“Good ends can rarely be attained in politics without passion:

and there is now, for the first time in many hearts, a virtuous passion.”

(Hence the reference in today’s title to Faith, Passion and Politics).  The campaign, wrote Henry Broadhurst, led to nonconformists seeing Gladstone as “the deliverer of nations, the inspired leader of peoples, as a giant of unsurpassed strength wrestling with and conquering the powers of injustices and oppression.” J G Rogers wrote that “Mr Gladstone is recognised by the Nonconformists as one of the very few statesmen who feel that the law of Christ is to govern nations as well as individuals.”

Any more quotations in this vein, and ardent secularists or even quiet atheists who might have found their way into the room would start to feel a little uncomfortable in their seats. The identification of religious with political purposes may start to seem scary, even illiberal, and out of tune with our times.  This is a world where extreme religious views, particularly extreme distorted versions of Islam seek a hold on state power, or are claimed as the basis for the overthrow of democratic societies and the violent destruction of freedom.  At a less apocalyptic level, ours is a society where diversity appears to require the suppression of religious expressions and opinions. Such things are to be confined within the walls of the church, the chapel, the mosque or the synagogue.  If they are spoken of in public, people may be upset.  If they are mentioned in political debate, people may be put off.  Religion, on this analysis, is strictly for consenting adults in private.

It was easier for Gladstone, you may say - churchgoing, although a minority activity even then in many areas, was much more common than it is today.  There was a shared basic knowledge of Christianity in much of society.  Other religions were present only on a very small scale.  Christian passion would surely pose no threat to a Liberal society in those circumstances.

But what about Bradlaugh?  He was a confirmed atheist, founder of the National Secular Society and Liberal MP, who persisted in his refusal to take the Parliamentary oath – potentially a political problem and an embarrassment for Gladstone.  Yet the fascinating thing is that Gladstone was unflinching in his support for Bradlaugh, and it was Gladstone who introduced the Affirmation Bill, allowing members to choose to affirm instead of taking the oath.  It was bitterly opposed by the Tories and the Irish party, it was lost by three votes with nine Liberal rebels in the wrong division lobby.  For Gladstone, passionate Christian and ardent churchman, it was a matter of freedom of conscience.  The pursuit of objectives motivated by Christian conviction did not require or permit the abrogation of other people’s personal freedom.  Looking at it the other way round – which is what I want to do tonight – being stalwart in defence of freedom of thought did not depend on passionless politics.  The most passionate of politicians could remain passionate while manning the battlements of freedom. Today, as in Gladstone’s time, it is both possible and desirable for a person who holds strong religious views and is motivated in politics by faith to be firmly committed to a liberal political order in which contrary views on religion are protected and respected.  It is in no way a requirement of a liberal society that people should be expected to abandon or dilute their faith and convictions, so long as they allow and respect the freedom of those who disagree with them.  There is nothing liberal about tolerating only those people you agree with.

Since Liberalism is not about the dilution of opinions, but rather about toleration of difference, it follows that the diversity which we see as a characteristic of today’s Britain does not require the rinsing out of the strong colours of religious difference.  Nor does it require the removal or concealment of the distinctive religious history of our country, as if we were engaged in some sort of Maoist cultural revolution, or Taliban destruction of the monuments of other people’s faith.  Not only is such a course wrong in principle – it is not even desired by most of those it is supposed to assist, and in whose name it is advocated.  I will return to this particular point.

