political ideology
2 Jun 2009
Our Christian Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd likes to connect his political position to his religious one — and there is much to learn from religious teachings about Rudd's politics, writes Bible scholar Roland Boer
What exactly is the relationship between Kevin Rudd's Christian faith and his life in politics? It is far too easy, as we have become accustomed in our supposedly secular world, to distinguish between politics and religion. Politics belongs to public life, the tough grind of policy, implementation, spin and compromise. And religion is supposed to be a private affair, kept to oneself and not trotted out in public.Rudd's political position has become quite clear: he is a social democrat. In two much read essays in The Monthly — one back in 2006 called "Faith in Politics" and the other more recently in 2009 called "The Global Financial Crisis" — Rudd pins his colours to the social democratic position: a balance between market and government, individual and community, between profit and care for the poor and less fortunate.
As he argued forcefully in the 2009 piece, for the last 25 years we have had far too much of a focus on unfettered markets. In the name of neo-liberalism, we have thrown ethics, equity and sustainability out the window. And look where that has got us. The targets are obvious: the former Liberal government in Australia, George W Bush in the United States, but also earlier governments that followed a similar line. For Rudd, the time for the social democrats has at last come — a path to a kinder, gentler capitalism in which we can soften the worst aspects of market capitalism.
If all we had were political arguments, Rudd's position would be nice and simple. But Rudd likes to complicate matters by connecting his social democracy directly to his religious position.
What kind of religious position is it? As more than one commentator has pointed out, Rudd is the most sincerely Christian Prime Minister Australia has had for a very long time. There is little tokenism in his claim to be a "garden variety Christian of no fixed denomination". In the midst of a punishingly hectic schedule, Rudd and Therese Rein attend church every Sunday.
It is certainly not a conservative or fundamentalist version of Christianity — the sort to which we have become drearily accustomed in terms of the "religious right". By contrast, three years ago Rudd toyed with the term "Christian socialism", a label he was happy at that moment to wear with pride. He listed a number of eminent Australians who were also Christian socialists such as Andrew Fisher, the first majority Labor Prime Minister of Australia. And he made much of the inspiration of the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who espoused a strong social justice Christianity and was executed for being part of a plot to assassinate Hitler.
But that was when Rudd was still a relatively unknown politician. As yet he had not become leader of the Labor Party and he had not led Labor to victory in the elections of November 2007. After those events, he very quickly distanced himself from the "socialist" part of Christian socialism. Socialism is, he said soon after the election, an out-dated 19th century policy that has no value in today's world.
The problem with the socialist tag is that it raises a profound question over capitalism. Although they vary, Christian socialists find capitalism a real problem and would prefer to get rid of capitalism or at least modify it radically so that it hardly resembles the capitalism we know. That is certainly not Rudd's position today. He wants a capitalism that has its rough edges smoothed down; in short, a capitalism that is good for everyone.
I would suggest that one of the major sources for this position is Catholic social teaching. Rudd himself provides a hint, for in 2006 he wrote, "Catholic social teaching has long argued for a proper balance between the rights of capital and labour, in a relationship based on mutual respect as well as legal protection."
So what is Catholic social teaching? It began formally on 15 May 1891, when Pope Leo XIII issued Rerum Novarum, subtitled "On Capital and Labour". This text numbers among the most influential statements from the Vatican. Over the years others followed, the most recent being Deus Caritas Est (2005), but each one appeared at times of economic and social unrest: the late 19th century, the Great Depression, the 1960s, the collapse of communism, and the "war on terror".
These are some of its main emphases:
The sanctity of human life and the dignity of the person from the moment of conception until death, which embraces matters such as abortion, warfare, and discrimination.
The (heterosexual) family, and by extension the community, both local and global, which entails an opposition to the collectivism of communism and the laissez-faire "extremes" of capitalism.
Rights — to life and its necessities, to freedom of religion, and to property; and responsibilities — to one another, families, and society, especially so that property is not used for evil.
A preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, which is now extended to unborn children, the disabled, elderly, terminally ill, victims of injustice and oppression.
The dignity of work and the rights of workers, especially in terms of the living wage, safe working conditions, trade unions, but also to work conscientiously and treat employers and fellow workers with respect.
