Folau’s widely reported breach of
Australia Rugby Code of Conduct and threat of a job loss for quoting bible
verses on his social media contrary to his employer and sponsor wishes bring
into focus tensions between religious faith and practices, and the new
Australian cultural turn – where these are said to intersect with the world of
work.
The Folau-Rugby Australia dispute
points to far-reaching work participation implications beyond this particular
Wallabies superstar.
This star re-sparked the controversy by
expressing personal faith views about the passage of the Tasmanian State Parliament
new laws making it optional for birth certificate registration to include
gender – it is no longer compulsory for new-borns to be identified as male or
female in Tassie.
This Tasmanian State law also allows
16+ year olds to change their previously registered gender without parents’ consent
as per media reports see this links.
So what did he say to make some
people take offense? Folau who we are told is also a preacher remarked on Instagram
that “Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars,
fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolaters, hell awaits you. Repent! Only Jesus
saves.” If you Google you will see the verse is taken from 1 Cor 6:9. Here is the bible link.
Work participation is crucial for
each person’s existence, survival and actualization of potential regardless of
your faith, ethnicity, sexual identity, disability, and so forth. That’s how in
the past we have understood the workings of Australian pluralist society.
But Australia is experiencing a
cultural turn as shown in 61.6% who voted in favour of Same Sex Marriage
contrasted with 38.4% who disapproved.
But does this mean the 38.4% or more
are not allowed to comment on any flow-on effects of SSM legislative reforms
such as registration certificates for newly-born or the 16 year olds in their
social media communities or church?
Social media such as Instagram,
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are significant spaces where community of
believers conduct practices that support maintenance and growth of their
faiths, aside from physical spaces. I presume they share info, discuss things
of faith, and explore different ways of applying their faith and beliefs to
everyday life.
These days in many churches preaching
is not simply done by those with the mantle of a professional preacher. Neither
should it be. There are many lay preachers who hold other jobs in other parts
of secular society.
Following the ‘high-level breach’ verdict
made by the Independent Panel against Folau, can we expect to see more people
prevented from quoting various bible verses and risking losing their job with
other employers?
Is there a danger of instilling
totalitarian tendencies in how Australia thinks community of everyday believers
are now to be governed and regulated to make them apparently fit the
post-modernist and ‘post-faith’ society?
Obviously we can find many biblical
verses on the gospel of ‘grace’, ‘love’, or on ‘not bruising a broken reed’.
But I think for Christian commentators unless you are speaking from a position
of spiritual revelation I don’t think many of us are in a position to say which
verse would have been better used by Folau to make his criticism about birth
certificate reforms.
It seems to me as Australia gradually
shifts from pluralist democracy to identity politics as an underpinning of its
governance system, new challenges are inevitable because two different sets of
rights and belief systems are now at odds on some key areas. These points of
contention are becoming more evident as time goes by.
In my view, there is more to this
than simply whether those of us who profess to be Christians agree, disagree or
are uneasy about how Folau made his point. It is no secret that many other
reforms are in play across Australian jurisdictions reportedly as a way of
aligning with the federal SSM changes. It just happens that this time the risk
to work participation is highlighted in the Folau-Rugby Australia dispute.
In the past under Australia’s Equal
Opportunity policies many people used to broadly think of access and equity in
terms of ensuring people were not barred from safely participating in
employment, service access and various public opportunities on basis of gender,
religion, sexuality, disability, race and such. The new cultural turn involving
identity politics seem to be suggesting that people can only contribute to the ‘nature
of a good society’ by recanting some their Christian beliefs.
If we are to be honest, perhaps a
decade before SSM was legalised in Australia, a few mainstream public
institutions and non-government entities were already screening for some
employment positions in favour of staff that can support greater acceptance of
diverse sexualities and gender identities – and promote supportive environments
for such groups.
Some notable employer websites
already expect conformity with values and visions that require employees who
can positively promote and celebrate the spirit of diverse gender and sexual
identities. How many of these requirements are key to duties at hand, I
wouldn’t know. Is it all legal or inclusive, I don’t know. In what way this
aligns or conflicts with existing Australia’s EEO laws or the Article 18 of the
UN Declaration of Human Rights? There is a fair bit to flesh out.
In my view I think there many issues
that federal Parliament did not deal with prior to SSM legalisation or after
about religious protections. The Ruddock Review Report got eventually released
but in all honesty, given the state of politics, perhaps the timing was never conducive
in sorting out religious protections legislatively.
Where to from here on the employment
front? Whatever sanctions or settlement Rugby Australia reaches with Folau, there
are emerging issues for Christians in private or public social media spaces they
can expect to face. Even if you are the sort that uses the discourse of
‘grace’, will you constantly self-censor yourself just in case a discussion you
are having with your social media tribe veers on when God brings the ’age of
grace/dispensation to end’, or ‘that every human being is a sinner in need of
cleansing and renewal’, or your tribes’ chats on ’redemption’ or ‘repentance
from idolatry of our digital gadgets or money…. ’ (just some examples).
Do you abandon social media involving
your local community, faith networks or whatever for fear of losing future job
opportunities? Do you quit acknowledging that you are Christian in public forum
for fear of being misunderstood or targeted within context or out of context?
Also, now that the overarching federal
SSM legislation is in place, we could be seeing intensification of these sorts
of employment dispute in the future unless religious protections are put in place.
If you assume that 38.4% of the voting population did not support the SSM vote,
and also a few more who supported assumed flow-on effects will not occur – then
I think the Folau case is one of a few more others to come beyond the sports
field.
In the near future, the Federal
Parliament may be forced to adjudicate whether they believe employment in
public and non-public institutions must demand that bible verses deemed
offensive by some must not be used by Christians who seek to participate in
such work life. Good luck to them how they sort this one out. Personally I
think the UN did a better job in balancing everyone’s rights with Article 18.
As things stand, I think we will
continue to see some individual organisations doing their own thing, and those
aspiring to succeed playing greater part in celebrating and promoting diversity
in gender and sexual identities. Whether this then means bible believers can
expect reduced opportunities is something to watch.
On things community, it disturbing to
think some of the Pacific Islander communities could have their participation
into Rugby as community, elite sport and associated income possibly under
threat because they share bible verses in church and social media spaces with
their community folk and interested parties.
If mainstream society decides to
sanction these groups, how long before you impact social cohesion? It sounds to me that the wisdom of pluralism
is going out of the window.
Pluralism assumes existence of groups
with diverse and even competing interests. When you govern with some pluralist
thinking in mind you know a way of governing partly and inevitably requires
managing competing interests in while promoting a common good.
In a previous article I suggested
Australia was at cross-roads when discussing the contestation around education
and parental rights following SSM federal legislation. Today the
Folau-Australia Rugby dispute puts a spotlight on risk to work participation.
Some will say it’s not like our Parliaments didn’t know at some point they will
have to grapple with these issues. It is also possible, who knows, perhaps the courts
are gonna get busy.
The Gospel is clear about extending
dignity to each other as human race and all born in the image of God. There is
so much we have in common than what divides us. Pray for wisdom for those who
lead us: See this verse.
