christ's people and society, 1974, 2011

8/4/2019 Christ's People and Society, 1974, 2011

1/39

Christs People and Society 1


2/39


CONTENTSpage

3 1. PURPOSE

- beliefs basis of my stance

- need for knowledge of political

structures

5 2. MY CHRISTIAN POINT OF

VIEW

2a. Concerning the World we live in

- God creator, sovereign; power of

sin human communities and

kingdoms

6 2b. Concerning the Kingdom of God ...

- its coming; Christ's triumph over

sin; responsibility and consequences

of life in the Kingdom7 2c. Christian Responsibility ...

- to God; to brethren; to world

8 3. OUR DEMOCRACY

8 3a. Democracy

9 3a and the alternative form of

Government

- nature of democracy: e1ector,

representative parliament, law

- by comparison, totalitarian system

- ease of pushing democracy intototalitarian form

10 3b. The Rights and Responsibilities of

the Individual in a Democracy.

- what they are; limitations to use of

some

- power of vote; what the voter must

do

- political parties: advantages and

disadvantages

12 3c. The Electoral System

- What happens to your vote after itis cast

A. One candidate to be elected

B. Multiple elections from one ballot

- some recommendations, in the

light of the nature of the electoral

system, for voters

23 3d. Power in a Democracy

- Federal powers; local government

powers; State government powers;

individual power; pressure group

power

page

24 3e. Law Enforcement in a Democracy

- limit of law

- need for reliance on individual

rather than "authority"

25 3f. Liberalisation of Law Today

- pressure for liberalisation

- justification for liberalisation

- dangers in liberalisation

27 4. CHRISTIAN BELIEFS IN

POLITICAL ACTION

28 4a. Christian in Role of Voter

- discharge of Christian

responsibilities in vote; special timefor witness; continuing

responsibility in democracy

28 4b. Christian in Role as Legislator

- additional responsibility

- nature of man and relationship of

law to the nature of man

29 4c. The Christian and the Conservative

- latent hypocrisy in conservatism

- need for discernment,

discrimination

30 4d. The Christian and the Radical- God's stance to compounding of

sin in the community

- use of men and women of faith

32 4e. Christians together as a pressure

group

- requirement for togetherness

- role of pressure group

- warning concerning where FAM

failed

35 4f. Christian Demands in a Democracy

- right to challenge, methods- value of institutions, perspective

- demands for morality, force

- conclusion


3/39


1. PURPOSE

My purpose, in this document, is to present some basic statements concerning political issues.

I am a Christian, and I am presenting this so that other Christians can know of my stance inpolitical issues, and can know something of why I am making this stand.

I hope also that the presentation can assist Christians in the making of their decisions of wherethey stand in relationship to politics and political issues and political action.

It is first necessary that I show the soundness of my Christian beliefs

my beliefs concerning the nature of the world and its political institutions my beliefs concerning the Kingdom of God and its relationship with the world

and its political institutions

my beliefs concerning the Christian's responsibility and the priority of theseresponsibilities

These beliefs play a significant part in my stance on political issues.

Then, for the benefit of the Christian who is seeking to express his/her responsibility in our

present political institutions, it is necessary for me to explain

present political institutions the nature, structure and functioning of the political institution that we have in

Australia at present

how and where the individual can discharge his/her responsibility in this politicalstructure

Finally, it is necessary for me to show, as far as I can, what I see to be the issues and

choices involved in some policies, where Christian beliefs will have particular bearing on

certain legislation.

The stimulus demanding the original preparation of this document was the stand of the Family

Action Movement in the N.S.W. Senate election, in 1974. Some things have changed on our

Australian national and NSW state political landscape since then, but not much.

The Christian community is realising its responsibility in the political arena, and is concerned

that the present political parties are moving further and further from accepted Christian

standards. Whereas previously we have tended to accept a lack of integrity as being part and

parcel of political necessity, or expediency, the Christian today is rightfully questioning this.

I am concerned that Christians, because they are lacking in knowledge, or because they are

concerned by the apparent urgency to act to protect certain standards, will not be wary enough

of the means that they use to get political results.

This will leave the Christian community open to abuse - political groups and pressure groups

may use our stand and strength to their own political advantages, the adversary will use every

opportunity to discredit the Lord we own; and we may be unwitting handmaidens to political

ends that are inconsistent with the very deep obligations of witness to Christ.

We must remember that we are called as Christ's witnesses in the following terms


4/39


"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents

and innocent as doves."

Matthew 10:16

Might I add that the preparation of this has been a real blessing to me, personally. I have

been continually encouraged by the Word of God: its promises and the encouragement thatour part to play in the world is full of promise also.

The textual references used from time to time are, I expect, not exhaustive. I have

referred to the content of the paragraph, sometimes the number of references are a result

of the number of points in the paragraph, sometimes a number of references are for the

one point. Don't neglect them, you'll find that God's word has much more to say and

says it better than I.

Dianne Allen, 1974

2011 Update

In March 2011, elections are being held for the NSW Parliament, 93 seats for the Legislative

Assembly, and 21 seats (half the total) for the Legislative Council (the house of review for NSW

State legislation).

I have become involved in standing for election again. This time I am standing with a group of

independents for the Legislative Council. The group is led by John Hatton, former MLA for the

seat of the South Coast, 1973-1995. In supporting this group I am again drawn to the issue of

strengthening our democracy, by encouraging electors to exercise the power they have, in their

vote, as effectively as they can. This material, prepared originally in 1974, still has enough herefor those who are new to thinking about political responsibility to be a possible resource for this

election.

Notes, later in the paper, point to where electoral law has been changed since 1974. These

changes have been necessary to help manage the outcomes of more people being prepared to

stand for election, and to stand outside of the major party structures. As Abraham Lincoln says

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you

cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Those standing outside the major party structures

are saying that these structures are seen to be failing to deliver on good government, and

because those supporting major party structures have deserted operating by sound democratic

principles.

Dianne Allen, 2011


5/39


2. MY CHRISTIAN POINT OF VIEW

2a. Concerning the world we live in...

The world we live in isof God's creation, and is in His command. (1)The introduction of the power of sin, which resulted from man's exercise of his will to

disobey God, has distorted all of man's relationships in the world. (2)

The devil likes to think that worldly power and glory is his to give, and tempts us with it. But

not only is the devil untrustworthy, his power is limited to what God allows. (3)

As people rebel against God's dominion, God gives them up to the power of sin, and to the

adversary. Corrupted worldly power, be it democratic or autocratic, shows all the signs of this

evil power in these people's lives. (4)

Though we may cry out for God's justice to come quickly to these kingdoms, the time God

chooses to make this judgement, and to exact His retribution, is entirely in His hands. (5)

God chooses worldly kingdoms as His agent for good, and God has often raised up men and

women of faith and obedience to take a particular saving or prophetic role in secular

kingdoms. (6)

In human communities, it is the role of law to promote the aims of the community. The

exercise of lawful power through the political and legal institutions, allows the community

to function in an orderly fashion. (7)

The proper execution of power, authority and responsibility in the human community, honours

God as it reflects His own nature, as well as His will and good pleasure for our human life (7)

(1) Genesis 1; John 19:11; whole testimony of scripture

(2) Genesis 3:14-19; 4:1-16; Romans 1:18-32

(3) Matthew 4:8,9; John 8:44; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6

(4) Romans 1:24-32; Galatians 5:19-21

(5) Psalm 94:1-7; Deut 32:35; 2 Peter 3:8-10

(6) Romans 8:28; Judges 6:1; Deut 8:20; Joseph, Daniel

(7) Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13,14; Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 4:13


6/39


2b. Concerning the Kingdom of God ...

