I was stopped in my tracks recently by a church member who expressed their sadness that I had broken something ‘sacred’ about the peace of church by writing on the Voice. I so appreciated the depth of their concern. Other ministers who have written on the Voice (for or against) have experienced similar strong disappointment from church members.
Mixing faith and politics is always a messy business. Like mixing ingredients for a cake. Yet all ministers note that more matters in the political sphere now are more cloesly related to concerns of faith. As we know, cakes rarely turn out as we hoped.
I put comments on the political sphere (what is often called ‘public theology’) in this blog so it is appropriately distanced from our common worship. I see this blog as a safer space for disputable matters and for disputation with the world beyond our doors. I only wade into these waters when two categories are present: biblical importance and political currency. If both are present, I consider weighing in.
I will be writing two blogs this week - one on the Voice, and one on fast-moving legislation that affects pastoral care for some same-sex-attracted Christians. Both have the capacity to greatly upset. I hope you will appreciate that they are put in this more neutral space to keep potentially divisive matters away from our common worship.
I hope I will also write with balance and gentleness, not always present in my tone, but I pray will be in these posts.
The Voice: a ‘Yes’ Forum & the ‘No’ Arguments
Reconciliation after past harms is a throughly Christian concern, even when pursued among people who are not Christians, and in complex circumstances. Both sides of this debate seek healing and reconciliation, with views differing on approach, not desired outcome. The biblical importance is clear, even if the bible will not dictate how we should vote. The political currency is obvious.
Recently in the church news I advertised a forum by ministers in the Eastern Suburbs that are proposing arguments to support a ‘Yes’ vote. As you know, I myself am more convinced by the arguments for a ‘Yes’ vote than I am by the ‘No’. This is not a position of our church, and I speak from my own personal position, and do not wish to imply it should be the position of anyone under my pastoral leadership.
I advertise this Yes forum in the knowledge that there are simply no ministers currently proposing a ‘No’ forum, or a mixed platform, but that you may be interested what some local ministers are thinking. I expect that people will fully question these ‘Yes’ proponents from the strongest arguments of the ‘No’ perspective.
To this end, I have included below a list of many of the best (or best-known) arguments for a No vote. I aim to arm anyone going to the forum with the best material to seriously question the Yes vote. I hope this will be appreciated as a reflection of a balanced consideration of the arguments.
As I head to Zimbabwe for family leave and mission partners, this will be the last I say on this matter. May the unity of Christ preserve us all, however we vote!
A ‘Yes’ Forum
A ‘NO’ CASE ARGUMENT SUMMARY
I offer this summary with no comment on these arguments strength or weakness, truth or confusion.
The Voice won’t do any practical good (Price & Chavura)
Jacinta Price is a leading proponent of this view. Her arguments are regularly reported in the media, sourced from private blogs to subscribers of her website; https://www.jacintaprice.com/updates Stephen Chavura, a Senior History Lecturer at the Catholic Campion College offers a strong statement of this argument, among others here: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/stephen-chavura-christian-critique-of-voice-to-parliament/102523242
The Voice is a front for woke activism (Price)
Jacinta Price has been particularly strong on detailing the progressive-activist credentials of various key figures promoting the Voice. Again, these biographical ‘exposes’ are found by subscribing to her website above.
The Voice doesn’t represent Indigenous Australia (Mundine)
Tony Mundine makes the simple argument that it is hard for a federal advisory body to represent so many Aboriginal nations. In short, the Voice racialises matters that should be tribal-nationally dealt with. ‘Aboriginal’ is a race, but ‘Yuin’ is a nation. He argues how can teh Voice represent the Yuin and the Bundjulung and the Wiradjuri and the Yolgnu, etc?
The Voice shows no faith in democratic institutions (Iles)
The head of Australian Christian Lobby, Martyn Iles defends the existing political status quo and its’ merits in the following article: https://www.acl.org.au/blog/indigenous-voice/.
The Voice divides Australia constitutionally on racial lines (Iles)
This is a form of a common argument that suggests race-difference does not belong in the Consitution. https://www.acl.org.au/blog/indigenous-voice/
The Voice contains no concept of forgiveness, but rather payback (Jeffreys)
Two fierce articles critique the Voice on the grounds of lacking a forgiving agenda. Jeffrey’s article can be found at https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/religion/2023/06/five-reasons-christians-should-reject-the-voice/ and Powell and Powell here.
The Voice is part of a Truth-Telling and Treaty agenda that ignores existing treaty processes (Powell & Powell)
This points out, without much explanation the existence of various existing treaties and Native Titles as a suggestion that any National treaty process would be redundant. https://ap.org.au/2022/06/28/whats-wrong-with-the-uluru-statement-from-the-heart/
The Voice does not have sufficient power (Thorpe)
This is the main ‘progressive’ opposition to the Voice, and is famously represented by Lidia Thorpe. Her arguments are not easy to find in any detail, but have been well reported in the media. I suspect you have heard them already. I apologise for a lack of links.
I pray you find this article balanced and helpful. Christians will disagree on this, let us disagree with a gentle spirit, and full exercise our privilege as citizens to serve the common good.