Senior pastor Guy Mason flew to Sydney to be interviewed by Channel Seven’s David Koch on Sunrise.
Freedom For Faith has also come out in support of Thorburn, calling for a Religious Freedom Act and “Law and Religion’s Neil Foster analysed the legal background. See details below.
David Koch, interviewer: Mr. Thorburn is the chair of a church group and its views seem to be at odds with the club’s values. That’s prompted an uncomfortable question for the entire country about religion versus work and whether being forced to choose amounts to discrimination. Joining us is Guy Mason, he’s the senior pastor of the church in question. Welcome to you.
You know, Andrew [Thorburn] is the chair, [of] your board, do his personal views align with your hard line views of the church on abortion and homosexuality.?
Guy Mason: I know Andrew to be a great man. He’s a man of integrity, uh, generosity, warmth, and he’s a man of faith and I admire that in him. It shapes who he is and he loves his faith. He loves his footy. And I hope we could live in a world where we can express our faith and we can do that and celebrate that.
David Koch But that his views align with the churches on abortion and the homosexuality?
Guy Mason: The Christian view, is one of life and it’s one of love. That’s what we stand for. That’s what we want to proclaim, that Jesus is all about life and it’s all about love. And I’m sure that Andrew would agree with that. You need to ask him his views.
David Koch: But no, no. You – he hasn’t given his and you know him. Well, he wouldn’t be chairman of your board unless he is shared exactly the same views that the church does.
Guy Mason: What’s at the heart about church? It’s a passion to know Jesus and make Jesus known. Uh, we seek to shine that light. Love people serve people, build community.
David Koch: Yeah. But, but comparing abortion to the Holocaust and homosexuality as sin is not love. It’s not inclusion. There are so many other churches that are tolerant, and Inclusive. You all read the same book.
Guy Mason: Yeah.
David Koch: Why? Why do you have this hard line and are not so loving?
Guy Mason: Well, we’re talking about a quote that was from probably 10 years ago. The intention was not to be inflammatory. The words were wrong. I would use different words today. The essence of the message though was that Jesus is all about life. We’re inclusive. We’re not homophobic. We’re for life and we’re for love.
David Koch: You’re not homophobic?
Guy Mason: No.
David Koch: You’re saying homosexual[ity] is always a sin.
Guy Mason: Well, we, the Bible holds up marriage as a gift from God for one man, one woman. Yes. That’s a mainstream Christian view. I’m an Anglican….
David Kock [crosstalk] …Wasn’t even discussing homosexuality. It’s a 2000 year old document. Come on. It’s a different time, a different era. So many other churches are loving and read it completely differently to you.
Guy Mason: But we’re a very diverse community. We are about love. Our community is made up of all kinds of people. Uh, different nationalities, different backgrounds, different sexual orientations.
David Koch: But you, but you say to different sexual orientations, that anyone in your community that has a different, sexual orientation, you say you’re going to go to hell.
Guy Mason: Well the point of the Bible is that we’re all sinners. I’m a sinner, right? We are all sinners. The good news of the gospel is with the gen…
David Koch [crosstalk]: I’m not gonna have a battle of the Bible.
Guy Mason: Sure.
David Koch: But if that was the case, why did Andrew Thorburn apply for the job when he knew the values of the Essendon Football Club were completely different to the values of his church and his faith? And as a man of great integrity –he’s a great leader and he’s demonstrated – well, he shouldn’t have applied then.
Guy Mason: Well, he’s demonstrated through, like, his ability to lead in a very diverse organisation, and to manage, and lead well in that climate. I think he’s done that previously, his record shows, and he would’ve done a great job in this role.
David Koch: Right? But then the pride round comes up with AFLW in a couple of weeks. How could he honestly stood there and encouraged the sentiment around Pride Round? Because it would go completely against your views of beliefs and completely against his.
Guy Mason: Well, the footy Club is about loving the game and loving the jumper. And it’s a bringing together of people of all different, more simply that’s loving the community and loving the community and the communities.
David Koch: That’s not so much different from your job.
Guy Mason: Yeah, that’s right. Well, the community’s made up of different people and what we are –the key point here, the principle here is we need to,be diverse and be inclusive. Jesus championed diversity. He championed inclusivity,
David Koch: But shouldn’t you be more inclusive?
(04:42)
Guy Mason. We are, we are very.
David Koch: Not. You’re just saying you comparing abortion to the Holocaust, you’re saying if you go, you’re gonna go to hell. That’s, that’s not really being.
Guy Mason: I didn’t say that
David Koch: Words to that effect. And it’s on your church website. Yeah.
Guy Mason: I did not say those words. I said that Jesus offers life and love to all people. That invitation goes to everybody. And we open the doors and we have people within our church of different backgrounds, different sexual orientations. I have good friends who are Christians who are same sex attractive, who love Jesus and have found life in him.
David Koch: Okay. Even the most conservative bloke, I think I know, Peter Dutton called your views an abomination.
