From offence to defence: 1970’s and now

It was in the 1960’s that ‘secularism’ began to bite seriously in Australia.  This was felt in the push for abortion on demand and the liberalisation of standards in media and entertainment.

South Australia was in the vanguard of such changes, led by Steele Hall and Don Dunstan.  In Sydney big debates were held on university campuses over such issues.  Our leading and most effective champion in NSW was Bruce Smith, sadly taken from us in recent times.

While the indicators were generally not good for those who held traditional ‘family values’ based on the Judaeo-Christian ethic, there was at least one victory.  In the early 1970’s local promoters planned to stage the notorious ‘O Calcutta’ locally.  I had an interest in this since it was planned for a theatre in (or more precisely) just outside my parish, St Barnabas Broadway.  Members of the congregation and students from Moore College picketed the Glebe theatre and the Chief Secretary was bombarded with telegrams.  The ‘O Calcutta’ proposal was abandoned.

It was, however, a temporary reprieve.  Everywhere the tide was rising and the good attempts of the Festival of Light and others to hold it back did not succeed.  These efforts should not be regarded as failure.  The flood may have proved far worse.  Seeds of better thinking may have been sown, some of whose benefits we may still be reaping.  In any case, you must do what is right, even though the outcome does not quite meet your hopes.

My point here is this.  In the early 1970’s social conservatives were still able to win in an isolated battle to uphold decent standards in the community.  Most likely this was due to the continuity of Christian values in society.  Victories today are rather more rare.

As of 2003, thirty years later, things have changed dramatically – and not for the better.  Whereas in 1972 we could and did take offensive action, today we are significantly on the back foot.  Few would dispute the reason for this.  Christian values are today no longer understood or upheld as they were then.  True, a majority still indicate some kind of identification with Christianity, but comprehension of its tenets is little understood.  In Perth recently speaking on a university campus I encountered Australian born tertiary students who had barely heard of Jesus Christ and who did not know what a resurrection is.

Census figures are interesting.  Only 67% Australians identify as Christians; in the US it is 85% and the UK 83%.  We lag well behind.

Church attendance figures are even worse news.  In Sydney, a city of four million, only 1% attend Anglican Churches on a given Sunday.  Add to this 1% the attendees at other denominations and irregular attendees and we might reach 5% (I am guessing).  Very few within the wider community express any serious participation in active Christianity.  A couple of decent sized football stadiums would accommodate Sydney’s churchgoers of various denominations on a given Sunday.

If society’s values arise from strongly held beliefs from a sizable proportion of that society our way forward is clear.  We must increase that proportion, and we must do so significantly and we must do so soon.  It seems to me, therefore, that the winning of Australian hearts and minds to Christian belief and commitment must be the challenge of the hour.

Yet it is precisely here that we face major difficulty.  I refer to various hindrances limiting free speech, which I will expand upon shortly.  There is an even greater difficulty, however - inertia within the ranks of church members.  We are content to continue in recurring ‘in house’ activities that have little external impact and which tend to exhaust the energy of the existing and frequently ageing members.  Along with that, in common with our fellow Australians, we are pretty committed to the ‘good life.’  In the past half-century in Australia and the western world more people have participated in more affluence than all the annals of world history.  We never had it so good; but discipleship has not been our priority.

Religious Freedom: History

This is not the place nor is there the time to review a history of religious freedom.  Let me be content with just a few observations.

In the first months of Christian history the Temple authorities complained that the apostles had ‘filled Jerusalem’ with their ‘teaching’ and instructed them to desist.  Peter and his companions replied that they ‘must obey God rather than men.’  The intercession of Gamaliel saved them from certain death.

The religious freedom of Jews was attacked by Caligula, who regarded himself as a god.  Terrible punishments were inflicted on large numbers of Jews in Alexandria and Antioch.  Had Caligula not been killed beforehand, vast numbers of Jews in Israel would have been slaughtered due to the emperor’s decision to erect a statue of himself in the Temple (AD 40-41).

