By Peter Green
Kevin Rudd first sprang to prominence with several related articles about his vision of the relationship between Church and State. But what consideration has been given to how this might work out since Labor's overwhelming victory?
It is worth remembering that Kevin Rudd first sprang to prominence with several related articles about his vision of the relationship between Church and State. But what consideration has been given to how this might work out since Labor's overwhelming victory?
Where Howard's view – as much as he expressed it – was somewhat Constantinian, Rudd's is more in line with the views of radical Protestantism.
That is, Howard seems to have seen the Churches as Departments, and their leaders as functionaries, of the State. This was reflected in his wooing of the politically conservative churches, like Hillsong, and in the way his Ministers attacked any church which dared speak out against Government policy. It was also reflected in the way that many welfare services have been turned over to Church agencies, which have been funded to provide services but at the same time restricted in their ability to exercise independence in how they administer those services.
On the other hand, Rudd's vision, summarised, was of a Church and a State independent of each other, but often co-belligerents (to borrow Francis Schaeffer's expression) in battles for a more just and more equal society. The surprise was, how many letters to Editors attacked Rudd for cozying up to religion, even handing the Labor Party over to religion.
In this view, Rudd perhaps didn't follow Baptists, Anabaptists and others who, in the 16th and 17th Centuries, struggled so long and pleaded so eloquently for separation of Church and State; but he had certainly reached similar conclusions. In fact, his vision of Church-State relationships largely demonstrates the truth of Martin Marty's assertion that the entire Christian world has been undergoing "baptistification." The 17th Century Baptists found an ability to work within their society while rejecting economic and political control by the State. This is close to Rudd's plan.
But is it a plan?
What we have not yet heard – and probably won't hear for some time – is how this relationship will work out in practice. So far, nothing much has really changed. This is not unexpected, as any new Government must set some basic framework into place before it can develop policy detail. However, there are some areas where we should expect answers sooner rather than later.
Education has to be a critical test for the Rudd vision. He has emphasised the need for an education revolution, and there can be few quibbles with that. After 11 years of relative neglect, we need to see something being done. But what has emerged from the Labor camp does not suggest that the idea of separate co-belligerency has penetrated far into Labor thinking.
For example, Labor proposes to maintain the current funding arrangements for schools, which give private – mainly Church-run – schools enormous advantages over State schools. Not only does this encourage a flight of well-off parents into the private schools, but it also means that these schools can attract more teachers who in previous years would have remained within the Public system. Funding inequity is a form of diversion of welfare to the rich. Furthermore, the "no disadvantage" clause in the funding arrangements means that a large proportion of private schools receives far more funding than their actual circumstances should allow. The Anglican Church has complained that this is an unsustainable plan and discriminates unfairly against groups which aim to launch a private school in an area where one of these schools already exists. The new school just can't be competitive.
The other main area where Labor faces a test is welfare. Since the Reforms of the 1830s, Governments under the British system and its descendants took the main responsibility for welfare, with Churches providing local and ad-hoc supplementary services.
However, the Howard system, while maintaining a core income support aspect of its services, has increasingly institutionalised the Church-run systems, funding them, but also limiting them. Viewed in psychological terms, what has been established is a complicated web of co-dependencies. The agencies depend on the Government to fund them, yet increasingly have the funding and supply controls tightened, so that they have to do more with less. But they can't withdraw because that would leave their clients unsupported. And the clients depend on the agencies as well. So the system is locked, and a move by any player has a domino effect throughout the system.
Something similar is happening in the job search area, though under crueller conditions.
So, for the Government to dismantle this system would create considerable hardship both for the agencies and their staff and for their clients. Yet maintaining it continues to push the Churches towards being mere agencies of the Government.
Clearly, change is necessary, but will never be easy.
Meanwhile, in both areas – education and welfare – the current situation often has a negative effect on the Churches in their broader ministries. When it comes to the clients, many are surprised and impressed by the level of service they have received from Church-run agencies. In fact, even many people from non-Christian backgrounds choose the Christian agencies over those run by their own religions for that very reason. But those assessing the situation from outside often view the Churches with suspicion, seeing them as exploitative and suspecting them of using their positions as welfare providers both to proselytise and to divert Government funds to their own use. And there have been instances where this may have occurred.
While these may appear to be mere matters of policy, the issue goes a lot deeper. Particularly in a situation where the Government has such a large majority in the lower house, the Churches will have a vital prophetic role, much as it did in Kennett's Victoria a few years ago. A hostile Senate is not always a particularly reliable counter to an unfettered Government.
For this prophetic role to work, it is vital that the Churches maintain a certain distance from the machinery of Government, otherwise our voices will be muted, distorted, and, ultimately, fruitless.
Rev. Peter Green works at Silverstreet Mission in Sydney and is a member of the Social Issues Committee for the Baptist Union of NSW and ACT.