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 22nd, 2005 at 11:14 am
err Paul was compliant in murder but became a leader.
Look at wwhat god says to look at.
If he leads/rules his family in a godly way he can certainly lead a church in any way.
A person who has ‘controversial’ views should be able to outline the biblical case for those views.
If he can’t do it he obviously doesn’t possess the qualities to lead.
November 22nd, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that Christianity has absolutely nothing of use to say about government, except to the extent that it is considered separate from the realm of God.
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). Although it is naturally in the interests of asylum seekers and undocumented aliens to seek a better life in Australia (and they should not be despised for pursuing their own interests), I do not believe there is any sensible justification for demanding that Australians unilaterally reduce their living standards by assenting to a potentially uncontrollable deluge of prospective migrants.
Equally, although I deplore guns and violence, and have little interest in investing in fatality-causing weapons, I believe that law-abiding Australians should have the right to own practically any firearm they want, including automatic weapons. This may seem like an extreme position, but on consequentialist grounds I can’t see any reason why armed individuals are more threatening than armed governments. Indeed, given that governments have killed around 200-300 million people in both peacetime and wartime over the past 100 years, I would suggest that lone armed lunatics are the least of our worries.
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Interesting thoughts here.
I am not sure “turning the other cheek” was meant turning away from confrontation. Walter Wink in “Engaging the Powers” suggests that it was more an act for of defiant resistance and peacemaking (totally different to pacifism), actually in shaming the aggressor.
Bonhoeffer stood up to Hitler, he was free enough to be able to truly discern evil. When I look at little Johnny and Dubya, I do not see “free men”, I see the opposite.
Leaders must possess the freedom to be able to sense injustice and gather creative collective responses.
In church leadership one’s prevalent political paradigm matters just as much as who you bonk, there cannot be any question of that, as both streams lead to either a stagnant or fresh sorce of life.
November 22nd, 2005 at 5:58 pm
Interesting thoughts here.
I am not sure “turning the other cheek” was meant turning away from confrontation. Walter Wink in “Engaging the Powers” suggests that it was more an act for of defiant resistance and peacemaking (totally different to pacifism), actually in shaming the aggressor.
Bonhoeffer stood up to Hitler, he was free enough to be able to truly discern evil. When I look at little Johnny and Dubya, I do not see “free men”, I see the opposite.
Leaders must possess the freedom to be able to sense injustice and gather creative collective responses.
In church leadership one’s prevalent political paradigm matters just as much as who you bonk, there cannot be any question of that, as both streams lead to either a stagnant or fresh source of life.
November 22nd, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Welcome John. Good to see you here. We still havnt caught up for that coffee!!
I am interested in your comment about Howard and Bush not being “free men” - can you say more?
November 23rd, 2005 at 8:57 am
John,
in church leadership the ONLY person one can bionk is your wife.
on the other hand the prevalent political paradigm is somewhat problematic.
November 23rd, 2005 at 11:54 am
Pil & Homer,
Phil: About that coffee, unless you plan on coming to Bangkok it will have to wait till Feb.
The only woman I am bonking (thanks Homer!) and I are having a sabbatical in a slum in Bangkok till then with our ratbags.
About Howard & Bush being “free” people, I am working on that. Freedom is hard to define, perhaps it is defined better by negation: it isn’t about political or economic freedom.
Both Howard and Bush are driven by unwaveringly ideological beilefs that actually constrain them more than release them which is ironic as I don’t think they would hold such beliefs if they didn’t believe that those very beliefs could actually free them.
You know freedom when you see it, and it is rare, and it is not currently in Aussie politics.
Homer: You are right, it is problematic to bonk a paradigm.
Yet shouldn’t there be some clarification regarding someones beliefs in an interview for a leadersahip role in the church? I mean, just about every other belief is checked out (especially around sexuality).
One’s stance on economics - which is what politics in Oz has now been reduced to - is a major, major theme of the bible.
