Christian politics and the crisis of language -Oct 22, 2003

If supporting the New Labour government had been difficult before, the Iraq war has, for many, made the task virtually impossible. Impossible for many on the left because a unilateral American attack with clear economic motives goes firmly against the grain. And impossible for many Christians because the very idea of “pre-emptive violence” is an intolerable distortion of Gospel ethics.

This reckless departure from international law and public opinion may yet prove to be the most serious breach of public confidence in the political system that this country has seen in many years. Distrust of politicians is high and people are quite rightly asking what part they can play in social change when those in power appear to act according to their own agendas and against established moral reason.

The crisis of contemporary political discourse is exemplified in the recent publication of the “Compass” statement by the directors of several of the UK’s leading political think tanks. They bemoan “the blow dealt to international governance and progressive multilateralism by the war with Iraq”. But far more seriously, they criticise the Government for “ideological timidity” and policies that cause “unnecessary damaging conflict with Labour MPs, members and affiliates”. Quite right, we may say, but this sudden appeal for radicalism loses some of its edge when we realise that many of the signatories to this statement are not innocent of this insipid brand of politics themselves. Some of them are the very high-flying policy wonks who have privatised political thinking and colluded with the emasculation of grassroots activism. The needle on their “compass” now seems to have turned 180 degrees. Even former governmental advisors have become Job’s comforters to the Prime Minister’s.

The combination of unprincipled violence and the sheer vacuity of so much policy-talk must lead us to question how much Christians in politics also collude with this post-ideological culture. Balancing faith and politics will always involve compromise, as does any Christian engagement with God’s fallen and broken creation. But there must come a point when we are unable to satisfy ourselves that “ends justifies means” and perhaps then it is time to question our Christian calling within the system. Should we question whether we are obedient to the Gospel if we simply take up our allotted place in the tame and impotent arena that is civil society? Is it time to ask how much Christians can really achieve using the vocabulary of such a depressingly inadequate political climate?

The removal of theological language from public life has occurred over the course of the modern era and has been based on the idea that the secular state is the only way to sustain social order. Like other European countries, early modern Britain was awash with the blood of religious conflict and the British political system emerged as a structure of only nominal religious interest, designed to unite the Kingdom according to the principles of secular reason. Thomas Hobbes’ model of the nation state, Leviathan, subordinates the Church and its teachings to the codes and punishments of the civil power. As a result the empirical language of the state has consumed the Christian language of communion, love and abundance. Christian words that formerly carried strong socio-political resonances, such as “charity”, have now come to be understood in highly individualised terms.

The post-modern era has brought with it a new appreciation of the importance of language in shaping our actions and goals. It can only be expected that the loss of theological language has resulted in the loss of Christian vision. It is not enough to base Christian politics on well-intentioned but ungrounded religious sentiments. Theology and doctrine regulates Christian thinking and action. We cannot oppose the curse of individualism unless we see human reality itself as most fully expressed in participation in the Trinitarian life of God. We cannot challenge xenophobia and prejudice against asylum seekers unless we assert the catholicity of our faith and the call for all people to become citizens of God’s kingdom.

This is not a call for a return to medieval sovereignty of the church. Neither is it romanticism for either anarchy or Christian totalitarianism. It is however a call to be confident. At a time when the emptiness and inadequacy of so much political discourse has been tragically exposed, Christians must have a greater appreciation of the political demands of the tenets of their faith. We must begin to reclaim the public sphere with our own language or at least take ownership of that theo-political language within our own churches. Perhaps then we could end this ludicrous and shameful situation where the only thing we project confidently to the world is our own angst about sex – an area of life which is so personalised and trivial that the modern church feels entirely at home there.

Rowan Williams warned that speaking with a Christian voice is “to risk having nothing to say that power can hear”. He knows this from his own efforts to influence policy towards Iraq this year. But ultimately it is the only language that he and the rest of us who follow Jesus can speak. In contrast to so much policy and management-speak, it is meaningful language because it is descriptive of truth. And if we can speak it with the integrity of social and political activists who look always to Christ, the Truth will set us all free.



James Walters is a former Parliamentary Assistant to a Labour MP and freelance policy researcher. He is now training for ordination in the Anglican Church and studying for a doctorate in globalisation and ecclesiology at Cambridge University.