religion and the press
Interesting article from the Australian discussing the recent rush by the press for quotes from religious leaders on topics such as the changes to the industrial relations regime and the debate over the mining of uranium. Morrow concludes:
That churches have started to weigh in on various political controversies is not surprising, but it is also one of the reasons that church attendance is so low. This personal-is-theological-is-political reasoning is a throwback to the old days when Catholics were told what movies they were allowed to see.
Churchgoers want spiritual succour and guidance in their lives, not to be hectored from the pulpit about left-wing causes such as supporting the UN or properly sorting the recycling.
Of course, the press’s road-to-Canberra conversion can only go so far. Next time there’s a controversy over, say, abortion or RU486, see how many journos are at various bishops’ press conferences, notebooks eagerly open like so many hymnals.
And this is of course complete bollocks. Is James Morrow honestly suggesting that religious leaders give an opinion on something and as a result people decide that they do not want to go to church? It is a fair leap to suggest that relgious leaders having an opinion on, say, IR changes is a “personal is theological is political” type process. And one of our country’s most prominent commentators from a position of religion is Family First senator Steve Fielding, not exactly a representative of a declining church.
One suspects that it is really the “left wing causes” that is the bother here, but I don’t know that the church only comments on left wing causes. Church leaders are wheeled out to make particular political points at the whim of journalists. But when that question of RU486 comes up, I suspect that the journos won’t be calling the same church leaders who argued against the IR changes. Instead, I think that they will be reaching for some representatives of the conservative morality brigade to give them their money quotes.
But no, church people should go off and cloister themselves in their worship and provide spiritual succour and guidance to each other and refrain from commenting on political issues.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Erm…Australian Christian Lobby, Hillsong, Saltshakers, Fred Nile, Steve Fielding…Morrow’s article is nonsensical in many aspects, but particularly when you look at the quarters from which the strongest “religious” influence on politics presently comes. The journos HAVE had their notebooks open with respect to church opposition to abortion or RU486!! I think “the Christian voice” (whatever that is) has been far more vocal AND far more influential with respect to RU486, abortion and homosexual marriage than it has been in relation to (allegedly) left-wing causes such as detention centres, recycling and the war in Iraq. I mean how often do we hear sermons on recycling, let alone the churches having any kind of voice on the matter in the wider public arena??
October 25th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
I don’t think there’s anything different happening.
Carnley, along with other church leaders got a decent run in the media on asylum-seekers….and are we forgetting Tim Costello’s anti-pokies campaign already?
Australia’s church leaders spoke out almost unanimously against gay marriage last year, and were ignored by the media…because Latham had already killed off the issue by deciding to vote with Howard ..so the coalition couldn’t play wedge politics on the issue…(well..that’s Latham’s version of what happened anyway).
And Fred Nile used to be the church spokesman on just about every moral issue a few years ago, and now he’s roundly ignored..and just pops up occassionally for wowser figure-of-fun purposes (banning muslim headscarves, marilyn manson visiting oz..etc).
Church leaders in Australia still though, lack the ability to initiate an issue, and get it into the media in their own right, and can only hitch their wagon to currently popular issues like industrial relations or terror laws.
In America…a (conservative) Christian leader can speak out on an issue, citing their huge mailing lists of millions of supporters…. and people will jump.
Australian church leaders don’t have that kind of sway….and I dare say, that if Guy Sebastian hadn’t won Australian Idol, and Family First hadn’t got a senate seat and Peter Costello hadn’t spoken at Hillsong, then church leaders’ comments would be back on page 37 of the paper where they normally are.
But I would still say that the current influence of the church in public debate is marginal, at best.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
I’m thinking of starting a blog that’s like a Christian version of ‘crikey’ …for people wanting to get beyond the half-truths and the nonsense of church.
Anyone with any ideas for a name?
(No Christian crap prizes for the winning suggestion, just bragging rights for having been the one to come up with the name for the new blog)
October 25th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
“Golly” or “crap”, since they seem to be words accepted in penty circles. Or maybe something involving the word “awesome” - “Awesome lies”, perhaps?!!
October 25th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
How about, “Praise the Lord and pass the Ammunition?”
Or perhaps just “Maranantha!”
October 25th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Christky
October 25th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Sounds like a Ukrainian gymnast, Phil.
October 25th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
‘The Church Police’ is one name I’m toying with.