Jesus makes clear in his preaching:

o that the-Kingdom of God is at hando that the time of his preaching was the time of the first judgement of the worldo that the kingdom he preached of, and is king of, is not of this worldo and that the hour of the second coming, the final judgement- and the inheriting of the

kingdom (prepared for the faithful from the foundation of the world) by the faithful, willcome as a thief in the night (1)

The coming of Christ's kingdom in its fullness and power, will result in the total

overthrow of all earthly kingdoms and political systems (2)

We who are in Christ, and Christ in us, are not of this world. We are free from the power of

sin as the sin and the adversary no longer have power to accuse us before God, condemning

us to death. (3)

While we are free from the consequences of sin, our perfection is an ongoing and continual

battle, achieved not by our works, but by the grace of God. We are to work out our

salvation with fear and trembling, and are warned that the task is not easy. But we are

assured in that, it is not us, but Christ that works in us, and that He will and has the power

to complete that work in us. (4)

As we acknowledge Jesus as Lord in our lives, by doing the will of the Father, we enterinto his

kingdom, and this king of ours has entrusted certain talents to us and on His second coming will

judge our faithfulness in his service by the way we have dealt in and with our present world. (5)

As we take up our responsibilities in this world, Christ continues to pray for us, asking theFather for our sanctification (separation from worldliness) and our protection from the evil

one. (6)

God is reconciling the world to Himself, through Christ, the whole of creation is groaning for

this kind of deliverance, and we have a special role in the world as ambassadors for Christ, so

that God can make His appeal to men and women through us. (7)

As we witness to this power of Christ to redeem us, our lives will show a difference of quality,

and as a consequence of this we face tribulation in this world. (8)

(1) Matthew 4:17; Matthew 12:28; John 12:31; John 18:36; Matthew 24 and 25

(2) 1 Corinthians 15:24

(3) John 17:14; John 8:34-38; Romans 8 note verses 1, 2, 33

(4) Ephesians 2:4-10; Philippians 3:12-16; Philippians 2:12,13; Matthew 24:13,22,24;

Revelation 2:10,11,17,26,27; Revelation 3:5,11,12,19-21; Philippians 1: 6; Hebrews

12:1,2; Mark 1:40-42; Mark 2:5-12

(5) John 3:3,5; Matthew 7:21; Matthew 25:14-46

(6) John 17:9-26; Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:24,25

(7) Romans 8:18-25; 2 Corinthians 5:16-21

(8) John 15:18-27; John16:33


7/39


2c. Christian Responsibility ...

The Christian's first responsibility is to God, to obey God's law. Our relationship with God

must be established first, and have priority (1).

In this context we are to pray for the coming of God's kingdom, as only in this kingdom will

true justice, mercy and faith reign (2).

The Christian's next responsibility is to the brethren -

in our witness to never be a stumbling block to them for the love that we show to one another, as this demonstrates Christ's new law to discipline, exhort and encourage them, in love, forthe sake of their souls (3)

The Christian's third responsibility is to witness to the world. Our relationship with God gives us

power and freedom in our personal lives and personal relationships and this, because it is a

different way of life, will be a witness to the world (4)

(1) Matthew 22:36-39; Deuteronomy 10:12,13; Matthew 22:21; Matthew 10:32-39;

Matthew 6:33; Mark 8:34-38

(2) Matthew 6:10; Isaiah 9:2-7; Micah 6:6-13

(3) Matthew18:5-9; Romans Chapters 14,15; Romans 14:21; 1 Corinthians 8:13; John

13: 34,35; John 15:12,17; 1 John 3:23; 2 John 5; 1 Thessalonians 4:9; 1 Peter 1:22;

Hebrews 13:1; Ephesians 5:2; 1 John 4:10;1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1

Corinthians 10

(4) 1 Peter 2:11-3:9; Romans 13:1-7; Matthew 22:21; Matt 5:17-48; Ephesians 5:15,16;

Titus 3:1; Ephesians 5:21-6:9; Colossians 3:18-4:1


8/39


3. OUR DEMOCRACY

3a. Democracy

Democracy is supposed to be "Government, of the people, by the people, for the people"-

Abraham Lincoln.

In Australia we have a representative democracy. That is, we accept that we must be governed

and as individuals we choose to be obedient to the laws. We, as equals before the law and in the

election system, do the governing, by choosing some one to represent us in our parliaments and

councils.

Our representatives, by deciding on policy and framing the lawsto implement that policy,

provide the government, or the state of affairs, for us to live in.

Our role, as electors, is to choose the representative who presents policies that suit us.

If these policies do not suit us, then we can

(1) formulate policies that do suit us, these will be in opposition to other policies

being presented by others standing for election as representatives, and we can

stand for representative position ourselves

(2) join a political party and by action through that party can frame the policies that we

want the party representatives to have.

This is, and must be, a continual activity. Every single voter must retain an interest and

activity in these decisions, otherwise, the interests of the voter will be ignored and the

interests heard will be those of the more active participants in the democracy.

So there are three steps in our democratic process:

(1) the people make a choice of their representative

(2) the representative makes a stand to support or fight for some particular policy

(3) decisions made by the majority of the representatives are binding on the

community

So, for example, to illustrate the point, we vote for a representative whosupports "free beer

for all the students".

That representative receives majority support in the community at an election, and so winsthe election.

That representative presents this policy and how it is co be carried out, to the parliament or

council.

A majority of other representatives support him.

The policy then becomes an Act or a decision.

The Act is a statement of law. So, beerhas to be provided free for all students. Failure to supply

beer free to students usually results in some penalties that someone enforces.


9/39


So we have the structure:

VOTER - has a role in determining the

ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE - who has a role in determining a

GOVERNMENT ACT, this is then the law which

VOTERS are required to obey. If they do not obey the law they are penalised in some way for

their disobedience.

And this structure is then intricately involved with

POLICE who must investigate if the law has been broken, who broke it and arrests the same

COURT which decides whether the police evidence is right, and then determines the penalty to

apply if the person is guilty

The courts also have another role, that of determining whether a government act is "legal".

If an act contradicts another act, other laws already established, or if it conflicts with decisionof higher governments or acts or laws(for example common law) then the act is not "legal".

This involves a decision of "precedence- determining which law takes precedence over others

when in conflict.

In the democracy there are then checks on voter and government alike.

3a. ... and the Alternative Form of Government ...

By comparison, there are other systems of social organisation. These, because they do notallow for the freedom of expression of different ways in which we might go about achieving

our social goals, can provide a single-minded, efficient and effective government in our

human communities.

A totalitarian system is a political system having only one governing body or political

party, and which leaves no room in the society for political opposition.

The efficiency and the effectiveness of the totalitarian system lies in

(1) its single-mindedness

(2) its organisation

(3)the devolving of authority and power within a well disciplined organisation

(4) the restriction of freedom ofexpressionof opposition

(5) the oppression of minorities or minority views which challenge the rightness of the

totalitarian view.

The rigidness with which such a political system is applied to a community can be a very

valuable step in bringing cohesion to a community.

A community torn by internal strife, anarchy, can be restored to function under totalitarianregimes


10/39


Eg England of Elizabeth I, France of Napoleon

With the threat of external aggression, most communities readily accept martial law,

accepting the continuity of wartime leadership without insisting on elections

Eg England 1939-45

A democratic community weakened by external and/or internal injustices, with internal failure

to accept responsibility, and where the old accepted order of monetary relationships and

established privileges appears to be threatened by certain internal directions of social change, or

by social changes occurring in nearby communities, can respond readily to a demagogue who

bases his challenge for power on the values of the old order and does not challenge th3

conservative institutions that exist in every society to regulate sexual behaviour and protect

property

e,g. Germany, the rise of the National Socialist Party as the democratic government

followed by the dictatorship of Hitler

No democracy is immune from the threat of this kind of takeover from within.

The responsibility of protecting our democracy from this lies with each one of us. It depends

on our awareness of the danger and our continued resistance to taking fanatical stances. It

requires the exercise of all our powers to ensure that injustice is not allowed to build up within

the community, and to do this most effectively we willneed to be open to the real needs of the

peoplewithin our community.

