Church and State in the Uniting Church's Statements to the Nation
This post was co-written with Berlin Guerrero as part of a Uniting Church Studies Intensive in which we both participated in July 2012.
What relationship should the
Christian church have with the State? The earliest Christians had no formal
relationship with the Roman Empire and the
church was often persecuted. With the conversion of Constantine in 312CE a process of change was
initiated which led eventually to the Church being co-opted by the state and
placed at the centre of European society and culture
as well as the cultures and peoples that Europeans colonised. It is a very real
question whether the church best fulfils its mission by ‘calling the shots’ for
the wider society, or whether it functions better as a radical alternative
community. There are many examples of how badly the church behaved when it
dominated society. On the other hand,
the Church has insights as a prophetic community that need to be heard by the
wider society. How do we find the right
balance?
There is a formal separation of
church and state in Australia,
in the sense that no religion shall be the test of any political office and any
established religion is ruled out. There has been a relatively harmonious
relationship between church and state in the sharing of such functions as
education and welfare. The Uniting
Church in Australia (UCA)
has issued two Statements to the Nation (1977 and 1988). They were deemed significant enough to be
included along with the Basis of Union and other formative documents in the
2008 collection, Theology for Pilgrims.[1] This paper will examine these Statements to
see what they reveal of the way the UCA sees itself in relation to the state.
It should be remembered that the
Statement to the Nation is not a statement to the government as such but to
‘the nation’ including but not limited to ‘the state.’ It is addressed collectively to ‘the people
of Australia.’
Nonetheless it reveals a certain stance toward the ‘powers that be’ that helps
us to understand the Uniting
Church’s relationship to
secular governments.
There is an acknowledgment in
paragraph 2 that the Congregationalist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches
had each in its own way ‘contributed in various ways to the life and
development’ of the nation. Furthermore,
it is affirmed that ‘a Christian responsibility to society has always been
regarded as fundamental to the mission of the Church’ and that the new Uniting
Church will see continued involvement in ‘social and national affairs’ as part
of its response to the Christian Gospel. In its thirty-five year history the Uniting
Church has not been afraid to ‘mix religion with politics or, as Rollie Busch
(Moderator of the Queensland Synod in 1977-78) put it, challenge governments
with the brilliant insights of the Bible and the radicalism of Calvin, Knox,
and Wesley.’[3]
This makes it clear that the
Uniting Church does not take a stance of withdrawal from ‘the world,’ such as
is found for example in some expressions of the Anabaptist tradition which see
the church as an alternative society called to withdraw from the polluting
influences of the ungodly. Rather believers are to be ‘citizens of two worlds.’
The fact that the Uniting
Church’s first President,
J. Davis McCaughey also served as Governor of Victoria indicates that there is
no necessary incompatibility between
ecclesial and civil loyalties.[4]
It is clear however, that the Uniting Church does not align itself exclusively
with one particular national government, nor with one particular side of
politics. Paragraph 3 speaks of the Church’s ‘responsibilities within and beyond this country.’[5] It
has particular responsibilities as ‘but one branch of the Christian church
within the region of South-East Asia and the
Pacific.’ This means that the Church’s witness in the political exigencies of
neighbouring nation states is also the concern of the UCA. For example the UCA
has recently expressed its deep concern over the military control of the
Methodist Church of Fiji and stood in solidarity with its fellow Christians
there.
Paragraph 4 speaks of ‘the need
for integrity in public life, the proclamation of truth and justice’ and ‘the
rights for each citizen to participate in decision-making in the
community.’ Again this shows that the Uniting Church declares itself more than ready
to participate in the political process and to bring distinctively Christian
insights into public discourse.
Of great significance for the
focus of this paper is the affirmation in paragraph 7 that ‘the first
allegiance of Christians is God, under whose judgment the policies and actions
of all nations must pass. We realise that sometimes this allegiance may bring
us into conflict with the rulers of our day.’ This means that the Uniting Church recognises that its members may
at times be called to acts of civil disobedience when Gospel priorities conflict
with government policies. Provision for such civil disobedience is explicitly
made in the UCA’s present Code of Ethics.[6]
The Uniting Church’s
partnership with State and Federal governments in the provision of welfare,
health care and education through its various agencies might be seen by some as
a ‘cosy one’ that reflects a Constantinian relationship between church and
state. However it is clear in the 1977
Statement to the Nation that this is not the case. The Christian’s first
allegiance is to God ‘under whose judgment the policies and actions of all
nations must pass.’ This opens up the very real possibility of conflict between
the Church and the powers that be. This may be illustrated in the Church
voicing concern, for example, at the Federal Government’s treatment of asylum
seekers or the current attempt to continue the Intervention into Indigenous
communities by enshrining new and potentially destructive legislation.
The Uniting Church describes
itself in its 1977 Statement to the Nation not as a state church but as ‘an
institution within the nation’ called to ‘stress the universal values which
must find expression in national policies if humanity is to survive.’ Its
stance therefore is a prophetic one, but prophetic within rather than separated
from national life. There may the
need to adjust our perspective even further.