Partly as a tribute to this Monty Python sketch from my youth.
http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/TheDeadBishopSketch
October 25th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
I am little disappointed at the general rubbishing of what I presume will be deemed as the right side of Christianity. I agree that as Christians we need to be accountable to each other and willing to hear from other places. But it appears regarding this post that the expectations and assumptions are generally negative towards Christians from “certain” backgrounds. If that is the case (and I am happy to be wrong), how are we to engage in a dialogue that helps us positively impact our country as the Catholic Church in Australia?
Thanks Dan for the post, I really appreciate you putting on the table. In the dialogues I have had with local, state and federal politicians it is extremely difficult to get issues to them without the backing of the media. One polly admitted that without it being in the media, writing letters and the bulk post out cards that we see from time to time are a “waste of time” in his opinion.
Lance you said, “Church leaders in Australia still though, lack the ability to initiate an issue, and get it into the media in their own right”, I agree, so in the day where politicians can seemingly ignore huge protest rallies (I think of the SORRY march over the harbour bridge and the marches against the commencement of the war in Iraq) and ignore our written and other forms of lobbying how do we get things into the media? Or should we just concentrate on change at the grass roots?
Dave Rock
October 26th, 2005 at 12:41 am
a Christian version of ‘crikey’? What about “struth”? The domain’s free.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:30 am
Thanks dan for the article however am not sure that it helps the debate.Not because the issues of the relationship between “church” and “politics” are not important but because the article is a piece of sloppy ideological “journalism”.
First,churches are concerned and speak out because of their understanding of the gospel preference for the poor (not much prosperity theology in the gospel I read)and secondly on issues such as industrial relations,churches are now one of the major employers in Australia,employing hundreds of thousands of workers.
In part this latter situation has been created,ironically enough,by the very policies of the current govt in outsourcing,privatising everything from education to legal aid to unemployment services.
Secondly the phrase “left wing causes such as supporting the UN” is stupidity at its best or worst!!. “Left wing”,that would be a surprise to Rudd,Evans,Ruddock,George Pell,Tony Blair and a bunch of archbishops and popes.”Supporting the UN” - I thought the Australian Govt was providing substantial support to UNICEF(children),UNHCR(refugees),ILO(labour),WFP(food),UN Peacekepers,ITU(communications,UNAIDS(hivaids),International Court of Justice,UNESCO, - what is he on about.
With articles like this it is always interesting to something of where its coming from,who wrote it etc.
James Morrow is an American who arrived here a couple of years ago as a free lancer journalist(some of your American readers might know more of his background).He did some work with the IPA(a right wing think tank)one of which was a slashing attack on the left wing bias of the ABC(whats new as they say!!).
“Investigate”(Aus),the journal he edits is the off spring of the NZ publication(Investigate.Described by Scoop as a “conspiracy theorist theologian magazine”(http://scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00183.htm ).Crikey, describes it as”Australias newest and most secretive current affairs magazine(21.7.05).And if interested in the latest on creatonism,”Investigate” is a good place to start.
Me,I’m waiting for the biblical analysis and lessons on Woolworth’s chief Roger Corbet,who received his 103% pay rise(from $4.15 million to $8.44 million),who devotes himself to supporting the “development of wise Christian leaders”, while embracing the new industrial legislation which will screw workers and certainly wont deliver 100% pay rises!
Hey Lance dont spend the next millenium deciding on a name(thats like debating constitutions)just do it.
Alan
October 26th, 2005 at 10:08 am
For your name Lance, how about “For God’s Sake”
October 26th, 2005 at 1:42 pm
“how do we get things into the media? Or should we just concentrate on change at the grass roots?”
Well…I’m not sure I want to be encouraging the religious right…..and Catholicism seems to be a bizarre cult (sorry Luke).
I actually kind of worked for the Catholic Church once, when it owned Melbourne radio 3XY ..and changed the station from ‘Hot Hits 3XY’ to ‘XY Easy Rock’. The church had also bought 2SM and 4IP..and changed them to ‘lite and easy 1269′ and ‘lite and easy 1008′ respectively.
Within a few ratings surveys, these profitable middle-ranking stations were sent to the bottom of the pile. 3XY went from 9% to 1.9% within 2 surveys, only to be later sold for a rumoured $1 to a Geelong salt mine owner, who moved the station to Geelong, ran it into the ground, until it eventually went off the air all-together. I fondly remember the day when a Catholic church official, I think his name was ‘Father Paul’…arrived from Sydney at XY’s King Street studios…and once he had a look at 3XY’s books..reeled back in horror..and XY’s General Manager’s desk was cleared out that afternoon, and the GM was never seen again. (of course the Catholic church people all kept their jobs).