Any society which fosters the oppression of one sector of the community for the advantage of

another sector of the community creates the tensions that lead to open revolt.

Anysociety which does not continue to uphold the value of the individual, the value ofrelationships between individuals, and the value of the responsibility of each individual to play a

unique part in sustaining the nature of that social system, checking the authenticity of its justice

through the community, leaves itself open to takeover.

3b. The Rights and Responsibilities of the Individual in a Democracy

Our democracy protects the following rights:

(1) secret ballot

(2) freedom of speech

(3) freedom of association which can lead to the formation of a new political party

(4) freedom to stand for election

(5) freedom to present a case to the elected representatives and/or the constituted body,

the parliament or the council, through a petition

(6) freedom to challenge the law if it infringes any rights

It is as these rights and their inherent responsibilities are exercised that the democratic

institutions respond to the challenges and demands of the community.

The nature of the costs in our present economic structure place constraints on the exercise of

some of these rights and as such restricts the use of some of these instituted means of effecting

change.


11/39


What is not open to general use, can be seen as being the private province and privilege of a

particular group.

For example, the cost of effectively mounting an election campaign is tending to prevent all bar

major parties from engaging in effective political debate for the public's support at election time.

The costs of litigation usually mean that the protection of rights in the court is limited to the rich

who can afford litigation. The courts are then seen as protectors of particular privilege, rather

than the avenue through which an ordinary person can and will normally seek justice.

There is however nothing to prevent us from demanding legislation which will effectively offset

this kind of economic disadvantage: equal time for all in the media , etc.

3b. ... the Power of the Vote...

The vote at an election, is one area where monetary advantage can be offset.

However, the essential power of the vote is not readily understood in our community. The use of

a voting system, which seeks to give some representation to all, is seen as a complexity that the

ordinary person cannot understand.

Not only is the system not straightforward (a straightforward system is not necessarily just), but

there is a deliberate attempt to fail to inform the ordinary person about the basic nature of the

system, and a deliberate attempt to keep the ordinary person subject to the "mystique" of the

"complicated" system.

This places the ordinary person in a position of powerlessness, powerlessness resulting from

lack of knowledge.

The political parties and their henchmen, political strategists, journalists, commentators, all

perpetuate this by the use of jargon, and by their failure to explain the basic nature of the system

in terms that can be understood.

Consequently our electoral system is open to abuse.

What the Voter Must Do

For a voter to cast a formal vote, the voter must clearly indicate his preference between the

various candidates and/or the parties to which they belong.

The voter must do this by placing the number 1 against the name of the candidate to whom he

wishes to give his first preference. The voter is also required to indicate whom of the other

candidates he would prefer next. He places the number 2 against this candidate.

This procedure is to be continued for as many candidates as there are standing for elected

position.

This makes sure that each voter has some say in who is the elected representative. When there is

a close battle for majority support in the electorate, those people who have supported a minority

view also have their viewpoint considered by finding which of the major contenders they

support.


12/39


The making of the deliberate choice between one and the other is what is required. This is

difficult if there is a wide range of choice, and if nothing is known of the candidates or their

positions to allow a meaningful distinction to be made.

The decision concerning whom you vote for and what preference you record for the different

candidates comes then from

(1) a knowledge of their different policies

(2) a decision of which policy you prefer and the order in which you prefer those policies

(3) a decision of the reliability of the candidate, to know whether he will continue to

present that policy

.... Political Parties ...

The existence of political parties and a decision to give allegiance to a political party or its

ideology can simplify the process of deciding on how to vote.

The "advantages" of the political party system are similar to the advantages of a totalitarian

system: namely, that if a party or group with similar ideologies have the numbers, or majority in

the legislative parliament, they can take a singleminded attitude to legislation, and so govern

without disruption between elections while they retain this majority. The retention of the

majority between elections also depends on strong internal discipline on the party members.

The party, rather than the individual representative, then becomes the responsible body, and the

choice, at an election.

The disadvantages in our reliance on the party to sort policy and to present an overall

philosophy come in much the same way as in the totalitarian system gone awry: the dependenceon the authority of the institution being unable to be questioned, and the failure of a minority

viewpoint getting through. The institution can become more obsessed with the maintenance of

itself, rather than the society it depends on and is responsible for, then there is trouble.

3c. The Electoral System...

What Happens to your Vote after it is Cast ...

In every kind of election, the first two steps in the counting of votes are the same:

Firstly, the formal votes are collected together. For a vote to be formal it must show clearly to

the electoral officer the differential preference of the voter between all the candidates.

Secondly, the "first preference" or "primaries" are counted in the following way:

All the ballot papers with 1 for a particular candidate are placed in a group by

themselves.

These are then counted for each candidate. These are the first preferences that a

candidate receives.

The next step in the counting of an election depends on how many are to be elected from the

vote, and what kind of system is being used.


13/39


Let us look at some examples :

A. One Candidate to be elected: Counting for the Federal House of Representatives and for the

State Legislative Assembly

In this case we are to elect one representative for an electorate.

"The candidate who has received the largest number of first preference votes shall, if that

umber constitutes an absolute majority of the votes, be elected. "n..." an absolute majority of votes means a greater number than one half of the whole number of

ballot-papers other than informal ballot-papers."

"If no candidate has received an absolute majority of first preference votes, the Returning

fficer ..., shall proceed with the scrutiny and the counting of votes as followsO

(i) the candidate who has received the fewest first preference votes shall be excluded,

and each ballot-paper counted to him shall be counted to the candidate next in order of

the voter's preference;(ii) if no candidate then has an absolute majority of votes, the process of excluding the

candidate who has the fewest votes, and counting each of his ballot-papers to the

unexcluded candidate next - in the order of the voter's preference, shall be repeated until

one candidate has received an absolute majority of votes; and

(iii) the candidate who has received an absolute majority of votes shall be elected."

Readers are directed to Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1966 and (N.S.W.) Parliamentary

Electorates and Elections Act, 1912 and NSW Parliamentary Electorates and Elections

Regulations 2008 for the confirmation of these proceedings.

Let us suppose that there are four candidates standing for election under this system, and that

seventeen people have cast formal votes in the ballot.

The Labor (opposition to Liberal) will have issued a how-to-vote card, presumably of the

following form:

2 Ind

1 Lab

4- Lib

3 MP

The Liberal (opposition to Labor) will have issued a how-to-vote card, presumably of thefollowing form:

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

Assuming that the MP minor party is a non-Labor party and arranges to exchange preferences

with the Liberal party, its how-to-vote instructions will be :

3 Ind

4 Lab

2 Lib1 MP


14/39


In a marginal seat we usually get the following kind of distribution of first preferences:

First count: Seventeen formal votes have been cast, therefore the absolute majority required for

election is 9 (50%+1)

Independent

3

1 Ind

4 Lab3 Lib

2 MP

1 Ind

4 Lab2 Lib

3 MP

1 Ind

2 Lab3 Lib

4 MP

(so-called

donkey vote)

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

3 MP

3 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

2 MP

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

3 MP

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

3 MP

Labor

7 3 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib2 MP

4 Ind

1 Lab

2 Lib3 MP

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib3 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

Liberal

5 3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

Minor Party

2

3 Ind

4 Lab2 Lib

1 MP

4 Ind

3 Lab2 Lib

1 MP

(so-called

upside-down

donkey vote

No candidate has the nine needed for election, so no-one is elected yet. The candidate with least

is excluded, namely the minor party candidate, and the votes are given to the candidate next in

order of the voters preference

2011 Update: For those elections that permit optional preferential voting, the voter may decide

to only indicate their first preference. What that means, in effect, is that after the first round the

number of votes, needed to have the absolute majority, decreases, as voting intentions are

exhausted. The count keeps using indicated preferences (providing the vote is formal) until

those preferences have been exhausted.

At the extreme, optional preferential voting becomes first past the post.


