Choose Life Australia

 
Filed on 24 August 2010 in Speeches category. Print This Page

The voice of the church in the public square: is there such a thing as a Christian vote?

(delivered Albany WA August 14, 2010 one week prior to the Federal Election)

Two cameos from the Old Testament at times when evil seemed to have the upper hand with two significant contrasting responses.

^{1 Kings18:19} Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”

So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. ²¹ Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” But the people said nothing.

^{1 Chron 12:22} Day after day men came to help David, until he had a great army, like the army of God. These are the numbers of the men armed for battle who came to David at Hebron to turn Saul’s kingdom over to him, as the LORD had said:

v32  …men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what to do

Now I realise that for some of you the information I give will be new, it will be strange, you will find it hard to believe and it will sometimes be shocking. As you may know I head up Medicine With Morality in Australia, an organisation of doctors to defend human life and defend liberty of conscience in medicine. Now you would think that all the doctors who have signed in to this – so that their signatures appear on the letters and submissions we write – would already be fully informed as to what is going on. Not so. I have been surprised when doctors have written back and said “I didn’t know”. Others, particularly non-medical, have reacted with disbelief, like the German people in Hitler’s time when confronted with the fact of Jews being taken to concentration camps who said “no, no – that is not possible. We are German.”  OK, it’s not as serious as that but what I shall present to you today will probably be new to most of you and you will shake your head and say “how come we didn’t know?” What I am going to give you is information. You will need to deal with it as you choose.

Although I have been directly involved with the ethical and moral issues for more than two decades and written on abortion and euthanasia in particular, I have only been heavily involved since 2002. I look back with dismay at how far we have come in just eight years.

The voice of the church in the public square: is there such a thing as a Christian vote?

I can summarise today’s talk in just two sentences – a statement of fact and a question:

Statement: In Victoria we have unrestricted late-term abortion, unrestricted eugenic selection of anything regarded as imperfect through to birth, and legal compulsion of doctors to act against their conscience – all this significantly due to the influence of Emily’s List of which our PM Julia Gillard is a founder.

Question: If it is absolutely clear that a political party leader is deliberately leading the country in an un-ethical and anti-God direction, can we trust that leader or that party in other non-God areas?

Now you may at this point choose to walk out with an indignant “you should not mix politics and religion” in which case I shall shout back at you “when Jews were being killed in Germany in their hundreds – not yet thousands – the church refused to speak out – would you too have refused?” Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued against those who “shrank into their sanctuaries of private virtuousness” but still failed to get the German church to speak out when they said “we will not discuss the Jewish question”.

Indeed a similar wording to sanctuaries of private virtuousness is in the Canberra Declaration of only two weeks ago which declares that when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public arena as well, society is richer and healthier.

So, a serious question – the question everyone one is asking – should religion be kept out of politics?

Can religion influence affairs of state?

Can religion and politics mix?

Should Christians be involved in politics?

Should pastors teach regarding matters on which voters might make a choice e.g. Biblical justice?

If you have a good person in a bad party should you consider voting for that person despite the party being bad?

If you have a bad person in a good party should you consider voting for that party despite the person being bad?

Should a Christian vote at all?

If we are going to vote how much should we be voting for or against the Prime Minister to be – the next leader of our country and significantly responsible for our direction – as opposed to the party he or she leads?

There are other related questions:

Can government legislate for morality?

Should the church have a voice in politics when there are serious ethical issues at stake?

Can the church even have a public voice – not political – when there are serious ethical issues at stake?

What is the role of the church in the public square?

What is the role of individual Christians in the public square?

So, the voice of the church in the public square: is there such a thing as a Christian vote? Well, let’s look first of all at what the Bible might say about any view or action.

What is the Biblical justification for any action we might take in what is happening in our nation?

• We are created in the Image of God.  All humans have intrinsic value because of this. It is something that should be encouraged, nurtured and restored.
• We are to be salt and light in the community.

• We are to be the watchmen Ezekiel 33:6,7. But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them… I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.

• We are to go down to the palace and proclaim this message to the officials and the people who come through these gates.  “Do what is just and right.  Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed.  Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood.” Jeremiah 22:1-3.
• We are to be girded with the belt of truth and this is an age when truth is denied and we need to proclaim it.
• In loving God we are to seek for Him to be glorified in our land and for our laws to honour Him.
• In loving our neighbour created in the Image of God we want to protect him from harm, to seek the best for now and the future, to see meaning in both life and death, and if we see evil being perpetrated against him to stop it, loving justice and hating evil (Micah 6:8; Amos 5:15).

Much has been written about the Christian vote.

Sensible stuff like an opinion piece written just a few days ago (29 July) by Dr John Dickson (a director of the Centre for Public Christianity) titled “In the political realm, birds of a feather don’t necessarily flock together” from which the following is taken:

Finally, Christians will mainly have in mind the poor and powerless. The mandate for this throughout scripture is overwhelming. Voting for the underprivileged in Australia has traditionally been seen as a vote for Labor. Others argue the most effective way of helping the poor and weak is to increase prosperity at the top so that wealth can trickle down to those who need it most. This has traditionally been put by conservatives.

