Jeremy, I agree multiculturalism has had "it's day in the sun". I may be wrong but I get the impression that most Australians are well and truly over multiculturalism. Where to next? Will the church speak and be heard? And what of it's current witness of people from every tribe and tongue living together in harmony and amazing love because of the cross of Christ?

Also, I'm fascinated by Professor Riley's comment. He doesn't acknowledge why or how Sundays were traditionally "a holiday" (interesting choice of words rather than a "day of rest" as I expected) but I assume he considers it a good thing. As do the unions.

Thank you, you've got me thinking...hard

Sundays have always been regarded as a 'holiday' in the strict sense, since the word 'holiday' is derived from the expression 'holy day'. So in the sense that Christians over the centuries have viewed Sunday as a special day, 'holiday' fits. So maybe Professor Riley was viewing Sundays in that sense.

I've yet to read Angela Merkel's comment - hope to do so soon. I do not think the issue is one of diversity but development and health. Pre-conventional values - leading to criminal behaviour - whether they be expressed within Muslim, Christian of East Asian cultural contexts is what is at issue. There are many Muslims who disagree with the Islamists, as there are Christians who would disagree with their own ultra-right.
No society can exist without rules of behaviour. When individuals do not conform to those rules we remove them from our society, eg through imprisonment or expulsion. As we should.
I think it is an error to confuse a religion with pre-conventional values and behaviours. They are not the same thing. Nevertheless, many people from other cultures do possess cultural values that we in Australia would regard as pre-conventional - or worse, pre-conventional and unhealthy. I think it is mistaken to drop our standards on these issues, such as human rights, to accommodate others' sensibilities.

Thanks for that Rob.

I think the slide into unhealthy nationalism began awhile ago...One Nation and the absorption of some of it's sentiments by the Australian Liberal Party and many Australians; boat people jumping non-existent queues; the Cronulla riots jut to name a few.

I don't think Australia is alone; rather we are one of many western countries struggling to make sense of and deal with incredibly hard social and ethnic issues post 9/11. The secular-left so often sounds to me a lot like the New Atheists who believe that all religion is anathema and an a social evil, which should be put to death for the good of all.

If multiculturalism is on its last legs, then other ideologies must be on the rise. The New Atheists & moral relativists don't offer much if anything constructive that I know of. I get the impression that once the evil of religion has been purged from society then we live happily ever after or a lot better than we are now.

A quick tour of history offers no hope. Except for Jesus and how he calls sinners to live.

Personally, I think Christians need to continue to engage in this debate; persuading our authorities and Australians in general that policies, which we know are pleasing to pleasing to God benefit our nation. I would love someone like Greg Clarke/Andrew Cameron to enter the public arena and scrutinize such issues (include euthanasia please).How about a TV series made by Anglican Media or Public Centre for Christianity screened on SBS?

Thanks for your comments Angela.

You are right the all the West is trying to cope with these issues. The debate is fierce in Europe.

I'd be interested to hear from any North Americans.

The US typically has preferred the 'melting pot' image which infers that all will be changed by the migration process.

Meanwhile, multiculturalism was invented in Canada to cope primarily with a bilingual context and the emerging recognition of the Native American nations.

It was introduced in Australia by Al Grassby in the early 70s as an antidote to the previous assimilation policy.

As an aside, Professor Riley is a 'she'.

Here in Britain, our policies have been influenced by a mix and match of Canadian and American multicultural policies, blended in to make a British policy.

'Equality and Diversity' is the name of the game in multicultural policy in Britain today (following Sweden's example in particular). This was formulated by the previous Labour government, and today's Conservative/Lib Dem coalition government is not changing anything substantial about equality and diversity policies that were introduced under the last Labour government. No doubt some new policies that became law, were very helpful in equal opportunities, especially for womens rights and disability rights (which in the UK are some of the most extensive in the world), but the problems have been in the encroachment of free speech in ares like sexual orientation legislation, which had threatened to be restricted (but free speech has been safguarded).

