Faith   Politics - Evangelical Alliance

Christians and Australian Politics 2004-2007

Brian Edgar

From 2004-2007 Brian was Director of Public Theology

for the Australian Evangelical Alliance.

He is now Professor of Theological Studies, Asbury Theological Seminary (USA)

but predominantly resident in Melbourne.

According to Henry Thoreau, “Things do not change, we change”.

In which case we Australians have changed a lot in our attitudes towards faith and politics since the last Federal Election in November 2004. If a week is a long time in politics, then an election week is an eternity and in the space of that week in 2004 the community became much more aware of the way that faith influences politicians, parties, policies and people’s voting habits.

The outcome of the election - which motivated politicians, parties and political analysts to examine the effect of the variously called “evangelical”, “conservative”, “pentecostal”, “charismatic” “religious (right)” or “Christian” vote in the election. Even some of those individuals and groups claiming no overt faith showed interest in discussing the matter. The newspapers were full of discussion about it, analysts were surprised by it, politicians discussed it at length and Labor created a committee – the Caucus Committee on Faith, Politics and Values - to look into it.

Some bemoaned it, others were scared of it, and, of course, many Christians applauded it – although not all, by any means. Some had considerable reservations about whether it was a trend away from a secular understanding of society towards a theocracy. It all led to a broader public dialogue about what it means to be a ‘secular’ society.

As we are close to another election it is helpful to review the changes that have taken place. Examining the past does not necessarily mean we will be able to understand the future any better. The future has a habit of arriving in its own way, whether we like it or not. But, following Thoreau, a review might at least help us understand the ways in which we might want to change ourselves if we want work towards changing the future for the better.

The new players

Prior to 2004 the main religious players in the political realm were traditional or mainstream denominations. Indeed, in many respects, that remains the situation today. The larger churches and those actively involved with government in social welfare - particularly Catholic, Anglican, Uniting and Salvation Army - have regular and direct contact with government ministers. They are relatively experienced in utilising the media to comment upon and, where necessary, critique government policy. They also have their own agendas.

Their involvement in the political realm, frequently draws criticism from those who resent ecclesiastical influence - or even the appearance of it, as with the appointment of Peter Hollingworth as Governor-General. There have been frustrated responses from the government when criticised (especially John Howard’s complaint that church leaders have been ‘partisan’[1] and Alexander Downers’s extensive critique of church leaders such as Peter Carnley [then Primate of the Anglican Church] and James Haire [then President of the Uniting Church] in his Playford Memorial Lecture[2]). There is also, inevitably, some disquiet from those within the churches who take a different political line to that put forward by their leaders. The mainstream churches declining attendances and sometimes theological wavering has been noted by some politicians (such as Downer),[3] the growth of influence of newer churches such as Hillsong has been recognised by many and other Christian organisations, such as the Australian Christian Lobby[4] have emerged or become more prominent.

There is also the matter of a changing demographic. For a long time the Coalition has been the party of preference for those who attend church regularly. This is so in all denominations despite the traditional connection between Catholic voters and Labor. By 2004 this connection was only a relative one. Catholics were more likely to vote Labour than other denominations, but overall they were more likely to vote for the coalition than Labour.

Despite these trends the mainline denominations remain the most influential part of the landscape. However, the 2004 election emphasised the fact that there were new players on the scene. The electoral success of Family First brought great attention to the Pentecostal community in general and the Assemblies of God in particular. Family First felt the need to downplay their religious connections with claims that there's ‘absolutely no connection’ between the two organisations.[5] Constitutionally that is right, but the party was, however, started by a leading pastor of the Assemblies of God and draws strength from the various assemblies and other Christians.

