This is the text of this morning’s Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, following yesterday’s debate in the House of the Lords on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill:

Current debates in Parliament and beyond about the nature of the UK’s relationship with Europe go beyond the technical detail of Bills and amendments. Clearly, many people are just fed up with what they see as the trading of insults and misrepresentations that have come to characterise this process, rendering it almost impossible to distinguish what is true and what is fact from what is mere assertion or wishful thinking.

But, underlying all this sound and fury is a much more important question – one that has always been around, but often gets forgotten in the storm of the moment: what is it all for? Or, to put it differently: what sort of a society do we wish to construct and what sort of character do we want our common life to exhibit?

These are not exactly new questions. Even the Ten Commandments form not a string of miserable demands to keep people in their place, but a contour for a mutually respectful, honourable and humble society – one in which people respect each other, care for the poor, honour integrity and work at building relationships of trust and accountability.

I wonder if these existential questions – about what and whom a society is for – too easily get lost when the headlines and the fog of social media just bang away at demonising anyone who dares to differ from one’s own position.

I have just read a paper by a Russian military and political analyst who dares to pose a different question. Aleksandr Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis in Moscow, suggests that whereas Russians will still fight and die for the Motherland, their western equivalents are too soft to die for anything. Harsh? Maybe.

But, I wonder if this is worth pursuing, if not as a model of idealism, then at least as a matter of practical reality. Russians are almost defined by suffering – think of 20 million dead in the Second World War … a million starved or killed in the siege of Stalingrad alone.

It was Martin Luther King who proposed that if we have nothing worth dying for, then we have nothing worth living for.

So, when we have done our trade deals and dealt with the technical and practical challenges of Brexit – however it might turn out in the end, what will we have gained or lost? What is the end to which we aspire? What is the vision of a society for which we will sacrifice anything or everything? What are the moral goods which shape our ambitions and discipline our passions?

These are not vapid questions. The Old Testament prophet was not joking when he wrote that “without a vision the people perish”. Nor was Jesus when he said there is a danger in gaining the world and losing our soul.

It is a challenge, but, somehow, I need to poke through the fog of debate and not lose sight of the ultimate questions: for what? And for whom?

Advertisements

This is the script of this morning's Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4's Today programme:

Chatting recently to an academic who leads a leadership consultancy, I was a little surprised when he said: “The two things that the high-powered business people who come here can't talk about are failure and death.” I replied: “Oh. That's where we start.”

Christian faith begins not with a running away from failure and death, but rather with a totally realistic appraisal – based, of course, on experience – of human failure, and the facing of mortality. Come to terms with these two beasts and the rest begins to fall into place. To paraphrase Martin Luther King: what we might be wanting to live for will be determined by what we are prepared to die for.

I have been thinking about this while wondering what is going on during the last week or so in the mind of the failed US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She has spoken about wanting to curl up with a good book and not go out of the house. To have been so close for so long to the seat of power and then to lose it in a flash cannot be anything but hard to handle. Anyone with a shred of empathy – whatever their politics – must surely be able to comprehend this.

Is it not true that the measure of the man or woman is not how they handle victory, but how they handle defeat? Living with failure can be a gift in that it dismantles pretensions, dismisses illusions and disables hubris? Think of St Peter – protesting that he would stand by Jesus of Nazareth whatever happened … before running away when identified as one of his friends from Up North. Peter's self-image bled into the soil beneath the cross where Jesus died … but, he found a renewed future in a conversation with the risen Christ back on the beach where he worked as a fisherman.

This is not romantic nonsense – a sweetening of the bitter pill of defeat. Rather, it is realism born of the experience of people throughout the generations. Defeat can be humiliating, embarrassing and painful – especially in the light of the great claims to power made during an election campaign. Yet, it can bring freedom, release and the possibility of a new start in a new world in which we are no longer measured by our trophies, but by our humanity. Confronted afresh by our mortality, defeat can give us the opportunity to strip away the illusions and face the truth.

One word for this is 'repentance' – in the Greek this means literally 'to change your mind'. It means daring to look differently at the world and ourselves in order to see differently in order to think differently in order to live differently. Or, to put it differently, to snatch hope from the jaws of defeat.