In the wake of terrorist attacks and increased social and cultural diversity, many societies, particularly post-industrial societies, are concerned about social cohesion. The rise of religious diversity, the resurgence of religious life and the return of religious issues to the political sphere are seen as part of the problem, but in so far as this is correct they must also be part of the solution. The call for ‘Australian values’ is both a response to the perceived challenges diversity poses to social cohesion and evidence of the difficulties in achieving any sense of unanimity on such issues in a religiously diverse society. While much of the current concern about social cohesion is code for Islamophobia, there is also a deeper issue at stake – the nature of social cohesion in post-industrial societies.

Many definitions of social cohesion conflate strategies to achieve cohesion, with cohesion itself (CDCS 2004). Some see social cohesion as the absence of conflict. For the purposes of this chapter, social cohesion refers to the ability of a society to so coordinate its resources as to produce what it needs to sustain and reproduce itself. Social theory argues that the basis of social cohesion in pre-industrial societies was cultural uniformity, while industrial societies were held together by the interdependence created by the differentiation of elements of production (Durkheim 1933).

‘Social policy’ refers to efforts to control, organise or direct the shape and operation of a society designed to achieve particular ends usually seen to be making things better for the society and its people. The issues addressed by social policy, particularly in societies like Australia, include equity in the distribution of goods and services, fairness in employment, education and health policies, population size and composition policies, intergroup relations policies, multicultural policies, gender relations, family formation policies, inclusion and exclusion. Any dimension of social life can become subject to social policy. While governments exist in part to establish such policies, organisations also set internal policies about the relations of their members, hiring practices, bases for grievance procedures and privacy. Social policies reflect, either intentionally or accidentally, a society's ideals for itself.

The Australian Government has established social policies on discrimination in hiring, access and equity, privacy, funding for separate schools and a host of other areas. State and local governments usually follow suit, putting in place legislation to ensure that the policies have effect. In addition corporations, schools and universities, and other organisations establish their own policies and internal working procedures to implement policies. Policy without procedures to ensure that the policy is applied is ineffective. Policies and procedures often have the force of law or the backing of the state. Policy may be negative: trying to stop something, or positive: aimed at promoting something. Of course, deciding not to do something is also a policy.

The religious and spiritual life of a society has quantitative dimensions as well as qualitative. The perennial problem is what to measure: attendance, levels of religious identification, levels of financial support given to religious organisations, impact on social policy, visibility of buildings, levels of belief, degree of conformity with declared values and morals, or level of moral tone in a society? Decisions about what to measure reflect basic assumptions about the nature of religious life: where it is found, how it is supposed to be expressed, what is the location of the spiritual in social life. A second basic issue centres on whether to analyse these dimensions at individual, group or societal level. As this is a sociological consideration of Australia's religious and spiritual life, most of the analysis is deliberately conducted at group and social levels and describes and compares groups within Australia and with others.

Measurement is often focused on organisational aspects of religious involvement: attendance, financial giving or membership. If so, what criteria for frequency of attendance are to apply: weekly as expected by most Christian groups, or seasonal as expected by Buddhists, or some other? Similarly, membership is a term that fits participation in Protestant Christian congregations and Jewish synagogues, but not Catholics, Muslims or Buddhists. Measurement could be of spiritual practices: prayer, meditation or attending retreats. Alternatively, the rational dimensions of the religious and spiritual life – scripture study, attending to sermons, reading devotional material, taking courses, beliefs, and learning – could be measured.

An examination of both the qualitative and the quantitative aspects of Australia's religious and spiritual life shows that they have a healthy future. While continuities of practice will remain, there will be many changes. The degree of change will reflect the continued influence of the Australian religious institution, the impact of changes in Australian culture and social structure and the responses of Australian religious groups to each other and their changing situation. At the opening of the twenty-first century several cultural factors are changing the way Australians are religious and the way they give expression to their spirituality.

The cultural shift from rationality to experience

A cultural macro-trend from the rational to the experiential and emotional as the dominant forms of authority is shaping the ways Australians express their spirituality. This shift in emphasis has been emerging for a long time. The transition is far from absolute since each of the three forms of authority and transcendence – tradition, reason and experience/emotion – plays a role in any period of history. But it is also true that in each era one form will be more dominant.