What is the situation today, over a century on from Gladstone?  The good news is that the role of religion in society is widely discussed in the media.  The bad news is that it is the subject of hopeless confusion and historical ignorance in the minds of many media commentators.  Take, for example, the argument about the established position of the Church of England, mere mention of which got Mr Phil Woolas into trouble and got him taken off Question Time by the Labour spin doctors.  There are well-developed and often-rehearsed arguments both for and against retaining an established Anglican church in the one part of the United Kingdom in which it operates.  (There is, of course, no established church in Wales or Northern Ireland, and a totally different form of national church in Scotland).  But disestablishment is not a necessary feature of a diverse and multi-cultural society, and if the purpose of disestablishment were to make religion less significant in society, that would not justify it.  Indeed, if that were to be the result, it would be most unwelcome to many of the groups in whose interest it is being pursued – I know of no evidence that significant numbers of Muslims, Jews, Hindus or Sikhs are at all interested in getting the Church of England disestablished, and it is no longer a popular view with nonconformists or Catholics as it was a century ago.  All these groups have issues which they do see as important to the recognition of their place in society, but disestablishment is scarcely on their list.  Indeed, some of the most powerful arguments for disestablishment come from within the Church of England, from those who believe that its witness is impaired or compromised by its links with the state.  But such is the confusion on these issues that in current conditions disestablishment might pander to the view that religion in general needs to be banished from society, painted out like offensive graffiti by council workers, almost literally in some cases.  It is that sort of view which produces “winterval” and “happy holidays” instead of Christmas, and takes down crosses in crematoria.  At Newcastle University we had a Professor of oral pathology, sadly now passed on to wherever atheist professors of oral pathology go, who was passionate about getting rid of the names of the academic terms which included “Michaelmas” and “Easter”, he tried repeatedly and failed to bring this about.  Clearly it was a matter of great significance to him, I don’t think it bothered any Muslim student or anybody else very much.

Actually when you think about the implications of this sort of approach you come up with the most amazing results.  I took the opportunity to jot down some of the things which we would have to do if a diverse society requires us to efface religion from the public sphere.  What would we have to get rid of?  Christmas holidays, Easter holidays, civic ceremonies, Mayoral chaplains, hospital chaplains, prison chaplains, forces chaplains, faith schools, religion in all schools, theology in Universities (unless its privately funded), services for judges at the opening of the legal year, the oath in court, Parliamentary oaths, Speaker’s chaplain, Parliamentary prayers, the present Remembrance Sunday ceremonies and the form in which we have them, the monarchy’s links with both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, religious broadcasting and then I thought well maybe we should retrospectively get the Maynooth grant paid back (historians here will remember that it was a mid nineteenth century example of the British government funding the training of Catholic priests in Ireland in recognition of the importance of the Catholic church in Irish society.)  Then there’s the national anthem and the Red Cross and the St John’s Ambulance Brigade and the Union Flag (because it is full of crosses) the Scottish Saltaire.  And then of course what about those pagan deities who are still recognised in Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and January and February - we’d probably have to get rid of all of those.  And, by the way, I think the “atheist bus” would have to go, as it is asserting a view about religion in the public space.

The confusion is not all on one side: a look in the postbag or e-mail box of Members of Parliament will reveal many letters insisting that God’s law must be replicated in the statutes which we pass.  God sanctions Christian marriage, so the state should not permit or provide a legal basis for other kinds of partnership – so runs the argument.  But the state is not entitled to assume that everyone is a Christian, or that everyone interprets Christian obligations in the same way: Parliament must provide a framework of law which allows people to live as they choose, so long as in doing so they do not damage the freedom of others.  Moreover, to expect the state to secure conformity to Christian precepts is a fundamentally misguided thing for Christians to do.  Jesus was never satisfied with mere obedience to law – he sought changed lives, not people who conform out of fear that they will be punished by the state.  And states are no good at religious conversion.  Conversion is what Christians themselves are supposed to do – challenging people with the Gospel and inviting them to receive God’s grace to live as He wants them to do.  The Christian should have a passion to win people for God, and a passion to do God’s will in the world. 

What does Christianity have to say to politics and public life?  What is the basis on which religion, particularly the Christian religion, engages in society?

It cannot be one in which the church seeks to run the state as an instrument for the enforcement of a particular religious view.  Gone are the days when Members of Parliament in the UK could be required to swear an oath against transubstantiation, saying that the adoration of the saints and the sacrifice of the mass “as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous”  which is what the oath used to say.

Secondly, it cannot be one in which the church becomes so subservient to the state that it is unable to issue a prophetic challenge to the actions of those in power.  Yet that was a relationship which Henry VIII sought with the church.  It was precisely the relationship which communist governments achieve by their control of appointments within the churches in the Soviet bloc.  That kind of subservience would have suited some modern governments whose policies have been challenged by religious leaders.  Governments attack the churches for speaking out on public issues, saying that they should “stick to religion”, a favourite cry of ministers in the Thatcher government.

