Christians often talk about the separation of church and state as if everyone means the same thing by it. We do not. In the United States, the phrase is tied closely to the First Amendment, culture-war arguments and a long history of court cases about establishment and free exercise. In Australia, the situation is different. We have constitutional protections, but they are narrower. We have no single national bill of rights. We also have a long habit of practical cooperation between government and religious bodies, especially in education, welfare, hospitals, chaplaincy and community services.
So when Australian Christians borrow American language too quickly, we can confuse ourselves. Australia is not a Christian nation in the legal sense. It is not a secular republic in the French sense either. It is a pluralist democracy with Christian inheritance, secular government, religious communities, state funding arrangements and ongoing arguments about freedom, equality and public speech.
That raises an important Christian question: should we be worried when other religions are given equal opportunity in society? If Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or non-religious groups have freedom to gather, teach, serve and speak, does that weaken Christianity? Or does fairness for others actually protect the freedom Christians also need?
I think Christians should support genuine religious freedom for all people. Not because all beliefs are equally true, but because faith cannot be forced, the gospel does not need state favour to survive and we should not ask for freedoms we are unwilling to extend to others.
Does Australia Separate Church and State?
Australia does have a constitutional provision about religion. Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says that the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, prohibiting the free exercise of any religion or requiring a religious test for Commonwealth office.
That sounds similar to the American First Amendment, but it works differently. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In American law and political culture, this has produced a strong tradition of church-state litigation around public prayer, schools, religious symbols, public funding and free exercise.
Australia’s Section 116 is narrower. It limits the Commonwealth Parliament, not necessarily the states in the same broad way. It has also been interpreted narrowly by the High Court. In the DOGS case on government funding for non-government schools, the High Court held that Commonwealth funding of religious schools did not amount to establishing a religion. The Australian Law Reform Commission notes that the High Court treated establishment as something like creating a national church or state religion, not merely providing public funding to religious institutions for ordinary public purposes.
That means Australia has separation in one sense, but not in the strongest possible sense. The government cannot establish an official national religion. It cannot impose religious observance. It cannot prohibit free exercise of religion. But Australian governments can and do cooperate with religious organisations. They fund religious schools, partner with faith-based welfare providers, recognise religious charities and allow religious voices in public debate.
This is not the same as theocracy. It is also not the same as strict secularism. Australia’s approach is more pragmatic, more patchwork and sometimes messier.
How Is This Different from the United States?
The American approach is shaped by the First Amendment, a revolutionary history and a strong rights-based constitutional culture. The United States has often argued about whether government action amounts to establishing religion, restricting religious exercise or treating religious expression unfairly.
Australia did not develop in the same way. Our Constitution contains some protections, but we do not have a national bill of rights. Religious freedom is protected through a mixture of constitutional law, common law principles, anti-discrimination law, human-rights instruments, state and territory laws and ordinary political negotiation. This makes Australian religious freedom both real and fragile. It exists, but it is not always simple.
Australia also has a different social history. Christianity shaped many institutions, but Australia has often been more culturally Christian than confessionally Christian. Many Australians were baptised, married and buried through churches while not necessarily practising the faith deeply. Today, Australia is more religiously diverse and more openly secular. That means Christians can no longer assume that public Christianity will be treated as the default moral language.
That is not necessarily a disaster. It may actually force the church to speak more clearly, serve more humbly and rely less on cultural privilege.
Equal Opportunity Is Not the Same as Equal Truth
Some Christians worry that giving equal opportunity to other religions sounds like saying all religions are equally true. It does not.
A democratic society can give people equal legal freedom without saying every belief is equally true. Christians can believe Jesus is Lord, the gospel is true and salvation is found in Christ while still supporting the legal freedom of others to disagree.
There is a difference between theological truth and civil liberty. The state should not be treated as the church’s evangelism department. The government cannot produce genuine faith. At best, it can create enough public order and freedom for people to worship, speak, gather, disagree and persuade.
The gospel advances by witness, not coercion. If Christianity needs government protection from fair competition, then we have misunderstood either Christianity, government or both.
Gamaliel’s Warning and Christian Confidence
In Acts 5, the apostles are arrested for preaching Jesus. Some leaders want them killed. Gamaliel advises caution. If their movement is merely human, he says, it will fail. But if it is from God, they will not be able to overthrow it and may find themselves fighting against God.
That passage should not be turned into a lazy slogan. False religions, harmful movements and bad ideas can last a long time. Christians should still care about truth, justice, persuasion and protection from harm. But Gamaliel’s warning does remind us that God is not fragile. His purposes do not depend on Christians controlling the state.
If the gospel is true, it does not need fear to defend it. It needs faithful witnesses.
This matters in a plural society. Christians should not panic simply because other religions have public visibility. A mosque, synagogue, temple or secular humanist group does not disprove the gospel. It simply means we live among neighbours who need to be treated with honesty, dignity and love.
Why Christians Should Support Religious Freedom for Others
There are at least four reasons Christians should support religious freedom beyond our own tribe.
First, every person is made in the image of God. People should not be coerced in matters of conscience. Even when people are wrong, they are still human beings who should be treated with dignity.
