I keep waiting for the traditional church to launch its campaign against the government’s treatment of boat people.

Perhaps Stern Hu needs a rocket launcher to get the churches' attention

After all, boats carrying asylum seekers keep entering Australian waters in greater numbers, there are allegations that boats are left to drift and, worst of all, some have perished along the way.

I glance skyward in Melbourne, looking for the immense banner hanging from the spire St Paul’s Cathedral, like there was a few years ago. Instead of “Justice for David Hicks”, it will read “Justice for SIEV 624”.

“Excising islands and placing boat people in New Guinea and Nauru and so removing them from access to the Australian legal system was too clever and inhuman. Have we no sense of shame as a nation?” asked the Most Reverend Peter R Watson, then the Archbishop of Melbourne in 2004.

Surely Rev Watson, or his successor Dr Philip Freier, who defended the “Justice for David Hicks” banner, will be out of the blocks soon to criticise the fact that boatpeople are dying and to demonstrate the traditional church’s deep adherence to social justice is non-partisan.

Or how about this for something really radical, seeing as the Melbourne Anglicans felt that a self professed terrorist needed support because he was held without charge:  “Justice for Stern Hu.”

I’m not going to swing by the neck waiting.

The point of this column is not to state the obvious. That the social justice wing of the traditional church is infected with Left-wing activists, many of whom would be agnostics at best or atheists at worst is well known and well documented.

And it’s not to have a crack at the social justice agenda or the people deeply committed to making their society or community a better place. And it’s not to make the argument that the church should never involve itself in politics. That would be ridiculous.

Rather it’s to expose how the traditional church is ushering itself to irrelevance.

I write this in the full knowledge that the church has made a big difference for the better on some big political issues, the abolition of slavery for one.

But on some issues, the church has no business pushing any position. It does not have policy expertise to do so. It’s trenchant opposition to the GST, for instance, proved that.

And there’s a big difference between slavery and garden variety political issues of the type that the church involves itself with more and more these days.

Stop globalisation rally, the church will be there. Walk against the G8 Summit, the church will be represented—along with every other activist group and ratbag anarchist.

Leaked union documents before the last election showed the ACTU had a deliberate strategy to infiltrate churches in a bid to get them to push a pro-union message.

And, of course, the church did.

Is the church the winner in any of this? Not if you count numbers, it isn’t.

While traditional church leaders might get a thrill out of seeing themselves in newspapers commenting on “cutting edge issues”, the sad reality is that people are staying away in droves.

This makes sense because other organizations are better equipped to run political campaigns.

If you want liberal policies and political campaigns, you go to the Greens website, not waste your Sunday morning on a Uniting Church pew listening to environmental policy.

The Greens don’t bother with rhetoric about saving souls on the way to figuring out how to save a tree.

So in persistent advocacy of secular issues, the church has willingly allowed itself to become no different to most of the other voices across the Left of the political spectrum.

And that means that, in the political cacophony, it carries a diminished voice, because it has no specific expertise, no particular skill set with which to argue its case.

And then, of course, the traditional church can’t even agree on its social agenda.

In Britain, the Archbishop of Canterbury can be found arguing for the introduction of Sharia law in support for multiculturalism, which has outraged a good percentage of the congregation. This comes as the church fights a bitter public war over gay ordination.

And all this is underscored by a persistent debate among certain clergy about whether God actually exists anyway.

The retiring Bishop of Rochester, Dr Nazir-Ali traces the decline of the church in Britain back to the 1960s when there was a steep decline in Christian worship.

Marxist students encouraged a “social and sexual revolution” to which liberal theologians and Church leaders “all but capitulated,” he says.

“It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves. While the Christian consensus was dissolved, nothing else, except perhaps endless self-indulgence, was put in its place.”

As a person of faith who holds a deep interest in politics, I think it is in our nation’s interest for the church to help fill the moral and spiritual vacuum. And there are a great many churches out there doing just that.

But if the traditional church is to succeed, it must get back to doing what it does best, delivering a spiritual message, not attempting to replicate a Left-of-centre political party or Greenpeace.

22 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Cherub says:

      10:14am | 20/07/09

      I agree with everything you say except for one thing.  The Church’s preoccupation with leftist ‘cutting edge’ issues is not keeping people away from Church.  That is a much more complex question and has a lot to do with the issues connected to secularisation.  That is for another day.  But it is certainly true that in many issues on which the Churches have chosen to take a side they do so without any more expertise than others might have, and less than some.  To set down the moral principles and the provide the general direction in which they should be applied is part of the Church’s mission.  Detailed policy is not.  For example, the principles of the ‘just war’ still hold.  But one of those principles leaves the application of the principles in a particular case to governments who are best placed to decide whether or not their country is under immediate threat of being attacked.  The treatment of asylum seekers, provided people are treated in a just and humane fashion is an issue to be determined by government. So good on you Dave.

