The line between faith and fatalism can be blurry, but it raises an important question for a Pentecostal prime minister leading a nation that is fast becoming a global outlier on the subject of energy policy.
When, in the face of COVID-19, the Morrison government embraced the medical science on infection control with zeal, a popular response was to hope the government would be equally zealous in its embrace of climate science. Two events last week suggest that this is a forlorn hope.
The first was the prime minister’s response to Boris Johnson’s appeal to Australia to take ‘bold action’ to achieve net-zero carbon emissions target by mid-century. Echoing John Howard’s infamous speech about Australia’s sovereign right to decide ‘who comes here and under what conditions they come’, Scott Morrison declared that Australia’s emissions-reductions target will not be set by London or Brussels – as if this were a matter for individual countries to ponder at leisure rather than a global emergency requiring an urgent, collaborative, global response.
The second event was the release of The Australia Institute’s research report, The Climate of the Nation, based on a national survey of 1,998 respondents aged 18 and over. Two findings stood out: 68 per cent of us support a net-zero emissions target by 2050, and 71 per cent think Australia should become a world leader in finding solutions to the impact of climate change. In other words, if the government wanted to take ‘bold action’ on climate change and energy policy, it would be a remarkably easy sell: the electorate is not only onside but, in fact, way ahead of its government.
Given Morrison’s commitment to govern for the ‘quiet Australians’ – his own version of US president Richard Nixon’s ‘silent majority’ – it seems remarkable that he appears not to hear them when they do speak, especially when they speak so clearly on the most pressing issue of the century.
Why might that be?
The most obvious answer is that this government, like many of its predecessors, is in thrall to the coal lobby, and that too many marginal seats, especially in Queensland, would fall to Labor if the government appeared to be in a hurry to phase out coal and commit to a clean, renewable-energy future.
No doubt there’s a great deal of realpolitik in that argument. It certainly explains why climate science has never been as easy as medical science for Australian governments to accept. But it doesn’t entirely explain why a man who enjoys such popularity in the electorate and a position of such secure power in his own party would not have the leadership skills – and the courage – to be bold on this issue, if he believed in it.
We know that humans – even leaders of a nation – act out of mixed motives. The heart and the head are often in conflict, and the heart is generally the winner, even though we often try to dress up our subjective, emotional responses in the guise of objective rationality.
On a brutal scale, the second Gulf War was a classic case in point. The brainchild of US president George W. Bush, the disastrous second invasion of Iraq (more than 110,000 civilians killed, more than half of them children under 15) was variously explained as a hunt for (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction, a regime-change strategy involving the toppling of Saddam Hussein and the ‘liberation’ of the Iraqi people, a means to protect US access to Iraqi oil, or a way of securing a second land base for US troops then stationed in Pakistan.
But the list of possible explanations didn’t stop there. Many US commentators thought it was about George W. Bush ‘finishing the job’ started by his father, President George H.W. Bush, in the first war. Others speculated that George W. was influenced by the religious views of ultra-right evangelicals, suggesting that Armageddon would occur in the Middle East and that if the invasion of Iraq triggered it, then so be it. That interpretation made Bush into a potential ‘man of destiny’ (rather as QAnon devotees now see Trump).
Take your pick. But that final item on the list could conceivably be relevant to the mystery of why our own prime minister seems so reluctant to make a strong commitment to a 2050 net-zero emissions target – or any target – and the strategies required to get us there. Does his religion play a part?
Normally, a politician’s religious beliefs are rightly regarded as off-limits to public scrutiny or speculation. But this prime minister has been remarkably open and explicit about his religious faith and practice, even taking the extraordinary step of admitting a camera crew into his Hillsong-style Horizon Pentecostal church to film him at worship.
In her Quarterly Essay on Morrison, political journalist Katharine Murphy noted that ‘when Morrison secured the leadership of the Liberal Party, some Pentecostal pastors described his ascension as a miracle of God’. And Morrison himself famously characterised the re-election of his government as a miracle.
Morrison told Murphy he is uneasy about discussing his religious faith because ‘no matter how I explain it, it will be misinterpreted’ – a strange remark, you might think, in a country where 52 per cent of the population still identify as Christian. Or was it so strange? Did it perhaps hint at Morrison’s sense that his particular brand of Christianity might seem puzzling, even to other Christians?
Unlike most Christians, Pentecostalists typically set great store by the so-called prophecies of the Book of Revelation – a strange book that reads like a drug trip and, as US religious historian Elaine Pagels points out, very nearly failed to make the cut when the final composition of the New Testament was being determined. Pagels and many other scholars regard Revelation’s extravagant symbolism as coded references to contemporary events then unfolding in Rome. But those wild images are associated by some evangelical and especially Pentecostal Christians with the concept of ‘end times’ – the looming end of civilisation as we know it, when Christ will return to reign over the earth.
What does all this have to do with Morrison’s attitude to climate change and energy policy? If he is indeed a believer in ‘end-times’ theology as having literal relevance to the present, that could explain a more relaxed approach to the destruction of the planet than might otherwise seem warranted.
We don’t know whether that’s the case, but there are many ways in which that kind of faith – ‘it’s all part of God’s plan’ – seems almost indistinguishable from fatalism. If that is the prime minister’s position, what impact might it have on his climate-change policy and, indeed, on his attitude to the burning of fossil fuels? (Let’s not forget his theatrical defence of coal when he brought a lump of the stuff into the House of Representatives, in defiance of the parliamentary rules.) Perhaps he does believe that, as the ‘end times’ draw near, none of this really matters.
Hugh Mackay is a social psychologist with a 60-year career in social research. He is the author of 22 books including his latest, The Kindness Revolution.
Comments
9 responses to “What if climate change is merely seen as ‘God’s will’?”