I estimate that the Catholic church must have lost AT LEAST 50 million dollars on the 3XY/2SM/4IP scandal..a scandal that’s never been made public……….a loss that was never revealed to its faithful parishioners who sactificially give each week. Makes what Hillsong’s doing look almost above board..in comparison.
Remind me to also tell you about the Les Twentyman myth one day. Another great story from my Melbourne days.
Anyway, the 3XY experience has always sat in the back of my mind as an example of the Catholic church being unable to decide what it is…..is it a business…..or a religion, or a humanitarian organisation, or an operator of schools……none of which it seems to do very well.
Newsrooms are full of people who are ex-Catholics (and ex-Anglicans, pentys, churches of christ BTW) who’ve all been raised in churches and church schools……
They know what the church does and is….so you can’t bullshit them. You can’t just re-brand or re-market the church, because many journo’s have first hand experience of what they’re like…particularly the church schools.
Same with the Anglicans. What’s the number one hate of churched school kids? Chapel. Fix the chapel services, and the kids, when they grow up….might have a more positive view of these churches..once they get into newsrooms..
As for a media strategy…. well…when I think of the Catholic church in Australia, I think of weeping statues in Rockingham, George Pell, St. Vincent De Paul, and Nick Tonti-Filippini. Woohoo.
And just recently…I think of the Catholic church man/men, who are buying time on Channel 9’s Sunday night news in Perth, to deliver a lecture about whatever’s on their mind, in front of a bland blue backdrop. I think that’s a poor use of the media, because it just re-inforces the church’s image as being at the mercy of dour colourless middle-aged humourless men….willing to talk and talk…but unable to listen.
The church should play to its strengths…. I still regularly get calls at work …asking for Father Brian Morrison….because he’s seen as a kind hearted man of the people. Father Gerard Dowling, I notice, is still plodding along on 3UZ/Sport 927 in Melbourne. It’s the local ministers who share real life with us, who connect with us, not the bishops and archbishops who talk down to us, and prance around in costume party attire in their cathedrals.
As a media strategy, I would have several of these warm-hearted suburban ministers allocated a ‘media portfolio’…so you get like a Catholic Les Twentyman, a Catholic Tim Costello, a Catholic Noel Pearson, etc….and they do ALL of the media talking for the church about their particular subject matter.
But I’d hide your archbishops and bishops from the media because I think they’re doing you more harm than good.
If a journalist wants to talk to the bishops and archbishops…make them ready available (because it pisses off journalists when they’re unavailable)…but certainly don’t offer them up for comment on public issues…because they’re friggin’ hopeless; they come across as pompous self-important self-serving gits.
Change things at the grass roots is your first priority, and then hopefully you won’t be getting as many friggin’ hopeless pompous one-dimensional self-important self-serving gits reaching the highest levels of the church..and killing off your media message.
And what is a ‘Caritas’ anyway?
October 26th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
And with your media strategy, don’t think Radio National and Compass.
Think Nova and Channel 10.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
I used to babysit for Nick Tonti-Filippini. My claim to fame.
October 26th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
No offence taken, Lance. The Church is run by morons and boofheads, predominantly.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Lance,
It seems that is the simple people in every denomination and those who serve at a grass roots level serving the community (schools, orphanages, world vision, even surf clubs) is where you do see authenticity.
Here is a Catholic Girl who put her faith into action that really inspires me:
http://www.schoolofstjude.co.tz/
The Kingdom ethic is the inversion of the worlds ethic, and whilst a believe people can remain authentic at the top, it is much harder to do so.
October 26th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
“Here is a Catholic Girl who put her faith into action that really inspires me”
And I think that sort of stuff really resonates with people - the Mother Teresa thing.
The pontifications of a bishop or an archbishop are about as appealing as a fart in a greenhouse gas climate conference.
October 28th, 2005 at 8:09 am
Not sure Luke how you demonstrate that the church is “run by boofheads and morons” but its clear that bishops,ministers,priests,presidents,pastors,and church CEOs(great term for those who serve the kingdom!)are bludgers (= “evade responsibilities”,”impose on others”,”to cadge”)!
They belong to no political party nor a union;in fact would actively work to ensure that they and their staff do not belong to unions.
Yet they pick up all the benefits that unions have sweated blood sweat and tears to get for workers - including,holidays,parental leave,superannuation,health and safety protection,and sick leave, all of which have benefited them!
Boofheads not so sure - bludgers,certainly.
October 28th, 2005 at 10:56 am
I meant the Catholic Church, because people have largely been selected on the basis of the purity of their adherence to hardline doctrine rather than ability.
Apart from that - what you said entirely.