15/39


Distribution of Preferences of Minor partys Votes:

The minor party candidate is excluded and the votes, with a full one whole vote value, is given

to the candidate next in the individual voters preference, as shown on the ballot paper

Independent

3

1 Ind

4 Lab3 Lib

2 MP

1 Ind

4 Lab2 Lib

3 MP

1 Ind

2 Lab3 Lib

4 MP

(so-called

donkey vote)

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

3 MP

3 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

2 MP

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

3 MP

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

3 MP

Labor

7 3 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib2 MP

4 Ind

1 Lab

2 Lib3 MP

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib3 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

Liberal

7 3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

2 Lib

1 MP

4 Ind

3 Lab

2 Lib

1 MP

Minor Party

EXCLUDED

3 Ind

4 Lab2 Lib

1 MP

4 Ind

3 Lab2 Lib

1 MP

(so-called

upside-down

donkey vote

No candidate has the nine needed for election, so no-one is elected yet. The candidate with least

is excluded, namely the independent candidate, and the votes are given to the unexcluded

candidate next in order of the voters preference


16/39


Distribution of Preferences of Independents Votes:

The minor party candidate is excluded and the votes, with a full one whole vote value, is given

to the candidate next in the individual voters preference, as shown on the ballot paper

Independent

EXCLUDED

1 Ind

4 Lab3 Lib

2 MP

1 Ind

4 Lab2 Lib

3 MP

1 Ind

2 Lab3 Lib

4 MP

(so-called

donkey vote)

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

3 MP

3 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

2 MP

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

3 MP

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib

3 MP

Labor

8 3 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib2 MP

4 Ind

1 Lab

2 Lib3 MP

2 Ind

1 Lab

4 Lib3 MP

1 Ind

2 Lab

3 Lib4 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

1 Lib

2 MP

3 Ind

4 Lab

2 Lib

1 MP

4 Ind

3 Lab

2 Lib

1 MP

1 Ind

4 Lab

3 Lib

2 MP

Liberal

9

1 Ind4 Lab

2 Lib

3 MP

Minor Party

EXCLUDED

This vote should go, by the number 2 to the minor party

candidate, but that candidate has been excluded, so we

must look at the next preference 3, the vote then goes to

the Lib candidate

The Liberal candidate has the nine needed for election, so is the elected representative.

Essentially the electorate has not elected the party with the largest number of first preferences,

because the majority of voters were not prepared to support that group outright.


17/39


B.Multiple elections from one ballot: Federal Senate, NSW Legislative Council, some

other situations

In this case we are to elect several representatives for the whole State rather than one

representative for an electorate within the State.

Again, all the formal votes are collected first.

Again, all the ballot papers with 1 for a particular candidate are placed in a group by

themselves, and counted to give the "first preference" count.

Any candidate who has received a number of first preferences equal to or greater than the quota

required for election shall be elected.

The quota is determined by dividing the total number of formal first preference votes by one

more than the number of candidates required to be elected, and then increasing the quotient so

obtained by one, disregarding any remainder obtained during the original division.

If the number of first preference votes received by a candidate is equal to the quota, the whole of

the ballot-papers containing those votes are set aside as finally dealt with.

If all the vacancies are not filled, then the surplus votes (that is, any number in excess of the

quota) of each elected candidate are transferred to the continuing candidates in proportion to the

voters preferences.

In 1974 there were detailed instructions for how this is done as equitably as possible throughout

the State, working through the different electoral divisions. In 2011 this process is now

conducted by a computer program.

If, after the transfer of surplus votes, a candidate now has received a number of votes equal or

greater than the quota required, he shall be elected.

In the event of all the surpluses being transferred, and not all of the positions being filled, and

none of the continuing candidates having the quota required to be elected, the procedure now

followed is the same as for the election for the House of Representatives: namely, that the

candidate with the least number of votes is excluded and each ballot paper counted to him shall

be counted to the unexcluded candidate next in order of the individual voter's preference, ballot

paper by ballot paper.

This is carried out until all the positions are filled by candidates having received the quota.

Again, let us take a typical example, looking at what has happened in the recent Senate election

in the double dissolution in N.S.W., in 1974.

And let us simplify the process by looking at the relative support the candidates received and

dealing with it as if 1,000 votes had been cast and were determining the election.

The results were as follows:


18/39


1974 Senate Election for 10 NSW Senators

Total No. of Votes cast 2,370,085 =100.0% 1,000

A.L.P. (Murphy) 1,169,231 first pref =50.0% 500

Lib CP (Cotton) 982,136 first pref 41.7% 417

D.L.P. (Kane) 67,186 first pref 2.9% 29F.A.M. (Brown) 44,861 first pref 1.9% 19

Aust P. (Gilling) 36,661 first pref 1.7% 17

Group A (Malcolm) 17,127 first pref 0.7% 7

Comm. P (Mundey) 10,888 first pref 0.5% 5

Other 65 candidates 0.6% 6

Ten senators are to be elected, so the quota is 9.09%.

Only two candidates have the quota namely, Murphy and Cotton. These two are elected and

eight more places have to be filled. The filling of these eight places is done firstly by

transferring the surpluses of Murphy and Cotton, and then, if need, be by excluding candidateswho have received so little support, starting with the candidate with least support.

We will proceed to work out the result treating the election as if only 1000 people had voted.

This may lead to some weighting of the results, and some distortion, but it will essentially

illustrate the electoral system, so that we understand it, at least enough so that we can vote with

confidence.

Using only the 1 000 votes, the following conditions apply:

Number of votes cast 1 000

Number of senators to be elected plus one = 10 + 1 = 11

Quota = 1000/11 = 90.9 + 1 = 91 ignoring the remainder

Of the candidates standing, only Murphy and Cotton have more than 91. So they are elected.

But they have more than 91 and all the positions have not been filled, so we must first transfer

the surpluses.

Looking at Murphy' s 500 votes first.

Let us assume that every one of these votes followed the party ticket.

Murphy received 500 votes. He only needed 91 to be elected. So he has 409 votes surplus.

The transfer value of Murphy' s surplus vote is calculated in the following way :

Transfer value = Number of surplus votes received = (409) DIVIDED BY Total number

of votes received (500)

Now all the 500 votes are taken and the electoral officer locks at the number 2 on all those

votes. If they have all given 2 to McClelland (following the party ticket) then McClelland gets

Number of preferences received x transfer value = 500 x (409/500) = 409 votes


19/39


These 409 votes are picked out randomly from the 500 second preferences that he received and

the other 91 votes are put aside, as dealt with finally, as the votes which have been used to elect

Murphy.

(Had the five hundred votes not followed the A.L.P. ticket the result would be different.

Vis

Let us suppose only 490 of the votes which gave Murphy 1 also gave McClelland 2, and

that the other 10 had given, say, Brown 2 . The electoral officer then follows these

recorded voter's preferences, disregarding the A.L.P. how-to-vote advice and the result

would be

McClelland = 490 x (409/500)=401

Brown = 10 x (409/500) = 8.2 (this 0.2 over, is ignored)

Of the 490 cast Murphy 1, McClelland 2, 401 would be picked out randomly and the

other 89 put aside.

Of the 10 cast Murphy 1, Brown 2, 8 would be picked out randomly and the other 2

added to the 89 and put aside finally as Murphy's votes used to elect Murphy.

The results would have varied accordingly.)

Returning to our original assumption, that McClelland had received all the number 2 preferences

of the 500 voters, McClelland has 409 votes after the transfer of preferences. The quota

required, for election is 91. McClelland has 91, indeed he has 409, so McClelland is elected.

McClelland also has more votes than he needed so the surplus he has is transferred as above:

Transfer value now = 318/409

If all the number 3 votes go to the next on the A.L.P. ticket, Mulvihill, then Mulvihill gets

409 x (318/409) = 318 votes

These 318 votes are picked out randomly and the other 91 votes are put aside as finally dealt

with, as being the votes which have been used to elect McClelland.

As Mulvihill only needs 91 votes he is now elected. Mulvihill has more than he needed so hissurplus is transferred too, in the same fashion as before.