Britain has an unofficial policy affirmative action for minorities, so organisations such as the BBC will have representations of minority groups in programe content and tv presenting (like SBS on a grand scale).

However, Britain has adopted US style citizenship ceremonies, and is emphasising the use of English language more, but like Canada, council newsletters and information are available in a number of different languages.

Multiculturalism, is here to stay in Britain, for the short term at least.

As a concrete example, let me tell about two people I know, both Christians, whose parents migrated here, one from Russia and the other from South Asia. That was back in the 1970s when the policy was 'assimilation' or 'integration'. Sadly, these children, now married with their own families, did not learn the language of their parents and were encouraged at that time to use only English at home.

Now these two people are unable to pass on their cultural heritage to their own children and cannot even access their family tree which is written in Russian or in an Indian script. What an unnecessary loss!

However, under Australian Multiculturalism newcomers are no longer expected to give up their family heritage or cultural diversity in order to become Australians.

Of course multiculturalism leads Anglo Australians to ask what makes a person a genuine Australian. The answer is stated clearly and publicly in the pledge of committment made at every citizenship ceremony by those who wish to become Australiann citizens. It reads:

"From this time forward, [under God] I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people
whose democratic beliefs I share
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey."

It is this pledge that makes a person an Australian, not the colour of their skin or the language they speak at home.

Thanks Duncan and Steve.

There is no doubt that the language services provided for Govt services is an important and real gain out of Australia's multicultural policies. So much so, that are now fully accepted and non-controversial.

Indeed, Australia has its own public-funded multi-lingual broadcaster in SBS (celebrating its 30th birthday this year).

Indeed we should resist going back to assimilation on the grounds of equity to Govt services alone - though I don't hear anyone here saying that.

I want to clear up a few doubts regarding language that I have heard expressed over the years.

Many Australians speak their own language at home and listen to SBS and are also fluent in English as our one and only official language.

The Government provides not only interpreter services. For young people who arrive here without English they go to Intensive English Centres so that they reach a specific level of English before moving into regular classes in our public schools.

There should be no doubt that someone can speak one or more 'foreign languages' and also speak excellent English.

This is a very live issue here in the NT. It is said that aboriginal people want to hang onto their "culture". But it is clear they also want to have all the benefits of a western developed industrial democracy. How do we share the Gospel, especially in an Anglican package, without implying that all the cultural stuff around our Church and how we do religion is preferable to Aboriginal culture?

This is an important issue to think about carefully- thanks for the article. Whilst racism and nationalism are very dangerous, trying to work out the best way for us to function as a multi-race society is complex. Thanks for raising some of the issues.

Very interesting and stimulating article, Jeremy. Thanks a lot.

I'd just like to comment on your statement:

'The Bible does not advocate multiculturalism. When there is cultural tension within the church, the New Testament offers ‘reconciliation in Christ’ as the path to harmony. But this is hardly a policy program for a society made up of many faiths.'

Perhaps I need to apologise in advance for my ignorance about the Australian definition of multiculturalism, having come here as an immigrant myself only 7 years ago. But it seems to me that your statement confuses 'culture' with 'faith', which the New Testament does not. So I am not so sure I agree with you that the Bible does not advocate multiculturalism. But then again, perhaps you have a particular definition of 'multiculturalism' in mind, which is implied in your article, but not immediately clear to me as an immigrant.

Because I do not believe you would go so far as to imply that there cannot be a place where people have more than one culture (i.e. multi cultures), yet one faith in Christ, would you? I would think this is part of the vision in Revelation 7: The fact that there will be a great multitude on that day from every nation, tribe, people, and language, seems to me to be a biblical endorsement for multiculturalism.

I guess one of my presuppositions is that you don't have to discard all aspects of your culture when you embrace Christ. Some aspects may be evil, but others are 'neutral' or even good. I assume you agree with me on this, Jeremy.

So in formulating a policy program for a society made up of many faiths, it seems to me that ‘reconciliation in Christ’ is indeed the path to harmony. Faith in Christ is what all people need, regardless of their cultural background. But faith in Christ in turn makes the blind able to see some aspects of their culture which they need to discard.