    • Ted Flack says:

      10:43am | 20/07/09

      David Gazard has missed the point the Churches are making, probably because they tend to make their point very poorly and don’t care to diferenciate it from left-wing mantras. The Christian Churches trying to do exactly what Jesus said we should - speak up for the poor, the underdog, the despised and the cast outs. He befriended prostitutes, tax collectors, ex prisoners, etc because they are the least among us. Its about compassion and humanity not about what’s popular.

    • Peter says:

      10:53am | 20/07/09

      I agree that the church is “ushering itself to irrelevance”.

      The slide to irrelevance began with attempts by the church to engage scientific arguments and then gain followers through appeals to rationality. Any attempt by the church to compete against science is doomed to fail.

      The things that science cannot and never will be able provide, are spiritual nourishment and a solid support network; this is where the church comes into its own. Furthermore, a considered moral (or ethical) stance on numerous issues, with practical guidance on how to act, is paramount to the usefulness of the church and religion in general.

      However, modern ethical codes or modes of moral calculus, such as mixed rule teleology, are arguably incompatible with the core religious texts. What is required is an internal overhaul, a substantial trimming of the dead wood, so to speak, if the church is to play an important and useful role in society. That is, to regain a place of purpose and relevance within our society, the church must distance itself from its now outdated source of moral instruction: the bible. Evidently, this is impossible.

    • paul says:

      11:12am | 20/07/09

      Well Mr Gazzard you jumped in too soon, people in Aussie didn’t start calling for Hicks release until he had been imprisoned for 4-5 years… ummm without a court appearance. He was charged and convicted in the court of media - the Kangaroo Court - by many Christians, Christian-Rednecks and dimwits like you. If everyone doesn’t get their day in court well, we are just like the Chinese or the Romans crucifying Jesus…? I agree with Ted that the Church should “speak up for the poor, the underdog, the despised and the cast outs.  Like you should Mr Gazzard. There’s some Jesus street cred.There are 100,000 homeless people in Australia and you, Mr Gazzard, want to focus on 1 rich executive with the full weight of huge global company and heavy diplomatic hitter like Rudd behind him (?). Maybe you better start prayin son.

    • phil says:

      11:24am | 20/07/09

      Hicks with the rocket launcher again hey oldie but a goodie gazard some things never change.

    • PJ says:

      11:45am | 20/07/09

      Paul - you are quite wrong.

      Kevin Rudd in fact called for the Government to act on Hicks and Habib (would you believe) just a few months after they were moved to Gitmo.

      Reference to the release can be found here.

      Kevin Rudd, MP `Lack of Government action on Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib’, media release, 9 May 2002. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/online/Australians_GuantanamoBay.htm

    • RT says:

      12:38pm | 20/07/09

      This is the umpteenth column I’ve read comparing the reactions to Hicks and Stern Hu. It’s rather a boring exercise. OK, the left side of politics has not vigorously taken up Hu’s case. So what? What have right-wing commentators and activists done apart from pointing at left inactivity? Surely anyone can agitate in support of Hu if they wish regardless of their position on the political spectrum?

    • paul says:

      01:18pm | 20/07/09

      PJ - you are quite wrong. And obviously not following the media.

      Rudds protest was lame then - as it is now. Mouse squeaks hardly count.

      And Gazzard seems to think that he -an arrogant happy clapper -can lecture us on who and when people can protest. Say what? Also lame.

      Go and preach in a church /mosque with the other wacko fundamentalists and wonder why your church numbers are declining!

    • Mondo Rock says:

      02:11pm | 20/07/09

      Or how about this for something really radical, seeing as the Melbourne Anglicans felt that a self professed terrorist needed support because he was held without charge:  “Justice for Stern Hu.”

      David - in all seriousness, do you not see the difference between Hicks and Hu from a ‘justice’ perspective?

      I’ll lay it out for you.  Both have been captured by a foreign power and both have been charged with serious crimes - but only one is currently receiving the benefit of an Australian government that insists his legal rights be protected.  That person is Hu.