Solidarity, based on forgiveness and reconciliation, as well as the idea that there is one human family, which implies that we should welcome the stranger in our midst.
Care for creation, based on the biblical mandate for stewardship of God's creation, with the implication that the goods of the earth are subject to the "social mortgage" (the mutual responsibility to protect the environment).
This is quite a hodge-podge of positions — trade unions and anti-abortion, environmental policies and homophobia, opposition to divorce but welcoming to strangers. It is no wonder that conservatives and progressives in the church can claim that this teaching backs up their position.
But there is one feature I would like to stress: given the choice between any shade of socialism or capitalism, Roman Catholic social teaching comes out in favour of capitalism. From the first document, Rerum Novarum in 1891, left-wing politics is described as "unjust", out to steal property, distort the State, and confuse the community. And in 1931 Pius IX stated in a follow-up document (Quadragesimo Anno) that any type of socialism "cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth".
For all the critiques of class conflict, exploitation of workers, the concentration of capital in the hands of a few, and the need for workers to organise in trade unions, Roman Catholic social thought has remained firmly opposed to any form of socialism.
The overlap with Kevin Rudd is quite striking. I would suggest it is one Christian tradition that feeds directly into his politics. We can put both Rudd and Catholic social teaching to a simple test: which economic system do they categorically oppose and which one do they seek to soften? The question hardly needs an answer. Theirs is really an effort to produce a milder, gentler capitalism. One can't help but wonder whether that is a contradiction in terms.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Christian socialism? Sounds like a variant of national socialism. Don’t get me wrong, there are good people who are Christians, however, the church (particularly the Catholic one) is very much in favour of protecting the old order and established interests. If you’re after a good run-down, read Eric Hobsbawm’s Age of Extremes -Chapter 4.
Christian Socialism - National Socialism - that’s very acute of you Nathan. And of course Catholicism isn’t interested in Socialism ~ have a look at the $booty$ in the Vatican! Religion should stay well clear of politics - for religion is group-mind and therefore challenges the individual sovereignty that is necessary to democracy.
Bush knew this that’s why he specifically targeted christian fundamentalists - some 70 million votes - that managed with a bit of electoral fixing to get him in.
The main problem with it is that it is strewn with contradictions - Jesus of Mercy or Socialist Christ then the Jesus of the Sword - the Imperialist colonialist God that smites.
Rudd fortunately enough is a moderate, but as democratic citizens it pays to be vigilant as religious values are susceptible to fundamental oscillations – and perhaps most of all it is a faith that has no verification and by virtue of being saved one is generally existentially lax, through the ritual of forgiveness - hence Mafia murders followed by pathetic expiation’s involving the kissing of crucifixes.
And yet how ironic that Rudd who has Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a personal hero is sitting smug beside Pope Hitler Youth - The Vatican, far from being Socialist were right behind the Nazi’s and did indeed smuggle them out of Europe, yet never did they protect the Jew, on the contrary they gave them up, providing genealogies to Hitler so that they could be tracked down. (see Michael Onfray’s Atheist Manifesto part 4 Theocracy for details)
Yet what is interesting is that on Rudd’s old facebook account he has The Brothers Karamazov as one of his favourite books, so he should definitely be aware of the abuses of the Church - i.e. when Jesus returns only to be greeted and disdained by the Head Inquisitor — ala the Spanish Inquisition. Perhaps that’s why he’s a Christian Aussie Epicurean of no particular variety - and perhaps as long as he’s in politics it should remain at those limits.
Religion and Politics are mutually exclusive in terms of governing. It is inherently archaic, barbaric and bi-polar. A contradiction dangerous in its re-iterations!
I am getting extremely irritated with the regular Sunday Kevin Rudd media doorstop on the steps of the church (St John’s, Reid). It has never been an Australian tradition for politicians to wear their relationship with the deity of their choice on their sleeves. I find myself cringing every time they do it. Turnbull at Hillsong. Costello at Catch the Fire. Kevin Rudd at St John’s. Abbot and Pell. Religious belief is a personal choice and it should stay personal. Religiosity and politics are a bad mix and a mix that is likely to produce poor results.
