As the Liberal Party surveys the disaster of the 2022 election, it needs to read the sermon Scott Morrison delivered to Margaret Court’s church, Victory Life Centre, last Sunday and ensure that another Morrison can never again rise through the ranks to become parliamentary leader and prime minister.
The reason? Morrison’s 50-minute sermon examined in detail reveals a man who lives in a starkly different reality from most Australians.
Press gallery journalists too should take the time to closely examine the words of Australia’s 30th prime minister and ask themselves how they missed one of the biggest stories of the decade: the coming to power of a politician so thoroughly in the thrall of a niche religious belief.
Crikey has been pointing it out for at least a year, but it took Morrison’s departure to reveal the extent to which God had inhabited the Lodge over the past four years. Morrison’s lengthy sermon to Pentecostal believers gives us a better understanding of the defining features of his prime ministership: his disdain for secular accountability (whether an ICAC or the findings of the Australian National Audit Office) and his ability to mislead, be caught and yet carry on without apparent shame.
Ultimately Morrison reveals himself as a man who can justify much in the cause of spreading the dominion of the Lord. Here is what we have learnt, courtesy of Morrison himself:
God prolonged Jenny’s labour by several hours …
More than once Morrison has proclaimed the role of God in the birth of the Morrisons’ first-born daughter, Abigail, on July 7 2007 — the seventh day of the seventh month of the seventh year — after more than a decade of IVF.
In his Victory Life Centre sermon, he added a new and highly significant detail. He said Jenny’s waters broke about 8am on July 6. Jenny would have been happy to give birth “any time after about 10 o’clock that morning, I can tell you”.
“And as we got later that night, it started to twig to me what was going on,” he said. “And Abby was born soon after at 1am on the seventh of the seventh of the seventh. And you know, what that said to me was that God is faithful.”
It’s worth pausing to consider how realistic it is that God would have intervened in Jenny’s labour, but it carries a powerful meaning.
… a signal from God that the Morrisons are special
In Christianity, seven is the number of perfection — referring to the seventh day after God’s work was done. (The sixth, by contrast, is the number of man, a fallen being.)
So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all His work that He had done in creation. (Genesis 2:1-4)
Pentecostal Christians invest the number seven with extra, almost magical, meaning. The implication is that the Morrisons have a special destiny because God has singled them out with a 07/07/07 birth date, a meaning well known to Morrison’s audience.
He also spoke of the day he walked through the green belt in Wellington, New Zealand, and shouted at God in disappointment over the problems he and Jenny were having with conceiving a child: “I let Him have it. I’d say if people had heard this [shouting] they would have locked me up.”
You bet.
Morrison believes paintings send him messages from God
Morrison told of walking into an art gallery run by a Christian couple in Bourke during a drought when he was treasurer. He saw a painting of an old gum tree on the side of a flowing river and it reminded him of a biblical verse: “Blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord, and whose trust is in the Lord, for thy will be like a tree planted by the water that extends its roots by a stream, and does not fear when the heat comes. But its leaves will be green. And it will not be anxious in a year of drought, nor cease to yield fruit.”
(We might also ask what this means in terms of Morrison’s thinking on the link between climate change and drought, but that’s a whole other story.)
The gum tree by the river is a companion experience to one which Morrison related last year at a Pentecostal Christian conference where he saw a painting of a soaring eagle during the 2019 election campaign that he interpreted as a message from God to keep on going.
Done something wrong? Don’t worry about it
A central point of Morrison’s address was that God understands the anxieties of humans, indeed understands your anxieties better than you do, and that to overcome these anxieties just “declare the name of Jesus and declare His forgiveness, and declare His blood on the cross”.
The biblical verse Morrison quoted is:
Be anxious for nothing. But in everything, by prayer and supplication, and with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4, 6-7.)
“Be anxious for nothing.” He repeated the phrase again and again, emphasising the word “nothing” and pointing out there were “no exceptions”.
What was there to be anxious about? Morrison referred to “anxiety about our past, the scars, the hurt, the failings, the damage, that you feel”, which can “shut you down … cripple you”. “You cannot be held anxious over these things because God has broken [the link].”
