politics and leadership
In this post (which may take the prize as the comments thread with the most different topics discussed) a discussion has developed regarding the question of what makes a person “fit to lead” in a church context. We often talk about whether someone’s personal morality (particularly sexual morality) as a qualification for leadership but less often about political, social and other aspects of a person’s life.
I would like to keep this discussion off the question of particular individuals if at all possible.
So I will quote two comments from that thread to kick things off:
Steve said
certainly agree that prosecuting the war in Iraq is incompatible with Christian values. This does not necessarily mean he should be excluded from being a youth leader.
But that really begs the question - what kind of war is compatible with the Bible? If we were to consult the written words of Christ, we’d have to conclude that no war, even in self-defense, is allowable (what else are we supposed to conclude of the demand we “turn the other cheek”?). You would have to accept the complete dissolution of your own country in order to keep within Christian principles.
Interestingly, I note that the Catholic Church tacitly supported a war of aggression against Serbia in 1999, which was illegally initiated by NATO on a pretext that turned out to be false (sound familiar?). For some reason, there is less outrage at this particular example of a blatantly unjust war. I wonder what people would have said if Pope John Paul II had notably failed to condemn the invasion of Iraq?
Kevin, in answering a question as to whether someone who was a neo-nazi in 1939 should be in a position of leadership in the church, said:
It would depend on this question - does he have POWER over people to dictate his views. to use racism as an example - a person with racist views is entitled to hold them, right or wrong. He is NOT entitled to exersize domination or discriminatory actions based on his views. We have Nazi’s in America today who have the right to hold their beliefs - They can even demonstrate publicly to state their views and to do things like protest the “evil” Bush administration. It was the actions and ideology of a government which held power over people that prompted WWII. And without that war being fought - we’d all be speaking German today - unless you lived in Australia - where you’d be speaking Japanese.
The year he makes his sentiments known has no bearing on the right to peacefully state it.
So that should be enough to get things going. But how about this - what about a person who was in favour of legalised abortion? Or against it? Alan who comments here believes strongly in the value of trade unions as an expression of the type of justice that Jesus spoke about. So what about someone that was anti-union? Or someone who was pro-One Nation? To what extent do these sort of political views/engagement impact on people’s suitability for leadership?
November 24th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
It’s not an argument. It’s mere statement of facts. I live in a rural area guns are everywhere - every other pick up truck has a gun rack in the back window. At this time of year you see a lot of deer in the backl of those trucks. Most people I know are not freaked out by guns - except for my wife. She was robbed at gun point ( it turned out to be a pellet gun that looked real) about 20 years ago when she worked in a bank. She has shot a shotgun since then, but pistols still make her quiver a bit, as you can imnagine.
November 24th, 2005 at 3:30 pm
There are some fundamental diffences in the freedoms we have in the US and the ones in Australia. These speech vilification laws that I have been reading about are foriegn to me as i am sure the gun ownership is to you. The speed camera’s you all are using - would cause a revolt here.
Australia seems to me to be in some ways a more controlled socioty. When someone posts a sign like i saw in Kings Park (Perth) that says “path closed” - i found it anmazing that no one walked on it. Put that same sign up in a park here and every other person will climb over the fence just to see what the problem is.
It seems to be working for you all though.
November 24th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
“Steve, would you say that there is no connection between your views of the State and your views of God?”
Virtually none. The more I try to find common ground, the more I realise how pointless it is attempting to get the state to act like some moral agency.
November 24th, 2005 at 4:18 pm
Steve - “Hence, even though it is clearly against the spirit of Christian universality, I see no problem with supporting the overall framework of Howard’s border protection policies (with numerous quibbles over certain details).”
So you’re happy to support or side with the State where it conflicts with Christian beliefs?
(i’m assuming you’re a Christian here?)
November 24th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Kevin, not picking, but my pedantic nature is coming out. When you have been defending your “right to bare arms” I am getting a mental picture of you defiantly pushing up your sleeves. Sorry - inappropriate amusement, but couldn’t resist.
November 24th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Oh, and Kevin, interestingly enough I think that the distinction that you make is an incredibly significant difference between a “rights” based system as you have in the US and a system which is not based in a bill of rights or similar.
For me it comes out with your gun laws and particularly abortion - if abortion becomes per Roe v Wade a part of the right to privacy then it is difficult to justify restricting it. If the right to bear arms is constitutionally supported, then how do you restrict was sort of arms to bear. Whereas Aust law has the ability to regulate these contentious areas to try and get a middle point (whether or not this has happened successfully is another story).
But it is a fundamental shift in thinking. Another American who comments on this site can’t get his head around the fact that we have compulsory voting at elections where it really doesn’t fuss most Australians.
November 24th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
“So you’re happy to support or side with the State where it conflicts with Christian beliefs?”
The State conflicts with Christian beliefs in upholding a national army for Pete’s sake, or in throwing people in prison rather than forgiving them. While it is not “un-Christian” to accept the existence of a state, it is wishful thinking to desire such thing as a “Christian state” governed by “Christian principles”. There cannot be any such thing, due to the very nature of the state and Christianity itself.