Perhaps someone could remind our MPs that the fastest growing religious group is "no religion" (both here and in the USA) and that there are a massive number of voters out there who do not routinely attend any form of worship or claim strong adherence to any faith. Many claim an attachment but would probably cringe the way I do when it’s used to gain media attention. Based on the last NCLS figures I’d reckon around 14-15 million Australians fall into this category with only 1.5 to 1.6 million Australians regularly attending church services. http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?sitemapid=2106
Christine Wicker in her book "The Fall of the Evangelical Nation" referred here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-wicker/evangelicals-in-the-tank_… has done a fairly good critique of the highly inflated numbers of "believers" claimed by the evangelicals in the USA. The real numbers are a revelation. http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/
I’d suggest our lot start some real counting of heads.
How arrogant, even hypocritical, of him to claim admiration for Dietrich Bonhoeffer and somehow ignore what Bonhoeffer really did. He gave his life for an issue of substance and a moral position. He didn’t die for petty religiosity mixed with dog whistle politics. I found the essay in the Monthly unpersuasive and somewhat patronising of those of us who consider moral choices and ethical behaviour don’t require religious faith and should stand in their own right.
Even the Australian has managed to catch a little of this and actually publish it. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25356212-7583,00.html?from…
Australia is still threatened with mandatory, secret, unaccountable censorship on the basis of a petition signed by 15 people http://blog.websinthe.org/2009/03/15/the-source-of-conroys-mandate-and-h…. They still have not repealed John Howard’s sedition laws although that was an election promise, there has been no improvement in Freedom of Information or return of habeas corpus rights under anti-terrorist laws.
Of course the church hates socialism (soft communism) and loves capitalism (soft nazism), because the commos banned the church and all religion and belief in god.
The like capitalism because ever since the Papal bulls, which encouraged indulgences, or payments to avert the evil decree, and buy one’s way out of hell and into heaven; catholicism has been sellinglike hotcakes.
A religion that requires littlweor no real input but mouthing platitudes, and leaves all matters to do with god to the "priests".
Well geez, bring on the John Howards and the George Bushes and Kevin Rudds of the world.
They can sew wild oats all saturday night , as long as they prey (sic) for crop failure the next morning.
Bring on real religions that demand minute by minute adherence to god, Hinduism, Mohammedism Judaism.
Every thought word and action has consequence in these "primitive" belief systems.
Not like Christianity (soft religion)
It’s like bribing someone to go and do your final exams for you and hoping they know more than you do.
So Mr Rudd has his generic christianity, his millionaire wife to pass the plate to when it comes around the church, and his enviable political position, or more correctly his Politics of envy to fuel us through the GFC.
Hypocrasy rules for now.
Double disillusion is right. Oli
ilago, you are right, the figures I quoted were from 1999 when Bush first got in, there was a huge recruitment of Christians at the time, as they thought 2000 was going to herald the end of the world. And in another act of characteristic "anti-sex league" hypocrisy, they were morally outraged by the cigar-antics of Clinton, yet quite content on the other hand with the mass murders of war, gay-bashing and other gruesome methods of torture.
How does that effect Australia? Well take Steven Fielding for instance, I’ve been told that he has blocked extra seats for free dental care in Victoria? If that is the case then he’s perhaps another Gucci-prototype Hillsong corporate-sponsoring Babylonian Christian (or somewhere thereabouts) - he’s heart is with the rich - a real Liberal Party sycophant!
And Peter Garrett, although I agree with the mass investment into solar power, (as opposed to the oxymoron that is clean coal) I am sure that his Christianity is that which has lead to him being so lax on the ecology.
Who cares, it’s all gonna go when Christ returns and brings on the Apocalypse - Praise God!
Selling off virgin ancient never again rainforest for toilet paper producing wood-chips is so horrendously stupid that I as well as many other Australians thought that Garrett would put an end to this, but no, he’s with Gunns all the whilst dredging up Port Phillip Bay.
Hence, I wholeheartedly agree that Politicians should not wear their religion on their sleeve, but most importantly, should not let it effect their policy.
Apocalyptic teleology is not compatible with being Minister for Arts and the Environment - Time to Exorcise Parliament, methinks…
The first point I would like to make is that people outside the Catholic Church often don’t see the cultural fabric that actually is what makes up the day to day church. All they see is the hierarchy and the Vatican.
Like any society, the Catholic Church is complex. Since the 1960’s the laity- or ordinary Catholics- have been more empowered, and there is not such a narrow minded, legalistic rules-based attitude.
