The latest focus about the role of faith in politics demonstrates once again a lack of sophistication and even a misunderstanding about the Australian political process. At the root of this discourse is the contention that discussing social policy from a faith-based perspective somehow undermines the separation of church and state. This is nonsense. But it is surprising how widespread this view appears to be amongst many commentators.
The public seems quite comfortable with a Prime Minister who goes to church with his wife on Sunday. One wishes that he would be left to his reflections about the sermon rather than having to face a media pack when leaving the building. That said, a number of commentators seem unable to cope with the notion that a member of parliament, including Mr Rudd, might have a faith-based view of the world which underlies and informs how they look at issues.
Every MP brings into the parliament a set of values and a world-view that has been shaped by something. This might be secular humanism, Christianity, deep green eco-worship, individualism, or socialism refined by the labour movement (some of these are not mutually exclusive). In most cases they have joined a political party and are largely expected to 'toe the party line' when the votes are taken. That is part of the compact they make during the party pre-selection process. Witness, for example, the policy compromises of Peter Garrett since entering parliament. Occasionally a full conscience vote is allowed (such as on research involving embryonic stem cells), but this is rare.
This system is unlike the United States, where party discipline is weak and the individual views of Senators and members of Congress have great influence. Special interest groups and faith-based organisations have more opportunities to influence political outcomes through targeted political action and lobbying. And they do. A weak party system means that other factors also come into play: in a country that is arguably more God-fearing than our own, questions of a candidate's character also have a major role in the campaign process.
In the Australian political system, a tiny number of faith-based candidates such as Family First and the Christian Democrats have been elected to parliaments, usually to upper houses. There are also Christians serving as MPs in the Labor and Liberal/National Coalition, so these small parties do not have a mortgage on Christian participation in politics. They sit alongside other small parties and independents, including Greens MPs who often bring a fundamentally different worldview that for some involves placing the created order above all else. All have a right to be heard and persuade us to their point of view.
This is very different to the informal gatherings of Christians such as the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, and loose networks such as the Lyons Forum. The latter is a group that has been around a long time, comprised of Christian MPs from different sides of politics. The Lyons Forum has always been viewed with deep suspicion in sections of the press and by some MPs, but their influence has been vastly overstated. For example, in recent years the Lyons Forum was unable to stop embryonic stem cell research and the introduction of the abortion pill RU486. The Parliamentary Christian Fellowship exists so that Christian MPs, far away from their church and home families, can enjoy fellowship, pray and discuss issues from a Christian perspective in a non-political environment. It is an informal group that stays out of the public eye, not seeking any wider public policy role. No one is coerced into joining it.
We should be thankful that ours is a country where MPs can meet together like this and publicly bring their faith to bear on issues of the day. Yet in the end we live in a pluralist society with a liberal democracy. Even Christians won't always agree on a right course of public policy. As Tony Abbott has said, faith-based arguments brought to the policy table must stand the test of robust debate, along with everyone else's views. The challenge is for Christians of all political persuasions to stay at the table in the face of increasingly shrill calls that we have no right to be there.