Conscience and the Commons

Following his election as Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron was grilled by the media about his beliefs as an evangelical Christian. Has the focus on faith, which began with Tony Blair, reached the point where it is harder than ever to hold religious beliefs and play an active role in political life?

The morning after he was elected leader of the Liberal Democrats last week, Tim Farron was up bright and early for an interview with John Humphrys on BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme. After questions about the Government’s welfare cuts and foreign policy, Humphrys homed in on Farron’s prayer life.  Given that he had sought advice from God before putting his name forward for the contest, Humphrys asked, would Farron do the same when it came to important policy decisions, such as whether to invade Iraq? The new leader replied that he simply prayed for wisdom to make the right judgement on the evidence before him.

That evening, on Channel 4 News, the God-questions continued with presenter Cathy Newman asking whether Farron personally believed, as a Christian, that homosexual sex was a sin. What followed was a lengthy probing of his personal theology with Newman quoting Leviticus. At the end of it, Farron joked that the line of questioning would have been more appropriate for an interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The Times also thought it right to question whether Farron’s liberal principles were compatible with his religious beliefs. A leading article last Friday pointed out he had abstained at the third reading of the bill on same-sex marriage and wanted to strengthen the position of those who had a conscientious objection to it. He had also once described every abortion as a “tragedy”. “Perhaps he will be comfortable atop a party reduced to little more than a protest group”, was the paper’s  spikey last word on the subject.

As MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, Farron is a hard-working campaigner popular with grassroots Lib Dems. He is one of only eight MPs to hold on to their seats (four of whom are Christians) following the hammering the party took in May’s general election.  He was unhappy with the decision to go into coalition with the Conservatives in 2010 and was not given a ministerial post. He continued to oppose tuition fees after the then Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg made a U-turn on the policy, and also opposed the bedroom tax.

A father of four, he became an evangelical Christian in his teens. He says he now supports gay marriage and does not want any change in the abortion law. In interviews he has tried to draw a distinction between his personal moral views and his liberal philosophy. “It’s not our views on personal morality [that count]. What matters is do we go out there and fight for the freedom of every individual to be what they wish to be and that is what makes a liberal,” he told Channel 4 News.

But the idea that a politician’s personal views or religious beliefs do not count is no longer the standard approach to assessing an MP’s worth. Today, there is far greater scrutiny of politicians’ faith than ever before. In 2008,  in a lecture about the faith of post-war prime ministers, the political historian, Peter Hennessy, observed that there was barely a flicker of interest in their faith until the Tony Blair era. In 2002, both Jeremy Paxman and David Frost challenged the former Prime Minister to say whether he prayed with President George W. Bush, knowing the two leaders had strong religious beliefs.

When I asked Humphrys this week why he felt it necessary to ask Farron whether he prayed, and that he gave the impression that Farron is eccentric or untrustworthy because he is a religious man who prays, he declared this was “complete tosh”.

The presenter referred to Blair’s response in an interview with him in 2007 about his reasons for invading Iraq – “I only know what I believe”. This, insisted Humphrys, was a significant point for a prime minister who had taken the country to war. “We have an absolute right to know what the beliefs are of the people who are going to be in power on a vast range of things, including religion, if we are to have any possibility of finding out how they are going to behave in office. It is called democracy. Religion is not a private matter.”

Humphrys denied emphatically my suggestion that he would not have pursued the same line of questioning 10 or 20 years ago. But politicians I have interviewed say there is heightened interest in the religion of political leaders and a major factor is interest in the touchstone issues of abortion, gay marriage and, most recently, assisted dying.

The Catholic former Labour MP, John Battle, complained that the “current zeitgeist” is intolerant of religious party leaders, and even backbench MPs, who take a stand on issues of conscience. “There is a sort of ruthlessness for people to conform to the consensus of the day and the pressure is stronger on Christian politicians than others,” said Battle, who was religious affairs adviser to No 10 when Tony Blair was Prime Minister.

Thirty years ago, he recalled, there had been more give and take. His local party knew he opposed abortion but admired his stance on poverty and housing. He felt the “guardians of moral righteousnesss” had forgiven those who voted for the Iraq war but Farron, who has been highly critical of the decision, is still deemed beyond the pale. “Whether a serious Christian can be a political leader is in question now,” he added.

John Pugh, a Catholic Lib Dem MP, was also concerned about Farron’s treatment. “There is a subtext to this,” he said. “It seems on the face of it not particularly wrong to ask politicians about their religious observances, but for some people there is something eccentric about faith. What I resent most is that religious people have to be treated as though they are odd and that a person’s arguments are devalued because of their beliefs.”

Pugh, who contributed to a book entitled Liberal Democrats Do God, revealed that he had discussed the subject with Cardinal Vincent Nichols, who had told him that religious politicians must stress that in embracing faith they are not deserting rationality.

A Catholic Conservative MP, Conor Burns,  agreed that religious MPs were coming under growing pressure but felt that the treatment of Farron was a bad example to illustrate the trend. “He talks in very liberal terms – lofty, bordering sanctimonious terms – but his voting record does not bear this out.”

The veteran Labour MP Stephen Pound, also a Catholic, observed that Farron has a particular problem because his brand of evangelical Christianity is “very, very doctrinaire”, although his abstention on the same-sex marriage vote would not have commanded the same respect among fellow MPs that voting against would have garnered.

So is he fearful of what awaits Andy Burnham, described by Pound as a “strongly committed Roman Catholic”, if he succeeds in his bid to become the next Labour leader? “He won’t attract the same opprobrium because he is a mainstream Catholic, a Pope Francis Catholic,” said Pound. Nor did Pound fear that committed Catholics would be put off entering public life. “They know that Christ belongs in the marketplace and that his message needs to be heard.”

For MPs of faith, the next battleground will be over assisted dying. Already they are being lobbied to support a bill to be debated in the Commons next month that would allow doctors to help terminally-ill people to die. They stress that they judge each issue on its merits,  listening to what church leaders and their constituents have to say. Meanwhile, Canon Pat Browne, the first Roman Catholic Duty Priest to Parliament, advises Christian MPs with the words of St Francis: “Preach the Gospel and sometimes use words” adding that “faith lived in this way is what answers the most fair-minded secularists’ fears”.