Is Australia a Wilting Cut Flower? John Anderson’s Case

Is Australia a Cut Flower? John Anderson’s Case for Recovering Our Christian Roots

Imagine a bunch of flowers in a vase. They’re beautiful, fragrant and full of colour. But they’ve been cut from the plant that gave them life. For a while, they look fine. Slowly, though, they begin to droop.

That’s the image former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson has used to describe modern Australia. In a recent essay introducing his “Our Civilisational Moment” project, reported by Rod Lampard on The Daily Declaration, Anderson argues that Australia remains one of the greatest countries in the world, but that it’s wilting because it has been cut off from the Christian soil that nourished it. He also offers five proposals for renewal.

It’s a serious argument from a serious figure, and it raises questions that matter to every Australian, believer or not. This post looks at the metaphor, what the data says about faith in Australia, how each of Anderson’s proposals stands up, where Christians themselves disagree, and what a faithful response might look like.

Where the “Cut Flower” Image Comes From

The idea of a “cut-flower civilisation” is often traced to the Quaker philosopher Elton Trueblood in the 1940s. His point was that a society can keep the outward beauty of an earlier faith, such as its ethics, its institutions and its sense of human dignity, even as it loses the beliefs that gave rise to them. For a time the flower looks healthy, but without roots it can’t last.

The author and social critic Os Guinness has revived the metaphor in recent years, and Anderson draws on his 2024 book Our Civilizational Moment, which gives Anderson’s project its name.

Anderson is careful about one point. According to the report, he doesn’t demand that his readers believe the truth claims of Christianity, although he does. His suggestion is more modest: that perhaps Christianity had such a good influence on Western civilisation not only because it was good and beautiful, but because it is true.

What Anderson Argues

According to Lampard’s report, Anderson makes several key claims:

• The problem is spiritual as well as political. Australia’s decline in social cohesion is partly a result of drifting away from the Western Christian tradition. “We are, in the end, spiritual beings,” he says, with souls that need meaning, purpose and direction.
• Churches taught people to confess. Anderson says the church traditionally confronted people with the recognition that “we haven’t got it all right,” whereas modern culture encourages people to see themselves as the final authority over their own lives.
• The decline happened “on our watch,” because “we’ve hollowed out our own culture.”
• There are five proposals for renewal: (1) reclaim foundational freedoms from diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs; (2) preserve social cohesion, including a renewed appreciation of Anglo-Celtic heritage and an immigration policy that complements it; (3) fix the economy and housing; (4) reconsider energy policy and the push towards renewables; and (5) strengthen defence, fuel security and the US alliance.

He shared parts of this message with the Melbourne Catholic Lawyers Association on 8 September, where he also encouraged young and old Australians to work together.

What the Data Says About Faith in Australia

The trend Anderson points to is real, and the numbers are striking. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in the 2021 Census:

• Christian: 43.9 per cent, down from 52.1 per cent in 2016. It was the first census in which fewer than half of Australians identified as Christian.
• No religion: 38.9 per cent, up from 30.1 per cent in 2016 and 22.3 per cent in 2011.
• Islam: 3.2 per cent. Hinduism: 2.7 per cent, the fastest-growing major religion.
• In 1966, around 88 per cent of Australians identified as Christian.

Several details complicate the picture:

• The biggest shift has been toward “no religion,” not toward another faith. The ABS notes that much of the change is due to the growth of secular beliefs.
• Migration has also contributed to the trend. At the same time, it has fed Christianity. Almost 200,000 migrants who arrived between 2016 and 2021 reported a Catholic affiliation, over a quarter of them born in the Philippines.
• Census affiliation isn’t the same as belief or practice. A separate survey found that around 55 per cent of Australians still say they believe in God.
• Surveys show strong generational differences, with Christian identification much higher among older Australians than among younger ones.

The 2026 Census, held in August, will provide fresh figures, with results expected next year. Most observers expect “no religion” to have grown further.

What Did Christianity Actually Contribute?

Anderson’s claim is that Christianity was the nutrient-rich soil for the flower. It’s worth asking what that looks like in the Australian story.

Christian churches and organisations built many of the nation’s early hospitals, schools, orphanages and charities. Christian convictions about the equal dignity of every person helped drive movements such as the abolition of slavery, and many of the social reformers, trade unionists and educators of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were motivated by faith. Ideas such as the rule of law, limits on state power and the worth of the individual all have deep roots in Christian thought. Section 116 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of religion, and the preamble’s reference to “Almighty God” reflect that heritage.

But an honest account has to include the failures as well. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse found that many church institutions had put their reputations ahead of children. Church-run missions and institutions played a part in the harms done to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including the removal of children. Some Christians also supported or tolerated injustice. Many Australians have turned away from the church in part because of these failings, not simply because of secular propaganda.

