is no such thing as a “Perfect Political Party” – and with good cause!
It seems to me that once we attempt to create a hierarchy of “sinfulness of sins” then (consciously or otherwise) we tend to use this hierarchical list to establish for ourselves a crude definition of what a “Godly political Party” should look like. This is erroneous because ALL sin results in death.
If we look at the life of Jesus he tore apart those who heralded from the “perfect right wing” party of the day (Pharisees). The Pharisees enjoyed near PERFECT “policy” but it had no effect because their HEARTS were not right before God. Jesus wiped the floor with them; calling them names that only He has the authority to call for He is the judge.
Also raising its head is the issue of sexual sin. Sexual sin is unique because it hurts the body (granted), but it’s interesting that Jesus never once preached on homosexuality. He did however clearly articulate His opposition to divorce and in Matt 5 even going so far as to teach that divorce (without adultery as the reason) RESULTS in adultery. I happen to believe that homosexual behaviour is sinful. But it seems to me that the “Political Right” have made homosexuality the “unforgivable sin”. Therefore, we marginalise the already marginalised. Where is the love of Christ in that? Moreover, where is the balance? Where is Truth in that?
As a Church we readily ask non-Christians to come to the altar “Just As I Am”… The Church accepts adulterers, the greedy, thieves, liars, tax-evaders, alcoholics, gluttons “just as they are” yet we demand that homosexuals clean up their act FIRST.
We need be on our guard that we don’t inadvertently take this false “hierarchy of sins” into political debate for if we do we stand on VERY shaky ground.
Tim is courageous to raise this issue and he has done so with enthusiasm and vigour.
I applaud his efforts to transport balance to this debate.
I don’t live with the aim to assure me (and/or the Australian population) a status of political comfort. Neither do I believe that it’s practical (nor do I believe it’s useful) to go about the business of determining which political party is more (or less for that matter) Godly than the other.
Moreover, I believe the possibility exists for Church leaders (notice the capital “C”) to attempt to sway Christians’ voting patterns to conform to their own. I’d be appalled to hear school teachers attempt to sway the voting patterns of students. Both these examples I view as “abuse of power” – whether intended or not.
I reiterate: I strongly endorse Bill Muehlenberg’s political action on the issue of abortion and also his desire to retain “Right to Freedom of Speech and “Freedom of Religion” in this nation. He is to be commended for these efforts and wherever possible, supported. But if tomorrow we are taken over by a communist nation the sun will still shine and Jesus will remain Lord.
From me it’s over and out on this intriguing post folks for I have other work to do.
If any of you want to learn more about making a difference whenever you travel anywhere please feel free to contact me via FaceBook or, via our website.
Cheers Paul