So what is the Biblical basis for Christian involvement in the public sphere?

Most obviously, it can be found in Christ’s insistence that if we fail to care for the sick, the hungry and the imprisoned, we fail Him.  This cannot simply be a command to individual charity, because we know that much medical care requires collective provision of hospitals and medical training: the relief of world hunger requires international action.  Of course, there are legitimate areas of argument about how extensive should be the role of the state and how much can be achieved by private organisations and individual action.  Scripture offers no guidance on the merits or failings of particular systems of banking regulation or health service management but what is abundantly clear from scripture is that when there is need, we cannot pass by on the other side.

Secondly, there is a Biblical tradition of righteous anger at what is plainly wrong.  Josiah discovered from the book of the Law was that “the Lord is angry with us”.  The Christian denunciation of slavery and racism follow in a prophetic line from the denunciation by the prophets of corruption in Israel to Jesus’ anger at the activities of the temple money-changers.  I recall the words of a political colleague – “Never waste good anger”.  Passionate to right wrongs – Gladstone was, and so should we be.

Then there is a clear Biblical concept that we are but stewards of this plandet – “The earth is the Lord’s” – and we will therefore be held to account for polluting it or wasting its resources.  Environmental issues are key issues for Christians.

Then there is a recurring Biblical theme that God’s kingdom is a kingdom of justice and peace.  The primacy of these objectives has been the driving force for much of the involvement of many Christians in politics.  Other related Biblical concepts have found an appeal beyond the ranks of believers. The theme of Jubilee, the celebration year in which debts are forgiven, was applied in the campaign to tackle the crippling indebtedness of some of the poorest countries in the world.

And there is also a sense in which Christians are called to undertake public responsibilities in answer to the requirement that we should “bear one another’s burdens” and “go the extra mile”.  I am not thinking of those of us who earn our living in politics, but of the many people who give up their time in the voluntary political work which is essential to the functioning of a democracy but which not everyone is prepared to undertake. 

Is there a basis for Christian conduct in public affairs which can be expounded from Biblical sources, which does not pretend to be a program?  I don’t think Christianity is about having a party program on which you can tick the boxes and say that this exactly conforms to our understanding of the application of scripture in our own time.  We could never secure agreement between Christians for such a program and when you try to do it you get the weirdest effects.  In America, the ‘Moral Majority’ movement (the precursor of the neo-cons of more recent years) used to have the most amazing box ticking lists on which opposition to abortion, support for handguns and opposition to the Panama Canal Treaty were all boxes that you had to tick.  It’s possible to have a variety of views on this range of subjects and still be a believing Christian, but not so far as the Moral Majority were concerned.  What the Moral Majority really was, and what much Republican attempts to appeal to evangelicals have been is a political campaign to dragoon people of particular religious views behind particular political causes.

It seems to me there are much more broadly based components for a Christian basis of conducting public affairs.  To begin with, the individual Christian should be meticulous in carrying out the most basic civic responsibility of voting, after responsible consideration.  To do so is part of “promoting the welfare of the cities to which you are exiled”, in Jeremiah’s terms; of giving Caesar what is his due.  It may require us to tackle head-on the cynicism which dismisses all politicians as totally self-serving and corrupt and all political activity as pointless.  As Christians we probably have a responsibility to be amongst those who tackle that deep cyncism which is a great disservice to the entire political process.

Then the Christian must consider whether to take some further part in the political process, perhaps through involvement in democratic office, perhaps in a pressure group, or in public debate and discussion.

Further, Christians have a responsibility as part of their proclamation of the Gospel to speak up for the poor and the oppressed, to challenge such evils as selfishness and materialism.  If there is no prophetic witness to challenge both government and society, the Gospel is not being proclaimed.