The end result would be a biblical multiculturalism.

Thanks for your comments Alexander. You raise some excellent points for discussion.

Most importantly, I think we are 100% in agreement about what the Bible says is the path to social harmony and its teaching about aspects of all culture being good/neutral/evil.

However, I'd rather use stick to the term 'reconciliation in Christ' for this, as its the term the Bible uses.

Briefly as possible - the reason is that the term 'multiculturalism' in the West has come to enshrine a particular idea about the fixed relationship between religion and culture, in the sense that it only makes sense to talk about ethno-religious groups. (I'll explain more below with sources)

Nevertheless I would point you to wikipedia's definition as a starting point on how the term is understood in the West:

"Multiculturalism is the acceptance or promotion of multiple ethnic cultures... In this context, multiculturalists advocate extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and RELIGIOUS GROUPS without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or cultural community values as central."

As you see this is entirely contrary to the idea of 'reconciliation' which makes Christ's values as the centre point for resolving cultural conflict.

(As aside - of course its also true that Australian 'reconciliation' - originally developed out of biblical teaching - has been used in Australia for developing policies around the relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous. This may offer a nice counter-point to a discussion on multiculturalism.

In this is article from 2003 Bishop Paul Barnett argues that the logic of Australian multiculturalism undermines evangelism in the public square.

Multiculturalism is not merely the recognition that Australia is ethnically diverse. That is a given few would deny. No, multiculturalism is an ideology, an ideology that informs government policy. Its underlying values are social cohesion, equality and cultural identity...

On the surface ‘multiculturalism’ seems reasonable and fair. Go deeper, however, and we discover that ‘cultural identity’ is inseparable from religious beliefs of the people of that culture, which in the interests of ‘social cohesion’ and ‘equality’, cannot be questioned or challenged.

and further...

In effect, this erects a barrier to freedom of speech, that is, freedom of speech in the realm of religious beliefs. In other spheres, such as political discourse, there is no inhibition against challenge and discussion. But not so in matters to do with religion.

Here the ‘accident of birth’ argument is advanced. If I am an Indian, let us say, then I am likely born a Hindu. That is who and what I am. Challenge that and you challenge my personhood and my cultural identity. Religion is intrinsic to my ethnicity and must not be called into question.

Following his election as archbishop of Sydney in 2001, Peter Jensen encouraged believers to share the gospel in their workplaces. For this he was admonished in the Sydney Morning Herald editorial: "It is arrogant and dangerous…for anyone to assume a right or a duty to convert others…In the multicultural, multi-god nation that modern Australia is, proselytising can only needlessly provoke community tensions."

Multiculturalism appears fair-minded and good, that is, until we take a closer look. It cuts across both the activity of Christian evangelism and the message that Jesus is uniquely ‘Lord of all’.

The most detailed analysis I've seen on how official multicultural policy in Australia has limited the freedom of speech of Christians was in Rob Forsyth's 2001 Acton Lecture for the Centre of Independent Studies (CIS) titled 'Dangerous Protections'. Unfortunately it no longer appears to be on the CIS website.

This speech covers some of the same territory.

This quote from Forsyth is particularly pertinent:

...There is a tendency under multicultural ideology to try to group all religious practice and belief under this category of ethnicity, whether it is relevant or not. A good example can be seen in comments made on the ABC Religion Report by Professor Mary Kalantzis, [then] from RMIT.

"[N]one of us choose our faith necessarily, or choose what colour we are or where we’re born. If we are believers in anything, then it’s a fate that’s made for us, it’s a choice made for us. We don’t say, Excuse me God, or Allah, I want to be an Arab or an Australian (sic), it’s just God’s variety or the variety of the planet."

Kalantzis sees each different religion as concerned not about what is true, but simply as culturally ‘different ways of satisfying the same range of needs for faith’ and as such morally equivalent. (15)

The ideology of multiculturalism assumes that culture is static and therefore ultimately makes religious identity hereditary. Such attitudes regard religious freedom primarily in terms of the freedom to engage in one’s particular religious tradition and rituals. On the other hand, any activities which are intended to persuade others to change their religion or adopt a religion are treated with suspicion and even hostility.

