"The
UK is a Christian country.” The Prime Minister’s Easter message sparked outrage
among humanists and atheists. The Archbishop of Canterbury put more oil in the
fire by publicly backing Mr Cameron’s position, saying that he finds critical
remarks made by “atheist protesters baffling”. Not enough, various
non-Christian religious communities acknowledged the views of the political and
Anglican leadership. Instead of taking the Prime Minister’s remarks as an
occasion to enter into dialogue at eye level with humanist representatives, the
political leadership and the leadership of the Established Church stood
together as if to prove a point - but to prove what?
The
UK is a country with a Christian past, and historically speaking, the societal
order remains strongly influenced by its Christian heritage, with the House of
Bishops representing the Church of England in government and the Queen as the
head of this Church, just to mention the most obvious. Not even atheists and
humanists would reasonably doubt this. (Whether they are content with it, is
another matter.) As churches, we have a choice of how to position ourselves: we
can choose to join in with the polemic rhetoric of the political leadership,
putting ourselves in the corner of self-defensiveness. Or we can chose the way
of dialogue and acknowledge the constructive influence of non-religious world
views on the course of society - by far our most challenging and closest
dialogue partner. Atheism and Christianity are like two alienated siblings who
grew up in the same household before the younger sibling went into opposition
to the older sibling. All those who have an older brother or sister will be
familiar with this feeling. Atheism is a recognised subject in Christian
theology. In its modern form, Atheism developed in opposition to a
predominately Christian Europe where the churches had an often traumatising
influence on people’s life - in the name of God. Having been something between
an agnostic and an atheist myself until my mid 20ies (and still acknowledging
my past as part of my Christian faith), my reflections derive from personal
experience and struggle. Fortunately, I don’t have to go into opposition with
people holding non-religious world views anymore.
It
was not surprising that non-Christian religious communities reacted positively
to Mr Cameron’s remarks. Religions defend the same interests of a society
founded on faith based morals. Undoubtedly, churches all over the world have
been major contributors in easing the conflicts between different religions,
and after an awfully violent and intolerant past, many countries in Europe
achieved some sort of peaceful coexistence, some even a friendly cooperation
and the granting of religious freedom. The UK is one of the most progressive
nations in this respect and the churches deserve credit for this incredible
journey. (Whether it has always happened out of theological conviction or to a
great deal also out of political convenience remains a topic for critical
reflection.)
In
its ‘White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue’ from 2008, the Council of Europe
(not to be mistaken for the Council of the European Union) says: “Those holding
non-religious world views have an equal right to contribute, alongside
religious representatives, to the debates on the moral foundations of society
and to be engaged in forms of intercultural dialogue.” (p.23) When I was working for the Conference
of European Churches and with the Council of Europe, I helped organising dialogue
seminars with representatives from religious communities as well as humanist
societies. These experiences made me realise how full of prejudice and fragile the dialogue
between religious communities and secular world still is. The ‘Christian
country’ rhetoric rightly points out that every culture has a religious
dimension. But it is also true the other way around: there is always a cultural
dimension to religion too, and secularism undoubtedly influences (former)
Christian societies. What do we make of it?
There
is more to this debate than just rhetoric, as ‘The Telegraph’ pointed out in an
article on the 27th of April. The Prime Minister offered privileged access and
public funds to Christian groups. “Many non-religious organisations helping domestic
violence and sex trafficking victims will miss out”, Joan Smith, author of the
article, warns. Many Christian organisations “have a traditional view of the
sanctity of marriage, yet it is vital for the safety of women and children that
they are helped to leave abusive relationships. […] A
traditional Christian view of gender roles can’t just be wished away.” Secular
charities might be better placed to offer help in specific areas than churches,
and we would do better to acknowledge the importance of this work. Traumatic
experiences with churches in the past (and up to today) remain in people’s unconscious
perceptions over generations.
In
an interview with The Telegraph, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord
Williams, makes a much needed distinction. No, we are not a Christian country
as a nation of believers, he says. But yes, we are still much shaped by this
vision of the world. He also says: “We have a younger generation now who know
less about this legacy. People can rediscover Christianity with a certain
freshness, because it’s not the ‘boring old stuff that we learnt at school’.
There is a curiosity about Christianity.” This covers very much with my daily
experience in my ministry in Covent Garden. We don’t need to panic or to feel
threatened. We are part of a wonderfully diversified country which we should
explore in a curious and non-judgemental manner, knowing that we have a lot to
offer too. Self-defensiveness has never opened the door to dialogue. So let’s
leave it behind us.
