The Gospel According to Joe.

Joe ("I pop into church irregularly and say G'day to God") Hockey has just given his thoughts on religion, faith and the Supreme Being in a speech titled In Defence of God. In it, Mr Hockey identifies himself as a Christian (Joe was raised within Catholicism) and then proceeds to dismantle Biblical Christianity. He has allowed himself to be infused with the world's ideal faith; a blend of religious syncretism and tolerance. The Gospel According to Joe has caused quite a stir today in the press, and even the Catholic blogs. Why? Read on ...

Many of our overseas readers need to know that Joe Hockey is one of Australia's most popular conservative politicians. By virtue of his long running appearances opposite our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on the Channel 7 Sunrise program, the Liberal Party's 'Shadow Treasurer' has become a household name and one of the few politicians to get slaps on the back when he makes public appearances.

People love him. They think he's a good bloke.

Many think he will one day take over as opposition leader and perhaps, even become a future Prime Minister of Australia. That makes his views on God all the more important.

Last night (Nov 9th, 2009), Joe appeared at the Sydney Institute, a lively and sometimes provocative forum for a variety of speakers who offer challenging ideas. His sweat laden speech was titled In Defence of God. Joe did not defend God at all, at least not the Biblical God whom Christians believe can be known through His Word. He offered up 'the god' our society has constructed from a smorgasbord of religions on offer, all of which we are told have some valuable contribution to make to this new faith.

Let me be clear about this. Joe Hockey has described a god who is basically just a bigger version of himself. This god thinks and acts in every way the same as Joe. He is a god who demonstrates the good ethical teachings of all the world's religions and who eschews the 'radical' elements of each.

Guess who the radical elements are? You got it; anyone who is not 'tolerant' of all the other teachings. And, by the way, 'tolerance' does not mean putting up with persecution or accepting that the real God is in complete control despite the world's problems. This tolerance means you must endorse every teaching or practice as equally true and valid. Except the radical parts, that is (of course).

For example, when it comes to Islam, Joe says Muslims are really no different to us; they just have a few nutters in their ranks who insist on blowing people up. These are the radicals giving Islam a bad name and should be silenced.

When it comes to Christianity, it is basically good and everyone should find acceptance with it, except for the few ratbags who insist on reading the Bible literally. These are the Christian radicals who give the rest a bad name and they should be ignored.

When Joe says 'literal' he is not talking about those who believe in a 1000 year millennium as opposed to those who see it as an era. He is referring to Christians who believe in the plain teaching of Scripture whether we like what it says or not. Creation, Adam & Eve, Noah, Jonah; all examples Joe gives of what we should not really believe in - in terms of actual existence in any historical sense. Otherwise we would have to apply all of the sanctions of the Mosaic Law to our own time, including what to do with "footballers playing with a ball made of pig-skin or his wife for wearing cloth made from different threads" (a reference to an episode of The West Wing where fundamentalist Christians were ridiculed).

Joe continues,

'And let me be clear, the Holy Koran does not extol Muslims to bomb buildings. God does not march off to war supporting one nation over another or the persecution of those of different creeds and colour. My God does not discriminate against women, nor favour first born children over others. And nor does God support one political party over another.'

Perhaps we could excuse Joe for not knowing his Old Testament where God very definitely 'chooses' one child over another to carry the Messiah's line (and usually not the first born by the way Joe!). Is Romans Chapter 9 in your Bible Joe?

But Joe reveals his true colours with this statement;

'It is not a loving God that willfully inflicts pain and suffering. No God of any mainstream religion would do that if God’s love is real.'

In Joe's attempt to preach love and peace, he has unwittingly pulled the rug out from under the gospel. The pain and suffering Jesus experienced while on earth may have come at the hands of evil men, but it was very definitely part of God's pre-determined plan. 

This fact cannot be ignored; for to be a Christian, we must accept that God sent His Son to die for our sins - literally and historically. This is not trivia - this is a matter of life and death.

No doubt Joe Hockey was referring to the evil acts of terror men inflict on one another in God's name all around the world, but he cannot help but throw the baby out with the bath water. Where there is no belief in the plain teaching of the Bible, there is no sin. Where there is no sin, there is no evil. Where there is no evil, the gospel is not needed. Not surprisingly, the death and resurrection of Jesus does not rate a mention in Joe's 'Defence of God'.

Joe Hockey's view is that we should all agree not to do evil (even though voting for the abortion pill - RU846 - as Joe did, was not, apparently, 'evil') and take the nice things from each world religion (which, after all, are basically cultural practices) and the world will live in peace. This is the world of Joe Hockey's vision - the Gospel According to Joe.

In the 1930's H. Richard Niebuhr (Yale University) described the liberal message of his day this way: " A God without wrath brought men without sin into a world without judgement through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

This is also the god of Joe Hockey's making. A god who looks remarkably similar to himself.