Under Claudius, Jews suffered, though not to the same degree.  Mindful of problems involving Jews in Alexandria in 40-41 Claudius exiled all the Jews from Rome a few years later (49) due to the preaching of Christ in the synagogues, which proved deeply divisive.  Paul himself was expelled from Thessalonica at about that time, it was alleged, for preaching ‘another king, Jesus.’

Under Domitian (81-96) there was state-sponsored punishment of Jews, Christians and followers of the Stoic philosophy.  Domitian insisted on being called ‘Dominus et Deus’, ‘Lord and God.’  The book of Revelation was written during his principate; Dominitian is the ‘Beast’, the agent on earth of the Devil.  In the next several centuries punishment was meted out to Christians, whether by action of a local governor, mob anger or empire wide policy.  Much of this arose from political concerns for ‘harmony’ under the Pax Romana within a diverse and far flung empire.

All that changed following the emergence of Constantine to imperial power in 313.  This emperor even convened the Council of Nicea (325), in an attempt to secure unity in the church as a means of securing unity within an empire that was by now to a significant degree becoming Christian.

By the end of the fourth century, however, Christian emperors were now beginning to deny religious freedom to heretics and to Jews.  From the fourth century the close association of state and church assumed a theocratic character with losses of equality and freedom for minority groups, in particular Jewish people.  Augustine is well known for his advocacy of force by the state for the protection of the church and its faith.  In the middle-ages the French ruthlessly suppressed the Cathars in southern region.  We think, too, of the Spanish Inquisition, Bloody Mary’s execution of Cranmer along with many others and the slaughter of the Hugenots in France.  In other words, from the time of Constantine when Europe officially embraced Christianity, Jews, heretics and others who deviated from the official line have been deprived of freedom.

My point is that we today are not the only ones to suffer disadvantages from the powers that be.  As well, those who deprived others of their freedoms did so in the name of Christ.

As an Anglican I take no pride in the attack on the Puritans and others in what became under Elizabeth a virtual theocracy, as it remained until modern times.  During those years Methodists and other non-conformists as well as Roman Catholics suffered significant negative discrimination, including lack of opportunity to teach at major universities.

Current concerns

I express my appreciation of Robert Forsyth’s paper, ‘Dangerous Protections’, delivered in 2001 as the Acton Lecture.

Bishop Forsyth drew attention to three realities that bear upon the life and witness of the churches in contemporary Australia.  Doubtless in our globalised world these realities are not unique to Australia.  In the developed world there is something approximating a universal culture in which Christians no longer enjoy a place of privilege within which, indeed, we face growing disadvantage and loss of former freedoms.

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.

One of those ideals, social cohesion, is not altogether new.  The more enlightened Roman rulers like Claudius hated social dislocation and disorder.  This is understandable following the prolonged civil war of the previous century.  A harmonious and cohesive society is an understandable ideal, but not at any price, for example, freedom to criticise the government of the day.  Some deeply repressive societies have been cohesive, for example, Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia.  They have been cohesive because all voices of dissent were driven to silence.

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.

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’.

Anti-vilification is another phenomenon that appears a valuable addition to society standards.  White Australians of an earlier generation often spoke disgracefully about and to indigenous Australians.  Long time Australians after the Second World War frequently used abusive terms like ‘refos’ for migrants.  Newcomers, minority groups and marginalised groups are easily calumniated by unthinking or unkind people.  Christians, too, can be on the wrong end of implied vilification.  ‘Fundamentalist’ has become a term of abuse and is sometimes applied to earnest Christians, bringing pain and a sense of marginalisation.  I do not share the belief that some hold in a six day creation, but I dislike the manner in which their views have been mocked by some in the scientific community.

Attention has been drawn to the Victorian State Government Racial and Religious Tolerance legislation.  In 2000 a discussion paper attracted hundreds of criticisms.  The explanatory memorandum to the 2001 Bill stated that it was intended to

prevent racial and religious vilification damaging the cohesion and harmony of Victoria’s culturally diverse population.

What was proposed was legislation to

reinforce the right of all Victorians to live without fear of vilification in their public and private lives.

We note here something beyond the right of freedom of worship. Potentially implicit in this measure is the silencing of debate and discussion of religious issues.

