Christian Voting In New Zealand

In less than five weeks New Zealand will be voting in the government for the next three years.  How will I be voting as a Christian?

In terms of religious voting we have the running parallel with the US elections.  There being a Christian and voting involves considering candidates who are media-labelled as “Pro-Choice” or “Pro-Life”.  The morality issues appear front and centre.  In that mix some commentators want Christians to move past one-issue politics (like Ben Witherington) while others argue that some issues are critical (like John Piper).  Josh Harris responds to a letter from people in his congregation concerned about one-issue vs. multi-issue considerations.

In contrast to the US, New Zealand politics is not polarised by the issue of abortion – as best as I can see none of the major parties is interested in making any changes to the status quo. Sadly, as per the NZ Herald:

While abortion remains a hotly contentious issue in the US 35 years after Roe versus Wade, other societies have largely acknowledged the practical and philosophical logic of a woman’s right to choose, and moved on.

On the “morality” issues in general I don’t know what lies around the corner.  The “Family First” group offer a list of how various MPs have voted on past issues, presumably with the view of who to punish in this election – or more positively, as an indication of how they might vote on whatever the next “morality” issue comes before parliament.

Perhaps the attraction for Christians to vote based on “morality” issues is because it simplifies the choice – moving it into a right/wrong category on one or two issues.  When you look at the vast array of policy areas on which to compare NZ political parties (I counted over 160 categories at this site) it can be very bewildering to decide which issues are more important.  Even a consideration of a parties philosophy doesn’t always help – some aspects you like, other aspects you don’t.

In addition, MMP really removes the ability to vote based on the “character” of your local MP – as we’re remind each election, it is the party vote that is critical.  It’s a bit strange that the person our electorate didn’t vote for still goes to parliament and “represents” us as a list MP.

Coming to our aid is the media – particularly TV.  There will be a leaders’ debate between Helen Clarke and John Key – what will sway people: the hairstyles? the clothes? the ideas?  Famously, in a debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960, those who listen on radio believed Nixon had won the debate, but those who watch on TV believed the young and attractive JFK had won the debate.  And of course there are the other parties agrieved that they won’t get the same airtime.

And the final option for the Christian is to vote for a “Christian” party.  There are Christians who belong to most of the political parties, including a number of MPs spread across the house of parliament.  But the option of a declared “Christian” party can be a way for me the Christian voter of deferring a hard decision and putting it on others who are in a “Christian” party – they can express a “Christian” perspective on each issue as it comes along.  But the great difficulty here is firstly: what is the “Christian” view on education? health? tax? foreign policy?  Secondly: if the “Christian” party is not going to get over the 5% threshhold isn’t that a wasted vote?

So what will I do?

I will pray, I will make a judgement call as to where I think the best good for society lies, I will cast my vote – and I will trust in the Sovereign God who will give us, for good or ill, the government we as a nation vote for.

 

Trusting in the Justice & Mercy of God

I preached a few weeks ago about believer’s baptism particularly thinking about it in relationship to infant baptism.  The Reformation is an historical turning point when all Protestants moved away from baptismal regeneration (that is, baptism in and of itself makes a person a Christian – the position of Roman Catholicism).  Many Protestants retained the practice but changed the meaning (baptism of infants brought them inside the covenant community though they still had to become believers – something acknowledge by a personal confirmation of their faith later in life).  I remain unpersuaded of this covenant-theology approach: baptism is for spiritual infants, that is believers.

The side-issue that I was left wondering: Why infant baptism?  What pastoral need was being addressed?  I wonder if the real issue that drove the search for a theological justification for the practice was the pastoral concern for assurance about the eternal fate of infants who die.

Whatever position one takes with regard to baptism, that is a hugely challenging pastoral issue.

Amongst serious evangelicals I have come across a number of alternative theories:

• All infants who die are saved
  Al Mohler responds to the 2005 Tsunami: In the Shadow of Death -The Little Ones Are Safe With Jesus
  John Piper: What happens to infants who die?
  John MacArthur Jr: The Salvation of Babies Who Die – Part 1 & Part 2
  
• The infants of believers are saved
  Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology: (pp. 500-501) with regard to believers’ children this would be the normal or expected pattern – although there are scriptural exceptions. The Scriptures are silent regarding the children of unbelievers who die at an early age – we must trust that God will do what is right.
• We don’t know what happens when infants die
  I’ve heard both Thomas Schreiner and Mark Dever (in mp3 downloads) express the view that Scripture is just not clear on the matter.  We are left to trust in the justice and mercy of the judge of all the earth who will do what is in the end right and good.
  Blogger Tim Challies discusses these three positions at greater length and arrives in this third camp.

Of course the names above are not exhaustive nor necessarily the best representatives of their position – but they are all people I respect.  None of them are saying that we know for certain that infants who die are without hope.

Is there a more heart wrenching experience than the death of a baby?  Who does not want to offer the comfort of heaven in the midst of such a tragedy? For myself, I remain uncertain – not because I’m unsure about which answer I want, but because I’m unsure that the Scriptures give me enough surefooting to stand there.

But is it really a weak and hopeless place to rest in the justice and mercy of God?  Perhaps, as some argue, the answer is clear.  But even if it isn’t clear, is a reliance on God’s character as revealed through the Scriptures and supremely in Jesus Christ not a place of real and sure hope?  When the Last Day comes, will we not look from the perspective of eternity and see that what the Lord has done in his “justice and mercy” is perfect, right, appropriate and ultimately good?

There are many matters where we must trust in the justice and mercy of God.  I think that is real comfort in an uncertain world.