We tend to think of the state as a ‘given’ – something to which the
church must respond or in relation to which it must define itself. But what if
we were to think of the Reign of God as the ‘given’ reality to which both
church and state are called to respond?[7]
 |
| President Rev Prof Andrew Dutney and Rev Rronang Garrawurra lead the prayer vigil on the steps of South Australian Parliament, Wednesday 18 July 2012 |
The second Statement to the
Nation was issued eleven years after the first, during the Bicentenary of
European settlement (1788-1988). It is not incidental that in such a year there
would be a focus on Indigenous Australians (whose presence is recognised as
existing ‘40,000 years’ before Europeans) and the need for Reconciliation.
Three years prior, another statement, The
Uniting Church is a Multi-cultural Church was adopted by the 2005 General
Assembly.
Like the 1977 Statement the
second is again addressed not to the government alone but ‘to our fellow
Australian citizens.’ It expresses thankfulness for ‘those times when the Australian society has established justice, equality, and mutual
respect among people;…placed care for the people who have least…welcomed new
migrants and refugees; exercised solidarity and friendship …and has engaged
constructively with the peoples of Asia, the Pacific and the rest of the world
as peacemaker.’[9] It
does not describe how ‘society
established justice, equality etc.’ but it is of significance that the Uniting Church recognises, if not asserts, that
it is the Australian society, not the state by itself, which establishes what
is considered valuable and beneficial to the people.
The fourth paragraph needs to be
studied critically especially the phrase ‘all of us are beneficiaries of
the injustices that have been inflicted…’[10]
What are the benefits of injustice to which it refers other than the land and
material bounty derived from colonization? It is like saying we benefited from
the ‘first sin’ and the ‘fall.’ Should the end justify the means, so to speak?
However, for the church to say ‘we all contribute to, and perpetuate those
injustices’ is a mark of a confessing church.
Indirectly, the 1988 Statement calls on the
state and social institutions such as the educational system, legislature and
media to strive for ‘the integrity of our nation’ (mentioned three times) and
the requirements and actions necessary to achieve it.
In declaring solidarity with the Aborigines and
in cooperation with ‘Australians of goodwill’ the Uniting Church commits itself
to the work of justice…etc. and ‘in obedience to God’ to ‘struggle against all
systems and attitudes which set
person against person, group against group, or nation against nation.’ This
commitment is repeated and made even stronger in subsequent paragraphs which
pledge to ‘seek to identify and challenge all social and political structures
and all human attitudes which perpetuate and compound poverty,’ and ‘seek to
identify and challenge all structures and attitudes which perpetuate and compound
the destruction of creation.’
The UCA Statements to the nation reflect the
church’s view and attitude towards the nation and the world, present the
various issues and concerns of the nation and the world, and affirm obedience
to God. They do not address any
particular government administration either in the past or in power at the time
the Statements were adopted.
The UCA has strong commitment to the plight of
the poor, Indigenous peoples, victims of injustices, refugees, etc. and on the
basis of this commitment recognises that at times it can be in conflict with
the state’s policies. The Constantinian ‘marriage’ between church and state is
no longer in effect in Australia,
though on the whole, the UCA’s relationship with the state can be said to be
one of ‘critical collaboration.’ The church must always remain aware,
however, that its loyalty is first to Christ, and that this loyalty must always
take precedence over state-like institutions or worldly authority.
[1] Robert Bos and Geoff Thompson, Theology for Pilgrims: Selected Theological Documents of the Uniting
Church in Australia (Sydney: Uniting Church
Press, 2008.)
[2] Uniting Justice Australia
http://www.unitingjustice.org.au/component/content/article/28-statements-resources/uniting-church-statements/190-statementtothenation-1977
published 21 January 2009. Accessed
19 June 2012.
[3] William Emilsen and Susan Emilsen, The Uniting
Church in Australia: The
First 25 Years (Melbourne: Circa, 2003),
p. 2.
[4] For a collection of J.
Davis McCaughey’s writings see Peter Matheson and Christiaan Mostert, eds. Fresh Words and Deeds: The McCaughey Papers
(Melbourne: David Lovell, 2004). See also J. Davis McCaughey, Commentary on the Basis of Union of the
Uniting Church in Australia (Melbourne: Uniting Church Press, 1980).
[5] Emphasis ours.
[6] According to Paragraph 6.2 of The Uniting Church in Australia Code of Ethics and Ministry Practice
for Ministers in the Uniting Church in Australia (Whether in Approved
Placements or Not) Approved by the 12th Assembly July 2009, ‘It is
unethical for Ministers deliberately to break the law or encourage another to
do so. The only exception would be in
instances of political resistance or civil disobedience.’
[7] We are indebted to Randall Prior for this insight given during feedback on our class
presentation.
[8] Uniting Justice Australia
http://www.unitingjustice.org.au/component/content/article/28-statements-resources/uniting-church-statements/189-statementtothenation-1988
published 21 January 2009. Accessed 19 June 2012.
[9] Italics ours.
[10] Italics ours.
No comments:
Post a Comment