For our part we Christians must be prepared to accept that bad things were perpetrated by well meaning Christians of former times, during the Crusades, for example.  One senses, however, that were we to draw attention to unacceptable teaching and practices of other religions it might attract action under the anti-vilification provisions.

The censorship implied by these measures is inconsistent.  It does not extend to the realm of politics or art.  Attention has been drawn to the deeply offensive presentation of Jesus in a bottle of urine (Piss Christ) in recent times.  Blasphemy is heard daily in movies and even on Television programmes where the name of Christ is invoked disgracefully.  I, for one, feel offended by the oft heard, ‘Oh my God.’  I am not holding my breath for intervention for my sensitivities.

There are double standards here.

Of deeper concern to Christians, though, is the potential silencing of our assertion of Jesus’ uniqueness, that he is the ‘only way’ to God and salvation.  This fundamental of our faith is regarded as offensive and a form of religious vilification.

Christians are called upon to speak graciously but speak we must and deny we cannot.  ‘Confess with you mouth that Jesus is Lord – the one and only Lord - and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead’, says the Bible. By definition a ‘saved’ person is both a believer and a confessor.
Anti-discrimination measures - like the other measures we are discussing - this is to some degree warranted.  It’s not that long ago that you had little chance of getting a job in a particular company or organisation unless you were a Freemason, or a Roman Catholic or a Protestant or that you had or had not gone to a particular network of private schools.  I grew up in an era of discrimination and society is the better for having left it behind to the degree we have.

Like the other measures, however, there has been a tendency to take them further than is appropriate.

In 1999 the NSW Law Reform Commission issued Report 92 reviewing 1977 Anti-discrimination legislation.  The Report, if adopted and enacted, might have forced religious bodies to employ non-adherents and required Christian clergy to administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper to any who demanded these ministrations.  The 1977 Act had provided exemption for religious bodies in line with their ‘religious susceptibilities.’

Representations to the various political parties at the time more or less secured the status quo, though religious groups remain vulnerable to new legislation.  Christian organisations must exercise caution in the form of advertising for positions in their schools and colleges, often with the need for legal advice.

In other words, the measures relating to multiculturalism, vilification and discrimination were, to a degree, justifiable.  We are a diverse society and good order is important.  Vilification of minorities is appalling.  Denial of access to employment based on discrimination is unjust.

Yet they have gone too far.  They articulate a vision for cohesion and harmony society that actually diminishes freedom of speech and potentially inhibits the right of voluntary societies to pursue valid objectives.  These measures have tended to become instruments of a kind of liberal-left idealism, a kind of new orthodoxy that imposes a political correctness that easily silences debate and free discussion in society.

Limitation of freedom of speech has surfaced in the past few days.  An ABC presenter on a religion programme has been suspended for failing to get a clearance from management about an article in the Spectrum magazine.  Stephen Crittenden had supported the views in S.P Hungerford’s 1996 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, which sees Islam itself – not Islam extremism - as the root cause of present difficulties.  Gerard Henderson (SMH 26/8) notes that other ABC presenters like Terry Lane and Philip Adams have not been limited in their columns in newspapers.  For example, Adams, commenting on David Hicks the Australian captured in Afghanistan, thought it would be good if the PM spent some time in Guantanamo Bay.

I dislike Adams’ sentiment as prejudiced and I regard Hungerford’s thesis as simplistic.  Moderate Islam is now under terrorist attack from Jemaia Islamia and Al Quaeda groups, as recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and Iraq demonstrate.  But it’s far better that Adams and Lane have the freedom to express their views which can in turn be analysed and refuted than that they be muzzled by a blanket of political correctness.

Let me comment about freedom of speech from a Christian viewpoint.  My conviction is that the claims of Christ and the origins of Christianity can bear close scrutiny.  Indeed, they have been subject to several hundreds of years of critical, often corrosive, scrutiny.  The debates go back and forth and we live with this situation, preferring a situation of open debate to some state-sponsored protection that would inhibit others from their criticisms and objections.  At the same time we are prepared to acknowledge, as truth demands, that evil has sometimes been done historically in the name of Christ.  In open discourse, however, we are able to point out that such evil has been done contrary to the explicit teaching of the Lord.  The point is that we are committed to speaking about the Bible, its integrity and its origins.  This is fundamental to our very being as disciples of Christ.

