A few months back, you might remember, we spoke to Clive Hamilton from the Australia Institute. Clive has long tried to bring to Australia’s attention the emptiness of affluence. Now, Hamilton is calling for a new politics that bravely addresses issues of morality. Where will such a moral force come from? he wonders. His conclusion is quite surprising.

In an article for online magazine Eureka Street, Hamilton has said this: ‘For decades we were promised that if only we attended to the economy and pursued higher incomes, then we would be happy. But the tragedy is that we are not. In fact, now that most people in rich countries have conquered material deprivation we see a rash of psychological disorders and a pervasive emptiness in everyday life.’ He goes on to say, ‘[There] is a pervasive sense throughout society that we live in an era of moral decline. People want firmer moral rules that apply to them and others, particularly ones that govern sexual and personal relationships.’

Contemplating where this moral voice might come from, Hamilton continues: ‘When we consider the existing major social movements, it seems to me that the new politics cannot be found in environmentalism, crucial though the environment movement is to our future. Nor can it be found in the social democratic model of the trade unions, important as they are in protecting the interests of their members. ACOSS and the welfare sector are to be admired for standing up for the underprivileged, but in an affluent society welfarism cannot be expected to motivate far-reaching political change.

Hamilton then adds, ‘despite the suspicion of many progressives, the churches could be the answer. Traditionally, the churches have attended to and represented the deeper aspects of life, those that transcend the individualism, materialism and selfishness that so characterise modern affluent societies. It is in this transcendent concern that I believe we can find the roots of a new progressive politics—not in the institutions of the churches themselves but by rediscovering those aspects of life that, at their best, the churches articulate and cultivate.’

When social commentators like Clive Hamilton talk like this we should listen carefully. It’s rare for the church to get third-party endorsement from a left-leaning think-tank like the Australia Institute. And it’s even rarer to hear the issue of morality raised as a political necessity. Comments like these may show just how desperate things are.

It should be added that Clive Hamilton doesn’t see the church as some knight in shining armour. In an interview with the ABC’s Religion Report he said the greatest obstacle in the church having influence over political and social change is the institution itself. But he then added (I quote), ‘let’s face it, in the history of Christianity it’s always been talented and inspired individuals who have brought about radical change.’

Christians have already been told by their Master to be ‘salt and light’ in the world—to be agents of change for good—so they need no other rally cry. But Clive Hamilton’s remarks remind us that the hour for bold, creative, and sensitive Christian leadership is at hand. Radical change is needed. And with the vision, values and compassion of Jesus in their hearts, it’s time for a new breed of Christian change-agents to arise and bring that dream to reality.

This time last week the news was beginning to break. On Monday, our time, the sad facts came to light. Ted Haggard, US megachurch pastor, author, and head of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals, confessed to sexual immorality, lying and deceit.

Haggard's fall from grace began when Michael Jones, a gay prostitute, said the Christian leader had used his services over a three-year period, and had bought methamphetamines from him. Haggard initially denied knowing Jones, then said he’d bought drugs from him but never used them, and finally, in a letter read to his congregation last Sunday, confessed: "The accusations that have been levelled against me are not all true,” he said, “but enough of them are true that I have been appropriately and lovingly removed from ministry.”

Ted Haggard was sacked from the 14,000 member New Life Church he founded back in the 1980’s, has stepped down as head of the National Association of Evangelicals, and will now undergo extensive rehabilitation. His public Christian career is over.

I’ve been grieved this week, reflecting on Haggard’s demise—grieved for the sense of shame and embarrassment he must feel right now: his sins splashed across the world, his success and prominence gone, his books pulled from the shelves. I feel grief for Haggard’s wife and five children who can’t walk down the street now without someone whispering. I feel grief when I imagine how Haggard’s actions might fuel the argument that church people, particularly church leaders, are all hypocrites.