So the soil metaphor is partly right, but the story is mixed, and the church can’t claim all the credit or avoid its share of the blame.

The Five Proposals, Examined

Anderson’s proposals cover a wide range of issues on which Australians, including Christians, disagree. Here is a fair look at each.

1. Reclaiming freedoms from DEI

His claim: DEI is not about public safety but is a “power-grab by ideological elites” to reshape society.

What supporters of DEI say: Programs aimed at inclusion and fairness help ensure that people aren’t excluded because of race, sex, disability or background, and many employers adopt them voluntarily.

What critics say: Some DEI practices can become ideological, can create divisions by emphasising group identity, and can limit free speech or religious freedom.

What the research suggests: Studies of workplace diversity training have often found mixed results. Some research suggests that mandatory training can have limited or even counterproductive effects, while other approaches, such as mentoring and transparent hiring practices, may work better.

A Christian lens: Scripture teaches that every person bears God’s image (Genesis 1:27) and that in Christ there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female (Galatians 3:28). Christians can support fairness and dignity for all, and also be wary of approaches that divide people into categories or limit freedom of conscience.

2. Social cohesion, immigration and Anglo-Celtic heritage

His claim: Rapid change under what he calls a “reckless immigration system” has fragmented Australia, and the country needs a revival of appreciation for its Anglo-Celtic heritage and an immigration policy that complements it.

This is one of the most contested areas. Supporters of lower immigration argue that rapid population growth has put pressure on housing, infrastructure and social cohesion, and that integration needs time. Supporters of current levels point to the economic contribution of migrants, skills shortages, and the fact that over a quarter of Australians were born overseas, with nearly half having a parent born overseas.

Points worth noting:

• Australia’s heritage isn’t only Anglo-Celtic. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have lived here for tens of thousands of years, and successive waves of post-war migration from Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa have shaped the nation.
• Many migrants are devout Christians, and migrant congregations are among the more vibrant parts of the church.
• Christians have no single view on immigration levels, but the Bible does command care for the foreigner (Leviticus 19:33–34; Matthew 25:35), while also recognising the legitimacy of order and borders (Acts 17:26 speaks of God determining the boundaries of nations).

A caution: The Christian faith isn’t tied to any ethnic heritage. Revelation 7:9 describes a multitude from every nation, tribe, people and language worshipping together. Appreciating Australia’s cultural inheritance is one thing. Treating a particular ethnic heritage as the foundation of the faith would be another, and it isn’t what Anderson says, but it’s a line worth guarding.

3. Economy and housing

His claim: Home ownership and the prospect of achieving it are foundational, and younger Australians feel they have been victims of “intergenerational theft.”

This is the area with the broadest agreement. Housing affordability concerns people across the political spectrum. Experts debate the causes, including planning and supply constraints, tax settings, interest rates, population growth, and investor demand, and there’s no single fix.

A Christian lens: Micah 4:4 pictures every person sitting under their own vine and fig tree. Concern for families who can’t afford a home, and for fairness between generations, is a legitimate expression of care for the common good.

4. Energy policy

His claim: The “renewables obsession” is driven by politics and greed, not science, and will do nothing to reduce global warming.

This is a strongly contested claim, and it needs care. The mainstream scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is real. The debate in energy policy is largely about cost, reliability, speed and method: how quickly to transition, how to keep the grid stable, what role gas and nuclear power should play, and how Australia’s policy fits with global emissions. Supporters of rapid transition argue that it will reduce long-term costs and risks, and that Australia has an obligation to contribute. Critics argue that Australia accounts for only a small share of global emissions, that policies are too costly, and that reliable supply must come first.

A Christian lens: Scripture calls humans to care for creation (Genesis 2:15) and to love neighbours, which includes concern for affordable power for households and industry. Christians can reasonably disagree about the best approach.

5. Defence, fuel security and the US alliance

His claim: Australia must improve its defence force, secure fuel reserves, and cultivate its relationship with the United States.

What’s established: The ANZUS alliance has been a cornerstone of Australian defence policy since 1951, and the AUKUS arrangement deepens it. Australia has been criticised for low liquid fuel stockholdings, and defence preparedness is a bipartisan concern.

The debate: Some argue that closer alignment with the US increases risk and reduces independence, particularly in relation to China, which is also Australia’s largest trading partner. Others argue that a strong alliance is essential in an uncertain region.

A Christian lens: The just war tradition holds that governments have a duty to protect their citizens, and Luke 14:31–32 describes a king counting the cost before going to war. Prudent preparation and the pursuit of peace aren’t opposites.

Faith as Truth, Not Just Tool

One of the most important points in Anderson’s argument is also easy to overlook. He suggests that Christianity’s good effects flowed not only from its being good and beautiful, but from its being true.