Jesus talked about it heaps more than sex…but I suppose who and how you bonk is a much juicier question in an interview!
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:22 pm
What the?
“I do not believe there is any sensible justification for demanding that Australians unilaterally reduce their living standards by assenting to a potentially uncontrollable deluge of prospective migrants.”
Ummm…wasn’t there a bloke who died on a cross for us? That doesn’t sound very “sensible” to me.
Personally I’m very concerned with the political/social aspects of my leader’s lives. Christianity is an entire worldview and way of life, and it is therefore inextricably linked to matters of public policy.
On a purely pragmatic level, I think that the failure to recognise that Christianity has something to say about public policy just increases the rate at which church attendances drop…
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:44 pm
“I do not believe there is any sensible justification for demanding that Australians unilaterally reduce their living standards by assenting to a potentially uncontrollable deluge of prospective migrants.”
There wasn’t any sensible justification for the good Samaritan either, other than love I guess…
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Lovely words, people. Now go justify that to the vast majority of Australians who, last time I checked, are essentially secular.
November 23rd, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Now this is a problem - “I think that the failure to recognise that Christianity has something to say about public policy just increases the rate at which church attendances drop.”
So we want a theocracy do we? That would explain why certain churches now support the effective return of blasphemy laws, falsely called “anti-hate” laws.
November 23rd, 2005 at 4:05 pm
Steve, I’m not arguing for a theocracy. I’m a Baptist after all.
Quite frankly, the debate about church-state separation, secularism etc is incredibly poorly thought out and ill informed.
Church-state separation does NOT require that only secularists participate in political processes (secular humanism is, after all, a belief system as much as Christianity, Islam or any other religion is!). It requires institutional separation - it requires that there be no “official” churches, no state religion. It’s actually about valuing freedom of conscience.
If I, as a Christian, have certain values shaped by my beliefs, then it is both inevitable and essential that those values and beliefs shape my involvement in public life.
Now, if I were to get up and proclaim that it was God’s will that I would be PM, that would be a different matter.
Your statement above that Christianity has nothing to do with government is subsequently undermined by the “examples” you give. For example, you state that you see that border protection policies are against the spirit of Christian universality, but that for pragmatic reasons you cannot justify a change in policy. I, on the other hand, would say that since the border protection policies are against the spirit of Christian universality, I will look for ways of making it work (and I also think that as Christians we are actually required to make sacrifices in order to support those on the margins). I don’t see how your views are any less shaped by a Christian world view than mine are.
Your other example - you deplore guns and violence but believe that people should have the right to own a firearm. How is this any more “secular” than my view that guns should be banned because they have no purpose other than to kill? This isn’t about secularism or Christian participation in the political process, it’s about different political ideologies and views on the role of law.
Whaddya think of the amendments to the Marriage Act to prevent gay marriage, Steve?
November 24th, 2005 at 3:55 am
As I don’t believe that marriage (or defacto relationships, for that matter) should be recognised by the state, I am thus indifferent to any particular amendments to the effect of banning gay marriage, or the opposite - as anything short of complete deregulation is morally neutral as far as I can see. I cannot see why it is the government’s business who is marrying who.
My essential point is that I cannot see any justification for using state aggression (taxation) and enforced desegregation (mass immigration) to impose a particular ideal worldview on other citizens who pose no physical threat to me, simply because they do not agree with me. There is no obvious moral reason why the government should officially “feel the pain” of anyone other than the citizens of that sovereign nation, nor serve anyone other than those who are identified as citizens.
“Your other example - you deplore guns and violence but believe that people should have the right to own a firearm. How is this any more “secular” than my view that guns should be banned because they have no purpose other than to kill?”
It isn’t a secular or non-secular question. I refuse to partake in violence or the threat of violence because I do not feel especially threatened by anyone in particular. Nevertheless, there are vulnerable people who might wish to take control of their own security - and given a choice between a government monopoly on guns and an armed citizenry, I’ll choose the latter every time.