I don’t make a judgment about either model but underline that a Christian vote is one sincerely motivated by a concern for the disadvantaged – be they elderly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, unemployed, homeless or seeking asylum.

Christians ought to resist the temptation to vote for the party they think will shave more off their tax bill or add a percentage point to gross domestic product. They should be thinking of others. Nothing else can be called a Christian vote.

Does Dr Dickson reach any conclusion about who we should vote for? No, of course not – I am tempted to say because that’s not what good leaders should do – but it is a good article and it is all relevant when there is not so much of a choice between good and evil but choices between good and better or bad and not-so-bad according to our personal views and beliefs.

And we can discuss these matters – and we have done in the past – until the cows come home.

But this year is different. 2010 is a pivotal year. It is a watershed. The Christian issue is more clear than ever before in our country

This year there are two elections – the federal this month August 2010, and a state election due in Victoria in November. You might think there is no connection but there is. A big connection.

Let’s look at Victoria first where people are facing a state vote this November.

In 2008 abortion became fully legal in Victoria right through to term. Up till 24 weeks this simply requires the mother’s wish and an abortionist to do it. After 24 weeks it requires one extra doctor to agree. There are no legal restrictions and babies can be aborted for readily correctable abnormalities (such as cleft lip) and even for sex selection. Please let that sink in…

In Victoria according to government figures for 2007, 54 aborted babies were “accidentally” born alive and then left to die.  Please let that sink in…

Can we call what has happened in Victoria evil? If not, why not?

What is it that we don’t get?  When in our attempt at perfection we eliminate all that are imperfect e.g. at 34-weeks of pregnancy by partial-birth abortion when scissors are put in the back of the baby’s head and its brain is sucked out so that the skull will collapse and there is an easier delivery through the birth canal – this procedure having the “advantage of delivering a dead baby”? And this execution requires no anaesthetic. And at the Senate hearings into mid-trimester abortion where I had the privilege of giving evidence I heard a senior doctor say this procedure – because it did not involve the usual full labour process – had the advantage of the woman waking up “non-pregnant” – as if she could turn back the clock and never have been pregnant. You didn’t know about all this – no, of course you didn’t because it’s not “nice” to say so. The media won’t listen because they will defend the woman’s right to choose over and above everything else.

I plead with you to not lose the sense of horror.

We live in a world that has forgotten how to shudder. That phrase forgotten how to shudder is from Leon Kass writing in The Wisdom of Repugnance in 1997 when he says “repugnance may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder”.

But it’s worse. Not only has Victoria passed the most liberal abortion laws in Australia but in that legislation is the Section 8 provision to force doctors – even when such is against their deeply held convictions and conscience – to refer for abortion when asked by a patient. Now it is one thing to pass a law that permits evil but it is something more to pass a law that compels evil. Please let that sink in…

So what’s the connection between the Victorian election and the federal? The connection is Emily’s List. (How many of you have heard of Emily’s List?)

The Victorian abortion legislation owes much to the influence of Emily’s List. Founded in 1996, Emily’s List aim was to get Labor women into parliament and from its beginning it was to be pro-choice. This extremely pro-autonomy (seemingly at the expense of any consequences to society), pro-choice (read pro-abortion), pro-euthanasia organisation boasts of the great victory of the Victorian abortion legislation with unrestricted abortion through to term “free of harassment”. This legislation was introduced by MLC Candy Broad, a founder of Emily’s List and all amendments were defeated. The webpage also boasts of having helped elect 139 Labor women in parliament. At this point in time 29 of 41 federal Labor women are members of Emily’s List and 63 of 118 state Labor. Total 92 of 159.

Maybe all this sounds a little like conspiracy theory. But the only accusation you can make of me is that I have overplayed its significance, not that I have distorted fact. We need to keep a watch on Emily’s List and pray it into oblivion.

For the Victorian election the choice will be startlingly clear cut between good and evil. Repeal Section 8 is a website devoted to this and I will be writing to all candidates asking whether they will support a move to repeal this section that compels doctors to be a part of the abortion process. Any politician who supports the overruling of conscience of doctors who believe that abortion is wrong – as per the Hippocratic Oath – is supporting evil whether or not they personally believe that abortion is wrong. The abortion issue is to a certain extent secondary in comparison to this huge ethical jump in our world – it is the compulsion that is evil whether it applies to abortion or physician assisted suicide or euthanasia.

We will publicise which candidates will or will not support such a move and I would expect people of conscience to vote accordingly on this very specific litmus test as to whether they – the voters – will condone evil in the candidate. I consider – if we can get support in this – that we can change the government. In my view we should make a concerted effort to throw out every Emily’s List endorsed candidate in Australia.

