Australians don’t talk much about providence in national life. So a recent remark by John Howard was striking. In discussing the Stern report on the environment, he said that he was "not willing to lead Australia into an agreement that is going to betray the interests of the working men and women of this country, and destroy the natural advantage that providence gave us".
When Australians have spoken about national providence, they associate it with a sense of mission. Before Federation, some saw Australia’s providential role in Virgilian terms, as to civilise surrounding peoples. In his long poem, Captain Quiros, James McAuley saw Australia’s providential place to lie in its pure Christianity.
Mission and providence belong together. Providence is a theological concept which implies a beneficent and foreseeing God. When used by Christians, it presupposes a God of universal love. If God shows partiality to a nation, its gift and blessing must be for other nations. A God who played favourites would be subdivine. So God’s blessing must be given for all.
By these standards, Mr Howard’s reference to providence is certainly inconsistent with Christian belief. It supposes that a wise God would endow one group of people with special advantages, in order that they could hoard them against others who are less blessed. It supposes also that a wise God would bless the lives of this generation of Australians, in order that they could ruin the lives of the next generations.
In fact, Mr Howard would have done better to have attributed Australia’s good fortune to luck or chance. These carry no moral consequences. But it does seem to be lacking in gravity to say, "We’ve got lucky with coal and agricultural land. So let’s enjoy them now, and stuff our children and the rest of the world." Providence sounds altogether more judicious.
This may be to make too much of the choice of a word. But the reference to providence is consistent with the current attempt of politicians to co-opt religious people. Words that echo moral values or faith are in vogue. The infelicities of Mr Howard’s phrase suggest that religious people should not only suspect the hidden hook, but smell the bait to make sure it has not turned rancid.
Mr Howard’s language suggests, too, that religious people should reflect in particular on another current exercise in co-optation, the proposal to fund chaplains in schools. The idea of appointing people to schools specifically to exercise pastoral care is a good one. But it is hard to see why such people should be called chaplains. The name creates difficulties for many of the government schools, most of which need ancillary staff. It also creates difficulties for churches and religious bodies. The advantage of the word for government is that it allows them to appear to be concerned about values and to support institutions that have traditionally carried values in society.
If chaplains are funded by governments who have the right of veto, and they are appointed for all students and staff in a school, we may ask to whom, and to what, they are accountable. As chaplains, they are presumably representatives of particular religious groups, whose faith and whose way of life they share. As representatives of these groups, we should expect that they will not hide the judgments which they, as committed members of their churches, make on matters of faith and life.
What then are Christian chaplains to say when they read remarks, like those of Mr Howard, that they must see as incompatible with Christian faith? Do they criticise these remarks freely in the name of their churches? Or do they keep silent because their remit in schools is to represent only civic values? If they keep silent, it is difficult to see why they would accept the position, and why churches would be happy to be associated with it. But if they represent the stance of their churches on issues of public morality, like the Iraq war and industrial relations, will their reappointment be vetoed?