Brian Baxter *

July 2005

Brigadier Jim Wallace runs a Religious Right organisation called the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) - for some background on this group, see unbelief.org/groups/acl/. In an ACL paper dated 13 May 2004, Wallace claims that:

There is no sense in [ACL's] vision of our wishing to see Australia a theocracy, but merely wanting to re-establish the rightful influence of those who believe in our Christian heritage.

In my opinion, Wallace would in practice like to see a Christian theocracy established in Australia and in this article I will explain why I think so.

What is a theocracy?

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘theocracy’ as follows:

A form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognised as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents …

Let us examine this definition clause by clause, relating them to the beliefs of the ACL.

There is no doubt whatever that Wallace regards his Christian God as the ‘King’ of the universe, including Australia. This quote is typical of his general approach:

[W]e, Christ’s ambassadors, will not sit by and allow our King and his Kingdom’s values to be demeaned … This newsletter is full of challenges, each one an opportunity, if the Church will simply stand up and honour its King in the political domain (my emphases - ACL Newsletter, Feb. 2004, 1).

‘Kingdom values’ are more often referred to by Wallace as ‘Christian values’, or sometimes as ‘Judaeo-Christian values’ (or ‘principles’ or ‘ethics’). These terms are almost never defined: indeed, it would be politically unwise for the Religious Right to try and define them for a general audience. Upon examination, ‘Christian values’ are very like non-Christian values - ‘Be nice to other people’ etc. - unless you happen to be a Religious Right-type Christian, in which case ‘Christian values’ become very extensive indeed e.g. ‘wives should invariably submit to husbands’ etc.

Values and Government

Let’s look at two ACL documents bearing directly on the question of ‘Christian values’ and the role they should play in Australian politics and government. As regards the issue of theocracy, these mini-essays speak for themselves. The first is entitled Australian Christian Lobby - Submission - Political Honesty Bill and it was available on the ACL’s website - www.acl.org.au - during August 2002 (my emphases throughout):

… [O]ur ethical foundation [is] in the Judaeo-Christian ethic … [O]ur national political heritage is decidedly Judaeo-Christian … For a Christian country [ACL regards Australia as such], the example in leadership is Christ, and although we will inevitably fall short of his example, it is an appropriate standard by which to measure any leader … Legislating political honesty should therefore include means by which individuals desiring to enter parliament are apprised of the responsibilities expected of them both corporately and individually. These values should be drawn from scripture and could be specified by a working party of politicians and nominees from various Christian Churches. (1-4)

Paragraph by paragraph we see the specifically Christian theocratic mindset clearly revealed:

At the heart of this submission, therefore, is the fundamental imperative that a Charter of Political Honesty be grounded in the objective moral truths contained in the Scriptures. [The text here contains a reference to the work of David Noebel, a theocratic American writer.] For the purposes of the submission, moral absolutes are defined as that set of principles which exist above and beyond the opinions of men, and which thus provide an objective yardstick against which all considerations of ethical behaviour can be measured and evaluated … The idea of having political honesty based on the nature and character of a righteous and just God is far superior both theoretically and practically to any attempts at building standards of political conduct based upon the quicksand of moral relativism. (4-5)

According to the OED’s definition of ‘theocracy’, a particular god’s laws are to be ‘taken as the statute-book of the kingdom’. We’re getting pretty near it in this ACL submission, but let’s see if we can draw even closer:

Consistent with the biblical teachings on honesty, our politicians must be men and women of character - that is, of proven integrity - whose words and deeds are beyond reproach [note the sacerdotal, even semi-divine nature of the ACL's politicians] …

Moreover, they must recognise - as our founding fathers clearly did [this assertion is based on a mythological Religious Right view of Australian history] - the one condition that God imposes upon this or any nation: the obedience of its people, and more particularly its leaders, to the will of God and His teachings. (6)

ACL’s recommendations in this submission include the following:

That the Office of Commissioner for Ministerial and Parliamentary Ethics have either: (1) a theologian trained in Christian ethics as a permanent staff member and/or (2) access to the advice of prominent Church leaders in reviewing issues that come before it. (6)

They look suspiciously like Christian commissars to me, but let us move on.

Dr L J M Cooray

The second document is essentially a series of notes prepared for the ACL by Dr L J M Cooray of Sydney. The paper is headed ‘Christian values and ethics’ and was available on the ACL website during October 2003. The introduction declares that this material ‘provides an excellent spiritual basis to underpin the work of the Australian Christian Lobby’. While the notes do not directly address the question of theocratic government, they give a good idea of the ACL’s indebtedness to its large Pentecostal component. Read in conjunction with the previous document, this paper also allows the reader to draw conclusions about the kind of political system that Wallace and his friends wish to see established in this country:

The Bible is the inspired word of God. The Bible is infallible. The Bible is above and beyond anything which comes out of human knowledge, science and research. (2)

God may confer on a person delegated authority over his neighbour. God in the Bible has delegated authority to: (i) Kings and governments; (ii) Husbands; (iii) Parents; (iv) Masters; (v) Elders; (vi) Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers [this is the 'Five-fold Ministry' promoted by a modern version of Pentecostalism]; (vii) Believers. All of these classes are responsible to God for the manner in which they exercise authority [Note: including 'Kings and governments', responsible directly to God] … Grace, Faith, Love and Truth, working together, will lead to the final stage of revival, widespread healings and miracles, signs and wonders. (3)

Jim Wallace himself is a Baptist but belongs to a class of Baptists who share a good deal of common theological ground with Pentecostalism. He freely admits that fully half of the ACL’s support derives from charismatic-Pentecostal churches - www.sightmagazine.com.au/stories/Interview-JimWallace-1.4.2003.php - and that ‘churches such as [Sydney's] Hillsong are at the forefront of a growth in “traditional” Christianity and values.’ (ACL media release, 15 Jul. 2004) Influential elements of ‘new’ Pentecostalism are very theocratic indeed and the ACL seems to have uncritically incorporated this thinking into its own ideology (or ‘world view’ as Wallace prefers to call it.)

Wallace’s world view

Wallace first became involved with the Australian Christian Coalition (ACC), the earlier incarnation of the ACL, in 1996 - www.sightmagazine op cit - several years before he left the Army - and seems initially to have been fairly selective in the ideas he picked up from the American Religious Right. He appears to have some sort of commitment to a Christian social justice agenda, but this interest has recently been swamped by the anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-censorship paranoia emanating from both Australian and American religious fanatics. Wallace’s political views are now practically indistinguishable from those of other Religious Right leaders, both here and in America.

It’s important to understand that, like many other such people, Wallace believes that he receives political instructions directly from God. Here is his explanation of why he decided in 2000 to leave the Army and take up his ACL post:

What sealed the issue for [me] came one Sunday in church when the pastor preached that people have to be prepared to lay down golden crowns if they want to change anything in the world. ‘Up until then I had said to God, “if you want me to do this lobbying then stop promoting me in the Army.” At that point, I realised that I had to be prepared to lay down a golden crown - and the position of General was a golden crown.’ (Challenge monthly Christian newspaper, Mar. 2003, 3)

The central policy positions adopted by Wallace and his group, being divinely sanctioned, are entirely non-negotiable:

Our objective at the ACL has always been to be openly Christian and non-compromising on issues of faith that we hold so dear … [W]e ask that you keep us in your prayers as we do the work of our Lord and Saviour. (National Newsletter, Feb. 2003, 2)

Remember that for Wallace and his allies, ‘compromise’ means ‘to make a deal with the Evil One’ in the form of the abortion or gay lobbies etc., and is thus viewed as totally unacceptable. This unwillingness to compromise is one of the most important features distinguishing theocratic lobbies from ‘normal’ political groups. It is also strongly implied in the ACL’s regular references to its promotion of ‘the Christian view’ on such issues as transgender rights, euthanasia etc., as if all Christians were in full agreement on these questions (see, e.g., ACT Newsletter, Apr. 2003, 2). Compromise is not even possible with other Christians - or, as some Religious Right leaders habitually refer to them, ‘Christians’ (note quote marks).

Rhetoric of theocracy

The rhetoric of theocracy is evident in all major ACL publications. For example, what do you understand by the term ‘liberty’?

Liberty is not the right to do what you will, but what is right. (’What is ACL?’, downloaded 2 Aug. 2003, 1)

And who will tell us what is ‘right’? I’ll leave that to your imagination. Here are a few other clues as to what sort of Australia the ACL wants to see:

It is indeed time for the church to be seen again in all areas of national life. (Wallace - www.sightmagazine.com.au/stories/Features/elections13.11.04.php)

It is time for grass-roots, Biblically-based Christians to take back this nation. (Peter Stokes, Executive Officer, Salt Shakers, approvingly quoted in ACL ‘Latest issues’, downloaded 3 Aug. 2003, 6)

…[T]olerance does not mean removing the need for every individual to have a philosophical basis for personal values that will allow them to safely judge the many competing ideas and world views with which a plural[ist] society abounds. A wise man once said that the mind, like the mouth, is designed to be kept open only long enough to close on something solid, but the politically correct mantra dominating our schools is likely to produce intellectual ‘gawkers’, never able to firm on a moral reference point. (Wallace, ACL media release, 21 Jan. 2004)

This last quote is particularly disturbing, as Wallace seems to prefer a situation in which school students regard open-mindedness as something to be avoided! A few months later he quoted figures from an ANU Survey of Social Attitudes which indicated that most Australians in the 18-49 age group believed that a same-sex couple with a child constituted a ‘family’. Wallace’s interpretation of this?

Presumably this … is a direct result of the way this lifestyle is presented in our schools. The lesson we must learn is that we have to address the values our children are taught at school. (Newsletter, May 2004, 1)

It’s hard to know whether to be more concerned about Wallace’s logic or his conclusion.

Confronting ‘Evil’

Look out, evil - the church has awakened! (Newsletter, June 2004, 2)

Theocratic movements often have a strong dualistic (’Manichaean’) inclination i.e. a tendency to view personalities and events in terms of ‘good vs. evil’, and this observation certainly applies to the ACL. Thus, Australian policy-makers are afflicted with ’spiritual blindness’ and are ‘lost and unaware’ (Newsletter, Jul. 2003, 3). Australian society as a whole is ’sick, confused and rudderless’ (New Life, 10 Jun. 2004).

ACL’s (and God’s) adversaries are legion and are terrifyingly powerful. Wallace claims not to believe in conspiracy theories, but certainly does an excellent impression of such a believer:

At the national level we have seen a real assault on Christian values through the exercise of disproportionate political power by aggressive minorities. Many of these are driven by the profit provided in the new markets that breaching community norms on morals always creates … Still others are ideologically driven by people whose agendas cannot be achieved unless they hold that disproportionate political power so evident in groups like the homosexual community. Their campaigns are subtle, inevitably distract the public by the skilful use of language and by avoiding the real issue through demonisation of opponents … Unfortunately a largely sympathetic or at worst actively compliant press makes individual issues very difficult to win. (Newsletter, Jan. 2004, 1)

‘Demonisation’ is an unfortunate word for Wallace to use, as he consistently pictures his own opponents as destructive and devious:

[Same-sex] marriage was the jewel in the crown that, once achieved, [laid] open to waste all other vestiges of our Christian tradition and heritage. (Newsletter, Aug. 2004, 2)

[We must ensure that] our national values are not hijacked by this determined and insidious campaign [for same-sex marriage]. (ACL email to supporters, 23 Aug. 2004)

And Wallace’s view of recent history also smacks of paranoia:

‘Until the ’60s the influence of the Judaeo-Christian ethic was quite strong, and that was very constraining for people with counter-Christian agendas like the homosexual lobby, the sex industry, the marijuana lobby. They couldn’t really get anywhere until they neutralised that influence.’ As a result, Christians have been ‘blasted and denigrated to the point where they are reluctant to stick their head above the parapet … As a soldier, I know that you have to take the high ground. And the high ground is government.’ (Elizabeth Feizkhah ‘Christian Soldiers’, Time Asia, 29 Nov. 2004)

A priestly order?

To return to our definition of ‘theocracy’, God’s laws are ‘usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents’. The word ‘usually’ indicates some flexibility in the definition, but as far as the ACL is concerned I don’t think we’re going to need much leeway.

Like the Christian Democratic Party in NSW (Rev. Fred Nile MP, Rev. Gordon Moyes MP) and the Family First Party in SA (Rev. Andrew Evans MP), ACL is built around Christian pastors and their flocks. There is an assumption in most of the group’s literature that its adherents are regular churchgoers; its organisational base seems to consist of individual Christians and some church-centred ’sub-branches’; and its growth strategy revolves around volunteer ‘ACL church representatives’.

