A letter was published in the Daily Telegraph this morning, signed by fifty eminent people, in which they criticise the Prime Minister’s article of faith published in the Church Times last week.
The letter itself is fairly unremarkable – and certainly not a surprise – although why such people think it is worth all the energy, time and activity involved in getting such a number of signatures, still beats me.
The statistics cited are, of course, at variance to other published statistics (e.g. the 2011 Census), but that is in the nature of statistics and we draw to our defence those that suit our argument the best. So, I won’t waste time arguing with the numbers.
What is bizarre is the charge that the Prime Minister, by saying what he said, “fosters alienation and division in our society.” That ” this needlessly fuels enervating sectarian debates that are by and large absent from the lives of most British people, who do not want religions or religious identities to be actively prioritised by their elected government.” Good grief!
First, if politicians were to refrain from saying anything ‘divisive’, they would be silent. Any stated viewpoint or priority is by definition ‘divisive’ as there will always be people who strongly disagree. The use of potential ‘divisiveness’ as a charge against anything inconvenient is ridiculous. Presumably, the divisiveness caused by publishing this letter is to be excused?
Secondly, why should ‘secular humanism’ be prioritised above other world views or identities? There is no neutral territory – something is always being prioritised over other preferences. That is a fact of life. And if you want a purely relativistic world view to dominate (which is a perfectly legitimate thing to want), you can’t then decide to absolutise certain priorities or assumptions.
‘Fostering division’ is a phrase that should be dropped as a threat. Anyone can use it and, being a threat, of course, there is no evidence that it has or does.
Nick Baines's Blog 
April 21, 2014 at 5:37 pm
Thank you for making these points, Nick. Spot on!
April 21, 2014 at 6:59 pm
Using any religion to foster friction is pretty contemptible. Await further developments, for religion is increasingly widely used as a surrogate for “race” which is a still more potent means to hatred, division and diversion from valid disputes.
April 21, 2014 at 7:25 pm
well done Nick !!!!! You’ve said it all. I can’t imagine anyone taking issue with any of your comments. I drink your health. FRANCIS WOOD, NEWCASTLE.
April 21, 2014 at 10:36 pm
I agree with your view of the contents of the letter itself, but I also dislike the way our PM seems to view personal religious faith as a tide, that comes and goes, rather than as an anchor, which holds us sure and steadfast. Having offended many people of faith, including those in his own party, in changing the definition of faith from that of a sacrament to a ‘secular humanist’ contract, he is now seeking to change the definition of the term ‘evangelical’, I always thought and taught that it meant ‘of the gospel’, that is, the whole of Christ’s teaching, including that relating to marriage (Matthew 19). However, I am no longer a member of the ‘Established’ Church, or a Quaker, as before. I have returned to the Baptist Church, which still upholds the gospel, and provides me with the anchor of faith in a world, and indeed a broader Church, in which it seems every article of faith can be changed to ‘keep up’ with society. Have you any comment on the PM’s comments, which I feel were condescending to Christians, hypocritical and indeed cynical.
April 21, 2014 at 10:37 pm
Sorry, I meant ‘the definition of marriage’, of course.
April 21, 2014 at 10:39 pm
Reblogged this on hungarywolf.
April 22, 2014 at 12:32 am
[…] also saw a blog post from Nick Baines, which was about the “fostering division” argument. He complains that […]
April 22, 2014 at 6:56 am
Reblogged this on Faithandurbanlife's Blog and commented:
Just before Easter 2014 Prime Minister David Cameron spoke widely about the role of Christian faith in his politics. Here’s one response to his views…
April 22, 2014 at 8:06 am
[…] of fidelity, as Nick Baines, bishop of the newly created diocese of West Yorkshire and the Dales, comments, you can pick your own statistics. What cannot be argued with is that church attendance is a […]
April 22, 2014 at 8:26 am
I agree with your thoughts Nick . There is nothing wrong with the prime minister reaffirming this as a Christian country. We should be proud of our heritage and he is to be applauded not derided as divisive.
April 22, 2014 at 9:10 am
Thanks Nick and strength to David’s arm speaking on behalf of Chritians
April 22, 2014 at 9:26 am
Helpful thank you.
April 22, 2014 at 9:52 am
chandlerozconsultants, I grew up a Baptist and became Anglican when at university. It is as impossible to claim that ‘the Baptist Church’ upholds the gospel as it is to claim that the Church of England doesn’t: there are Baptist churches that, depending on your criteria, do not – and, indeed, every Baptist church is autonomous. I have no idea whether the PM is sincere or not, but he has opened an interesting debate and is getting a battering from all sides. I don’t see the outworking of some government policies as being particularly Christian, and, if his piece was a cynical bit of electioneering, then it is misguided. And I would love to know who actually wrote it.
