The decision to appoint Brisbane's Anglican Archbishop, the Most Reverend Peter Hollingworth, to succeed Sir William Deane as governor-general will strike many as not only novel but also as curious, even risky. This has nothing to do with Hollingworth's credentials for the job. He is a man of considerable intellect and statesmanship who has long occupied a respected place in debates on issues of national importance.
Nor has the reason anything to do with Hollingworth's alleged ambitions. It had long been rumoured in some Anglican circles that if he missed out on the job of primate of the Anglican Church in Australia - which he did last year to Perth's Archbishop Peter Carnley - Hollingworth would angle for high public office.
Some Anglicans even conjectured that Hollingworth's transformation from the radical priest who took Bob Hawke to task over his government's economic and social policies in the 1980s to the cautious conservative who endorsed a presidential model at the 1998 Constitutional Convention - but with all sorts of precautions to avoid any destabilising change - was designed to boost his chances of selection as the country's first president.
No, the reason Hollingworth's appointment will be greeted with some apprehension is that it raises some troubling questions about the division between church and state. If the choice had been a Catholic prelate rather than an Anglican one, the potential conflicts of interest would be far more obvious. But even without allegiance to the papacy as a consideration, this appointment will raise some tricky issues.
For one thing, as governor-general, Hollingworth will represent a monarch who is also head of the Church of England. While the Anglican church is not the "official" church of Australia, and each diocese is autonomous within the worldwide Anglican Communion, any sense that this complicated set of secular and religious constitutional arrangements is being reflected here might seem to imply a symbolic return to the days of the Anglican ascendancy in this country.
Also, as governor-general, Hollingworth in many respects will play the role of the conscience of the nation. It is no secret that Sir William Deane drew heavily on his Catholic background in giving expression to this role, particularly on issues such as reconciliation. But Deane did not wear a clerical collar and there was never any suggestion that his judgments were beholden to his church's social and moral teaching.
At the very least, it will be much harder for Hollingworth, as a former senior member of the Anglican church hierarchy, to appear to scrupulously maintain the same kind of detachment at all times.
More than anything else, however, this appointment will smack of yet another attempt to court the religious vote and break down the firewalls of secular society.
In the United States, the Bush Administration is proposing "faith-based solutions" to problems more typically seen as the responsibility of government to address. The White House plans to channel tax dollars into church initiatives aimed at reducing unemployment and delivering social services. The main stumbling block so far has been the demand by the religious Right that any conditions leave sufficient latitude for churches to proselytise among those they will reach with these extra funds.
In Britain, Tony Blair's Labour Government is championing similar initiatives ahead of the forthcoming election. Last month, Blair told a conference of the Christian Socialist Movement that it is "misguided and outdated to suggest that there is a straight choice between voluntary activity [that is, church-based charities] and state activity". One of Labour's advisers is Jim Wallis, an American evangelical Christian and adviser to President Bush, who is campaigning for a greater role for faith groups in politics.
Not to be outdone, the Conservative Party leader, William Hague, also boasts an American right-wing Christian adviser, Marvin Olasky, who wants to go further and see faith groups eventually assume the role the state now plays in providing social security.
All this would seem a long way from Hollingworth's appointment as governor-general if the Howard Government was not promoting a greater role for the churches in the provision of social services.
Critics of this trend, both here and abroad, argue that it constitutes an attempt by conservative governments to abrogate their responsibilities and provide welfare on the cheap.
In an address to the synod of the Brisbane diocese last June, Hollingworth noted the potential pitfalls of this increasing collusion between churches and governments: "We have to accept the fact," he said, "that our programs, funded by government, now have to compete in the market of competitive tendering against other like agencies to do work on behalf of government which is closely prescribed and leaves little scope for innovation or variation." He added that "agencies of the church need constantly to review the fundamental question as to why they are involved in service delivery and whether it is compatible with the core objectives of the gospel itself".
As governor-general, Hollingworth will certainly not be a spokesman for government. But neither will he be in a position to offer that kind of counsel again. Moreover, however dutifully he performs his new role, he will be a powerful reminder that the old assumptions about where religion ends and politics begin in this country can no longer be safely held.
Chris McGillion, the Herald's religious affairs columnist, teaches in the school of communication at Charles Sturt University.