The political definition of ‘Britishness’ at the end of the 20th century continues to be highly problematic. With increasing awareness of multiculturally rooted civil unrest in the context of which Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has recently warned about segregation, parallel lives, and the ‘ghettoisation’ of Britain’s cities, it is important to highlight the role of political and economic integration, citizenship and education to tackle such trends which, as Phillips warns, could lead to the creation of ‘fertile breeding grounds’ for extremists.
The Evangelical Alliance, in their response to the government report on ‘Safe Havens’, stressed that citizenship and nationality are important issues in today’s society, particularly as our communities become more diverse. Their response noted the importance of properly tackling questions about what it means to be a citizen, since these questions are key to understanding who we are and how we fit in to where we live. While citizenship classes, now compulsory for those entering the UK, can certainly help arrivees to understand the systems and structures that exist in here, it is just as important for those who are already resident in the UK, and in particularly the indigenous population, to understand and respect the culture and ethnicity of those entering Britain.
The Alliance also argued that asylum and immigration policy should be marked by a tolerance of diversity. It added that the teaching of citizenship should not lead to amalgamation, as represented by the old idea of a “melting pot” of cultures. Instead, it argued that that such teaching should ideally result in mutual respect and understanding of the integrity and diversity of different people groups and concentrate not so much on ‘integration’ as ‘assimilation’. Interestingly, Trevor Phillips supports greater integration. In 2004 he initiated a robust public debate on the meanings of integration, Britishness, core values, cohesion and multiculturalism. He challenged what he regarded as outdated concepts of multiculturalism – the ideology of difference – as opposed to the fact of diversity in a country where social, cultural and ethnic diversity has been present for several centuries. Phillips argued that multiculturalism grew out of a desire to recognise that diversity is a good thing, and to appreciate the many excellent qualities that newcomers brought to Britain. However, he pointed out that today’s new challenges cannot simply be answered in what he saw as the outmoded language of race relations. Phillips’s dismissal of multiculturalism and preference for integration has been widely criticised as itself outdated and a pretext for a one-way process of assimilation. Nevertheless, most critics agree that society is in need of a commonly-accepted social framework within which individuals and communities can interact.
In his submission to the Commission Turner noted that citizenship was originally a Roman concept reinterpreted for a Christian context, and that this in turn was reminiscent of the call to be citizens of the world. The word ‘citizenship’ always incorporated the notion of moral behaviour. Some others submissions expressed fear that British national citizenship was under threat from the European Union, and from the notion of ‘EU citizenship’ in particular. In his submission, Glasman, having emphasised that the “origin of citizenship lies in the city, in what the city is and what it takes to be a participant in the life of a city”, continued by discussing the modern nationalised version of citizenship. This was a form of citizenship springing from modernity and dealing with mass society and new technology. His submission also contended that part of the problem encountered by the attempt to foster a shared sense of place is that many of those who migrated to Britain were demeaned and exploited in the process, and so retain a mistrust of the institutions which control their adopted home.
The Jubilee Centre submission saw citizenship as a potentially powerful tool to be used for “reintroducing the language of responsibility into a rights oriented culture.” Referring to current government initiatives on so-called ‘active citizenship’, they correctly observe that while it is desirable that there may be some idea of commonality that citizens can own, such commonality should simultaneously be free of any presumption of one particular faith, should not “deny the importance of faith” and should “respect the reality of our Christian heritage”. In the current climate of increasing decentralisation, there remain promising opportunities for faith groups to develop locally and become dynamic partners in local community.
In the exhortation of Christ to render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s (Matt. 22.21), the Christian finds from the notion of ‘heavenly citizenship’ a helpful model towards good citizenship in the relevant nation state, as well as for obedience to God in the worldwide family of Christians. It is important for Christians to remember that their experiences of nationhood can place a cultural veneer over their understanding of Christianity. This veneer can be problematic because it can lead to denial of the Christian experience of others, and to judging that experience negatively on account of cultural and contextual unfamiliarity.
As Christians we are called to live in a multicultural environment, to be aware of the cultural trappings of our beliefs, and to emphasise those aspects of our own faith which are universal and essential, rather than socially or ethnically contingent. Any notion of citizenship must have built into it an authentic and enduring respect for other cultural traditions and religious outlooks. On this basis, Christians should be able to act as good citizens, just as long as they are not forced by the ruling authorities to adhere to beliefs and traditions which damage their own authentic Christian witness.