After Wallace, the most significant figure in the history of the ACC/ACL has been Pastor Carolyn Cormack, a Pentecostalist from Queensland. Prior to Wallace’s arrival in the job, the group was headed by Pastor Peter Earle, also of Queensland (via the US). Ministers of various descriptions have either led or been prominent in other state branches e.g. Pastor Roger Williamson in Victoria and Rev. Dr Lloyd Kent in the NT. I tried to add up all the pastors claimed as active ACC/ACL supporters in the group’s literature, but I lost count at 33 with a long way to go. Wallace himself is (or was) a deacon at Hughes Baptist Church, Canberra, which means that he has some sort of experience in a church hierarchy.

An Australia governed on ACL lines might not be run by a priestly order per se, but by something uncomfortably close to it. I’ll return to this matter shortly.

The company he chooses

Where might Wallace and the ACL fit into the ranks of modern Christian theocrats? Are they ‘dominionists’ i.e. advocates of ‘dominion theology’, believing that Christians are called to transform society in an essentially and recognisably ‘Christian’ fashion? Are they perhaps ‘Reconstructionists’, aiming at the eventual restructuring of society in accordance with directions contained in the Bible, especially the first five books of the Old Testament? - for some background, see unbelief.org/articles/australias-theocratic-right/

Wallace strikes me as having much in common with the old Moral Re-Armament (MRA) movement that flourished in the 1930s and ’40s. He has a kind of earnest naivety reminiscent of moral crusaders like Britain’s Mary Whitehouse (d. 2001), an MRA stalwart, rather than more contemporary American dominionist hucksters. Nonetheless, Wallace cannot help but be affected by the company he keeps and his companions are often heavily influenced by dominion theology and related ideas.

Frederick Clarkson (Eternal Hostility, 1997) notes that:

A key, if not exclusively Reconstructionist, doctrine uniting many evangelicals is the ‘dominion mandate’, also called the ‘cultural mandate’. This concept derives from the Book of Genesis and God’s direction to ’subdue’ the earth and exercise ‘dominion’ over it. (100)

From its very beginnings, the ACC/ACL looked and talked exactly like a dominionist outfit: some of ACC’s early journals were actually entitled Mandate. Wallace first appeared publicly on a major Religious Right platform in 1999 (Salt Shakers Newsletter, Nov. 1999, 3ff) when he addressed a meeting of the National Alliance of Christian Leaders (NACL), an umbrella group which strongly promotes dominion-style thinking - www.unbelief.org/groups/nacl. Wallace also has researchers and assistants who subscribe to some of these theories e.g. David Yates, formerly of the ‘Centre for Worldview Studies’.

As recently as January 2005, Wallace was scheduled to appear with a list of dominionist and creationist speakers at a ‘Worldview Training’ conference at Toowoomba. The guest of honour was slated to be David Noebel of Summit Ministries in Colorado. Noebel, a former John Birch Society member, is a minor-leaguer in the American Religious Right but very strong on the importance of a ‘Christian worldview’ i.e. a dominionist ideology (see Jean Hardisty [1999] Mobilising Resentment, 107-8). There is no doubt that Wallace has internalised many of these ideas and is now what is often called an ‘operational dominionist’ i.e. even if he hasn’t formally subscribed to the theory his actions are nevertheless predicated on it and almost entirely consistent with it.

Conclusion

Whether he wants to use the term or not, Jim Wallace clearly has a theocratic vision for Australia. An ACL-approved government would recognise God as the ‘King’ of this country; biblical commands including, I suggest, large chunks of Mosaic law, would come to dominate our statute books; and Parliament would be invaded by conservative evangelical pastors and their allies. Although most of these MPs would probably be lay people, it would be difficult to imagine them defying church instructions on basic issues.

Is any such scenario likely to develop soon? I very much doubt it, but if you hear people like Jim Wallace or Fred Nile denying that they want to see a theocracy in Australia, take it with a grain of salt.

But if early one morning they deny it thrice, head for the hills.

(This article was originally published in The Skeptic Winter 2005 (Vol. 25, No. 2).
Republished with permission.)