I didn’t do this lightly, and had wrestled with both the idea of getting arrested, and with my convictions about war and violence. But us thinkers need to bite the bullet sometimes (not a very nonviolent metaphor, is it!), and do something, even when all the questions don’t have satisfactory answers.

We were arrested, and had our day in court today. We pleaded guilty to the offences. The magistrate found the charges to be proven, but did not record a conviction, and chose to dismiss the charges, and chose not to give us a punishment. It’s the legal equivalent of saying, “I know you did something wrong, but I like it!”. One of our number did receive a good behaviour bond (as a repeat offender) but still was not convicted.

Before we were sentenced, the magistrate allowed us to say a bit about why we broke the law. I hesitate to put my statement out there, because of 2 reasons: (1) There is a lot of misplaced talk of ‘heroism’, ‘sacrifice’, ‘inspirational’ applied to people who commit civil disobedience. I think it’s unwarranted unless the person is at real risk of jail time or harm. I am at risk of neither, nor do I like words like ‘heroic’ being applied to me; (2) the other reason is that I have a small, but significant profile in the Christian community of Bendigo. In smaller places, news that someone has been arrested spreads fast and can dent one’s reputation. Not that I care overly about my reputation, but if people are going to criticise me, then I’d rather they would do it from the basis of fact.

Please contact me to argue, disagree, converse etc. It’s what I love doing and I don’t mind talking about the tensions and difficulties in living out the good news of Jesus Christ.

This is what I had to say:

Your Honour knows from your records that in 2002, I was taken to court for refusing to vote in the 2001 Federal Election. I did so because of my belief that our political system tends to marginalise the powerless, and as a Christian I felt I needed to stand against it. I still think our political system is deeply flawed, but I now believe that I need to participate in it to reform it. So this year I voted in 2 elections…though their ambiguous results have hardly inspired me.

But that is what my actions at Queenscliff were basically about. I acted as a Christian citizen of a democracy. My trust in Jesus Christ inspires me to participate in our democracy for the sake of peace and justice. I can do this through voting, but I also take part in my community’s activities, and through my paid job as a youth worker. Political involvement means more than the ballot.

And when our government insists on fighting an unwinnable, immoral and unjust war, then we need to act. When our Prime Minister commits to another decade in Afghanistan, even though the war’s original reasons have been lost in the crippling need to appear resolute, then we need to voice our opposition forcefully. We have shown that such opposition can be done peacefully, and non-violently.

This war won’t root out terrorism: the war against terrorism needs to be fought with the weapons of peace or not fought at all. Using the violence of armies to extinguish the violence of small groups will only result in the proliferation of terrorism. We are already seeing that as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Most Australians implicitly realise that the Afghanistan war will not solve terrorism. And a majority of us want our nation to withdraw. As a citizen, I want to participate in the democratic process to persuade my government that their actions are wrong. Drawing attention to the secretive Swan Island military base is part of that persuasion.

Your Honour, my Christian beliefs inspire me to advocate for a just peace. I was often told as a child that that Australia is founded on Judeo-Christian values. I sincerely hope that it is, and those values would include those of Jesus Christ, who advocated loving our enemies and refusing to take revenge.

Jesus continued in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets, who called the leaders of their day to justice and mercy. And that is what I call our leaders to today – to forgo revenge, to love mercy and do justice by withdrawing our soldiers from Afghanistan.

I played music by Eddie Vedder, Steve Bevis, Michael Franti, Ben Harper, U2, Paul Kelly, Shane Howard, Kev Carmody, Billy Bragg, Surrender

Australian Christian Lobby Forum – Wednesday 17th November at Bendigo Baptist, 7.30pm.

TEAR Gift Catalogue

Gordon Preece Seminar

Political Evangelism – the good news in the public sphere
Once upon a time, a young man in Europe was in court. His father, a wealthy textiles businessman, had taken him there because he had stolen some silk from his father’s factory, sold it and used it to fund some property development. During the public hearing, he renounced his father’s wealth, stripped off his clothes and strode away, naked, promising to serve ‘Lady Poverty’.

