Sorry, I have to disagree.

As quoted, Tony Abbott said, “There is not a single, authoritative Christian position on the Iraq War, climate change or border protection'.

He didn't say 'Church' position; he said 'Christian' position. As this article points out, the 'Church' has some clear positions on social issues. However if you took a poll of the various positions held on these issues by the members of any church, you would find a whole range of opinions.

I’m not a huge Tony Abbott fan, but I do agree with his statement that there is no single Christian position on the Iraq War, climate change and border protection.

When Justin Whelan says "Prior to the Iraq War, the churches were almost unanimously opposed to a pre-emptive strike. Only one prominent church figure, Anglican Bishop Tom Frame (then head of the Anglican chaplaincy team for the Australian Defence Forces), argued it satisfied just war criteria. Three months after the invasion, Bishop Frame recanted in the strongest possible terms, asking God’s forgiveness on the opinion pages of The Age newspaper." he is lying. Many churches supported the war on Iraq.

Also, the National Council of Churches in Australia does not speak for most of the churches of Australia. It doesn't even have an even spread of denominiations as it doesn't have any pentacostal churches on it's huge roster of 15 member churches.

Of course, Justin seems to think that someone saying that there is not a single authoritative position is 'farcical' but then goes on to admit in every case that there was not a single authoritative position. Tony Abbott may not know everything about his religion, but at least he understands logic and rationality better than Justin.

I actually have to disagree with this a little bit as well. "No single authoritative Christian position". I've always believed that a person's Christian conviction should be based on their best interpretation of Scripture, and the still quiet voice of God speaking into their heart. Christian leaders may add to that but not control it. A cursory examination of Scripture will tell you that, especially in Jesus' day, religious leaders were often wrong in their matters of conscience.

For the record, I disagree with Tony on his opinions of Iraq, climate and border protection... however I believe that, unless God were to speak clearly from the heavens, "there is no single, authoritative Christian position" on these issues.

The National Council of Churches is kind of like the UN of the world. Not to many Christians take them seriously. Tony Abbot is correct in his assesment that '“There is not a single, authoritative Christian position on the Iraq War, climate change or border protection.”
While I will leave the Iraq war issue to be debated elsewhere I find it hard to find a single Scripture (after reading the bible many times) that talk about Work Choices or Climate change. In fact many Christians I know across denominations share my belief that man made global warming is a myth. On the issue of border protection some Christians see our laws to soft while others view them as to hard.

Justin is entitled to his social gospel view but shows a limited understanding of how many biblical thinking Christians think.

Seems to me that in saying there was no single "christian" viewpoint, Abbott had to know it was at least tacitly invoking the views of the church.
Technically he is right - there is no single christian viewpoint.
But really, if not intentionally misleading it is making a statement that hints at a complex view that most certainly isn't that complex when answered by the churches who these christians follow.

The assertion that all the churches have been opposed to this war is valid. I would be very interested to see how Abbott would respond when confronted with this statement.

hey Justin (and Annmaree),
it is good to read an inclusive perpective from a Protestant agency rep with reference to Catholic teaching. (I recall the Student Christian Movement's similarity to IMCSA in its active catholic criticism of any individualistic mantra.)
I think the major problem with Abbot's statement is the implication that there is no cohesive moral opposition to any Government's intervention in Iraq, (or lack of authority in seeking clemency for David Hicks).Yet, of course there is! Jesus living and active in the Church and the world!
'Bible-based' Christians ought not to exclude dogma from sources of authority. It discounts our human need to interpret the Gospel and to heed Jesus' call to read the signs of the times (as accurately as we may prophesise on the weather).
God is living and active in Australia. However his activity has political implications. Abbot is a wounded man, who needs 'authority' to be forced upon the world in order for it to seem real. This position prevents any active participation of an intellectual debate in the government of our country (my first point).
Cheers,
a fan who used to hail from Syd. Uni + Strathfield