We have no historical reason to trust any government, “democratic” or dictatorial, to prioritise anything other than the security of itself, nor should we expect anything other than a repeat of the bloodiest century in human history should we continue the folly of concentrating power in the hands of the state.
November 24th, 2005 at 5:13 am
Bec - You aid “How is this any more “secular” than my view that guns should be banned because they have no purpose other than to kill?
Guns have other purposes - they ( when properly used) prevent rape, murder, robbery, theft and mayhem. Their presence in a situation can alter the intentions of bad folks. My brother had a man break into his house one night - and was in the process of stealing from him, when my brother quietly came up behind him and put a .357 pistol barrl to the base of the thiefs ear. He stopped the robbing right then and there. when the police arrived they took him to prison - he was a habitiual offender who had escaped.
My brother could have killed him and been within his legal rights to according to Indiana law - as long as he would have died in the house. He chose to hold him (at gunpoint) until the police arrived.
Without a gun - it would have been hard to stop him. words like “lease Don’t rob us” dont have the same effect as the clicking of a pistol in your ear - sometimes it ’s the quiet things that speak the loudest. (click, click click)
November 24th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Kevin - spoken like a true American!! I’ve honestly never met anyone in Australia who is as pro-gun ownership as most Americans are…and I never cease to be surprised by how widely valued the right to own a gun is among Americans. It is a massive, massive cultural divide, and probably not one that you and I could cross on a blog!
There are plenty of alternatives to guns to achieve what you want to achieve, and they don’t maim or kill the numbers of innocent people that guns do. Guns do NOT have a purpose other than to kill - the things you name are things that are achieved simply because guns kill. There are a gazillion other ways to achieve what you suggest gun ownership can achieve.
But, that wasn’t the point of my example - the point I was trying to make was that I think that ALL Christians have views informed by their faith that inform their views on public policy, and vice versa. I think the big issue is the extent to which we/they recognise that faith and politics inform each other…
Steve, would you say that there is no connection between your views of the State and your views of God?
November 24th, 2005 at 8:33 am
Bec - i had a couple of australians at my church (from Perth) and one Sunday morning i was speaking about the weapons of our warfare and was using rifles and a compound bow as demonstrations. They were looking for the door and after the service we had a talk about it - and I learned the right to keep and bear arms debate is not a hot topic in OZ.
Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day in the USA and I will be at my parents house with my brother. They will have their guns ( I do not own one) but we will target shoot about all afternoon. High powered rifles and really cool pistols. It IS a lot of fun - but we are serious about gun safety. Not everyone is though, most of my family is avid hunters -from deer to rabbits and squirrels. I think one big difference from OZ to here is the abundance of game is still immense here. Outside of a Kangaroo or a Tasmanian Devil I don’t know what you would hunt. And hunting kangaroo - who would want to kill something that almost walks up to you?
And about the - spoken like a true American!!” - Thanks!
November 24th, 2005 at 8:37 am
actually we have a couple of people at our church who realised once becoming christian hunting for sport was not compatible with their beliefs.
It is a topic of great controversy at christmas when they meet with their family in the country.
November 24th, 2005 at 8:39 am
to each his own, I guess.
November 24th, 2005 at 8:42 am
erm…Kevin, I think you would find that there is plenty of game here!! The only people that have ever owned guns here have been hunters and farmers. In southern Australia, guns are (well, used to be - most people don’t have them anymore) used to kill foxes, wombats (farmers regard them as a pest, and they’re darn hard to kill!), rabbits, hares, cats, dogs…In the north they’re used for pigs, horses, kangaroos, emus…
There’s plenty of “game” in Australia. The big difference between Australia and the US has absolutely nothing to do with game, and everything to do with culture and values.
If I say anymore than that I’m going to end up being incredibly judgmental and self-righteous, so I’ll shut up now!!
November 24th, 2005 at 8:55 am
do people eat wombats?