Political changes

Conventional wisdom concerning the political influence of Christian (and especially evangelicals and pentecostals) swings between two poles, the first being the claim that that overt political involvement by churches or Christian groups (and for some, even by individuals) is inappropriate, while the second is that what political action does take place is closely related to the conservative side of politics with an emphasis on personal and family issues. Although that is partially correct the full reality is somewhat different as support for other parties certainly exists within this constituency. A large national survey in 1998, for example, found that 37% of Australians who attend church would vote Liberal while 35% would vote Labor, while of those who never went to church 40 per cent said they would vote Labor and 30 per cent Liberal.[6]

In the short term the results of the 2004 election appear to support conventional wisdom as the influence of the Christian vote was seen as significant and the main winners were Family First (which got one representative into the Senate and which is strongly associated with the Pentecostal Assemblies of God) and the Coalition (which won government). But the actual effectiveness of the so-called Christian vote is debatable as Family First’s electoral success can also be put down to a very advantageous set of preference deals which are unlikely to be repeated. And in the struggle between the Coalition and Labor the long term beneficiary of this new situation where there is a much more public debate about the relationship of faith and public policy and political parties is less likely to be the party currently with the ascendancy (the Coalition) than those who are currently underperforming in that area (Labor and maybe, although less certainly, other parties of the left, such as the Greens). It has been advantageous to the Coalition parties for the conventional wisdom about faith, preferred parties and relevant polices to be undisturbed. But anything which encourages greater direct political engagement by Christians is likely to disturb the apparent alliance between faith and conservative politics. Whatever electoral advantage the Howard Government has had (and some, like the ANU’s John Warhurst see it as ‘an important element in Howard’s dominance’[7]) it is more likely to be eroded than enhanced by close examination.

The strength of the previously unexamined assumptions prior to the election was made clear during the 2004 election period when negotiations to present EA’s election analysis on a current affairs program on one Christian broadcaster broke down because they objected to any process which gave room for discussion of non-conservative parties. This kind of approach helps explain (but does not justify) the vehement response of some commentators and politically active people to the development of a public faith and politics dialogue. The assumption is that it will replicate the situation in the United States where, commentator Terry Lane, says, “belief in the Almighty and the ongoing maintenance of American national identity are inseparable. Nowhere is this more evident and dangerous than in the fusion of evangelical Christianity and extreme-right imperialism that now controls the levers of American power.” The movement is secretive and domineering. Lane’s advice is ‘Be afraid!’[8]

The reality is quite different. Those who draw direct and sensationalist comparisons can point to some examples and specific situations to support their case but the general situation on the ground is more diverse and quite different. Australia is not the US and the Australian character is not as amenable to the intense approach which appears to function in the US. The connection of eschatology and millennial belief with politics does not operate in the same way here. Few Australian evangelical Christians could even correctly describe millennial positions and generalisations about influences across the Pacific are often misconstrued.[9] This is not to say that something along the lines of Sojourner’s ‘God is not a Republican…. or a Democrat’ campaign is not helpful in the Australian situation. Moreover, the distinction between evangelical Christians and the mainstream can be over-stressed. While many evangelical-charismatic-pentecostal believers are members of specifically evangelical, charismatic and pentecostal churches many others are found as part of mainstream churches.

The way in which Christians relate faith and politics can be understood as an issue that is closely related to their theology of the kingdom. Christians of the political right tend to have a different philosophy of engagement with social issues than those of the political left. Those on the left are more likely to engage in action within existing groups and parties (seeing the kingdom at work in the world) and to do so as Christians less overtly than those on the right. Those on the right seem to be more likely to form their own group or party (seeing the kingdom work through the overt, identifiable faith of the church) and thus become more noticeable to both the Christian community and the general public. In other words, Christians are involved in both left and right (and a number of other directions as well), but tend to do so in different ways. Obviously this is a generalisation, but one which is perhaps not too unjust.

Personal faith in politics

Traditionally, the faith of politicians has largely been seen as a private matter but during the 2004 election the issue of personal faith and involvement in political life began to become more public. It produced some tensions and comparisons were drawn as political leaders responded in various ways and with varying levels of ease to direct questions about their own faith. As the faith question emerged there was some angst among politicians. In our preparation of material for last year’s Federal election EA asked all political parties to provide an article responding to the question, ‘Why should a Christian should vote Liberal (or Labour/Australian Democrat/Family First etc)?”. But, despite repeated requests, we were spectacularly unsuccessful in getting them. We ended up with only two contributions from seven major parties and there was clearly resistance from a number of quarters.

In attempting to assess the nature of this problem during the election we consulted one former political party backroom analyst who helpfully suggested that party-related Christians did not want to put anything down on paper that would expose them to criticism from their enemies…. and of course, he observed, their real enemies were in their own party!