April 22, 2014 at 12:02 pm
I take your point about the unhelpful use of the phrase ‘fostering division’, Nick, particularly given that it’s one the media will jump on – and have done. But while I might not agree on the contents of the letter in the Telegraph (I haven’t come to any personal conclusions on the debate itself yet) I think it’s important to recognise the validity of those voices who felt excluded by David Cameron’s article. I can’t tell whether he intended or expected it to go beyond the readership of the Church Times or not but that doesn’t particularly matter, because it has. Those I know something about on the list of signatories to the letter (which I have to confess is only a few) I have a great deal of respect for, so I don’t believe this to be a purely a political stunt. I think it is the outward expression of something that runs much deeper, which is about identity and a sense of alienation on the basis of belief. As a church we’re just beginning to get over our centuries-long alienation of people on the basis of sexuality, so do we really want to make a big thing of alienation by other means?
I’m not saying I think the signatories are approaching this in the right way, as it seems to be producing an angry and defensive response among at least parts of the Christian community in Britain. But surely it’s our responsibility to help frame the debate in compassion and empathy, rather than create a head-on collision?
April 22, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Sorry, perhaps I wasn’t quite clear. I grew up in the Baptist Church too, as a son of the manse, though you only really become a Baptist through believer’s Baptism when you reach ‘the years of discretion’. I became a Quaker at University and an Anglican five years ago (I’m 57) Where I am now, all churches are separated from the state, and therefore do not act as registrars for it. So there is no conflict over marriage. It is the C of E’s position which creates the tension, and although it has negotiated exemption from the new laws, the Dissenting churches are not exempted under European Human Rights Law, however much they claim otherwise. I have also heard many Anglican priests arguing for the C of E to allow same-sex marriage, both on the radio and in public. I have only heard one Baptist minister doing the same, and I belong to the Baptist Network Affirming Gay Rights. I know only too well that every Baptist Church has congregational government, which Parliament (including the Bishops) has now taken away in respect of marriage. Baptists can no longer decide who they marry and who they don’t without thinking about the law, which has re-defined the sacrament as a secular contract.
April 22, 2014 at 3:40 pm
Just delighted to read your piece, which I have re-posted with its link, to Facebook. It is hard on any Christian commentator [as you know so well] who will automatically attract criticism of a crass-to-horrible sort, but there is now discussion, which allows clarity – if the chance is well-used.
where we waste these chances is by nitpicking over details, and then give an impression of a confused church which can’t agree on anything ‘important’ [ie in the media].
So thank you again for your clarity, and for a Blog which I read first, and always find really helpful
April 22, 2014 at 5:50 pm
Thank you Nick. When I heard of this letter, the text that came to mind was Matthew 7:3, about specks and planks! – they are surely doing what they accuse David Cameron of doing. In any case, is it not true that whatever individual views there may be and however many or few personally claim to be people of Christian faith, we still live in a country whose culture has been significantly shaped by the Christian faith?
April 23, 2014 at 4:54 pm
We know Cameron is looking to the next election and will say anything that he things will grab some bunch of folk.. he cannot be a christian with these welfare policies.
April 27, 2014 at 12:29 pm
Unlike other atheists and secularists, I don’t consider David Cameron’s recent speech divisive. I regret to say that, initially, I found it absolutely hilarious (or, possibly, ‘deeply ironic’). Can anyone and everyone claim to be in the C of E? Aren’t there any membership requirements? This is the man who’s been telling the clergy to go stuff your concerns over the effect of his policies on the poor because he knows best. Dave doesn’t do humility; it’s obviously one of those more difficult parts of the faith that he’s a bit vague on.
For the sake of the Church, but more importantly for the sake of the poor, you must put a stop to this nonsense. If he wants to call himself a Christian, then (I assume; I’m just an ignorant atheist) he has got to start behaving like one. You’ve tried the polite,gentle hints of ‘Hear the Poor’ and the response was to call out the police to chase away the Bishop of Oxford. Time for a more direct approach. Name hime, shame him, denounce him from the pulpit. This is not being party political – so you must ignore the cries of fabricated outrage – this is being personal, and rightly so.
But why is he so determined not to hear you? This is the age of the customer, the age of the focus group with politicians desperate to know what the people think and tailoring policies around public perception. The churches are uniquely positioned to report on the effects of social policies. Any sincere administrator would be asking for chapter and verse as to where his efforts were failing. Why does Dave stick his fingers in his ears instead?