Jeremy, thanks heaps for that 2003 article from Paul Barnett.

It seems to me that part of our challenge as Christians is to debunk this popular myth that (to quote Barnett's words):

'cultural identity’ is inseparable from religious beliefs of the people of that culture, which in the interests of ‘social cohesion’ and ‘equality’, cannot be questioned or challenged

.

Again, excuse my ignorance, but it seems to me that multiculturalism only undermines evangelism in the public square, if it's based on that myth. We don't need to buy into that myth. We need to question it & challenge people to do the same, lest we throw the baby with the bath water. This is still very difficult, I admit, because some people are indeed very strongly convinced that that myth is true, at least for themselves, saying 'We belong to this ethnic/cultural group, therefore we follow this religion.'

It is, to borrow your words, this 'particular idea about the fixed relationship between religion and culture' that we must break down. Perhaps we all are still coming to terms with the fact that, for example, there are now more Christians in Africa and Asia, than in the Western world.

I would like to know the percentage of Christians (perhaps incl. the nominal ones) among our immigrants or refugees, in comparison to our society in general.

Jeremy, thanks a lot also for pointing me to those quotes from Rob Forsyth.

I trust I haven't overwhelmed you with this response, Alexander, but just wanted to fill you in with some of the back story.

I hope this explains why the elephant in the room in this discussion is Islam.

Professor Andrew Jakubowicz is one of leading academic advocates of multiculturalism. He too identifies the current tensions:

While religious diversity in Australia is far wider than just Christianity and Islam, these religions have been at the heart of most recent debates about multiculturalism. The debate has ballooned into a fairly vigorous argument about Australian values and the demand that Muslim schools in particular be policed to ensure they are serving up the fare demanded by the more populist demagogues and right-wing politicians. At its height one politician demanded that the hijab be banned in public schools – a demand rejected by conservative leaders, though not without sustained pillorying of Islamic schools as centres of un-Australian values...The overarching trend suggests that religion has moved back into the mainstream of the political flow, even if the urban elites find it bemusing and possibly pre-modern. Religion has become the central arena of dispute for Australian multiculturalism, the arena most fraught with anxious hostilities.

No, you haven't overwhelmed me with your response at all. I am learning a lot here. Thanks heaps again.

Having read all that, I still think (see my response #19 above) that nobody quoted so far has done anything in those quotes to challenge that myth (i.e. that ethnicity or culture is inseparable from religion) and tried to steer the discussion about multiculturalism to a different direction, using the other presupposition that I mentioned above.

Btw, just call me Alex next time.

Again, excuse my ignorance, but it seems to me that multiculturalism only undermines evangelism in the public square, if it's based on that myth. We don't need to buy into that myth.

It more than a myth, it's what the term multiculturalism means and therefore how it is applied in practice.

As I said earlier the most widely understood definition of multiculturalism is: "extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and RELIGIOUS GROUPS without promoting any specific ethnic, RELIGIOUS, and/or cultural community values as central."

This is entirely contrary to the biblical idea that says that way to resolve cultural conflict is found by conforming to Christ's values. Multiculturalism says there is no ethical centre. The Bible says Christ is the ethical centre.

In my mind 'biblical multiculturalism' is a contradiction in terms.

This is why I argue we should stick to the biblical term 'reconciliation' and not use 'multiculturalism'. Using the term multiculturalism is unnecessarily confusing.

Does that make sense Alex?

