In an article first published in The Canberra Times, Dr TOM FRAME, provides a critical examination of Amanda Lohrey’s Voting for Jesus…
The recent upsurge of violence within the Middle East is widely attributed to conflicting religious beliefs and aspirations. If religion was kept out of politics, so the conventional thinking goes, the world would be a safer and more orderly place. Although parallels between the conduct of political life and the quality of democracy in Lebanon and Australia are few, there is a growing unease in this country that religion is playing too prominent a part in national affairs.
Amanda Lohrey’s Voting for Jesus: Christianity and Politics in Australia (Quarterly Essay, Issue 22) is the latest in a series of laments that an increasingly politicised Christian community is refusing to respect a clear separation of Church and State. This essay is notable, however, for the author’s strange view of what constitutes democracy, lack of acquaintance with the subject matter and a thinly veiled ideological bias. Let me begin with Lohrey’s take on democracy.
“It is simply wrong to say that Australia is being threatened by a religious right,” says Dr Frame. “This might be the case in the United States but it is not true of Australia.”
The Australian census reveals that about 70 per cent of the population claims to have some affiliation with a Christian denomination. Of that group, some 400,000 maintain regular contact with their church. As grass-roots organisations, the churches maintain an impressive network of local congregations touching the lives of countless Australians through their religious ministrations, social services and educational institutions. This country is evidently far from godless or irreligious. In the last census, the number of Australians professing “no religion” surprised observers and actually declined.
By way of contrast, less than 1 per cent of the population belongs to a political party. A fraction of that number attends branch meetings or contributes to policy deliberations and development. In fact, the membership figures for the two major Australian political parties are so low and participation so meagre that statistics are not publicly available. And yet, Amanda Lohrey is nonetheless willing to chide church-going Christians for wanting to influence political debate and shape public policy.
Having revealed a distorted view of democracy, it is not altogether surprising that Lohrey fails to make sense of highly nuanced theological concepts. As a novelist who occasionally writes about politics, I am not sure how she can claim to be a competent commentator with respect to phenomena she clearly does not understand.
By way of example, Lohrey is mistaken if she thinks Christians are (or ought to be) “committed to that great humanist project, a secular liberal democracy in which freedom of conscience is paramount”. Jesus instructed his followers to discern divine truth and to pursue the Kingdom of God.
They were commanded to do this irrespective of how popular that might be within the host society or how palatable it was to the dominant culture. The Christian political vision is neither reflected in, nor exhausted by, social conservatism although this is plainly what Lohrey wants her readers to believe by restricting the personal interviews she conducted as part of the research to Christians within the Evangelical and Pentecostal traditions.
Lohrey quotes approvingly, however, from Marion Maddox’s God Under Howard: the Rise of the Religious Right in Australian Politics which appeared in 2005. In reviewing the book for The Canberra Times, I pointed out that the Maddox’s central thesis that Australian democracy is being ravaged by an ascendant religious right had not been demonstrated with hard evidence. Indeed, this was one of the book’s least convincing elements. Other reviewers have made precisely the same point. Both Lohrey and Maddox overlook abundant evidence of the firmly embedded left-wing commitments that can be found in most major Australian churches.
Large sections of the Catholic Church (with the obvious exception of Opus Dei), the Anglican Church (not counting many within Sydney Diocese) and the Uniting Church (excluding the Evangelical group led by the Reverend Gordon Moyes) would readily confess to leftist sympathies and strong antipathy to the Coalition. Indeed, John Howard, John Anderson, Alexander Downer and Peter Costello have all complained about the existence and propagation of pro-Labor attitudes within the Anglican Church and the willingness of its leaders to attack the Federal Government and to denounce its policies.
It is simply wrong to say that Australia is being threatened by a religious right. This might be the case in the United States but it is not true of Australia. In any event, most Christians in this country are social progressives and not political conservatives. And because the politically conservative Christians are disorganised and sectarian, they cannot agree on a shared agenda or achieve an outward focus.
It is also unfair for Lohrey to criticise Jim Wallace, head of the Australian Christian Lobby based in Canberra, for being “a zealot” or accusing him of seeking a “cheaply won media profile”. While I am not always in agreement with the goals he pursues or the methods the ACL employs, I have always found Jim to be approachable and reasonable. He is a man of high moral principle who is committed to having the Christian perspective heard in Parliament House. To say that he, and the ACL’s supporters, are determined to establish “theocratic government” is misleading and mischievous. But Lohrey’s desire to denigrate those with whom she does not agree doesn’t end there.
She refers to those who do not share her views as “fundamentalists” – a word she uses more than 30 times without once offering any definition. It is, as Lohrey should know, a pejorative word with poisonous resonances. Her disdain for Hillsong and Pastor Brian Houston – both pillars of “fundamentalism” – is reflected in the casual disclosure of alleged financial irregularities and purported tax rorts. This is sheer smear and cheap point-scoring. Lohrey is ready to wound but unwilling to strike. She also complains, ironically in my view, about the “unpleasant” tactics of the religiously inspired political right but makes no mention of the brutality and small-mindedness of left-wing politics in this country. Apparently those on the right are meant to be better behaved. Those on the left can be excused. Why? Apparently they are not as self-serving. Really.
Christians who fail to acknowledge any limits on their political participation need to be confronted and chastised. For myself, I would participate in any campaign that sought to preserve the integrity of the Church and the health of the State. But I could never support the kind of suspicious secularism advocated by Amanda Lohrey.
Dr Tom Frame is an Anglican Bishop. His new book Church and State: Australia’s Imaginary Wall’ (UNSW Press) will be published this month. This article was first published in ‘The Canberra Times’.
