Return to main site

Correspondence My response to the Quarterly Essay, issue 22: Voting for Jesus. Amanda Lohrey Church and state. To what degree should one be allowed to meld with the other? And what influence does the church have on the way we vote? Hills Christian Life Centre aka Hillsong: Australia's most noted megachurch, boasting a weekly congregation of 20,000+. It cops a lot of crap from conservative Christians, with whom I stand. (To explain this antipathy, let me suggest the great divide between conventional and charismatic Christianity is the result of an ongoing attempt by the conventionalists to secure the Faith as one dependent upon the Holy Scriptures, not to be obscured by shallow emotional practices.) Essayist Amanda Lohrey opens her contribution to Quarterly Essay with a research interview with three young ladies (15-16yo) who attend Hillsong Church. To Hillsong's credit, the girls appear to be more certain, open and knowledgeable about their faith than I was at that age, although they are otherwise regular 21st-Century girls. The girls express different ideas on issues such as abortion and demonstrate an attractive high tolerance of Others not of their faith. Lohrey, who already seems to be a strong supporter of the hippie/feminist movements, makes an honest observation here: My generation rebelled against the puritan hypocrisy of its elders and fought for sexual freedom, especially for women, but "freedom" can become as despotic as puritan repression. At this point I know I am reading the words of a level-headed individual, despite our divergent points of view. And this divergent perspective means that I see the Faith as a very real union with God, whereas Lohrey examines its function as a winsome philosophy; where you may "find a sense of" worth and meaning. On that very page though, she questions "have any of them [the girls] experienced real sexual awakening?" I see this as a pretty cheap way of devaluing the girls' ideas; suggesting their understanding is incomplete or unfounded because of their age ("Will they feel the same way when they are twenty-five, or even twenty-one?") and because they didn't (like her) experience the cultural movements of the 1960's. At the same time she makes observations about the girls' use of language, such as their use of the colloquial "Much as it sucks..." to soften their understanding that all non-Christians will go to Hell. Throughout her essay, Lohrey points out a lot of words, actions, and other behavioural traits of Christians as if they are tactical methods of supporting their faith. But to express such beliefs in whatever manner might incite her rebuke no matter how it were executed. To be clear, Lohrey's understanding of religion is the methods of a group with an agenda. Whatever Christians may do is an attempt at serving their agenda. And yes, this is true of any group or individual. Here we can find ourselves in a stalemate; whatever belief or practise a person of any persuasion may present, a psychologist can write it off as a process of the mind, leaving it no merit. In this age, the sciences have the upper hand. I could point out many other examples in her essay where Lohrey takes advantage of her understanding of psychology to undermine the Faith, although she does it in such an honest way I'm unsure whether she wrote this way intentionally. She attacks the methods of Hillsong for many pages further, observing its use of mass media and marketing practices. Then when she's ready we leave that behind as she delves into Christianity in Politics. Voting for Jesus There is a widespread understanding that Australia is a Christian nation. This is largely false. Our nation's laws were established by the progeny of our British mother, and thus has a strong Christian heritage. Or maybe it would be closer to the truth to say our laws are based on the model of the Ten Commandments; the teachings of Jesus are not nearly as eminent in our society as the big Ten. When it comes to the crunch, it seems my own estimate was accurate: "as regular churchgoers Australia still rate at only 9 per cent". As for the Australian constitution, Section 116 states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. So officially, Australia demands no particular religious observance of its citizens. So what influence should Christians have over the running of this country? It could be argued that 9% of parliament, no more and justly no less, should sit in parliament at any given time, as it is fair for their position in the community is represented. According to Lohrey, the presence of Christians in the public arena is disproportionate to that small 9% and this is a problem. The Bible teaches us that people have the right (and indeed our ability attests the importance) to think for ourselves. It is wrong and ineffectual to try and force others to take on our beliefs. But we are also told that God is moralistic, as one would probably expect. It is made clear enough what sort of behaviour is wrong and we are warned to separate ourselves from these things and to stand up for what we believe in. Naturally, politically-minded Christians would like to influence the government to embed their moral ideals into the law. Under a democratic system of government, the Common People elect representatives who would push for the incorporation of values they see fit. Each individual carries their own philosophies and values, and these often overlap with the philosophical ideals carried by most religions. So what difference in value is there between society's moral ideas and those of established religion? In politics, should it make a difference whether the one ideal is defined in somebody's doctrine? Now that I've made that point, I will address the response that those who support gay marriage and such issues which the church opposes, are advocates for the freedom to do their thing without repression. Freedom and legal recognition is what some groups are currently seeking. Laws are in place and enforced for the protection of the People and the well-being of society. While Christian groups are being shunned for pushing their message, the leftists are unabashedly preaching their own social gospel. The Family First party was formed by Christians, yet insists their focus is on family issues and are largely not concerned with proclaiming Christianity. They are a conservative group who support the Biblical model of family life. Imagine though, that Christians made no stand for what they believe in. We openly have our say in issues such as abortion, but if it came to the war and we did not make a stance against it, would we not be criticised for not standing up for what we believe in? Others are happy enough when the Christians views are in line with their own, but when they oppose comes the claim that church should be separate from state. Of course, the Christian believes that God is the ultimate authority and His way of life should be embedded in our laws. But until we all agree on this model of God, the Logos cannot be accepted as something we must all abide by. Imago Dei There is an interesting observation here. The picture we have of Jesus changes with the times. In the 1960's Jesus was portrayed as being all about peace and love. Today he's the rebel who preaches Christianity without religion. In the eighties He probably listened to Devo. Here Lohrey makes a point that I had not before encountered. Certainly we have our own image of Jesus, which may be somewhat different from that of the Man as He was in the first decades AD. I would suggest this is fine, provided we stick to the guidelines of the Gospels. Each individual's imago Dei will differ depending on his time and place of birth and countless other factors. I believe Lohrey was again pointing out how God is whatever we want him to be. This will always be true in a sense. Our image of God reflects our own situation. This should pose no threat to the unity of Christianity, provided our understanding of Jesus is in compliance with the guidelines of the Gospel. Epilogue I've penned barely 1400 words, yet here I am writing an epilogue. Please excuse this hint of egomania. This essay came to a standstill when I found myself well out of my league, trying to make any comments about politics. Of that I know very little. Religion and psychology are what interest me, though I have minimal training in either. I make no effort to refute Lohrey's essay, should I feel it appropriate. The main issues of her article I have avoided, choosing only to pick up on some minor points of interest. Lindsey Joel 21 June 2006 If you read this, please leave me your thoughts: