Just Because I’m A Christian Doesn’t Mean I’m Politically Conservative

In the words of writer Anne Lamott on This American Life, I just love Jesus. And so I suppose I should be more glad that Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi also loves Jesus.

But Senator Bernardi’s latest spray at single mums, industrial relations laws and Islam this week not only offends, oh, everyone, but also conflates religion and politics in a dangerous and misleading way. It’s not the first time I’ve had to watch people draw conclusions about Christianity based on the statements and actions of public Christians — which totally makes sense, as they’re supposed to be representatives of their faith. But it means they’re missing out on a bigger, better picture.

Christians Do Not All Share Conservative, Right-Wing Views

I know it sounds obvious, but figuring out who to vote for in the last federal election was about as difficult for my people as it was for anyone else. Unless you were a rusted-on party member, none of the choices were particularly appealing.

The Director of the Centre for Public Christianity, John Dickson, wrote a wonderful, thoughtful essay before the election, calling for Christians to vote for the good of others, to vote for the moral health of the community, and to vote for the poor and powerless. I remember reading it and feeling inspired to go use my vote for others …before swiftly remembering that there was no one party that would fit the bill. Dr Dickson acknowledges this in his piece:

“This moral concern of the Christian will invite the description (by some) ‘right-wing’ or ‘conservative’. The tag is partly accurate, though in other respects the Christian stance will appear ‘left-wing’ and ‘liberal’. It is true that those with a classical Christian view of family will resist party support for same-sex marriage. Equally, though, Christians will be pained at the thought of punitive measures being meted out to genuine refugees and/or their separated family members.

“‘Right’ and ‘left’ are incomplete descriptions. One of the blind spots of our modern public discourse is an inability to recognise nuance. We do not have categories such as ‘right-wing liberal’ or a ‘left-wing conservative’ — Jesus, of course, was both and more.”

If we take a look at our parliament, there are Christians on each side of the house. As well as former prime minister Kevin Rudd and current prime minister Tony Abbott, high-profile Christian politicians from the Labor party include Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong, her deputy – and former Minister for Communications — Stephen Conroy, and former NSW premier Kristina Keneally. On the other side of the political divide sit Christians like treasurer Joe Hockey, Education Minister Christopher Pyne, Minister for Trade Andrew Robb and Minister for Social Services, Kevin Andrews. A surprising number of Greens candidates who are Christians have run in elections across the country, too. Anecdotally, I have Christian friends from all across the political spectrum.

But isn’t the Bible quite conservative?

Again, “conservative” isn’t a very helpful description. One way of understanding what it means to be politically conservative is to look at the Liberal Party’s belief statement, which espouses small government, individual freedom, free enterprise and the facilitation of wealth.

The original audience of the Bible wasn’t dealing with a debate over whether government should be big or small. For many of the original hearers of the New Testament, the problem of how to live under an oppressive government was much more important. The apostle Paul, sent by Jesus, wrote to the persecuted early Christians in Rome: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities” (Romans 13:1, NIV).

Rather than urging Christians to overthrow the state, or refusing to recognise its authority, the Bible urges respect even for authorities that aren’t very good. This leaves the question of what size of government will most benefit the nation up to the conscience of Christians today.

The Bible has more to say on the question of wealth creation. For example, Jesus warned believers against letting money have mastery over them: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” (Matthew 6:24) But this doesn’t mean Christians should refuse to work for money and sit around expecting others to provide for their needs, as the apostle Paul makes clear when he admonishes some lazy believers, encouraging them to work so they would not be a burden to others (2 Thessalonians 3:7-9)

As a Christian, it’s a question of conscience to decide whether a party that values private enterprise and wealth creation is only making sure that people from all parts of society are able to provide for their needs, or whether its members are focused on accumulating more and more possessions at the expense of other considerations.

What about family values? That’s what Cory Bernardi seems most concerned about.  

Do you want to know something? The real reason some Christians go on about “traditional marriage” all the time is not because we really like tradition. It’s not that we think diamond rings are really great, or that — since they’ve been a big deal for, oh, close to a century — we really want to keep that ancient tradition going.

It’s because we believe that the loving God, who created the world and created humans, also created marriage. There’s a great scene in Genesis 2 where God creates a man and then brings him a whole bunch of animals and birds to see if he’d like to take any of them for a wife (imagine Cory Bernardi freaking out the first time he read it), but it turns out none of them suit. So God creates a woman, and they’re perfect for each other! Hooray!

Here’s the key verse:

“That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

It’s this relationship, a man and a woman in a permanent union, that most of us are talking about — not diamond rings and white dresses and rice-throwing. And defending it will sometimes attract the label of “conservative”. But importantly, there’s a huge difference between expressing gratitude for God’s good gift of marriage and making unsubstantiated, unhelpful and offensive claims, like Cory Bernardi did when he implied that single mums raise criminal sons.

It’s this vitriol that is the most worrying. Christians are encouraged to be good witnesses for Jesus, following his example of self-sacrificial love and care for the marginalised. Conflating a defence of marriage and an attack on step-families (and throwing in a call for flexible IR laws) only serves to further confuse and alienate those who aren’t familiar with the Bible’s teachings about God’s love for the world. It’s easy to listen to a figure like Cory Bernardi and, in the absence of many outspoken positive alternatives, assume that this is what all Christians are like. Please, I hope that you won’t.

A Side Note On ‘Double Standards’:

Yes, it’s really confusing. We’re like, ‘Here is a Bible verse about marriage!’ And people are like, ‘Isn’t there a Bible verse about how you shouldn’t wear clothing woven from two kinds of material, and one about how anyone who works on the Sabbath should be put to death, and one about how you shouldn’t get a tattoo? Why don’t you care about those ones?’

Here is how I explain that.

Verses like those come from a part of the Bible where God had just rescued the people of Israel from slavery in Egypt (scholars estimate 15th century BC), and was setting them apart to be his people. This involved giving them the law: a long list of rules that would help them to live in harmony with their perfect and just God, and to be separate from the other nations. God promised blessings for obedience and punishment for disobedience. Of course, the people were disobedient, and were punished through exile to Babylon in around 586 BC.

God sent Jesus to fulfill the law, who was the only human to live in perfect obedience, but received the law’s punishment in our place. Early Christians wondered why God bothered to give the law for a time, or whether they still had to obey it to gain God’s blessings. The apostle Paul explained: “If a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law… So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” (Galatians 3:21, 24-25)

The way we can be “righteous” — meaning “in a right relationship with God” — is now through faith, rather than through obedience to the law. This is why it seems like we dismiss a whole chunk of instructions – because now, when we’re figuring out how to behave, we understand the law as temporary, and consider how Jesus (and the apostles he sent) either fulfils it or affirms it.

But God created marriage well before he gave the law, and Jesus affirmed it in Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:5-9.

If Christians Aren’t Right Wing, Does That Make Them Left Wing? 

Christians are asked to care for the environment (Genesis 1:26-28), to feed the poor (Luke 14:12-14), to shelter strangers (Matthew 25:34-36), and to love others self-sacrificially, as Jesus loved us by dying for us (1 John 3:16). But again, these are only some of the issues to be considered when a Christian decides how to vote. As John Dickson said, right and left are incomplete terms.

The Bible doesn’t offer a clear link to any of the major political parties. But it does offer some good advice to Cory and all believers, courtesy of the apostle Peter:

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15)

–

Elizabeth Redman is a Melbourne-based writer and editor. Sometimes she blogs at elizabethredman.wordpress.com, but not on Sundays.

Feature image by Art4TheGlryOfGod on Flickr, under Creative Commons