Linked to the idea that “God loves you” for who you are, it’s little wonder Morrison feels released from any guilt or anxiety over his actions.
And surely God’s acceptance must matter more than any audit office investigation or a parliamentary committee finding. The thought becomes scary when you recall that as prime minister Morrison had responsibility for enforcing ministerial standards.
Accusations? They come from Satan
Morrison explicitly brought Satan into the mix as the being that makes accusations: “Satan is known as the accuser, the great accuser, and he’ll keep throwing this stuff at you.”
According to Crikey’s theological expert, “stuff” can be anything the enemy wants to attack you with, justified or not. And Satan is attacking you because you are a Christian and you are a chosen people set apart by God.
It is surely then a short step for Morrison to equate any accusation against him as being the work of Satan and therefore to be brushed aside lest it gets in the way of God’s plan.
Trust in God, not government: theocracy rules
Much has already been made of this section of Morrison’s sermon (with a couple of lines added before and after):
Listen to God as to how he would have you and how he would guide you and be faithful. God’s kingdom will come. It is in his hands, we trust in Him. We don’t trust in governments, we don’t trust in United Nations, thank goodness. We don’t trust in all of these things, fine as they might be. And as important as the role that they play. Believe me, I’ve worked in it and they are important. But as someone who’s been in it, if you are putting your faith in those things, like I put my faith in the Lord, you are making a mistake. They’re earthly, they are fallible. I’m so glad we have a bigger hope.
It is hard to beat as a statement that puts secular government second to theocratic will. It underlines precisely the problem with Morrison as the most senior member of government in Australia: he believes God does it better — a demoralising message, if nothing else, for Canberra’s machinery of government.
We Christians v the rest
Morrison clearly differentiates between Christians and the rest of society, those who don’t know “the truth of God”.
Speaking of treatments for anxiety, he said that when he looked carefully at the many provided, he saw “a lot of parallels [between] what I was learning, and [what I] had always known about God, and how God seeks to engage with us”.
“It’s funny how that happens, isn’t it, that people in a secular sphere discover what we already know in a spiritual sphere. It’s the truth of God. It’s the truth of God.
“No matter what society [seeks to deny], no matter how they might seek to deny it, or even dismiss it, the truth of God stands up and shines through.”
It is worth recalling that three years ago, and not all that far from Court’s church, Morrison promised $4 million in funding to the Esther Foundation rehab facility run by a Pentecostal pastor using religion-based therapies. Speaking to the women of Esther, Morrison used the same Pentecostal language as he deployed at the Victory Life Centre.
The foundation has now collapsed amid revelations of serious abuse of girls and young women stretching back more than a decade. Health Minister Mark Butler is still unravelling how the funding came to be approved from the Health Department budget.
From Morrison there is no word — but then none is required when you are the Lord’s anointed.
I’m still not sure Morrison is a man of God or just a compulsive inventor of stories tailored to the the audience he happens to be addressing at that moment. Has he duped the God botherers in the same way he duped the liberal voters. Just a simple liar maybe.
Hector Cat, our Pentecostal Failed Ex-PM’s sermon is dripping with the words and terminology of ‘the faithful, chosen ones’. Not even Ronald Reagan could have delivered those lines that convincingly. Our PFEP wasn’t making that stuff up … oh, wait!
Yes, I think that take is more likely. That is, he’s someone whose chief obsession is his own image and using that image in the pursuit of wealth and power. With the added bonus, that if he can convince people that he’s a genuine believer, then they’re probably more likely to accept that he has a moral core, that aligns with the professed morality of his faith. Which is handy, for someone who may be fundamentally amoral.
I also suspect that he might be investigating a new career move; that of celebrity, fundamentalist preacher. Which would suit the fact that his skill set heavily leans toward self promotion over action and spin over substance.
I hear there’s an opening at Hillsong. He’d be perfect for the job
Although, his claim the hadn’t “been at Hillsong for about 15 years” may work against him there.
Will he replace Brian Houston? Hillsong is going through a rough patch. But he left Tourism Australia and Tourism NZ under a cloud and the Liberal Party and the Australian people would give him a big fail.
Tony. looking at the attitude of the Liberal party, I really don’t think that they have realised yet just what has happened and it’s the voters in May who were deceived.
