My starting point is that Christianity should be the friend of democracy. If all individuals are of equal worth before God, then all should have a vote in choosing those who shape legislation. I do not see why the lord bishops should have such power when they are not selected and removable by the very people for whom Parliament legislates.
If a particular religious group has automatic places in the Lords, why not other bodies? Why not animal-lovers, ethnic minorities, or atheists? And if the lord bishops retort that they are there by divine will, why is it that God elevates so many with smart school and Oxbridge backgrounds, and so few of those who were educated on council estates? No other Western democracy gives power to unelected religious leaders.
Christians should be involved in national politics at the legislative level. Frank Field, Steve Webb, and Alistair Burt are examples of Christian MPs who make no secret of their faith. In the recent elections, in Scotland, for example, the Scottish Christian Party and the Christian Alliance fielded candidates. The difference is that these politicians, while making clear their Christian beliefs, owe their place to democracy, not patronage.
I am not arguing against bishops’ bringing influence to bear on politicians. The seminal report Faith in the City in 1985 contained two bishops among its members. I believe that the then Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt Revd David Sheppard, made a bigger impact through it than anything he said in the Lords.
In a previous age, William Temple, who was Archbishop of York and then of Canterbury, made a series of public speeches during the Second World War which won support for a welfare state. Here Temple and Sheppard were using avenues of influence that were not restricted to those appointed to be Lords. In these capacities, they were not relying on privilege.
I would go further. I think any Christians (not just bishops) should be wary of accepting a place in the Lords. For they, too, are supporting an undemocratic institution. Even before they are elevated, they tend to be drawn from the powerful and wealthy; so their appointment reinforces the dominance of a small élite — to the exclusion of those who are, say, unemployed, on low wages, or in poverty. This is not to deny that some are people of good intent, but their model of change is of two titled superiors deciding for inferiors.
To me, a Christian by conversion, the core questions are: how did Jesus live, and what did he teach? He chose to live modestly; to mix with ordinary people rather than the political and religious establishments; to focus on the poor and the outsiders.
His teaching was that followers could not serve both God and Mammon, and that they should not store up material possessions. He rebuked those who wanted exalted positions and titles, on the grounds that “all of you are on the same level as brothers and sisters” (Matthew 23.8-12, New Living Bible). His style was to be a servant.
This unique approach had a tremendous impact. People such as the tax-collector, Matthew, not only became followers, but also redistributed their riches. A Church was born in which few were powerful or wealthy in the eyes of the world (1 Corinthians 1.26).
This servanthood model may not be the only one, but I am encouraged that more Christians are taking it seriously. The Message Trust, for example, encourages Christians to move into deprived areas. I visited one where they had bought houses, sent their children to local schools, and befriended neighbours. Worship and social activities developed. The community police told me that youth crime had fallen.
Christians in Manchester and Glasgow are to the fore in caring for asylum-seekers, and urging the Government to treat them in a more humane manner. None of the participants are rich or powerful. But change is coming out of weakness. I would love to see the Christians who are now in the Lords leaving their privileges and joining in.
I advocate a Second Chamber called the Peoples’ Assembly, whose members are elected as individuals, not party creatures. They should have modest allowances, but no titles. It would attract those who wanted no reward except to serve others. I dream. Gordon Brown has declared that, if he becomes Prime Minister, he wants to engage with ordinary people. Why not a Second Chamber made up of everyday types?
Bob Holman is Visiting Professor of Social Policy at the University of Glasgow, who has run a project on the Easterhouse estate since 1987. His latest book is F. B. Meyer: If I had a thousand lives (Christian Focus).
No comments:
Post a Comment