I do not believe the CDP is a Christian Party. There are Christians amongst them, however the views they have and the policies they support could be deemed thoroughly unChristian, as they seem to be quite contrary to a simple “What Would Jesus Do?” test.
I am particularly offended by the racism expressed in their flyers. We used to live in the Bankstown area, where we had many neighbours from different nationalities. To have these dropped in our neighbours’ letterboxes, saying that a party calling themselves one supporting “Christian values” in essence wanted them gone, was thoroughly offensive to us as Christians and to our neighbours. It also misrepresented Christianity in a most divisive way, and put up blocks to evangelism. This racist attitude is contrary to the mind of Christ, as revealed to us in Scripture.
The CDP in this election have gone even further, calling for an immediate suspension of Islamic Immigration. Such a hateful and divisive stance is racist and unchristian.
Last week saw the death of Ian Smith, the former Rhodesian PM, who was extremely racist and declared that “blacks” should never rule his land, not in a thousand years. Leaders who make such divisive, hateful remarks, fuel extremists on both sides. Hatred and violence grows. The party being attacked seeks comfort amongst those who are like them, and are more susceptible to the allure of radical ideas which seek to hurt those who have hurt them.
In communities where the “white, western Christians” glare and curse at those who are from other lands, and claim the “others” don’t have the right to be there, work there, worship in the way they want and dress how they’d like; hatred and fear grows. Extremists provide a sense of belonging for those being marginalised that their host culture does not. It is a breeding ground for terrorism. The two sides involved in the Cronulla riots gave us a glimpse of what can happen. September 11th and the Iraq War show it in vivid detail. Neither side wins, and God gets no glory.
Furthermore the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe is the result of Ian Smith’s ideas. If we don’t want radical Islamists exercising Sharia Law in Australia, like the CDP, then history shows the answer is not to hate and vilify “the other”. The answer is to love them and build relationships, with the hope of pointing people to Christ. For then true submission to God will be exercised by both parties, and God will be glorified.
We should be very wary of promoting and electing people who are vocally racist. We should be appalled as Christians when someone says they are a follower of Christ; God in human flesh; and yet says such hateful things against their fellow creations. They misrepresent God, Christianity, and the Bible, to those who might have never heard the Gospel of grace.
I applaud Sandy Grant for his statement. I ask other Christians to call the CDP to account on their policies. After all, they claim to represent us. It is only right that they represent Christianity as taught in the Scriptures, so that God may be glorified.

I really think we ought to give this one a break. All we are doing is vilifying others. We have already seen that occur against Dave L over on the other CDP thread.

Personally I’m interested in the outcome of this vote. Vilify? Maybe the above post was a bit strong, but how kind was that CDP tanty against me for daring to vote Green? (Greenie issues in other thread please… this thread is about the CDP!)

Dear Gordon, I would like to respectfully disagree with your correspondents Ron and Christine Lankshear whose letter criticising the CDP climate-change policy appeared in the feedback section of November 15 CVIP. They mention that their son, a Greens supporter, was dismissive of the CDP environment policy that questions the prevailing paradigm of anthropogenic global warming. Even if one believes the claims of the cult-like prophets of doom about the causes and effects of global-warming, there is no way any Christian should prefer the overtly anti-Christian and pro-death policies of the Greens over the pro-life and pro-Christian policies of the CDP. I am assuming the Lankshears are a Christian family so it distresses me to think that their son could have adopted such pagan views. I fear this is indicative of the wider church and Christian community who have generally failed to pass on their faith to the next generation and our society is suffering because of that. GK Chesterton famously said, “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing—they believe in anything.” Perhaps this is the reason why so many people today have unquestioningly adopted the new Green ‘faith’ - is it because they have first rejected the Christian faith? Regards, Ewan McDonald

Their current policies may or may not be particularly Christian, but I don’t think that matters too much. All parties’ policies are constantly under change. I think that it would be good to have pollies who we could write to with not only social arguments and opinions, but also Biblical arguments. If they weren’t willing to listen to the Bible on issues it talks about, then there’s definitely no way it could be considered Christian. Maybe at a later election we’ll be able to find out.

