(Written for the Mayor of Knowsley’s Civic Sunday at St Nicholas’, Halewood, 28th June 2009.)
I believe that when hairdressers are being trained, they are told never to discuss religion or politics with their customers. I don’t know if this is true, but it makes me wonder what it’s like when Desmond Tutu goes to the barbers…
“Going anywhere nice for your holidays, Archbishop? Got any plans for Christmas?”
Desmond Tutu is, of course, more than happy to discuss religion and politics. He once said:
“When people say the Bible and politics don't mix, I don't know which Bible they are referring to. It’s not the one I've been reading.”
I suppose the problem is with
bad religion and
bad politics – the sort of religion that supported apartheid in South Africa, segregation in the United States, and Nazism and anti-Semitism in Europe.
More recently, we have had the uncomfortable sight of the British National Party claiming to be “the only political party
standing up for” Christian faith and culture. I’m not generally in favour of a blasphemy law (I tend to think that God does not need us to defend him in court), but the BNP came close to converting me with their election poster featuring an image of Christ crucified, a quotation from scripture (“If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you;” John 15:20) and tagline, “What would Jesus do?” – the implication being that Jesus would vote BNP to defend Christianity in this country! I’m not convinced that the BNP would welcome Jesus the Jew as one of their supporters!
So, what kind of politics emerges from the Bible that Desmond Tutu reads? Some ideas from the bible readings set for Sunday 28th June:
In 2 Corinthians 8, we read that the mother church in Jerusalem is in financial need - again. Paul writes to the Christians in Corinth to encourage them to make a gift to help their sisters and brothers in Jerusalem. He reminds them of the example of Jesus who, though we was rich, became poor, so that we might become rich, at least spiritually. Other churches, Paul says, have given generously, sacrificially, but the church in Corinth seems reluctant. Paul wants them to see that it is not right for them to have plenty – more than enough – while their sisters and brothers in Jerusalem are struggling. He points out that in the Old Testament story of God giving his people the manna in the desert – the bread from heaven – each had just enough bread to eat every day: no-one had too much and no-one had too little. That’s how it should be amongst us, he says: no one should have too much; no one too little. Amongst Christians there should be a level of equality, not vast inequality between rich and poor.
So there’s a Christian, biblical principle – there should be a degree of fairness and equality in the distribution of wealth – but how to turn that into politics? Some would see this as a socialist ethic: “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” – to use a phrase popularised by a certain Karl Marx. (Historian Arnold Toynbee described communism as a Christian heresy; others have pointed out that Marxism and communism had their roots in Judaeo-Christian soil.)
Others would argue that the scripture points in favour of capitalism: if the Christians in Corinth hadn’t created wealth, they would not have generated a surplus from which to help meet the needs of their poorer sisters and brothers in Jerusalem. They would say this wealth needs to be created in order to trickle down to those less able to generate wealth.
Getting from a biblical or spiritual principle to a political application isn’t always straightforward: hence Tony Benn’s assertion that the Labour Party owed more to Methodism than it did to Marxism; and Margaret Thatcher’s use, on becoming Prime Minister, of the Prayer of St Francis. Both Benn and Thatcher claimed to draw inspiration from Christian teaching, but their applications were diametrically opposed in political terms.
Because of this, I have never felt that there could be a Christian political party – although we were given the opportunity of voting for The Christian Party in the recent European elections. There are plenty of Christians whom I love and respect, but whose political views I do not share. We may draw our inspiration from the same source, but we differ over how to apply those principles.
Nevertheless, it is a biblical principle that there should be a measure of equality: God has provided enough manna to feed us all. Why then do some of God’s children live with obscene wealth and others die in obscene poverty? According to UNICEF, nearly 10 million children under five years of age die each year from causes related to poverty. Peter Singer, in his book “The Life You Can Save”, points out that one billion people in the world have less to live on each day than we would spend on a bottle of water2. He argues that world poverty could be ended relatively easily, if those who had the wealth were prepared to give a modest proportion of it to help those who have none. If you have clean water coming out of a tap that you could drink, but you choose to buy bottled water, you have more money than you need – while there are people in the world who have no access to clean water. Singer is not a Christian, but his argument seems to me to be eminently biblical!
In Mark 5:21-43, we see Jesus healing two people – a woman suffering from haemorrhages and a child who has died. If we are familiar with the Gospel accounts, we are not surprised by these stories. We might be aware that, in Jesus’ own day, religious leaders had little to do with women and children, whereas Jesus’ own ministry valued and honoured both women and children. But we might miss the fact that his contact with both of these people – the woman with the haemorrhages and the child – compromised Jesus’ religious purity, according to the religious culture of his day. A woman who was bleeding was considered ritually unclean: to touch her was to become unclean yourself. (In the gospel we read that she touches him, rather than he laying hands on her, but Jesus affirms her as well and healed and tells her that she may go in peace.) Similarly, a corpse is ritually unclean and it makes you unclean to touch a dead person. Jesus takes the dead child by the hand and speaks to her, “Little girl, get up!”
A woman and a child – both are dangerous to Jesus’ religious purity. But that doesn’t stop Jesus reaching out to them, literally and spiritually, taking them by the hand and affirming them as God’s children.
From this we discern a biblical principle: the priority Jesus gives to those whom religion and society would exclude or marginalise. What would Jesus do? Reach out to those who are excluded, marginalised. How then should a Christian behave? What should the church do?
And how to apply this principle in the political realm? Again, that requires each of us to make a judgement, informed by biblical thinking and supported by prayer; but it is clear that when we vote and act, we are required to think what our voting and acting will do for those excluded and marginalised by our society.
It’s fair to say that today, those who seek and hold elected office are not exactly held in high esteem. In fact, the expenses scandal means that MPs have done the impossible and replaced bankers as the people we all love to hate. (It looks as though BBC executives might be next!) The biggest problem is when voters, or those who should be voters, say, “a plague on all their houses” and opt out. As we know, this simply opens the door to extremists. In my experience, local politicians are good people, committed to serving their communities – to making the world (or at least their part of it) a better place. We need those we elect to be clear about their principles. Those who seek to serve would do well to listen to the biblical principles of commitment to social justice and to the needs of those excluded and marginalised by society.
May God bless us – all of us – as we seek to love and serve Him in loving and serving the communities in which live.
Alan Jewell