If I may expand upon a few points made by Hugh regarding Pentacostalists (ism) there are a number of strands or cult branches. At is most aesthetic it is very similar to Quakerism or even Unitarianism but they lay great store on personal salvation via Baptism (literally a proper immerision in white garb) and hence John the Baptist, the book of St John and Revelations. They are strong proselitisers and require tithes (Does the PM give 10% of his salary to the Hillsong Church?) and reinforce committment with common meals (the breaking of bread) and internal community support. The are also accepting and given to a form of group mania or speaking in tonques as a sign of the spirit among them. Few of these aspects would sit well with the public at large or more mainline Christian Churces. In essence they are a cult. They are fatalists and believers in the end times. Delusion or enlightment?
As for the PM well if he is not out proseltising actively via deeds and works then he is not a hypocrite but a phony and I suspect the latter. This is a man who adopts the trappings of fundamentalism either economic, social or religious but essentially has no real core values other than his own ego. Ergo he is stupid! Dangerous and deceptive yes but that is not his religious views that is his personality.
Morrison’s brand of Christianity is all faith, no tolerance, no charity and no hope.
In my limited understanding, Pentecostals believe that Jesus will return and take the righteous to Heaven, while Earth is consumed in fire and brimstone (or something along those lines). Morrison, of course, is among the righteous. Global warming is the beginning of the end times.
So, you see, it doesn’t matter. Morrison and his mates will be OK.
Hugh, a very interesting read, thank you. This aspect of Scotty’s persona has intrigued me for some time, and I have previously posted here along the lines that the US roots and themes of his religious leanings are profoundly ‘un-Australian’ and worrying in their implications for Australian society and politics. Reading the entrails of his policies and decisions (or lack thereof) for where he is coming from, and where he might (try to) take us, it seems that there is little evidence to distinguish him from the religious extremists over there. That absence of evidence that he is not one of them is not sufficient to label him as one of them though.
Scotty’s glibness is popularly thought to hide hollowness, but alternatively it may hide a Machiavellian intent. He hides the nature of his beliefs because of the risk of misinterpretation? As you hint, the more likely risk is of rejection of those views, or perhaps more seriously, a rejection of a Prime Minister holding those views. He will not be more open about those views, not because they would result in ‘misinterpretation’, because misinterpretation of one’s religious views generally has a care factor of around zero. He can only be fearing a negative response to the airing of his religious views, which is hardly likely to arise from mainstream Christian positions. From what we know about his church, that can only point to those views being towards the more extreme end of the fundamentalist-cum-pentecostal spectrum.
It would be nice to have some transparency around this, and where the real Scott Morrison wants to take his, and our, country.
.
“Climate change’ has gone through a number of name changes including ‘the greenhouse effect’ ‘anthropogenic global warming’ to ‘human induced climate crisis’. The expression ‘climate change’ is passive – there is no identified human cause. In future, once terminal disaster has struck politicians and the media will just say ‘It’s climate change, there’s nothing we could or should have done about it”. (Just ask Noam Chomsky if you don’t believe how the use of language can deceive.)
Some strong linkages and excellent points made by Hugh McKay, regarding Morrison’s relígious affiliations and the influence it may have on his political decision making. Whether the spirit truly moves him is debatable. However, I think he’s very attracted to prosperity theology, the more wealth on earth a better place in heaven. All those Hillsong types like their consumerism. Plus he would be well aware of the advantages to be had for example with his buddy Trump and a myriad of other political figures in the US by being deeply involved with evangelicals.
An excellent article appeared in the Conversation by Philip C. Almond Emeritus Professor in the History of Religious Thought at the University of Queensland titled Five aspects of Pentecostalism that shed light on Scott Morrison’s politics,May 23, 2019. On, Prosperity theology he writes, “In keeping with his theology, Morrison appears to see himself as chosen by God to lead us all towards his understanding of the promised land, which as we know means, “If you have a go, you get a go”.
“This “have a go” philosophy sits squarely within Pentecostal prosperity theology. This is the view that belief in God leads to material wealth. Salvation too has a connection to material wealth – “Jesus saves those who save”. So the godly become wealthy and the wealthy are godly. And, unfortunately, the ungodly become poor and the poor are ungodly. This theology aligns perfectly with the neo-liberal economic views espoused by Morrison. The consequence is that it becomes a God-given task to liberate people from reliance on the welfare state.”
All the above seems quite frightening given the power Morrison has as PM to direct policy..
Additionally, there is the pious that attracts Morrison. The self righteousness. So with Christian yes Porter, perhaps the new ICAC bill may become a re-enactment of Jesus cleansing of the temple from corruption?
Lastly, and equally as serious is Morrison’s attitude to China. Again this may be fuelled by a “crusader” mind set fighting godless communist and would prevent Morrison from engaging in empathic discourse. This breed of politicians we have now can’t seem to empathise – Merkel can but then she’s woman.
Perhaps Hugh this may feature in his mental and psychic calculus but I have gradually formed the opinion that is much more simple – he is just a stupid human being. The problem with being stupid is you do not know you are!
Yes he may well be not the smartest cookie in the jar, but compensates with an abundance of rat cunning.
Prior to Morrison’s ascension to PM I thought he was nothing but a buffoon, but his time as PM as shown him to be anything but that. Maybe he isn’t smart in an academic sense, but he is no fool and I’d go as far as to say he’s a dangerous man.
He pays lip service to the publics concerns, but is smart enough not to go forcibly against them, he just ignores them and mouths some platitudes and continues on doing what he can to undermine. His response to CC is a prime example, he knows it has overwhelming support so won’t openly go against it, but every gov CC initiative is there to limit any change. His CV response is the same, pretend concern while white anting lockdowns and border closures and he does this while maintaining a high approval rating.