Stuart Piggin was director of the Centre for the History of Christian Thought and Experience at Macquarie University and head of the Department of Christian Thought of the Australian College of Theology. He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and of the Religious History Association of Australia.
His areas of research include the study of evangelical Christianity, missions, and revivals, and the human response to disasters. At Macquarie University, he supervised 28 doctoral candidates, working principally on areas of Australian religious history and on the application of Classical and Christian thought to the modern world.
He has written more than 100 articles for academic journals and eight books, including now The Fountain of Public Prosperity: Evangelical Christians in Australian History, 1740-1914 (Monash University Publishing, 2018).
You’ve said that your
book has been 30 years in the making. What inspired you to write The Fountain
of Public Prosperity?
I received a letter from Iain Murray, of Banner of Truth
Trust, asking me to write a history of Australia for the bicentenary—this was
in 1986, I think—but I was not an Australian historian. I had studied
evangelicalism in Britain and North America, but I said that if I got a
research grant in which I could employ a research assistant I would do that.
So, I got a huge research grant! About $120,000 which, at the time, was just
enormous. And so, then I had to make a start…
I was also making a study of the Mount Kembla mine disaster
at the time, which happened in 1902. It was the biggest disaster in Australian
history before the Victorian bushfires of a few years ago – 96 killed. And in
the local press I found that there had been a remarkable religious revival in
that part of the world, at that time, just a few months before. And I dared to
suggest in The Fountain of Public Prosperity that there might be a case for
making out that the Welsh Revival of 1904-5 was started in Australia.
But the thing that really changed my mind was a discovery
made by my class of students at Wollongong University (I taught religious
history there for 15 years). I said to the class one year,
“Why don’t you all take a particular local church and write
a history of that and we’ll put it together in one book.” And when we made a
list of all of the churches and when they were founded, we discovered that in
any one community they were all established at about the same time. Four main
churches all about the same time. So, there’s an Anglican, Catholic,
Presbyterian and Methodist, often on opposite street corners of the same town.
And I thought, this is astonishing!
A colleague of yours
at Macquarie University, Dr Stephen Chavura, makes the comment that ‘secularisation’
in Australia meant non-denominationalism, as opposed to the one established
church. Do you agree?
Well, this emphasis by historians on the separation of
church and state is, I don’t think, a historic reality. I think the reality is
the interdependence of church and state. They were co-operating a lot to build
the nation. And the plural establishment was a sign of that, I think. So, those
two things, revival and the fact that there were all these churches being built
and all that meant for the propagation of Christian values in Australia, made
me think that maybe secular historians had got other things wrong as well.
One of the most
fascinating chapters in your book concerned the evangelicals who were in charge
of the first fleet and especially the transportation of convicts. Most people
would see that as absolutely negative, yet you argue that it’s actually the
opposite.
History is a process and you’ve got to take into account
where you start and where you end. And where you start is a society where
people who were poor and who never had any access to education of any kind
often ended up in trouble. And if they were in trouble then they were often
hanged for it. Now the evangelicals believed that transportation was a more
merciful way than hanging, so they supported that. And then when it was going
they went about abolishing it. They first of all supported transportation. Then
they improved it. Then they abolished it. Because they were conscious of the process
in history. But in the phase when influential evangelicals supported
transportation, they sought to humanise it – thus the remarkable steps to which
they went to insure that the convicts were well fed and cared for on the First
Fleet. That was a great maritime achievement, and its success owed much to the
evangelicals who controlled the selection and provisioning of the ships of the
First Fleet.
Another fascinating
insight that you had was Jonathan Edwards’ post-millennialism view of the
improvement of history. Can you explain what you mean by that?
