Blair's use of the G-word -Mar 6, 2006

Tony Blair’s comments on ITV1’s Parkinson were reported around the world even before they had been aired. Relatives of soldiers who have died in Iraq, as well as anti-war campaigners expressed a mixture of disbelief and anger at the Prime Minister’s admission that he prayed about the decision to invade, as well as his claim that God would ultimately judge whether it was right or wrong.

It has led somewhat inevitably to calls from committed secularists such as Evan Harris MP for politicians to tone down their God talk. The real problem however is not how loudly the G-word is shouted. It is the way that the Almighty is invoked. Blair has told us that he and Bush do not pray together, but they both appear to believe that God is on their side.

This immediately throws up serious problems about the equation of the US and UK with Christianity in the Muslim world. It will undoubtedly remind many of Bush’s comments about a ‘crusade’ in Iraq. The timing could not be worse, given the violence that has erupted between Christians and Muslims following the publication of the controversial cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

A not-so-noticed noticed danger however lies less in the apparent partnership between Blair and God, or indeed Blair and Bush, but in another relationship that has emerged during the current controversy.

It would be hard to find two political figures who were more different than Anne Widdecombe and Tony Blair. Widdecombe rarely misses a chance to have a dig at the Labour leader. But no sooner had the Prime Minister’s controversial comments been broadcast, than up popped the veteran MP saying that she couldn’t see what all the fuss was about.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Sunday Programme the former Home Office minister admitted that she too had prayed for guidance – particularly in making decisions about who to release from prison and who to keep under lock and key. In saying that he would one day be judged by God for the actions he took over Iraq, Tony Blair was simply stating the obvious for the Catholic MP.

At first the logic seems plausible. There are dozens, if not hundreds professing an active Christian faith in the House of Commons (more than the proportion of the wider population if you add up the memberships of the formal Christian groupings within each party). Presumably most pray for guidance on a daily basis - and also believe in a Judgment Day.

Former Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell famously said; “We don’t do God”. But for many Parliamentarians, including the Prime Minister, this just isn’t the case. Even before he reached the top spot, in several interviews the Labour leader talked openly about the impact of his faith on his politics. Some newspapers even ran headlines attributing the future Prime Minister with the belief that Christians should vote Labour. By all accounts his deeply held faith has been a consistent feature of his premiership.

But in the absence of Campbell, unlikely though it may seem, Anne Widdecombe has become the Prime Minister’s apologist on religious issues.

There are two beliefs held jointly by Blair, Widdecombe and indeed many other politicians, that cement them together in a holy alliance around God and politics. The first is that religion relates primarily to the personal. That is to say that faith is an essentially private matter relating to conscience and personal decision-making – albeit on public issues such as prison or going to war. The second is to apply issues of accountability primarily to the life to come, not to judgment in this one. Religion is about people’s eternal souls, not challenging decisions made in the here and now.

Blair and Widdecombe may claim that their political vision is shaped by their faith. Their religious beliefs however, have in turn been conditioned by Christendom – a relationship of church and government that is only now coming to an end in Western Europe after 1700 years. Under such arrangements, where the church had a position of power and influence, Jesus’ teachings about forgiveness, love of enemies and ‘turning the other cheek’ were too awkward for both church and state which were involved in the waging of war, imprisonment and coercion. This led to political views which played down the more radical role of the church in criticising government, whilst playing up instead the personal side of the faith and its eternal hope.

Within post-Christendom, the church is now exercising its more prophetic side with greater frequency, and this leaves Christian politicians in an awkward position. The extent that this is true was apparent in the opposition from the churches to the invasion of Iraq. Blair was warned repeatedly by church leaders that military action would be the wrong course to take. Even the Pope reportedly told Blair that he was mistaken when he tried to make the case for war to the Vatican. Nor was it just those Christians who hold pacifist positions who proposed that the war was both immoral and inadvisable. Those who held “just war” positions – that war in always evil, but sometimes necessary – also indicated in no uncertain terms why they thought it would be wrong to go to war.

The appeals from the churches came from outside the UK too. As Jim Wallis, dubbed “Gordon Brown’s Guru” by many newspapers during his recent visit to the UK has pointed out, US church leaders offered Blair a “third way” on Iraq. After Bush refused to see the leaders of the main Christian denominations in the US, Clare Short organized a meeting with the Prime Minister instead. The church leaders met for an hour with Blair, and discussed a longer-term strategy of removing Saddam Hussein, without the need for military action.

Following their encounter with Blair, the church leaders were asked why the US President wouldn’t see them. Their response was; “when someone has a Messiah complex they don’t like it if religious leaders challenge them.”

At a time when some are warning that history might be repeating itself, but this time in the context of Iran, it is vital that the lessons of Iraq are learned. Blair may be less sensitive than Bush, but he too is vulnerable in the face of criticism from church leaders. And in making his most recent comments, the Prime Minister has once again moved the debate onto the church’s territory. Blair has suggested that God will be his judge. This affords an opportunity for the churches to speak up and suggest that God might have, in fact, already reached a judgment on this very public matter. They might point out too that God’s judgment applies not just to the afterlife, but to the life here and now - and they have a pretty good idea what the judgment might be.

Jonathan Bartley has worked in the House of Commons with MPs from across the political parties, including one Prime minister. He is author of "The Subversive Manifesto: Lifting the lid on God's political agenda" (BRF; 2003)and the forthcoming "Faith and Politics After Christendom" (Paternoster, July 2006)