It would be lucrative.
He’d be ideal if Ch10 still has that execrable Hour of Power on Sundays at 5am.
Concetta Fierravanti-Wells told us his faith is just another marketing strategy.
Definitely “a man of of god” in his own mind and that of a certain fruit cake tennis racket.
He thinks himself a self-made man and naturally worships his creator.
As George Burns stated: If you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made.
A very arrogant cynic.
Strange how wealthy all these evangelical churches are. Very profitable businesses indeed.
Not paying income tax, or even land rates on property, helps.
As do the million dollars+ ^donations^ made from the public purse.
I’m in your camp. I don’t think there is anything real about him at all and suspect his ‘faith’ is as about genuine as his support of the Cronulla Sharks.
The marketing boy is a smarter version of Pauline.
He figured out how to grift the public via the ABC and Nine (notNews doesn’t count as they are always on the grift)
Pschopaths often disguise their lack of conscience and lack of empathy by being involved in fundamentalist churches.
Yes, it’s especially useful for them, when any past misdemeanours, can be dismissed as what they were like before they were born again. And anything more recent, can be explained away, as temporarily giving in to ever present satanic temptation.
Yes simply a manipulative narcissistic liar, who constantly re-invents himself according to his immediate needs. A straw man.
Ironic that God could not help Jenny get pregnant, that was left to science, but delayed the birth to be on a “special” day.
Scary.
If the Morrisons could not have children, surely that was God’s will and IVF would be subverting it.
Maybe Satan slipped between the sheets one night while Morrison was “On his knees” at the bedside…………..
Odd, too, that he used a ^pagan^ belief re 7/7/7 but changed to suit; the three sevens were actually the seventh child of the seventh child born on the seventh day of the seventh month, no mention of the year, which in his child’s case is a nine year 2007 = 9. Just another example of him making things up to suit his aganda at the time. The man is as false as his faith.
Doesn’t say much about Scomo’s former government colleagues who seem to have been in awe of this charlatan – remind me again how the liberal party chooses its candidates on merit? Frydenberg was happy to defend him to the end – so naturally Goldman Sachs hires him immediately. They don’t really want bright ex-politicians to do their lobbying for them.
Keep in mind that quite a few were fellow happy clappers and as for the rest, a win’s a win and the “God’s in charge” approach allowed an absolute free for all at the trough for three, absolutely unfettered years.
Morrison’s religiousity is exhibit A for the failure of what we call the media in this country. The way in which Morrison evaded all questions pertaining to his values and how his values may impact his judgment as PM was horrifying.
If you recall, when the issue of whether Morrison believed (like Folau) that “homosexuals” go to hell, only one quesiton was posed to him directly in the press conference: “Do you believe homosexuals should go to hell?” To which he answered contemptuously “No I don’t”.
Now if you are not attuned to those of a theological bent who are trained to make pseudo-philosophical distinctions in order to obsfucate and hide their true intent or beliefs (that they know are unattractive to others) then you might have been satisfied.
But of course, Morrison doesn’t believe all homosexuals should go to hell. If his beliefs are consistent with the religion he follows, then he believes that all homosexuals should go to hell if they do not repent or give up their ‘homosexuality. This is the view of his church.
The fact that in his 15 years in parliament not a single journalist was able to land a question that would have forced Morrison to make transparent his values and understanding of the world is evidence that we are in big trouble.
Morrison’s achievement in Australian political history is to make populism viable in Australia. To try to be the expression of the will of the peopel instead of being the instrument of the people to act. To present oneself as opposed to power while being in power…. Being openly cynical of the system all the while undermining the system for one’s own purposes…
The road map is there and when journalism in this country was faced with such a the populist apporach, it was not even able to register its own impotence.
Now that the Liberal party are openly saying that populism is the only way to save the party and once they find someone who fits the bill, there will be no stopping it.
Three years of moderate technocratic centrist Labour politics that focuses on rebranding non-solutions is inevitably going to usher in the new political era in Australia.
I hope I’m wrong!
