One of the common objections to the proposed Voice to Parliament is that it would be divisive. This objection suggests that the proposed body introduces a form of racial inequality into the Constitution. It would give privileged access to one racial subset of citizens, and so compromise the democratic principle of the equality of all before the law. Some explicitly Christian arguments against the Voice have taken this line, since this principle is rightly upheld on the Christian basis of the equality of all people before God. That principle is held to be in clear and direct conflict with the idea of a Voice to Parliament.
The proposal does indeed give privileged access to one subset of Australian citizens based on race. But it’s worth noting that Australia’s Attorney-General, among others, has suggested that rather than undermining Australia’s democracy, the proposal would actually enhance it. From a Christian standpoint, does this constitutional privilege contradict the theological principle of the equality of all?
Equality in Principle
The classic expressions of the principle are found in two New Testament texts:
Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. (Colossians 3:11)
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
These verses have been applied by some as a universal prohibition against ever treating any class of person differently to any other. Racial divisions (along with many others), they argue, have been done away with in the gospel, so such divisions should have no place in determining how we treat one another. The proper import of these verses is, supposedly, a flattening-out of distinctions.
On the surface, the argument appears strong. But it is important to note that in both cases, the apostle Paul is addressing the church, not the world at large. It is in contrast with the surrounding political communities that the inclusiveness of the gospel is so radical. We cannot directly apply this teaching about the church to secular society.
Yes, the society of the church, as the ‘new humanity’ (Eph 2:15) provides something of a blueprint for the reconciled human society that will be revealed in glory. So Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:28 do say something about human society in general. This is how it is to be in the church; this is how things should be everywhere. So, perhaps there is a right way to apply the principle in these biblical texts to this contemporary political issue.
Equality in Practice
To move directly from these verses to an outright rejection of the Voice to Parliament, however, is to short-circuit proper moral and theological reflection. What’s missing is an exploration of how this scriptural principle is applied within the Scriptures themselves. These verses do not exist in a vacuum. How is the radical inclusiveness of the gospel expressed in the early church?
The book of Acts narrates the beginnings of the church as the early Christians take up the project given to them by the ascended Christ Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit: ‘you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth’ (Acts 1:8). At Pentecost, the gospel is declared to a diverse group of people from across the known world, as the Spirit-filled disciples speak intelligibly in the native tongues of others (Acts 2:5–13). The apostle Peter, preaching to the gathered crowd, concludes: ‘the promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to him’ (Acts 2.39). While not yet formulated as concisely, the same principle found in Colossians and Galatians is at work here: the equality of all people in the saving purposes of God. And it is not merely a spiritual principle: it is a present, practical reality, manifest in the rapidly growing and diverse community, united in Jesus (Acts 2:43–47).
Soon, however, the interpersonal and logistical difficulties of such a diverse community become apparent. A conflict develops along cultural lines, between the ‘Hellenists’ and the ‘Hebrews’ (Acts 6.1–6). The ‘Hellenists’—Greek-speaking Jewish Christians—complain that their widows were being neglected by the ‘Hebrews’—the Aramaic-speaking Jewish Christians. This is an early and key test of the gospel principle that ‘all are one in Christ Jesus’.
Notice the shape of the conflict. The minority Greek-speaking members of the church have inferior social outcomes to the majority Aramaic-speaking members of the church. There’s a parallel here to the problem that the Voice to Parliament seeks to address: inferior social outcomes for a minority ethnic community. There are, of course, many caveats; but there is enough for a parallel to be drawn.
Addressing Inequality in the Church
How does the church address this problem of unequal social outcomes along racial lines? The apostles appoint some members of the community to take charge of the distribution of food to widows in the Christian community, presumably to ensure that it is done in an equitable way. Importantly, we are given the names of those who they appoint: Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicoloaus. They are all Greek names. All seven of the deacons appointed are Hellenists. They belong to the neglected minority, and are given the task of fair distribution of food for the whole community. Biblical scholar Craig Keener writes:
The Seven are not only Hellenists; they are very conspicuously Hellenists. The community selected (6:3, 5) and the apostles blessed (6:6) members of the offended minority group. As members of the minority, the new leaders could better understand the issues that caused the offense, as well as bring assurance that the minority’s voice was heard and trusted.[1]
Here in Acts 6, the application of the gospel truth that there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, male or female is not to flatten out those distinctions, but to recognise them, accept them, and work with them. The minority group is elevated into a position of greater influence and agency. Theological ethicist Oliver O’Donovan, commenting on Acts 6, writes: ‘the church must embrace rather than reject existing bonds of identification, and these may make claims of mutual equity on one another.’[2] The church does so by making the Hellenists leaders in the community, even over members of the majority Hebrews.
Applying the Biblical Principle to Contemporary Issues
In response to a historical, practical difference in social outcomes, the church privileged the minority group. At the risk of phrasing the matter anachronistically, they wanted to hear the minority voice, and to include that voice in the leadership of the community as a whole. They singled out a particular sub-community in order to restore their agency in community matters affecting them. And they trusted them to do so with integrity and fairness.
We should proceed carefully as we seek to apply these biblical principles not only to our own vastly different time and place, but also to our pluralistic secular society. The complaint of the Hellenists was simpler than the complex range of social issues affecting First Nations communities. The proposed change to the Constitution is, for all intents and purposes, a permanent arrangement; there is no indication in Acts 6 that Hellenists would be appointed in perpetuity.[3] Moreover, the proposed constitutional change is about more than just inferior social outcomes. It also seeks to acknowledge historical relations between First Nations peoples and the rest of Australian society.[4]
The point being made, however, is that in a somewhat analogous social context, the biblical principle of the equality of all people was applied not by flattening out the distinctions between people, but by privileging one sub-community, in order to address their practical needs. If this an accurate characterisation, then surely the Voice to Parliament could be seen as a direct application of the principle of equality before the law and before God, rather than a repudiation of it.
This is not intended as a knockdown argument in favour of the Voice to Parliament. Instead, it is an attempt to see how the Scriptures apply a theological principle to real life social issues. There is more to be done than drawing straight lines between principles and their application. There are richer readings both of the Scriptures and of our own historical moment if we do so.
[1] Craig S. Keener, Acts, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), p. 225.
[2] Oliver O’Donovan, The Ways of Judgment (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 284.
[3] On the other hand, what is being asked for in the Voice is far less than what was afforded to the Hellenists, who were given responsibly for the actual administration of resources. Presumably, the early church trusted the Seven to exercise this responsibility fairly, and at the same time expected that the arrangement would change as and when it was appropriate. The parallels between the societies of the church and the state are not precise, so perhaps one might argue that a permanent solution is an appropriate safeguard for a community not formed and sustained by the Spirit.
[4] We should also note the motivations for the early Gentile churches supporting the Jerusalem church when they faced famine. Paul appeals not only to their immediate needs, but to the obligation of Gentile Christians to their Jewish sisters and brothers: ‘for if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings’ (Romans 15:27). The obligation is based on the status of the Jews as historical forebears of the faith into which the Gentiles have now been ‘grafted’ (Romans 11:17–24). The relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians in the early church would seem to suggest that history, too, and even a kind of historical preeminence, may factor in to the expression of the unity of a society. By analogy, we may conceive of obligations placed upon the Australian community toward First Nations peoples on account of their prior occupation of the land. If Australian society in general now shares in their ‘material blessings,’ may we not be obliged to ensure they share in our various blessings in return? I’m grateful to Mikey Lynch for this observation.