In exceptional times and places, an honest Christian witness may require the outright rejection of oppressive institutions.  So it was when Dietrich Bonhoeffer took part in the plot to kill Hitler.  So it was when the Polish Catholic church provided a focus for the relatively peaceful overthrow of the authoritarian Communist regime, and protestant pastors in East Germany, Romania and the Czech Republic assisted the reform movements which brought about similar changes in their countries.  In a society such as ours, where there are democratic means to achieve political change, there is a different responsibility on the Christian to have regard to the need to maintain those democratic processes rather than imperil their capacity to uphold justice and peace by any resorting to extra-democratic methods, however compelling the cause.  The threshold of justification for civil disobedience in a generally free society has to be a much higher one than it would be where such freedoms do not exist.

A further Biblical basis for Christian conduct in public affairs, as indeed in business affairs, must be one of Christian integrity:  letting your “yea be yea and your nay be nay”, giving an honest account as a steward of other people’s money and other people’s rights, challenging corruption and abuse of power.  The Christian grace of humility is positively discouraged through the political world.  It is off message to suggest that you don’t have all the answers, that you don’t embody all the talents.  It is thought bad for your political prospects to admit that you might have been wrong.  That’s another Christian virtue that we ought to find a place for in public life.

There are many dilemmas for the Christian in politics.  To what extent are you entitled, if you are elected to public office, to act on the basis of firm convictions which are not shared by the vast majority of those you represent?  The convinced pacifist cannot insist that the nation disarms in the face of an armed threat: his constituents will expect him to ensure that they are protected. 

How far can the power of the state be used to relieve poverty before it reaches a point where its work collapses under the weight of its own incompetence or it loses democratic support for the taxation it requires?  If you are opposed to abortion, how far can you use the framework of law to enforce your view?  I reject the view that the abortion issue is entirely about the choice of the mother or the rights of the mother, two lives are involved. So the State cannot avoid some involvement in deciding upon a legal framework, even if it is a minimal position not allowing the wilful destruction of a full-term baby.  The State doesn’t allow infanticide therefore the state has to have a position about what point you protect the unborn.  It is a clash of freedoms where two lives are involved, its not a simple rights on one side issue.  How far is the state entitled to limit the use of scientific skills and techniques in areas like fertility and embryology, which some think will lead to cures for disabling illness and others oppose in principle?  Does sovereignty have much significance when decisions about the environment or about third world poverty can only have any useful effect if they are taken on the widest possible international scale?

The Christian religion does not absolve its believers from the task of thinking things out for themselves.  It challenges them to do so by the application of important principles.  Those principles have to be applied in widely differing circumstances.

I was asked the other day when I was being interviewed by Paul Richardson for the Church of England Newspaper “Is it more difficult to be a Christian involved in politics now?”  He admitted he was prompted to ask this partly by the experience of Ruth Kelly, I don’t think we should read into her experience something that she hasn’t said, but the feeling that she was under particularly strong attack for being a Roman Catholic and having particularly strong views on a piece of legislation the government was putting through. She was subject to further attack for her membership of Opus Dei.  I argued that it is actually no more difficult to be a Christian in politics than it is to be a Christian running a shop, a Christian organising a private sector organisation or indeed running a care home or any of a wide variety of other activities.  One of the hardest places to be a Christian is in Christian ministry.  Nor do I think that it is inherently more difficult now to be a Christian than at other times.  In some senses we have been through a relatively easier period, not for achieving Christian objectives in politics, but a period where being a Christian in politics probably wasn’t a bad thing, unless you pushed it too hard and wore it too much on your sleeve.  A Christian might be thought to be a bit more honest, might be less likely to have their hand in the till and generally be not a bad thing.  That moderately approving attitude may now have gone, partly because of the fear, bred of misunderstanding, that all religious views are necessarily intolerant and promoting of conflict.  There is a view that all the problems in Northern Ireland are due to religion, but actually it’s a community divide partly expressed in religious terms.  This is challenge but also an opportunity for us to present what Christianity really is about.  I don’t think it is any more difficult than it was for Gladstone and some of the dilemmas that he faced and certainly not as difficult as for those people who were actually excluded from political action by the Christian denomination they belonged to, whether they were Catholics or Quakers or whatever in the early years of the nineteenth century or actively persecuted in the centuries before that or in other countries today for their religious beliefs.  I don’t accept the argument that it is uniquely difficult to be a Christian in politics, or that it is more difficult now than it was before.