Morrison’s religiousity is exhibit A for the failure of what we call the media in this country. The way in which Morrison evaded all questions pertaining to…
I was outside Australia, so watching from afar, when Turnbull replaced Abbott as PM. In an early presser a “journo” asked a roundabout sort of question about the extent of Turnbull’s wealth. His response was a variation of how vulgar it is to talk about money. And that was it.
Religious beliefs, great wealth – these are classified as personal and placed beyond question and/or discussion. We allow this at our peril.
Religious and philosophical beliefs should never be beyond questioning.
Although I do not in any way condone the accumulation of vast wealth that causes such social distortions and inequality, the amount of wealth should be readily known via Hansard. Nor do I believe it is a proper and appropriate subject to raise in an atmosphere such as a presser. By all means, sound out the hypocrites and cheaters and scammers, but if there are no concerns about the legality and morality of wealth, then it should not be a subject of the tabloid speculation it always becomes.
Turning ‘wealth into tabloid speculation’: the casting of aspersions by someone who has abused their privilege and power when in fact all there is is the use of privilege and power?
Do you also mean that someone’s success is turned into evidence that they do not really deserve the accolades of the community?
E.g., Like Turnbull: Somene is born into privilege and wealth and then accumulated a lot more wealth through the benefit of social advantages and then leveraged their wealth and status to achieves positions of power in society…
So despite being born into priviledge and wealth and using this to increase status and wealth, he really is deserving…? The idea is that it is irrelvant that he have privilege and wealth because he is ‘good’ at his job: A real professional who does not allow his values or principles to interfere with carrying out his job!
When we talk about ‘wealth’ we get confused. We tend to obsfucate the difference between someone who has worked hard and through their own to make a lot of money with someone who is wealthy because they are able to utilise social status and leverage advantage to create and sustain ‘wealth’. ‘Wealth’ that can mean many different things. Again it is aniother instance of how class is hidden.
I mean what I posted and did not infer anything of the inferences you try to attribute to me.
Your arguments are all well and good – all social and financial advantage should be subject to scrutiny. What I did say, if you choose to re-read my post is that I did not think a presser was the appropriate vehicle for examination of those matters.
Sure, if anyone is so inclined, pursue them, but do it in a way that the truth can come out in a factual, unpressured way, then by all means.
I think you’re drawing so long a bow that you’ve dropped the arrow.
I think I see your point.
The presser is limited in how it can be used to get at the full picture.
I took MJM to be using that example as symbolic of the how ineffectual the media has become.
One measly question at a presser is swatted away by the PM and the issue has ended. … We no longer need to check and verify through hansard as you mention or examine the extent of business connections and how it may impact the functioning of the PM (a journalist may seek to double check the information given and or revisit as government decisions are made).
The PM’s response at the presser reframed the issue: my wealth/soicial privilege etc has noting to do with my ability to do the job just as Morrison has been able to argue that his beliefs and values have nothing to do with him carying out his job.
To ask the PM about their wealth/status or beliefs is to invade their privacy! This is novel to our era.
I was not trying to force a position on you. I was trying to identify the conditions of possibility for the distinction you made between legitimate and illegitimate forms of wealth. What do you need to assume in order to make such a distinction? That was the aim.
The change of convention at pressers to allowing only a single question was a deliberate strategy. It meant that an outright lie, on water/planet matter or Canberra bubble evasions could not be called out. It would be easily countered if the pack of stenographers would agree to forgo their own questions and persist in asking the same stonewalled one until it is answered. It would only take one or two such farcical sessions for the mendacity to be curtailed. Of course, with Murdoch minions such agreement would be impossible. Conversely, when PM Gillard was being assailed by those same soulless myrmidon, specifically Kelly – ‘Father of the Press Galley’ – she stood in front of them, said “Give it your best shot” until an hur later they’d failed to make a dent and slithered away. Of course that didn’t stop Kelly who went on radio shortly thereafter to say “Still, questions remain”.
Gillard immediately phoned in to say – “You had your chance earlier, what further questions do you have?” but answer came there none. Instead he retreated to his fishwrapper column to repeat the calumny the next day but never raised the matter again when she was available to reply.
Kelly was a toad and a sell-out lackey to the cons, who was publicly taken apart on more than one occasion. I recall ( although only in passing ) an episode of Q&A where he was nearly apoplectic at having his attitudes and facts questioned.
“ the distinction you made between legitimate and illegitimate forms of wealth. What do you need to assume in order to make such a distinction? That was the aim.
I made no such distinction.
The question of legitimacy or otherwise of wealth, or it’s source is one too broad to go into here, but broadly speaking, most accumulations of great wealth have come from immoral or unethical, or antisocial origins IMHO. Most relatively moderate accumulations may come from the same types of sources, but not necessarily so.
E.G. Inherited wealth is, in my opinion, a curse on mankind as it enables huge inequalities and social ills at the expense of the less fortunate.
That is a great observation! It’s either declasse or too personal to consider the wealth of others or their values and beliefs.
The distinction between private and public (I’m thinking here of Kant’s classic ‘What is Enlightenment”) has been picked up and been transformed in the age of managerialism:
“I’m not a person but rather am a professional who doesn’t allow my personal values or beliefs to interfere with my job. I am (like Turnbull and Trump) great at ‘bringing people to the table’ and getting the best deal for everyone. My personal beliefs or convictions are bracketed when I am at work.
The reason why I am so good at my job is because I do not allow my values or beliefs to interfere in my work.
I may think that it is important to help refugees but I wo’t allow my personal convictions to interfere in stopping the boats… I’m a professional.
To ‘force’ someone to admit of their social status/wealth/values to see what limited life experience/ biases/values will form how they act and live in the world is now inappropriate.
The invisibility of this distinction is a symptom of reification of class structures.
Things, IMHO are looking good for your wish. The main purveyors of populism were soundly thrashed at the April election, and I don’t think any but of the poor, benighted idiots who voted for the den of thieves will increase. In fact,the contrary is more likely, as the older cohort that supported them die off at ever increasing rates.
Yes we are in the honeymoon period now. It does seem as thought we have resoundedly rejected populism. We have said a big “NO!” We are not like the USA or the UK or everywhere else….. Australian exceptionalism blinds us.
Were they thrashed? Given the disfunction of the government don’t you think it is amazing that they were not completely decimated?
When Howard won against Keating in 1996, Labor had 49 seats in the house of representatives! The Coalition currently have 58 seats. Can you imagine that we have just seen off one of the most disfunctional and discredited governments in the history of this country and they ONLY lost 19 seats!
If you think about it… Morrison had to sell 12 years of a government on the nose and still managed to avoid a DISASTER LIKE WHAT Keating’s government experienced.
Not only that but Morrison drew the fire to himself. He made the election about himself in order to save the Liberal Party. We talk about Morrison as being the Government now but somehow we have forgotten about the disaster of Abbott & Turbull. It would seem that Morrison really is a political genius.
Also, think about this: 1.3 million Australians voted for One Nation and United Australia. That is downright scary. The so-called “Overton window” hs well and truly shifted.
The last point: The ALP have been voted in on the most conservative agenda of a left wing party. The ALP are a little to the right of Howard circa 2000.
The void of political centrism (which is just political managerialsim) is the fertile soil in which populism will thrive.
You are looking in the wrong direction I think.
There were 25 political parties that did not get one seat up in the House of Reps including Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party. This despite all of the media guns directed at Labor. Given all of the political capital Morrison and the Coalition had on their side including church-based support as Trump had in the US – more than I can ever recall in the past 50 years – their performance was abysmal. Nowhere is safe for them now. The Nationals held all of their seats but there were few of theirs seriously contested and without the Liberals in power they are neutered. Meanwhile there are inquiries about their past practices and disclosures might have an off-putting effect on some Nationals electorates.
However all of this goes to show that it is the complex interplay of these minor parties and independents whether real or imaginary that now determines the outcomes and that make everything less predictable.
Despite the splintering of the vote and despite a government that was unacceptable to most the coalition still managed 58 seats compared to the ALP’s RUMP OF 49 at the 1996 election. This was not the obliteration everyone talks about from an historical perspective. A right wing populist in Aus who can unite the right is coming and as we all know left wing progressive parties no longer exist, there will be no stopping it.
But let’s enjoy the mirage today that all is well…
And eschew the knowledge class fantasy of Grundle – the electoral equivalent of Jim Jones’ delicious KoolAid.