The Liberal-Country Party's votes are being dealt with in the same way.

Murphy's surplus is transferred first, getting in McClelland (A.L.P.) as third serator, as Murphy

had highest first preference result. Cotton's surplus is transferred next, getting in Carrick (Lib) as

fourth senator for N.S.W.

Then McClelland's surplus is transferred, getting in Mulvihill (A.L.P.) as fifth senator. Carrick's

surplus is then transferred getting in Scott.


20/39


Assuming that the voters have followed the ticket in both these teams, then the 50% of the vote

that the A.L.P. received will get in Murphy, McClelland, Mulvihill, McClelland, & Gietzelt with

Westerway holding 45 votes at the end (using our 1000 sample).

Similarly the Liberal-Country Party ticket will get in Cotton, Carrick, Scott, and Anderson and

will leave Baume holding 53 votes at the end of the transferring of the surpluses.

At this point nine senators have been elected and there are 64 continuing candidates, none of

whom have the quota 91.

Starting with the candidate with least support, and excluding him, the votes accorded to him are

passed on to the continuing candidate indicated next in the voter's preference on these ballot

papers. (As in House of Representatives process)

The candidate with least support is amongst the "others" having a total of six votes in our

sample. All of these will be successively excluded.

Supposing the votes that these had went to the remaining candidates who had substantial first

preference support in the following way: A.L.P. 1; Lib-Cp 1; D.L.P.1; F.A.M. 1; Aust P 1;

Group A 1.

This would mean that the following candidates would be the only ones in the running at this

stage and they would have the following vote tally

Lib-CP Baume 54 votes

A.L.P. Westerway 46 votes

D.L.P. Kane 30 votes

F.A.M. Brown. 20 votesAust P Gilling 18 votes

Group A Malcolm 8 votes

Comm P Mundey 5 votes

Mundey would be the next candidate excluded. Suppose all 5 votes go to the A.L.P. Westerway.

The continuing candidates and score would now be:




F.A.M. Brown. 20 votes

Aust P Gilling 18 votes

Group A Malcolm 8 votes

Malcolm would be next excluded. Assuming 6 of these votes were standard donkey votes, these

would then go to F.A.M. and assuming the other two followed the how-to-vote instructions,

these would also go F.A.M.


21/39


The score would now be




F.A.M. Brown. 28 votesAust P Gilling 18 votes

Gilling would be next excluded. Assuming these go 12 to A.L.P. and 6 to Lib-cp.





F.A.M. Brown. 28 votes

Brown would be next excluded. 6 have come from donkey vote, these would go to D.L.P. 2

were from Group A following how to vote instructions, these would go to Lib-CP. Assuming

the 20 others go 15 to Lib-C and 5 to A.L.P.





Kane would be next excluded. 6 have come from the donkey vote, these would go to the A.L.P.

Assuming of the 30 left, 25 go to the Lib-Cp and 5 go to the A.L.P., the score would now be



Baume has the quota 91 he is elected to the tenth senate seat.

C. Counting for Local Government Council Elections

In this case we are to elect a number of representatives for the one ward, rather than just one

representative for each ward.

In 1974, in some cases (Kiama for instance) the preferential system was used, rather than the

proportional system (the Federal Senate system is the proportional system), to determine the

successful candidates. The counting of the votes to determine the first representative elected is

the same as for the House of Representatives and the State Legislative Assembly election.

To determine who else is elected, all the votes of the candidate already elected have to be used

in the second count.

To be elected, a candidate has to receive the absolute majority of the vote.


22/39


Depending on how many representatives are to be elected from the one vote cast, showing the

voter's preferences for the candidates, the preferences of a candidate already elected may be

used time and again to determine the full composition of the representation for a ward.

Since 1991, it has been open to Councils to decide sizes of wards, how many people represent

wards, and whether the preferential or proportional method of counting is conducted.

In the preferential option, compared to the proportional option, with a very strong lead candidate

and very tight following of how-to-vote cards, a very distorted, and totally unrepresentative

group or bloc can get voted in.

D. Changes since 1974: optional provisions and above and below the line designations for

multiple elections from the one ballot

As noted, since 1974 there have been alterations to the electoral laws, and to how people arerepresented on ballot papers, and whether there are preferences to follow when counting the

vote.

Where there is optional preferential voting and counting for a single person seat, the voter can

choose how many times they want their vote taken into account, and so how they separate, by

preference, the different candidates.

In the NSW Legislative Assembly election, in 2011, there is optional preferential voting and

counting. The voter fills in as many of those preferences as they wish to indicate, and the

returning officer ensures that the preferences on the ballot paper, which the voter filled in, are

followed, until that vote is exhausted and not used any further, or until it is used to counttowards one or other of the final two candidates contesting the seat. As noted previously, an

optional preferential voting count can become a first-past-the-post system, if all voters only

register one preference.

In the NSW Legislative Council election, in 2011, there is optional proportional voting and

counting. Here, to simplify both voting and counting, the instructions usually followed are to

vote for one group, above the line. A voter can choose to allocate preferences, and must show

preferences for at least 15 candidates if voting below the line.

The allocation of votes to candidates follows the process noted above: if a group receives more

than the quota, the top candidate is elected, and surplus votes are passed down to lower positionson the group ticket. Now, at the last stages of the election, when the final votes are needed to be

used to determine the successful candidate, candidates with least votes are excluded, and the

preferences, if any, are distributed to candidates still in the race. If, when all preferences have

been allocated, there are still vacancies to fill, the remaining candidate/s, whether associated

with a group or not, who have the largest numbers of active votes will be elected to fill the

positions still vacant.


23/39


3c. The Electoral System Some Recommendations

It should be realised, by any person wanting to cast an intelligent and responsible vote, that

regardless of what system is being used to count the votes, the most significant stand that you

can take with your vote is to cast a vote which shows, as clearly as you can, your exact

preference between each candidate standing.

It is best to do this regardless of any how-to-vote advice given, since this is often given

irresponsibly, and it is best not to get into the trap of thinking about organising a successful

pattern of preferences.

Regardless of how-to-vote advice, regardless of party statements or candidate statements that

"they are giving their preferences to so-and-so", the electoral officer is required to decide who

wins the election ON THE BASIS OF HOW EACH INDIVIDUAL BALLOT PAPER IS

MARKED, and your ballot paper is marked by you and no-one else.

If a person fills out their ballot paper following how-to-vote advice, then that ballot-paper isdealt with according to that order of preferences.

No candidate can tell the electoral officer what to do. The voter alone tells the electoral officer

what to do.

If the voter decides to tell the electoral officer to do what the party or candidate says to do, by

following the party's how-to-vote instructions when filling out his ballot-paper, then again it

must be clear that it is the voter who tells the electoral officer.

The best support a voter can give any candidate is to give that candidate the number 1 vote.

What every voter should then also realise is, that if the candidate of their first choice is not

elected, then their vote may still be used to find out which of the major contenders is elected.

The other preferences that the voter may award to other candidates cannot help the candidate of

their first choice get in at all, but these other preferences will be significant to the other

candidates, as they will either help or hinder one of those candidates to get in, when these

preferences are used to determine the winner and loser.

3d. Power in a Democracy ...

There are three levels of elected government in our present democracy. These are: Federal

Government, State Government and Local Government.

Federal Government has its powers and responsibilities clearly defined by the Federal

Constitution, agreed to by all the States in 1901 and which has been amended from time to time

since then.

Local Government has its powers and responsibilities clearly defined by the provisions of the

Local Government Act, 1991, as amended from time to time by the N.S.W. State Government.

State Government, by comparison, has a very flexible constitution, being able to "legislate for

the peace, welfare and good government of the State in all matters not specifically reserved to

the commonwealth". (Encyc.Britt.)