Second, coerced faith is not Christian faith. The New Testament calls people to repentance, trust and allegiance to Christ. These cannot be manufactured by law. A person forced into Christian behaviour by the state has not necessarily become a disciple.
Third, religious freedom for others protects religious freedom for Christians. In a plural democracy, the principle must work both ways. If Christians only defend religious liberty when Christians benefit, we teach society that our concern is privilege, not principle.
Fourth, loving our neighbour includes defending fair treatment for neighbours with whom we disagree. Jesus does not command us to love only those who share our doctrine. We can evangelise people, debate ideas and disagree strongly while still defending their basic freedom.
Does Equal Freedom Mean Anything Goes?
No. Religious freedom is not unlimited. No society should allow violence, abuse, coercion, forced marriage, exploitation, terrorism or serious harm simply because someone calls it religious. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from every law.
The difficult question is where the line should be drawn. Australia is still working this out, especially around religious schools, employment, gender and sexuality, anti-discrimination law, hate speech, public safety and freedom of conscience. These are not easy issues. Christians should not pretend they are.
But we should be careful about demanding maximum freedom for ourselves and minimum freedom for others. That posture is not just politically unwise. It is morally inconsistent.
A better Christian approach is to argue for a principled public square: freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, freedom of speech, protection from violence and vilification, fair treatment under law and space for communities to live according to their convictions where doing so does not cause serious harm to others.
Christian Influence Without Christian Control
Some Christians fear that if the state is religiously neutral, Christianity will be pushed out of public life. That can happen if secularism becomes hostile rather than fair. But there is a difference between the state not establishing Christianity and Christians being silent.
Christians should absolutely bring their faith-shaped convictions into public life. We should care about the poor, refugees, unborn children, elderly people, disabled people, Indigenous justice, religious freedom, family life, peacemaking, truthfulness, creation care and the dignity of every person. Faith should shape how we vote, speak, serve and advocate.
But influence is not the same as control. Christian public witness should look like truth told in love, service without manipulation, advocacy for justice and humility about our own failures. The church is most dangerous when it wants Caesar’s power more than Christ’s cross.
Australia does not need a church that retreats from public life. It needs a church that enters public life without confusing national power with the kingdom of God.
What About Other Religions Growing?
If another religion grows in Australia, Christians should not respond with fear or hatred. We should respond with deeper discipleship, better witness, more prayer, clearer teaching and more faithful love of neighbour.
Fear often produces two bad reactions. One is withdrawal: Christians hide inside their own communities and complain about society. The other is domination: Christians try to use political power to keep others down. Neither response reflects confidence in Christ.
The better response is faithful presence. We live as Christians openly, graciously and truthfully. We welcome honest questions. We teach Scripture well. We build churches that are hospitable, courageous and serious about discipleship. We serve our neighbours without requiring them to agree with us first.
If Christianity is true, it can stand in the open. If the Holy Spirit is at work, Christians do not need to panic every time another worldview gets a microphone.
What Should Australian Christians Want?
I think Australian Christians should want a society where the church is free to be the church and other communities are free to live peaceably according to conscience.
That means Christians should resist two errors.
The first error is Christian nationalism, where Christianity seeks privileged political control and confuses national identity with the kingdom of God.
The second error is aggressive secularism, where religion is treated as a private hobby that should disappear from public reasoning, education, welfare and moral debate.
A healthier vision is principled pluralism. This does not mean truth does not matter. It means people with deep disagreements share public space without coercion. Christians can say Jesus is Lord. Muslims can say Islam is true. Atheists can say religion is false. The state should not pretend these claims are the same. But it should protect the freedom to make them, debate them and live peacefully under law.
Conclusion
Australia does separate church and state in some ways, but not in exactly the same way as the United States. Our Constitution prevents the Commonwealth from establishing religion, imposing religious observance, prohibiting free exercise or requiring religious tests. But our system has also allowed practical cooperation between government and religious organisations.
Christians should not be afraid of fair religious freedom for others. Equal opportunity under law does not mean equal truth before God. It means the state is not forcing conscience or giving one group coercive power over another.
The gospel does not need a rigged public square. It needs faithful witnesses, truthful preaching, courageous love, deep discipleship and confidence that God is not threatened by pluralism.
If Christianity is from God, it will not be overthrown by giving neighbours the same freedoms we ask for ourselves.
Sources and Further Reading
- Australian Constitution, section 116.
- Attorney-General’s Department, “Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion or Belief.”
- Australian Human Rights Commission, “Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion or Belief.”
- Australian Law Reform Commission, Traditional Rights and Freedoms: Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws, chapter 5, “Freedom of Religion.”
- Library of Congress, “U.S. Constitution: First Amendment.”
- National Archives, “The Bill of Rights: A Transcription.”
- Acts 5:34–39.
- Luke Bretherton, Christ and the Common Life: Political Theology and the Case for Democracy.
- Jonathan Chaplin, Faith in Democracy: Framing a Politics of Deep Diversity.
- Miroslav Volf, A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good.
- John Dickson, Bullies and Saints: An Honest Look at the Good and Evil of Christian History.
- Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens.
Word count: 2,147