      The banners, marches and protests around Hicks were aimed specifically at the Australian government’s failure to live up to its clear obligation to ensure that on of its citizens (i.e. one of us) receives a fair trial.  The protests were an attempt to pressure our government to live up to its responsibilities. 

      Why do you think that such protests are necessary now?  Do you have any reason to believe that the Labor Government will fail to insist that Hu receive an open and fair trial in the same way that the Coalition failed Hicks?

    • Ian says:

      02:26pm | 20/07/09

      The church has been a political animal ever since the rule of Emperor Constantine, for good or for its own interests. While secular governments claim to be dissociated from the church, one can be sure that is not reciprocated by the church, viz the churchmen who came to Howard’s own office on more than one occasion when he was PM. One can see hierarchies of the churches leaning to the right. But there are many churchmen who attuned to their communities and speak out where they see the need. Does this make them ‘lefties’?

    • Darren says:

      02:51pm | 20/07/09

      According to my incomplete sunday schooling your god is literally everywhere and the most awesome power in the entire universe. Instead of whining to us David - why not whinge to god? He’s probably got more chance of sorting it out than we have. If you are a Christian, why can’t you just forgive Hicks?

    • stephen says:

      03:53pm | 20/07/09

      Yes, l agree the church is now too involved in common affairs.
      It has lost its stillness,  now people wait for every comment from the Clergy bar one : thoughts and feelings we deduce when we are alone, such as love, generosity and courage. Common sense tells us that these are the important faculties, yet the Church continues to argue matters on the Industrial Revolution,i.e. profit and loss. Go back, back, back in time I reckon, and heed the ideas of the great poets - Homer, Socrates and Jesus-(hmm, that should do it I reckon), and give Keynes a miss.

    • AussieJazzman says:

      04:47pm | 20/07/09

      Odd article, full of contradictions and bizarre statements:

      ‘the social justice wing of the traditional church is infected with Left-wing activists, many of whom would be agnostics at best or atheists at worst ‘

      Wait, what?  Since when did atheists infect local Churches?  One would assume that the decline in Church membership has more to do with the fact that most Churches are struggling to pull in the under-30 crowd who’ve already decided that contraception and abortion are OK, and for whom aging texts read by aging priests with very little connection to contemporary life would be more of a problem than the Church taking particular political stances.

      Also, as referenced above, on social issues the ‘Traditional Church’ is still far more conservative than liberal.

      Also, it’s a little bizarre to assert that Leftist activists care about David Hicks above and beyond asylum seekers.  As one of your much-disparaged social-justice leftists, Government treatment of asylum-seekers is very high on our list of ‘stuff we’d like the Church to come out about’.  In short, you seem to be, well, talking out of your backside.

    • Emily's Nephew says:

      05:58pm | 20/07/09

      David Gazard says he is ‘a person of faith who holds a deep interest in politics.’  OK David, can you be a bit more specific about your faith and how it informs your political views, because the article is characterized by a scatter-gun approach.

      Care to tell us the kind of opinions from what you call ‘the church’ that you would find acceptable?

      For example, how do you feel when Tim Costello talks about justice for the two-thirds world, or when Christian organizations work hard to encourage governments to keep their promises to the Millennium Development Goals? And I’m sure you’ve not forgotten the amazing impact of the international Christian-influenced ‘Make Poverty History’ campaign.

    • Emily's Nephew says:

      07:10pm | 20/07/09

      Thank’s David.  Yes it seems you were dispapointed with WV, but even in that articke you make broad-brush attacks on many agencies, but only give chapter and verse about 1!

      Now will you answer the other questions: can you be a bit more specific about your faith and how it informs your political views, because the article is characterized by a scatter-gun approach.

      Care to tell us the kind of opinions from what you call ‘the church’ that you would find acceptable?

    • Baffled By Bulldust says:

      07:35pm | 20/07/09

      Mr Gazard attempts to link Churches and hypocrisy with the Left Wing and totally misses the bleeding obvious. Christian ( or for that matter, Muslim ) beliefs dictate that both movements want the same thing - justice, sanctuary, assistance and protection for the poor, weak and vulnerable. Talk about hypocrisy ! To follow Mr Turnbull’s and the Opposition’s very well and factually documented historical template - let’s just let China torture Hu’s arse off for a few years before doing or saying anything other than stroking China with a limp lettuce leaf. The other ” perception is reality ” PR problem with Rio Tinto and the unfortunate Mr Hu - is that very real and uber-embarrassing, small international hypocrisy with AWB. In the words of The Who - won’t get fooled again ....

