Driving Christian belief from the public square

The forced resignation of former banking boss Andrew Thorburn as chief executive of the AFL’s Essendon Football Club after just 30 hours in the job marks a new low for freedom of religion and belief in Australia.

A statement from Essendon president Dave Barham said Mr Thorburn could not continue to serve in his dual roles at Essendon and as chairman of City on a Hill, a small group of Christian churches. The club supported “wholeheartedly the work of the AFL in continuing to stamp out any discrimination based on race, sex, religion, gender, sexual identity or orientation, or physical or mental disability”. It acted swiftly, the statement said, after revelations that the City on a Hill church had a sermon from 2013 on its website stating that acting on same-sex ­attraction was “a sin”. Another sermon on the site likened abortion to concentration camps. The Essendon statement admitted that these were not views “that Andrew Thorburn has expressed personally and that were also made prior to him taking up his role as chairman”. The views in question – belief in the sanctity of life and that sexual relations belong within heterosexual marriage – are hardly a surprise. Although those subjects are under challenge even in mainstream churches, for centuries they have been the doctrines of most religions, including Christianity.

Australia’s robust, liberal democracy has long prided itself on freedom of speech, thought and religion, as well as tolerance. Our society is sinking into dangerous territory when it becomes acceptable to dismiss an employee not on the basis of performance but because of the views of a church in which they are involved. Such unjust prejudice found favour on Wednesday with Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews. Asked whether it was no longer acceptable for people with religious ties to hold leadership roles, Mr Andrews said there was “no place for bigotry”. Responding to questions on whether people with religious ties should apply for public roles, Mr Andrews said: “They might want to have a think about whether they should be perhaps a bit more kind-hearted, a bit more inclusive.” A kinder, more mature approach is needed toward those with legitimate, serious concerns about the effects of radical gender ideology, especially on the young. Nor should those prepared to challenge the tyranny of woke theocracy be excluded.

There is no evidence that Mr Thorburn, a former chief executive of National Australia Bank, is unkind or non-inclusive. He has said he would welcome any gay footballer at Essendon who came to him to express concerns over his position in his church. “I would say (to a gay player): ‘Thank you and I respect and care about you and you’re welcome in this organisation, and I want to hear what you think and ensure that you feel safe and can speak out.’ ” Mr Thorburn described his faith in Jesus Christ as “central to who I am”. But he, like many churchgoers, does not always agree with what he hears in church. In a statement after his resignation, Mr Thorburn said he had “always promoted and lived an inclusive, diverse, respectful and supportive workplace – where people are welcomed regardless of their culture, religious beliefs and sexual orientation. I believe my record over a long period of time testifies to this.”

His ability to do the job to which he was appointed after a recruitment process involving Ernst & Young was untested. A few days ago, the club welcomed him as “a man of great integrity and exceptional vision” who would run the club “with a renewed focus on our members and the core reason which we exist – football”. Doing so while chairing a small group of socially conservative churches should not be mutually exclusive. Whether Mr Thorburn sleeps in, plays golf or attends a socially conservative, Bible-based church on Sunday mornings when he is not working is irrelevant. The saga lends weight to his view that “personal Christian faith is not tolerated or permitted in the public square”. If so, it is no longer a proper public square. The last thing Australian society needs is another minefield for litigation. But Mr Thorburn’s case strengthens the argument for Australians to be protected from religious discrimination as well as from racial and sexist discrimination.

Comparisons will be drawn. But Mr Thorburn’s approach and situation is markedly different from that of former Wallaby Israel Folau, who unleashed a row of biblical proportions in 2019 when he quoted St Paul on Instagram. “Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters”, Folau warned, must repent or they would go to hell. Mr Thorburn is no proselytiser. He is correct when he says people with different views on complex personal and moral matters should be able to live and work together with respect. That is part of the strength of a liberal, pluralistic society. The nation will be poorer, as he says, “for the loss of our great freedoms of thought, conscience and belief that made for a truly ­diverse, just and respectful ­community”.