Guy Mason: Well, again, quoting a, a snippet of a sermon from nine years ago, which as I just said, I was, I would not use today. I would phrase him very differently, but again, he would, as I would, stand by the, the message of the Bible that Jesus is for life. And I said by that.
Okay. I may make some.
David Koch: Thank you. Appreciate your time.
Michael Stead, Anglican bishop of South Sydney for Freedom for faith
Freedom for faith is a legal thinktank that advocates for religious freedom for all.
Thorburn was forced to resign after activists scoured the sermon archives of Thorburn’s church, and discovered sermons over the past decade that were not written by him or known to him. Some of those sermons condemned abortion and described homosexual sexual acts as sinful. These moral and religious beliefs are not “extreme” – they are mainstream beliefs which have been held for centuries by a wide variety of faith groups, including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs, and certainly in relation to abortion are also held as moral views by many non-religious Australians.
The freedom to hold and express a religious belief is a foundational human right, which Australia has committed to as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 18 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to hold a religious belief and to manifest that in worship, observance, practice and teaching. It further guarantees that “no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice”. It appears that Andrew Thorburn has been subject to coercion to resign because of his religious belief.
It is completely hypocritical that the Essendon Football Club has engaged in this religious discrimination as an expression of their commitment to “stamp out any discrimination based on race, sex, religion, gender, sexual identity or orientation, or physical or mental disability,” as the club has claimed in its statement. The club’s action in fact promotes discrimination based on religion. Freedom for Faith notes that no-one has alleged that Thorburn has discriminated against anyone who is gay or lesbian or who has had an abortion, including while leading several very large organisations in CEO roles across his career. He has been pushed out of his new role solely because of the moral and religious views expressed on a Church website with which he is associated.
In a statement by Dave Barham on behalf of the Board of the Essendon Football Club, Barham states that “Essendon is committed to providing an inclusive, diverse and a safe Club, where everyone is welcome and respected”. This is manifestly untrue. This action shows there is no commitment by the Essendon Board to embrace a diversity of moral or religious views. How welcome and included will players, staff and fans who hold these
religious or moral views, or who are a member of the same Church as Thorburn, now feel at Essendon?
…
It is also very disturbing that the Premier of a State, who has been elected to form a government for all the people of that State, thought it appropriate to dismiss the religious beliefs of a significant number of people in his State as “absolutely appalling”, “hatred” and “bigotry”. It was also inappropriate for the Premier to have put pressure on the Essendon board, with his comments that he was a “somewhat disappointed Essendon supporter” because of Thorburn’s appointment given his religious views, and that “the appointment of a CEO to a club is a matter for the board of that football club”.
Freedom for Faith calls on the Albanese government to fulfil its election promise to implement a federal Religious Discrimination Bill as a matter of urgency, and to do this in such a way as to protect all Australian citizens from the kinds of religious discrimination, vilification and coercion that Andrew Thorburn has experienced. The full statement will be on the FFF website.
Law and Religion Australia’s Neil Foster on Thorburn and anti-discrimination law
On the “Law and Religion Australia” site Assoc Prof Neil Foster analyses the Thorburn case. It seems likely that what has happened here is “direct discrimination”. This is defined as follows in s 8 of the EOA, which provides:
(1) Direct discrimination occurs if a person treats, or proposes to treat, a person with an attribute unfavourably because of that attribute.
(2) In determining whether a person directly discriminates it is irrelevant— …
(b) whether or not the attribute is the only or dominant reason for the treatment, provided that it is a substantial reason.EOA, s 8
It seems that there has been unfavourable treatment (dismissal) “because of” either Mr Thorburn’s own religious views, or else those of his church. And even if this was said to only be one of the reasons for the action, it will be unlawful.
One response might be that moral views on abortion or homosexual activity are not “religious”. But this would be to adopt a very narrow definition of a term which receives strong human rights protection under international law (such as under art 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). The word “religious” here cannot mean simply “relating to how one worships” or “connected with the identity of God”. Under art 18(1) of the ICCPRwhat is protected includes “freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching” (emphasis added).
Prof Foster also analyses whether, if the club argued they would not employ anyone with anti-abortion or traditional marriage views regardless of their religion, there would be a case of indirect discrimination, while emphasizing no one knows if legal action will occur.
I don’t think Guy Mason answered as well as he should have. He should have challenged directly the assumptions in David Koch’s loaded questions, stressing the unlawful discriminatory process and effect of the club’s media-panicked ultimatum, and its character as a kind of accusation of thought-crime. That said, few reporters or media personalities appear to have any intelligent grasp or thoughtful appreciation of religious concepts, or of the nature or importance of church-state relationship or of the nature and role and dimension of conscience.
I agree, the quoted interview with Koch and Guy Mason was unconvincing. Mason pussy-footed and danced around the matters raised by Koch. Waste of an airplane ticket.
Michael Stead is far more direct and meaningful.
On the other hand it is rather easier to write a short statement than be aggressively interviewed on live television.