Nonetheless, personal faith issues came to the fore and there is no doubt that some Christians were influenced by the public declarations of faith (and non-faith) made by various politicians at the prompting of the media. They lauded politicians – mainly from the Coalition - such as John Howard, John Anderson and Peter Costello who were prepared to identify as Christians and, consequently. The influence of a politician’s personal faith among evangelical Christians was evident in a brief flurry of post-election laudatory comments and emails from various Christian organisations that perceived the coalition win as a victory of the faithful.

Their appreciation of the openness of politicians regarding their faith inevitably encourages more faith sharing among other politicians but it remains a difficulty for many. Alexander Downer who commented, ‘Well look I’m not going to get publicly into talking about my own interpretation of Christianity… because I think that’s actually an intensely personal thing.’ That understanding means that it is logical for Downer to criticise Kevin Rudd for being more open about his faith and for him to claim that it is being done only for electoral advantage, ‘The point I’d make about Kevin Rudd is that only since the last election has he seen it as important for him to go out and proclaim himself a Christian.’[10] Of course, it makes sense for Downer to argue this way if the staus quo advantages the coalition. As Tony Abbott pointed out, there was at least a perception that up until then there was an electoral advantage in a private view of faith: “It’s precisely because Howard has never used faith as a sales pitch that people with faith often find him reassuring and trustworthy even if they don’t entirely agree with him.”[11]

But it also makes political sense for Rudd to argue that, “Prior to the last election I tended not to speak about these things at all, because it's always been my preferred position that you simply remained private about these things… But at the last Federal election things changed radically; you had the emergence of Family First, with strong links to the Pentecostal and Evangelical churches across Australia, providing first preference votes in practically every seat that they contested right across Australia, resulting in many of our good Members of Parliament being defeated. So I thought the time had come, given the Family First phenomenon, and on top of that the increasing evidence of the systematic organisation of right-wing Christianity in Australia by the forces of Liberals and Nationals, the people on our side of the show to start speaking out.”[12]

Personality politics

Since the election Kevin Rudd has been the most prominent and articulate politician examining the relationship of faith and politics. His unpublished lecture on church-state relationships at the 2006 ‘Australia’s Christian Heritage National Forum’ conference[13] is surely a chapter from a forthcoming academic book on the topic and his examination of the life and ministry of Dietrich Bonhoeffer[14] has been much quoted. He is also keenly aware of the history of the ALP in relation to the Catholic church (including Mannix vs Billy Hughes over conscription and the damaging history of the DLP) and Catholic social teaching concerning work and industrial relations, as well as to evangelicals (including Kier Hardie the founder of British Labour and the role of Methodism in the development of unionism).

But an intellectual understanding of the relationship of church and state is, however, less likely to garner support among evangelical and Pentecostal Christians than an appreciation of good character. Rudd and others, such as former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson who are perceived as being of strong Christian character[15] - good, honest compassionate, faithful people – will do well among Christians - despite Rudd’s own disavowal of the notion that one should vote for someone just because they are a Christian.[16].

Rudd’s coming out has certainly empowered Christians of the left but it also raises the ante in terms of the depth of analysis of the faith of politicians and not everyone will be comfortable with the scrutiny that may ensue. Nor will all parties come out it equally well. While the Greens have had at least one evangelical-Pentecostal state electoral candidate (Jim Reiher, a lecturer at Tabor College, a multi-denominational Bible college) they also draw strong resistance from many Christians. However, as the environment develops as a moral issue (especially as one with seriously adverse effects on poorer nations) they may gain ground among environmentally aware younger Christians.

There are dangers with this however. If the growing Christian appreciation of the willingness of politicians to allow faith to impact politics is combined with the general trend towards focussing on politicians and personality rather than policy (as seen in the shift towards a presidential approach to electioneering) then it is possible that a Christian version of personality politics could develop.

The need for parliamentary candidates to be charismatic, dynamic, political personalities has grown and it is simply part of a general shift in the culture of leadership towards accentuating charisma and rewarding style. As has been seen in recent political life the inevitable result of promoting personality in politics is that others will aim at personality destruction. When parliament is dominated by personality rather than policy then nothing is more certain than that it will end badly. This was, most notably the case with former Labor leader Mark Latham who alienated large numbers of Christians by his manner and language alone. As well as being (perhaps, as the result of being) such a strong personality he suffered a spectacular backlash. Latham blamed what he called ‘the politics of personal destruction’ for his own political demise. Of course his own reputation as an abrasive, head-kicking political performer must count for something in this.

