Should Christians march to the call of ‘Left’ or ‘Right’?

No. 35, 29 May 2006

by Eric Lockett

In all my years of political activism I have never had much time for the labels ‘Left’ and ‘Right’. They seem to me to be a cop out that allows lazy commentators to avoid the trouble of finding out and explaining what those they so label really stand for. Their positions are almost invariably much more complex than such simplistic devices would have us believe.

These labels are also often used by those who lean in one political direction to derogate anyone with a different political inclination, often without realising that this derogatory meaning is shared only by those with similar biases (prejudices even?). It is both mischievous and misleading to base an attack on what other Christians are doing on the linking of ‘Religious’ with ‘Right’, as Alan Matheson has done in his recent trenchant criticism of the National Day of Thanksgiving (see Soundings No 33).

More importantly though, his attack ignores the real question of whether the concept of Christians across our nation devoting a particular day to giving thanks for all God’s blessings, and especially expressing our appreciation to those who devote their lives to safeguarding and serving the needy and afflicted in our communities, is a worthy one for Christians to take up. He may think differently but, on my reading of scripture, the answer to that question is a resounding ‘yes’. Hence, I can’t see how anyone could possibly believe that the denigration of such an initiative would be pleasing to God, helpful to our community or conducive of a strong Christian witness.

God in his wisdom has given each of us different backgrounds and experiences which inevitably shape our thinking and allow us to bring different perspectives to issues we must consider. This is as true of politics as any other field. Hence it is appropriate for Christians to adopt various political stances, with each shedding something of God’s light on debate amongst the various groups or parties we support. Perhaps Alan Matheson’s rather jaundiced view of the so-called Religious Right owes more to his connections with the ACTU than to his Christian convictions, but no side of politics has a mortgage on truth or virtue.

For myself, as a representative of the Baptist Churches of Tasmania, I have always been careful to maintain a politically non-aligned stance, recognising the diversity of political loyalties within our congregations. This leaves us free to judge issues on their merits and commend or criticise all sides of politics, as is warranted, without the church being seen as beholden to any. The important distinction is not between Right and Left, but between right and wrong.

How justified are Alan Matheson’s criticisms?

Let’s now take a look at the grounds for Alan Matheson’s specific criticisms of the NDOT. First, he claims that it is ethically a con. This claim seems to be based on what is simply some slackness in the NDOT’s failure to update the statements publicised, its supposedly narrow support base and its failure to provide financial details of the supporting organisations. Out of date (though still relevant) material may be grounds for rebuke but not for such an attack. And if the support base is narrow but the cause a worthy one, then doesn’t that warrant a call for other churches to become more involved rather than criticism. As some of the NDOT publicity material says, “The Day has been deliberately designed to be given away and not held by the initiators”.

Furthermore, if full financial details are not given for all the organisations involved how does that make it any different from countless other events promoted by different organisations? Is Mr Matheson actually suggesting that these particular bodies are corrupt? If so, he is duty bound to provide some evidence.

Given that the NDOT clearly has the support of the leaders on both sides of federal politics, his claim that it is politically a con is mystifying. He, along with many others, myself included, may take issue with one person’s statement that “…Christians must take over the world through its governments … and that Australia is on the brink of becoming a theocracy ruled by God”, but surely that is no reason to condemn the NDOT.

Perhaps his claim that ecclesiastically it is a con is the most perverse of all. If he disagrees with some of the organisations concerned, surely he should be calling for more of the mainstream churches to pick up such a worthy idea, rather than trying to scuttle it.

His claim that historically it is a con seems to be little more than pedantic nit-picking. So what if de Quiros didn’t have the advantage of our more detailed geographic knowledge, and what if the subsequent reality has fallen short of his noble declaration? Is that any reason why it shouldn’t be used to inspire Christians here and now?

Finally, his claim that the NDOT is theologically a con seems to be based not on what it does but what it doesn’t do. That is, it doesn’t focus on the things that are of specific concern to him. Is he really saying that while ever this world remains an imperfect place we should refuse, as a nation, to give thanks to God for all his blessings? I hope not.

It is sad to see such a worthy idea as the National Day of Prayer used as a target for sniping by other Christians when we surely should be working together to become a more effective witness to the world, not attacking each other – there are plenty of non-Christians who will do that.

I’m now a little more alert and a little more alarmed that such sniping can occur within God’s family.

Eric Lockett chairs the Public Questions Taskforce of the Baptist Churches of Tasmania. He was elected as a non-aligned delegate to the 1998 Constitutional Convention, and has contested state and national elections as an independent candidate. He is a member of the Leadership Team of his local Baptist Church.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of up to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.