24/39


Just as when we looked earlier at the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a democracy,

we found that some rights depended on ability to pay, in the case of the State Government the

execution of its wide responsibilities is most times limited by the funds that it can extract from

the Federal Government (given the current tax reimbursement agreement), and how much else it

can raise from other taxes and charges.

But irrespective of the funds that every level of government is prepared to raise, the power of

every level of government is still limited by what the individual is prepared to accede to that

government.

Democratic power only resides in the legislative body while every citizen accepts the rule of that

legislative body and its law.

Rebellion, be it in the form of individual disobedience, or group civil disobedience, reinforces

the fact that power always lies with each one of us individually. The exercise of that power

depends on our individual responsibility.

Individual disobedience usually has only a small effect on the maintenance of order in the

general community.

(Note: conscientious objectors to conscription, bank robbers who are successful,

individual anti-social snipers)

However, because of the nature of the interdependence of our community, disobedience by

small groups can have much greater repercussions on the maintenance of order in our

community.

(Note (1974 issues): The I.R.A., the Symbionese Liberation Army, Ulster unionists,officers of the electricity commission)

While individual disobedience can be entirely irrational, and unpredictable (e.g. a sniper attack

can come at any time, in any place, without any reason), the opportunity for group disobedience

depends on the establishment of single-mindedness in the group.

This establishment of single-mindedness involves communicating to and convincing the whole

group of the merit of certain action.

If there is not good reason for disobedience in a generally conservative community (and most

communities are generally conservative) then group disobedience is rejected as beingappropriate action.

This then places greater responsibility on the groups seen to be in control. These must ensure

that "good reasons for disobedience" do not occur.

If the controlling body does not discharge its responsibility properly, then it invites anarchy in

the community.

There can be no preventing the eruption of anarchy, but whether the anarchy receives

widespread support or whether it receives widespread condemnation, depends on whether the

general community can also be convinced of the rightness of the cause and the real failure of the


25/39


responsibility of the properly constituted body to discharge its obligations in the matter

producing the need for revolt.

In the event of anarchy being unreasonable, the widespread reaction in the community gives the

responsible body whatever power is needed to subdue these anarchic members of the

community.

3e. Law Enforcement in a Democracy

In our democracy, formulated law serves merely to patch the holes in a leaky dam: to regulate

oppression and opportunism.

In any democracy the strength of the democracy depends on the reliance that we can place on

the individual to discharge his personal responsibility.

In our democracy, if we cannot rely on our local newsagent to be responsible about the material

displayed in the local newsagency for the full range of people that comes into the shop topurchase the available wares, then we are in a very sore predicament.

Our predicament arises because the only answer we appear to have to this, is to insist that our

neighbourhood sergeant exercises what ought to be the newsagent's responsibility, by enforcing

a prescriptive law that permits such and such and prohibits such and such.

This becomes compounded: for how then can we be .sure that this same sergeant will exercise

personal responsibility in a policing duty when it comes to controlling any baser instincts when

questioning an objectionable prisoner, for example?

As soon as our society starts to rely on outside authority to guard us from our weaknesses, wegive more power and responsibility to that body than it should have, and we take away from

ourselves the power and responsibility that we should individually exercise.

The end result of this is subservience to authority and reliance on authority to make our

decisions, for us.

This was judged, at Nuremberg, to be an inappropriate relationship in a civilisation which has

had its humanity enlightened by the love of Christ.

The need for any sort of human rights bill, considering the alternative advantages of persisting

with unlegislated rights and responsibilities as they exist, in common law at present, isquestionable.

Protection of rights that have not needed protection till the time of litigation can be established

readily by precedent, providing the judiciary is prepared to accept this responsibility.


26/39


3f. Liberalisation of the Law Today ...

The pressure for liberalisation of the law today can be seen to have three important aspects.

These are:

(1) by liberalising the law we hand back responsibility for behaviour to the individual,

rather than having it and leaving it with some institutionalised organisation

(2) by liberalising the law we can relieve the oppression of conformity to a single pattern

of behaviour, releasing the oppression of some minorities within the community.

(3) by liberalising the law we accede to the general unwillingness (in individual aril

institutional life) to accept any responsibility at all, particularly refusing to accept the

responsibility for past actions or corporate actions

Liberalisation of the law can appear to be justified in that

(1) it can be seen as a step to counter and reduce corruption and the opportunity for

corruption in the law enforcement officers.

(2) it can be seen as a step to counter civil disobedience that may arise because of the

reluctance of the community in general to accept the harshness of the law,(3) it can be seen as a way out of the problem of enforcing the law when large numbers

of people are disobeying the law. More people have to be trained in investigatory and

enforcement procedures to try and cope with the increased incidence of the breaking of

laws The opportunity and incidence of corruption of the law enforcing body becomes

greater. The inequity between these 'caught' and those who 'escape' detection is not lost

on the general community, either.

(4) it acknowledges that the oppression of minorities is no longer acceptable in a

pluralist society.

(5) it can be seen as a necessary step to reduce the power and need for the bureaucratic

structures typifying our present way of life, and in giving back power to the individual

makes his corporate contribution more meaningful and more valuable.

The trap in liberalisation of the law lies in human nature. Present day philosophies of life have

led to the consideration of the rightness of an action depends on the circumstances surrounding

the action: there is no absolute right and wrong.

This philosophy, in its positive stances can demand very deep individual responsibility. On its

negative side the individual is considered to be responsible for self only, and self alone.

When our human nature has a habit of taking what it wants and forgetting the rest, we get the

following result:

The fault or responsibility for a sexually transmitted disease (STD) lies with thetransmitter: If I catch STD then it is the responsibility of the person who had it with

whom I had intercourse. If I transmit STD to someone else, then I am responsible for

that person's getting STD

The antithesis: the fault or responsibility for STD always lies with the recipient: If I

catch STD from someone then it's my fault for having had intercourse with them. If I

transmit STD to another, then that is the other's responsibility since that person had

intercourse with me.

The natural tendency in human nature is to shift the blame: If I catch STD then it's the other

person's fault because they had it first. If I transmit STD it's the other person's problem, since

they chose to have intercourse with me.


27/39


Whereas when we individually accept our responsibility for all that we do, we are placed in the

position: If I contract STD it is my fault as I was the one having intercourse. If I transmit STD, it

is my responsibility as I was the one having intercourse.

When laws are liberalised each and every one of us is given the opportunity to reject

responsibility. The consequence of this is that the value of another person then comes to lie only

in how useful that person is to me.

Another person has no responsibility to discharge with respect to their relationship with me.

Likewise I have no responsibility to discharge towards that person. It's up to that person to look

after themself, I'll look after myself.

With law liberalised, neither of us has any recourse to an outside body to arbitrate in the event of

either one of us failing to reciprocate mutual responsibilities.


28/39


4 CHRISTIAN BELIEFS IN POLITICAL ACTION

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as

doves. Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their

synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony

before them and the Gentiles. When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are tospeak or what you are to say for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; for it is

not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you."

Matthew 10:16-20

"I appeal to you, brethren, by the mercies of God to present your bodies as a living sacrifice,

holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world

but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God,

what is good and acceptable and perfect."

Romans 12:1,2

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to yourcall, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and

through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's

gift. .... And his gifts were that soma should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some

pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for building

up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son

of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so that we

may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the

cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, me are

to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,..."

Ephesians 4:4-15


29/39


4a. Christian in Role as Voter ...

There are no separate compartments in Christian life. We bring glory to God just as much by the

way we pray, as by the way we eat. And likewise, as we vote, we must consider our

responsibility to God and how our vote is honouring to Him. (1)

Our responsibility, particularly to our weaker brethren, is also expressed in what we do with our

vote, since our vote determines the kinds of temptations that the world can bring. The form of

these temptations are subtle as well as plain. They can be temptations to commit sexual

misdemeanours. They can be temptations to right injustice by violence and the use of political

and military force. (2)

We also discharge our responsibility as a witness to the world in the way we handle our

responsibility to vote.

