Everyone approaches life with a particular set of values. Atheists and secularists live by an ethos, although they do not stick a label on it in the same way that we Christians do. Perhaps that’s why some people are particularly nervous about Christians in high office. We can all point to people who proudly wear their faith casting judgment or being intolerant, so it is inevitable that Christians will be asked tough questions.
As a Christian, I don’t get offended when I see Christians in politics treated differently by those who consider themselves progressives. After all, it will always be countercultural to hold to the Bible’s teachings on how we live.
However, as a liberal, this peculiar treatment of Christians troubles me. Should our commitment to diversity not extend to people with faith? Liberalism is the belief that each of us should be permitted to pursue the life we choose.
Yet it seems that western liberal democracies have developed a blind spot when it comes to Christianity. Western progressives lack curiosity as to why a Christian might take a different, jarring position on issues such as refugees, sexuality, poverty, abortion, greed and gender. As it happens, I’d argue that the secular perspective is riddled with internal contradictions. For example, if there is no God or natural law, then human rights are surely an arbitrary, temporary fiction.
This unease with which Christian faith is treated was clear when I was the leader of the Liberal Democrats. It’s clear, too, in Scotland today. One of the early favourites to replace Nicola Sturgeon is Kate Forbes, the 32-year-old cabinet secretary for finance and the economy; an extraordinary job to hold at such a young age. She also happens to be a devout Presbyterian. But even before she announced her decision to stand, just as many newspaper inches were dedicated to questioning her Christian faith as they were to assessing her political aptitude.
As Stephen Daisley wrote recently on The Spectator’s website, Christianity is ‘regarded at best with suspicion but more often as bigotry licensed by superstition’. The implication is that holding fast to a Christian faith is weird, irrational and probably at odds with running a liberal democratic country.
That view is underpinned by a rather lazy assumption that the absence of faith is neutral, and that those whose faith affects the positions they take are pursuing an agenda that is at best eccentric, possibly offensive, and at worst dangerous.
I’ve read some hysterical pieces about the possibility of Kate Forbes becoming first minister. It’s obvious to me that she is not seeking to impose a Christian theocracy from Shetland to Southerness. Instead, she is moved by a desire to follow Jesus Christ and to respect the Bible which implores us to seek justice, to defend the orphan, to plead for the widow, and to reflect God’s calling to love kindly and walk humbly.
Even if I wasn’t a Christian, I hope I’d think that politicians with such moral convictions enrich our public life; far better than those whose ambitions seem to go no further than themselves. When I interviewed her recently for my podcast, A Mucky Business, she spoke of how ‘ambition is for being excellent, not for status or position’. We shouldn’t be suspicious of that attitude. In fact, we should demand it.
‘Have a private faith if you must, but don’t take it into the public square.’ I hear this a lot and it’s nonsense. The truth is that there is no such thing as a neutral place in the public square.
If we want to live in a genuinely pluralistic society, we must avoid suspicion of individuals simply because they belong to certain groups. But for the same reason, we must ensure that we are not all forced to obey a uniform belief in the values of secular progressivism. The 1st-century church – just 7,000 people – lived in a pluralistic society. They didn’t march on Rome or denounce non-Christians. Rather, they loved their neighbours and lived Christian lives in front of a watching world. It should be no different today.
Comments