In rejecting their own ethnic traditions liberals are left with a major problem. What is to hold society together, if not a common ancestry, culture, religion and history?

Australian intellectuals are especially fond of “imagining” new forms of national identity which will unify society. The latest effort is called “Australia: Ideas for our Future”. The authors of this work believe that there is an Australian tradition of mateship, tolerance and a fair go for all around which a unifying Australian identity can be based.

The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Dr Peter Jensen, has criticised this approach to an Australian identity in an article in today’s Age newspaper (not yet online).

He is, firstly and understandably, disappointed that the proposed national identity is entirely secular. He sees this as further proof of the declining position of Christianity in Australia. In his own words, “Frankly, Jesus is slipping out of memory and imagination.”

He then points out the limitations of the proposed identity, in words which demonstrate a mixture of clarity and confusion:

“I know that we have embraced multiculturalism, and I myself am delighted by the new and different Australia that is emerging as a result of our immigration policies. But some seem to think that it means we have no basis for our civilisation, apart from a few scaled-down general values such as a fair go and mateship, the myth of Anzac and the myth of Eureka.

“At a time when other cultures seem menacingly assured and powerful, we seem to have become very modest about our own past, very nervous about identifying who we are, very shy about receiving inspiration from some of the greatest words ever spoken.

“We keep thinking that our inherent tolerance and decency will preserve us. We are, after all, a liberal society, interested in the rights of the individual and giving all a fair go.

“I would suggest that these national traits are far more tenuous in us than we like to think. Put to the test, we may well fail them. When we are no longer prosperous, when we have to struggle for existence, if terrorism becomes a part of life, what would make us stick to these values? Where would we look for inspiration?

“I hardly think that the story of the Eureka stockade is going to inspire mateship, tolerance and a fair go for all.”

Some of this is worthy of praise. He makes a good criticism of the invented type of national identity when he refers to it as “a few scaled-down general values”. He is right too in contrasting the more assured foreign cultures with the nervous self-identity of liberal ones. And his argument that the story of the Eureka Stockade is not a strong basis in a precarious world even for defending liberal values rings true.

The confusion, though, will be readily apparent to most readers. Archbishop Jensen complains that Jesus is “slipping out of memory and imagination” and yet he welcomes a mass immigration of non-Christians which can only hasten this very process.

Similarly he criticises the fact that Australians have “become very modest about our own past, very nervous about identifying who we are” but then tells us he is delighted that the old Australia has been replaced by a new and different one as a result of mass immigration.

It’s difficult not to conclude that Archbishop Jensen simply feels unable to criticise secular liberal attitudes to immigration, even though it is exactly these attitudes which will inevitably weaken the position of his own church and religion.

The archbishop has one more point to make. If the proposed identity is inadequate, what is a better alternative? His answer is as follows. The ancient Israelites were a people of the book. Dr Jensen notes that,

“It’s hard for us to understand this, because we have lost our sense of identity through history. In our national life there is now a vacuum where most peoples have a history. It’s hard to find meaning, purpose and community without it.”

Which is true enough. But Dr Jensen does not recommend restoring to the majority population their own actual history. Nor does he believe that we should follow the academic prescription and make “the story of Eureka our national myth.”

Instead he suggests we adopt the Israelite history as our own. He writes,

“You know, even appropriating the biblical history of Israel as if it were our own could be a better option. It has been done before. Think of how the biblical story sustained the American slaves ... In the end it became the history book of Western culture, not just the slaves. It provided for us, until very recent times, the dynamic of hope, in a world without clear meaning, purpose or community.”

The archbishop is much too keen here to reduce communal identity to the religious aspect alone. In his own way he is proposing an invented identity, just as the academics are. The academics want a “few scaled-down general principles” to make up a national identity; the archbishop wants “the biblical history of Israel” to do the same.

This is not how communal identity works. It can’t just be made up or imposed from the outside in this way. It rests instead on real, historical ties of kinship, a shared history and a common culture, as well as adherence to a particular church and religion. These are bundled together, so that an identification with a particular church goes together with a wider national and cultural identity. A church which defends the traditional identity (as in Poland) will strengthen its own source of support; a church which stands idly by will find itself undermined.

That’s why it’s a grievous error for Dr Jensen to welcome the overthrow of the older ethnic Anglo-Australian identity – he doesn’t realise how much the support for his own church was based within this identity.