Leader different from a nobodysilly_not_funnyNovember 26 2007, 04:08:40 UTC
Tim, I was certainly on board the Rudd-train when he first became Opposition leader. I read this article in my poli course early this year and it definitely got me to thinking that Liberal was not the only way to vote for a discerning Christian. However, this view was tempered by the stage managed performance of the party over the next few months. A leopard cannot change its spots and Labor will always have to pay someone on the left for some policy agreement in another area. My assessment (and I would love to be wrong) is that Rudd is not strong enough to hold off the anti moralising charge of the left. He may make the right sounds and I am sure he will put his foot down, but eventually his leadership will be weakened and he will concede ground on something that is important to Christians (because it is important to God) and this concession will never be over-turned. I don't live in fear. I will pray for Kevin Rudd often. He is certainly the best option that Christians can have if they have the Labor party in power and I certainly appreciate some of his views. I also don't believe that John Howard was some kind of political annointed one, either. I suppose my point is, enjoy the feeling while it lasts because Kevin Rudd will not be making to many more of those kinds of speeches/essays. Joshua
Re: Leader different from a nobodyinsanetimboNovember 26 2007, 04:42:15 UTC
I don't see it in quite the same way you do Josh. I'm stoked that he's an intelligent Christian political thinker and I'm also stoked that he's a competent and earnest (perhaps a bit too earnest) leader of the Labor party. But in my view the two aren't interconnected.
I've got a lot more to say in response.. but i just had a better thought (arguments get so samey after a while, don't you think?)
Tell me, (while i ponder the question as well) - what should/could a Christian Prime Minister be like?
Re: Leader different from a nobodymattyo_November 26 2007, 10:58:52 UTC
I guess there's two ways of looking at your question Timmy. I mean, in one sense, there's no difference in what a Christian should be like if he or she were Prime Minister or if he or she were a factory worker. Or a teacher. And so on. They should express their faith in creativity, inclusiveness and humility, bringing heaven to people and showing people a glimpse (or a more profound recognition) of Christ at work in their life. If we're sincere (however sinful) Christians, then our lives should manifest God's love or at the very least, manifest it more than yesterday.
But unlike other Christians in workplaces, Kevin Rudd holds the most public office in Australia and is thus under immense scrutiny.
But does this matter?
If someone has been elected as PM, it means (more or less) that the country approves of him or her; whether this zeitgeist is based on values, track record or any other factor isn't as crucial as the positive response itself. This suggests to me that the individual (assuming they are a follower of Christ) is already bringing something of heaven to the public, be it economic freedom, relentless social justice or enabling 'the least of these' in some capacity.
So, I contend a Christian PM can best lead and best represent Christ by continuing the life long process of personal sanctification. This will inevitably manifest itself in their office, although not necessarily dictate policy. After all, I would consider it a terrible thing if a Christian PM were to confer his or her beliefs on all Australians, given our multi-faith society. This does not, however, negate the commandment of loving others, speaking up for those without a voice. The hypothetical PM (or as it stands, Rudd) should have a clear sense of social justice and be courageous enough to legislate on it, but also to provide economic stability such that others may retain employment and support their families.
Some like to consider Jesus a socialist radical. Maybe. Others see Jesus' emphasis on money, and that's a valid observation too. But transcending this political analysis was the real fact that Jesus brought heaven to earth, allowing us a way to receive love and to love.
If Rudd can show a heart for people, a concern for 'all Australians' (as he already has in his acceptance speech), then I think he'll make a fine PM.
Oh yeah, I second Timmy's motion to read Rudd's essay on Bonhoffer. It's rad and puts the simplicity of Family First to shame.
Re: Leader different from a nobodysilly_not_funnyNovember 26 2007, 23:18:46 UTC
I started a response to this last night but thought a sleep first would be better. What I got around to thinking about last night was the word integrity. The specific meaning of which I think needs to be focussed on is the integrity between words and deeds. That the words you speak to any and every audience are reflected in your actions. A leader (Christian or not) should be able to have a transcript of any meeting at which they speak made public and not have to rationalise that with what they said the previous week or with their actions.