The claim that 'Jesus is Lord of all' is not the claim of the secular state but the church. Likewise, an injunction to be 'reconciled in Christ' is a plea from a Christian to other Christians. In other words, for that claim to have any meaning to me, I must have some participation within that meaning system.
Fundamentally, what I want from the State, as person who engages in a religious observation, is the right to do so without intimidation. It follows from this that my neighbour also has the right to do so without intimidation from me. It is precisely this value of tolerance that needs protecting from those who would want to impose their religion or non-religion on me. This is where the State must draw the line.
We live in a 'free market' society where all the time we are faced with advertisements attempting to 'convert' us into buying this or that. I do not see why religion should be exempt. If the conditions are right, I can convert; but I don't think, under normal circumstances, I can be converted. Attempts to insulate me from persuasion on my religion are both precious and paternalistic.
I don't think one can change religion without some impact on one's culture: after all, religious practices are cultural practices. If I were, for example, to convert to Judaism, I expect that would involve a whole range of cultural expansions and exchanges. So what? Our identity as individuals is deeper than culture, and in my life I have seen vast changes to my culture.

Indeed Eric. That was implied in my original article.

And so a fundamental underlying question here is the relationship/s between individual Christians, the church and the secular state.

I was assuming Alex is primarily talking about using the concept of 'multiculturalism' within the church rather than as public policy. (I am aware he is pastor of a multi-ethnic church.)

So I thought it was important given Alex's point to explain what I see as the difference between his descriptive definition of multiculturalism (the fact of cultural diversity) and the normative definition of multiculturalism: one that celebrates the 'rights' of ethno-religious groups. What Jurgen Habermas calls the claim for "equal rights for cultural forms of life".

Jeremy, I think what you said does make sense to me. Thank you for helping me to see where you're coming from. I can see how the term 'multiculturalism' can be confusing to many people in Australia (and perhaps elsewhere too), because it seems that multiculturalism has become synonymous with religious pluralism.

But from my point of view, 'biblical multiculturalism' is still useful. Or perhaps Christ-centred multiculturalism? :P ... To me, it's not confusing at all, because I would never link 'multiculturalism' to religious pluralism. I suspect I am not the only one.

I don't think we need to give up the word 'multiculturalism' to the secularists, just because they define it in an unbiblical way. Just as much as we don't need to give up the word 'Catholic' in our creeds (or 'saint'), just because the Roman church defines it in an unbiblical way.

Btw, Jeremy, it was the rejection of multiculturalism which was confusing to me in your article, before you graciously took much effort to clarify that for me.

So whether or not we fight multiculturalism, there is always risk of confusion.

Alex is so right in saying at #26, "I don't think we need to give up the word 'multiculturalism' to the secularists". Of course, we will always have some people wanting to misuse multiculturalism, or whatever, to squeeze Christianity out of the public sphere. But before Christians oppose multiculturalism let us consider some of the key people in the development of Australian multicultural policy.

Our "Father of Multiculturalism", Prof Jerzy Zubrzycki, was well known as a good Catholic Christian and he was an adviser to the Whitlam, Fraser and Howard governments.

The first chair of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs from 1985 was Dr David Penman, then the evangelical Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne. For a positive Christian view of multicultural policy read his 1989 address which can be found as the appendix in his biography by Alan Nichols. Penman concluded this address with the words, "Jeus of Nazareth expressed it more simply: "You are to love your neighbour as yourself."

Sure, Jeremy. My posts have not been directed at any other post in particular. More just 'thinking aloud' to clarify my own sensibility around this important topic!

Alex @ #27 - fair point. In hindsight I probably should have explained the definitional problems with multiculturalism up front.

Defining multiculturalism is a hugely complex issue. There is a huge stack of academic literature on the topic from political theorists, philosophers and sociologists. I am most familiar with the thinking of Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor and German philosopher Jurgen Habermas. Multiculturalism as a political theory has been attacked from both the Left and the Right.

I also think it might be helpful to draw a distinction between talking about 'multiculturalism' in the church and the official public policy of Multiculturalism as implemented in Canada and Australia in the early 1970s and then later in various forms in Britain and Europe.

I have much sympathy with those concerned to defend cultural diversity within the Anglican Church.

In the context of a denomination, there is a power imbalance between the majority culture and the minority. As a result, in practice, the assumption is that the minority culture must change to be like the majority church culture, rather than both changing to conform closer to Christ.

That makes me wonder, however, about the limits of cultural diversity within the church universal.

To what extent the church universal is to celebrate 'cultural diversity within Christ' is an interesting question. Anyone got thoughts on that one?

