Image: Ann Wojczuk (Pictures: iStockphoto)

16th February, 2004

Never a simple separation, DAVID ADAMS explores how the secularisation of society and, at the same time, growth in religious diversity is shaping the relationship between governments and churches across the world...

Church and state. Since the days of Saul, the first Biblical king, the relationship between powers secular and spiritual has often been an uneasy one. These days are no different with governments across the world struggling to come to terms with what can be a thorny issue, particularly at a time when a multi-faith society is no longer unusual but the norm.

The issue of the relationship between the two reared its head in France recently where the government has announced it will introduce a law which would ban all conspicuous symbols of religious faith from public institutions, sparking a backlash from many of the country’s religious groups including Muslims and Sikhs, who have even threatened to leave the country if they are forced to remove their turbans.

In Italy a court ruling late last year that a crucifix should be removed from a classroom sparked a national debate over religious symbols. Some German states are also considering laws to ban headscarves from schools while the European Union last year caused controversy when it left out explicit references to God from its draft constitution. In the United States, the Chief Justice of Alabama created a storm when he placed a monument of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court building.

Here in Australia, meanwhile, the nature of the relationship between church and state is one which seems to rear its head every now and then when a local council decides in the interests of “political correctness” to excise any mention of Christianity in its holiday message or in debates about whether there should be prayers said in Federal Parliament.

Professor Gary Bouma, of Monash University’s Department of Sociology, says the relationship between church and state in Australia has always been a fraught one. “You start from the First Fleet where the church and the state took a singular form in (Reverend Samuel) Marsden who preached to you on Sunday and assigned lashes on Tuesday. Church and state were pretty tied up at that point,” he says. “That’s a certain stamp of experience which, like it or not, continues to color our basic approach to both church and state.”

Professor Bouma says the relationship between religion and state - which, unlike in the United States, is not enshrined in any legal form - is particularly challenging today given the multi-faith nature of society. “How do you manage church-state relations in a multi-faith society? It’s somewhat different from 1950 when 40 per cent of Australians claimed to be Anglican."

According to Professor Bouma one of the key changes today is the vitality of religions. “We’ve got a religious vitality that’s quite noticeably different from the 1950s when people would go because they had to. Now people who choose to be religious are more likely to do something about that choice.”

He says that while one option in a multi-faith society is to put a blanket ban on links between the state and religion - such as having no prayers in Federal Parliament instead of Christian prayers or even allowing different religions to lead prayer on different days - the problem with such an approach is that it presumes that people who profess to believe in nothing are perceived as being “neutral”.

“What’s being discovered - particularly in this debate about scarf wear - is that “nothing” is a perspective. It is a viewpoint and it’s got its own problems...so the no religion category is not religiously neutral, it may in fact be religiously apathetic.”

Just what does constitute religion is one of the issues that have arisen as a result of the French ban. While much has been made of the banning of Muslim veils and Sikh turbans, the law also includes Jewish skullcaps, large Christian crosses and even - if they are deemed to be a religious symbol - beards and bandannas. As a writer in Time magazine noted earlier this month: “No word yet on the fate of Egyptian ankhs, Wicca pentagrams, New Age crystal pendants or ELVIS LIVES T shirts.”

It remains to be seen where the line between what constitutes a religious symbol and what does not will be drawn - a vexed question indeed if one considers “neutrality” to reflect a religious position.
In Australia meanwhile, the relationship between church and state came under scrutiny of some sort last year following the resignation of Anglican Archbishop Peter Hollingworth from the position of Governor-General.

While the debate failed to raise the heat of that in France, it did prompt George Pell, the then Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, to say that no church leader should ever be appointed to the office of Governor-General because it “muddies the distinction between church and state”.

“The separation of church and state is a blessing and we should preserve it,” he was reported as saying.
Professor Bouma says that while the issue of whether a cleric should hold such an office was handled in a very old-fashioned manner, it did raise the question of whether a sub-section of Australian society - in this case a member of the clergy - would have an inappropriate influence. “At that level, it’s not a church-state issue as much as it is among the various communities that exist in Australia.”

He said the debate was surprising given that Australians traditionally have a very open and laid-back approach to such things, “primarily based on the notion that religion doesn’t do anything”.

Few, if any, Christians in Australia seem to be arguing against the separation of church and state. Indeed those spoken to by Sight can see much that is positive in it.

John Henderson, general secretary of the National Council of Churches in Australia, says his personal view is that separation of church and state is a “healthy state of affairs”. “What you need between government and the church is a situation of healthy mutual respect and consultation, especially on issues that effect human well-being and I think the government should be looking to the church to inform government policies. It should certainly be consulting. I don’t think the days when the church determined government policy were ever a healthy thing. I think history is littered with the wrecks of those situations and Jesus’ own ministry is pretty clear evidence that that’s not the gift that God has given to the church - in that sense the church becomes just another institution prone to all the failings of other human institutions.”

Jim Wallace, the executive director of the Australian Christian Lobby, agrees that the separation of church and state, which is not necessarily an absolute, is in many ways a good thing. But he adds that while he doesn’t have a problem with the secular state he does with the secularization of the state.

“That means that what we are doing is we are taking away the Christian foundations on which the state is based. I think that is the...sadness with what we see happening today.”

Wallace says that while he wouldn’t seek a relationship in which there is a union between church and state in Australia, he hopes the state would take account of Christian principles in determining policies such as research on human embryos. He sees the challenge for the church is to be influential in what he calls “the high ground of the secular world”.

“The church has, unfortunately over the years, abdicated that high ground. I think that is in many ways, certainly to some degree, the church losing some credibility, losing some political weight by virtue of declining numbers and it’s also - and I think this is most concerning - been silent...”

Reverend Henderson believes that when the church is in a position of power it gets “very comfortable, very quickly” and can tend to mute the gospel. “In that sense it’s healthy that the church is not to be identified with the establishment or to be the same as the establishment.”

He adds that the church should be careful never to take its position in society for granted. “That’s not the origins of the church, that’s not its history,” he says.

As to whether the relationship is changing in Australia, Reverend Henderson says that while there is definitely a shift in the relationship, it was hard to differentiate whether any perceived change is part of a broader trend to do with a move from a “mono-view of religion” to a more pluralistic society or simply because of the current government.

He says the current Federal Government doesn’t seem keen on the churches making public commentary, probably because of criticisms churches have made of a number of Government policies, including those concerning refugees.

Pointing back to the long history of suspicion with which Australians have viewed religion, Reverend Henderson believes Australians remain confused about the relationship between church and state. “It’s just suddenly people are talking about it. I think Australians thought for decades if you just ignored religion it would disappear or it would stay in its box and be trotted out for the rites of passage...but I think now there is an opening of the door, an opening of the reality that human beings are more than their material parts. They’re more than their money in the bank...Those sort of questions haven’t been satisfied by consumerism, so people are starting to turn.”

He believes that while there is much fear among Christians, as Australia becomes more of a multi-faith society - in particular a fear that they may be found wanting when their faith is tested - the changes should actually strengthen the church.

“I think out of this we Christians should relearn our faith and become stronger...I don’t think it’s all bad. And by the way, it is wonderful to learn how other people work, to get to know and meet people from other religions.”