So whatever Alistair Campbell thinks, we can DO GOD, if I may use his rather clumsy expression.  Those of use who are rooted in faith will serve people of all views better if we let our faith work. 

I believe that we have obligations to God, and that His anger confronts us for the wrongs we allow to continue.  We commit ourselves to play some part in righting those wrongs.  We should consider carefully the practical and political implications of applying these principles.  We should seek to build the widest possible popular consent for good government in which these principles, many of them widely shared beyond the ranks of the Christian Church, are respected.  But having done so, we should remember that no government programme will ever totally enshrine Christian thinking, which will always be diverse.  We should remember that no government is exempt from prophetic challenge:  governments and parliaments are human institutions in which God can be served but which can never be the image of God.

Religion cannot and should not be excluded from what is now referred to as the “the public space”.  In countries where there is a formal separation of church and state, notably the United States, religion still asserts itself powerfully in political debate.  In countries with a history of ecclesiastical establishment or of parties with a definite religious background, it is absurd and ultimately futile to pretend that this history has not had a shaping effect on the country’s character and politics, or to try and remove and efface that historic effect.  However, in 21^st Century Britain, Christianity will not be the only religion or the only form of belief which makes claims on the political system.  When we speak of religion in politics, we will not be able to do so as Parson Thwackum did in Fielding’s Tom Jones:-

“When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion, and not

only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only

 the Protestant religion, but the Church of England.”

Faith groups will sometimes disagree, but they will often make common cause.  A passion to serve God will help to fuel good and noble political purposes in areas such as world peace, the right against poverty and the freeing of the oppressed.  But when religious and secular passions turn into intolerance, it is my hope that passionate Liberals will fight with equal determination for freedom. Gladstone saw that there was no incompatibility between denouncing Godless oppression and defending the rights of an atheist. 

Liberal Democrats seek to create a liberal society in which great differences of opinion can be resolved or accommodated through orderly and broadly-based constitutional government and the defence of basic rights and freedoms, in an atmosphere of mutual respect.  Passion is required to create and defend such a society, and passion to do good based on religious belief is needed and valuable within such a society.  The tolerance which is a hallmark of liberalism does not rest upon a visionless and lifeless political creed, but on a passion to serve humanity without enslaving it.

(Baroness Shirley Williams) I’d like to thank Alan for what was a very wise and very thoughtful lecture.  The question I want to ask is quite a difficult one for our own party, what do you think is the proper balance between a free vote and a whipped vote?  Clearly if there are only free votes you cannot deliver any kind of programme, but if all key decisions are whipped, you put people in the position (for example with hybrid embryos) that they have to decide between their conscience and their party.

I think the first thing you have to do is distinguish between different situations.  For a party to deliver a programme they have to be able to count on your vote when perhaps you didn’t win the day.  That is quite different from when you have strongly held view on conscientious grounds that something is fundamentally wrong.  That is when parties are wise to accept the need for free votes, but in the end you make the decision.  Our party has always given free votes on the abortion issue, but if I was actually required to vote for a position on abortion which is fundamentally objectionable to me, having taken into account that the law can’t simply be an expression of my belief but should be about deciding the state’s responsibility in this area, then at the end of the day, whatever the Whips said, I would have to treat it as a free vote and take the consequences.  A martyr is not a martyr if he is not prepared to take the consequences of his actions.  It would be for the Party and my local constituency to decide whether I had taken a step too far.  Ultimately the final decision on a conscience issue is your own.  I don’t say that very often in case it encourages people to vote all over the place when the party’s ability to do anything at all requires working together!

I have always felt as a Liberal that there is a conflict with having an established church, but in recent years my experience as a local councillor has shown me the value of it.  Do you think the party should change its position on disestablishment to reflect the change in the nature of establishment?

