Some years ago, it was popular to wear a rubber wristband with the initials W.W.J.D which stood for What Would Jesus Do. The idea was that this would serve as a reminder for Christians that when faced with a decision or situation that called for a moral decision, they should stop and think about what Jesus would do in this situation.

Many situations arise today that are hard to really define clearly, since they are situations that Jesus himself would not have faced in the first Century in the Holy Land. There have been many attempts by (in my mind) over zealous fundamentalists to answer questions based upon a small number of Bible verses that seem relevant. A good example of this is the “commandment” that many Christians observe in regards to getting tattooed. This is based upon a single reference in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:28) which says “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves. I am the Lord” I don’t propose to discuss this matter in detail here, but suffice it to say that I do not believe that this is a hard and fast law prohibiting Christians from getting tattoos. It was written for a different culture and different times and cannot be directly applied today. However many Christians still frown upon others who have chosen to get tattooed.

The question I DO wish to address today is in relation to voting. In Australia this month, we are being asked to vote upon an amendment to the Constitution of Australia which (in summary) would give Aboriginal Australian and Torres Strait Island descendants a voice to speak to the (almost exclusively white) Parliament of Australia on matters that affect them. And so it made me ask the question “How would Jesus Vote?”

Now Jesus lived in a very different time and culture to 21st Century Australia. Indeed, the concept of “voting” is not something that he would have experienced. The culture back then was not a democracy. His land was being run by the Romans and the Church in a kind of uneasy stand-off, and at no time, would he have been asked to vote for the next Prime Minister or Priest. It just wouldn’t have been in his mindset. So how can we decide WWJD in respect to the Referendum on The Voice in 2023?

Well, I believe we can read the stories in the Gospels which were written about the time and life of Jesus and try to work out what his response would have been.

There are many cases where we can see Jesus’ humanity coming to the surface. In his first miracle (John 2:1-11) we hear that he turned water into wine at a wedding. Many believe that this counters the modern-day insistence upon abstinence of alcohol that some denominations preach. Further we read that at the Last Supper, he gave his disciples wine to drink as a representation of His own blood as a way to remind them of Him, following his execution. Again, this is not the time for a detailed analysis of this concept, but suffice it to say that I believe Jesus would be happy for us to drink wine IN MODERATION, if he were here today. He would not be happy to condone drink driving or Domestic Violence as a result of alcohol abuse.

Jesus showed tremendous caring towards those who were sick or put down in society. We read in numerous Biblical accounts that he healed the sick, sent his Disciples out to heal others in His name, and He even raised the dead. In the shortest verse of the Bible (John 11:35) we read that “Jesus wept” about the death of his friend who had died, even though (presumably) He knew that He would later raise him from the dead.

He told parables also that illustrated his attitude to others. The story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) tells about a man travelling from Jerusalem to Jericho who was attacked and beaten by robbers. A priest and Levite pass by and do not offer any assistance. They are the people who you might expect to help this man, but for various reasons (again, not for this chapter) they do not. Instead, the man is helped by a Samaritan. Now the Samaritans were despised enemies of the Jews, but yet this man saw a need and reached out to a fellow human and went above and beyond the call of duty to help him.

So how does this all relate to the referendum in Australia, you might ask. Well, my simplistic understanding is that a group of people (the First Nations) feel that they do not have a voice to speak to our Parliament about matters that affect them and this referendum, if successful would give them that voice. To me, it’s fairly clear how Jesus would respond. I don’t believe He would say “No, you may not have a voice” That just doesn’t resonate with the way that I believe Jesus cares for all people. If he saw someone or a group of people being down-trodden, He would have gone out of His way to help them. Read the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) Her accusers were ready to deliver a sentence of death on this woman, but instead he simply said “Let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone” (verse 7) We then read that her accusers left one by one and in verse 11, we read that Jesus Himself forgave the woman and told her to sin no more.

I don’t believe He would say “No”

Now many arguments have been raised during the course of the campaigning for this referendum. As usual in political questions, there has been a fair amount of deception. Allow me to discuss some of the issues raised.

1. The proposed change to the constitution is vague
2. Not all of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders want this change
3. If we say Yes it will open the door for land and rights to be taken away from non Aboriginal people.
4. We already help these people. Why should we give them more?
5. Things like this have been tried before and have not worked.
6. We don’t trust the Government

The proposed change to the constitution is vague

Looking at these in turn. The proposed change to the constitution is vague. Well, I believe this is intentional. The change does not prescribe exactly what form The Voice would take. That is a matter to be decided afterwards. Suffice it to say that the intent seems to be that a body made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people will have the ability to speak to the Government on issues that affect them. It is fully in keeping with the rest of our constitution, which gives guidelines to be followed and enacted by the Government through the passing of law.

Not all of the Aboriginal people want this

That this change is not universally welcomed by the Aboriginal people is no surprise! However, in two surveys taken we are led to believe that somewhere in the region of 80-90% of them are in favour. See here for example. Further, we read that a large group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people gathered and created the Uluru Statement from the Heart in 2017, specifically asking for this Voice.

If we say Yes…..

Fear is a powerful emotion and the “No” camp have been promoting this as part of their campaign. But honestly, the proposed change to the constitution is so minor that there is no possible way that this could open up the way for land seizing etc. Please read the proposed change here to see how this would work.

We already help these people…..

This proposed change is not about delivering extra benefits to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. It’s true that they do receive some benefits from Government but this is due to their relatively poor standards of health, welfare, employability, education etc. All they are asking for is a vehicle to allow them to speak to Government on issues that affect them.

This has already been tried….

It’s true that historically, different Governments have responded to requests from the Aboriginal and TSI people for something similar. However, in true democratic process, anything agreed has been thrown out by the successive Government of a different party. That is why it is so important to get this change written into the constitution. Once there, it could only be removed by another referendum, and any subsequent Government would have to work with The Voice going forward.

We don’t trust the Government

Like it or not, our Government was elected by the people for the people and Jesus would tell us that we are to be subject to the people in power. In Matthew 22:21 he told Pharisees to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to give to God what the things that are God’s. This verse has been misused over the years and again, I do not intend to discuss it in detail here, but suffice it to say that my view is that we should prayerfully consider how we respond to our Government. If they are asking us to do something wrong or that we believe is wrong in God’s sight, then of course we should question it.

How would Jesus have you vote in this referendum? Would he have you say “no” to the people asking for representation, or would he ask you to agree and find ways to help them?