Edwards changed the prevailing pre-millennialism into
post-millennialism. He believed that the Holy Spirit would be poured out for a
thousand years in a time of great prosperity for the church. That was in his
book, The History of Redemption. the evangelical equivalent of Augustine’s The
City of God. This is what God is doing in heaven, earth and hell. So this is
the great theology of history that you get from Edwards.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, I think that Edwards was
probably right. I think we are witnessing the beginning of the thousand years
of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit because Christianity the world over has
been making more rapid gains in the last two centuries then it ever has. It is
incredibly dynamic. The 19th century was the great century of missions; the
20th century witnessed the explosive growth of Christianity especially in
Africa, South America and parts of Asia, such as South Korea and China.
What other aspects of
the progressive myth do you think are wrong in terms of the founding of
Australia and its reason for development?
The view that colonialism was always a bad thing has been
the prevailing view ever since I was a student. Generations of historians now
dwell on the evils of empire and colonialism. The evils are easy enough to
identify, but there were significant strengths. Those strengths were
acknowledged by earlier generations of historians. For example, I do mention in
the book —right at the very beginning with William Dawes—how G.A. Wood, the
Professor of History at Sydney University from 1891, thought that Dawes was
Australia’s “first conscientious objector”. Wood, unlike more recent historians,
could understand Dawes’ religious motivation. But it’s the people since who
haven’t been able to – they just can’t see it. It’s really quite extraordinary.
I give the example of Ross Gibson, who wrote a wonderful book, 26 Views of the
Starburst World. I think it’s a fantastic book. Twenty-six views of William
Dawes, a devout evangelical, but not one of them Christian. It’s just amazing
what is left out by modern secular historians who have lost all understanding
of religious reality.
This has happened
during your lifetime, has it not? What has given rise to it? Because it’s a
huge omission when you think about the important social and political details
that have been obscured.
My first history appointment was at the University of
Wollongong, which had a stridently Left-wing history department. I’m not
incredibly Right-wing myself, but my colleagues often seemed rather silly to
me, because they really couldn’t begin to understand why any Australian would
ever vote anything other than Labor.
They were incredibly Left-wing. But it seems that once you get a
critical mass, in academic leadership, professors and so on, who can appoint
who they want, it just feeds on itself and it gets out of control, and they
appoint only Left-wing secularists.
You mention evangelicalism
has made some 18 positive contributions to shaping Australian society. What do
you think are some of the most significant?
The list of significant influences of evangelical
Christianity on Australian history is found in two parts of the book. It’s
found in the beginning in the introduction, where I say that you really should
know up front what the major findings of the book will be and see if you agree
with it as you go through. And then it’s found again in the conclusion where I
reiterate these things. I would have thought that the greatest achievement
would have been the Christianisation of the Australian population, making it
into a highly Christianised nation. I know Fred Nile would like me to call it a
Christian nation—and I think that most people at the time thought that it
was—but it’s probably more accurate to call it
“Christianised” because a lot of things about it weren’t
particularly Christian. But readers might consider other influences more
significant, such as the rise of responsible government, ethical commerce,
progress in the rights of women, the taming of “hard” male cultures, the
civilising of capitalism, and the inculcation of humble reliance on Almighty
God at federation.
One of the things
that was enlightening for me was the history of the media, in particular the
newspapers. Why did evangelicals
dominate in the public square?
Well, it’s said that in the 18th century it was the pulpit
that formed opinion, and then it’s said that the newspaper replaced it in the
19th century as if this was the end for the church. But in actual fact, the
media in the 19th century was incredibly Christianised, I think. Most of the
really important newspapers were run or owned by Protestant Christians. So, in
the 19th century a lot of the media was controlled by Christians.
They loved this way of getting the message out because it enabled them to apply
Christianity to the public square. It was engaging public policy and the media
was a way of doing it.
You have a Volume 2
about the influence of evangelicalism in the 20th century, which it did not
dominate as it did the 19th. Why is that? For instance, was it the impact of
Higher Criticism?
Volume 2 is already written, it’s with the publisher. The
publisher has to decide what he’s going to do with it and that depends on how
well volume 1 is received, I guess. What we see in the second volume is that
conservative, Protestant Christianity continued to be the major informative
influence not only on the conscience of Australians but also on their consciousness.