To exercise authority is to appeal to some transcendent principle or arbiter to legitimate decisions, policy and action. In the exercise of traditional authority appeal is made to position – ‘she is the queen’, ‘he is the pope’ or ‘she is the vice-chancellor’ – and therefore has the authority to act, declare what is to be believed and must be obeyed.

The future of religion continues to be greatly debated (Davie, Heelas & Woodhead 2003). Some see the spread of Pentecostal Christianity and the renewed energy of Islam as signs of hope. Some are disquieted in fear that some in these intensely religious groups will seek to remove hard-won freedoms and lifestyles enjoyed by many. Youth are seen to be spiritual and even religious, or at least more than would have been expected (Hughes 2004b; Smith 2005). Others say that religion has been denatured by secularisation and has become too individual, no longer powerful, a passing private fad practised only by the few. They often define the necessary characteristics of religion in terms of their views of how it was at some time in the past, failing to notice that the shapes taken by the religious and spiritual have changed and that the ways groups influence governments and agencies has also changed and requires new approaches and analyses. However, religion and spirituality are living phenomena, rather like the societies that give them birth. As such they can be expected to grow, develop and evolve over time while retaining some recognisable continuity.

I have spoken of the religious and spiritual life of Australia. Beckford (2003: 11ff) says that religion is what a society defines it to be. These definitions and social constructions will vary. Those who insist on a persistent definition of religion include those religious practitioners and religious studies scholars who have a stake in a particular form of religion.

As we find ourselves increasingly in a twenty-first-century postmodern and secular world where spiritualities are rife and religious diversity is an accepted feature of a seriously multicultural society, it is time once again to consider the nature of Australian religion and spirituality. One piece of evidence supporting the reality of the change in religion and spirituality is that it is now possible to speak of Australian religion without facing glum stares or peals of laughter. This was not so when I arrived in Australia in 1979. Secularism was in its heyday, universities its temples, and professors of philosophy and sociology among its high priests. While to many educated in the 1960s and 1970s ‘Australian religion’ was a contradiction in terms or at best an embarrassing legacy of the forgettable past, that is not so now. The life of the spirit, the practice of the presence of the numinous, the more-than-the-ordinary, the heartfelt connection with life, the practice of divine arts, the search for more holistic healing of more than just the body, and the desire to address the social policy implications of religious belief permeate Australian culture as practised and experienced daily.

Moreover, where Australian religion and spirituality are being taken seriously, they are being taken seriously in a distinctively Australian way. These Australian characteristics include a tentatively curious exploration involving listening, attending, venturing with the whole person and being true to one's experience.

The place of religion in Australian society has changed dramatically since World War II. In 1947 religion and religiously organised spirituality could be said to have been central, vertically integrated and well articulated with the state. This social location continued through the 1950s and into the 1960s, but during the 1970s and increasingly into the 1990s, religion became distanced, marginalised, disengaged from the state and privatised. A key set of events marking this transition includes the role of the churches in opposing Australian involvement in the war in Vietnam, the sexual revolution and the introduction, first, of Saturday afternoon and Sunday trading and then 24/7 trading. While some analysts predicted with confidence the ultimate demise of religion (Gilbert 1980; Bruce 1996, 2003), that has in fact not been the case (Berger 1999; Davie 2002; Martin 2005). As the twenty-first century unfolds religion is clearly influential, and spirituality is seen to be uncontrolled and energetic (Thomas 2005; Appleby 2000). Religious groups find ways to influence social policy, involve a different set of players, are horizontally diffuse rather than vertically integrated and still perform public events, but they must share with groups once dismissed as irrelevant. The most spectacular event marking this transition was the destruction of the Twin Towers and the attack on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 followed by the War on Terror and the Bali bombings.

The emerging picture of Australia's religious and spiritual life shows continued vitality coupled with substantial change caused by cultural processes and changes in its social location. The religious and spiritual responses to these changes can be examined under four basic processes: religious revitalisation, fundamentalisation, innovation and marginalisation. These processes are often examined separately, rather than being seen as a complex of overlapping, interacting and, at times, contradictory processes. Marginalisation will be examined in this chapter and the more innovative responses in chapter 7.

