Your Say

Comment left by Anthony A very well written piece Russell. I think you have struck an excellent balance between the recogition that we all fail and the need to extend grace and forgiveness, but the need also for accountability, integrity and a willingness not to minimize the seriousness of such failures. This is true for all of us but especially true for those who are currently in or aspire to leadership in whatever capacity. As John Maxwell suggests, leadership is influence. And we want all leaders (especially those who profess to be Jesus followers) to lead in a manner that will bless and benefit all.

Comment left by DB The whole incident left me with a deep sense of sadness. Sadness at Rudd’s actions, yes, but also sadness at the response of some. We all err from time to time and while politicians are leaders - as are pastors, business leaders, etc - they, just like the rest of us, will, at times, sin. There has been no suggestion that Rudd’s behaviour is habitual or repeated - it was a one-off lapse so far as I've heard. He has paid a price for his sin and no doubt will continue to do so - it certainly hasn’t just been shrugged off, even though as Russell says apparently most Australians aren’t bothered by his actions. Whether I intend voting for Rudd or not, this incident will not change my intention - there are, as Russell has alluded to above, important political issues at stake. I don’t expect Rudd or any other politician to be perfect - there’s bound to be some things in their past they regret (as there are in mine) and Christians aren't immune to this. But it does remind me that I need to be praying for Christians in leadership, particularly in politics, for God to give them strength. For me, Jim Wallace’s response is worth noting: "Obviously it might affect the perception of him with some people. In reality, we all know that none of us are perfect. I think it's a case of let he who is without sin cast the first stone. We are all fallible. Christianity is about trying to follow the example of Christ and we all fail in that from time to time. That would be our view regardless of which side of politics someone is on." It is hard to keep that balance between acknowledging the sin and the fact that we all walk in grace and it’s something that we Christians have in the past not been very good at doing. This incident underlines the fact that it’s something we still need to work on.

Comment left by JKR Thanks Russell for the article. The natural tendency of many Christian to support conservative politicians before Labor politicians could blur some of our thoughts on this incident. Rudd did it 4 years ago. It seems to have been a once off slip. The very next day he rang his wife and admitted the error he had made. He did not try to hide his sin. He has not repeated the action. That all adds up to repentance and remorse in my book. And if we cant get over someone's once off slip from years ago, especially when they repent and dont hide their sin, and dont repeat it - then we are being extremely judgmental. Let's think about the sin. Did he sleep with another woman? Have a fling? An affair? No. But he did sin nonetheless, but in a less consequential way on a human level. Ok... lets think about how we would treat a pastor who did this. Or who sinned more seriously (from the human consequence point of view). If a pastor had a once off affair and in a fit of carnality, slept with another woman, but then immediately repented and admitted to it - what would happen? He would probably be put under mentoring and stepped aside for a set number of years, and watched to see if it recurred or was a once off foolish mistake. But Rudd did not sin to that degree. He went into a strip club. He has had four years since to show what he is really like. We would not hold a once off sin of that level, against someone in ministry in most churches 4 years later, as disbarring the person from ministering again - not if there was immediate repentance, admission, remorse and a changed life evidenced by 4 years of non-repeat behaviour. I think we need to put this into perspective. As one of our senators said: 4 years ago, Rudd, drunk, went into a strip joint. 4 years ago, Howard, sober, took Australia into Iraq (a war that has killed nearly a million civilians now). Who committed the greater moral failure? Another thought: Rudd had admitted his sin. He has repented, called himself an idiot, confessed. Howard still justifies the slaughter of civilians. Who is the tax collector and who is the Pharisee in the parable Jesus told here? If Mr Howard had done the very same thing, I honestly do NOT believe the Christian church would be talking about it for as long. We would talk about it, briefly, and then get over it quickly. We would quickly emphasise grace and forgiveness. After all, Howard is a conservative in the Liberal Party. Conservative Christians dont find fault with conservative politicians actions as quickly as we do the Labor (or other left of center) party members. My last comment on this: how did it even become known a few months before an election? Who paid whom to dig up the mud and then give it to the Coalition to fling? Going to a strip bar is sin. Yes. But so it pulling down others and undermining fellow Christians for selfish reasons. The way we accept this happening, even between Christian politicians, saddens me too. We accept some sin without a second thought. "That's just what politicians do". Not good enough for Christians politicians, sorry. If Christians in politics need to set a better example by not going to strip bars, they also need to set better examples by not being mud-slinging gossips who undermine each others ministry.

Comment left by James Ferguson I totally agree with DB and JKR. Russell's article, while articulate and sincere, follows a wayward line of Christian thinking that goes back to the apostle Peter asking Jesus how many times he must forgive someone who sins against him but then repents. Jesus answer: "Seventy times seven" or we might read "More than you can count." While he begins by acknowledging Jesus command to "judge not", Russell, like so many others before him, then sets about to all but nullify that command. Jesus words become "Judge not, unless he's a leader" or implicitly "Judge not, unless its a sexual sin" and so on and so on. There is some legitimate debate over how Christians should respond to those who do not recognize their wrong doing or who refuse to repent since that's not dealt with explicitly. There's also a tenuous line of argument that Russell tries to tap into that says, "Judge not, but that doesn't mean you have to trust them again." It seems funny to me that even the Christians the world accuses of taking the Bible "too literally" (whatever that means) routinely refuse to take the sermon on the mount literally. While they throw around words like literalism and fundamentalism, the thing I think most annoys the man in the street most about conservative Christians is their selectivity. Why do we loose all faith in Rudd over one visit to a strip club, proclaim our moral outrage and doubt the genuiness of his faith but treat as non-moral issues the pre-emptive Iraq war, "children overboard", the AWB bribery scandal, and other cases of deceit, warmongering and corruption - issues much more central to good government. Rudd sinned and immediately repented and hasn't repeated the error since. The Coalition government have been caught in an increasing number of scandals and as their rein has gone on have increasingly refused to apologize or properly investigate and deal with wrongdoing within government. Of course Rudd has the benefit of being relatively new in the role and not having had the responsibilities of his opponents. Nevertheless it would be a one-eyed commentator indeed who could say Rudd is a moral failure and call the Howard government squeaky clean. Russell pointedly avoids any comparisons in his article which seems strange in a political commentary. The question here is one of character. Rudd has been blemished but so have his opponents and many of them remain unrepentant. But as Russell notes elections are decided on policy as well as character and much of both remains to be revealed. jf

Comment left by Jonathon Is it fair to say that Rudd's actions are sin only in God's eyes? Are we a little above ourselves to think that "we" ought to offer him forgiveness, when he has not wronged anyone but himself and his wife? Possibly, possibly not. If he is a sincere follower of Christ the matter is between him and his Father and immediate brothers and sisters in Christ. To use words like "repentance" and "forgiveness" in the context of politics seems a little out of place since this is a matter for the world to deal with outside of his personal faith. Personally I do not condemn him because if he is not outspokenly christian (some may say he is but it is not always easy to judge the depth and sincerity of people in the spotlight like this) we cannot subject him to the rules of the Kingdom of heaven. I think it is only right however in the wordly context to judge him by his actions to determine his probable suitability for what ever position of responsibility he my obtain to, and that grace ought not to be applyed in the worldy context, but that intense scrutiny of evidenced competence and personal character must be applied. The electorate shares as much responsibility for the ultimate state of the nation as the elected members. We get what we deserve.

Discuss this article. Name: Message: Enter your name and message to make a comment. Due to recent spam problems, all messages are moderated and may take 24 hours to appear.