A while before that, another young man led the respected people of his nation to the rubbish dump, and informed them that they were responsible for a coming catastrophe. He told that they had filled the land with innocent blood, and that in return they would experience a military siege so terrible they would turn to cannibalism of their own families to survive. As a finale, he held a clay pot above his head and smashed it – “This pot is the house of Jerusalem and the house of Judah”.

The first young man was Francis of Assisi, and the second young man is the prophet known as Jeremiah. They were both prefiguring and continuing one of the most common practices of Jesus, which I call Political Evangelism.

Definitions
I realise I am using two words which are contested – often used for many different purposes. So let me define them.

By “political”, I mean:

• That which concerns power  and its use
• That which concerns the public sphere
• It is always personal, but never private (secret)
• I do not mean…’party politics’

By “evangelism”, I mean:

• That which concerns the good news, or the ‘evangel’ (GK) – the good news of God..a word used by the gospel writers to convey the message of the kingdom of God, which they had appropriated from the Caesars, who used the word ‘gospel’ to convey their victory in battle.
• That evangelism includes both a NO and a YES, judgement and mercy, criticism and invitation to a new life.
• Let us try to remove stereotypes of evangelism from our heads.

Political Evangelism, for the purposes of tonight is: Acts of public witness to the good news of God and his reign

Politics and Religion
Tonight I want to explore what place political evangelism might have in the life of the church, and in the interaction of the church with the surrounding public. We are often told that “religion and politics don’t mix”. The witness of the Bible and Christian history says that such a viewpoint is inaccurate, and also impossible. The problem is not that religion and politics mix, it is HOW they mix.

Tonight I will focus on one element of that mix – that of publically declaring (in word and deed) the good news. There are so many others ways that Christians act politically: from letter-writing to the clothes we buy, from how we make decisions in church to how we vote. Every act and decision we make is political, because human life is about allegiance. Who will we be loyal to? is the question to which the Christian answer is “Jesus is Lord”, not simply in a general sense but in a specific sense. Is Jesus our Lord in our finances, our employment, where our kids go to school, the kind of toilet paper we buy, how we produce and eat food etc etc etc .

I don’t have the whole picture, nor do I regularly do what I am going to talk about, but it’s something that I think needs to be thought about in the church, and acted upon. Also, I have my own political persuasions, but this seminar is not meant to be about my particular beliefs. I think that Christians of all political persuasions should be acting publically and politically. Again, the argument is not whether doing so is warranted – the argument is about HOW we do so.

Biblical Examples of Political Evangelism
Apart from the Jeremiah example, there are plenty of biblical instances of public acts of witness:

• Moses and the plagues (Ex 9-10)
• Elijah & the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:20-40)
• Jesus illegally healing on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-14)
• Jesus eating illegally on the Sabbath (Mark 2:23-28)
• Triumphal Entry to Jerusalem (John 12:12-15)
• Acts of Apostles: constant examples of healing and preaching in public, often provoking unrest, arrest, imprisonment and sometimes death.

Let us look at 3 of them, and for each I will look at what constitutes these acts of public witness: the setting, the symbols, the showing & telling, the consequences and why they are political and evangelistic acts.

