Liberal Democrat Christian Forum - Liberal Democracy and Christianity

Liberal Democracy and Christianity

Written by Jo Holland
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
This is an edited note of the well-attended LDCF fringe meeting in Brighton; a debate between Nick Spencer (Director of Studies at Theos), Jonathan Bartley (Director of Ekklesia) and Steve Webb MP on ‘what does it mean to be a Christian and a Liberal Democrat?’ The session was chaired by Dave Landrum of the Bible Society. Dave Landrum began by explaining the Bible Society’s interest and involvement, which stems from its desire to cultivate a biblical world view of life in the public square. Dave stressed that he wanted to see an authentic LDCF led by the Word, rooted in the Spirit, and working in the world. Our challenge is to engage with the term ‘liberalism’, as the biggest idea in politics today and an important biblical concept. Paul says in Galatians 5 that “it is for freedom that Christ has set us free”. However, today, many view ‘liberalism’ to mean woolly theology, or libertarianism. The term means different things to different people in different contexts. Nick Spencer of Theos spoke about the similarities and tensions between political liberalism and Christianity. He started by emphasising that political liberalism is about justice. Its historical roots lie in combating the social systems that have given certain people unmerited advantages in life and ignored or, worse, actively handicapped others. This is resonant with the Christian message, as is the recognition of people’s moral capacities and the aim to give them as opportunity to construct their own lives. The Judeo-Christian tradition stresses the moral nature of human beings, but Paul also warns of the dangers of misusing our freedom: “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak,” (1 Corinthians 8.9). There are real tensions, said Nick, between political liberalism and Christianity, which go beyond the question of balancing rights with responsibilities. The vision of human nature that has underpinned political liberalism since the time of Mill is of independent, rational, morally autonomous, sovereign beings, exercising considered choice in such a way as to maximise their well-being. However, Christian thinkers from across the denominations agree that humans are relational beings before they are autonomous ones: Christianity is about the rupture and reconciliation of relationships. Freedom and choice are critically important in this, but they are means to the ends of relationships, not ends in themselves. Political liberalism prioritises choice as the ultimate good whilst Christianity values choice but prioritises relationships, on the basis that we are moral beings for whom loving relationships are the ultimate good. In concrete terms, Nick argued that this means that a Christian polity should signal a preference for marriage over other forms of partnership; protect children from a rapacious consumer culture; limit the availability of drink, drugs, credit, and opportunities to gamble; and restrict our socially and environmentally destructive habits of hypermobility. In other words, it means limiting liberty; prioritising the right over the good; and surrendering liberty for the sake of freedom. Jonathan Bartley of Ekklesia talked about the perceived liberal/evangelical divide in theChristian church. He started by saying that labels – in Christianity and in politics – have become less and less meaningful, and argued that we should not treat Christians as a homogenous group. One of the defining qualities of liberal politics is that it does not focus on a narrow set of issues around marriage, abortion and homosexuality, which are associated with evangelical Christianity. He suggested that theologically liberal Christians are harder to define as they are not unified by such a set of beliefs. Both ‘wings’ of the church, he said, have tried to seize control of the church and impose their own vision of a good society upon others. However, in order to overcome this divide between evangelical and liberal, we need to set one another free from our cultural baggage and debate among ourselves the society we would like to see in the new Kingdom. Jonathan warned against trying to set out a liberal philosophy and then trying to align it with a Lib Dem political theology, and against seeing church-goers as a homogenous voting block. He did however set out three areas of theology that political liberals could identify with, and which could perhaps bring evangelicals and liberals together across the theological divide. 1) Atonement: what happened on the cross profoundly affects our view of justice. Does justice come when atonement is made or when punishment is given? Our views on this issue can lead us to support either restorative justice or greater imprisonment. The established church has long focused on a punitive view of justice, but as the church holds an increasingly less privileged role in society, it is also gradually moving towards a more subversive view, and identifying with the punished rather than with the punishers. This theological shift offers a freedom to re-imagine what justice means in political terms. 2) Theology of the kingdom of God: Jesus preached the good news of the kingdom of God before He was crucified, and His message was deliberately political. This theology is a relatively new part of evangelical thinking, although it forms a well-established strand of liberal theology. 3) Eschatology: looking at our ethics in terms of the ‘end times’. This includes the idea of a fallen world being redeemed. However, we are called to live according to the values of the new kingdom now, as well as looking forward to a tangible new heaven and earth. This can be a unifying theological idea for both evangelicals and liberals. Steve Webb MP spoke about the challenges of being a Christian in the political sphere. He began by suggesting that many churches were surprised to learn that there are such things as Christian politicians. In fact, there are many Christians in Westminster, although the majority are Conservatives politically. Steve’s perception is that as soon as the word ‘liberal’ is mentioned, many Christians’ minds fog over with a presumption that if you are liberal, then you must be amoral, “in order to overcome this divide between evangelical and liberal, we need to set one another free from our cultural baggage” and not believe in anything. He therefore aims to shock such audiences by stating that God is a liberal! But he also passionately believes this is true. Non-liberals often view government in terms of making people do things, or stopping people doing things; for example passing more ‘moral’ laws. But God did not do this. Governments are not perfect and do not know what is perfectly right for people, yet God – who is perfect and does know what is best – lets us choose freely to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to Him. There must be something so valuable about the freedom to choose – something so fundamentally precious to him, that even if the result was that the whole of creation turned against Him and killed His only Son, He would still give us that freedom. Steve challenged us to think about this in government terms. If the Government knew that you would abuse the freedom it gave you, it would pull the levers of power even harder to prevent this. But God did not do this. Steve also challenged Nick’s suggestion that relationships are more important than freedom. Instead, he suggested, relationships are founded on freedom. What is the liberal approach to morality, he asked? It’s not just about sex! Christians who write to MPs are angry about the sexual activities of others. But God says that those who are angry will be judged just as those who are unrepentant: “...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3: 23-24) We have all sinned and fall short. Hopefully this is something that conservative Christians agree with and liberal Christians can embrace. If this can happen, we can seek more common ground between the two strands. The idea of freedom is profoundly liberal, and we need to start with our common ground: the Bible. Nick had said that people will abuse freedom, and so we need to limit that freedom for our own common good. Steve suggested that we have to allow this abuse, as freedom is fundamental to who we are, and if we take that away, we take away who we are in the sight of God.

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]