Michael Jones said he went public when he found out who Haggard was, and when he discovered Haggard opposed same-sex marriage. “My intent was never to destroy his family,” Jones told the Associated Press. “My intent was to expose a hypocrite.”

At this point I want to jump to Ted Haggard’s defence, to highlight something good in the story. But I can’t. Haggard’s actions can’t be dismissed or spun away. They’ve brought embarrassment to the worldwide Christian community. Ted Haggard has been a hypocrite.

But let’s be careful here.

If integrity is measured by the degree to which our behaviours match our beliefs, we’re all hypocrites in some way. We tell our children to wait for the ‘walk’ sign before crossing the street, yet nip across ourselves when they’re not with us and the coast is clear. We denounce violence against men and women, yet gladly watch murder and rape stories on CSI and NYPD Blue. Most of us would say something needs to be done about world poverty, but how many of us consistently do something to help?

Ted Haggard’s downfall may be the most spectacular of an evangelical leader since Jim Bakker’s sex and accounting fraud scandal in 1987. But instead of throwing rocks in judgement, a better response to the Haggard tragedy is to consider our own lives, and the damage that could occur if our own dark secrets (if there be any) are allowed to continue.

Haggard asked his church congregation to forgive Michael Jones. "He is revealing the deception and sensuality that was in my life,” he told them. “Those sins, and others, need to be dealt with harshly. So, forgive him and, actually, thank God for him."

It’s not in most of our natures to thank God when someone shows us the deception (and hypocrisy) in our lives. But trustworthy critics are God’s gift to save us and others from ourselves. Let’s welcome them. Because to ignore the private word of correction may mean we, like Ted Haggard, expose ourselves to public shame and humiliation.

I wonder if you caught the words of Sir Gerard Brennan in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald. The former chief justice of Australia called for a more noble and visionary nation, arguing that we are falling short of Christian values.

Questioning the direction of current laws and policies, Sir Gerard said:

■ It was appropriate to question laws that might maximise corporate profits, rather than maintain the common good.

■ He said Australians should examine (I quote) "how we have tolerated for five years now the barbarous treatment of the Australian David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay, still waiting to be charged, it seems, with an offence under a law yet to be specified, and tried by a process which mocks the civil rights sense of justice".

■ Arguing that peace is essential to human dignity, Sir Gerard said "if peace were the primary aim of our public policy, we would not now be confronted by the tragedy which is Iraq".

■ He added that if 20 per cent of all Australian households had an income of less than $400 a week and more than 600,000 children lived in jobless households - while government budgets were in large surplus - it was a Christian duty to try to secure the dignity of the disadvantaged.

■ And the social isolation of many Aboriginal people, refugees, the poorly educated and many who suffer from a mental illness showed that (I quote) "our laws and policies do not reflect the Christian value of the Good Samaritan".

“We have grown so accustomed to this focus on material possessions,” Sir Gerard said, “that we tend to judge people not by what they are but by what they have. We rate our own success not by the humanity we display but by the wealth we possess… We know that there are the poor, the marginalised and the disabled but we may not be greatly moved by their plight."

Sir Gerard’s words came as he inaugurated the Centre for an Ethical Society this week—a new think tank to promote Christian social justice with the aim of developing a more just and compassionate Australia. I’ll be interested to hear more from the group.

What do you think of Sir Gerard’s words? Is Australia falling short of Christian values? If so, could we be seeing a resurgence of interest in them? It’s been interesting to see the rise of the Family First party in the last few years—with its emphasis on family values, no doubt inspired by a Christian outlook. Yesterday Victorians gave the party around 4% of the vote. About 7% of Queenslanders voted for the party in their last election, and South Australia already has two Family First members in its Uppper House. Then there’s Stephen Fielding’s Federal seat.

Perhaps Sir Gerard’s words are going to resonate with a growing number of Australians wanting laws and policies in line with Christian values. As long as those Christian values extend to the disadvatanged and marginalised—and not just families—we could be onto something.