Archbishop Peter Jensen responds to Kevin Rudd’s comments on church and state in Australia

In an article in The Australian newspaper today, Archbishop Peter Jensen says Labor spokesman on Foreign Affairs Kevin Rudd is right to call for Christians to make a stronger contribution to domestic politics.

Read a news article about the Archbishop’s article here.

Read an opinion piece from the Sydney Morning Herald based on Kevin Rudd’s article in The Monthly here.

Full text of the Archbishop’s column:

Peter Jensen: Towards a state of grace
Kevin Rudd’s call for Christians to make a stronger contribution to domestic politics is welcome
————————————————————————————————————————
October 05, 2006
IT is good that a political leader of the stature of Kevin Rudd has given us something both serious and impassioned on church and state in Australia. So far, any discussion that has taken place has been dominated by secularists fearful of newly invented demons such as “the Christian Right”. Rudd’s discussion appears in the October issue of The Monthly.
The connection between church and state in Australia is far deeper and more complex than some slogans suggest. We have rightly committed ourselves to a form of government that is secular; that is, interested in the affairs of this world and not dominated by a state church or religion. But the nation itself has never been secular.

Rudd has two fundamental aims. First, to assert that the Christian revelation contains much of value for the nation and its leadership. Second, to argue that the Labor Party is not anti-Christian by definition. It is especially good to hear him say (as he did on Lateline last Monday) that he is simply reasserting a historical norm by pointing out that the history of the labour movement owes a great debt to Irish Catholics, English Methodists, Christian socialists as well as enlightenment humanists.

Notice the clever question from Tony Jones: “How is the Labor Party dealing with its gradual conversion from secularism?” The common assumption that the Labor Party is somehow anti-Christian in essence, needs to be repudiated vigorously in the interests both of truth and of electoral appeal in a nation where many people describe themselves as Christian. Atheism is not actually much of a vote-winner.

Rudd’s method is to point to the way in which Labor principles conform to some of the great prophetic teachings of the Bible about our obligation to care for the poor and dispossessed. He also attacks the rampant individualism that he sees as the fruit of Liberal principles, and which he believes has little to commend it from a Christian point of view.

Perhaps he is right. We now require a vigorous, thoughtful and well-informed response from someone in the Liberal Party to show how it is that the sort of individualism and freedom espoused by that side of politics is consistent with the great biblical summons to love our neighbour. This would be a far more engrossing and worthwhile discussion than the vapid meanderings about Australian values to which we have been subjected lately by the media. And, as Rudd makes clear, this has a great deal to do with the practical politics of such things as industrial relations reforms, the use of our weekends and the obligation laid on us by the Bible to be a generous nation and to steward creation.

If I were responding from the Liberal side, I would refer to the way that the Liberal tradition has also incorporated Christian emphases, which had a highly significant effect on the growth of democracy in the English-speaking world.

In particular, there is the way in which individuals took responsibility for their local churches. In doing so, they learned the art of political leadership and to cherish freedom, especially freedom of speech. But this freedom was not modern individualism. It was connected with a determination to serve the community, not least the poor and the marginalised. The question is, is this the sort of freedom currently espoused by the Liberal Party?

One immense strength of the Rudd position is that he invites debate. Unlike some others who wish to see the Christian voice stifled and who call upon little-understood mantras such as the separation of church and state, Rudd sees value in Christian leadership expressing itself by applying the insights of the biblical revelation. That is its strength, its expertise, rather than, say, economics. But its principles speak strongly to the fundamental issues raised by economics.

He recognises, furthermore, that public comments may well be critical of his party. Rightly, he wants the Christian community not to be beholden to any particular side of the political spectrum. Rightly, he understands that the great themes of Christian theology will help fruitfully shape our understanding of ourselves and our nation if we are prepared to listen to them.

Does this make Christian politicians beholden to the church? Some people do seem to think that if we negotiate with the church we have negotiated with God. But this is a form of idolatry.

Jesus Christ introduced his kingdom into the world. His kingdom is not the church, although it produced the church. The aim of any Christian is to live as a member of that kingdom, shaping their lives and their thoughts through the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

In the end, like the rest of us, the politician is accountable not to the church, not even to the electors, but to God - a thought which is both invigorating and sobering.

[ENDS]