And when elections come around, what opportunities there are given to us to speak a word in

season! When all others are calling the community and its behaviour to account, what is ourjudgement and the reasons for our judgement? (3)

Our responsibility in a democracy does not end with our vote either. We have a continuing

responsibility to remain aware of the issues being dealt with in the parliamentary chamber, and a

continuing responsibility to let our representatives know our judgement of the issues. (4)

We are, after all, the salt of the earth, and if the salt has lost its taste it is good for nothing, and

men throw it away. (5)

Where there is no prophecy the people perish, where there is no prophecy the people cast off

restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law. (6)

If the prophecy has been entrusted to some of us, how great is our responsibility to tell of it. (7)

(1) 1Corinthians 10:31; Matthew 6:9,10

(2) Ephesians 6:12

(3) 1 Peter 3:15; 2 Timothy 4:2; 1 John 4:1; Galatians 5:19-24

(4) Ephesians 5:11

(5) Matthew 5:13; Luke 14:34

(6) Proverbs 29:18

(7) Ephesians 4:11-14; Romans 10:14-17

See also 2c. Christian Responsibility

4.b. Christian in Role as Legislator

As well as the three responsibilities considered already, a Christian parliamentarian has

additional responsibilities, because of the special position of honour associated with the role.

In this position the Christian must be very careful of the witness given, as a teacher and role

model, to children and to the brethren, and must be very wary of hypocrisy. (1)

In this position a Christian is not necessarily required to make an absolute stand on the letter of

the law, partly because in our Christian lives we are called on to go beyond the letter of the law,

and respond to the intent of the law. (2)


30/39


However, we have some comfort, if in this responsible position we allow the relaxing of the law,

for in making the law, Moses had to consider man's nature. (3)

Christ here, and elsewhere, does not insist that Moses' less stringent law be revoked. Rather

Christ re-affirms the intent of the law, and reminds us that there is no opportunity for escape

from the condemnation. But Christ also goes further in his actions, he was more concerned with

releasing people from the power of the law, by demonstrating his power to forgive them for their

sins. (4)

In the non-Christian community, a Christian legislator can consider the value of the law in the

community, considering the nature of the unredeemed community and its needs. A Christian still

has the responsibility to teach others of the better law and of the power of Christ to forgive sin

and give us power to overcome our natural disobedience. (5)

(1) Matthew 18:1-14; Romans 12 - 15; Matthew 5:19; Matthew 23: 1-4, 23; Luke 6:39-

42(2) Matthew 5:17-48; 1Corinthians 5:12

(3) Matthew 19:3-12, particularly v8

(4) Matthew 19:3-12; John 8:3-11; Luke 5:17-26; Luke 19:2-10

(5) 1Corinthians 5-12; Romans 7:21 - 8:4

See also 2c. Christian responsibility

4.3 The Christian and the Conservative

Christian concern in political matters seems to have erupted on our local scene from the time

that it appeared that a non-conservative government would take power in Australia.

The Christian response to this change of government must be very carefully considered in the

light of the latent hypocrisy that exists in conservatism.

The hypocrisy of the conservative lies in the fact that conservatism protects an established

status, and that is the real reason for the strength of conservatism.

The fact that the law, in some or all respects, may be good is immaterial. The law, by the same

token, may be bad in some or all respects. It makes no difference to the conservative.

The conservative is not interested in judging goodness or equity. The conservatives only real

concern is for the maintenance of established status a source of personal security.

And such is the nature of humanity that, in general, we all fear insecurity and so there will be as

much conservatism in the people of 'low' status as there will be in people whom we can judge to

have a vested interest in maintaining their 'high' status.

We have only to look at the gospel story to see the nature of conservatism when it does not have

the mind of Christ in it, and to see the consequences of this mindless assurance of rightness.

The conflict that Christ had with the Pharisees was a result of the gospel challenging the

conservatively held beliefs of that time, the fact that Christ taught with authority and this

authority challenged the status of the Pharisee.


31/39


And it is important to note the way that Christ handled some of the challenges that were

presented to him to take his radicalism, his new teaching, into the political field and into the

field of liberalising the law!

Christ was radical and he was conservative, and as we look at the record of Christ's actions and

as we look at the record of what he had to say, we can see:

what he was radical about and why what he was conservative about and why and so what is the complete picture for man and why

And when we have completed this task, we too will be able to launch out into the deep with

confidence and take on our reforming role, starting first in Jerusalem with the people of God and

then going out to the rest of the world. (1)

(1) Luke 5:1-11; Luke 24:47

Christ's approach to the old teaching:Matthew 5, 6, 7

Christ's healing ministry challenged:

Matthew 9:1-8; Matthew 9:32-34; Matthew 12:9-14; Matthew 12:22-32; Luke 13:10-17;

John 5:1-18

Christ's behaviour challenged:

Matthew 9:10-13; Matthew 9:14-17; Matthew 12:1-8; Matthew 15:1-9; Matthew 21:23-

27; Mark 7:1-13; Luke 7:36-50; Luke 11:37-52; Luke 15; Luke 19:1-9; John 2:1 3-22

Christ's attitude to the law challenged:

Matthew 19:3-9; Matthew 22:34-40; John 9:1-41; John 8:3-11

Christ's political stance challenged:

Matt 22 :15-23; . Luke 13:31-35Christ's condemnation of the Pharisees:

Matthew 23

Conservative Pharisee attitude to the Law:

Mark 3:4; Mark 7:9-13

Their answer to Christ:

Mark 3:6; Mark 14:10,11; Luke 11 :53-55; Luke 20:20; John 7:32-52; John 11:45-53

The Consequence:

John 18, 19

4d. The Christian and the Radical ...

God's holiness is in basic conflict with man's sin, and the compounding effect of individual sin

in community life has always been and will always be under God's judgement. (1)

The flood and Noah; Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot and Abraham; the Israelites in the

wilderness; the cities of perversion in Canaan as the Israelites came into their inheritance all

these are part of the pattern showing God's judgement. (2)

But these records show more than just judgement. They also show how God has used men and

women of faith. Such people have been saved from the judgement not because of their

righteousness, but because of their faith and they have then been used by God to carry on theirfaithful work amongst the next generation. (3)


32/39


The Holy Spirit has persistently used individuals to play the role of conscience in the

community, continually calling on people to change their ways. (4)

Christian radicalism has its first aspect in this preaching of God's word the calling of people to

repentance to change their relationship with God. This comes first. (5)

Radicalism that is based on any ideology that does not acknowledge God as the only source of

this power to change the nature of man is barren and worthless. (6)

By the same token preaching without doing and showing is not true religion. (7)

So, when we are judging what it is we want to change, we must also judge why we want this

changed, and further, we must also judge the means by which we will endeavour to bring about

the change.

Our guidelines by which we can judge these matters lies with the testing of the fruits it yields.

(8)

Any radical change suggested, any actions chosen to bring about these changes, are to be tested.

If they do not yield the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,

faithfulness, gentleness, self-control then they are to be shunned. (9)

And we cannot neglect this attitude of judgement of all that we are doing, as it is part of our

responsibility to the nature of our religion, part of our responsibility to the witness that we bring

to Christ's name. (10)

We have the help of the Spirit of truth in all our works. (11)

And we cannot shy away from radical change firstly in ourselves and then in the community of

God's people because this transforming is part and parcel of presenting ourselves as living

sacrifices ... our spiritual worship. (12)

(1) Deuteronomy 6, 7, 8

(2) Genesis 6, 7, 8, 9; Genesis 18:16-19:29; Numbers 14; Joshua 6, 7, 8

(3) Genesis 6:8, 9, 22; 7:5; 8:1; Genesis 18:19; Numbers 14:36-38; Deuteronomy 31: 1-

8; Hebrews 11, 12

(4) 1 Samuel 8:10-18; 1 Kings 18; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel and the other prophets;

Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17

(5) Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Deuteronomy 10:12-22(6) Psalm 127:1

(7) Matthew 5:17-20; Matthew 23:1-3; James 2:14-26

(8) Matthew 7:15-20; 1 John 4:1; Galatians 5:16-26

(9) Galatians 5:16-26; 1 Corinthians 5:9-11; 2 Thessalonians 3:6

(10) 1 Peter 2:11, 12; 1 Peter 3:13-17; James 1:22-27; Titus 1:16

(11) Matthew 10:16-23; John 14:1 5-17; John 15:26-27; John 16:4-15

(12) Romans 12 :1-8

Note : The term 'radical' is often misused in media reporting, and is taken to mean

'extremist' and/or 'revolutionary' where the term also implies violence.

