stoush.net

This is greatly reminiscent of an AOG Church in Devonport during the last Federal campaign. One of the Senior Pastors of this Church was a FF Senate Candidate, and the pastor who preached this particular message told his parishioners that they would be an “anger magnet” for God if they didn’t vote how God wanted them to (while only managing to point out the local FF candidate who, surprise!, was in the audience to take a bow).

Someone on the inside sent me the audio from that sermon, the link above has a transcript.

Unbelievable.

Thankyou so much for commenting, Nathan.

I should say, which I haven’t, that I have absolutely no objection to churches engaging in the political debate as part of civil society - speaking out on issues of justice and peace, and from the experience of their membership and corporate life. I may not always agree with what is being said, but this is an appropriate and often useful way for churches to speak into the public life.

I do, however, have a big problem with religious groups explicitly endorsing particular candidates and parties, especially linking them to “doing God’s purpose” or “being a voice for Christians”. There is a fundamental separation between Church and state that should be respected; all Christians do not think alike and believe the same things; and, as an additional issue for me, these groups tend to coalesce around issues of personal morality that I feel strongly the state has no right to regulate (but I would feel equally strongly regardless of their agenda). I also have a huge problem with a political party that lobbies for support in the faith community in the way that appears to have happened here, and then denies formal links with AoG congregations in public. This is dishonest, subversive behaviour.

I have no issue with it. If the unions can donate my money to the Labor Party and advocate to it’s members to vote Labor - I have no issue with churches doing the same. People can make their own minds up.

interesting point, but I think there’s a big difference between a union and a church. For one thing, many unions are structurally affiliated with the ALP and are very open about this with their members and the public, whereas any formal connection between FF and the pentecostalist movement has been strenuously denied. But leaving that aside, a union and a church are fundamentally different organisations. For one thing, the union movement does not claim divine guidance, or hold the threat of punishment in the afterlife over members who do not live a particular way (well, not formally anyway, and not with any authority). For another, the union movement is democratic (well, more than the church, anyway) and represents the interests of its members. For a third, church leaders hold a formal community and pastoral care role towards their members that union leaders do not.

I don’t have a prob with churches engaging as part of civil society - in fact I think that is very necessary. I do have a problem with the proclamation that one party is “god’s party” or “a voice for christians”, because that is manifestly not the case. Christians are not an homogenous group, especially in their attitudes to political engagement. It also carries the implication that voting against a particular party is voting against God’s will. Which is not cool.

There’s also the small matter of religious groups’ tax-exempt status.

yep keep them out of politics, look at the middle east where religion has to much power….