Subsequently, he warned young people, ‘Don’t go into politics.’ The system, he says, is fundamentally sick and broken and politics is now just another form of entertainment with all the associated prying into politicians' private lives which has long been part of fame and celebrity in the entertainment industry. Christians are prone to celebrate charisma and personality. Churches demand as much from their own pastors and there should be little surprise that burn-out from full-time ministry is so common. Politicians, pastors and priests all operate within the same cultural context and face the same difficulties.

Christians in politics need a level of maturity which will enable them to be a parliamentarian and not merely a politician; they need a sense of responsibility to serve the people and not merely a party; the humility to forgo their own ego in service of the community and the integrity to do so fairly and honestly. And personal qualities must go with good policies.

The new dialogue

The presence of new players on the religious scene is changing the way the dialogue between faith and politics takes place. The Australian Christian Lobby is an independent organisation formed by and representing individual Christians which is only accountable to churches and denominations and the wider Christian community in a general sense. It aims to promoting the relevance of Christian values in public policy and does so through lobbying and supporting candidates and politicians with Christian values.[17]

The ACL has been effective in providing political and lobbying access to many Christian organisations which previously would have had difficulty getting their message across. In late 2006 they successfully conducted policy meetings between Christian organisations and the government and the opposition. About forty Christian organisations participated. Interestingly, almost all denominational bodies chose not to be involved – possibly because they did not think it would function at the appropriate level and opted to make their own representations, and possibly because they wanted to maintain their special status as the primary conduits of Christian communication with politicians. In any event, the coalition participated with the Prime Minster and most senior minsters and the Opposition was led by the Leader of the Opposition and his front bench. Associated with the general meetings were other lobbying opportunities and many leaders of Christian organisations and larger congregations became more political in their thinking.

It is also well known that, in return, politicians have been lobbying the religious. It was not only Peter Costello that went to the mega-church, Hillsong, it was also the then NSW premier Bob Carr, and federal ministers Alexander Downer, Kevin Andrews and Helen Coonan. And the Labor Party’s Peter Garrett, whose own perspectives and values are “shaped by a Christian faith”[18] went looking for "opportunities for real dialogue with people of faith”.[19] And no wonder as, according to 2001 figures, about 1.5 million attend church every week.

Limitations and hazards of political involvement

The mainstream denominations and their agencies have a longer history of relationship with government than the newer churches and organisations which are now developing political contacts. Consequently, they are more immediate and closer, though not necessarily warmer. The church educational and welfare bodies are recipients of significant amounts of money. Churches have long been involved in the provision of welfare services, in fact, prior to World War II it was almost entirely the province of the church and Christian charities. When the state became involved in the latter part of the 20^th century it frequently worked through existing service providers. Consequently, there remains today a strong Christian presence today in the provision of social services in Australia.

But this relationship has not been thought through, it has just happened, compared with for example, the British situation, where in 1998 a national Compact was made which defined the way that charities and government would work together. It recognises the right to advocate, and the right of independence, irrespective of funding.

In Australia the past 10-15 years has seen the emergence of competitive tendering and the development of a market model in the provision of a range of human services including aged care, employment services, child care, drug and alcohol services, health care and family services. In all of these areas the government contracts with the community, church and for-profit sectors to deliver services.

Increasing regulation and the failure to fully think through the government – charity relationship is threatening to stifle the ability of charities to maintain their identity; to quickly identify and address unmet need; and to be innovative in the services that are delivered. There is a danger of government assuming that because they provide some funding to a project that a Christian charity is no more than an agency of government, or a provider of government services, servicing a government contract, rather than being a charity serving the people.[20]

The ethos of institutions and their ability to employ appropriate people is, in places, threatened by contractual requirements and the ability of an organisation to express a Christian ethos has on occasion been limited. Over-regulation has created conflicts with regard to the nature of the actual services that can be offered. Innovation has been limited by contractual arrangements that are very specific about how and when services should be delivered, and who should be supported and for how long etc. Often there is no scope for agencies to develop their own unique service approach. A managerialist approach has resulted in the out-sourcing of responsibility without giving away the control which enables the organisation to develop and implement creative services that are consistent with the agency’s philosophy or mission.