November 24th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Kevin,
I live in one of the worst neighborhoods in the Melbourne area. People often ask me if I am scared living here. There has been a few stabbings in the last year, and a mugging or two. Yeah I am petrified.
I lived in what would be considered a medium level bad neighborhood in Pomona Ca. And I had someone shot infront of my home, two people stabbed to death less than a block away, my car broken into eight times. There were many murders within a twenty block radius of my home. And Pomon is in no means South Central, Compton, or Bedford Sty. The gun policy here seems to be working very well.
the rev
November 24th, 2005 at 10:28 am
And back to leadership.Thanks dan for raising the issue;whether “inside” the institutional church or “outside” in the emerging church, the question of leadership keeps loads of consultants/advisers/authors in cash.
But leadership for what!
If an analysis of australian society involves an acceptance that the howard govt(as with bush in the States) is engaged in one of the most brutal class wars of all times;that greed and consumerism will in the end engulf us;that the individual is the paradigm of contemporary life;that the emerging church is taking us backwards; and that the promotion of war and conflict is what keeps economies booming,then that will in part determine the kind of leaders the church needs.
So the alternative to the issue of the neo nazi, is would you invite the CEO of Woolworths with his obscene salary package to be an elder,mentor,sponsor of a prayer breakfast or speaker at the next forge conference!Not bloody likely.
If individualism and the market are the destroyers of comunity and soldarity then a church community would go for someone who was a member of a union rather than rotary,a member of a political party rather than a bludger on the system.
If the pervasiveness of american style gospel entrepreneurs frightens the hell out of you then go for someone who has spent time in the West Bank rather than washington.
November 24th, 2005 at 11:33 am
Yeah Rev - it probably does, but as you know we have the constitutionality question about gun ownership. I think there is a primary difference, from what I’ve been told, that gun ownership is not a right in Australia. Of course we all argue the meaning of that right here. I think for now, gun ownership in the US is going to be the law of the land for some time, especially as the Supreme Court moves more conservative.
November 24th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
Alan, I liked most of your thoughts, but I don’t agree with all of your assumptions. You listed an acceptance of the fact that the “emerging church is taking us backwards” alongside a bunch of pretty terrible things. First, I don’t agree that the emerging church is taking us backwards, and second I don’t think it runs in the same group as the Howard/Bush class warfare etc.
November 24th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Actually Kevin, as far as I’m aware, most lawyers dispute that there actually is any constitutional right to bear arms in the US - the purpose of the right was for a standing army, which no longer exists.
BUT I hasten to add that this is not something I’ve looked into at all, I’ve merely been told about it by people who’ve spent a LOT of time looking at the issue…I’m sure I can put you in the right direction if you want to know more…
November 24th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
No Bec - SOME left wing lawyers dispute it the baring of arms. By no means a majority. The language says ” The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. A well armed militia shall be established. There is a period after infringed. Therin lies the argument, that wee little dot.
November 24th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
erm… I think your Supreme Court has said the same thing, several times, over a period of years and numerous judges…
Or is your Supreme Court ALWAYS dominated by left wing lawyers?! ;P
November 24th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Supreme court has NEVER ruled on the right to keep and bare arms - it has ruled on the right to bare some types of arms, such as grende launchers, and fully automatic weapons, and military rifles capable of carrying more than 15 rounds in their clips.
One town in Alabama passed a city a few years ago ordinance that required everyone in town to be a gun owner. You cannot carry any concealed weapon, a sawed off shotgun and you have to have a federal permit to carry a handgun. if you are a convicted felon the only gun you can own or be in the possesion of is a .50 caliber or less muzzle loading rifle. it is a felony for a convicted felon to carry a handgun (8 years in prison I think is the punishment)
November 24th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
I can go to Wal mart right now and buy a shotgun. They have a whole department full of guns. I live in a town of 15000 and i can’t hink of the last time we had a gun related murder. It’s been more than 2 years though.
November 24th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
what the? what sort of argument is that kevin?
columbine, anyone?