I am a big believer in the liberal tradition. Small government and minimal intervention is the most enabling of political traditions. God gave us free-will and set up 10 rules. He delivered further instructions aswell, but this seems to me to be advisory rather than statutory. The 10 rules would be the equivalent of a consitution and the instructions would be our legislation. The law of the Jews was written in a very small part of the Bible. This is a big change from what we have today. I believe that Labor has a tradition of big government, implementing policies that are not the domain of government but rather the responsibility of families and Christians. Liberal, under Howard, lost sight of this view. He was a great politician but after the first 5 years in government he became more concerned with power and how best to leave his mark. I believe God has had his judgement on Howard's hubris.
I believe that government should create an environment where well meaning people can freely help others. The problem with socialism is that it disconnects apathetic people from acts of goodwill in the same way as government disconnects apathetic people from administration of public policy. People choose not to be involved in these things because they see government doing it. Christians, not Christian leaders need to get out and be salt and light and government needs to allow them.
I have not covered this topic anywhere near to my satisfaction. So much of it is tied up in wider views and opinions of the political landscape, which I have tried to avoid so as not to get into argument. I don't believe in separation of Church and State, I think that is hogwash, but I do believe that it is Christians who are responsible for charitable works, not government. Re-distribution of wealth is the responsibility of individuals, not government. How much better is the blessing to give to Bush fire victims from your own money than to hear the goverment has announced an aid package?
Joshua
Reply
I've got a lot more to say in response.. but i just had a better thought (arguments get so samey after a while, don't you think?)
Tell me, (while i ponder the question as well) - what should/could a Christian Prime Minister be like?
Reply
But unlike other Christians in workplaces, Kevin Rudd holds the most public office in Australia and is thus under immense scrutiny.
But does this matter?
If someone has been elected as PM, it means (more or less) that the country approves of him or her; whether this zeitgeist is based on values, track record or any other factor isn't as crucial as the positive response itself. This suggests to me that the individual (assuming they are a follower of Christ) is already bringing something of heaven to the public, be it economic freedom, relentless social justice or enabling 'the least of these' in some capacity.
So, I contend a Christian PM can best lead and best represent Christ by continuing the life long process of personal sanctification. This will inevitably manifest itself in their office, although not necessarily dictate policy. After all, I would consider it a terrible thing if a Christian PM were to confer his or her beliefs on all Australians, given our multi-faith society. This does not, however, negate the commandment of loving others, speaking up for those without a voice. The hypothetical PM (or as it stands, Rudd) should have a clear sense of social justice and be courageous enough to legislate on it, but also to provide economic stability such that others may retain employment and support their families.
Some like to consider Jesus a socialist radical. Maybe. Others see Jesus' emphasis on money, and that's a valid observation too. But transcending this political analysis was the real fact that Jesus brought heaven to earth, allowing us a way to receive love and to love.
If Rudd can show a heart for people, a concern for 'all Australians' (as he already has in his acceptance speech), then I think he'll make a fine PM.
Oh yeah, I second Timmy's motion to read Rudd's essay on Bonhoffer. It's rad and puts the simplicity of Family First to shame.
Reply
I am a big believer in the liberal tradition. Small government and minimal intervention is the most enabling of political traditions. God gave us free-will and set up 10 rules. He delivered further instructions aswell, but this seems to me to be advisory rather than statutory. The 10 rules would be the equivalent of a consitution and the instructions would be our legislation. The law of the Jews was written in a very small part of the Bible. This is a big change from what we have today. I believe that Labor has a tradition of big government, implementing policies that are not the domain of government but rather the responsibility of families and Christians. Liberal, under Howard, lost sight of this view. He was a great politician but after the first 5 years in government he became more concerned with power and how best to leave his mark. I believe God has had his judgement on Howard's hubris.
I believe that government should create an environment where well meaning people can freely help others. The problem with socialism is that it disconnects apathetic people from acts of goodwill in the same way as government disconnects apathetic people from administration of public policy. People choose not to be involved in these things because they see government doing it. Christians, not Christian leaders need to get out and be salt and light and government needs to allow them.
I have not covered this topic anywhere near to my satisfaction. So much of it is tied up in wider views and opinions of the political landscape, which I have tried to avoid so as not to get into argument. I don't believe in separation of Church and State, I think that is hogwash, but I do believe that it is Christians who are responsible for charitable works, not government. Re-distribution of wealth is the responsibility of individuals, not government. How much better is the blessing to give to Bush fire victims from your own money than to hear the goverment has announced an aid package?
Reply
Leave a comment