Winchester, 15 February 2006
Yesterday was Valentine’s Day: inadvertently Valentine’s Day acts as a sort of measurement of just how strong or ambiguous relationships have become. Who will have been whose Valentine this year? Or who became the new Valentine? And who were we unsure about this year?
So perhaps this is as good a time as any to talk about the age old relationship between our private responsibility and the role of the State in promoting an environment in which Respect can flourish. On a somewhat different scale the relationship between the individual and the state has always existed within the twilight of ambiguity.
It’s an ambiguity which Ralph Miliband expressed so well:
“More than ever before men now live in the shadow of the state. What they want to achieve, individually or in groups, now mainly depends on the State’s sanction and support… This is why as social beings they are also politicised beings, whether they know it or not. It is possible not to be interested in what the state does: but it is not possible to be unaffected by it.[1]
”Whatever our definition of the state, modern society has become a complex synergy between the whims of our customised appetites, the demands of our cultural groups and government’s attempt to address these needs for the common good. In that regard Aristotle was right to regard the state as “an association”[2].
‘Individualism’ (a term coined by Tocqueville in 1831) has become the hallmark of our fragmented cultures. And this individualism which feeds on consumerist values and expresses itself at the ballot box every four years, makes politics a very precarious art. More than ever this has become a struggle between our personal passions and the legislative restraints of the state; or the need for well-being and the state’s responsibility to enhance it.
From its very beginning Christian faith has been embroiled in the ambiguity between the state and the individual. It’s worth bearing in mind that passages such as Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 were written to guide Christian individuals in their relationships with the state. “Show proper respect to everyone: love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honour the King”[3] was a statement to individual Christians trying to make sense of their faith in a hostile environment as much as it would have been to an emerging community.
The history of Christianity from Constantine through Augustine, Luther’s Two Kingdoms, Calvin’s Geneva, Cromwell and the Pilgrim Fathers is a testimony to our own imperfect attempts to square this impossible circle. Indeed, today’s vexed questions about disestablishment, or Church and State have become more complicated where Christian values no longer shape the moral consensus. Gladstone’s 19th century assertion that non-Anglicans should not hold public office has become an unrecognisable absurdity.
In any event, times have changed and politicians are no longer taken as seriously as they once were. But politicians are no more than the public amplification of our own private failings. Perhaps the great disillusionment is that we have ascribed more influence and power to politicians than they actually enjoy. If the state is ‘an association’ politicians are in fact merely the summary of our individual aspirations. As Archbishop Temple insightfully observed, “a statesman who supposes that a mass of citizens can be governed without appeal to their self-interest is living in dreamland and is a public menace.”[4] A thought echoed by Hutton who said, “The state must act to assert common purpose; but unless the state enjoys legitimacy and expresses the democratic will, it can make no such claims.”
[5] In a liberal democracy where citizenship is taken seriously by Christian and non Christians alike, this issue should not be underestimated. Frankly it is politically naïve for Christians to expect Members of Parliament to vote like evangelists. They must give due care and attention to the breadth of their constituency. The pull and push of public opinion and political accountability means that elected servants often feel helpless to tell the truth. Pop idols, TV personalities and columnists find it much easier and emerge with less effort as national heroes! In a liberal democracy we do not get the politicians we deserve, we get the public figures we create. We have 650 MPs with a voting public of 40 million people. We are the empowered majority and we have the responsibility to create an environment in which politicians can be freed to make mistakes and ask for forgiveness.
In the new landscape Respect for politicians includes a reality check about what they can and cannot do in delivering minority interests.
The battle for Respect must therefore take public opinion into account. The democratic process needs a change in public views and morality not just the private convictions of Parliamentarians. This has always been the case. The difference is that we now have many moralities vying for attention. In the future – as in the past - the way to change legislation is to change the public mind. For respect is a state of mind.
And this is precisely the strength of faith in the political process. Governments make laws which restrain but they cannot adopt the role of moralising preachers. At the very heart of the political process is a moral vacuum which has been created by the dualism which banished faith to the no-go zone of private religion. Consequently a vacancy has been created which no one seems sure how to fill. In the past two decades governments have identified the gradual shift towards anti-social behaviour but they have learned by bitter experience that they have no basis for moral judgements on this issue. John Major’s Back to Basics was an unmitigated failure which New Labour has been loath to repeat in presenting its Respect Action Plan.
And quite right too! Moralising is the role of faith. But secularisation has been reckless in dismissing the prophetic role of faith as an irrelevant aberration. Faith is concerned with ‘habits of the heart’. In the absence of a moral consensus based unashamedly on the idea of holy transcendence, politics - the art of the possible – flounders with tactical responses to spiritual attitudes and values.
But as Jonathan Sacks reminds us, “Every law enforced in the heart means one less policeman on the streets.”[6] It is precisely these ‘unconscious virtues’ which TS Elliot appeals to in his vision of a Christian Britain.[7] So whilst the cardinal purpose of Government may be the pursuit of the common good, its ability to achieve this will always by determined by the presence or absence of a moral consensus shaped by values we cannot legislate for.
