Australia's Voice and the issue of 'Respect'

Profound! …not surprising….but….It's official….well about as 'official' in Australia as it can be, that 'Respect' is 'king'. 

The voice of the highest office in the nation of Australia - the Prime Minister, is choosing to use the concept of 'respect' to motivate the country to do what he believes is right. Thus also by implication, this infers that if you do the opposite, you are 'disrespectful'.  This was highlighted on a recent Australian news clip I saw on Youtube this week.

Attached to the campaigning for the upcoming 'Voice' referendum is one side pushing for 'Yes' and one side pushing for 'No'. And due to the nature of the proposal, the current Labour government (and thus the Prime Minister) put forward, and is promoting, the 'Yes' side.

So with his most recent statement, the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is in effect saying, that to vote 'Yes' is to show respect.

And by saying this, he is obviously of the opinion (consciously or otherwise), that this is the line of argument that will sway the majority of voters.

Observing from across the ocean

Looking from afar, this is fascinating.

In this blogpost, I have no intention of 'taking sides'…although we definitely know how we would have voted had we been in Australia. However, what I want to comment on is the significance of the Prime Minister's statement and how it signals something important about Australian culture in relation to morality, and thus about Gospel evangelism and discipleship in my country of birth. 

Once upon a time….and earlier in the campaign, there was more emphasis on what a law or decision would 'do' - what practical benefits were hoped would eventuate. However, it seems the focus has become far more heavily weighted now not on what the decision would 'do', but on what the decision says about who we 'are'. The persuasion technique hinted at this before, but now it seems to be based firmly on the assumption that people will want to show they are respectful and not be someone who is  'disrespectful'. 

Here in Africa, as we have said often on this blog, the context of 'right and wrong' - ie morality, is deeply rooted and emerges in the context of honour and dishonour (shame). In English vocabulary here, that is most often verbalised in the words of 'respect' and 'disrespect'. 

Here, as an African friend and theologian had once explained, 'saying NO is very difficult for an African'. And the reason is that it is seen as disrespectful and to show disrespect is the most sinful/shameful thing a person can do. Thus to say 'Yes' to any request, command, idea or proposal (especially from elders and leaders) is respectful and right, and to say 'No' is to be disrespectful and wrong.

So it is interesting to hear the Australian Prime Minister as he heads up the "YES" vote, trying to use the motivation of 'respect'.

Australia has historically been an interesting mix of moral motivation. But from personal experience and Culture Test results, it is a nation that has been very highly motivated by a guilt-law-innocence perspective rather than an honour(respect)-relationship-shame perspective. As a country it's culture has been rooted in British monarchy but also influenced highly by the influence of the guilt-law orientation of the USA. And even the British side of things was more of experiencing the legal punishment arm of Britain, in being established as a convict colony. So along with free settlers who had no distaste for monarchy and the UK, the convicts of course had little desire for that kind of rule. In fact a previous Prime Minister Bob Hawke has apparently said that Australia was a place of 'no hierarchy of descent' or 'privilege of origin'. Australia was a place that wanted equality under a common rule of law for all, and not a place based on hierarchical familial relationships. Thus, alongside an element of respectful relationships reflective of British culture, it had become a place where relationships would be sacrificed in order to uphold rules and thus we would classify it as more of a guilt-law emphasis culture. Any concept of 'respect'  was more and more deeply entwined into the greater 'respect for rules'.

As previously discussed on this blog, Western culture, and within that Aussie culture, is shifting. Social media, multi-culturalism and a 'pendulum reaction' to supremacy of 'rules', alongside a separation from Judeo-Christian ethics that strives to bring the matters of rules and relationship together under God, has meant that especially younger generations are increasingly linking in to the part of how God made us that values respect in relationships.

However, as we yearn for respect and significance in relationships within a 'there is no God' 21st century society, we form such values outside of God's design and look for them outside of God…and thus in and from the creature, rather than the Creator. We thus begin to frame our concept of 'respect' not on giving honour to God and seeking honour from God, but giving it to people and getting it from people.

Thus the Prime-Minister didn't just talk about a 'Yes' vote showing 'respect', but that such showing 'respect' would make us 'feel good about ourselves'. In other words he asserts that a 'Yes' would demonstrate respect (and thus show you to be a good respectful person as viewed by others, in Australia and globally), and also give you a feeling of personal moral satisfaction as a good person, fulfilling a sense of purpose. The problem is that respect that is determined by what makes me feel good, is doomed for disaster.

Implications

So a few things stand out to me from this - a few things that the Aussie Christian and the Aussie church need to more and more take note of …and apply if we are to reach Aussie hearts with the gospel.

• Majority morality does not factor God in (we've known this for a long time of course)
• Majority morality has not only moved away from what pleases God, but as the bottom line also has moved away from what is best in the interest of others (although we still tell ourselves we act for the good of others and this 'respect' argument plays on that), to actually being determined and motivated by 'what makes me look morally right' in the eyes of people, and 'what makes me feel good or better about myself' 
• Majority morality is fast moving towards being oriented toward 'respectful relationships' rather than 'rule keeping'
• ...this feeds into then seeking respect from, and giving respect to, people rather than God ….and thus seeking affirmation, approval, acceptance, significance, value and identity on a human creature level rather than a Creator level.
• this provides great gospel-sharing opportunities to people who are seeking to give and receive respect and value and are searching to find a satisfying identity and purpose

So as I look at the 'Voice' debate, the 'voice' of the Prime-Minister is a 'voice' that speaks of where Australian society is at in regards to its morality and worldview. 

And thus it should remind us once again that God's 'VOICE' of the gospel needs to come to needy ears and hearts…. bringing the good news of the true honour and identity to be found in Christ before the eyes of God. For this is an identity that does not need to seek its place by affirming earthly cultures and groupings, but finds a higher more satisfying and joyful place by being part of God's family in which all people are granted an equal identity that surpasses all others and frees us from trying to find value and significance in the offers of this world. Such offers will always fail to satisfy, and will lead us away from that for which we were made and fall short, but which Jesus came to restore.