    • emma harvey says:

      07:41pm | 20/07/09

      David, I admire your enthusiasm and unashamed positive attitude. Dont worry about the potshots from people like Emily’s Nephew who slink in and out of a mature, adult debate on the back of childish nicknames to hide their identity. You are proud to put your views out there with your name attached. Good on you. may there be more people like you. Now that David has answered the challenge from Emily’s Nephew…it is time for Emily’s Nephew to reveal their hidden agenda.

    • Darren says:

      10:43pm | 20/07/09

      Seeing as you are answering questions: why do you still carry Hicks baggage and are unable to forgive him? I would have thought Jesus would have said something like:forgive Hicks for he knows not what he does. A bit like Hicks loving, long- suffering Father tried to say - in fact begged. Jesus wasn’t a hater David, nor did he witchhunt or crucify the Romans for torturing him - for years after.  You forgave AWB for consorting with and giving large amounts of ca$h to terrorists right? Without more explanation your apparent beliefs & opinion appears schizophrenic.

    • Payton L. Inkletter says:

      04:58am | 22/07/09

      Institutionalised religions in general are still very poor performers at even what should be their core business – assisting voluntary members to make spiritual progress – and have no place at all in any political arena. We likely agree on this latter point, David.

      Spiritual progress is progress in becoming more God-like; said another way: building a best friendship with God (we tend to become like those we spend a lot of time with and whose values we share). Individuals can achieve this outside of formal religion, and, if they are lucky, also as insiders of these doctrinally encased organizations. Religious establishments should strive to become very effective spiritualising catalysts for their members, who then as individuals, as salt of the earth, lift the quality of all other social groups, including the family, to which they belong.

    • Simon H says:

      02:16am | 23/07/09

      “And then, of course, the traditional church can’t even agree on its social agenda.” Gee, the church (really dozens of churches) being politically split and all over the place: that’s a massive change of pace from what’s been happening for most of the last 2000 years.

      And your point is? Ah, that’s right, not that it’s not speaking with one voice, but rather that there are too many left-wingers in the cacophony of voices, producing all kinds of ridiculous Labor-left policies on areas where the church has “no specific expertise, no particular skill set with which to argue its case”, and so it should just butt out.

      But wait. How about The Permissive Society, and the evils of condoms and abortion? Man, if ever there were topics where the church has “no specific expertise, no particular skill set with which to argue its case”, this is them. It’s underqualified by design on these ones. And yet you select the ‘war on self-indulgence’ as basically the core area where the church should be fighting the good fight. Could it be, perhaps, because these are hot-button right-wing topics? Or is that level of cynicism unbecoming of a discussion in which the unanswered and unanswerable question is always hovering uncomfortably in the background: What Would Jesus Do In Our Place? (‘Weigh into a lot of policy debates in a way that you would find unnecessary and unbecoming’ is an answer that leaps to mind.)

    • Christian Eden Monaro Voter says:

      08:04pm | 18/05/10

      Thank you so much for this post. I am a voter in the Eden Monaro electorate. Just this morning, I was wondering who on earth I would vote for at the next election. Traditionally, I have voted Labor. But lately, like many other people it seems, I have turned against them. Plus I do really like Tony Abbott and I would love to see him as Prime Minister. Although I’m not too keen on his policies regarding climate change. By the way, I am also a Christian and a keen environmentalist. I also believe strongly in the church working to address social justice issues.

      So the reason for my thanks is this. After reading this post, I no longer have to worry about who I’m voting for at the next election. It certainly won’t be Liberal.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

RT @JenBrockie: A take on social media from India http://t.co/5XCerDTB @tehelkadotcom

Lucy Kippist

RT @alaindebotton: So many of our problems would be alleviated if we had 3 or 4 exceptional friends living within a 2 minute radius.

Paul Colgan

RT @latikambourke: Yes, @PeterSlipperMP is genuine.

Anthony Sharwood

It's terribly unfashionable to admit but my Cityrail train just left on time again

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Stop all the cheering, cut off the champagne. Prevent the pollies from barking and silence the drums.…

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Some friends of mine had lunch on Saturday with a mate who spent so much time artfully composing photos…

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

That dopey Spaniard. Three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador has been banned for two years,…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: City vs country: What would you change your life for?

Dieter Moeckel says:

We made the tree change from Darwin to Wonbah more than 15 years ago. After fencing, a road, and couple of dams our money was gone. Super is enough to live comfortably. We have geese growing old and stringy the only one that made it to the pot committed Kamakazi by flying into a tree; the chooks are… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

150 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter