Nurturing Justice 6 (2008) October 30th
A "religious panic" about our political life was thrust upon the country during the week, only to be staunched by the combined efforts of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. The Speaker of the House of Representatives had asked whether opening Parliament each day with the Lord's Prayer was really necessary. Mr Rudd and Mr Turnbull have said they have no plans to alter the daily prayer opening parliamentary proceedings. My comment is as follows:
The Preamble to the Australian Constitution affirms that the Federation was brought into being by an act "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God." There it is, stated in print, in our Constitution. It would of course be interesting to know more about how the Preamble was composed and what those writing it actually thought about this phrase that, in a most important way, qualifies the act of founding the Commonwealth of Australia. But by even stating this much, we have potentially embarrassed the Speaker of the House of Representatives and those who have called for the abolition of the Lord's Prayer. Why? Because whether the writers of the Constitution meant it or not, the phrase actually implies that prayer to the Almighty is an implicit facet of Australia's political life, and is thus assumed to be a normal part of our system of government. To say it again: "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God" is itself a prayer.
Now, it may well have been included with some sentimental urges to "do the right thing" or with an approach that wanted to "bring God into our dealings now that we have got the Constitution written" or even just to "keep up appearances". We might even want to interpret it as some kind of formulation that gave expression to the 19th century Protestant ascendancy that had assumed such a dominant place in colonial society at the time.
Such historical reflection is all well and good. But since this phrase "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God" is itself a prayer that has been written into the opening lines of our Constitution, the Constitution is plainly assuming that the Parliament, so constituted under its terms of reference, will need to be preserved from the folly of political hubris before the Most High. And so, in the Parliament's ongoing work of "humbly relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" it is wholly consistent and appropriate that its daily proceedings, as the lawfully convened Australian Commonwealth Parliament, open with the Lord's Prayer. In the context of our Constitution such daily prayer is a reiteration of the phrase in the opening Preamble. It is, of course, the prayer that Jesus gave to His disciples in answer to their request, "Lord teach us to pray like John taught his disciples?" (Luke 11:1-4). That prayer was solicited and taught in a highly politicised context and it is noteworthy that Jesus explicitly warned His disciples of the dangers of praying to the gallery (see Matthew 6:1-15).
The framers of the Constitution would not have considered this as a tugging of the forelock to the Christian sector of the population. And to now delete the Lord's Prayer from the daily proceedings of the Parliament would be to exempt the Parliament from a daily constitutional posture of "humbly relying upon the blessing of Almighty God". Those Parliamentarians and others who think that the Lord's Prayer should not be part of the proceedings because it is now "out of sync" with Australian popular sentiment and culture, should have first reminded themselves about the Constitutional basis upon which they hold their political offices. According to the Constitution they are - whatever their beliefs, unbeliefs or disbeliefs - occupants of a political office and so, according to the Constitution, are "humbly reliant upon Almighty God" for His blessing upon what they do in fulfillment of their mandate as elected representatives.
The Constitution thus defines Parliamentarians as parties to this "humble reliance". I'm not suggesting that such representatives are really out of place in our Parliaments if they are not Christians. In point of fact, all citizens are defined in terms of this Constitutional "humble reliance". And so, I would suggest that those who say that the Lord's Prayer be omitted from the start of the day's proceedings, or be replaced by something else, are really tinkering instead of addressing the Constitutional issue that has a direct bearing upon their holding of political office under this Constitution. In this context, citizenship should also be considered an office. But taking one's seat in this Parliament, and being an elected representative of one's electors under this Constitution, carries with it a certain presumption of working within this framework.
It would seem to me that those who are seeking to have the Lord's Prayer removed from the daily proceedings are not merely uncertain about the prayer but are uncertain about serving in a Parliament under a Constitutional presumption that they cannot fully accept. It is, after all, from the Constitution that they currently derive their citizenship and their seats in Parliament.
So, what's it going to be? Is Australia to have politicians who abide by the Constitution and reckon with the Constitutional preconditions of their office-bearing or are we to see some kind of post-modern, pragmatic tinkering at the edges trying to decorate the Parliamentary day with different rituals. It may well be appropriate for a minute's silence to be observed after prayer. But let's not tinker with the discussion about Constitutional matters that some, or even many or most, can no longer accept.
To put it in these terms does not mean that we should henceforth refuse Parliamentary service to all those who do not believe in Almighty God or who cannot pray the Lord's Prayer. No. That is certainly not what I am suggesting. I am saying that even now, 108 years after Federation, the issue of whether to begin the Parliamentary day with the Lord's Prayer cannot be properly dealt with in our political debates if the Constitution itself is not properly respected by the Parliamentary office-bearers who conduct the debate. It may well be that justice itself demands that the Constitution of the Commonwealth be changed to give right expression to Australia's political realities. But such a reform of our Parliamentary government needs to be constitutional and it needs to be comprehensive. That requires a much better appreciation of the kind of political system our Constitution anticipates, and that then requires of us as members of the Australian political community a better understanding of our calling to love our neighbours by seeking justice for them. Apparently, some of our neighbours are serving in Parliament with deep-down reservations about the Constitution's "humble reliance". Christians need to think long and hard about this issue which is not going to go away. What can be done to serve all those with whom we share political solidarity as members of this political community?
The way this issue has been raised and dropped is problematic. It speaks of an underlying pragmatism that is dominant in the political life in this country. Our discussion last time broached the specious pragmatic justification that was given for the Victorian abortion legislation. In this case, if pragmatism again dominates, the discussion will not be about how to ensure that a Parliament's daily routines express the sentiments of the Constitution, but how popular demands should rule the day from day to day. I suspect that this issue has exposed a deep-seated political immaturity in which all of us as citizens are nevertheless implicated. But when pragmatism drives political discussion about the Constitution, the debate will become a matter of using Parliamentary procedures to show one's adherence to whatever is thought to be the popular sentiment. Pragmatism is certainly not the way to reform our country's Constitution along the path of justice. To say it again: pragmatism just doesn't work.
Quite apart from how Parliament and its procedures should be reformed, this is clearly an issue that calls upon the disciples of Christ Jesus to engage in some deepened and prayerful political reflection. We will discuss this obligation in future editions.
Nurturing Justice seeks to encourage a
sustained Christian political contribution by affirming our God-given calling
to build sustainable human communities which will promote life and strengthen
our interdependence - the way of public justice will help us avoid the myths
and contradictions of human autonomy. But a Christian understanding of the
myths and contradictions of human autonomy, as they are accepted and enshrined
in changes to the law, requires a comprehensive political philosophy, one that
finds its point departure for seeking justice in the gentle and merciful rule
of Jesus Christ, the ruler over all of the earth's political regimes.
Nurturing Justice
October 2008
© The contents of this email are copyright. Documents may be photocopied or
retransmitted in their entirety but not otherwise reprinted or transmitted
without permission. "Nurturing Justice" is a project to encourage Christian
political reflection based upon wise and loving civic participation. Comments
are welcome and should be sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au