I believe that those who run the CDP are our brothers and sisters in Christ who will be with us in eternity one day. Yet I would agree that much of their thinking, their theology and their practice is culturally conservative rather than being biblical. It is as though they are still fighting the good fight against communist Russia.

But I would not say that their motives are false. They think they’re doing the right thing.

Christians must, of course, be involved in politics. But instead of forming their own political parties, Christians should involve themselves in all political parties. Many Bible-believing Christians have joined the Liberal Party or the National Party. That is good. But Christians should also join the Labor Party, The Greens and The Democrats (if there’s anything left of them).

But they should also avoid Fruit Loop political parties like the Citizens Electoral Council. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Electoral_Council

I can only choose one option?! :)

Luke… vote on the one that matters most to you, then tell us the other ones you’d want to tick. :-)

Question:

Is this a really edifying thread/poll?

The election is over. Can we all stop being outraged and offended?

We had a thread pulled a few weeks ago because some of the critcisms were deemed fairly personal. Some of this stuff is starting to sound a bit narky and nasty.

If you are going to start ripping into the CDP can you at least remember James advice in James 1:19-20?

Neil M. Cameron - 26 November 2007 06:29 PM

I believe that those who run the CDP are our brothers and sisters in Christ who will be with us in eternity one day. Yet I would agree that much of their thinking, their theology and their practice is culturally conservative rather than being biblical. It is as though they are still fighting the good fight against communist Russia.

But I would not say that their motives are false. They think they’re doing the right thing.

Christians must, of course, be involved in politics. But instead of forming their own political parties, Christians should involve themselves in all political parties. Many Bible-believing Christians have joined the Liberal Party or the National Party. That is good. But Christians should also join the Labor Party, The Greens and The Democrats (if there’s anything left of them).

But they should also avoid Fruit Loop political parties like the Citizens Electoral Council. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Electoral_Council

I agree, Neil, but I hope they don’t blindly follow the party ideology, or it’s practices.

This leaves me with a problem, however, because all parties have areas of policy with which I disagree strongly.. like abortion. I would have to state upfront I don’t agree with the party policy on this issue and this means usually that you will find yourself on the outer.

These days all the parties won’t accept members voicing any kind of dissent or disagreement. The public must see unity! even is there isn’t any.

Yep, our political system itself is broke.

Which is why I always smugly come up and say Demarchy

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. - James 1:19-20 (ESV)

I personally think that it is important for all Christian institutions to be placed under public scrutiny. There needs to be an avenue for public debate - though this does need to be tempered by wisdom.

The context of James 1:19-20 is helpful to look at:

James 1

2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does.
9The brother in humble circumstances ought to take pride in his high position. 10But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. 11For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.

12Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.

13When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

16Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers. 17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

19My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20for man’s anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. 21Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.

26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

If you are going to start ripping into the CDP can you at least remember James advice in James 1:19-20?

I think the rest of the chapter gives the CDP some points to remember. That’s the point of this thread. This is not just about politics. It is about the Christian’s interface with the world. The CDP misrepresent Christianity, as taught in the Bible, to our communities. We need to call them to account for this.
I know I’m angry about this, but how do you think God feels about the CDP’s stances; especially considering that Muslims are made in his image, too, and are part of the “all nations” we are called to make disciples of? I think the CDP makes it harder for us to do this. The election may be over, but eternity is yet to come. We have more work to do in pointing people to Christ. This still matters, and we should do what we can to change their policies (as we can through both “political pressure” and Biblical exhortation) before the next election or the end times. We don’t know which will come first.

jeannine baird - 26 November 2007 11:47 PM

I think the rest of the chapter gives the CDP some points to remember. 

I think the chapter gives me and you and all of us some points to remember don’t you think?  I feel deeply ashamed of my attitudes and behaviour when I read James. I certainly don’t feel proud enough to point it just at somebody else who may deserve it.

The passage and context in James is terrific and very pertinent to your point Jeannine, but why don’t you take it up with your brothers and sisters in the CDP?  If you feel they are sinning go directly to them and tell them so.  If they don’t listen, take another one or two mature Christians with you.  The early church did not have 5 question internet polls to decide whether someone was sinning or not. If you feel they are disobeying God don’t just say so here, bring it up directly to them. Our Lord gives some clear guidlelines about this in Matthew 18.

