It's tempting to conclude that when the Daily Mail and the Sun
scream at you, you've probably done something right. At least, you've been
noticed. That can't be a bad thing.
But it's Ash Wednesday. We should give up cheap jibes for
Lent. The House of Bishops has issued a Pastoral Letter. It's what bishops do.
But you have to wonder whether the fierce reaction from some parts of the
media comes from people who have bothered to read even a few lines of it. Sad
to say, the voice of sweet reason is already being drowned by shouts of outrage
and foul play.
What has motivated the letter? The Bishops write: 'the
church has an obligation to engage constructively with the political process,
and Christians share responsibility with all citizens to participate in the
democratic structures of our nation. We offer these reflections because we
believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is enormously relevant to the questions
which the coming Election will throw into sharp relief'.
Straight away I am struck by the tone. It is not strident or
hectoring: here is a contribution to a debate that is offered. The letter is
part of a conversation, not its conclusion. Throughout, the register is: we
want to listen, to participate in the public business of helping to frame minds
and hearts before an election. We hope that in turn you will want to hear what
we have to suggest. They could have added 'in all humility' because there is
something genuinely modest about the way this piece is drafted.
I want to use the word formation to describe the tenor of
the letter. It is not, as the Bishops are at pains to remind us, a shopping
list of approved policies. Rather, it's an attempt to shape the minds of the electorate
so that at the very least, the challenges facing us can be accurately
identified and the terms of a real conversation agreed. 'Decent answers to the
questions facing the nation will only emerge when politicians start to promote
a dialogue with the people about a worthwhile society, how individuals,
communities and the nation relate to each other, and [about] the potentials and
limitations of politics in achieving such ends.'
What does a Christian mind bring to the debate about the
future of our nation? The first thing is the belief that it matters to God, and
must therefore matter to us. G. K. Chesterton famously said that the problem
with British elections was not that only a small part of the electorate voted,
but that only a small part of the elector voted: so little was the lack
of conviction about politics and public faith. The Bishops want us to cast
our vote, not in a routine, token way, but by giving the whole of
ourselves to this privileged task of decision-taking in a free democracy.
Formation in citizenship will motivate us to think and talk
about 'a worthwhile society and what it means to serve the common good, and
how politics helps serve that end'. The Bishops are not dreaming of the
unattainable ideal of Athenian democracy under Pericles. They do however dare to hope
that we can shed our cynicism and start believing in politics, politicians and
political processes again. 'This letter is about building a vision of a better
kind of world, a better society and better politics. Underlying those ideas is
the concept of virtue – what it means to be a good person, a good politician, a
good neighbour or a good community.' That's a good example of how the letter
is motivated by a spiritual concern for citizenship, inspired by the theological ideas of justice and compassion in
pursuit of the common good.
Are we a 'society of strangers', or are we a 'community of
communities it asks? And here's the bit the hawkish press don't like. 'There is
a deep contradiction in the attitudes of a society which celebrates equality in
principle yet treats some people, especially the poor and vulnerable, as
unwanted, unvalued and unnoticed. It is particularly counter-productive to denigrate
those who are in need, because this undermines the wider social instinct to
support one another in the community. For instance, when those who rely on
social security payments are all described in terms that imply they are
undeserving, dependent, and ought to be self-sufficient, it deters others from
offering the informal, neighbourly support which could ease some of the burden
of welfare on the state.' If you examine the context, you'll see that this is
not, however, left wing rhetoric, but is based on the vision of David Cameron's
'big society'. What has happened to that noble idea, the Bishops ask, that
'richer narrative of the person-in-community' as they put it?
The letter suggests that 'virtues are nourished, not by
atomised individualism, but in strong communities which relate honestly and
respectfully to other groups and communities which make up this nation'.
And what is true of the nation in itself is also true of its relationships
within the wider world. ' Our politicians have been reluctant to talk openly
with the electorate about Britain’s relationships around the world, the
realignments of global power, a realistic role in securing a stable and
peaceful world order and the tools we would need for the job. In short, we
should reflect more deeply on Britain’s role in generating an international
community of communities.'
Part of this is maintaining the UK's current commitment to
allocating 0.7% of GDP to overseas aid. 'For any party to abandon or reduce
this commitment would be globally irresponsible in pragmatic terms as well as
indicating that the moral imperatives of mutuality and reconciliation counted
for nothing.' But it has to do with being an active player on the global stage.
The Scottish Referendum and its aftermath are an object lesson in taking great
care in this area and not succumbing to the quick fix. And although the Bishops
don't commit to a view about Britain's role within the European Union, they do
underline our 'belonging' to this continent, a clear message to those who would
dismantle our historic and cultural links too hastily.
This blog can only hint at the insight and good
political sense that the House of Bishops' letter demonstrates. They have read
with accuracy the state we're in. I can't recall a document from that source
that was so intelligently written and that spoke with a fairer voice. Whoever
drafted it should be congratulated. Sometimes, when I read what comes out of
'the centre' I want to protest: 'not altogether in my name' Not this
time. I believe it speaks for all Christians, indeed, all fair-minded citizens
of our country, whatever their political views, in setting out the matters that
ought to concern us in the run-up to the election. So I urge you to read it for
yourself. Share it with others; make it the theme of a Lenten study
group.
The letter ends where it began, with St Paul in his letter
to the Philippians, words that may 'help to defend us against the temptations
of apathy, cynicism and blame, and instead seek – because we are disciples of
Jesus Christ who long for a more humane society – a better politics for a
better nation. Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just,
whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is
any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these
things.' Amen to that, I say. What better way to launch this season of
Lent with its invitation to reflect more deeply, seek truth, practise charity,
deepen the ties that bind us together, and learn to be God's people once again?
You can find the Bishops' Pastoral Letter at:
