An insider and an outsider

Voting for Jesus: Christianity and Politics in Australia by Amanda Lohrey Quarterly Essay 22, Black Inc, 2006, 128 pages, $14.95 Church and State: Australia’s Imaginary Wall by Tom Frame Briefings series, UNSW Press, 2006, 96 pages, $16.95 Reviewed by John Warhurst THESE two books should be read and enjoyed together. They address the topic of religion and politics in Australia in different ways. As such they are further contributions to a growing field, dominated so far by Marion Maddox, God Under Howard: The Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics (2005). Frank Brennan will shortly be publishing Acting on Conscience: When Personal Beliefs and Public Life Collide. We have gone from a famine to a feast in just a couple of years. Amanda Lohrey and Tom Frame have each written short, readable books for a general audience, though at times Frame is heavier going and unduly immersed in academic arguments. Each is stimulated by current developments, particularly by what is often described as the evangelical revival or the rise of the religious right. Lohrey explicitly chooses two moments in 2004 as illustrations: the address by federal Treasurer Peter Costello to Sydney’s Hillsong Church and the success of the new Family First Party in electing a senator in the federal election. Frame is less explicit, but he is clearly concerned by these developments and addresses those Christians who are attracted by them. He writes that “some denominations and individuals are in real danger of fusing religion and politics, and of failing to maintain the necessary distance between church and state that is needed for their healthy interaction”. He is critical of both the Christian Democratic Party and the Family First Party. He is more favorably inclined towards evangelical Christian pressure group activities, such as those of the Australian Christian Lobby, though he still expresses some concerns. Frame, Anglican Bishop to the Australian Defence Force, is an insider, both as a Christian clergyman rather than a non-believer and as member of one of the older established churches rather than one of the newer evangelical churches. In a passage likely to unsettle many of the new religious warriors he writes: From my observations as an “insider”, I would say that many within the church do not understand the questions, appreciate the character of the debate, grasp the attendant theological complexities, acknowledge the lessons of church history, display sufficient humility about the church’s shortcomings, concede a lack of consensus among Christians, understand the nature of political discourse or value the integrity of the state in this country. Sadly, the loss of spiritual authority has created a desire for political influence that has warped religious life in this country. Lohrey, a political observer and well-published novelist, is a sceptical outsider to activist Christianity: “It troubles me when I hear the bishops and Christian politicians pontificate.” She would rather listen to young Christians. She is sympathetic to liberal humanist values and in a previous Quarterly Essay, Groundswell: The Rise of the Greens, showed considerable sympathy for Green values and political influence. Her final words, after her discussions with some young Christians, reveal her as a not unsympathetic outsider to their values and aspirations: I look at these young adults and they truly are wonderfully made, and I wish we could agree on more; could meet up on some other wordless, plane, free of dogma, free of all this stuff. But unhappily, for me at least, we are here, now, across the divide of the literal Word. Still, the Word notwithstanding, I am left with the impression that some commonality remains. If in their mature years they are still “children of the Reformation” then we will continue to share a commitment to that great humanist project, a secular liberal democracy in which freedom of conscience is paramount; in which the mysterious unknowability of someone else’s faith is respected and protected, but not at the expense of those for whom that mystery is of an altogether different order. It may be that I would choose to emphasise the “secular” in that formulation rather more than these young people, but for now the system embraces us in a broadly consensual understanding of civic virtue. I hope that consensus holds. The two authors disagree about the nature of the Australian state. For Lohrey there is no doubting the “secular state”. She argues that “the poisonous sectarian disputes of the nineteenth century were uppermost in the minds of the framers of the constitution when they formulated section 116 in the hope that this would guarantee the new commonwealth a secular state.” She emphasises the separation of church and state, with reference to the work of Helen Irving, and concludes that: “This makes Australia the most secular liberal democracy in the world.” She is at odds with Frame, who concludes that section section 116 was just “a minimalist stab at setting some parameters for the interaction that would inevitably occur” between religion and politics. In fact Frame takes issue most strongly with Irving for claiming that “Australia has a secular heritage” which was “reflected nationally in the Commonwealth Constitution”. But Frame and Lohrey are more inclined to agree that claims about the power of the churches in contemporary Australian politics are overblown. According to Lohrey, “Arguably the most distinctive feature of the Christian Right in Australia is not its actual numbers but its proselytising zeal” which “begins to look like a strategy to manufacture the appearance of a Christian ‘groundswell’.” Here Frame rejects the claims of Max Wallace and the general tenor of Maddox’s arguments. He believes that “A scent of Christianity continues to pervade the public square but it is fading fast”. The styles of the two books differ. Much of Frame’s is a general introduction to the question of church and state without particular reference to Australia. It draws on political philosophy and history to sketch the evolution of the interrelationship. Only later does it become more oriented to personal observations about Australian developments. Lohrey’s style is of informed and critical journalism. Most of her sources are recent Australian media reports. She chooses “a somewhat unorthodox form for this essay” by opening and closing with “the voices of ordinary believers” - reports of discussions with sixteen year olds and with university students. They make up a considerable part of the book: sixteen of the 75 pages. She too is sometimes passionate, but this time the targets are some church leaders. What really interests Lohrey is the new political right. After an introductory discussion of “The Cool Girls”, a lengthy section on “Selling the Sacred”, containing a most informative analysis of the modern marketing of religion, is devoted to Pastor Brian Houston, Hillsong and the other mega-churches. “Voting for Jesus” includes a substantial discussion of Family First. Later, in “Managing the Culture Wars”, she turns to two examples of the extremist face of the religious right: the Exclusive Brethren and Opus Dei. Lohrey’s chapter “Still the Main Game” recognises the pre-eminent place of the established churches. “Despite all the colour and movement of the Pentecostals, all the clapping and swaying and the number of CDs to hit the charts,” she writes, “the traditional churches are still the main religious game in town.” She points briefly to their self-interested lobbying successes for the churches’ own infrastructure and efforts in education and welfare. And she recognises their social justice lobbying, which has met “with a singular lack of success” because they have been brushed off by the Howard government when they have protested against government policies on refugees, war and industrial relations. She also examines the attempt by Kevin Rudd and other Labor MPs to articulate Christian Labor values. What really interests Frame is the separation or non-separation of church and state. The first two chapters (almost half of this 95 page book) are devoted to successfully putting church-state discussion in historical and international context. The third chapter, “Whose wall?”, turns to Australia less successfully. His history is too fragmentary to convey fully the lively politics of sectarianism and section 116. The fourth chapter, “No wall, two people?”, contains personal reflections on religion and politics from the late 1960s, when “the Australian churches were politically influential and active”, to the present day. He is uncomfortable with the new Christian parties and lobbies but also critical of what he sees as militant secularists like the Humanist Society of New South Wales. He takes issue with Maddox, and rightly argues that the evidence that the religious right is ascendant is still thin. But he wrongly suggests that Maddox wants to eliminate religious ideals from the public square; rather her main concern is that the religious right has taken over the expression of religion in public debate from the Christian left, to the disadvantage of Labor and to the advantage of the Howard government. The reality of extensive church-state relations in Australia is largely neglected in these two books. This can either be church delivery of public services in health, education and welfare, or it can be church lobbying efforts to influence government economic and social policies across the board. Lohrey notes: “At any given time religious lobbies work away to influence governments and this is sometimes perceived as sinister, though arguably it is no less or more so than the efforts of other interest groups seeking to influence public policy.” This all happens in an environment described by Frame in his final chapter as “A land without walls” between church and state. Yet what is most lacking in these books is adequate description of the thicket of relations between church and state. Most of these still involve the major churches rather than representatives of the religious right. The distraction from the main game that the latter represents permeates these two books to their detriment. Frame and Lohrey, the insider and the outsider, may not be too far apart in the role that they would like to see religion playing in politics. Both may underestimate the actual influence that religion does exert. Frame, for instance, reflects the pessimistic view of many inside the churches: Whereas previously the church’s position meant a great deal in national affairs and Christian thinkers were accorded a prime place in the public square, Christians can no longer presume they will even be heard, let alone heeded, in an increasingly indifferent and hostile society. Christians are one among many “special interest” groups vying for influence and the crowd’s ear. Yet in another way both are optimists, Frame confident and Lohrey more tentative. She sees an emerging consensus in the community about civic virtue. He reckons a new relationship is currently under negotiation: The absence of any wall points to the sophistication of Australia’s public life and the quality of its democracy. It also reflects a commitment to shared values and common aspirations that are just as important to those with religious beliefs as to those with none. Even together these books cannot represent the final word. There is a larger story that two short books cannot hope to tell. What is still needed is a better integrated account of the role of both the old and new politics of religion in Australia. • John Warhurst is professor of political science at the Australian National university. Photo: iStockphoto.co