The refrain in this story is what bugs me most about would be theocrats such as United Future; not the fact that so-called Christian political parties in New Zealand have adopted the stealth tactics that allowed Ralph Reed and company to take over the Republican party in the US, but rather the claim that religious fundamentalists represent a Christian presence; phrases such as “But many Christians long to see a greater Christian representation in Parliament” are a nonsense - there is already a huge representation of MPs of Christian background (one might argue over-representation). Most of those MPs, while doubtless informed in their world view by their faith, have the mildly secular outlook which permeates New Zealand life generally.
No, there is no lack of Christian representation in New Zealand politics. What upsets the Graham Lees and Graham Capills of this world is that it is, to their mind, the wrong sort of Christian. Perhaps a little tolerant. Certainly not people who think that, say, homosexuality should be criminalised, or that a woman’s place is in the home. Not people who think New Zealand ought to be a theocracy where law is selected from Biblical passages, preferably Old Testament ones (though it should be pointed out that those laws would seem to be pretty carefully selected, since candidates such as former Police Commissioner Jamieson who seems to have some absurd bee in his bonnet about homosexuality seems uninterested in Biblical injunctions against usury and for slavery).
So let us not concede some sort of legitimacy to New Zealand’s own little Taliban wannabes. They are free to call themselves Christians, and I’m sure they believe their perverted messages of oppression and bigotry are the teachings of Christ; but they have no stranglehold on the title, and other Christians—those who focus more on Christ’s teachings of love, peace, humility, and being wary of one’s own fallibility—do not deserve the indignity of having the authenticity of their beliefs questioned by the label being usurped.