One awful possibility is that the disadvantaged are regarded as an inconvenient sub-species, to be bullied and starved into submission for electoral advantage – but certainly not listened to. Unfortunately, there is some further evidence for this. If the poor and disabled really were regarded as full members of society, there would be no bedroom tax. The aim of the tax would be achieved simply by giving a temporary increase in housing benefit to those who downsized.
Cameron’s preferred approach – financial penalties mitigated only be the clumsy mechanism of discretionary housing payments – is inherently oppressive. We have had stories in the press about disabled people being forced out of accomodation they have modified at their own expense. Are these reports true? How many such cases are there? The church is in a position to quantify the human misery caused by the bedroom tax, not just collect signatures. Doctors adhere to ‘First, do no harm’; convince me that politicians claiming to be Christian should not do the same.
I blame the Church Times. It has been seduced by the cult of celebrity and given the oxygen of publicity to the man who has made life so difficult for your Church, not least now by claiming membership of it.
April 28, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Thanks Nick for your comments. I respect the right of Sir Terry and his colleagues to express their views, but we really do have to challenge the basis of their argument, which totally fails to grasp the significance of the contribution of the Christian faith to our society over the last thousand years and more.
By contrast, Larry Siedentop’s recent book,“Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism”, brilliantly highlights the key role of the Christian faith going right back to St Paul in shaping the concepts of equality and liberty which underpin our democratic institutions.
Siedentop challenges the dominant myth, often promulgated by atheist writers, that the origins of democracy and human rights lie in the traditions of ancient Greece and Rome, rather than in the Christian faith. He points out that Athens and Rome were far from democratic societies, precisely because they assumed that that human beings were not equal by nature, and that only certain classes of persons could and should share in the task of government.
By contrast it was St Paul’s assertion that in Christ there are no distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female, which paved the way for the eventual birth of democratic practice, equality before the law, human rights and genuinely representative government.
Of course, along the way the Church (as opposed to the Christian faith) has often not covered itself with glory in the struggle for equality and freedom. Lord Acton’s dictum about power tending to corrupt has certainly applied on many occasions, and the desire to control what people think and believe has meant that the Church has often acted in profoundly illiberal ways.
But Siedentop’s argument still applies and still prevails – namely that the underlying dynamic of the Christian faith is egalitarian and liberal, in the best sense of the words. It pushes towards the recognition of the equality of all human beings – resisting tyranny in all its forms – and affirms the freedom of conscience which is the cornerstone of democratic society.
For too long, Christians have been put on the back foot when it comes to the question of the contribution of our faith to the development of society and the well-being of its people. Christianity’s contribution is not just about the provision of food banks and other vital social initiatives. It is absolutely central to the democratic traditions of Western Europe, precisely because it radically affirms the equality and worth of all human beings made in the image of God.
Once you take away that moral foundation, then the danger is that politics becomes little more than the assertion of power, leading to the very disintegration and divisions which Terry Pratchett and his colleagues say they fear. On this occasion, Mr Cameron is right – and for more reasons than perhaps he realises.
Christianity is not the enemy of a democratic, free and inclusive society; it is both its very backbone and also the muscles and sinews that hold it together.
April 28, 2014 at 2:38 pm
[…] of the letter to be the divisive ones – such as the writer of the blog God and Politics, and the Bishop of Bradford (writing before Easter!) suggested that any opinion which differs from another could be labelled […]
May 1, 2014 at 4:33 pm
I agree with what Nick and others have written here, especially about the nonsense in the letter, when they speak of of the Church creating sectarian conflict.
But surely the debate about “is Britain a Christian country?” is just a mask for the slightly different debate: “do we want Britain to be a Christian country?” Unsurprisingly, the atheists don’t, and the believers do.
The mismatch between the question the letter writers purport to be discussing and the one they really want to be discussing is what causes the confusion.
May 7, 2014 at 11:33 pm
Sorry, Robert, it’s not a debate – it’s a meaningless ritual.
First, David Cameron shamelessly claims membership of a faith whose clerics he studiously ignores. This unconvincing mix of faith and politics elicits a Pavlovian response from the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association. The Establishment then asserts, witheringly, that, of couse, we are a Christian country. There’s no debate but everyone has made their point and feels better for it. It’s like watching dogs mark their territory, and just as edifying
To its shame, the Church’s part in this is to align itself with those politicians who are making this a less Christian country to back up its assertion that we are still a Christian country To pursue the canine analogy, the Church doggie, instead of barking loudly at the intruder, merely rolled over to have its tummy tickled.
I don’t care what the label is; it’s how the country treats its poor and disabled that matters.