3. What does history and sociology say?
The religious tendency of what may be called majority Australia may best be described as Residual Christian, with side servings of such themes as stoicism, luck, heroism in the strict sense of survival through the memory of one’s supreme achievements in approved fields, plus pieties of various kinds, for example towards the extended family, among country people especially, or towards dead comrades, among ex-servicemen.
Les Murray1
From the very beginnings of white settlement in Australia, the role of religion, particularly in its established form, has taken on a highly restricted role. While America was founded on a religious idealism that sought to create a ‘Kingdom of Heaven on Earth’ such motivations were generally absent from Australian settlement. Rather, with the exception of groups such as the German immigrants in South Australia who were fleeing religious persecution, Australia’s white settlement began;
‘Somewhat more pragmatically as a result of the London’ bureaucrats’ dilemma of what to do with the rotting hulks full of convicts once they had lost the American colonies.’2
I would argue that the very manner in which Australian society had been structured actively encouraged religious nominalism. This was apparent from the first Sunday of European settlement, which passed by without any formal act of Christian worship, despite the presence of a Church of England chaplain on the First Fleet. The official instructions issued by Governor Arthur Phillip with regard to religion requested that the chaplain should ‘take such steps for the due celebration of publick worship as circumstances will permit.’3 However, the general form of the order suggests that it was not considered to be an issue of importance. Carey views the form of the order as being one that requested ‘something to be achieved in its own good time.’4 While all convicts were allocated a religious affiliation on their charge sheets, they were all considered by the authorities to be ‘dead to any religious sentiment’5 with virtually the only exposure to formalised religion occurring as a disciplinary measure.
The minds behind the setting up of Australia deliberately used religion as a social tool to promote moral reform and advance morality. Chaplains were to ‘enforce a due observance of religion and good order among the inhabitants.’6 The philosophy behind the job descriptions of these early chaplains stands in stark contrast to the evangelical theology held by those who took on these positions. This is evident in how morality was placed before any soteriological concerns. Even within the preaching ministry of the clergy, chaplains were ordered to emphasise morality over the Gospel message. Furthermore, chaplains were required to sit as magistrates as part of their role. With these early clergy forced to be more civil than religious in their roles, a strong perception developed that the government and the church were in a type of morality based alliance.7
The 1828 census sought to classify the New South Wales community into four religious groups; Protestant, Roman Catholic, Jewish, and ‘Mohammedan and pagan.’ The first three categories accounted for all but ‘some nineteen endangered souls.’8 Effectively, those who were of European origin were claimed by one of the churches regardless of either their attendance levels at worship services, or their general level of religiosity. In doing this, the government was affirming that denominational affiliation was based more on social class and ethnicity than any personal religious preference.
If we take Wilfred Smith’s position that religious groupings, such as those in the 1828 census, act as a type of cumulative tradition,9 we can see how these early understandings of religious groups by the colonial powers affected future religious orientation in Australia. The collective denominational histories and social practices are received by each generation, which will choose whether they will modify elements within or philosophical propositions behind such systems before passing them onto the next generation.
As such, we can see how Australia’s early historical heritage seemed to have a continuing effect on migrants. Those who left foreign shores with active religious backgrounds appeared to reduce their religious commitment on arrival.
‘We are receiving many emigrants, who left England as professors of religion, but comparatively few unite themselves to us or other of Christ’s Churches.’
An Adelaide Wesleyan 184810
And again;
‘Multitudes who had been brought up in Christian homes, who had been members of the church in the Old Country yet whose only connection with church life in the colony was through their children’s attendance at Sabbath school.’
Presbyterian Michael Watt, Tasmania 1890.11
The outbreak of the First World War witnessed a renewed identification of Protestant churches with Australian imperial loyalty. Despite the nationalistic mood of the time, the churches failed to capitalise on the era on any spiritual level. While Christianity continued to receive widespread public acknowledgment, church attendance declined and the religious enthusiasm amongst the conservative Protestant political elite waned. As such, Protestants found themselves on the outer when it came to the political implementation of moral reform.12 It was as if the church was more focused on survival rather than development during this period.