There is a tendency for a focus on organisational identity and the needs of the client to be replaced by a focus on contract management and administrative requirements. Excessive contractual control threatens the rights of the organisation to the ownership of their systems and programs and competitive tendering has affected collaborative relationships, especially in regional Australia and compliance requirements can mean that that service recipients have to meet specific requirements in order to participate in particular government programs with the danger that some vulnerable people may fall through the cracks because the requirements are so specific. If they were wise the government would realise there are benefits in not being intrusive and retain an arm’s length approach and be a regulator of outcomes rather than of inputs and processes.

Criticism and the churches

Despite the closeness of the relationship between mainstream Christian agencies and the government, church leaders have shown no reluctance to criticise the government on a range of issues – albeit a range which some think is too narrow, but which includes the war in Iraq, market driven economic rationalism, industrial relations, mandatory detention of refugees and, from some of the churches, including notably, the Catholic church, stem cell research, abortion and euthanasia. Consequently, the relationship between the government and church leaders has been strained at times.

The strongest critique came from Catholic Cardinal Pell when he warned Catholic NSW MPs not to support a bill to allow therapeutic cloning involving the deliberate destruction of embryos for research purposes. He said that that such a violation of moral principles had consequences in relation to God and their participation in the life of the church. This was ‘hypothetical’, he later explained. The angry response by MPs and others and the insistence that the church ought to keep out of such debates was heightened by Greens MP Lee Rhiannon who referred the matter to the Upper House Privileges Committee to see whether Pell was in contempt of parliament for attempting to induce parliamentarians to vote in a particular way. She was not the only one to urge Christians ‘to leave their religious beliefs at home when examining this matter”[21]

Pell and other leaders, including James Haire, responded vigorously, asserting the right of Christians and other religious believers to be involved in public debate.[22] One has to note the hypocrisy exercised in this by political parties which insist on total conformity by its parliamentary members in virtually all aspects of the exercise of their public life. That is, they are required, under threat of expulsion, to vote for the party on every occasion except very rare ‘conscience votes’, but then are prepared to criticise a religious group for (what is actually a relatively rare) call for adherence to church standards of morality. This applies whether one thinks that Pell’s comments were, politically and pastorally, the best way of going about the matter, or even whether they accurately represent the church’s only position on the matter. Pell, of course, has issues with some members of the Catholic church regarding the place of conscience. A group of prominent Australian Catholics has complained about his teaching on this matter to the Vatican's doctrinal commission.

It must not be overlooked that at times the relationship between government and church leaders has been very positive. Inevitably, this is when the church’s view supports the government position (as, for example, prior to the 2004 election with Brian Watters support on drugs policy and George Pell on taxation and education). Such occasions are, largely, un-newsworthy and little noticed. When the situation becomes more difficult the government as a whole, and politicians individually, has engaged in a number of tactics. Firstly, they have told the churches to keep out of the issue under dispute because faith is essentially a private matter. At other times, as a variant on this, they have argued that the church ought to keep out as it has no unified position on the issue (eg Kevin Andrews argument that there was no single catholic position on industrial relations[23] - a position not universally accepted).

Thirdly, they have attempted to circumvent criticism by directly appealing to the people rather than engaging in dialogue with leaders. Making ones appeal to the people, is, of course, a very democratic and undeniably appropriate approach. Less helpfully, the fourth approach has been to attempt to formally shut down criticism - as when welfare providers are required to take on non-advocacy clauses in which, if agencies are to provide government funded services then they are not allowed to criticise the government in regard to that area. The fifth, and the most rare and extreme approach, is to silence criticism by the use of the parliamentary privileges committee (as described above).

Some have seen ulterior motives in the placement of Christians in particularly sensitive political positions (eg. Kevin Andrews in industrial relations and Ian Harper in the Fair Pay Commission). However, there is no real way of determining whether this is deliberate.

The use of non-advocacy clauses is particularly disturbing as it comes from the government as a whole and locks Christian organisations into compliance. Such clauses actually harm the needs of those being served when organisations become uncritical agencies of the state - as opposed to providing independent services. Advocacy is a form of lobbying and should not be prohibited in welfare any more than in business. Charities need to advocate for the poor and the vulnerable; they are very often the ones who are most likely to know what their clients want and what solutions are going to work.

