Mixing God and politics (bit of a grumble)

Time for a bit of a winge (you were warned). Now that the labour leadership election is hotting up, I'm starting to hear quite a lot about it on Twitter, email, etc., probably reflecting the fact that a lot of the Anglican clergy are a bit left-leaning. Nothing wrong with that, I hasten to add, but I still want to renew my plea to Christian leaders to keep their political allegiances to themselves.

Why? It's not because politics and religion don't mix - they do. Christians ought to speak out about the big social issues of the day, and stand up to politicians when policy is wrong. The Church of England has a long and glorious tradition of irritating the heck out of Government by making the point that God does have a lot to say about politics. This, by and large, is a healthy thing (as long as we get our facts right, otherwise it's a bit embarrassing). Nor is my problem with Christians in general getting involved in politics. Party politics is an integral part of the democratic system, and anyone who wants to get in there and make a difference needs to join a party.

What makes me twitchy is when I hear people who are known publicly as Christian leaders - clergy, pastors, etc - promoting their political loyalties. And that's the nub of this: of course ministers should have political opinions, but should they have political allegiances? I would really prefer them not to, for two reasons:
One - it creates a clash of loyalties. It's very difficult to take that courageous stance against the government if you happen to be a member of their party. You could end up in a position where you have a prophetic critical witness one day, and the next day you go very quiet because your lot have got in. This is very seedy.

The second reason is what it does to your witness. The church is called to reach out to everybody, without exception (see previous post, and loads of posts before that). As ministers, we are the public face of that mission. I don't really see how I can really reach out to everyone if I'm simultaneously saying "vote David" or "vote Lib Dem", or whoever else. Doesn't that send out the signal that the gospel is only for the people who vote the way I do? I think it does. Just saying.

Comments

Stuart said…
I agree and have come to a similar conclusion myself, so all in all, it didn't seem that much of a winge to me.
September 1, 2010 at 10:32 PM
Andii said…
I agree that the danger of losing an audience unnecessarily because they throw out the baby with the bathwater of ones political interpretation is a real one. On the other hand I think that losing the chance to show how Christian convictions con relate or even translate into political approaches is actually a chance to -well- witness to the gospel.

However, holding the tension between those two things is not an easy job. I'd rather that when speaking about matters political, Christians with representative credentials and kudos spoke with a little more modesty about their political conclusions. In specific: recognising that Christians of good faith may come to different positions because they may differ about priorities; speak of which core Christian convictions point them towards what principles in public life and policy.

In that sense I do agree that we should be wary of saying 'Vote for David...'. I'd rather we took an attitude of saying: these are gospel priorities as I see them; look at candidates and ask which best seem to be able to translate as many of those into public fact as possible.

Most of all, I think this all means that we should be opening up space/time in our congregations to consider 'public theology' as an ongoing matter of Christian formation.
September 7, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delia Knox - Miracles and healing, cynicism or wonder?

Today the story of Delia Knox has jumped out of Christian subculture into the mainstream UK media, with this story on the Daily Mail website. Knox is filmed leaving her wheelchair after being prayed for at the Bay of the Holy Spirit Revival in Mobile, Alabama. Watch the 13 minute video embedded there, if you can. Most people will have one of two reactions to this: either you will be deeply moved, or you will find yourself overwhelmingly cynical about the whole thing. The second of the two seems to be the reaction of choice for Mail Online readers, who queue in droves in the comments section to pour scorn on the whole thing. Why are people sceptical about spiritual and miraculous healing? Mostly because they simply don't believe it. The prevailing secular atheist worldview has no slot available for this kind of thing - it simply doesn't happen (although a more thoughtful and informed atheist might allow for some kind of psychosomatic factor in healing). But even among those w...
Read more

let the vicar have a day off

I began writing this on Tuesday, my usual day off. Not normally a day when I would be hunched over the keyboard, but this week I had the time because I'm luxuriating in a whole week off. A perfectly usual experience, except in the case of vicars, when the idea of a "week off" becomes quite complex and problematic. Last week on Twitter I intercepted someone's tweet who had spotted a clergy friend who was enjoying an entertaining day out. His reply was along the lines of "blimey, what it is to be a vicar and live the life of Riley" etc. I have no complaint against this person, who is a good guy and obviously meant no harm. It was just a variant on the age-old witticism that every parish priest hears on a more or less weekly basis, "of course you only work on Sundays, don't you?" There are a few versions of this, my personal favourite being "not another holiday?" if one takes leave at any time within about a year of having previously d...
Read more

lessons from the Cornwall B&B case

Comment is called for on the judgement in the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull , because it is a significant one, and because of the Cornish connection. While some of the responses have been predictable and stereotyped, most commentators have recognised that Judge Andrew Rutherford has treated the Bulls with respect, even though he has found against them. The case turned on the principle that Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, as civil partners, were entitled to the same rights under law as a married couple. This meant that the Bull's argument that they would equally discriminate against an unmarried heterosexual couple was not accepted, because Hall and Preddy were, for the purposes of this case, married. This is a tricky one. The Bulls didn't really have a strong case, but it's difficult not to have sympathy for them. They come across in the media as a harmless couple just doing what seems right to them. It's also hard to shake off the sneaking suspicion that they have be...
Read more