Michael,

Extreme example 1 - Let’s say that Peter Jensen is shown on national TV getting drunk.

Would my personal Neil Cameron response be to ring him up and arrange at time for me to rebuke him for his sin? Then, when I don’t get a reply, should I contact Phil Jensen and others at the Cathedral in order to take it to the next level. And when I don’t get a reply from them, then what?

Extreme example 2 - Benny Hinn preaches that there are nine persons in the Godhead.

Would my personal Neil Cameron response be to ring him up in America and arrange a time for us to meet and then go through the entire Matthew 18 steps?

The reason why I ask this is because there are different responses to different sins. Sins which are private and or personal should be dealt with according to Matthew 18 - but as soon as the sin is public I believe the rules change.

Because the CDP chose to write a public letter attacking Dave’s faith for voting Green, there is no way that such a action can merely be swept under the carpet under the label of “Matthew 18”. Whenever public Christian figures make public statements about the faith, their public words and public actions can only be discussed and critiqued publicly.

If I went to Katoomba Convention and heard a preacher preach something that was unbiblical, I wouldn’t try to talk to him privately about it - I need to talk to others about what I have heard in order to make sure they heard the same thing, and then maybe talk to him (or send someone else).

Neil M. Cameron - 27 November 2007 02:36 PM

If I went to Katoomba Convention and heard a preacher preach something that was unbiblical, I wouldn’t try to talk to him privately about it - I need to talk to others about what I have heard in order to make sure they heard the same thing, and then maybe talk to him (or send someone else).

The correct response would be to approach that speaker and seek clarification. It has been done at Katoomba and other platforms when a speaker says something, he has been gracious enough to speak to someone challenging him. I have actually done it myself - in spite of being fairly shy in a situation like that.

Does the Bible make a public/private distinction when Christians think other Christians sin? 

At the very least if there is public rebukes, let it be done graciously and in a careful manner. If they are making inflamatory remarks about us, let us not descend to their level. Let the facts be presented properly, quote from them directly and even seek the views of senior people not just foot soldiers firing off cranky letters. It is much better to confront them face to face rather than having an internet poll on whether they sin or not. Internet polls can be useful when deciding who was the better Captain of the Enterprise or whether people think Brittney Spears has had plastic surgery, but they are of little value for matters of doctrine and sin.

I have not really followed David’s letter controversy, largely because the discussion has seemed to run a little hot. I know he has pasted it into a post on this thread, but this thread (started by Jeannine Baird) has started with a poll that has five questions that I am not happy about appearing.  Jeannine has raised some interesting topics about the CDP being racist. She has said in regard to Muslim residents that the CDP “in essence wanted them gone”.  Is that really true?

I have not seen the CDP documents (would someone like to post them?) If it is simply a matter of them not allowing certain immigration does that make them a racist party?  Perhaps and perhaps not. Their argument against Islamic immigration may stem from Law and Order concerns. That is not a view I agree with but I would need to be convinced first that is a racist view - it may simply be a narrow and ill-informed view. 

I will have to read the thread here again but I thought that was the issue being discussed, not David L.’s concerns with them over Greens and Paganism. I believe he may have given an opinion or two on that topic in another thread.

Whilst Neil raises an interesting point, I think we have to acknowledge we all too often forget or ignore the Scriptural pattern, Jesus’ Matthew 18 injunction for dealing with disputes between persons and organisations. It is inconvenient for a start. It is challenging. It requires us to justify why we think someone is wrong and then we have to listen to the other’s response. Easier to grizzle or publicly allege certain things against the other which may or may not be true. I’m sure the CDP would be very concerned if they knew they were being charged with racism on the Sydney Anglican website. This is why I suggested earlier that we should leave this topic well alone.

Re Neil’s contribution, I think other factors, other Scriptures such as the pastoral epistles come into play where false teaching is involved. This is is a very different matter.

False teachers must be held to account, but in this case it should be a matter for the eldership and the courts of the Church, not the individual to pursue. In the Presbyterian Church we have very clear rules for dealing with heresy that among other things protects a person against false allegations, as well as removing false teachers from the ministry.