And the function of faith as political capital is to build a moral consensus which makes the task of politicians easier to carry out. In Moltmann’s framework, “we are called to a special degree to work together for the revaluation of values which is required so that the world may live and not die.”[8] A revision of society’s values in Moltmann’s thinking is the ‘primary task of public theology.’[9] This was precisely the transforming power behind the work of faith citizens such as Martin Luther King Jr or Gandhi. King’s political engagement was premised on the ‘moral universe’ which bends towards justice. “Give us the ballot,” he cried, “and we will fill our legislative halls with men of goodwill.”[10]
Politicians should not be expected to behave like priests but they do have a responsibility to create an environment in which priests can behave like priests and in which prophets will be heard. In such a society faith will be regarded as political capital. And there are very good reasons for this.
From a Christian perspective, discipleship at its core is committed to a respect for the state as an instrument of God – even where the state represses its faith.[11] Christian commitment to the political process is drawn, not primarily from party political ideology, but from the very idea of transcendence. We are well disposed towards those who hold office because this view is woven into the very fabric of our faith. However intense our tribal political loyalties are Christians challenge each other to become involved in the political process because we believe the Bible endorses it. It means that – at least in theory – a Christian socialist can pray sincerely for a conservative! A member of the shadow cabinet can pray for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
This personal piety of the Christian faith has its serious drawbacks. Christian pietism, for example, has contributed to the conservatism associated with atrocities such as apartheid and fed the flames of hatred in the Ku Klux Klan. But by its relentless appeal to individuals as moral beings it also has the potential to be an effective partner of the state. Properly directed, the very notion of ‘personal salvation’ and private accountability so annoying to radical activists, creates lifestyles opened to positive community cohesion. When a Christian is asked, ‘who is my neighbour?’ she will begin with a personal injunction from Christ rather than the disembodied requirements of complicated legislation. Caring is written in, not added on. Little wonder that in its two thousand year history, the Christian faith has been closely identified with education, hospitals, social services and reform.
When I was interviewed to join the probation service in 1975 I was faced with a very interesting question. Why, I was asked, did I want to join the probation service after doing three years as a Bible student? I had never given it a moment’s thought. I muttered something about the fact that the Bible was fundamentally a book about human relationships; that of the Ten Commandments, the first four were about our relationship with God whilst the remaining six were about our relationships with others around us. They gave me the job; either because I made sense or because they were desperate. I’ve never been sure which!
But no one in the room explained that the Service I was about to join began as evangelical court missionaries who came to the inhospitable environment of the courtroom to ‘advise, assist and befriend the offender’.
In 1998 the Church employed twice as many youth workers as local government.[12] According to a Bristol University survey 29% of Christians are involved in voluntary work compared to 9% of the general population.[13] Over 43% of churches in the UK are involved with non-proselytising acts of kindness on a weekly basis.[14] Christians have invested in bridging the gap between the state and its broken citizens in world renowned examples such as South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and King’s civil rights movement. But they are also quietly at work in battling gun crime in Britain with organisations such as Peace Alliance, Street Pastors and more recently Redeeming Our Communities.
Faith has political capital and governments must continue to recognise this. Society will benefit if we resist the nervous reservations of irresponsible journalists who will not look at the evidence for faith. These columns are born of ignorance and a dualism which is uncomfortable about faith in open spaces.
Government must work with faith in two ways. Firstly, it should continue the excellent and growing relationship between Whitehall, Christians and faith organisations. But it also needs to value our moral convictions as seriously as it does the empirical and cost-cutting benefits we bring to community.
One such focus is the emphasis on family life which all faiths share. This Government has tended to legislate for the child as opposed to the family. I welcome therefore, the focus on family training provided in the Respect Action Plan. This has to be right because “for any society the family is the crucible of its future.”[15] It is the place where most people still learn the value of respect. For me this was most powerfully expressed at a Peace Alliance meeting by seventeen year old, Toby Harper: “I want to live in a city where people don’t just talk about respect on the streets but respect exists in the home.”[16]
The family is the cornerstone of human relationships and as such, government must have the moral courage to resist the politicisation of relationships which rubbishes the family. And the tendency to debunk family (nuclear or extended) which is being forced on to the political agenda must be resisted for the sake of our communities. As Archbishop Temple puts it, “any ordering of society which impairs or destroys the stability of the family stands condemned…”[17]
In the current debate about Respect the institutionalisation of disrespect remains a real danger. “The issue” according to Richard Sennett “isn’t how individuals can behave better but how institutions can behave better.”[18] Christopher Howse of the Telegraph was rather more scathing. “This Government is the enemy of healthy institutions, from the monarchy downwards: Parliament is undermined, the Churches marginalised, schools driven to distraction by bureaucracy, doctors discouraged from home visits, teachers left unable to teach.”[19]
Strong language but there is something in this allegation. The juggernaut of legislation which has been the imprimatur of New Labour has undoubtedly had a demoralising effect on all the institutions on Howse’s list. To take one example: during my time as a probation officer the professional mantra under which we worked was to ‘advise, assist and befriend the defendant’. Today the service is more likely to describe its work in terms of “Management of Offenders” or “carry out the proper punishment of offenders in the community and to ensure offenders’ awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and the public.”[20] My point is not to undermine the importance of victim support and the need for punishment. A state committed to the safety of its citizens has a responsibility to make decisive responses to people who harm; and those who work from the premise that we are made in God’s image are equally obliged to punish offences which desecrate our humanity. However, whilst there is a place for punitive action, our over-burdened system of legal retribution is crying out for a more humane balance between punishment and rehabilitation.