Whenever I think of statecraft, I will tend to imagine “what would the UN want me to do?” and then take the exact opposite action. It’s the safest formula for maintaining our liberties and national independence, even if that means taking actions that might seem “immoral”, as a world government with complete control over the planet (precisely the objective of the UN) will be infinitely more “immoral” than anything we have now.
November 24th, 2005 at 6:12 pm
“If the right to bear arms is constitutionally supported, then how do you restrict was sort of arms to bear.”
Private citizens should have the right to bear automatic weapons. I’m always surprised that people will demand the disarmament of others, on the grounds that free and law-abiding people are dangerous and should be protected by the Almighty State, yet have clearly missed the fact that the State has been responsible for unparalleled atrocities over the last 100 years. 200-300 million people killed by government, and you guys want to disarm the people?
November 25th, 2005 at 12:00 am
I can get my head around compulsory elections, but if I was required to vote it would be mickey mouse for prime minister. I will not join the kingdoms of this world.
the rev
November 25th, 2005 at 2:45 am
I have to say to all of you - after just recieveing a personal e-mail from Homer which the content shall remain unknown to you all- But the man is much more perceptive than you may think. Your wish is my command Homer.
November 25th, 2005 at 7:51 am
Ofcourse the evidence to the contrary is compelling.
the rev
November 26th, 2005 at 1:27 am
Dan -”if abortion becomes per Roe v Wade a part of the right to privacy then it is difficult to justify restricting it. ” Now THIS is a real trip. The right to “privacy” is not mentioned in the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is.
from a website (opinion) on the issue http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html
“Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion, stated that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy but, “in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right.” The right to an abortion was then considered an extension of this privacy right. As Blackmun stated,”This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” This decision made it unconstitutional for any state to restrict abortion in most circumstances.*
This “right to privacy” is what our ongoing process of selecting a new supreme court justice is all about. On an interesting note - Justice Blackmun declared the unborn to be ‘not fully human’ - the Supreme court also used that language in the Dred Scott case that kept blacks enslaved prior to the civil war.
November 26th, 2005 at 7:31 am
Steve writes about the United Nations that “s a world government with complete control over the planet (precisely the objective of the UN) will be infinitely more “immoral” than anything we have now.”
Why do you believe that the objective of the UN is to setup a world government with complete control over the planet? Is this a stated objective in the charter of the UN?
November 26th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
dan you’re right,the emerging church issue is not in the same league.What I was trying to suggest was that the issue of leadership has 2 dimensions:”the personal” and the contextual/analysis/political ie how does the church community see the world and the kingdom, and having some idea of that issue then that will shape the kind of leadership that could be considered.
Generalities are always dangerous dimensions of discussion.My comment re the emerging church relates to what I think are the contradictions and the arrogance of some of the enthusiasts in the emeging church moement.
While at one level i have no difficulty of looking again at Ist century models,there sometimes appears to be a denial of a couple of thousand years of history,holy spirit and revolution!
Take for example the issue of work - a major issue for everyone.
Theres a fascinating common response by both the “hillsongs”
and the “emerging church”.When I once raised the issue of the absence of any reference to unions in one of the Hillsong’s publication,the author responded,”how iteresting,I’ve never thought of them before”!!As I plod around the emerging church blogs/publications I see no reference to work,encouragement to reflect community in becoming members of unions,organising to stand with those who are being screwed by the christian CEOS and their support for the industrial legislation.
The history of the church is reflected in its pastoral response to/with/solidarity and the marginalised.And there is evidence in the stories of the emerging church that much is happening at this level.
What has been learned however over the years, is that it is integral to stand with the poor,but there is also the demand that the church go after the buggers that cause the marginalised,the poor,that screw the powerless etc.
I see no evidence that the emerging church is going after the bastards.I see much about “I planted this church or that…..”,lots of stories about the marginalised ,but little about solidarity with workers,nothing about becoming members of unions as an expression of the kingdom……..
So maybe if the emerging church is not going backwards, iI see no evidence of it going forward.I’d be most interested to be pointed in the direction of forge or other parts of the emerging church grappling not only with the personal dimensions of powerlessness and marginalisation,but going after the bastards.
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:44 pm
I feel like Ive missed some juicy stuff.. Maybe thsi conversation is over but what the heck…
Is there a case for the Christian who aligns him/herself with the new IR laws? Or is he/her going against the grain of his religious history?
I had a big conflict with the leader of an old faith community I was part of just at the time of the last federal election.. Their position was that people here are lazy and need to get off their buts… mind you, they also held the position that there was no other option for the government but children in detention… That was another point of conflict… Anyhoo this leaders polictical argument practically insisted that people involved with the community vote for little Jonny… this person is the executive director of an Aid development agency… And I am no longer involved with the community… Who says political issues arent alive and well in the Christian leadership arena?