One response to social and cultural change has been for churches – many of them once in the mainstream – to become marginalised. The marginalisation of organised religion is one of the themes in the secularisation literature (Beckford 2003: 30–71; Bruce 1996; Martin 2005). As religion has moved, or been moved, to the sidelines, it has also become a private matter for individuals to decide whether and to what degree they should be involved. Societies and governments came to take less interest in the patterns and forms of the religious observance of their citizens. Much has been made of the marginalisation and privatisation of religion in the last two hundred years with the rise of secular society (Martin 1978; Gilbert 1980; Millikan 1981; Wilson 1966, 1982; Wilson 1983). This discussion has largely focused on once-major Protestant denominations and Anglicans, but has some application to Catholics as well.

Religion and spirituality are not passive recipients of the effects of social and cultural change. Marginalisation is not the only story. Understanding the role of religion and spirituality in the twenty-first century requires an appreciation of the new vitality of religion that has become increasingly apparent since the mid-1980s. The events of September 11, 2001 brought to the attention of the world the power and vitality of religion. Whatever other causes and meanings may be ascribed to them, these attacks were religiously motivated and aimed to transform the world. At the same time religiously grounded responses to these and other attacks were formed in the USA as the Christian neoconservatives with power bases in mega-churches began to use their influence to shape domestic and foreign policy. The Bali bombings, attacks on consulates and participation with the USA in the War on Terror have brought these issues home to Australia.

This chapter describes ways in which religion and spirituality are active participants that respond to social and cultural change, at times fully cooperating, at others instigating and at still others resisting change. Some of these responses to change reflect deliberate choices, and others emerge from the complex interactions between religious and spiritual life and their social and cultural environments.

These more proactive religious and spiritual responses to change can be examined under three basic processes: religious revitalisation, fundamentalisation and innovation, including changes in theology. While the mainstream churches were being sidelined, other processes were at work.

There is a distinctive quality to Australian religion and spirituality. This claim is made in the face of the fact that aside from the religious life of indigenous Australians, most of Australia's religious groups trace their origins to Ireland, the United Kingdom and Europe. Moreover, much of what passes for spirituality ‘down under’ has been imported from places overseas. Nonetheless, while Australian religion and spirituality is largely an amalgam of imported streams and strands, these are constructed and reproduced in distinctively Australian ways. There has been a resurgence of interest in the role of religious groups, organisations and beliefs in the emergence of this nation (e.g. Carey 1996; Breward 1993; Piggin 1996). These histories provide a corrective to those histories of Australia that follow the secular ideologies dominant at many universities, which ignore, or give little place to, the role of religion (e.g. Macintyre 2004; Grimshaw et al. 1994).

Indigenous Australians have been practising religion and spirituality for more than 40,000 years (Swain 1985). This rich diversity provides one historical frame for Australia's religious and spiritual life: it has always been diverse, respectful of the land, and attuned to the links between the here and now, and promoting responsibilities extending over generations and sharing. However, most Australians who identify themselves as Aboriginal also indicate that they are Christians. According to the 2001 Census, only 1.2 per cent of Aboriginal people said they held to their traditional religions whereas 69.0 per cent identified with a Christian denomination: 23 per cent each for Catholic and Anglican, 6 per cent Uniting and nearly 3 per cent each for Baptist, Lutheran and Pentecostal, 15.5 per cent claimed to have no religion and 10.9 per cent did not reply (Hughes 2004a).

Even before September 11, 2001 religion and spirituality were gaining increasing attention and discussion both in Australia (Tacey 2000, 2003) and in other parts of the world (Anderson 2004; McGrath 2002; Martin 2002). Since then there has been a rapid increase in publications dealing with religion and spirituality, particularly those discussing Islam, Buddhism and global movements in the realm of the religious. This change has taken many by surprise. After all, according to the dominant sociological view of the last half of the twentieth century, religion, along with the state, was supposed to wither away as the successes of modern, secular rationalism in the form of science overcame the vicissitudes of life: poverty, illness and indeed death itself, thus making the religious, the mystical and the spiritual unnecessary. Death, plagues, genocides and the failure of attempts to bring about global peace, harmony and justice have radically undermined the underlying optimism of those assumptions. Secular humanism has not proven as satisfying as many thought it would be. The best evidence of this is the rise of other philosophies and world views, including religions and spiritualities, alongside a discernible reawakening of more traditional forms of the religious life. However, the return of the religious and spiritual is not merely a return to times past. This reawakening is taking place in a different sociocultural environment: a world characterised by the global movement of ideas, capital and people; and a world to which some are happy to apply the term ‘postmodernity’; that is, a world that is radically different to modernity.