Non-advocacy clauses are an example of government involvement which affects the integrity of church involvement in public life. They stand as a warning to all Christian organisations that receive money from the government. The National School Chaplaincy Program is offering $30 million per year for three years to government and non-government schools to provide chaplains. Current guidelines expect chaplains to provide ‘general religious and personal advice’ without ‘imposing’ or ‘persuading’ and have been deemed by some evangelical organisations as appropriate for the context. But the welfare sector – where the connection of ‘faith’ with the delivery of the ‘service’ is (to many people at least) far less direct than in school chaplaincy – provides a precedent for those wondering whether more religious and evangelical controls will develop in the life of this program. In 1999- 2000 there were allegations that staff employment and client practices of some Christian welfare agencies were breaching the separation of church and state and infringing the non-discriminatory nature of the delivery of secular government services. The controversy included churches themselves, with some insiders doubting the wisdom of such a close association with government.

The manipulation of faith

Too close an association of church and faith can be problematic. While bearing in mind the distinctions made above concerning the US religious-political scene vis-a-vis Australia it is nonetheless instructive to note what David Kuo, the former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and, for three years, Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, says in his book ‘Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction’.[24] Instead of implementing faith based programs Kuo found himself manipulating religious faith for political gain. He writes that while courting evangelicals and affirming that they and the Bush administration shared common values they were actually widely viewed as ‘nuts’ and ‘goofy. Pat Robertson was seen as ‘insane, Jerry Falwell as ‘ridiculous,’ and James Dobson as having ‘to be controlled.’ Evangelicals were, he argues, simply manipulated.

Whether this fully represents the situation or not the lessons to be drawn from this are for Christians to ensure that they are neither blinded by professions of faith from politicians nor overly attached to specific parties. Those engaged in the political process need to be focussed on policy outcomes and on ensuring that all elected representatives pursue issues for the good of the people rather than out of self-interest.

The newer players in the religious-political scene in Australia do not have the same history as the traditional mainstream participants in terms of their relationship with politicians and government. Consequently, the relationships, which have generally been based on affirming politicians who overtly express their faith, have not generally experienced the same level of conflict.

Australia’s Christian heritage

In addition to praising the involvement of people of faith in public affairs there has been a strong emphasis in the evangelical and pentecostal wing of the church upon affirming and strengthening a general sense of Australia’s Christian history. The motivation for this is varied. For some it is simply a matter of historical correctness – the recognition that Australia owes more to the Christian faith than is commonly accepted. For others it becomes the justification for the recognition of the existing Christian community ethos, while for others it is the foundation for stronger advocacy of specifically Christian based social policies and legislation, sometimes in opposition to policies which strengthen the place of other religious groups.

The heritage movement exists in various places, most notable was the 2006 National Forum on Australia’s Christian heritage.[25] Taking a scholarly approach and with a good political and theological diversity it articulated a strong case for a better understanding of the place on faith in Australian society. The forum was strong on recognising the contribution of individual historical figures and implicitly presenting them as examples for the present. This emphasis on evangelical examples of faith is currently being enhanced through the use of the film ‘Amazing Grace’. Many churches and organisations are using this film as an outreach ministry and a way of encouraging church members to become involved in social and political issues. The film celebrates the life and work of William Wilberforce in seeking passage of legislation to prohibit slavery in the British Empire. This is the 200^th anniversary of the passing of the legislation. Wilberforce is presented as the model Christian - an evangelical activist with a profound social conscience. He was associated with the Clapham Group and, incidentally, had many strong and close relationships with Australia.[26]

Developing trends

Clearly, there has been a long-term trend towards social and political involvement by evangelical-pentecostal Christians, congregations and organisations. It extends from well before the 2004 Federal election and, as it is being encouraged by current church leaders, will extend and develop into the future. It is tempting to assume that a greater level of involvement in political and social values by Christians will benefit both faith and society, but that could be a simplistic assumption. A more extensive Christian influence in politics and social affairs will not be beneficial unless it questions the commonly held assumptions about political and social goals and processes.

It may seem negative to suggest that a more extended Christian contribution could be damaging but there are three good reasons for at least considering this option. The first is the Christian doctrine of sin which reminds us that no-one and no organisation or body is exempt from it. The second is the historical fact that there have been times when Christians have abused political and secular power. The third is that if we are to analyse the motives and goals of others we must be honest enough to submit ourselves to the same kind of close analysis.