Attitudes towards Sunday worship continued to become more relaxed within Australian society. The war had led many returned soldiers to expect a degree of travel and adventure in their lives. Increased availability of motor cars allowed for this in the context of weekend trips away with families, placing further pressure on Sunday attendances.13 However, such freedoms did not necessarily equate with an immediate increase in nominalism. Despite stagnation in church attendance during the Second World War, a new trend had begun to dominate attendance patterns, which was to peak in the 1950’s. People became less likely to attend on a weekly basis but more likely to attend at least once a month. At its peak, overall attendance for at least once a month rose to an all time high of 47% of the general population.14
With Prime Minister Robert Menzies upholding Christian moral values, the 1950’s became regarded as the golden era of church orientated spirituality in Australia. However, European migration during that era accounted for an increasing number within such church attendance records.15 It is highly likely that this change in attender profile somewhat masked the underlying decline in attendance. The reducing trend comes apparent as these European migrants drift into nominalism as they become increasingly settled into Australian life. If this is true, then it may be that the 1950’s represented a time where general religiosity was being negatively affected by the apparent power of the church and the attempts by the political elite to maintain a strict morality.
Historical literature often speaks of the 1960’s as time in which Australia moved from a Christian society to a post-Christian society.16 Perhaps it would have been better to describe the 1950’s as being ‘nominally Christian’, in that the outward appearance of an Australian Christendom was not matched by the underlying reality of a culture that historically had not experienced a style of religion free from their adopted role of social guardian. The steady flow of new issues that faced society, such as the sexual revolution and environmentalism, left the authority structures, within the major denominations, with a lack of moral authority. They became unable to respond to the increasing range and complexity of issues to an extent that there developed a disillusionment with the authority of the institutional church.17
From a sociological perspective, we can echo the thoughts of Durkheim and state that all known societies demonstrate some form of religious behaviour, though the form of any beliefs and practices will vary from culture to culture.18 Therefore, any reasonable historical examination of how people interact with religion in society will require a sociological critique. Such an examination will be concerned with religion as a socio-cultural phenomenon and the social function of religion. It will seek to understand the lives of other people as they experience it themselves.
Three of the major classical thinkers in sociology, Marx, Durkheim and Weber all believed that religion was an illusion that would take on a lesser significance as society continued to develop, though they perceived that the social role of religion operated in different ways. This general view makes their sociological theories of interest in the area of nominalism; as nominalism suggests that people for some reason feel a need to claim an adherence despite their non-religious approach to the fundamental issues of life. Religion does not play the part in their lives that their nominated religious institution regards as being sufficient. While religion takes on a lesser significance on a personal level, paradoxically the nominal adherent actively promotes religiosity as a socially desirable character trait in their continued denominational labelling. Religion takes on a lesser significance while still being promoted as an important aspect to Australian society.
Marx identified religion as having ideological implications in its justification of social inequalities and power imbalances. He described religion as being the ‘opium of the people’ in that religion represents a projection of positive values onto celestial beings that should instead be realised by humanity. By seeking to project future rewards into an afterlife, religion taught an acceptance of the unequal distribution of wealth and power enjoyed by the ruling class. Therefore, the role of religion would expand at times of increased alienation while demonstrating an overall decrease as social class structures are broken down.19
The Australian experience would suggest that religion’s role in the legitimisation of unequal power distribution does not hold true in that while Marx thought religion would comfort the oppressed, it was instead used to punish the oppressed, with religious functionaries handing out the sentences. The major influence of religion in Australian history was in the way it sought to contribute to the moral order. While this was initially undertaken in order to counter the licentiousness of the convict community, it ended up as a crusade aimed at the creation of a holy nation. Its eventual failure in achieving a Christian moral order was in no small part due to divisions within the Protestant community.20 If Australian Protestantism failed in its role as a comforter to the oppressed, then it is of no surprise that lower socio-economic groups are under represented in church attendance levels21, despite the fact that socio-economic factors are of minor significance in measures of overall religiosity.22 This may lead us to conclude that while those within lower socio-economic groupings may find solace in religion as proposed by Marx, Australians are unable to give it an expression within organised religious structures.
While the capitalist elites have continued to seek a degree of ideological control in liberal societies, religion has been surpassed as the preferred device for such management. Such control has become centralised by such tools as ownership, business organisation and advertising. This is most evident in how the media is used to promote the interests of big business by the control of public debate and moulding of consumer tastes. Australian’s currently experience one of the highest levels of concentration in media ownership in the Western world,23 suggesting that we are one of the most easily controlled liberal democracies. Perhaps the error in Marxism here is that society has not developed in a way that oppression is necessarily reduced. Rather, it has developed in a way that has seen institutional power passed on to other institutions, while the underlying issues facing society remain relatively constant.