Steve @ #28

OK. I am assuming we are now talking about Multiculturalism as public policy.

Alex is so right in saying at #26, "I don't think we need to give up the word 'multiculturalism' to the secularists".

I really don't know how to disentangle that statement if we are talking about public policy rather than cultural diversity within the church. Multiculturalism by definition requires the existence of a liberal-secular State.

Perhaps it would be helpful to define what you mean by 'multiculturalism' and whether you are assuming an alternative definition to the one I previously quoted.

Just to clarify - I said I was 'ambivalent' about the death of Multiculturalism in the original article not that I am 'fighting' it. I think the policy has some major strengths as well as some inherent problems. It may well be the case that a moderated form of Multiculturalism is the best way forward. The biggest problem, in my mind, is that in our public discussion we have been left with a vacuum.

The biggest strength of Multiculturalism is that is recognises the power imbalance between the majority culture (of the State) and individuals who are part of minority cultural groups, and seeks to proactively address the ways they are thereby marginalised. The biggest flaw is that it assumes all cultural groups have "equal rights" therefore treats all cultural values as morally equal.

In connection with Jeremy's points about the relationship between culture and religion I would like to share a personal experience that shows what is going on in the minds of many Australians.

It was 20 years ago when I was a teacher and it had just been announced that the following year Christian Studies would commence in our High School. I was then serving as the Teachers Federation representative and one of my colleagues, of Anglo background, then said to me, "We are now living in a multicultural society so is it really right that our school should provide Christian Studies?"

All that I said in reply was, "Gavin, do you know that the teacher of Christian Studies will be Olga [Eastern European name]?" He nodded and went away satisfied. Why was he so easily satisfied?

It is so important that we demonstrate in practice that Christianity is NOT "the Western religion" (as well as reading the sobering article by Bishop Forsyth). The lead-up to Christmas can provide us with opportunities to emphasise that Jesus was born in the Middle East and CMS missionaries can provide examples of non-Western ways of celebrating Christmas according to the culture of Christians in Sulawesi or Japan etc. I love to share such examples with my SRE classes in November. On the other hand, many Anglican churches carry on as if Christmas originated in King's College Cambridge.

Jeremy@#31
It seems I was submitting my comment #32 while your #31 was coming through.

My understanding of multiculturalism currently comes from the Fact Sheet put out by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship which I access by Googling 'Multiculturalism in Australia' then clicking on Fact Sheet 6.
This site also provides a handy history of the development of this policy.

Another resource that I have found helpful is the article in "The Australian people: an encyclopedia of the nation, its people and their origins" edited by James Jupp. This enormous 940 page reference book can be found in public libraries.

Thanks for all this discussion, guys. This is gold.

Jeremy, much food for thought. Many thanks again. You get me interested to read more about Charles Taylor and Jurgen Habermas now.

He Steve - I think the Dept's page proves my point about multiculturalism withering away.

The last strategy document was written in 2003 and expired in 2006. The page hasn't been updated since June 2007!!

In other words nothing has happened on this front since John Howard lost Govt

Steve - Here is a definition of multiculturalism from the Department's website

The Commonwealth Government has identified three dimensions of multicultural policy:

cultural identity: the right of all Australians, within carefully defined limits, to express and share their individual cultural heritage, including their language and religion;

social justice: the right of all Australians to equality of treatment and opportunity, and the removal of barriers of race, ethnicity, culture, religion, language, gender or place of birth; and

economic efficiency: the need to maintain, develop and utilize effectively the skills and talents of all Australians, regardless of background.

Secular-left? Secular, post-Christian society. Being left has little to do with it.

Secular-left? Not really. We are in a Secular, post-Christian society. Being left has little to do with it.

Sorry, I don't understand your point - either time Edwin.

The secular-right are not generally identified with multiculturalism which is seen a progressive policy.

****

Readers may also be interested in Bishop Peter Hayward's opinion piece in the Illawarra Mercury on the Easter holiday decision.

He takes a look at work-life balance.