That matters, because there’s a danger in appreciating Christianity only for its usefulness. If we value the faith mainly as social glue, a way to restore cohesion or strengthen the nation, we’ve misunderstood it. Jesus said his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). The gospel is not a policy tool. It’s the good news that God has acted in Christ to save sinners.

The irony is that the fruits Anderson wants to see, such as humility, forgiveness, honesty, family faithfulness and care for the weak, grow when people sincerely believe, not when they borrow Christianity’s moral furniture. That’s why the church’s main task isn’t to save a civilisation but to make disciples of Jesus. A renewed society, if it comes, will be a by-product.

Our Take

Here’s where we’d like to add some commentary.

1. The diagnosis deserves a hearing.

It’s hard to deny that Australia has changed, that fewer people share a common religious framework, and that this has consequences for how we understand dignity, truth and forgiveness. Whether or not one believes, taking those questions seriously is better than ignoring them.

2. But the roots matter more than the policy list.

Several of Anderson’s proposals concern immigration, energy, housing and defence. These are matters of prudence where Christians can and do differ. Treating a particular position on those issues as the test of faithfulness would be a mistake. The more fundamental question is whether people know and love Jesus.

3. Renewal begins in churches, families and neighbourhoods.

If the soil is spiritual, the work is spiritual: preaching and teaching, discipling the next generation, supporting marriages and families, serving the poor, and building communities where people can find forgiveness and purpose. These things don’t depend on who wins the next election.

4. Keep the church multi-ethnic and open.

The Australian church is already more diverse than it was. Appreciating our heritage is fine, but the family of God includes people of every background, and the church’s strength will increasingly depend on welcoming them as brothers and sisters.

5. Be honest about the church’s part in the wilting.

If Australians have left the church, some of the cause lies in the church’s failures, scandals and cultural defensiveness. Repentance, which Anderson himself highlights, starts at home.

6. Hope, not nostalgia.

Nostalgia for a lost past can be a trap. Christians have never depended on a particular nation’s culture to keep the faith alive. The gospel has flourished under empires, persecution and exile. The right posture is hope in Christ and a readiness to serve wherever we are.

The Other Side of the Argument

In fairness, here’s how critics would respond:

• Some Christians say the root cause is deeper. Commenters on the original article, for instance, argued that the problems began long before recent immigration, with the spread of Darwinian and Freudian ideas and a humanistic outlook opposed to salvation through the cross, and that acknowledging a general need for meaning won’t fix that. Others add that the cross calls believers to endurance, not to cultural recovery.
• Secular critics argue that Australia’s moral progress, including on issues like the treatment of women, Indigenous Australians and minorities, has often come from challenging institutions, including churches, and that civic life doesn’t depend on a single religious tradition.
• Others note that Australia’s cohesion has historically relied on a wide range of influences, including trade unions, local community groups, sport and migrant communities, and that credit shouldn’t go to one source alone.
• Critics of the immigration framing argue that the “Anglo-Celtic” emphasis risks sidelining the contributions of other communities, and that cohesion is built through shared civic commitments, not a single heritage.
• Climate and energy experts would respond that his description of the science and the motives behind energy policy is contested, and that energy policy should be judged by evidence and cost.
• Some historians caution that “Christian Australia” was always a more complicated reality than a golden age, given the colonial treatment of Indigenous people and sectarian divisions between Protestants and Catholics.

These objections don’t make the diagnosis wrong, but they show why a charitable and humble conversation is needed.

What Christians Can Do

• Pray for the nation, its leaders, and for revival in the church.
• Disciple the next generation. Teach children the faith at home, in church and in school.
• Strengthen marriages and families. Healthy families are the building blocks of cohesion.
• Serve your community. Volunteer, support local charities and care for the lonely, the poor and the newly arrived.
• Engage in public life respectfully, with knowledge and without contempt for opponents.
• Practise confession and forgiveness. Model what a community looks like when people can admit wrong and be forgiven.
• Share the gospel with friends and neighbours, trusting God with the results.

Questions to Reflect On

• If someone described Australia as a cut flower, what would I say about the roots?
• Where have I valued Christianity for its usefulness more than its truth?
• Which of Anderson’s proposals do I find most persuasive, and which do I want to examine more closely?
• How does my church welcome people from different backgrounds?
• What is one practical thing I could do this month to build trust and community around me?

A Short Prayer

Lord, you are the true vine, and every good thing grows from you. We thank you for the blessings of this land, and we confess the ways we have neglected you. Forgive us where the church has failed. Give wisdom to our leaders, unity to our communities, and courage to your people. Renew your church in Australia, draw people of every background to Jesus, and help us build lives rooted in your truth and love. Amen.