And that includes our Prime Minister.

For Julia Gillard is also described as a founder of Emily’s List and wrote its constitution.

So now we have explained the statement at the beginning of this talk:

Statement: In Victoria we have unrestricted late-term abortion, unrestricted eugenic selection of anything regarded as imperfect through to birth, and legal compulsion of doctors to act against their conscience – all this significantly due to the influence of Emily’s List of which our PM Julia Gillard is a founder.

Now remember it was reported last year that the Federal ALP Conference had upheld the Marriage Act but quietly in the background a whole section was deleted in the federal ALP Policy Statement including “marriage is between a man and a woman” and the statement that future same-sex union “should not mimic marriage”.  What does that say about ALP future direction in this area and being led by a woman who does not believe in God or even marriage for herself let alone what deals she might have to make with the Greens to get other legislation passed?

And in the face of deals with the Greens can we rely on her to defend Christian chaplains in schools or our right to choose Christian teachers in our Christian schools?

And if it is absolutely clear that a political party leader is deliberately leading the country in an un-ethical and anti-God direction, can we trust that leader or that party in other non-God areas?

I am aware that I will be interpreted as being critical and negative and yes, I am making a critique in presenting factual information but if we are really concerned about being perceived as intolerant and judgmental remember the worm

…and the worm went down

(a reference to the live polling of opinion from the studio audience during the Gillard/Abbott debate when the worm-line went down when Tony Abbott was perceived as being critical of policy)

Does that mean we can never tell the truth??

Does it mean we can’t point to the record about what people have done and have failed to do?

Can telling the truth about a party’s policy – taken straight from their own publications – be construed as being negative? Some people simply do not want to hear the truth and so just make the accusation of being negative.

How would a debate between an evangelical Christian leader and a Buddhist priest fare? The worm would certainly go down.

Jesus was not reticent about condemnation or action when this was appropriate. Look at what He said about Chorazin and Bethsaida (Mt 11:21) and the teachers of the law (Mt 23:13) and overturning the tables in the temple. Would the worm have gone down?

Let’s continue to tell the truth.

Now, two cameos from the Old Testament with two significant phrases.

^{1 Kings18:19} Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”

So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. ²¹ Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” But the people said nothing.

The people were silent.

^{1 Chron 12:22} Day after day men came to help David, until he had a great army, like the army of God. These are the numbers of the men armed for battle who came to David at Hebron to turn Saul’s kingdom over to him, as the LORD had said:

v32  …men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what to do

Where are we going?

Voluntary eugenic screening and elimination of any imperfection that might cause an extra cost to the community will become compulsory. Already parents who do not agree to have their babies “de-selected” are labelled “genetic outlaws” and face the accusation “how dare you bring this financial impost on the community.”

There is also a push for infanticide of imperfect newborns – already occurring in Holland – up until the time they become self-aware – and therefore persons. It has been said that keeping infanticide illegal unfairly discriminates against the normal child by forcing a late abortion when major abnormality is suspected but not proven – in recognition of the fact that some babies aborted because of suspected abnormalities are in fact completely normal and have been aborted “unnecessarily. The logic is that if infanticide was legal then we could allow the baby to be born before making the decision to kill it.  At least then the baby would then have the benefit of anaesthesia. So there are two reasons for supporting the legalization of infanticide – we can then be sure of the diagnosis and we can anaesthetize the baby.

But we have only just started the nightmare.  There are prominent world voices – Professors of Ethics – already calling for the use of organs from later-stage foetuses and infanticide of new-born babies up to 4-6 weeks after birth before they become self-aware if they are found to be defective.

And then there is the issues of pain experienced by the unborn baby. At least In the US state of Nebraska a law has been passed banning abortions after 20 weeks – it is called the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Yes the facts are disputed but can we be absolutely certain think that an 18-week unborn does not feel excruciating pain when it is ripped limb from limb to extract it? To pretend that a 32-week unborn infant does not feel that stab of the scissors in the back of the neck prior to its brain being scrambled and then sucked out is mind-boggling in its denial.

This is not a time for Christian people to remain silent. We must not waver between two opinions as the people of Israel did. It is a time for decision that will determine our future.  The men of Issachar knew what to do because they understood the times.

And those of you who get my emails will recognise one of my signature lines

Sometimes you just gently teach

Sometimes you preach with invitation

Sometimes you confront and challenge

Sometimes you have to condemn

Sometimes you have to drive the money-changers out of the temple

Sometimes you have to walk to Calvary.

Lachlan Dunjey. August 2010.

Re Julia Gillard as founder of Emily’s List and writer of its constitution .

^*http://history.law.unimelb.edu.au/go/people/politicians/julia-gillard/index.cfm

^**The Making of Julia Gillard Jacqueline Kent, Penguin Viking 2009

The Christian Values Checklist is a very useful resource.

It is extremely important to support The Canberra Declaration www.canberradeclaration.org.au

Also see www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au food for thought.