It’s a real pity that in Australia, the major influence of Catholicism in organised politics is the Democratic Labor Party, which was essentially a reactionary fear-driven organisation, rather than one that had a positive social program.
The Second Vatican council in the 1960’s ‘opened up the doors’ of the church and encouraged more of an openminded pursuit of reaching human potential and compassion, themes which encourage engagement with the canon of secular humanism.
In fact, as Bob Gould (for those who don’t know, an elderly Trotskyist who runs a bookshop in Newtown who was educated by the Christian Brothers) often says when I chat with him, Catholic schools these days turn out students who are ‘marginally more left wing than students at state schools’ by which he means they have a deep appreciation of the importance of social justice and compassion, (rather than any ideological left wing bent).
Secondly, I think it’s a bit simplistic to say that the Church is on the side of Capitalism. I actually think that Rerum Novarum and other similar papal encyclicals provide some of the original social democratic inspiration for finding a middle ground between Capitalism and Socialism.
Given the massacres of religious people during the Spanish Civil War and the Russian Revolution (and remember China and Vietnam) it’s actually understandable that Catholics would be opposed to most forms of communist revolution.
However, the church was very much involved in the overthrow of President Marcos in the Philippines, and also central in the Polish Solidarity workers movement that attempted to implement a cooperatives-based economy in Poland, but were stymied by American neoliberal ideologues after they successfully overcame Stalinist communism (as Naomi Klein chronicles in her book The Shock Doctrine).
Often in Latin America, the Church has been very divided on the question of socialism, and you are right that the hierarchy often did take the side of the United States and extreme Capitalism, for example the coup and killing of the Socialist president Allende in Chile, it is no coincidence that the Catholic University Economics department was where the ‘Chicago Boys’ -Milton Friedman et al- chose to undertake their ideological efforts to create a new neoliberal free market experiment in the place of social democracy.
However, the Catholic Church has also defended the rights of peasants (eg in Brazil, where sisters have been killed by cattle ranchers in Amazonia, and the MST- the Landless Workers’ Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landless_Workers_Movement that has been very much supported by the Catholic Church. Even the World Social Forum was founded by Chico Whittaker, a man who has been very active in Catholic social movements.) Paulo Friere -also involved in Catholic social movements, revolutionised popular education in both social movements and schools worldwide.
In other words, Catholic social thought is often a battleground, but is fascinating and rich. Here is an interesting perspective on Catholic Social thought and feminism http://catholicanarchy.org/?p=959
I am with ‘ilago’. Very well said, indeed!
As for Garrett, he is really just a sorry figure. So impotent, so totally under Rudd control. He does not make the decisions, Rudd does not give him an inch. ALL decisions on any major Environment matter are made by Rudd or Wong. Garrett is just as weak as the proverbial, and is very likely to lose his seat at the next election. He is only a ‘front’. He should actually resign, and allow a person with some actual green cred to do the job. Rudd would not allow it, of course.
I am all for banning ANY person with obvious and propounded religious convictions from holding ANY Public office. They are dangerous to us and society. By their very existence as religious believers they show their total lack of intelligence and common sense, and are not fit for office.
Hmmm! Then again, I believe Bob Brown and a couple of the Greens are also very deeply religious. But they does not shove this down our necks, as Rudd and most of his mob do, and indeed did Howard and his mob.
So I forgive them.They are indeed trying their best to save our planet, and that is MOST important. Rudd and co. are just playing political games.
Rudd and Co., like Howard and Co. are just pandering to the damned Yanks and their blatant religiosity, and hunting the ultra conservative, backward, religious vote, which has been increasing in some areas of Australia in recent years, even though more people overall are getting better educated and dropping religion as a dumb thing to do.
That religious vote did not save Howard and his thugs though, did it? Maybe they have all been deluded…again! Dazza.
Anneenna - there’s always at least two sides to an argument. So I’m interested in what you may have to say about the Pope telling Africa they should rather abstain from sex then use condoms, in the glaring light of knowledge that we use them in the west, and with very good reason.
Is that not an abuse of his power as Pontiff, is that not, considering some nations there have 1 in every 5 people infected with aids, inadvertent GENOCIDE? I have no other word for it.
