Powers of persuasion

Does the Church have the right to try to influence political processes, such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill? And if so, how? A new report from a Christian think tank sets out how the Church should engage in modern politics

What is the easiest way to win an argument? You might choose to undermine your opponent's logic, discredit their facts or show how ghastly things would be if they had their way. But surely the easiest way is simply to deny them a voice in the first place.

It has been interesting to see how this tactic has been deployed in debates over the recent Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Few use it quite that blatantly, of course, but if your opponents are religious, it is so much easier to deploy the "religion is private" card than actually to engage with their arguments.

As so often it is Richard Dawkins who offers the clearest and nastiest version of this tactic. "If only these restless busybodies would keep their prejudices to themselves, nobody would object. But they can't resist inflicting their ignorant opinions on others," he said to The Independent on Sunday in March this year.

With this "privatisation" argument gaining currency today, it is small surprise that some cite the "Christian nation" argument in response. Peter Hitchens, arguing with the Labour Peer Lord Harrison on the Today programme in April 2007, said: "This is a Christian country... Its laws, its customs, from the Coronation service to the Bill of Rights are based upon Christianity... Every characteristic of this country, the way in which we are governed by conscience as free people, is based upon the fact we are Christian."

The problem with this view is that, while it might once have been true, it isn't today. Yes, 70 per cent of Britons claim affiliation with the Christian religion and, yes, our Christian roots run very deep, but twenty-first-century Britain is morally and culturally plural before it is Christian. We can no longer simply say that we are a Christian country and therefore Christianity should play the lead role in public life. Such a view is rightly criticised as the desire to maintain unmerited privilege.

If neither privatisation nor privilege is viable, what role should Christianity play in a modern, plural public square like our own? The answer lies in the idea of the public good. We need, first, to observe some ground rules. The Christian religion is a public one and no amount of theological wriggling or low-level secular bullying will change that. The fact and nature of its public life is determined, not by political expediency, but by the Gospel. Deviations from this basic point lead ultimately to spiritual death.

What is open to negotiation is where the Church witnesses. Should Christian witness be "merely" public, in the sense of operating in a space to which we all have access, or should it be "political", in the sense of operating within that part of public space that is the site of the "governing authorities"? Put another way, should Christian public witness take place within, without or against the governing authorities of the day?

The New Testament appears not to give much of a steer on this question. Some well-noted instances advocate what appears to be a cooperative attitude towards the governing authorities, while others reveal a more subversive approach.

What might at first sight appear to be uncertainty is, in actual fact, flexibility. The extent to which the Church works within, without or against the governing authorities must depend on the nature of those authorities. If they do what the Gospel indicates they should do - if, for example, they judge justly, maintain public order and seek to help the vulnerable - then there is real opportunity for partnership. If, on the other hand, the authorities' concept of the good is in serious tension with what the Gospel proclaims it should be - if, for example, it is violent, racist, idolatrous, or imperial - the Church cannot but work against it.

The keynote must be flexibility and thus the key question must be what notion of the good, what moral orientation, underwrites the state in which the Church operates. Much as we might think otherwise, our governing authority's moral orientation is not the same as that of its people. If it were, both euthanasia and the death penalty would be sanctioned.

Instead, in Britain the governing authorities, or those parties that wish to form them, do not so much reflect public moral opinion as develop their own moral documents - manifestos - which are then presented to a public that chooses between them. Thus the concept of the public good that underlies the British governing authorities is responsive to and to some degree reflective of its electorate but not simply determined by it.

This should form the basis of Christian public witness. The Church is not a political party and should never tout for votes. Rather, it should do what it must do: proclaiming, assembling and acting in public in such a way as conveys the story and values that shape it. By doing so, it will attract or repel different elements of public opinion to different degrees. And it is this mix of reactions that will, ultimately, determine where in the public square Christian witness will be found. If that witness appeals to people's idea of the public good - if, in other words, it can persuade people that "Doing God" is doing good - then it will naturally occur alongside, perhaps within, the governing authorities. If not, the Church will find itself in a more subversive mode.

If this sounds familiar, it is because it is not so different from what we have today. In spite of what the critics claim, Christians and Christian groups do not "impose" their will on others but, like other people, make their case at the bar of public opinion. The extent to which a Christian view or organisation prevails depends on how far it proves morally, intellectually and practically persuasive. This is as it should be. Public good, rather than privatisation or privilege, should determine the precise role of Christianity in the public square.

Recognising the mechanism of the current system should help us think more clearly when issues, whether HFE or chaplaincy services, are debated. How far do any of these positions contribute to the public good, as understood by the public? But it should also help undermine the privatisation argument, protecting us from those who share Richard Dawkins' view that society needs to be protected from busybodies.