We are not Dorothy. In the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy says to her dog, “Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”
But recent events suggest we Christians ARE in Kansas.
What recent events? In the wake of the overturning of Roe v Wade, a decision that removed abortion as a “right” under the US constitution, pro-lifers brought disaster on themselves in the state of Kansas.
A referendum or “state ballot” aimed at changing the state constitution which currently protects abortion, to allow abortion to be banned, was defeated with a 59 per cent “no” vote in a state dominated by Republicans.
The referendum pro-life movement got a lesson in Kansas not to be overconfident despite their hard-fought victory in the US Supreme Court that overturned Roe v Wade. Abortion is no longer regarded as a right under the US constitution.
But what happened in Kansas shows the danger of assuming the public will follow you all the way. The main reason the conservatives lost the Kansas poll is the fear that a total or near total abortion ban would subsequently be imposed by the conservative state legislature.
(The US public’s view on abortion does not fit comfortably into a pro-life or pro-choice position. US polls indicate a middle position is supported. Not abortion on demand but abortion restricted to say 15 weeks.)
The conservative Jewish “Commentary” Magazine’s associate editor Noah Rothman had an incisive take on Kansas. Conservatives lost the poll because they could not counteract the idea that a near-total abortion ban is what they would push for if the state constitution’s protection of abortion was removed.
In Rothman’s view, the anti-abortion campaigners could not bring themselves to say that they did not wish for a near-total ban, because in their hearts of hearts they do want a near-total ban
Their religious principles drive them to that position.
“Why can’t conservatives campaign sensibly, incrementally?” Rothman asked on the Commentary podcast. It is a good question.
Sense and sensibility
This gap between what might be sensible to campaign for, and the sense conservatives make of the world is an emerging dilemma for how Christians operate politically
“Politics is the art of the possible” is not only a cliche but a practical reality.
Christians rightly see William Wilberforce’s campaign to overturn slavery as a high point of Christians using their social conscience. Indeed the UK anti-slavery movement is a rare instance of a nation acting against its economic interests. But the anti-slavery campaign was incremental, with many intermediate steps extending over decades – such as mounting investigations into the slave ships and outlawing slave trading before moving on to slavery itself.
Christian schools cry for freedom.
Freedom for Christian schools to teach and hold to Christian standards of behaviour was at the centre of the religious discrimination bill debate in the dying stages of the Morrison government.
Christian Schools, is often used to mean the mostly low-fee schools represented by Christian Schools Australia, the Australian Association of Christian Schools and Adventist schools. We will use the term ‘Christian schools” in quotation marks to delineate this group – without meaning any derogative intent.
But looking at schools that teach a conservative view of human sexuality, we find a wide spectrum of responses.
- Evangelical schools run by the Sydney diocese welcome all students while insisting principals and boards uphold a conservative stance on sexuality.
- Many “Christian schools” hire only Christian staff, and have a majority of students from Christian families.
- Some “Christian schools” hire only Christian staff and only have students from Christian families. While this was a characteristic of Christian Education National schools, most of them now accept students from non-Christian families.
- One group, Christian Community Ministries (CCM) requires parents to sign a statement that includes a conservative view of human sexuality.
The CCM schools belong to a second umbrella group the Australian Association of Christian Schools – but it is only one group within a much larger network.
Many evangelical Christians, for example, the author John Dickson, have taken the view – that they may not agree with a particular school’s policy but they uphold the right of the school to set its own rules.
Schools towards the more conservative end of the spectrum believe that creating a very Christian environment at school shapes the Christian Character of their students. This group of schools is under pressure from laws in place or contemplated by federal and state governments.
In effect, they simply wish to be left alone to carry out their educational mission. They already accept many state regulations, teach to the recognised state curricula, and like the State, schools have responded to change such as the new standards resulting from the Royal Commission into the Institutional Response to Child Sexual abuse. They are not isolationist, and only a few are fundamentalist.
A coming showdown with the Albanese government – and WA.
Two key pressures face the Christian schools, summed up in the Labor policy platform on religious discrimination.
“A future Labor government will:
- prevent discrimination against people of faith, including anti-vilification protections;
- act to protect all students from discrimination on any grounds;
- and protect teachers from discrimination at work, whilst maintaining the right of religious schools to preference people of their faith in the selection of staff.
Labor sees the strengthening of our anti-discrimination laws as an opportunity to unite the nation, rather than to divide it.”
The cutting edge of the student discrimination policy involves LGBTQIA pupils.
A nuanced comment by Mark Spencer, the national policy officer for Christian Schools Australia, during the religious discrimination debate said that the presence of LGBTQIA students should not be treated as a zero-sum game. Christian schools under his care have never expelled students just for identifying as an LGBTI person.
“A student stating they are LGBTQIA are in no danger of expulsion at a CCM school” Vanessa Cheng, Executive officer of AACS tells theothercheek. CCM’s network includes Citipointe school which became the focus of the religious discrimination debate in the last week of the Morrison government.
The CCM schools have been portrayed as likely to expel students in the media coverage of the debate. This was due to their parent contract which includes “The right to terminate under this sub-clause includes where you or your child engage in conduct that … is inconsistent or incompatible with the mission, beliefs, values or policies of the College, including as outlined in the CCM Statement of Faith,”
A less specific clause in another school states “Unsatisfactory behaviour or refusal to be in accord with the teaching of our school’s values and beliefs can result in withdrawal of enrolment.”
So while some schools may have set up their systems to have the ability to expel LGBTQIA students in the past they have now stated that students will not be asked to leave solely – or mostly solely – based on sexuality.
However, there remains a grey area. What if a student vociferously advocates for their sexuality or seeks to have a discussion group or club? What if a transgender student wants to wear the uniform of their new gender? How do rules about respecting the policies and doctrines of the school play into these issues?
Discuss this topic with someone sympathetic to the more conservative schools and the question of ‘what if the student is an activist’ will be raised.
The Albanese policy makes it clear that any room for schools to preference faith-based staff will be restricted to teachers. Schools will be able to fire based on faith, but likely not able to fire based on sexuality. This reflects the cases of teachers “coming out” while employed. However, Labor policy appears to ignore that some churches include a conservative view of human sexuality as a core doctrine.
WA is joining Victoria in adopting an “inherent requirement test” for schools hiring policy. Notably, the Victorian policy was not endorsed by the Albanese team during the election campaign.
All or nothing?
“Christian Schools” will oppose change from either federal or state governments. “Christian schools fear closure if WA discrimination laws strengthened” was a headline in the nine papers reflecting their response to the WA proposals.
“The Christian school model requires that all staff, from the principal to the music teacher, share and practice the faith of the school community,” AACS’ Vanessa Cheng told the papers.
But arguing for this with a government led by Morrison is one thing, but the Liberal wipeout in WA and a new progressive-dominated federal parliament presents a very different scenario.
It will be hard for schools to pull back from an all-Christian staff model, but like the Kansas pro-lifers, they may need to develop a position that can win support. Outside of their school community.
The perfect may be the enemy of the good.
It would be uncomfortable to pull back but learning to lobby incrementally is the challenge for Christian advocacy in the Albanese era.
What new balance can “Christian schools” strike about rules for LGBTQIA students? Can they lobby for a halfway house about which staff they can hire?
Or will they advocate for their model of perfection, knowing that it is unlikely to survive unscathed?
Advocating for anything other than their preferred model – just as the Kansas pro-lifers really do want to ban abortion – will be extremely difficult. But sometimes progress requires a ladder.