When the reports came through on the radio about David Cameron’s Christian values speech in Oxford for the commemoration of the publication of the King James Bible, I was almost inspired to write an article for the Ham & High under the headline, ‘Is the country ready for Christian values?’ And when the Prime Minister described himself as a ‘committed – but I have to say vaguely practising – Church of England Christian’, I thought, ‘Well there’s one Christian value he doesn’t subscribe to.’ Surely commitment and practice go together unless the former word is evacuated of most of its meaning.
In order to write such an article I had, of course, to read the speech, and having read it via the internet, the article has become more difficult to write, for the Prime Minister covers a wider range of issues than reported. Nevertheless, it is a pity that though he confesses to grappling with the difficult questions of faith ‘when it comes to some of the big theological issues’, there’s not much sign of such grappling here. He raises a huge theological issue without quite seeming to be aware of it – and that is the question of faith’s relationship to morality.
The Prime Minister rightly pays tribute to the effect of the King James Bible on English language and culture; he points to the effect of that Bible on English political history and rightly draws attention to the importance of religion in contemporary society and to all that faith communities bring to our country in practical action and public debate.
He claims that Christian values still define our country and provide the ideals on which it is founded. He then lists those ideals as ‘Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self sacrifice, love, pride in working for the common good and honouring social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities.’ However, having defined these as Christian values he then goes on to claim that they are values which speak to all of us – to people of every faith and none.
He then enters the debate about whether it is wrong to stand up for Christian values (even though he has acknowledged they are not exclusively Christian) either because they might seem to be compromising secular neutrality or doing down other faiths. Such a view he argues is wrong on both counts: the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other faiths too (compared for example with secularised France). Though we might agree that this is how the Anglican establishment in this country should work, it ignores the fact that large number of Christians would disagree with him about the part to be played by tolerance in Christian practice or whether tolerance as such is actually a Christian value. He then goes on to claim that though ‘faith is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of morality’, it is ‘a helpful prod in the right direction.’(!) Consequently secular neutrality is mistaken in denying the right to stand up for such values. ‘Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of lawlessness.…. As president Obama wrote in ‘The Audacity to hope: “in reaction to religious overreach we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our politics with larger meaning.” ‘
Cameron then enlists the support of all the faith communities in helping to stand up for the values he is talking about. He equates this with the church getting involved in politics because ‘so many political questions are moral questions.’ He implies that he doesn’t always agree with the Archbishop when he does this, but accepts the Archbishop’s right to speak so long as he keeps to an agenda that speaks to the whole country, an agenda which treats equality and tolerance as primary.
The more I read this lecture the more muddled it seems under the surface. In summary, what I think it is saying is that because there are Christian origins for the values which everyone ought to subscribe to if British society is to be morally revitalised, the church ought more actively to be defending those values, provided it doesn’t try to preach Christianity in the process, because it’s perfectly possible to accept those values without having any faith.
Now it is undoubtedly the case that many of the moral values we find listed in the epistles of St Paul can be found both in Judaism and Hellenistic society; moral values are not the prerogative of any one world view. Paul nevertheless makes it quite clear that he thinks it very difficult to live up to these standards (‘I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.’ Romans 7:18); which would suggest that even if Archbishops stand up for the values espoused by the Prime Minister they are unlikely to have much effect. What Cameron does not consider is the question of human nature about which he seems rather too optimistic. How we might actually reform a society is a huge question. Paul had no such ambition; his aim is to convert, so that those who enter the Christian community discover a meaning to their lives (created by God and redeemed by Christ on the cross) which will enable them to find forgiveness for their sins and hope for the future. Out of this narrative of salvation arises a motive for love and an encouragement to love – the love which is the embodiment of the law.
The gospels flesh out this narrative in various ways – most significantly in the contents of Matthew’s sermon on the mount and Luke’s parables of forgiveness and love for the alien. Both gospels emphasise radical self sacrifice and the huge danger of wealth and the former stresses a form of pacifism which while not necessarily barring any participation in armed warfare makes such participation very problematic. These are hardly the moral values the Prime Minister has in mind I suspect.
The New Testament could be said to contain two different but related kinds of moral code. The one concerns our preparation for the coming of God’s kingdom – the society in which God’s will is done on earth and which only God can bring about (a preparation which involves forms of dramatic forgiveness, loving acceptance of ill treatment, extreme generosity and a hunger for justice and peace); the other is a household code for the Christian community which will enable it to live peacefully and productively, binding its members together and not alienating the wider society (a code which includes avoiding contact with all forms of idolatry and praying for the secular powers even though most Christians would not expect to play any part in the politics of their society).
So after all the headline to my article might still read, ‘Is the country ready for Christian values?’ It would then go on to point out how difficult it is to lead a really moral life, however many times you are told to do so by Bishops or Prime Ministers. (Remember the famous quote from GK Chesterton: ‘The Christian faith has not been tried and found wanting. It has rather been found difficult and left untried.’) It would suggest that morality needs a guiding narrative of how the world is, if such moral values are to have authority and inspire us to act morally. And it would claim that religious community is necessary if we are to discover how to live with our sins and failures and not lose hope.
And that perhaps is a good agenda for us as a church and as a nation in the new year.
With my love and prayers for a morally inspiring 2012,
The Vicar Writes
Stephen Tucker