1. Jeremiah 19 – the clay pot

• Setting: deliberately public – he leads the elders and senior priests to the entry of the Potherds Gate (entry to the rubbish dump)….sometimes called the Dung Gate (KJV)
• Symbol: clay pot –  visual as well as verbal; acts of public witness often use symbols to convey a message
• Showing and Telling of God’s judgement upon the idolatry and violence of Judah and Jerusalem:

Because the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by making offerings in it to other gods whom neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah have known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent, and gone on building the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as burnt-offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it enter my mind (Jer 19:4-5)

• Consequences: Jeremiah is imprisoned and ‘struck’ (whipped?)  in chapter 20.
• Political – pitting the powers of Judah and Jerusalem (the elders and priests) against that of God.
• Evangelism – God’s judgement is always for the purpose of God’s eventual mercy and restoration of Israe

2. Matthew 12: 9-14 – illegal healing

• Setting:  the setting is a synagogue on the Sabbath…illegal to do any work on the Sabbath
• Symbol:  the man and his withered hand is the visual method that Jesus uses to demonstrate the heartlessness of the Pharisee’s way.
• Showing & Telling: Jesus commits a crime for 2 reasons: one is to heal the man, but the second is to create a counterargument about the Sabbath and what its purpose is. (see previous story of illegal eating).  Ongoing battle between Jesus and the powers – “…so that they might accuse him” (v. 10b)
• Consequences – the Pharisees conspire to destroy him.
• Political – it is about who has the power to say what is legal, and an ongoing battle of myths between religious leaders and Jesus.
• Evangelism – Jesus is communicating that healing is more important than a law.

3. John 12 – messianic battle
This story is one of the most obvious examples of Jesus acting in public and political way. Let us look at the sequence of story:

1. Enters Jerusalem
2. Hears the crowd’s messianic myth – “King of Israel”….what is a King for them? Violent, restoration of Israel. Look at Jesus reaction to this last time! (John 6:15)
3. Decides to get a donkey
4. Rides it, providing a countervailing myth of what it means to be Messiah

• Public: 6 days before Passover, Jerusalem is filled
• Symbol: donkey, a ridiculing of the stallion, the usual victor’s steed.
• Showing & Telling: Jesus does no telling, but his message is clear – his kingship is different.
• Consequences:  all the people go after him!
• Political – they want him to have power over them, to violently restore Israel
• Evangelism – the good news of a nonviolent Lord

So, in summary, political evangelism:

• Is public – people are watching, they can see us!
• Communicates a message about God and his good news.
• Almost always in conflict with other messages in society which are taken as normative
• Uses symbols to communicate
• Consequences are inevitable, both punitive and positive.
• Nonviolent

Political Evangelism in Christian history

• Telemachus (404): intervening publically in gladiatorial contest
• Francis of Assisi (1205): disrobing to demonstrate non-attachment to possessions
• Martin Luther (1517): nailing theses to the church door
• Civil Rights movement (1960s): counter sit-ins
• Pro life (20^th C): picketing abortion clinics
• Oath Keepers (20^th C): taking public oaths
• Women Christian Temperance Movement (late 19^th C on) : prayer inside saloons
• St Maximilian (295): refused in court to be conscripted and was executed

Political Evangelism Today
When Crown Casino was being established, a small movement existed to call attention to its degrading social effects, and the inappropriate relationship between the government and the casino owners. Each Sunday, we got together outside the site and prayed. We had a banner, and talked to people who approached us. We had T-shirts made up that communicated our message and also used the Crown Casino logo in a humourous way. We had a plenty of verbal abuse hurled at us, but also plenty of people who agreed with us.

I found this to be a good experience, but also a hard one, not least because of the reactions of Christians I spoke to about it. From those conversations, I began to think about the barriers to political evangelism.

Barriers to Political Evangelism
Acting publically and politically is difficult for all of us. There a few key barriers to Christians acting publically and politically.

1. FEAR:

• This includes embarrassment, wanting to avoid criticism or abuse, and the fear of being recognised by someone who may think badly of you.
• These things are absolutely understandable, but are also predicted by Jesus as expected consequences of following him…it may even show that we are on the right track

2. PRIVATISM: this is the belief that religious concerns are separate from political concerns, therefore Christians should keep their faith out of the public sphere.