I think there is a lot of confusion over the fact that the established church today is not the established church of one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago.  It’s no longer really claiming privileges which exclude others.  I think that most people take a pretty pragmatic view about it, prepared to see the advantages but also aware of the disadvantages.  The most powerful arguments for disestablishment in my mind come from those within the church who regard it as an encumbrance and are concerned about the state’s role in appointments.  In practice, my Committee took evidence about this, many of the Parishes find that the involvement of Number 10 in appointments a better service than that of the Dioceses, probably because they have more money to do it with. If the Church of England decides it wants disestablishment, that is fine.  What I think has gone is any serious pressure from anyone other than the secularists for disestablishment as a means of getting rid of privileges.  Amongst other Christians, and to some extent among Muslims, there has come to be a view that disestablishment might further add to the pressure to remove religion from public life and society.  I don’t see the point of pretending that we haven’t come to where we are by the route of having an established Church which has changed out of all recognition since the days of Henry VIII.

In the States we have the technical separation of Church and State but religion still plays a big role in public life – how do you account for that?

Some people argue that because we are a diverse society we shouldn’t have an established church, other people argue that because we are a diverse society we shouldn’t have Christmas.  Extreme secularists would seek to expunge all mention of religion from the public space, the disestablishment of the Church of England is a distinct step but these are often run together in media commentary.  Even if these things could be expunged, we are the product of our history and pretty soon these things would reassert themselves one way or other.  It is quite a difficult question in the United States because their supposed separation of Church and State is primarily about there not being an established Church.  Some of the States did originally have established Churches and it was a Federal decision not to have an established church. Yet somehow, “In God we Trust” made it onto banknotes, prayers are said in Congress and there have been many court battles fought about such issues.  All these things will resurface in some way, it seems silly to pretend that our history for the last ten years has been that of the United States.  Take what we’ve got, make what adjustments seem sensible, particularly those necessary to enable people to take part in public life.  The decision to allow affirmations as well as oaths was a reasonable adjustment which stopped someone being denied their freedom to represent those people who had chosen to elect them to the United Kingdom Parliament.   That was a proper adjustment to make and does not require you to abolish the oath.

In the present turbulent economic state of the World, are there any particular points that people of faith could rightly raise?

I think it is both an opportunity and a challenge in the Church’s work with people, because the things in which they have put their trust over the last decade or two – constant economic growth and a secure economic system – have been shown to be very fragile indeed.  That provides an opportunity, but also a challenge - many people will become very distressed, so there is an opportunity for ministry to them.  In public life, some Christians would argue that politicians and the state should have listened to their constant references to the danger of materialism and the danger of heavy reliance on debt.  Indeed Muslims would want to make that claim about the whole way the banking system operates, because Muslims reject the interest system on which it relies.  We need to evolve a Christian approach to rebuilding our societies across the world after such a severe shock as the banking crisis has been, and the many other economic circumstances which will follow from it.  It’s a major task, so let’s hope we get some good Christian writing on it in the near future.

Where do we go from here?

The Christian press have shown some interest.  I have written a book in which some of these points are developed further.  In preparing today’s lecture I moved on quite a bit to examine some of Gladstone’s attitudes.  I think we need to do more to assert some crucial things, which is I think a particular job for the Christian Forum. 

First, you can have strong religious views, even conservative religious views, and still propound a liberal society which allows for difference.  There is a real challenge here with the attempt of the right to draw in people of strong religious views on the basis that a right wing government is more likely to ban things that you want banned.  I’m not sure that’s true anymore, because there is a very strong libertarian view on the right as well.  We need to make it clear that there is no conflict between having very strong religious views and saying that it is not the state’s job to carry them out, but to have a system of law which enables people to live together and stops people’s freedom being taken away by crime and violence and things like that.  I think its very important that the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum gets that across. 

Secondly, I think we have to get across to a lot of people in the party  that being a Liberal who defends other people’s rights does not require you to hold the same views as those people.  I really annoy people by saying this, it is possible to believe that homosexual activity is contrary to God’s law and to believe that as a Liberal they should not impair the rights of people to live as they choose.  You’re not much of a Liberal if you only tolerate things you agree with

ENDS