Durkheim’s sociological approach to religion sought to understand the way in which religion functioned as an institution within society that sought to separate that which they considered as sacred from the profane. Those objects and symbols that the religious group pronounces as sacred point to those values that are of fundamental importance to the group. In doing so, they create a sense of social solidarity within the group so as to differentiate themselves from other groups. This suggests that religions are more than a set of beliefs. They act as a tool for the promotion of social cohesion through the use of ceremony and ritual, particularly during times of social transition. It would also follow that as well as being cohesive, religion promotes tension with those outside of the group by virtue of the solidarity within the group.
Durkheim’s approach is of interest when we look at the construction of Australia’s national identity. Mal Garvin argues in Us Aussies that Australia has historically lacked a real distinctive national identity.24 If cultures are based on shared symbols of meaning, then Australian culture has often been found wanting in that it has traditionally found itself simply importing many of these images from either Europe or America. While critical sociology does not view Australia as a homogeneous society with agreed cultural values,25 the historical inability of institutions within society to come up with uniquely Australian symbols relevant to society has retarded social development. Australian religious institutions are some of the prime culprits in this area. This was brought home to me the morning after the republic referendum, with the sight of our elderly clergyman standing under a Union Jack singing ‘God Save the Queen’ as part of the morning’s ecclesiastical proceedings.26 Such importing of images has led some to describe the cultural impact of religion in Australia as being ‘slight to the point of being imperceptible’27. The attempt by Hudson and Bolton to examine the multiplicity of identities that constitute Australia in their 1997 book Creating Australia failed to include any real treatment of religion as an ingredient in the formation of identities.28 While some segments of Protestantism claim that such ‘silent treatment’ towards religion in Australian history is unfair,29 it nevertheless seems to be much of a norm in historical circles.
I would suggest that a by-product of this lack of social penetration has been confusion between secular and sacred within Australian society. This can be seen in recent upsurge of interest in Anzac Day celebrations with its religious like ceremonies, symbols and functionaries. It has, in a way, become the closest thing to a national religious celebration. In Durkheim’s terms, the respect that is held for such an event reflects a reverence for the central social values of the nation. The object of worship is that of society itself. Sporting events with their associated personalities have come to verge on being religious in nature on account of their fulfilling of a role that society regards as its ‘ultimate concern’. This manifests itself in several ways; Australian Rules is considered to be ‘more than a game’, Cathy Freeman is portrayed as uniting the country by her achievements at the Sydney Olympics, and the sound of a hundred thousand Rugby Union fans singing Waltzing Matilda with John Williamson at Stadium Australia is spoken of as almost a sacred moment by those who attended.
While Mackay suggests that such treatment of sporting events by Australians is a reflection of national insecurities30, I view it more in terms of society attempting to find meaning in objects of ultimate concern that religious organisations have failed to provide. Such displays have led religious commentators, such as Hughes, to suggest that the Australian denominational church has virtually promoted nominalism by its failure to embrace what is consider to be an Australian culture within the ethos of church membership.31 It is not necessarily the broad theological content that has failed to capture the Australian community. Rather, it has been the form of the communication and the inability to articulate a uniquely Australian spirituality that has damaged the church.
How does such analysis survive a post-modern critique? Post-modernity suggests the loss of a sense of history due to a cynical appraisal regarding the way in which the past has been interpreted. This is emphasised by a total absorption with the here and now.32 The Australian experience suggests that while the sense of ceremony and ritual remain important features to many attenders,33 the rise of Pentecostalism indicates an intentional break from the history of religious practise. This is achieved in part by a liturgical pattern that bears minimal resemblance to traditional liturgy and an ecclesiastical structure that is unashamedly business orientated. The way in which Pentecostals have structured themselves is of great importance to any discussion of nominalism, in that the NCLS attendance records for the Australian Pentecostal churches registered more people attending on the survey Sunday, than nominated a Pentecostal denomination in the ABS census.34 Under the Hughes model, nominalism does therefore not statistically exist in this grouping. This stands in complete contrast with every other major denomination in the survey. Does this suggest that such a break with history will reduce the level of nominalism?