• As I showed before, faith is a matter of allegiance, and allegiance is a matter of which power we will be loyal to.
• Christian faith is always personal, but it is never private. It is impossible to look at Jesus, and the church of Acts, and conclude that our faith is meant to be kept out of the public sphere.
• Christian faith is not captive to party politics, but that hardly means it is nonpolitical. Again, look at the conflicts Jesus has with the powers of his day; look at the way the apostles come into conflict with the powers of their day.

3. QUIETISM: this is the belief that ‘making a fuss’ in public is unproductive, and that the general public will be alienated from Christianity by public acts of witness.

• It is true that political evangelism will alienate people, as it will attract some people. Jesus predicted this, and demonstrated it in his own ministry. So that’s not an argument against political evangelism
• The question I would ask is – When has our social conformity assisted the church?
• Nonconformism was the order of the day in the early church, and that attracted people!
• I’m not arguing to be nonconformist unthinkingly, but for us, the church, to be our true selves, and not worry so much about what the world thinks
• Quietism is actually a product of the Christendom worldview, in which state and church gave each other power. The  church didn’t want to rock the boat because it had that power. Well, now we don’t have it! Let’s enjoy the freedom!

4. THE POWERS AND FAITH

• The most insidious reason we don’t want to do Political Evangelism is that we believe that the powers of state and corporations are basically in sympathy with the aims of the church, that we are walking arm in arm, that we basically have the same idea of what a ‘good’ society is.
• Now, if you believe that, then there is no reason for you to think about Political Evangelism.
• But if we don’t believe that – that is, if we believe that the aims of the community of Jesus are in conflict with the aims of political and economic powers, then we need to use every weapon in our arsenal to bring that conflict to light.

Conclusion
Public witness to God’s kingdom is clear throughout the Bible and in Christian history. The questions is not whether to do it, because that has been answered, the questions are WHEN and HOW.

I would say to my daughters, if they were to ask me this question, I would say … it is the greatest gift that you can give someone, the ultimate gift of giving and don’t give it to someone lightly, that is what I would say.

The slapdown from the media and in the political arena was fairly rapid. Julia Gillard: “These comments will confirm the worst fears of Australian women about Tony Abbott”. Gabriella Coslovich in The Age: “If I were one of Abbott’s daughters I would be furious to have my value reduced to the state of my hymen”. Most of the responses centred on the desirability of bonking whoever you like without criticism.

Tony Abbott was trapped by the fact that politicians, like every public figure these days, must engage on a personal level as well as a political level. To challenge Labor, he must be liked by the Australian people, as well as having attractive policies. Hence the Women’s Weekly interview. However, Abbott’s insistence that the piece was a ‘personal’ and ‘not political’ doesn’t stand up either because the only reason we care is because he is a politician. Most of the hysteria whipped up on his comments is simply fluff that we can safely ignore. Many commentators simply don’t like Tony. Abbott is an abrasive politician, and those opposed to him will take any opportunity to denigrate him. This is to be expected, and Abbott shouldn’t be surprised. But there are a couple of interesting issues touched on in this episode.

The first is Is it valid for politicians to comment on so-called ‘private’ matters? I argue that not only is it valid, it should be positively encouraged. I want to know what my political representatives actually think, not just rely on carefully controlled media releases. One of the attractive things about Tony Abbott (bar budgie smugglers) is the unscripted nature of his public appearances. That could be spin too, but I prefer it to the airbrushed image that Rudd conveys. Added to this is the artificial separation between private and public issues. Rudd referred to this in his response to Abbott, opining that governments should focus on health, climate change and war-mongering, and leave the ‘private’ issues to individuals. I assume he means that sex is a private issue. That didn’t stop him writing a long essay on his religious faith before the election.

These issues are ‘personal’ but they are not ‘private’ in the sense of having no public interest. All relationships, including sexual ones, have to deal with the public dimension, even if it extends only to excluding the public. In fact, our definition of what is ‘private’ and therefore off-limits to politicians, god-botherers and in-laws, is quite fluid. For some, our voting choices are strictly private (though regulated by government), for others it’s our bank balance (though regulated by government), for others it’s our eating habits (though regulated by government). For others it’s our choice of school (though regulated by government). All our supposedly private choices are regulated to some degree by government. Even, yes, sex is regulated by government.