In the absence of an agreed moral consensus on which to appeal to personal values, Government has taken the only option with which it - and an increasingly panicked and punitive public - is comfortable: punishment which is monitored and held up quarterly for public viewing. In the meanwhile we continue with overcrowded prisons with growing levels of suicide.
In transmitting Respect to the local world of its citizens, New Labour is experiencing considerable difficulties. The erosion of public services, youth facilities, and its major battles over the selection processes for school, is seriously undermining people’s respect for government. In a similar vein ITV 3’s 30 Minute documentary heavily criticised “public funding by race” for contributing to the racial tensions in Birmingham last October.[21]
In our previous lecture I addressed the use of language as an important issue in dealing with Respect. ‘Serious verbal abuse’ has been identified as a key component of antisocial behaviour. This means that in a culture wrestling to restore Respect all verbal exchanges build the fabric of such a society. Ironically, governments over the past two decades have been culpable in this regard. Michael Howard’s ‘Short, sharp, shock’ of the 1980’s has been paralleled by New Labour’s ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’ in the 1990’s.
It is entirely understandable that politicians should use purposeful phrases given the level of anti-social behaviour, the public’s growing concerns about it and its relationship to crime. But this together with the vitriolic statements about ‘hoodies’ and ‘yobs’ has added to a lexicon of disrespect which erodes communities and sets ‘us’ against ‘them’. As Bob Reitemeier the Chief Executive of The Children’s Society said, the accumulative impact of all this has made youngsters feel “demonised, disrespected and alienated within their communities.”[22] In Al Aynsley Green’s view (Children’s Commissioner for England) if we treat children with respect it comes right back to society.[23]
Government needs to demonstrate intentionality in rebuilding respect. But we are all faced with the challenge of countering negative public statements about young people with positive models.
Thankfully the Government has already recognised the need to go beyond rhetoric and deal with the substantive issues. In his speech launching the Government’s Respect Plan the Prime Minister noted that the measures they are proposing “is not to debate it at the crude level of tough or not tough; populist or not.”[24]
Having read the Prime Minister’s speech I am encouraged that a wise and determined Church can become critical partners with government in the recovery of Respect in our culture. If we assume that government is serious in its intentions but needing help, I suspect we have the resources of people and grace, to compensate for what is missing in the political processes we so readily criticise.
In our role in this ongoing ambiguity between Church and State; between personal participation and government responsibility, our challenge will be to learn how we carry out our Christian witness as active citizens: how to be prophets at the gate. Government must find the confidence to let us in: not just as dealers in community activism but as a community whose activism has been informed by faith in a living God who calls us to be pro-community.
The Prime Minister is right: “Legal stricture will never be enough. Respect cannot in the end be conjured through legislation.”[25] That being the case, Thomas Carlyle offers us a contract for co-operation between faith and politics. In Carlyle’s view, Religion is the “soul of Practice; the primary vital fact in men’s life.” And he added, perhaps with tongue in cheek, and dare I say with respect, “Acts of Parliament, on the whole, are small, notwithstanding the noise they make.”[26]
Rev. Joel Edwards
[1] Ralph Miliband The State in Capitalist society p. 3
[2] Aristotle, Politics Bk.3 (Sect I & II)
[3] 1 Peter 2:17
[4] William Temple Christianity and Social Order p. 65
[5] W. Hutton The State We’re In p. 25
[6] Dr Jonathan Sacks Faith in the Future p. 34
[7] T.S. Elliot Christianity & Culture p.14
[8] J Moltmann God for a Secular Society p.91
[9] Ibid p.74
[10] Martin Luther King Jnr Give Us the Ballot Washington DC 17th May 1957
[11] Romans 13:1
[12] Audit of English Youth Services 1988
[13] Bristol University Research 2003
[14] Peter Brierley The Tide is Running Out Christian Research Association 2000
[15] Dr Jonathan Sacks Faith in the Future p.23
[16] Toby Harper
[17] W. Temple Christianity and the Social Order p.64
[18] Richard Sennett Views on Respect BBC News 9th January 2006
[19] Christopher Howse, Respect the violent gangster’s ideal Telegraph 11January 2006
[20] National Probation Service website.
[21] ITV3 30 Minutes Presented Kenan Malik 9.2.06
[22] Guardian Home Page 11.1.06 Children’s group warn punishment not panacea
[23] Al Aynsley Green Guardian 16th January 2006
[24] Tony Blair Respect Agenda 11th January 2006
[25] Tony Blair Respect Agenda 11th January 2006
[26] Thomas Carlyle On Heroes and Hero Worship, The Hero as Poet p.134