Looking closer at the figures, it appears that 30% of Pentecostals claimed to have switched from another denomination. Many of these switchers came from a more conservative religious background.35 I would therefore suggest that when nominalism is understood as a period of transition, then Pentecostal attendance patterns can be seen to include individuals who may have found themselves religiously nominal as part of a transition and joined Pentecostalism as a way of finding a stronger group identity. This also fits in with the Marxist critique, in that the church becomes the ‘place where winners hang out, where the rewards are tangible and tantalising . . . the promise of the good life on Earth, and of course, the bonus of eternal life’.36
Weber’s research in the sociology of religion sought to examine the way in which religion impacted on pre existing social orders. He suggested that rather than being a conservative force within society, religion was capable of bringing about dramatic social transformation. He viewed Protestantism as being particularly apt at this as displayed in the way in which Christian Puritanism drove much of Western capitalist thought throughout its early days. The salvation element within Western religions calls on adherents to continually struggle through sin, which can then be transferred to a struggle against the pre existing order.37
Unfortunately, the role of religion in Australia never seemed to get much past that of ‘moral policeman’. Attempts at a brand of Protestant radicalism often met with resistance from conservative congregations. Those who had been influenced by social justice ideologies were frequently marginalised. As such, radicals within church leadership tended not to air their personal views. This was displayed in the way that few Protestant clergy and lay people spoke out against the Vietnam War in the early days of Australian involvement.38 Protestant political involvement tended to support the status quo. This reached the stage in the 1980’s where, despite the presence of practising Protestants and Catholics within Federal Parliament, the ideologies espoused were a mixture of Menzies style morality with a economic rationalism that served the rich and powerful. The social justice concerns so central to Menzies’ political ideology were ranked behind community consensus, economic rationalism and Australian nationalism during the Hawke and Keating governments.39
The critique of Weber’s sociological thoughts is interesting in the sense that the 1950’s are regarded as a period of economic and spiritual prosperity in Australian history. However, the suggestion that a strong Protestant work ethic arising out of people’s religious beliefs was responsible for the economic success of the era does not seem to ring true. Rather, it was more a case of Australia having resources that the world wanted at the time. It is likely that such an economic boom would have happened regardless of the prevailing religious landscape. Religious adherence was not a ticket to economic prosperity. Neither was religion a tool of social uprising for those in the lower social classes.
It could be said that the claims made in classical sociology that religion’s influence would decrease over time would not appear to be fully accurate as religion has persisted as a force within the public arena throughout the post modern era. Kaye finds that it is rather the shape of religious presence that has undergone a paradigm shift, with the upsurge of the 'sect and the rise of religions of private individuality'.40 Henningham finds that Australians have come to view religion as a private matter, with no real need to make any public expression of their belief systems.41 Despite this, Henningham senses that while religion will probably never play an upfront role in Australian society, it will in all likelihood not disappear from the nation’s social and cultural landscape.42 Nominal religious adherence will continue to maintain a place as a way in which people distinguish themselves from others. However, unlike the United States where religion is very much a public phenomenon, religious affiliation plays a small role amongst a number of larger distinguishing factors.
A reason often given to explain the incidence of nominalism is that of an underlying dissatisfaction with institutional religion while interest levels in supernatural and spiritual matters remain high.43 Sociologist Reginald Bibby identifies image problems with religious institutions as a major factor in this. He proposes that the churches have not marketed their product properly to fit in with those concerns and issues that face society. While he does not suggest that the church should be directed by the wants and needs of the population,44 his point may suggest that churches are not adaptive enough to respond to the ‘ultimate concerns’ of the population. However, I believe that again such analysis is tempered by a degree of social desirability. The churches may indeed have an image problem, but this factor is not new to the Australian experience. If a bad image is going to drive people away from active membership into nominal adherence, then one would not expect nominal rates to be high. If you have a problem with the church, one would expect that you would not want to associate yourself with that institution. In the next generation, the contact is likely to be even less as an ethos of non-association is actively promoted within the family unit.
The social desirability affecting much of this critique can be demonstrated by the use of a survey based on objective measurements rather than subjective opinions. A 1992 ABS survey of 3000 Australian households entitled ‘How Australians Use Their Time’45 found that over four separate fortnightly reporting periods, the average Australian adult spent an average of only 6 minutes a day, or 0.42% of their total time, in religious activities. While this was more time than the average person spent playing with children, it was considerably below every other major category.46 Those who recorded undertaking religious activity in this survey accounted for only 5% of the total survey population. This acts as a strong pointer to social desirability as the ABS survey involved a reporting log over the survey time, while the NSSS was a sit down survey that did not actively measure that which was being self reported. Even with a sample population around 35% larger than that of the NSSS (suggesting a lower chance of error based on sample size), in the use of objective measurements the ABS survey reported a figure drastically smaller than the 22% figure reported by the NSSS figures for active participatory religiosity. I propose that the difference is that people think they participate more than they do if you just ask them, compared to physically recording what they spend their time on.
What does our sociological critique say about nominalism in the light of the Australian Protestant experience? The leading thinkers in classical sociology assigned religion particular roles within society and stated that their influence in those role would decrease over time. This process of secularisation would, eventually spell the end of religion. This may be manifest in decreased levels of involvement with religious organisations as demonstrated by attendance rates, decreasing social and material influence wielded by religious organisations, and a change in the way in which people held religious beliefs.47 What these sociologists fail to fully incorporate into their models is the way in which institutional religion will react to their declining influence.