So, to get down the root of it all, the real issue is not whether politicians should comment on ‘private’ issues, but Should government regulate relationships? And how should they be regulated? And, for the god-botherers like me, is there any validity in trying to persuade such regulation on the basis of my religiously-grounded beliefs?…stay tuned

….Australian politicians, unlike their American counterparts, have worn their religious beliefs lightly, eschewing ostentatious displays of their faith or the use of religious precepts to justify or shape their policy positions. While religion has not been entirely absent from Australian political debate (it did, after all lead to a split in the ALP), by and large politicians have preferred to justify their values and decisions by reference to their political philosophies, rather than their religious beliefs. Australians, in any case, seem wary of appeals to religious authority; research shows they are increasingly unlikely to claim Christian religious affiliation or to engage in religious practices.

But a recent study by Melbourne political scientist Anna Crabb provides some confirmation for the idea that this deliberate separation of religion and politics may be dissolving — at least among MPs. (02 July 2009)

She seems very concerned about this, as Crabb’s research indicates a growth in the number of religious references in MPs’ speeches, particularly since 9/11. Why is Lawrence (left) so disturbed by this? Because “…there is a risk that religious reasoning, not subject to the usual rational challenges, may grow in significance.” Note the qualifications risk and may grow. This piece is scaremongering. Lawrence purports to be sounding the warning bell against religion in politics, but really she’s just building up a pretty rickety straw man and setting it alight. What are her actual concerns? What is her evidence, apart from references in speeches, that Australia’s robustly secular political culture is falling prey to religious fanaticism?

Parliament has prayers. On every sitting day, 2 prayers are said. Most people don’t attend these prayers because they happen before any real business happens. But on Tuesdays, everyone is meant to be in the House, and the prayers are said with all present (as far as I can tell, the House of Representatives sits on 18 Tuesdays in the year. So, out of 365 days, 18 of them have prayers at which MPs must attend). Carmen and her heathen mates boycott the prayers. The other concerns are….well, there aren’t any other particular concerns.

Not sure of the problem – parliamentary prayers are an anachronism, I agree, because they hark back to a time that we are no longer in – one when we could assume that all Australian citizens believed that God was guiding our political decision-makers. That assumption, granted, is a dead horse being whipped by only a hopeful few. But if that’s Lawrence’s only concern, then I don’t understand why she writes an opinion piece warning of the mix of religion and politics, except to use religion as a whipping-boy. This suspicion is confirmed by her final paragraph, which dog-whistles to the inbuilt bullshit detector in Anglo-Australians:

The sharp contrast between the pious words and the behaviour of MPs both towards one another and to the vulnerable in the community didn’t go unnoticed either. This was at a time when hateful things were being said about Muslims and queue jumpers and other “outsiders”. Often the very same people who bowed their heads in prayer, were the ones who appeared least constrained by Christian charity. There’s the rub.

But is Lawrence suggesting that if politicians were more constrained by Christian charity that she would be happy for prayers to stay? I doubt it. This generalised smearing is just the kind of behaviour that she deplores in the MPs’ comments about Muslims and ‘queue jumpers’.

Lawrence is basically claiming that political secularists have no worldview to guide their actions – that they are guided by the shining light of rationality. Whereas the religionists have little claim to rationality because they are motivated by untestable views about a God who is invisible. This claim to rationality is bogus, because it refuses to admit its own assumptions – that rationality is the highest way, an assumption which is itself questionable. Australian democracy is in no danger of being overwhelmed by unthinking religion, at least not of the Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other historic type. Australia has no established church (as the UK does) and if Australians don’t like the way their politicians declare their various worldviews and ideologies, they can vote them out.