Susie O’Brien: Essendon’s move on Thorburn not an attack on faith

Essendon’s decision to part with Andrew Thorburn is not an attack on his faith — it’s an attack on his role at an organisation that holds bigoted, outdated views.

Andrew Thorburn during his brief stint at The Hangar.

Andrew Thorburn didn’t lose his job at Essendon because he was a Christian.

He lost the job because he is a leader of a fundamentalist church with abhorrent views that have no place in today’s society.

The ultimatum Thorburn was given by Essendon – that he couldn’t be both their CEO and a chair of City on The Hill church – was not an attack on his faith.

It was an attack on his role as director, warden and chairman of an organisation that holds bigoted, outdated, harmful views.

Essendon’s position is entirely justified given what this church stands for.

The fact that Thorburn decided to stick with the church over the club shows Essendon was right to take this stand.

Let’s be clear about one important fact.

This is not about journalists digging for dirt and uncovering a one-off sermon delivered in 2013, predating Thorburn’s time at the club.

In fact, there is a range of easily located material on the church’s website clearly outlining its approach to abortion, homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

It’s there for anyone to find under the “resources” tab.

Andrew Thorburn during his brief stint at The Hangar.

According to City on a Hill church, “practising homosexuality is a sin”.

“Homosexuality is falling short of God’s created order. Even if sexual orientation originates in genetic makeup, homosexual activity is still a sin,” the church believes.

On the topic of abortion, the church believes that abortion is murder and draws a comparison with Nazi Germany.

“Whereas today we look back at sadness and disgust over concentration camps, future generations will look back with sadness at the legal murder of hundreds of thousands human beings every day through medicine and in the name of freedom,” it says.

“Even women who have raised children conceived through their rape have not regretted not aborting their child. On the other hand, 80% of those who have aborted their child have regretted it.”

Such views are vile, divisive and offensive.

Essendon president David Barham said “neither the board nor Andrew was aware of the comments from the 2013 sermon until we read about them this morning”.

The material was spotted easily by our journalists so you have to wonder why it wasn’t found by Essendon and their recruitment firm.

The board has stressed that it didn’t have any prior knowledge of the controversial comments. The question is: why not?

While it may be true that Essendon’s board didn’t know what Thorburn’s church stands for, it is impossible to believe that Thorburn wasn’t aware given the prominence of this material on the church’s website and elsewhere.

In light of this, Essendon’s stand is justified, even though Thorburn had not expressed these views personally.

Essendon President David Barham with new coach Brad Scott. Picture: Nicki Connolly

Thorburn is a leading figure in this church which is a registered charity and doesn’t pay any tax on its $5 million annual revenue. Key officials — presumably including Thorburn — were paid more than $500,000 in 2021 and more than $1 million in 2020 to run the organisation.

In his defence, Thorburn said “people should be able to hold different views on complex personal and moral matters and be able to live and work together, even with those differences, and always with respect”.

He said it’s “very important in a society that those views can be expressed”.

Free speech is one thing; hate speech is another, and I’d suggest this falls squarely under hate speech.

While there will always be room for a diverse range of views on ethical topics, there are some views that are so harmful, divisive and wrong that they are not accepted under the umbrella of difference or freedom.

Suggesting that homosexuality is a sin, or that women who have been raped should not have access to an abortion, are two such examples.

Thornburn said he didn’t believe in everything his church stood for, but he didn’t explain what he didn’t agree with.

The outcome at Essendon might have been different if Thorburn had clearly stated that he didn’t support the views expressed by his church on homosexuality or abortion.

But he did not do this.

While Thorburn successfully led thousands of “diverse” people as CEO of NAB, his position as CEO of Essendon is different. Football clubs today take an active role as agents of social change and see themselves on the forefront of issues such battling racism, homophobia and sexism.

As Barnham pointed out, this is “not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious beliefs, but about a clear conflict of interest with an organisation whose views do not align at all with our values as a safe, inclusive, diverse and welcoming club”.

Thorburn was free to hold his views, but he could not hold them at the same time as being Essendon CEO.

Seems fair enough to me.

Is Don. Is Good.