Are other religious groups in the community open to such free and frank discussion and debate, conducted with courtesy and respect?  There must be some doubt about this.  It appears that some groups are so touchy about these issues that it is feared some kind of social explosion would follow any questioning of the historic origins of their beliefs or the moral character of their beliefs.

Is this the kind of society we want?

Here, then, is a major issue for Christians and the promotion of the gospel.  The possibility of the silence of censorship is real, limiting the spread of the gospel.

This, in turn, has implications for society as a whole.  Is harmony and cohesion worth having if its price is real freedom of speech?  We remember that Claudius wanted harmony, and exiled those who broke the Roman Peace. More recently the so-called cohesion of Germany and Russia was imposed by intimidation, terror and the Gulags.

Let me conclude with the following observations and comments.

First, we must seek to raise the standards of journalism in Australia.  Often we sense that our newspapers are mainly sales driven, with a preoccupation with conflict, scandal and sensation.  Opinion appears more important than fact.  This has always been true of certain tabloids, but is now becoming the norm for formerly responsible and respected newspapers.

In matters relating to reporting of Christianity those who write often display woeful understanding of our beliefs.  Much reporting issues from the ideology found in multiculturalism and seems biased against Christianity.  A free and responsible media is basic to civilisation and freedom.  By whatever means are at hand we must find ways to raise the standards in our newspapers.

On another matter, I see a difference between our politicians and some who head up the various commissions and agencies.  In NSW there have been a series of abductions and gang rapes by ethnic gangs.  The Anti-Discrimination Board brought down a report highly critical of the media’s reporting of these cases.  The Premier, Mr Carr, displayed greater balance and concern for the victims than the head of the Anti-Discrimination Board.  Agencies and commissions sometimes appear ideologically driven whereas politicians seem more pragmatic and responsive to public opinion.

We need to be confident in our Christian apologetic and its likely appeal at critical points to political leaders.  We Christians advocate a separation of ‘church’ and ‘state’.  We do not advocate theocracy – a union of religion and state, as for example, Islamic Sharia Law does.  Rather, we render to Caesar, what is Caesar’s - taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue, respect to whom respect, honour to whom honour.  We are committed to the body politic, to the welfare of the city and its good governance and we pray for those in authority.  In our works of charity we render aid to all, irrespective of race or creed.  Our commitment to civic society, its leaders and members (including those in need) flows from our commitment to God as Creator of all and to Christ, the one mediator between God and humanity.

The community and its leaders need to be reminded of this.  We are not a mere alternative to other religious options.  Our beliefs are radical and unique.

Christian clergy should visit politicians in their local offices.  Local churches might consider inviting political leaders to major functions, including official opening ceremonies.  We Christians have tended to become invisible, retreating into privatised religion.  Many community leaders are open to meeting us and hearing from us.  We need to become visible, to establish our distinctives.

Further, the Christian lawyer has a special role in scrutinising new legislation sensitive to adverse directions and trends.  Where such trends are evident community groups and church leaders need to be briefed and advised how to approach local members and party leaders.  In my experience politicians are sensitive to good research and well-mounted argument.

Here the Festival of Light has a special role, in educating the Christian public, especially busy pastors and church leaders, of current trends.  Where appropriate the FOL is encouraged to approach politicians with their concerns.  The issue needs to be substantial, based on solid research and good argument.

Under the national leadership of Dr David Phillips I see an important future role for the Festival of Light in Australia.  I see a critical synergy between it and the churches and I pray this will become an increasing reality.

To conclude, I return to an observation made earlier in respect of the churches.  The time has come for us in the churches to become serious and intentional about disciple making and church planting.  Put simply we need more Christians as a proportion of society.  Otherwise we will just be always ‘reacting’ and ‘responding’.  Playing ‘catch up’ football, always behind in the score line is no way to win a game.  As we do ‘catch up’ – and pray God that we will – the voice of responsible Christians concerned for society standards is more likely to be heard.

Dr Paul Barnett
August 2003

This address was delivered in Adelaide, SA, to a meeting of the Festival of Light.