Often when people are commenting about politics in Australia it is as if we really are an island and removed from the political climate elsewhere. The US and to some extent the rest of the West is reeling from the events of Jan 6th this year. This has reverberated within Australia too. The Jan 6 hearings are also casting a reflection on the outgoing Morrison government coupled with revelations of branch stacking and captains’ picks. Steve Bannon himself when in Australia in 2018 heralded the removal of Turnbull who he said was too soft on China a country he said doesn’t play by the rules of the international rules-based order. Seems the now convicted Mr Bannon has fallen foul of the rule of law himself. Bannon predicted back then that Australia would experience the rise of the right wing. That was five years ago. He was wrong and I sincerely hope you are too William.
China “a country he( Bannon) said doesn’t play by the rules of the international rules-based order.”
As if the US really has done so!
Just read..Killing Hope: US and CIA Interventions since WWII/ William Blum/2004
Common Courage Press;. MNE. USA: ISBN: 9781567512526 LC JK468.I6 B59
An A-Z of the countries that the USA has interfered with in the name of “freedom” by assassinations, coups, meddling in internal politics, supporting dictators, jihadis, terrorists or just plain straight out invasion…
That may be your mirage to tilt at, but given the fact that 30% of voters are rusted on, and the cons suffered a loss of 19 seats, primarily to people who could reasonably be described as far nearer to being liberals than the so-called ‘Liberals”.
The Nats lost considerable ground in most rural electorates due to their intransigence. The electorate in which live has always been a bastion for the agrarian socialists, with only they ever elected. To give you an idea of what it used to be like. it and a neighbouring electorate had the two highest NO votes in the 67 referendum. I have seen it change from over a 20% margin to it’s present margin of around 3%.
If Labor makes a fist of this term and the next, it will turn, probably independent.
While you use the stats for Keatings loss to Howard as a measure, I say they are irrelevant. The rise of the independents and even the Greens signals a new paradigm in Australian politics.
While we always need to be cautious ( after all, we’re talking about politicians ) the signs are everywhere for permanent change.
If “The main purveyors of populism were soundly thrashed…” how would you describe the decline in the Labor vote – merely a good, well deserved kicking?
The government lost because of the teals & Greens – Labor did not win.
Their job now is to justify this stroke of good fortune and, thus far, they are failing miserably by denigrating the cross benches.
As usual, the Right machine would rather control the party even if it means being in perpetual opposition.
Firstly, your point is irrelevant to mine – that comment was not a comment on the movement of the Labor vote, but exactly on what I said – The main purveyors of populism were soundly thrashed.”
However, in the interests of discourse, I’ll address your ‘look over there’ assertions.
Actually, Labor DID win. The results are up on the board – Labor has the majority of seats in the reps. the governing house.
Follow what the result was, and the reason for it. Labor gained government, but lost primary votes in favour of 2PPs. The reason for those facts is and has been explained by voters in those elctorates as wanting to get rid of Morrison and cohort and being savvy enough to know that Teals and Labor would win with second preferences’
Further to that, the fact is that there is ( and rightly so ) a broad movement away from the major parties.
Obviously you, as is your prerogative, don’t like Labor. But it does not enhance your credibility to try to deny facts to suit your arguments. That way lies the ethics of the triumvirate of the now- gone gas-lighters.
He failed to curry favour with the electorate.
Given his convictions,
he was never going to be ABLE TO
{“curry” (khari , karahi , et al) favour}
with anyone other than those of his own choosing and like mindedness.
He attempted to bring his religion to the US Presidency by way of requesting his preacher be invited to dine with the US President at a US State dinner for the Australian Prime Minister.
The dinner was NOT for the Australian Prime Minister’s religious entourage.
The most recent “lnp mob in charge of running australia” was not a failure , it was a proactive and deliberate attempt at religious overtake of the democratic process.
Abbott , Abetz , Andrews , Morrison , Bernardi , Harradine , et al.
Even the religiously convinced US President (they all are) rejected this attempt at religious overtake.
Plus Brother Stuart Robert and Ferranti Wells.
I think a problem is that there are many people who are like minded.