'Radical' in fact refers to 'going to the root of', the essential, the fundamental.


33/39


When we go to the 'root of things we inevitably find that God's original law is true- so

we are radical and then must be conservative of the original.

4e. Christians together as a Pressure Group

Each individual Christian has a strength that is given by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that

will take the Christian through every event and every kind of testing. (1)

The Christian community is a body, with many different parts and in the fullness of God's grace

the oneness of a Christian group, will have a consistent witness of works over a period of time.

This witness acts in the secular world as the leaven in the lump, leavening the whole. (2)

[Impurity in the Christian community can work as leaven in the same way; and this is why the

Christian community is called to be ever aware of the wrongdoers and those whose fruits are not

of the Spirit and to be ready to call them to repentance, or in the event of their refusing to repent

then we must be ready to cast them out of the midst of the Christian community.(3)]

The pattern of the Christian community given in the letters to the Churches in the New

Testament is that the role of fellowship is to strengthen the individuals or the twos and threes

who are then sent out to perform a particular task in the community. The group is there for the

encouragement of the individuals, to give them the balance of other aspects of our spiritual

worship, to give them the knowledge that there are other tasks that others are doing. All this

helps the individual by making sure that the separate tasks do not become an overwhelming

burden, or the all consuming passion. (4)

(1) Matthew 10:16-23; John 14:15-31; John 16:1-15; 1 Corinthians 10:12,13

(2) Ephesians 4:4-16; 1 Corinthians 12,13; Luke 13:20,21

(3) 1 Corinthians 5:6-8; 1 John 4:1; Galatians 5:16-25; 1 Corinthians 5:9-13; Revelation2:12-29; Matthew 18:15-22

(4) 1 Peter 4:7-11; Philippians 4:14-20; Acts 2:43-47; Acts 6:1-7

Pressure groups have become part of our political life in Australia. Pressure groups have the role

of bringing particular issues to the attention of the decision-makers. They can get a fairly quick

response in a political scene that is becoming increasingly slow to respond to new community

needs.

By hastening the decision-making and by demonstrating that the system is responsive, they help

defuse situations which could otherwise break the democracy.

Pressure groups, like political parties, can be seen to have an effect in the political forum

because of their singlemindedness, a feature of the effectiveness of the totalitarian system.

The effectiveness of the Women's Electoral Lobby, the primary industries lobby, the Australian

industries lobby, the A.C.T.U., the conservation lobby, and the Family Action Movement (1974)

can be seen to stem from the fact that they are taking a stance for one particular section of the

community, for one particular problem, that can be solved in one particular way.

Our political and social institutions have been allowed to become so big and unwieldy that this

would appear to be the only way to handle the situation.


34/39


One problem that arises when political responsibility is only seen in terms of response to the

pressure groups that are active, is that the inarticulate, the unorganised sectors of our community

can be even more readily ignored.

The problem that arises when a community does not have some overall goal which enables us to

discriminate between different pressures and give some pressures priority and ignore other

pressures, is that the political structures becomes purely reactionary, and the society does not

move towards any observable goal at all.

When Christ was asked which of the laws was the greatest, which of our responsibilities had the

greatest priority, his answer made it quite clear that legalism and itemising and singling out one

area of life is not sufficient ... and our righteousness has to exceed that of the Pharisees. (1)

Given this, I cannot see how Christians can justify working through a typical pressure group

structure.

(1) Matthew 22:34-40; Matthew 5:17-20

The Christian community has accepted organisation and has accepted the kind of ways that the

world uses to get things done as the pattern for its own actions.

The Christian community must realise that, yes, these methods are effective to a point. The

Christian community must also judge why these methods are effective and then ask itself the

question: do these methods yield the fruit of the Spirit ?

Instead of conforming to the ways of the world, the Christian community should take hold of the

tremendous encouragement that the work of the Spirit is such that it cannot be bounded by

human institutions. (1)

Christians wanting to bring value back into their Christian community life and their secular

community life should challenge our present structures and their limitations.

We must preach again of the power of the Holy Spirit that works, renewing our lives without the

support of these structures. (2).

We must, with the Holy Spirit in the midst of our Christian community, find the kind of fulfilled

community life that is promised to us. (3)

We can then share this with the secular community which is finding even more and more of itsindividual and corporate life becoming even less and less fulfilling.

(1) Romans 12:1,2; Acts 2:43-47; Acts 17:6

(2) Romans 8:18-27; Ephesians 4:17-24

(3) Ephesians 4:4-24; John 17: 20-26; John 15:1-11

Apart from this fundamental disagreement with the Family Action Movement (1974), there are

other areas where we as Christians must seriously challenge the activity of the Family Action

Movement.


35/39


We can, for one thing, assess how effective their stance has been in the political sense. Since

they are taking this kind of political pressure to other political parties, we can ask: How effective

have they been ?

My opinion is that the Family Action Movement has not been effective, and my criticism in this

respect is twofold:

Firstly, a pressure group which stands for political office, on a Christian base, which accepts, as

proper, the tactics that perpetuate political slavery in our democracy must be questioned very

seriously.

The political slavery that exists in our Australian democracy comes from our acceptance of two

party government as being the only workable government, accepting that only the two parties

can have the power to provide solutions to political problems.

The Family Action Movement bowed to this kind of slavery by issuing a how-to-vote card that

treated the two major parties in an even-handed way.

Political slavery also comes from our lack of knowledge of how to use our personal power.

Our personal power exists, among other things, in our power of absolute choice in our individual

vote. If we don't know how to use this to the greatest advantage, then we exist in political

slavery to those who maintain they do know and who would advise us how to use this power

and who would keep us copying out how-to-vote recommendations, this being the easier

alternative to a long term education program.

The Family Action Movement pandered to the lack of knowledge and the unwillingness to

accept our individual responsibility to find out how, something we all share, by issuing a how-to-vote card.

My second criticism lies with the fact that having taken the step to stand on a particular issue,

being prepared to issue recommendations to those who wished to express the same point of view

and advising how they should vote to support this issue, the Family Action Movement did not

have the moral integrity or courage to distinguish between all other candidates on this issue and

did not draft a how-to-vote card which would have reflected this assessment.

The Family Action Movement has taken a political stance. It cannot draw back from the

responsibilities inherent in that stance.

The how-to-vote advice was spurious on two counts. It did not really attack either or both major

parties for their stance on the issues the Family Action Movement chose to take exception to;

and, in essence, because of the nature of tho electoral system used to determine a Senate

election, the advice was dangerous.

Catching first preference votes undermines the chances of the last couple of candidates on the

major party tickets.

When it comes round to excluding the smaller groups and individual candidates in the order in

which they have received first preference support, the ones with least support being excluded

first, the A.L.P. had ensured that should their last candidate have been excluded, then any left-

over of their vote would go to the group supporting A.L.P. policy, namely the Australia Party.


36/39


The Family Action Movement, in reflecting this advice in its how-to-vote recommendations

could have found that its preferences would have helped to ensure that any Labor vote that it

captured was not in fact lost by the Labor party, as it would have gone to support the election of

the Australia Party candidate.

Where the stand of a group or an individual does not ensure that the main group or person being

stood against loses votes, there has been no real stand against that group at all ... and political

parties know this, even if naive Christ

christ's people and society, 1974, 2011

Documents