Reflecting on the U.S. experience, Bellah finds that ‘the erosion of mainline religion’s strength has been a matter more of ethos than of numbers’.48 The current Australian experience is not dissimilar, though realistic membership levels were never at those experienced in America. While there has been a reduction in numbers, the NCLS survey suggested that the attitudes of a majority of attenders to social issues were more influenced by demographic factors than the holding of denominational theological positions.49 I would suggest that this is symptomatic of an ethos that religion is playing a weakening role within Australian society, in that those beliefs and values held for specifically religious reasons are playing an increasingly weakening role within the religious sub-culture. The world views of those within the faith has come to reflect the range of world views held by those outside the faith.
Bellah continues, stating that the institutional church has begun to view itself as somewhat of a ‘beleaguered cultural minority stuck between the secular city and the religious right and divided from within between evangelicals and liberals’.50 Certainly such theological tensions within the Australian church are very strong. This can be seen in the tensions within the Anglican Church of Australia between the evangelical Anglican Diocese of Sydney and the rest of Australia. The outgoing Archbishop of Sydney pleaded at this year’s diocesan synod for the diocese to remain in communion with the rest of the Anglican Church, while Sydney’s Phillip Jenson claimed not unfairly that Sydney’s hard line theological position had made the diocese ‘about as popular as Michael Knight’(the highly unpopular Olympics minister).51 Meanwhile, a minority mentality pervades amongst many within the Christian community, despite a majority of Australian’s associating themselves with Christianity. Societal reforms are often abandoned in the name of a tolerance of the belief systems of others. Those who continue to make a stand, such as the Christian Democratic Party’s Fred Nile, often do not enjoy the full support of the Christian community. Such divisions in Protestant ranks are not new to the Australian religious scene.52
Robert Cox argued in The Secular City that instead of fearing the process of secularisation, the church should embrace such a process as one that is in agreement with Christian faith.53 Rather than eroding the place of religion in society, such a process is capable of stimulating religious revival and innovation. It may be that the error in orthodox sociology was to equate individual religiosity with institutional religion. It is from the individual religiosities of members within society that revival and innovations are born. They tend not to be driven by institutional bodies, though the institutional church may be affected in a positive manner by such innovations.
A possible example of this is the rise of the Pentecostal church within Australia. Such churches are frequently born out of an individual’s vision to plant a new church reaching out into a particular area. These churches then operated until recently as autonomous bodies. Earlier this year, 1000 of these churches came under the banner of ‘Australian Christian Churches’.54 Claiming to represent 170,000 members, these autonomous bodies now make up one of the largest denominations of attending Christians. It may be that this represents a full turning of the religious reform circle as proposed by Niebuhr.55 Secularisation causes a questioning of the current range of religious institutions, a revival is borne out of a vision, a new group or ‘cult’ is formed that rejects the social and/or religious environment in which it exists. This cult gets institutionalised, moves away from the ‘religious fringe’, comes to accept the social and/or religious environment in which it exists and becomes a denomination. The difference between my model and that of Niebuhr is that I have avoided the dilemma of ranking groups as more or less churchlike56 by recognising that churches move towards denominationalism as they become more institutionalised. This transition is then a recognition by the group of the social conditions in which they exist and must function effectively to survive.
This pattern suggests that the new denomination will then face afresh the forces of secularisation. The result may either be a renewal of the institution through the formation of new religious traditions within institutional bounds, or the creation of new ideas outside of the denominational boundaries. The fact that this body is in an early stage of institutional development may account for the low levels of attendance related nominalism. The perceived needs of members that were met by the new sect may then subsequently go unmet by the denomination as it matures as an institution. Likewise, the changes in the new institutional model have had a positive effect within some sections of traditional denominations. Music and liturgical styles in some churches within traditional denominations have become almost indistinguishable to those pioneered by the Pentecostal community. Perhaps the formation of the ‘Australian Christian Church’ will act to distinguish that which is influenced by Pentecostalism from that which considers itself to be ‘the’ Pentecostal church.
I would suggest that given the history of religion in Australia, the current changes in the religious landscape should be viewed as a paradigm shift involving the way in which members of society perceive institutional religion and the role such institutions play in the lives of individuals and society. As such this sociological and historical analysis forms the framework from which we can seek a new understanding of the issue of nominalism.
nominalism index previous chapter next chapter