As for the Secular Catholics, at least they’re good for the economy. When the Pope came here Prostitution revenue almost doubled (as covered in one of the newspapers or New Matilda), now is that not a stimulus package?
But I must commend you Anneenna for not bringing up Catholic Sex Child Abuse as that would’ve been problematic in your argument (and yes of course there’s virtue in the Church - otherwise it wouldn’t exist - but for the most part…) Child Abuse that has taken place before and post Inquisition, everywhere, especially, Ireland. I wonder what Rudd thinks of that?
And that’s what you get when you try to suppress healthy animal instincts - a revolt against the self, a revolt hence against nature.
Indeed Freud couldn’t of done it without religion, nor could he do it without Nietzsche, nor he without Shelley, etc., etc.
I support harm minimisation. But the issue of condoms is similar to a lot of harm minimisation dilemmas- ie "Would I be supporting addiction if I was part of a safe heroin injecting room".
From a practical perspective, (which is shared by some nuns in Africa etc who respond to a complex situation) you can maintain principles: ie that excessive drug use or a casual approach to sex is not the best way to live your life, whilst still distributing clean needles or condoms.
The Vatican does not like the messy edges of harm minimisation (remember- it prevented the Sisters of Charity from setting up a supervised heroin injecting room in Kings Cross?).
I think it is a problem if taboos about sex and an aversion to condoms makes it hard to be upfront and frank about AIDS. I think communication about AIDS touches on a lot of cultural sensitivities and taboos regardless of what culture you are operating within. There are still ways to honour the values of that culture, and not bring about unravelling of the social fabric (which is what fear about condoms is really about- that people will become less faithful to their spouses etc as a result of public health education on condoms) The Catholic church needs to figure out how to do this in a sensitive way.
I can still disagree with the Vatican/ church teaching on some issues and remain a Catholic- that’s what Vatican II and the primacy of conscience is all about.
Vatican II - is that a spacecraft or Catholicism borne again - post Hitler’s Pope, Pius XII?
Anneenna, you’re reasoning seems to suggest that we should we ban condoms here, so couples can’t cheat?
I think you’re also foisting a euro-centric view on Africa’s people and this is both abhorrent and hypocritical, have a look at stats for marriage break-ups here in the west, really there is no need for a moral high ground ~ Who knows, Vatican II may look good on paper, but it didn’t stop the vast abuses of power pertaining to innumerable sexual abuses; of which many victims were kept silenced by means of private settlements.
But if you want to go around promoting Vatican II, maybe you should start with those who felt the malevolent thrust of it, try SNAP for instance:- (Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests).
Really, Jesus Christ should not be used as a moral crutch to justify or excuse rape nor should it obfuscate Democracy as it always tends to.
Ilago, I like what you wrote - but I find all the other stuff, analyzing pontifical excruciations, somewhat mind-boggling.
Kevin has demonstrated he has no clue when it comes to understanding some of the great thinking by theologians like Bonhoeffer whose work stands separate from a necessary belief in some sort of God. Rudd’s claim to discipleship was self-serving as is everything he does - he’s a politician.
Whatever Rudd or any of his party may say [and the same is true for the opposition], even if there is a God, that God is doing a worse job than the economic advisers, weather forecasters or the Coal industry. So there could be a lot better things Rudd could be doing with his Sunday morning, like cuddling Therese and taking three deep breaths before he harasses his bloody advisers again.
Why do we have to have this stuff trotted up, when rational people who don’t have gnomes in their front garden want rational Government?
Christopher
PS Just went to the cellar and couldn’t find a bottle labelled Vatican anything. How do these irrelevant institutions find their way into sensible discussion.
PPS the Christian lobby should be neither seen nor heard - there is no Christianity to be found therein
One final comment on this article from me.
The last couple of paragraphs make no sense and leaves one wondering if any of it made sense. You cannot soften capitalism - and you cannot make the Catholic Church take responsibility for the evils it perpetrates.
Like Bonhoeffer, there may be great Catholic thinkers but their philosophy stands separate from the institution which has a long history of shame. Christopher
I do agree with Catholicism’s common goods clause, about the re-distribution of goods for the sake of a greater equality. Perhaps Rudd might come under the influence and steer the ship further down the path that his essays on social democracy implored. A great synthesis thus of left and right, resolving in freedom and social fairness.