Brian Baxter *

January 2005

One problem with the term ‘Christian fundamentalism’ is that it conveys the impression of a monolithic ideology and a correspondingly monolithic political organisation.

Another widespread opinion about fundamentalist political action in this country is that it is highly successful, as evidenced by restrictions on the rights of gays and increased levels of censorship.

Without wishing to underestimate the significance of the threat, I will argue here that both of these impressions are exaggerated and that Australia’s Religious Right is (a) seriously fragmented on a number of different levels and (b) unlikely in the longer run to achieve any of its major goals.

‘But wait a minute’, I hear you say. ‘What about all the fundos in Federal Parliament, and the rise of Family First, and all the nut-cases whose letters I read in the paper every day, not to mention talk-back radio?’ Yes, I agree that there are a lot of them out there, and that they can be very noisy indeed, but to what extent do these people represent a powerful political movement?

As our Prime Minister is supposed to have said, where politics is concerned, disunity is death. So exactly how united is this Christian fundamentalist ‘bloc’? Let’s begin with that litmus test of commitment to true fundamentalism, namely creationism.

Creationism

It would be difficult to conceive of a more divided house than the modern creationist movement - and we all know what happens to houses divided against themselves. The Young Earth Creationists (YEC), who believe that the earth was created within the last 6,000-10,000 years, spend much of their time attacking Old Earth Creationists (OEC), who don’t share this belief. YECs also enjoy attacking each other, as witness the longstanding hostility existing between Australia’s two premier creationist groups, Answers in Genesis and Creation Research.

And when they run out of nasty things to say to each other, YECs start having a go at the Pope, whom some people might mistakenly regard as a natural ally of the Religious Right. But you see, in 1996, Pope John Paul II ‘got it wrong’ by officially defending both the evidence for evolution and the consistency of that theory with Catholic religious doctrine. Some glorious YEC effusions followed the papal pronouncement:

The Pope’s declaration that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution ‘was more than a hypothesis’ … is an insult to all true Christians. Firstly, Charles Darwin did not come up with this so-called theory … He had no original scientific data … Scientific population statistics disprove evolution, yet equate to our current world population based on just 4,300 years [of human existence] … Most scientists agree [that 'special scientific creationism'] is a far superior model … One can only come to the conclusion that the Pope is ill-informed, has taken leave of his senses, or both. (R.P. Holt, letter in Melbourne Herald Sun, 31 Oct. 1996)

As well as providing a good example of internecine warfare on its own account, creationism is the elephant in the Religious Right’s living-room. It is a belief that can neither be generally trumpeted, for fear of alienating public support, nor openly denied, for fear of alienating ultraconservative Christian support. Leaders of emerging groups such as the Family First Party should always be asked to state publicly and clearly where they stand on the issue of creationism.

Protestants vs Catholics

Alliances between fundamentalist Protestants and conservative Catholics always remind me of the Nazi-Soviet Pact: there might be short-term tactical advantages to such arrangements but they’re never going to work in the long run. Rev. Jerry Falwell of America’s Moral Majority discovered this when he tried to fashion a political organisation out of far right-wing Protestants, Catholics and Jews. The horses in this troika have centuries of discord and bitterness behind them and simply won’t pull together in the same direction for very long.

This problem has bedevilled the Australian Religious Right from its beginnings in the 1960s and 1970s. Protestant doctrinal purists have been quick to condemn Fred Nile’s Festival of Light and similar groups for their ‘compromise with error’ i.e. their accommodating attitude towards the Catholic Church. One pastor even felt that members of organisations like the Festival were what the Bible called ‘workers of darkness: from such turn away‘. Perhaps feeling slightly unwelcome, conservative Catholics have rarely been prominent in the Australian movement and have sometimes expressed concern about certain of its policy positions e.g. regarding the treatment of asylum seekers. (They are, however, very strong on issues like abortion and censorship.)

Some individuals manage to walk the Protestant-Catholic tightrope with a fair degree of skill, but these people are quite exceptional. Bill Muehlenberg, a Baptist, has held senior positions in the Catholic-dominated Australian Family Association for many years. But from a conservative Catholic viewpoint even he fails the ‘litmus test’, being a firm creationist, and I suspect he’s a tiny bit shaky on the role of the Virgin Mary, too. Perhaps someone could ask him.

Pentecostals vs The Rest

Politicians anxious to increase their appeal to the Christian community as a whole should be wary of focusing solely on Pentecostal churches, as speaking in tongues is regarded with disdain by a large proportion of evangelicals. Many of them would join with respected preacher Dr G. Campbell Morgan in describing the Pentecostal movement as ‘the last vomit of Satan‘. Dr R. A. Torrey even claimed that the movement was ‘emphatically not of God, and founded by a Sodomite‘.

Another leading commentator, H. A. Ironside, denounced Pentecostal practices as ‘disgusting … delusions and insanities.‘ Their meetings were ‘pandemoniums where exhibitions worthy of a madhouse or a collection of howling dervishes are held night after night‘. The meetings caused ‘a heavy toll of lunacy and infidelity‘. (Vinson Synan The Holiness-Pentecostal Tradition [2nd ed., 1997], 146)

While these comments were made many years ago, most Christians still regard the more extravagant manifestations of Pentecostalism with suspicion and even contempt. I remember once speaking with a devout Baptist woman who suddenly formed the (mistaken) opinion that I was a Pentecostalist. She turned white, stammered something about ‘works of the Devil’ and scurried from the room - of course, it could have been my aftershave. I have since noticed that mentioning Hillsong or one of the other large Pentecostal congregations in gatherings of more moderate Christians will always elicit a loud groan.

With regard to the Pentecostal-based Family First Party (FFP), I simply note that its performance in the recent Federal election was greeted less than ecstatically by the Religious Right press. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the party was actually expected to do much better than it did. Secondly, its major success in landing a Victorian Senate seat was due to what many Christians regard as an unprincipled preference deal. Thirdly, it will not be forgiven for ‘undermining’ Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party (CDP) campaign in NSW. Fourthly, no-one yet knows how strongly it is prepared to push core issues like trying to ban abortion and having creationism taught in schools (the party is viewed by some fundamentalists as especially ‘weak’ on the evolution issue).

And lastly, FFP is seen as a mob of Pentecostals - enough said!

Calvinists vs Arminians

‘Calvinists vs Arminians? What, free will and predestination and the rest of it? Surely that was all sorted out ages ago!’

Not for these folks it wasn’t. Any grouping of evangelical Christians which includes some conservative Presbyterians and other Calvinists is lumbered with a gaping ideological fissure, akin in some ways to the Protestant/Catholic fault-line. You can always paper over these cracks, but because they involve a bedrock level of division and mistrust they tend, more or less gradually, to subvert long-term alliances.

This was brought home to me recently when I read a book review in the evangelical weekly New Life (9 Sept. 2004). This journal has been an outspoken supporter of Religious Right causes and organisations for many years. The review of something called Why I am not a Calvinist was written by one Bill James, and I was immediately struck by this paragraph:

It is impossible to ignore Calvin’s importance, but that doesn’t mean we have to like him. In fact, a few years ago when my wife and I had some hours to spend in Geneva … we toyed with the idea of going out to the cemetery to spit on his grave.

The review went on to complain about the way in which ‘Calvinists manipulate language to evade the plain teaching of Scripture‘ and ‘evangelise with their fingers crossed behind their backs, because they are holding out a universal offer of salvation which in fact only [a limited number of people known as "the elect"] can in fact accept‘. James concluded that the book incontrovertibly demonstrated that ‘Calvinism is irrational, immoral and unscriptural‘.

Many New Life readers undoubtedly agreed with every word of James’ review, but the Board of Directors had a fit and prominently featured ‘an unqualified apology‘ in the very next issue:

… This newspaper has never taken an exclusive denominational approach and has consistently respected the differing theological views of its readers and contributors [N.B. as long as their views are neither 'liberal' nor 'Romish']. On 9 September a book review was published with statements that were not within the required standards that have been established by ‘New Life’ over many years. One point that especially offended readers was that Calvin’s influence was totally unfortunate in the history of the Christian church … [T]here will be greater care taken in the future. (New Life, 16 Sept. 2004)

While these critical differences in religious doctrine can be downplayed in the short term, and while a political movement has no real power, they are always bubbling away beneath the surface and tend to manifest themselves at the most embarrassing and unexpected times. Basically, ultraconservative Calvinists despise ultraconservative non-Calvinists and temporary political alliances over issues like bioethics and gay rights will not alter this fact.

Organisational conflict

For its size, Australia has far too many Religious Right groups. They maintain a surface politeness towards each other, but there are many personal and group rivalries and animosities. The emerging CDP vs FFP struggle, mentioned above, may be seen as one of these. Broadly, however, many conservative evangelicals tend to view the CDP and associated Festival of Light as old hat, the Australian Family Association as insufficiently Protestant, Salt Shakers as too strident, creationist bodies as too narrow and the Pentecostal-based groups as too … well, as too Pentecostal.

Jim Wallace’s Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) is currently trying to rectify this situation. It has recently advised its supporters that it has now:

… seen the realisation of its three-year objective, that the [2004 Federal] election should see the Christian vote and opinion acknowledged … [ACL] is playing an essential role in the return to more Godly government. However, all this has created opportunities that we must be prepared and able to take if we are to … realise the victory for the long term. (’ACL Supporters: Are you committed to consolidating Christian influence in politics?’, email dated 22 October 2004)

Wallace goes on to say that he plans to move the ACL’s National Office to a more prominent position near Parliament House, Canberra; establish offices in each state; and increase his staff and publishing capabilities. If he secures the finance necessary to achieve these objectives, the ACL will become Australia’s pre-eminent Religious Right organisation, far better-led, better-connected and better-resourced than any of the others. Whether Wallace can actually pull this off remains to be seen, but of one thing he can be sure: he won’t be getting much help from like-minded groups with their own financial needs and priorities.

Other issues

When they’re not tangling over central doctrinal issues, members of the Religious Right happily squabble about a whole range of minor questions, just like any normal, non-God-ordained political party or group. Should women be pastors of churches? Depends on which brand of fundo you’re talking to. Should children be allowed to read Harry Potter? Ditto. Is it possible in good conscience to vote for the ALP or the Greens? Strangely, some very conservative Christians will answer ‘Yes’. Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of the Christ, while initially well-received in fundamentalist quarters, is now coming under critical scrutiny for its reliance on specifically Catholic sources:

… 35-40% of [Gibson's] material does not come from any canonical gospel, but from traditional Roman Catholic portrayals. In six or seven major scenes the material is from the mystical writings of Anna Emmerich (1774-1824), a Roman Catholic mystic (and anti-Semite). (New Life, 26 August 2004)

When you think about it, it would be very strange indeed if fundamentalist Protestants, in particular, could ever be persuaded to march in lockstep. These people believe in a personal relationship with God, unfettered by the injunctions and interpretations of church, state and even their best friends. You’re supposed to establish your approach to issues, including political ones, by praying about them. Does that sound like much of a recipe for unanimity?

Achieving the goals

A ‘modern’ Religious Right has been operating in Australia since the early 1960s, emerging from its embryonic phase a decade later with the establishment of bodies like Fred Nile’s Festival of Light. What has the movement, with its thousands of active supporters, achieved in that time?

To help put this into perspective, ask yourself these questions. Are abortions and divorces reasonably easy to obtain in Australia? Have the social positions of women and homosexuals significantly improved in this country over the past 35 years and - on the whole, and taking setbacks into account - do they continue to improve? Is evolution taught as fact in the vast majority of educational institutions? With the exception of child pornography - which, incidentally, was banned as the result of media and police campaigns rather than the feeble and belated protests of the Religious Right - are censorship restrictions considerably lighter today than they were 35 years ago? Is the practical situation regarding refusal of medical treatment and even euthanasia rather more humane today than it was in the 1960s?

I suggest that the answer to all these questions is: Yes. In saying this, I am not underestimating the difficulties still being faced in all of these areas, nor am I asserting that the battles have been won forever. However, if the Religious Right had had their way, abortion would have been virtually or completely banned, divorce rendered extremely difficult, the status of women and the level of censorship left as they stood in the 1950s, homosexual behaviour by either sex strictly prohibited, creationism taught in government schools, and as for the refusal of medical treatment and euthanasia …

As matters stand, however, fundamentalist and other ultraconservative Christians have made little or no progress in these areas, and don’t look like making any significant gains in the foreseeable future. This is mainly because what they are really fighting is the nature of modern life, in other words, a ’social’ or ’socio-historical’ rather than a purely political enemy.

Conclusion

Fundamentalist Christianity will continue to influence the political attitudes of a small minority of Australians, something around the five per cent mark if election results are anything to go by. This is enough to gain occasional parliamentary representation in houses elected by proportional voting systems, although the faces keep changing: support used to flow mainly towards the Christian Democratic Party, flirted briefly with One Nation, and may now be shifting to the Family First Party. Sometimes, parties of this sort may exercise the balance of power, although in practice there are strict limitations on the amount of mischief they can make. They need to gain the support of a major party for any particular measure of theirs, and they know that oblivion awaits any politician deemed by the public as ‘irresponsible’. It’s really quite amazing how little Fred Nile MLC achieved in a parliamentary career lasting over twenty years.

While it’s always worth keeping an eye on these people, their track record is generally unimpressive. Christian fundamentalism in Australia is not the monolithic force which it is often claimed to be, nor are many of its political manifestations greatly to be feared. Even within the general Christian community they form a minority group and, as far as I can judge, are held in rather low regard. Despite the aspirations of Jim Wallace and his friends, the major political objectives of the Religious Right should remain unrealised.

(This article was originally published in The Skeptic Summer 2004 (Vol. 24, No. 4).
Republished with permission.)