It is possible that a more developed Christian contribution to public and social debate could actually lead to a divided and conflicted Christian voice if political allegiances become more significant than unity in Christ. It is also possible that some forms of Christian involvement in social affairs could lead to an increase in social disharmony in relation to other religions.

But, real as these possibilities are, I suspect that they are not the most likely problems that a Christian political presence faces. The greater and subtler danger is that of distorting Christian faith by an uncritical appropriation of the methods and the goals commonly considered to be appropriate for social dialogue and political action.

A genuinely Christian participation in politics and social dialogue is not achieved either by a simple substitution of Christian goals for secular ones or by an uncritical adoption of the socially acceptable processes for gaining power and influence. Most importantly, Christians must not simply follow the example of other interest groups and seek benefits for ‘the Christian constituency’. We must not confuse the desire to achieve Christian goals with achieving goals for Christians.

This new found freedom for involvement in the public sphere has brought a degree of political power to Christians and churches. This is attractive to many but it also constitutes a great danger as wielding political power as a means of social change can be inimical to the way that the gospel works. Jacques Ellul warned of Christians being drawn inappropriately into the political sphere ‘like iron filings to a magnet’[27] because of an unconscious mentality that public social action and political involvement by the church is the only real activity which will prevent the church becoming impotent.

The real goal

The fundamental goal is not primarily to achieve a position of influence or power in order to be able to exercise political and social control for Christian ends. Political influence is as inherently dangerous for Christians as material wealth. Jesus did not say directly that it is harder for the powerful and influential to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, but his own example and the words of the apostle Paul about weakness and power suggest something similar. Indeed, power and wealth are intimately connected and the Christian life is by no means lost, nor the gospel diminished, simply by virtue of being considered weak or vulnerable or of little status. The example of Jesus and the teaching of Paul emphasise this fact. But the Christian ethos is in grave danger when Christians become wealthy or powerful or influential.

In the past there have been very obvious times when the church has ‘won’ the political struggle for power and influence but, in doing so, has lost the gospel. When the medieval church accumulated social power through political and even military means it resulted in the disaster that was the Crusades - something that continues to adversely affect our society eight hundred years later. The present danger is that Christians will uncritically adopt the common means of political and social change that are used today in our liberal democratic society. The undoubted benefits of democratic processes need to be balanced with a recognition of some risks.

Adopting the methods of the political processes which exist today can lead to the assumption that a Christian involvement in politics means lobbying on behalf of one’s own constituency, and this can lead on to the assumption that achieving 51% of the vote gives the right for the majority to determine the way the society will operate. But in a democracy, having a majority does not grant unfettered rights over the minority, although it is sometimes interpreted in that way. The particular danger for Christians is balancing the conviction that a Christian way of life is good for all with the freedom for people to live in other ways.

The primary focus of Christian involvement has to be for the good of others. This is not to suggest that Christians ought not have rights or benefits. But Christians corporately do not live primarily for themselves as a group any more than individuals live for themselves. Jesus’ commandments about love of God and neighbour have social as well as individual application.

In short, Christians must resist the politics of self-interest. Social involvement is not about securing a good deal for Christians, and it is not about maintaining Christian positions, power, status or influence. The gospel is quite clear that Christianity is not defeated by weakness, low status or even oppression. But it is defeated when it becomes a self-centred political view.

Another indication of political seduction is the belief that it is appropriate that Christians control society. This sort of control existed in a medieval Christian imperialism and there are trends today towards various forms of Christian nationalism in which Christian principles are associated with a particular vision of a nation under Christian control. But as missiologist Rene Padilla has said, ‘There is no basis to believe that our duty as Christians is to install a State that will impose Christian morality.’[28] In an even stronger fashion O’Donovan reminds us that it is precisely the Antichrist who claims to ‘unite earthly political rule and heavenly soteriological mediation’.

A genuinely evangelical public theology is one that maintains the supreme importance of ‘the evangel’, the gospel, the good news, for individuals and society. This not the same as the supremacy of the church or of Christian organizations. It is all about the supremacy of the gospel in the life of the church and in the church’s public proclamation – in word and deed – of the good news of Jesus Christ.