You are here:   Ethnicity > Breaking Faith With Britain
 
As I survey the field, what do I see? I find, first of all, “a descending theme” in terms of Christian influence. That is to say, I find that the systems of governance, of the rule of law, of the assumption of trust in common life all find their inspiration in Scripture; for example, in the Pauline doctrine of the godly magistrate and, ultimately, in the Christian doctrine of God the Holy Trinity, where you have both an ordered relationship and a mutuality of love. As Joan O’Donovan has pointed out, the notion of God’s right, or God’s justice, produced a network of divine, human and natural law which was the basis of a just ordering of society and also of a mutual sense of obligation “one towards another”, as we say at Prayers for the Parliament. Such a descending theme of influence continues to permeate society, but is especially focused in constitutional arrangements, such as the “Queen in Parliament under God”, the Queen’s Speech (which always ends with a prayer for Almighty God to bless the counsels of the assembled Parliament), daily prayers in Parliament, the presence of bishops in the House of Lords, the national flag, the national anthem — the list could go on. None of this should be seen as “icing on the cake” or as interesting and tourist-friendly vestigial elements left over from the Middle Ages. They have the purpose of weaving the awareness of God into the body politic of the nation.

In addition to this “descending theme”, there is also what we might call the “ascending theme”, which comes up from below to animate debate and policy-making in the institutions of state. Much of this has to do with our estimate of the human person and how that affects the business of making law and of governance. Such an estimate goes right back to the rediscovery of Aristotle by Europe — a rediscovery, incidentally, made possible by the work of largely Christian translators in the Islamic world. These translators made Aristotle, and much else besides, available to the Muslims, who used it, commented upon it and passed it on to Western Europe. One of the features of the rediscovery was a further appreciation of the human person as agent by Christian thinkers such as St Thomas Aquinas. They were driven to read the Bible in the light of Aristotle and this had several results which remain important for us today.

One was the discovery of conscience. If the individual is morally and spiritually responsible before God, then we have to think also of how conscience is formed by the Word of God and the Church’s proclamation of it so that freedom can be exercised responsibly. Another result was the emergence of the idea that because human beings were moral agents, their consent was needed in the business of governance. It is not enough now simply to draw on notions of God’s justice for patterns of government. We need also the consent of the governed who have been made in God’s image (a term which comes into the foreground). This dual emphasis on conscience and consent led to people being seen as citizens rather than merely as subjects.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Norman Hanscombe
June 2nd, 2008
3:06 AM
What a shame fundamentalists of all stipes, be they theists or non-theists, Marxists or Enlightenment Faithful, or anything else, all want to place the blame for the planet's problems at the door of the blind unquestioning beliefs of the adherents of other "answers". None is really interested in examining the role of human nature too carefully, because one thing all faiths have in common is that what they find doesn't always support the kind of "solution" that's too dear to their hearts to risk tight analysis which will endanger their (often noble) plans. Even universities began shying away from analysing popular accepted secular articles of faith in the sixties, so why should religions be held to a higher standard? If we're not careful, next thing you know we'll be questioning astrology, ouija boards, and other growth industries of the sixties. p.s. Your spam test is so difficult to interpret that I began to wonder if I really am human.

Peter Brawley
June 1st, 2008
5:06 PM
To Bill Hensley: A reasonable, testable explanation for the empirical finding is that religion trains people into irrationality & intolerance, & away from critical, mature thought. Of course a good empirical test would have to distinguish other effects & variables, eg effects of some religious activities on social cohesion.

Bill Hensley
June 1st, 2008
12:06 PM
Now we have gotten quite specific, Peter. I wonder if you could sketch for me the causal link between Christianity and criminality in the Western democracies.

Peter Brawley
June 1st, 2008
2:06 AM
To Bill Hensley: Religious and irreligious peoples alike have committed great atrocities. That argument doesn’t favour religion. Nor does the argument that christianity had some civilising influence in some earlier, more barbarous times. Amongst western democracies, the more religious a society is, the more criminal and disordered it is. Within such democracies, the more religious the area, the more criminal it is. Not accidental. Religion intentionally and explicitly teaches irrationality, stupidity and intolerance. True, it gives lip service to kinder doctrines. So do Islam and the rest. But the kernel of its instruction is to believe the dogma or be damned.

Bill Hensley
May 31st, 2008
5:05 PM
To Peter Brawley: You can as well argue the opposite. The greatest atrocities of the past century have been committed by nations which overtly discarded religion and sought to eliminate its influence. I would also argue that it is a mistake to lump all religions together when you make such sweeping broadsides as "Overall, the more religious a society is, the more crime, poverty, tyranny etc it suffers." With Bishop Nazir-Ali, I argue for the distinctiveness of Christianity as a civilizing influence in human culture. I would agree with you that the Islamic doctrine of jihad, the Hindu caste system, and the fatalism of Buddhist thought are negative influences to be resisted. I would put these in stark contrast to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and and with all your strength and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Oliver Cromwell
May 31st, 2008
12:05 PM
Right on , Rochester! A man after my own heart.

FR Colin Griffiths.S.S.M.
May 31st, 2008
10:05 AM
As an Australian Citizen I am pleased to see Standpoint give such prominace to an article by a Bishop.I feel it is a very good piece , but I am uncomforable with it's general message. Would we be truly in a better place with leaders who were truly confessinfg christians. George Bush certainly gave the impression that he was a christian leader, it has been reported thathis administration made over 900 lies in the lead up to the Iraq war. His former press sectary alleges that his main purpose in going to war was a determination for re election. Jesus called us to laven in the lump , not to be agents of contol and donination.

Peter Brawley
May 31st, 2008
4:05 AM
In the UK and Northern Europe, dignity, equality, liberty, democracy, human rights, freedom of conscience, respect for the common good and hospitality became social & political realities not least via rebellion against established religion. These values "stand more strongly" in mainly irreligious societies than in more religious ones---because over the last hundred years or so, worthies in those countries had the wit to toss out idiotic religious superstitions in favour of secularism & humanism. Overall, the more religious a society is, the more crime, poverty, tyranny etc it suffers. That's no accident. Religion debilitates. To argue that we should bring back religion---christian or muslim---is incredibly stupid.

the deity formerly known as nigel6888
May 30th, 2008
10:05 PM
Congratulations on this piece. I and many like me are devastated and disappointed that the Christian faith, and its apparent leaders lack the moral fortitude to defend their corner. My Christianity is unashamedly of the muscular variety, I am intensely proud of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and am very much conscious that western civilisation would not exist without it. That is, without this tradition, there would be no "human rights" "womens rights", electricity, industrial revolution, etc etc.

Bill Hensley
May 30th, 2008
8:05 PM
To Brian: And on what alternate base would you establish the values of dignity, equality, liberty, safety and hospitality, which are essential to the formation of a civil society? These hard-won principles arose from the Christian tradition which you now seek to discard. They will not stand on their own.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.