christians in politics?
I took issue with a friend last week who was waxing lyrical on the potential benefits of the new(-ish) political party, the Scottish Christian Party. Hopefully it was more than mere argumentativeness, but I'm definitely open to challenge on this point (as at least that friend was distinctly unconvinced by all my arguments).
It worries me for one thing that a dedicated Christian party in mainstream politics might (might) be incompatible with the Establishment Principle. As I see it, a Christian Party would presumably be consciously and deliberately setting out to represent the Church, and presumably, the ultimate aim of a political party in the UK situation would be to get into government. An official representative from the church in government would mean (I think) that the state would have been intruded upon to some extent by the church, in roughly the same way that a government official sitting on a kirk session would represent the state intruding on the church. It would also mean, would it not, that in the unlikely scenario that a Christian party got enough of a majority in parliament, the church would effectively be ruling the country. Does this argument make sense?
Obviously I don't have a problem with Christians, as individuals, running for office and acting according to their Christian values in their attempt to represent their constituents. But I think that it's a different matter when a group of Christians band together to offer an official line from the church within the political sphere.
It worries me in addition that even supposing those quibbles about the establishment principle are not well founded, there is still a problem of what exactly a Christian political party can realistically hope to offer.
For one thing, I strongly resist the campaign slogans emanating from some Scottish Christian Party spokesmen along the lines that 'a vote for us is a vote for Jesus.' Assuming they're working from the best of motives, and don't really believe anything quite so presumptious, slogans like that are deeply cringe inducing and off-putting.
For another thing, I'm sceptical that a Christian party can truly offer anything beyone a moral or ethical framework while still remaining Christian. I mean: you can there are some contemporary moral issues, such as abortion, on which you can take a clear stand without alienating hardly a Christian in the land, but what on earth kind of a policy could a Christian party have on the NHS, for example? Policies on the war in Iraq, on immigration, on carbon emissions, on funding for higher education - you hardly need to look beyond your own congregation to know that people can be perfectly good Christians and yet differ wildly on their approach to issues like these. So in what sense could a Christian party, trying their best to implement Christian values, genuinely draw up a manifesto of concrete policies on issues like these? A disagreement between Christians on how to tackle third world poverty, or whether to build new motorways, would not by itself cause a rupture in the Church as such, but there are obvious serious implications for how effectively any group of Christians could represent "the Christian position" on exactly the kinds of issues which no serious political party can possibly fudge.*
Which brings me back to how incongruous it is for any party to canvass support on the basis that a vote for them is "a vote for Jesus," and from there I'd like to suggest again that if you take the establishment principle seriously, you probably wouldn't be wanting to even try and find a Christian policy for making A-levels harder and combating MRSA infections. Individual Christians who are good at that sort of thing are welcome to go for it, but the Church, as the Church, can't have (and shouldn't want to have) a say on any of these matters. If the government should leave the church to decide whether or not to kneel at the communion rail, the church should definitely leave the government to decide for itself how to "do governmnent."
* Do the Tories still count as a serious political party?
It worries me for one thing that a dedicated Christian party in mainstream politics might (might) be incompatible with the Establishment Principle. As I see it, a Christian Party would presumably be consciously and deliberately setting out to represent the Church, and presumably, the ultimate aim of a political party in the UK situation would be to get into government. An official representative from the church in government would mean (I think) that the state would have been intruded upon to some extent by the church, in roughly the same way that a government official sitting on a kirk session would represent the state intruding on the church. It would also mean, would it not, that in the unlikely scenario that a Christian party got enough of a majority in parliament, the church would effectively be ruling the country. Does this argument make sense?
Obviously I don't have a problem with Christians, as individuals, running for office and acting according to their Christian values in their attempt to represent their constituents. But I think that it's a different matter when a group of Christians band together to offer an official line from the church within the political sphere.
It worries me in addition that even supposing those quibbles about the establishment principle are not well founded, there is still a problem of what exactly a Christian political party can realistically hope to offer.
For one thing, I strongly resist the campaign slogans emanating from some Scottish Christian Party spokesmen along the lines that 'a vote for us is a vote for Jesus.' Assuming they're working from the best of motives, and don't really believe anything quite so presumptious, slogans like that are deeply cringe inducing and off-putting.
For another thing, I'm sceptical that a Christian party can truly offer anything beyone a moral or ethical framework while still remaining Christian. I mean: you can there are some contemporary moral issues, such as abortion, on which you can take a clear stand without alienating hardly a Christian in the land, but what on earth kind of a policy could a Christian party have on the NHS, for example? Policies on the war in Iraq, on immigration, on carbon emissions, on funding for higher education - you hardly need to look beyond your own congregation to know that people can be perfectly good Christians and yet differ wildly on their approach to issues like these. So in what sense could a Christian party, trying their best to implement Christian values, genuinely draw up a manifesto of concrete policies on issues like these? A disagreement between Christians on how to tackle third world poverty, or whether to build new motorways, would not by itself cause a rupture in the Church as such, but there are obvious serious implications for how effectively any group of Christians could represent "the Christian position" on exactly the kinds of issues which no serious political party can possibly fudge.*
Which brings me back to how incongruous it is for any party to canvass support on the basis that a vote for them is "a vote for Jesus," and from there I'd like to suggest again that if you take the establishment principle seriously, you probably wouldn't be wanting to even try and find a Christian policy for making A-levels harder and combating MRSA infections. Individual Christians who are good at that sort of thing are welcome to go for it, but the Church, as the Church, can't have (and shouldn't want to have) a say on any of these matters. If the government should leave the church to decide whether or not to kneel at the communion rail, the church should definitely leave the government to decide for itself how to "do governmnent."
* Do the Tories still count as a serious political party?
posted by cath at
11:33 pm
3 Comments:
Christian, even Reformed, political parties, the Dutch do. Christian, even Reformed, schools too.
I wonder what light their experience would throw on your questions? One would have thought that Dutch society in general, and political policy in particular, were just as bad as in UK. But at least the Christians are not tied to working in support of ungodly policies.
How do you think Christians should stand for office? As Independents? Historically there were always Independents in local councils in Scotland, and I have the feeling that in the past even party MPs in UK were much more independent in their thinking. Having said that, many Labour MPs have shown an independent position on Iraq during this government.
I am wondering whether a Christian party might give its candidates much more freedom on some issues than traditional left or right parties.
By
PeterinScotland, at 9:30 am
Yeah, the one point which I was glad wasn't raised in that discussion was the Dutch situation. I have no idea whether reformed Christians in the Netherlands share the establishment principle - you'd need to know that, in order to see whether or not the Christian parties were consciously operating within that framework.
I don't really mind how Christians stand for office - independents, fine, or if they're comfortable within an existing party I don't really have a problem with that. (Should I, do you think?)
My initial reaction is that a Christian party would give its candidates *less* freedom, because once a manifesto was agreed, you'd be much more conflicted over whether to join that party and sacrifice some of your political beliefs, rather than divide the Christian "voice" by aligning with an existing party. You might be tempted to prioritise the "Christian" unity on something like abortion laws over, say, a policy on Europe or taxation or something.
By
cath, at 9:24 pm
The Dutch in Holland but not America still hold in principle to establishment.
I don't think there would be a problem with someone holding a parliamentary/political office and a church office. As long as they weren't in the one on the basis of the other. A lot of prominent politicians in the past were also church elders. In the OT it could well have been likely that civil elders were also religious elders.
Obviously there can be practical difficulties but I don't think there would a problem in theory.
By
MAV, at 1:03 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home