So, it was a cerebral thing as well as a heart thing. And that remained true, I
think, until the 1960s.
I don’t think anything changed much in terms of religious
commitment. You still had huge numbers of people in the Census not doubting for
a moment whatever brand of Christianity they thought they were. It’s only since
the
‘60s that things have started to go into reverse.
Church-going actually peaked in the early ‘60s just after Billy Graham. It was
higher then than at any time in our entire history, in 200 years. So, it is
what happened since then that really needs to be explained. Maybe if you do
want to give weight to the earlier period, it’s what the Christians failed to
do in that period which might be important.
Can you unpack what
you mean by that?
Well, of course the two world wars not only undermined more
optimistic, liberal views of Christianity, but they also physically removed a
lot of the people who would have become leaders of the church. They actually
killed them. So, the church between the two world wars was impoverished of
leadership. And I think the churches at the beginning of the First World War
were very strong on sacrifice and the importance of glorifying sacrifice. But
when this led to death on such an appalling scale – 60,000 dead – and every
church had a huge honour roll of those who were killed, I think that was very
dispiriting. People were not interested in hearing about the value of sacrifice
between the wars, and their despondency was only augmented by the Great
Depression
Moore College’s Bill Lawton wrote a postgraduate Master’s
thesis that saying there was a shift in eschatology during the 20th century
from postmillennialism to premillennialism, especially among Sydney Anglicans.
What do you think
about that?
There was definitely a shift in people’s views about
eschatology. People who used to preach a lot about eschatology in the early
20th century were premillennialists. But what Bill Lawton suggests is probably
not wholly true. He says of Moore College principal Nathaniel Jones, who was
famous for his premillennialism, that he was disengaged from this world. But
Jones himself said that just because we’re looking forward to glory doesn’t
excuse us from engagement in this world, looking after the poor and so on. And
R.B.S. Hammond, one of the greatest evangelical Anglicans in terms of social
welfare, was also a very conservative evangelical and yet he was engaged in
welfare activity. So, you didn’t have to be a liberal to be engaged in welfare
activities. God just gives all Christians compassion, I would have thought, and
that’s why it generates so much social value in society. It’s really a divine
thing. It’s the love that God puts in people’s hearts so that they cannot but
help, whatever their theological position is.
But, to return to your question, after the Second World War,
Sydney Anglicans turned to amillennialism. That is, they departed from both
pre-and post-millennialism. I argue in the book that this saved them from
ridicule by secularists, but it had the disadvantage of depriving Christians of
exciting speculation on what God was doing in the modern world and of an understanding
of where they fitted in to God’s scheme of redemption.
You make the point in
a video interview with John Anderson, the former deputy Prime Minister of
Australia, that 80% of charities in Australia are Christian. Would the
evangelicals of the 19th century recognise the evangelicals of the 21st century
as belonging to the same movement?
I’m sure they would. But I do think the change is
significant because people like to emphasise one thing or the other. And in
theology emphasis is everything and emphasis changes over time. So, there’s a
lot of people around nowadays, including John Woodhouse when he was principal
of Moore College, who said that he didn’t know whether the word “evangelical”
had much use anymore because there were so many different ways of interpreting
the word.
Do you agree with him?
No. Evangelicalism is still a coherent movement. I think
that when you put it all together, the best way of characterising
evangelicalism is “Biblical Experientialism”. It takes the Bible not only
seriously but it is the root to truth about life, and God. But it also
emphasises the importance of a personal experience of Jesus.
I was very interested that in these revivals
which were so common in Australia in the 19th century the great hero of
revivals was always Jesus. It’s not the Holy Spirit. They don’t talk about the
Holy Spirit that much. They talk about Jesus all the time. So, in so far as
evangelicalism does that today, emphasising the vital experience of Jesus and
trust in his Word, I think evangelicals of those days would say “Hallelujah,
keep going”.
Like this:
Like Loading...